HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-26; City Council; 20532; SEWER LIFT STATION AGUA HEDIONDACITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 23
AGENDA BILL
AB#
MTG.
DEPT.
20,532
4/26/11
CED
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT STATION,
FORCE MAIN, AND GRAVITY SEWER
REPLACEMENT - POP 00-02(C)/SP
144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03
DEPT. DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. That the City Council reconvene the public hearing and ADOPT City Council Resolution No.
2011-080 to: 1) remand the application to the Planning Director to complete further analyses of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), and if warranted per CEQA Section 15073.5(a), the Planning Director would
recirculate the MND for public comment; and 2) schedule the application and revised
MND/MMRP for a new hearing by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the
City Council.
2. That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission reconvene the public hearing and
ADOPT Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 501 to: 1) remand the
application to the Planning Director to complete further analyses of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and if
warranted per CEQA Section 15073.5(a), the Planning Director would recirculate the MND
for public comment; and 2) schedule the application and revised MND/MMRP for a new
hearing by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On March 8, 2011, the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission held a public
hearing to consider approval of the Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station, Force Main, and Gravity
Sewer Replacement project and the adoption of the MND and MMRP (AB # 20,478). The City
Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission received the report and
recommendations from its staff and heard testimony and arguments from all persons desiring to
be heard.
The Planning Director requested a continuance of the project to give staff time to respond in
writing to a letter to the City Council from Mr. Ronald W. Rouse, special counsel to NRG
Energy, Inc., dated March 7, 2011 (Exhibit 3). Council Member Douglas requested staff to
return with all correspondence in regard to the Agua Hedionda sewer lift station between City of
Carlsbad staff and NRG staff, the matter was then continued for deliberations by the City
Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission to its meeting of Tuesday, April 26,
2011. The public hearing was left open to allow new information and testimony to be received
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Pam Drew 760-602-4644 pam.drew@carlsbadca.gov
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED
DENIED
CONTINUED
WITHDRAWN
AMENDED
>rnnnn
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN
RETURNED TO STAFF
OTHER -SEE MINUTES
Reference: AB20, 478
nnnn
Page 2
between the March 8, 2011 City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission
meeting and the continued meeting.
Staff has completed and mailed the response to comment letter to Mr. Ronald W. Rouse
(Exhibit 4) on April 12, 2011. All correspondence between City of Carlsbad staff and NRG staff
(Exhibit 5) has also been provided. Furthermore, due to public testimony at the March 8, 2011
City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission meeting, staff is requesting
additional time for the Planning Director to complete further CEQA analysis.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project is funded through the sewer connection fund. There are sufficient funds
appropriated into CIP project No 3949 to cover the consultant costs for additional CEQA review.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2011-080
2. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 501
3. Comment letter dated March 7, 2011
4. Response to comment letter dated April 12, 2011
5. E-mail correspondence between the City of Carlsbad staff and NRG staff. (On file in
the Office of the City Clerk)
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-080
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, TO: 1) REMAND THE APPLICATION
3 TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO COMPLETE FURTHER
ANALYSES OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4 (MND) AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM (MMRP), AND IF WARRANTED PER CEQA
5 SECTION 15073.5(a), THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WOULD
RECIRCULATE THE MND FOR PUBLIC COMMENT; AND 2)
6 SCHEDULE THE APPLICATION AND REVISED MND/MMRP
FOR A NEW HEARING BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
7 A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
CASE NAME: AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT STATION,
8 FORCE MAIN, AND GRAVITY SEWER
REPLACEMENT
9 CASE NO.: PDP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/
HMP 10-03
10
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
11 follows:
12 WHEREAS, the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission held
13 a joint public hearing on March 8, 2011, to consider approval of the project and the adoption of
14 the MND and MMRP; and
15 WHEREAS, the Planning Director requested a continuance of the project to give
1" staff time to respond in writing to a letter to the City Council, dated March 7, 2011, from Mr.
'' Ronald W. Rouse, special counsel to NRG Energy, Inc.; and
1 8 WHEREAS, after staff's presentation and public testimony, the City Council and
19 Housing and Redevelopment Commission kept the public hearing open to allow new information
20 and testimony to be received since the March 8, 2011 meeting and continued the matter for
21 deliberations to its joint special meeting of Tuesday, April 26, 2011; and
22 WHEREAS, staff has completed and mailed the response letter, dated April 12,
23 2011, to Mr. Ronald W. Rouse; and
24 WHEREAS, due to public testimony at the March 8, 2011 City Council and Housing and
25 Redevelopment Commission joint special meeting, staff is requesting additional time for the
9'f\
Planning Director to complete further CEQA analyses.
27 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
28 Carlsbad, California, as follows: ~^?
naffl^
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. The application is: 1) remanded to the Planning Director to complete further analyses of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP), and if warranted per CEQA Section 15073.5(a), the Planning Director
would recirculate the MND for public comment; and 2) schedule the application and
revised MND/MMRP for a new hearing by the Planning Commission for a
recommendation to the City Council.
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"6
7
Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review
must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed
by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of
Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review
must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which
this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a9request for the record is filed with a deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost
or preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either
, personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written
request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk,
12 City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
13 '"
14 I"
15
16
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
-2-
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 Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad on the
26th day of April, 2011, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Hall, Kulchin, Blackburn, Douglas and Packard.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
MATT ft ALL" Mayor
ATTEST:
JRRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
1 RESOLUTION NO. 501
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, TO:
3 1) REMAND THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR TO COMPLETE FURTHER ANALYSES OF THE
4 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5 (MMRP), AND IF WARRANTED PER CEQA SECTION
15073.5(a), THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WOULD
6 RECIRCULATE THE MND FOR PUBLIC COMMENT; AND 2)
SCHEDULE THE APPLICATION AND REVISED MND/MMRP
7 FOR A NEW HEARING BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
A RECOMMENDATION TO THE HOUSING AND
8 REDEVELOPMENT COMMISISON.
CASE NAME: AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT STATION,
9 FORCE MAIN, AND GRAVITY SEWER
REPLACEMENT
10 CASE NO.: PDP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-057
HMP 10-0311
The Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California,
12 does hereby resolve as follows:
13 WHEREAS, the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission held
14 a joint public hearing on March 8, 2011, to consider approval of the project and the adoption of
15 the MND and MMRP; and
16 WHEREAS, the Planning Director requested a continuance of the project to give
1 7' staff time to respond in writing to a letter to the City Council, dated March 7, 2011, from Mr.
18 Ronald W. Rouse, special counsel to NRG Energy, Inc.; and
1 9 WHEREAS, after staff's presentation and public testimony, the City Council and
20 Housing and Redevelopment Commission kept the public hearing open to allow new information
21 and testimony to be received since the March 8, 2011 meeting and continued the matter for
22 deliberations to its joint special meeting of Tuesday, April 26, 2011; and
23 WHEREAS, staff has completed and mailed the response letter, dated April 12,
24 2011, to Mr. Ronald W. Rouse; and
25 WHEREAS, due to public testimony at the March 8, 2011 City Council and Housing and
9} f\
Redevelopment Commission joint special meeting, staff is requesting additional time for the
27 Planning Director to complete further CEQA analyses.
28 III
1 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
3 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. The application is: 1) remanded to the Planning Director to complete further analyses of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
5 Program (MMRP), and if warranted per CEQA Section 15073.5(a), the Planning Director
would recirculate the MND for public comment; and 2) schedule the application and
" revised MND/MMRP for a new hearing by the Planning Commission for a
recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
0 "NOTICE TO APPLICANT"o
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed
by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of
1f) Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review
must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which
, this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a
request for the record is filed with a deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost
,~ or preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either
personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written
request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk,
14 City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
MATT HALL, Chairman
1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Joint Special Meeting of the
2 Housing and Redevelopment Commission and the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
3 on the 26th day of April, 2011, by the following vote, to wit:
4
5
AYES: Commission Members Hall, Kulchin, Blackburn, Douglas and Packard.
6
NOES: None.
7
ABSENT: None.8
9
10
11
12 „
ATTEST:
13
14
LISA HILDABRAND, Secretary
16 (SEAL)
17 n
-^o/ESTABLISHED Vf
18 =£:':?;m
0\ wo
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 3
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 ^ 'o\^o, CA 9E101
Lues, FORWARD, HAMILTON & Scaipps LU> 519.236.1414
vnw.luce.com
. RONALD w. ROUSE. PARTNERDIRECT DIAL NUMBER 619.599.2572DIRECT FAX NUMBER 619.235.1338
EMAIL ADDRESS rrouse@lucs.com
DAte ' CITY ATTORNEY
March 7, 2011
FOR THE INFORMATION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL
C-C-
HAND-DELIVERED
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: City Council/Redevelopment Commission Agenda March 8, 2011 Item
(Agenda Bill #20,478) ' - •
NRG Energy, Inc. and Cabrillo Power I LLC Objections to Approval of Agua
Hedionda Sewer Lift Station and Sewer/Water Pipelines/Facilities
Dear Mayor Hall and Council Members/Commissioners:
We are special counsel to NRG Energy, Inc. and Cabrillo Power I LLC (collectively "NRG") .
and submit the following objections on their behalf to the City's proposed approval of the
multiple Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station and associated Sewer/Water pipelines and facilities
identified in the above referenced Agenda Bill #20,478 (collectively the "Project"). Cabrillo
Power I LLC is the owner/operator of the existing Enema Power Station ("EPS") and .NRG
Energy, Inc., its parent company, is processing the Carlsbad Energy Center Project ("CECP")
Application for Certification before the California Energy Commission ("Energy Commission")
on a portion of the. EPS site between the railroad tracks and Interstate 5.
The original and ten copies of this letter are being filed directly with the City Clerk; we ask that
the original be incorporated into the administrative record .and the copies be timely distributed to
all Council Members/Commissioners, City Attorney and City Manager. A courtesy copy has
been emailed directly to the City Attorney.
A. Overview.
The CECP is a modem, environmentally beneficial and efficient natural gas fired combined
cycle electrical generating facility that will result in the permanent shut down/replacement of
three of the five existing, older EPS generating units realizing reduction of ocean water for "once
through" cooling purposes and significant reductions in air pollutants/greenhouse gas emissions
compared to existing EPS electrical generation. The CECP is fully consistent with the long
SIN Dicso • SAN FiiMCisco • Los AMOELSS • CiRMit. VALLSY/DSL MAS • ORANGE COUNTY • RANCHO SAMT* Fs
LUCE FORWAM)
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
Lues, FORWARD, HAMIITOH & Sewn UP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
March 7,2011 . •
Page 2
standing goal of the City, and NRG, for eventual retirement of the older EPS facilities west of
the railroad tracks and replacement with a physically smaller, more efficient and cleaner
generating facility between the railroad tracks and Interstate 5. The CECP is fully, consistent
with and implements the State Water Resources Control Board's 316(b) Policy to phase out use
of once through ocean water cooling for electrical generation in favor of a closed loop cooling
alternative. •
The City's Project facilities are proposed to be located on the EPS property and encroach into the
CECP area, which property is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Energy Commission as part
of the CECP process. .Notwithstanding the obvious CECP benefits, the City has been a zealous
opponent/participant throughout the CECP process before the Energy Commission and related
governmental agencies, reportedly having spent hi excess of SI. 5 Million1 in public funds to date
to oppose the CECP, yet the City completely fails to evaluate its proposed Project's significant,
adverse impacts and inconsistencies with the CECP and.existing EPS operations. Further, the
City's process to date and purported reliance on a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") is not
consistent with the legal requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). It
appears the City is proposing to proceed with its Project without regard to the CECP and other
legitimate property owner rights as a continuation of the City's all out effort to block or
otherwise interfere with the CECP. We hereby incorporate by reference the record of the CECP
proceedings before the Energy Commission available at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/carlsbad/index.html (in particular, the documents at
http://wvvw.energv.ca.gov/sitingcases/carlsbad/documents/index.htmn as evidence of the City's
familiarity with and active opposition to the CECP project.
Bi City Failure to Provide Legally Adequate Notice to Landowner.
Under the City's own ordinances and State Planning and Zoning Law, as the landowner, NRG
was to receive actual written notice of the Planning Commission hearings and proceedings at
least ten (10) days prior to the February 2, 2011 Planning Commission hearings. (See Gov't
Code Sec 65091 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Sec. 21.54). Further under CEQA, NRG should
have received actual written notice of the City's intention to rely' on a mitigated negative
declaration and was to specifically include notification of the applicable comment period and
details regarding the public hearings to consider the Project. (See CEQA guidelines Sec. 15072).
1 See attached Agenda Bill #20,216 dated April 27, 2010 stating: "Since 2008, the City of
Carlsbad has approved and funded through the City's General Fund $ 1.5 million to pay for costs
related to all legal and other related actions to respond to, and/or establish opposition to, the
application submitted to the California Energy Commission by NRG for a new power plant..." .
n
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUND£01873
Lues, FORWARD, HAMIUOS & SCMPPS m»
Mayor Hail and City Council Members
March 7,2011
PageS
NRG believes the required notices were never provided in accordance with applicable law
because under well established California case law, due process requires that notice must be
"...reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect;.its
interests." (See Hornv. County of Ventura (1979) 24 CaLSd 605).
ClearlyTthe City has known of the impacts of its Projects on NRG for years as evidenced by the
multi-year Energy Commission CECP process started in September, 2007, the week long Energy
Commission Evidentiary Hearings February 1-4, 2010 in Carlsbad, and periodic
meetings/discussions (most recently in January, 2010) regarding the design/location of the sewer
lift station and single sewer pipeline replacement and potential incompatibility of these facilities
with the CECP. Yet, the City failed to meaningfully notify NRG of the proposed MND or the
subsequent Planning Commission hearings as required by law.
Given these circumstances, it is clear the City has failed to provide the legally required actual
written notices to NRG of the entire Project, all the while its staff was engaged in extensive
engineering, design and environmental evaluation of a range of facilities it knew would have
further significant, adverse impacts on NRG ownership and operation of the EPS and CECP.
C. City's Project Design and Engineering Incompatibilities.
The City's Project includes the design of a new lagoon utilities bridge to accommodate the future
extension of the Coastal Rail Trait along the east side of the railroad tracks through the EPS (see
Planning Commission Staff Report at p.2), a location that is well known to the City as
incompatible with the CECP and unacceptable to the Energy Commission Staff and NRG. NRG
is prepared to accommodate the Coastal Rail Trail in a location that is "mutually acceptable'1 to
both the City and NRG, but the proposed Coastal Rail Trail along the sewer support bridge .
continuing easterly of the railroad tracks is unacceptable for-reasons that have been fully vetted
through the Energy Commission proceedings.
Further, the scope of the Project as presented to the Planning Commission far exceeds anything
previously discussed with NRG. The Project is not simply a sewer lift station replacement and
sewer force main replacement, but includes several additional pipelines and facilities, including:
(1) a new "utilities bridge" over the lagoon (Note: Cabrillo Power I LLC owns fee title to the
lagoon and its dredging/maintenance is a vital part of the EPS operations); (2) leaving the old 42
inch sewer line in-place south of the-lift station as a "parallel" line to the new force main; (3) new
54 inch sewer line north and south of the lift station; (4) a new pressurized 12 inch recycled
water line from Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility ("BWTF") through the.EPS even while
the City claims recycled water is not available for CECP; (5) a new 6 inch potable water line
through EPS; (6) a possible relocation of SDG&E natural gas line; and (7) substantially widening
the existing limited 17.5 foot wide easement to 30 feet wide to accommodate the additional
facilities.
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
Luce, FORWARD, HAMU.TOH &SCRWS UP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
March 7, 2011
Page 4
The following list is intended to illustrate some of the unresolved issues regarding the ultimate
design, engineering, construction timing, operational constraints and scope of the Project.
Without definitive answers to these questions, the Project's actual environmental and EPS/CECP
project impacts cannot be realistically evaluated. The Project, as proposed, lacks adequate
details and specifics to support CEQA and Energy Commission CECP compatibility analysis.
1. Contrary to the details previously discussed with NRG, the Project is much more extensive,
wider and involves multiple pipelines in the CECP area, representing much greater, impacts to
the CECP.
2. Proposed alignment of Coastal Rail Trail easterly of railroad tracks across the CECP area is
not acceptable to NRG nor to Energy Commission Staff; the projected alignment is inconsistent
with prior discussions/schematics prepared by City to avoid CECP/EPS operational interference.
3. City Project does not accommodate joint use of surface area for CECP heavy haul, surface
access and ongoing power plant operations during CECP construction and subsequent operations
ofEPS/CECP.
4. City Project footprint conflicts with "construction lay down areas" long planned for CECP,
new natural gas transmission line service extension to CECP and the existing and proposed storm
water management facilities.
5. City has failed to indicate where its Project electrical power supply will be located and
possible interference of Project electrical service with EPS/CECP construction/operation.
6. Project proposes significant new, additional pipelines in an existing "utility congested
area", including the existing sewer line, SDG&E gas transmission line, overhead electrical lines,
Poseidon desalination product water lines, railroad right of way and SDG&E substation facilities.
7. Project design fails to identify construction lay down areas for lift station/pipelines and
access routes, both temporary (during construction) and permanent.
• 8. Project construction scheduling is unclear and potentially will interfere with other
construction projects, including CECP, Poseidon desalination and -adjacent SDG&E electrical
distribution facilities and easements,
V *- *•
9. No provision is made for the vacation of the current lift station/single sewer pipeline
easement presently vested in Vista Sanitation District and City of Carlsbad.
10. City Project removes existing mature vegetation/trees visual impact mitigation for
CECP/EPS.
0
r
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT UW • FOUNDED 1873
Lues, Fa&w»ro, H&MH.TOK & Scau"?s UP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
March 7,2011
Page 5
D. The Proposed MND is Inadequate, Incomplete and Insufficient to Comply with the
Requirements of CEQA.
1. EIR Required. The City's reliance on a mitigated negative declaration for CEQA
compliance is unsupportable. CEQA requires preparation of an environmental impact report
("EIR") whenever there is a "fair argument" that a project may have a significant unmitigated
effect on the environment. (CEQA Guideline, § 15064(f)(l).) As set forth below, there is a "fair
argument" that the Project will have significant environmental impacts. Even if that were not the
case, the MND. is inadequate in that it fails to fully analyze all of the Project's potentially
significant environmental impacts and also relies on mitigation measures that will not avoid the
identified significant environmental impacts. Therefore, there is a reasonable probability that
implementation of this Project, will have significant immitigable adverse impacts on the
environment. An EIR must be' prepared to more fully analyze and disclose the Project's
environmental impacts.
2. Project Description/Project Splitting. The Coastal Rail Trail alignment needs to be
analyzed as part of the project description in an EIR. CEQA defines a "project" to include the
"whole of an action" that may result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact on the
environment. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a); Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45
Cal.4th 116, 139 [CEQA review required before agency, as a practical matter, may commit itself
to any feature of a project].) The City is careful not to call the Coastal Rail Trail alignment part
of the "Project" saying that the Project will only accommodate "a 'future pedestrian trail."
However, the City -has made clear though its participation in Energy Commission and related
proceedings that it intends to locate the Coastal Rail Trail east of the railroad tracks, even though
the Energy Commission Staff determined that such location is Inappropriate and potentially
hazardous to the public safety. Nevertheless, the City notes that constructing the Coastal Rail
Trail as part of this Project will implement the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan
("SCCRP") goal of "developing new beach and coastal recreational opportunities." (Staff
Report, pp. 2, 8-9.) Under the circumstances, it is reasonably foreseeable that with approval of
this Project, the City will seek to make this the east side of the tracks the actual location of the
rail trail. Therefore, the failure to analyze the Coastal Rail Trail as1 an element of the Project
constitutes "project splitting" in violation of CEQA. An EIR needs to be prepared that analyzes,
among other things, the environmental impacts of having the public pass upon the trail route
(e.g., trampling on nearby sensitive vegetation, littering into the lagoon, safety risks associated
with people passing nearby the power plant, etc...).
The MND also notes that "overhead electrical distribution facilities will be relocated as needed"
as part of the Project. (MND, p. 17.) Yet, there is no analysis of which overhead facilities might
be relocated, where or how these facilities might be relocated or the environmental impacts
associated with that possible relocation. Lastly, the MND states that the sewer support bridge
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEY'S AT LAW • FOUNDED 1373
Luce, FORWARD, HAMUTON & SCRIMPS LU>
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
March 1,201-1
Page 6
will not require any work to occur within the 100-year flood elevation. The bridge construction
methodology, however, is not described and mere is no other evidence supporting the City's
claim that a bridge can be constructed over the lagoon without impacting sensitive lagoon
resources. Similarly, the MND does not describe how the existing bridge can be removed
without impacting the lagoon environment itself. All of these issues need to be further described
and analyzed in an EIR.
3. Environmental Setting—Surrounding Land Uses. The MND does not adequately
describe the surrounding land uses, in particular the Project's proximity to the EPS and the
potential conflicts between .the construction and operation of the Project, operation of the EPS
and proposed construction and operation of the CECP. For example, the MND acknowledges
that substantial grading/construction activities will occur on property owned by Cabrillo Power I
LLC in connection with the sewer lift station, but there is no discussion of how to coordinate that
construction with CECP construction, the risks of having Costal Rail Trail users in close
proximity to EPS/CECP facilities, how the Project may impact NRG's use of the Project site as a
heavy haul road, the risk of foundation failures created by placing new pipelines adjacent to
existing electrical buildings and related construction injury risks. The MND does not fully
disclose that substantially expanded easements will be required over EPS/CECP Property. (See
also, Section C. above for more details regarding the design/construction incompatibilities.)
4. Aesthetics. MND fails to substantiate how removal of 12 mature eucalyptus trees for the
new lift station will have a less than significant impact on views and no mitigation measures are
identified to replace the mature trees. With no analysis of this issue, there certainly is a fair
argument that removing these trees will have a substantial impact on aesthetics.
5. Air Quality. There are substantial problems with the Project's air quality analysis,
including:
• Export. The MND discloses that 77,000 cubic yards of soil/gravel will be graded
or trenched and 31,000 cubic yards will be exported to an "acceptable offsite
location", assumed to be 30 miles away. The MND fails, however, to substantiate
these assumptions which are key to the MND's conclusions. A revised CEQA
document must be prepared identifying where the export likely is to be taken and
the associated traffic/pollution impacts of the export hauling. The MND also fails
to-- analyze the export soil's condition and discuss measures that will be
implemented to ensure the export will be free of any hazardous materials. In the
absence of these details, a fair argument exists that the Project will have
significant air quality and perhaps hazardous materials impacts.
* Ozone. The San Diego Air Basin is in a Federal and State non-attainment area for
the 8-hour ozone (O3) standard,' yet there is no analysis of the City Project's
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUND£0 1373
Luce, FORWARD, HAMOJOM & SCRIPCS ui>
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
March 7,2011
Page 7
ozone contributions and impacts. (MND, pp. 35, 37.) One of the key precursors
to the formation of ozone is NOx. As shown on Table 2 of the MND, the City
Project will exceed the San Diego County APCD's threshold emission limit of
significance for CEQA .analysis of 250 pounds/day of NOx emissions (Project
related construction emission of NOx are shown as 254.46 pounds/day and Table
2 of the MND notes this is a significant impact). As the San Diego Air Basin is in
Federal and State non-attainment zones for the 8-hour ozone standard, and as
NOx is one of the precursors for ozone, the Project will have a significant impact
related to ozone generation. Additionally, the Project's emission of NOx and
ROG all contribute to ozone formation in an ozone non-attainment area (the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and .California Air Resources Board define
NOx and ROG as ozone precursors). An EIR disclosing and analyzing these
ozone related impacts needs to be prepared before the Project can be approved.
The MND's analysis of cumulative ozone impacts is also flawed. The MND
concludes the Project will not have a significant cumulative impact because the
Project has only a "marginal temporary increase in NOx... air quality would be
essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented." CEQA
does not permit unsubstantiated reliance on such a "de minimus" finding. Instead,
a new CEQA document must be prepared that includes an actual and specific
analysis of cumulative air quality impacts. Further, the MND fails to provide
substantive facts to substantiate its "de minimus" conclusion.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1. The MND states incorrectly that the Project's
significant emission of NOx can be mitigated with the inclusion of Mitigation
Measure AQ-1. This mitigation measure requires observance of manufacturer's
specifications for the proper maintenance of construction equipment and
reduction in idling time. The MND fails to recognize that compliance with these
practices is already assumed in the APCD's determination of emissions for
construction activities. However, observance of construction equipment
specifications is standard practice and are not capable of reducing the Project's
NOx emissions below the APCD's significance threshold resulting in
cummulative contribution to the continuing unmitigated exceedance of Federal
and State 8-hour ozone standards. Accordingly, implementation of Mitigation
Measure AQ-1 cannot be relied upon to reduce the emissions of NOx to less than
significance.
Sensitive Receptors. The MND analysis fails to acknowledge that the adjacent
YMCA aquatic recreation area and Coastal Rail Trail may place sensitive
receptors in close proximity to the Project (MND, pp.- 37-38.) In the absence of-
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & Scmi>i>s LI?
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
March 7,2011
Page 8
this analysis, a fair argument exists that approval of the Project would have an
adverse impact on the environment
• Odors. Air scrubbers and carbon filters are relied upon to control odors.
- - . Maintenance of these features should be required as a mitigation measure and
included in the MMRP. (MND, p. 38.) Further, there is no evidence
demonstrating that air scrubbers and carbon filters will effectively control noxious
odors created by the Project.
6. Cultural Resources. Mitigation CUL-1 states "if significant resources are encountered,
appropriate mitigation measures must be developed and implemented." This unlawfully defers
development of adequate mitigation measures, which is particularly troubling here because at
least two archeologicai sites are known to exist near the Project site. (MND, p. 51.) In the
absence of adequate mitigation measures, approval of the Project-does not avoid significant
environmental impacts and therefore an MND is inappropriate.
7. Geology.
• The MND fails to analyze the potential adverse impacts to the adjacent planned
uses, such as the CECP. In particular, there should be an analysis of the depth
and strength of the pipeline construction and measures ensuring that construction
and operation of pipelines will interfere with planned surface heavy haul and
EPS/CECP operations.
• The MND fails to analyze the potential adverse impacts to the existing facilities.
For example, the Project proposes to construct new pipelines adjacent to existing
electrical buildings, which presents a potential risk of foundation failures. The
safety'risk of installing pipelines adjacent to and crossing under the existing high
voltage wires should also be analyzed.
8. Greenhouse Passes. The threshold of significance relied on in the MND is vague as it
does not indicate what level of emissions might result in a direct or indirect significant impact.
The analysis also fails to "make a good faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and
factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse emissions resulting from
[the] project" as required by CEQA Guidelines section 150644(a). The City did not even attempt
to engage in the qualitative or quantitative analysis required by the CEQA Guidelines. Instead,
the MND concludes simply that emissions will be relatively minor and incrementally
insignificant. CEQA does not permit the City to conclude that the Project will not have a
significant .environmental impact simply because its contribution will be "small" or "de
minimus". (Communities for a Better Env't v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103
Cal.App,4th 98, 126.) The MND provides no evidence, let alone substantial evidence, to
Ll
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HIUIUON & SCRIPPS \&r
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
March 7,2011
Page 9
demonstrate that the Project will not have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. As
such, it fails to meet the requirements of CEQA. The critically important issue of greenhouse
gas emissions needs to be fully analyzed in an EIR. • •
9,-' Hazards.
• The MND fails to analyze the impacts resulting from a potential failure/collapse
of the new single span bridge carrying sewer and other utility lines over the
lagoon or the impacts of potential lift station/pipeline leaks.
• The MND fails to analyze the potential adverse impacts to the existing facilities,
such as the safety risk of installing pipelines adjacent to and crossing the existing
high voltage wires or having pedestrians along the Coastal Rail Trail in close
proximity to the EPS/CECP.
10. Hydrology/Water Quality. The MND fails to identify measures that will be implemented
to reduce or eliminate the possibility of a sewer spill into the adjacent wetlands or lagoon.
Instead, the MND defers development of such measures until the construction phase. (MND, p.
66.) It is reasonably foreseeable that replacement of the existing sewer line could result in a spill
which would damage sensitive environmental resources. As such, development of mitigation
measures to prevent such a spill, and to prevent damage in the event of a spill, needs to be
developed and publicly vetted as part of an EIR for the Project.
11. Recreation. There is no analysis of the physical impacts associated with having people
use the coastal rail trail (see above) and bringing public recreation users within the perimeter of
the power plant and lagoon. As discussed above, such an analysis is required under CEQA.
12. Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impact analysis is conclusory and wholly
inadequate. The MND identifies a list of cumulative projects and then concludes its analysis by
stating:
"It would be expected however, that eavironmental impacts associated with these
development projects, plus the massive sewer CIP,.could be mitigated to level that
would be less than significant by means of mitigation measures similar in content
to those identified in this Environmental Initial Study."
There is no specific analysis of any cumulative impacts nor evidence in the record that supports
this conclusion in the MND. In particular, the MND fails with respect to the following:
» Aesthetics: There is no analysis of 1-5 widening on aesthetics. The MND
acknowledges that the bridge and lift station will be observable from 1-5, but from
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FQUNBE01873
L'JCE, FORWSRO, HAMtLTOM & SCSIPPS UP
Mayor Half and City Council Members
March 7, 2011
Page 10
a distance of 1,600 feet away will not significantly contribute to a coastal view
obstruction. The MND does not contain any substantive analysis of cumulative
impacts on aesthetics from removal of the 12 trees and fails to take into acco.unt
the proposed CECP project altogether.
• Air Quality. As discussed above, there is no specific cumulative air quality
analysis considering cumulative ozone and other pollutant impacts, 1-5 widening,
and the CECP project.
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The MND fails to even attempt a cumulative
greenhouse gas emissions analysis because emissions are not analyzed in the
relevant general plans. CEQA requires the City to perform a good faith analysis
of the cumulative impacts.
• Recreation. The MND fails to analyze the cumulative impact associated with
other segments of the rail trail.
• CECP Power Plant Project. The MND acknowledges that "other [cumulative]
impacts could result from the NRG Power Plant expansion project inasmuch as
that project has not yet been specifically defined." Indeed, the CECP project has
been specifically defined and a comprehensive environmental analysis that
complies with CEQA has been performed by the California Energy Commission
as required by the Warren-Alquist Act. This environmental analysis is set forth in
the Energy Commission Preliminary and Final Staff Assessment which the City
has actively and aggressively challenged. ' (See MND, p. 98). Therefore, it is
disingenuous and factually inaccurate for the City to say that the NRG Power
Plant project has "not been specifically defined." The September, 2007 filing of
the ' CECP Application for Certification makes the CECP a "reasonably
foreseeable" project and requires the City to .treat the CECP as a reasonably
foreseeable project for purposes of analyzing cumulative impacts as part of the
CEQA analysis. (See also Section B. above for the City's full awareness of all
CECP details as evidenced by the City's involvement in the Energy Commission
multi-year certification process.)
As detailed above,,the MND fails to comply with CEQA as it does not provide an adequate
analysis of the Project's significant environmental impact and does not adequately mitigate the
Project's significant environmental impacts. Moreover, an EIR, rather than a MND, must be
prepared and certified before the Project can be approved .by the City because there is a fair
argument that the Project will have significant adverse environmental impacts.
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNSVSATUW • FOUNDED 1373
Uce, FORWARD, KAMHIOT & SCRJWS w
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
March 7,2011
Page 11
E. Conclusion.
Eor all the reasons set forto" above, the City's adoption of the Project is not legally supportable.
The MND is inadequate under CEQA, and in fact, a full EIR is required to fairly analyze .the
significant environmental impacts of the Project, particularly when a realistic evaluation of
adjacent "reasonably foreseeable" projects, including CECP, is included.
The proposed City Project is far more extensive than the Sewer Lift Station/Force Main
replacement previously discussed. The easement widening and additional pipeline/facilities
directly and adversely affect the EPS/CECP. Notwithstanding the multi-year Energy
Commission proceedings, the City failed to give meaningful, timely notice of the full scope.of its
Project to the landowner most directly impacted.
Respectfully, NRG objects to certification of the MND and approval of the Project as presented
until the significant outstanding issues are fully addressed and legally resolved.
Ronald W. Rouse
of
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
RWR/lb
101454345.4
Pl> CITY OF EXHIBIT4
^CARLSBAD
Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov
April 12, 2011
LUCE FORWARD
Attn: Ronald W. Rouse
600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
San Diego, CA92101
RE: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS IN A LETTER DATED MARCH 7, 2011 REGARDING CITY
COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 20,470
Dear Mr. Rouse:
This response letter was written to address your comments to the Carlsbad City Council in a letter
dated March 7, 201 1 . The following are a summary of the substantive points made in your letter and
the city's responses.
A. Overview
Comment: The city scope of the project is much greater than previously discussed with
NRG and the city fails to evaluate its proposed Project's significant, adverse impacts and
inconsistencies with the Carlsbad Energy Center Project ("CECP") and existing Encina Power
Center ("EPS") operations.
Response: The city has a complete record of contacts and discussions with NRG
representatives regarding the scope of the project. As requested by the City Council at its March 8,
2011 meeting, this record will be attached to the agenda bill for the April 26, 2011 meeting.
Numerous meetings and site visits have been held since 2006 between City of Carlsbad staff and
NRG staff. Drawings of the proposed project and its limits have been provided to NRG staff. The
city received very little in the way of constructive comments on the plans from NRG staff throughout
this period. To the extent that the city did receive constructive comments on the plans from NRG
staff, modifications to the project were made. Frequent turnover of NRG staff assigned to the project
contributed to a general lack of coherent communication and recommendations for substantive
solutions from NRG staff.
The project description in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is accurate and sufficient for
meaningful environmental impact analysis because it includes a clear and thorough explanation of
the project, it includes maps depicting the project's location, it includes a statement of the objectives
of the project, a description of the project's technical design characteristics, and the environmental
setting, the construction methodology and phasing, and a list of the potential environmental impacts.
As explained below, the MND adequately analyzes the project's potential environmental impacts and
considers its effects on existing EPS operations. Please be advised however, that in an effort to
even further clarify and detail the information, staff will recommend to the City Council at its April 26,
2011 meeting that it direct staff to conduct further analysis in regard to the proposed cumulative
impacts including the CECP project and if warranted, to revise and recirculate the MND document
per CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5(a).
B. City Provided Legally Adequate Notice to Landowner
Comment: The City failed to provide legally adequate notice to the landowner of the
noticing of the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and the Planning Commission
hearing.
1 635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ®
POP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03 - AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT
STATION, FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT
April 12,2011
Page 2
Response: The city complied with CEQA Guidelines § 15072 by providing the notice of intent to
adopt the MND to allow the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the county clerk,
sufficient time to review the document prior to its consideration by the city's Planning Commission.
The public and agencies were allowed the 30-day review period required under CEQA Guidelines §
15105. The following record provides information on the parties that received a copy of the notice of
intent and the 30-day review period for each action.
Mitigated Negative Declaration Noticing. The city issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND with a
30-day public review period as follows:
• Published in the North County Times on August 17, 2010 (Attached) (August 17, 2010 -
September 16, 2010).
• Mailed to the San Diego County Clerk (August 16, 2010 - September 21, 2010).
• Mailed to the State Clearinghouse (SCH #: 2010081053- August 17, 2010 - September 15,
2010).
• Provided a hard copy at the Planning Department counter located at 1635 Faraday Avenue,
Carlsbad.
• Posted on the city's website (August 17, 2010 - September 16, 2010).
Furthermore, the city provided a notification by e-mail to all persons who subscribed to receive a
specific notification at the time that an environmental document was available for review. The
subscriber could download a copy of the environmental document from a link provided within the e-
mail. One subscriber to this service is Tim Hemig, an NRG Energy employee, who has been
working with city engineering staff on the proposed sewer lift station project. The city's records show
that Mr. Hemig received the e-mail notification on August 13, 2010.
Project Noticing. On August 17, 2010 the city posted three, 2-foot by 3-foot, yellow, Notice of Project
Application signs with black lettering at three different locations along the 2.35 mile project to inform
the public of a pending application for the project and to provide staff contact information (i.e. names,
phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc.). At this date, these three noticing signs are still posted at
the following locations:
• Posted on a chain-link fence at the western end of Chinquapin Avenue at the northern end of
the project.
• Posted on a chain-link fence at the entrance to SDG&E's storage yard at the northern end of
Avenida Encinas off Cannon Road.
• Posted in front of Encina Wastewater Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF) at the southern
end of the project on Avenida Encinas.
Planning Commission Meeting Noticing. The city provided the Planning Commission public hearing
notice pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code §21.54 as follows:
• Mailed to the San Diego County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors on December 22, 2010.
• Published in the North County Times on January 21, 2011 (Attached).
• Posted to the city's website.
• Posted outside the city council chambers, located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive.
• Posted outside the city office, located at 1635 Faraday Avenue.
• Mailed to owners of property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within
600feet, and occupants within 100 feet, of the 2.35 mile long project boundary.
Furthermore, the city provided notification by e-mail that is sent out to all persons who subscribed to
receive the Planning Commission public hearing agendas. The subscriber could download the
Planning Commission agenda from a link provided within the e-mail. Two subscribers to this service
POP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03 - AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT
STATION, FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT
April 12,2011
Page 3
are Tim Hemig and Keith Richards, both NRG Energy employees. Mr. Richards subsequently
discontinued the e-mail service on February 24, 2011 .The city's records show that Mr. Hemig and
Mr. Richards received an e-mail notification on January 20, 2011 for the February 2, 2011 Planning
Commission meeting.
NRG Energy employees George Piantka and Michael Pearson attended the February 2, 2011
Planning Commission meeting and informed Terry Smith, city engineering staff, that NRG did not
receive a public notice in the mail for the meeting. Staff immediately conducted research as to why
NRG was not notified. The city creates mailing labels for owners within the required 600-foot radius,
with the owner name and owner mailing address as provided to the city by SanGIS, the city's
consultant, which provides the most recent information from the County Tax Assessor's office. Staff
learned that the County Tax Assessor's records identified Cabrillo Power I LLC as the owner of
several parcels within the project boundary, however, the parcel information did not contain a mailing
address for the company which is why it did not receive notice along with the approximately 750
other property owners who did receive the mailing notice. Staff also learned that the absence of an
address is apparently the case for all entities that are exempt from paying County of San Diego
property taxes.
Also, in a direct response to your oral comments at the City Council hearing on May 8, 2011, the City
Council resolved to keep the public hearing open in order to address any new information that may
be brought to their attention by NRG Energy between that date and the continued hearing date of
April 26, 2011.
As explained above, the property owner was provided with legally required notice of the CEQA
documents pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15072, and notice of the public hearing in accordance with
Carlsbad Municipal Code § 21.54.060. NRG representatives also had actual notice as evidenced by
the special e-mailings and their attendance at the Planning Commission hearing.
C. Scope of City's Project Design and Engineering
Comment: An EIR should be processed for CEQA compliance rather than a Mitigated
Negative Declaration ("MND") because the project is greater in scale than that previously
discussed with NRG Staff. The project will include a new lagoon utilities bridge to
accommodate the future extension of the Coastal Rail Trail ("CRT") along the east side of the
railroad tracks, will relocate overhead electrical distribution facilities, recycled and potable
water lines, widening the existing easement, and will have much greater impacts to the CECP
than discussed in the MND.
Response: Pursuant to CEQA Statutes § 21064.5 and CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(2), a MND
may be prepared when all potentially significant impacts from a project can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance as a result of revisions made to the project or agreed to by the applicant before the
MND and Initial Study were released to the public. The record shows that this is the case for this
project. As a result of the revisions agreed to by the city, the project avoids or mitigates all
significant adverse impacts on the environment. As such, in light of the whole record to date, no fair
argument exists that the project, as designed, could have a significant effect on the environment.
The CRT is not a part of this project. Page 2 of the February 2, 2011, Planning Commission staff
report clarifies that, "The proposed sewer support bridge would also provide the lagoon crossing for
the Coastal Rail Trail, a separate, future project in this area." However, the proposed project has
"independent utility" from the CRT, inasmuch as it does not rely in any way on any aspect of the
CRT project. And the CRT is not an integral part, nor will it rely on or change the scope or nature of
the proposed sewer project in any way. Neither the staff report nor the MND state that the CRT will
be located along the east side of the railroad tracks. Nowhere in the MND, the staff report, nor in
staffs presentations (February 2, 2011 at the Planning Commission meeting and March 8, 2011 at
POP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03 - AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT
STATION, FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT
April 12, 2011
Page 4
the joint City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission meeting) has the alignment of
the CRT through the Encinas Power Station ("EPS") been mentioned since it is unknown and
speculative at this time.
Furthermore, the bridge portion of the sewer project has simply been designed in a manner in which
it could accommodate the CRT. The CRT could be designed on either the east or west side of the
railroad tracks, if and when the project is funded and an alignment determined. However, very
preliminary design investigation concludes that the CRT could be more feasible if the trail was
located on the east side of the railroad tracks within the sewer pipeline easement. As mentioned
however, the alignment has not been determined at this time.
Your letter alleges that the scope of the project as presented to the Planning Commission far
exceeds anything previously discussed with NRG. However, as stated previously, city engineering
staff has been working with NRG personnel since 2006 to site the proposed sewer lift station in a
location that would minimize impacts to the power plant property. As requested by NRG staff, the
new lift station was sited at the most northerly end of the NRG property. A detailed site plan was
developed by city staff and presented to Tim Hemig of NRG in a letter dated September 5, 2008.
The site plan has not substantially changed in size since this layout was prepared. Additionally, the
city initially requested an additional 20-foot wide easement for the proposed 30-inch diameter sewer
force main. As the design of the city's project has progressed, city staff agreed to reduce the size of
the additional easement from 20-feet wide to 12.5-feet wide in order to minimize potential impacts to
the power plant property.
With regard to the overhead electrical lines, the relocation of an existing single line to the present
sewer lift station is an insignificant aspect of the project construction and no adverse impacts have
been identified relative to this line relocation. Per CEQA Guidelines § 15151, the standard of
investigation requires only that "a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with
information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of
environmental consequences" be provided. Further, per CEQA Guidelines § 15151, "An evaluation
of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive... This section goes on to
state; "The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith
effort at full disclosure." A detailed discussion of the overhead electrical line relocation during
construction is not required by CEQA and that the city has made a good faith effort to analyze the
significant aspects of the project.
Page 4 of your letter lists ten "unresolved issues" regarding the project and its compatibility with the
CECP project. The cumulative impact section of the MND (pp. 98-100) does analyze the impact
from the proposed project upon the "NRG Power Plant Expansion". This analysis concludes that
three environmental issues could occur from the cumulative environmental consequences of the
taking of these projects, plus other identified local and CIP projects together, but that these impacts
would be expected to be mitigated by mitigation measures in line with those proposed for adoption in
this MND if the power plant expansion is ultimately approved. However, in an effort to more
thoroughly document the project's cumulative impacts including the CECP project, staff will
recommend to the City Council at its April 26, 2011 meeting that it direct staff to conduct further
cumulative impacts analysis and if warranted, to revise and recirculate the MND document per
CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5(a).
D. The Proposed MND is Adequate, Complete and Sufficient to Comply with the
Requirements of CEQA
D.1. EIR Required
Comment: An EIR must be prepared to more fully analyze and disclose the Project's
environmental impacts.
POP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03 - AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT
STATION, FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT
April 12,2011
Page 5
Response: CEQA Guidelines §15369.5 states "Mitigated negative declaration: means a negative
declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects
on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the
applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review
would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the
environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before
the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment."
The proposed project complies with this characterization. The MND properly discloses, analyzes,
and avoids or mitigates all significant environmental effects of the project.
D.2. Project Description/Project Splitting
Comment: The failure to analyze the Coastal Rail Trail as an element of the Project
constitutes "project splitting" in violation of CEQA.
Response: As stated previously, the CRT is not a part of this project and the current project has
independent utility from the proposed CRT segment. In an effort to accommodate potential future
alternatives, the bridge portion of the project has simply been designed in a manner in which it could
accommodate the CRT on either the east or west side of the railroad tracks if and when the project
is funded and the alignment determined. As a result of the fact that the separate projects do not in
any way rely on one another, the MND cannot be interpreted to be guilty of "project splitting".
Comment: Wo analysis is provided as to which overhead facilities might be relocated,
where or how these facilities might be relocated or the environmental impacts associated
with that possible relocation.
Response: As stated previously, CEQA Guidelines § 15151 requires only that "a sufficient
degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a
decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the
environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive..." In this case, no significant
relocation of overhead facilities is anticipated. The single overhead line which must be relocated is a
minor, incidental part of the project and a detailed discussion of the overhead electrical line
relocation during construction is not required by CEQA. Thus, it is our conclusion that the city has
made a good faith effort to analyze the significant aspects of the project.
Comment: The bridge construction methodology is not described. No evidence is
provided supporting the claim that a bridge can be constructed over the lagoon without
impacting sensitive resources.
Response: The MND indicates (on page 17) that the bridge will be constructed of "concrete
vertical abutment supports and the setting of a weathered steel bridge" which will "completely span
the entire channef and that the "construction methodology will not require any work to occur within
the 100-year floodplain." This construction methodology will involve the pouring of abutments on
each side of the channel and the laying of the horizontal bridge structure between the abutments.
Furthermore, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project includes
biological mitigation measures necessary to protect the adjacent open spaces. These mitigation
measures include:
• BIO-3 - Placement of temporary orange construction fencing.
• BIO-4 - On-site biological monitor.
• BIO-7 - Training for all contractors and construction personnel.
• BIO-8 - Limiting construction activities and disposal sites.
• BIO-10 - Installing silt fencing to reduce silt run-off into the lagoon.
POP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03 - AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT
STATION, FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT
April 12, 2011
Page6
• BIO-12 - Issuance of a water quality certification (Clean Water Act Section 401) and a
Streambed Alteration Agreement.
With the inclusion of these mitigation measures, the MND concludes that the bridge can be
constructed over the lagoon channel without impacting sensitive biological resources.
Comment: How can the existing bridge be removed without impacting the lagoon
environment?
Response: Dismantling and removal of the existing sewer pipe bridge can be performed with
crane equipment stationed on the adjacent staging area pads outside of the lagoon channel without
any significant impact to the channel. The MND analysis concludes (page 30) that the removal of
the existing bridge will be a beneficial impact to the lagoon environment.
D.3. Environmental Setting - Surrounding Land Uses
Comment: The Project Description does not adequately describe the EPS operations and
how the project may affect construction activities of the proposed CECP.
Response: The MND Project Description properly describes the proposed Sewer Lift Station,
Force Main, and Gravity Sewer replacement project. The environmental analysis further describes
the anticipated impacts associated with the project on the environment, including those impacts to
the EPS. (See Project Description pages 14 and 17) As stated previously, the MND adequately
analyzes the project's potential environmental impacts and considers its avoidance of impacts to
existing EPS operations. This avoidance includes placing the lift station in a northernmost corner of
the EPS site, limiting the utility lines to a narrow work area, the use of horizontal directional drilling
(HDD) to minimize trenching, and other factors which could otherwise contribute to disturbances to
the EPS. Notwithstanding the findings of no significant impact (page 80), staff will recommend to the
City Council at its April 26, 2011 meeting that it direct staff to conduct further analysis in regard to
any impacts of the project on the proposed CECP, and if warranted, to revise and recirculate the
MND document per CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5(a).
Comment: The Project Description does not disclose the expansion of easements.
Response: The MND Project Description (page 4) indicates that "In locations where easements
do not already exist, easements will be acquired for the facilities." The existing and proposed
easements are clearly shown on the plans for the project which were the subject of the MND
analysis and which are described in the MND Project Description. As shown on these plans, a total
of 12.5 feet of additional easement width will be necessary to accommodate the proposed project.
The 12.5 feet is situated in area that is presently disturbed or paved areas, or used primarily for
access roadway within the EPS property. Furthermore, the sewer pipeline will be installed via
horizontal directional drilling (HDD) method that allows the installation of the pipeline without open
trench disturbance to the surface of the ground.
D.4. Aesthetics
Comment: The removal of 12 eucalyptus trees would require visual impact mitigation.
Response: The MND both discusses and provides post-development photosimulations which
describe and demonstrate views toward the project from three separate viewpoints. These
photosimulations show the project with all 12 eucalyptus trees removed, and the proposed project
constructed. All 12 trees will be removed from the west side of the property only. No significant
visual impact is identified. Further, the project plan package includes a Landscape Concept Plan.
POP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03 - AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT
STATION, FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT
April 12,2011
Page?
This Landscape Concept Plan proposes replacement of the removed non-native eucalyptus trees
with twelve (12) drought tolerant screening trees, such as the Cajeput Trees (Melaleuca
quinquenervia), New Zealand Christmas Trees (Meterosideros excelsus), and Strawberry Trees
(Arbutus unedo). These trees grow to a height of 35, 30 and 25 feet, respectively, are evergreens
and will thus adequately replace the eucalyptus screening effect on the site. These trees are part of
the proposed project design plans, and thus it was unnecessary to include their planting as a
separate mitigation measure for aesthetics. Furthermore, mitigation for the removal of the eucalyptus
trees, which are listed as Habitat Group F - Eucalyptus Woodlands in the city's Habitat Management
Plan ("HMP"), dated November 2004, is mitigated at a 0.1:1 ratio per the HMP. Please see
mitigation measure BIO-1 in the MND on page 45.
D.5. Air Quality
Soil Export
Comment: The "acceptable offsite location" for deposit of exported soil is not defined and
the traffic/pollution impacts associated with the export hauling is not quantified in the Air
Quality section of the MND. The soil's condition and potential of hazardous materials
impacts are not identified.
Response: The pollutants associated with this soil hauling are included in the analysis (page 37)
in Table 2 under the category "Haul/Dump Trucks". As indicated in the MND, this analysis assumes
an approximate 30-mile round trip for transport and deposit of the export soil. Thus, the deposit (or
stockpile) location is assumed to be within a 15 mile radius of the lift station site. This radius would
include all of Carlsbad, and much of the cities of Oceanside, San Marcos and Encinitas.
Subsequently, we have identified four or five potential stockpile sites that are within half of this
assumed distance from the site. This reduced distance would reduce the projected air quality
impacts (and thus the greenhouse gas impacts) below that analyzed in the MND, and since the
construction emissions exceedence from Nox is primarily due to truck hauling of export soil and
gravel (pages 36-37), it is anticipated that the resulting actual emissions level would most likely fall
below the threshold level of significance. Thus, the air quality analysis provided in the MND is a
worst-case scenario for air quality impacts related to the export of soil.
Nonetheless, a stated previously, in an effort to more thoroughly document the project's cumulative
impacts including the quantification of cumulative GHG impacts from this and a number of
surrounding speculative projects, staff will recommend to the City Council at its April 26, 2011
meeting that it direct staff to conduct further cumulative impacts analysis and if warranted, to revise
and re-circulate the MND document per CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5(a).
Further, the CEQA analysis included a Limited Environmental Due Diligence Review (hazardous
materials records report) by Brown & Caldwell (2007) which addressed inventory of the state and
federal lists of hazardous materials sites in the area, and an Environmental Soil and Groundwater
Sampling, by Ninyo and Moore (2009) for the project. The conclusions of these reports are included
on pages 60-61 of the MND. An adequate analysis of the soil's condition and hazards has been
provided.
Ozone
Comment: CEQA does not permit de minimus finding conclusion of Nox in the Qir Quality
Analysis.
Response: The MND does not find that the Nox emissions in excesss of the APCD Threshold are
de minimus. Rather, it finds (page 37) that the excess is a significant impact which must be
mitigated through the inclusion of a mitigation measure articulated on page 37 as AQ-1.
POP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03-AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT
STATION, FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT
April 12,2011
PaqeS
The CEQA "substantial evidence" test requires only a determination as to whether the evidence is
such that "a reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support a conclusion" (Bowman v. City
of Petaluma, 185 Cal. App. 1986. Substantial evidence includes "reasonable assumptions
predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts" (CEQA Statutes §21080(e)). The Nox
impacts exceed the APCD standards threshold by only 1%, (page 37) and are temporary (during
construction only) impacts. Although this mitigation measure does not constitute a considerable
change in design or construction methodology for the project, the measure is adequate to mitigate
the minor, temporary excess of emissions beyond the threshold of significance.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1
Comment: Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is already assumed in the APCD's significance
thresholds and therefore identifying as a mitigation measure cannot reduce to less than
significant.
Response: The city disagrees that the requirement of AQ-1 is already assumed in the APCD's
significance thresholds. These thresholds and the formulas for pollutant projections are indicated by
the APCD as being based upon the historical averaging of monitoring data from hundreds of
construction operations. During construction operations diesel equipment routinely is left idling for
long periods of time, unnecessarily distributing pollutants into the air. Mitigation Measure AQ-1
prohibits this practice and will thus incrementally decrease the air quality impacts which are
projected to result from the construction operation to below a level of significance.
Sensitive Receptors
Comment: The YMCA aquatic recreation area and Coastal Rail Trail are not identified as
sensitive receptors.
Response: Sensitive receptors are defined by the APCD (APCD Guidelines for Submission of
Health Risk Assessments. 2006) as; "schools (grades Kindergarten through 12), day-care centers,
nursing homes, retirement homes, convalescent centers, health clinics, and hospitals." This has
been further clarified for staff by San Diego APCD as locations of gatherings of population who are
particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to air contaminants, also including; long-
term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes.
Aquatic recreation centers and public trails are not included on this list. Therefore the MND
determination that these uses are not sensitive receptors is valid.
Odors
Comment: Air scrubbers and carbon filters are relied upon to control odors. Maintenance
of these features should be required as a mitigation measure and included in the MMRP.
Also there is no evidence demonstrating that these filters will effectively control noxious
odors.
Response: Installation, monitoring and maintenance of air scrubbers and carbon filters are
identified as a part of the proposed project in the Project Description (page 14) and described again
in the environmental analysis (page 38). As such, including an additional mitigation measure
requiring these features would be redundant. Further, CEQA does not require an analysis of the
specific effectiveness of each piece of equipment used to minimize environmental impacts of a
project. As stated previously, CEQA Guidelines § 15151 requires only that "a sufficient degree of
analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which
intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental
effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive..." Furthermore, this section also states, "The
POP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03-AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT
STATION, FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT
April 12,2011
Page 9
courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full
disclosure."
The design plans for the proposed lift station analyzed in the MND provide for air scrubbers and
carbon absorbers to control odor. Proper operations and maintenance of the station will result in
effective odor control. More specifically, the Project Description in the MND states on page 38, that,
"odor control treatment at the lift station will include, but not be limited to; air scrubbers and carbon
absorbers. These features remove odors and volatile organic compounds from the sewage
transport process. Odor control performance will be constantly monitored and maintained by the
Carlsbad maintenance crews to ensure the system is operating properly."
CEQA requires that the lead agency identify impacts from a project that could result in substantial
damage to the physical environment. It is not necessary to document and analyze every minute
detail of the project or its construction or maintenance operations. In the case of odor impacts, no
adopted threshold of significance exists. The City has used the independent judgment of experts
who are familiar with the project area and our local circumstances to assess whether the project, as
designed with odor control, could have the potential to cause substantial environmental harm. The
evaluation concluded that the revisions made to the project, including the odor control features, as
agreed to by the applicant before the MND was released to the public, reduced the impacts to a level
of less than significant.
Furthermore, the odor scrubber apparatus for this lift station must be issued a permit from the APCD
prior to construction. This permit will require a demonstration of effectiveness of the equipment to
the satisfaction of the APCD. City of Carlsbad maintenance crews monitor daily every sewer lift
station of greater than 1 mgd capacity within the city. Crews provide city management with regular
reports on the ongoing status and effectiveness of the odor control compounds associated with the
routine frequent monitoring of these stations. In this way the city ensures the effectiveness of these
protective features.
As previously mentioned, a detailed discussion of the incidental overhead electrical line relocation
during construction is not required by CEQA and the city has made a good faith effort to analyze the
significant aspects of the project. Again, as indicated above, CEQA Guidelines § 15151 requires only
that "a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them
to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation
of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive..."
D.6. Cultural Resources
Comment: Mitigation measure CUL-1 defers mitigation and thus is not allowed through an
MND.
Response: Mary Robbins-Wade, M.A. (RPA), a professional archaeologist with Affinis, prepared
the Archaeological Resources Survey (May 2009) information for the CEQA document. Ms.
Robbins-Wade states in her report (page S-1 - Management Summary) that, "The Agua Hedionda
Sewer and Lift Station APE was surveyed for cultural resources in April 2009 by an Affinis
archaeologist and a Native American monitor from Saving Sacred Sites. No evidence was found of
CA-SDI-10,478, which was recorded adjacent to the north end of the project APE. No evidence of
CA-SDI-210 was noted in the immediate area of the APE. Marine shell was found in the mapped
area of CA-SDI-6751; however, all the soil in this area appeared to be dredge spoils and other fill.
No cultural material was observed in these soils. No other cultural material was found within the
APE." This information was also included in the MND on page 51. The analysis provided in the
MND is consistent with the level of analysis requirements of CEQA Statutes §21083.2. Mitigation
Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, which require an archaeologist and a Native American monitor on site
during all trenching activities, will adequately mitigate for the potential impacts to cultural resources.
PDF 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03 - AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT
STATION, FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT
April 12,2011
Page 10
D.7. Geology
Comment: A geotechnical analysis of potential adverse soils impacts to the future CECP
should be provided in the CEQA document.
Response: The installation of utility piping lines such as those proposed will not result in soil
settlement, spread or subsidence in the area. Trenches and horizontal directional drilling ("HDD")
will be designed and constructed by professional personnel, in accordance with OSHA regulations.
A Soils Report (Geotechnical Report, Ninyo & Moore, August 23, 2009) has been prepared which is
included in the Technical Appendices of the MND and referenced on page 54 of the MND. The
report concludes that "due to the depth of the proposed pipelines, settlements are not anticipated to
impact surface improvements and underground utilities."
Comment: The MND doesn't analyze potential impacts to existing electrical buildings and
high voltage wires.
Response: CEQA requires only that the MND address effects that have a substantial, or
potentially substantial adverse change in the environment (CEQA Statutes §21068 and CEQA
Guidelines §15064). As explained in the response above, the proposed project is primarily
underground, situated in an area in which no buildings exist or are planned. We conclude that the
project will have no substantial adverse environmental impact on existing electrical buildings and
high voltage wires.
D.8. Greenhouse Gases
Comment: No quantitative or qualitative analysis of greenhouse gases is provided.
Response: In 2010, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the
CEQA Guidelines which required CEQA documents to add a project's greenhouse gas ("GHG")
impacts to the list of the environmental impacts that must be analyzed under CEQA. They did not
however dictate a precise analytic methodology or significance threshold for determining the
significance of a project's GHG emission impacts. The amended guidelines generally reserve
discretion to the lead agency in determining the method of reaching their significance determination.
The MND's GHG analysis recognizes (page 57) that no specific significance threshold exists for
greenhouse gases that would apply to the subject project and that the project is not inconsistent with
plans, policies or regulations adopted to implement any statewide, regional, or local plan for the
reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The project further (including the Air Quality Mitigation
Measures) complies with the ARB air quality standards. Therefore, the analysis provides sufficient
qualitative and quantitative analysis and complies with CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3) and
§15064.4. Nonetheless, as mentioned, in an abundance of caution , staff will be recommending to
the City Council that it direct staff to conduct additional analysis of cumulative impacts associated
with the project .including the CECP project, and if warranted, to revise and recirculate the MND
document per CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5(a).
D.9. Hazards
Comment: The MND fails to analyze impacts resulting from sewer spill from collapse of
the bridge or from potential lift station/pipeline leaks.
Response: CEQA Statute §21159 requires one to analyze impacts resulting from "reasonably
foreseeable" environmental impacts. Collapse of the bridge would be a highly improbable accident,
and thus would not fall into the category of "reasonably foreseeable". The bridge will be constructed
to current bridge design standards adopted by the State of California.
POP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03 - AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT
STATION, FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT
April 12,2011
Page 11
In an effort to mitigate the potential for sewer spill during construction, Mitigation Measure BIO-11
(page 46) has been included in the MND. This mitigation measure requires the preparation of a Spill
Containment Plan and an Emergency Frac-out Plan (for Horizontal Directional Drilling tunneling
construction), respectively.
Also, as discussed in the Project Description (page 15) the lift station design incorporates extensive
equipment and electrical redundancy and upstream storage capacity as a precautionary fail-safe for
ensuring that the unlikely event of equipment failure does not result in sewage spills. The hazards
analysis of the fail-safe design protections from sewer spill is addressed in detail on page 59 of the
MND.
With the inclusion of the biological mitigation measure and the equipment and electrical redundancy
and storage capacity, the potential for sewer spill impacts to the surrounding area from lift station or
pipeline leaks is mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Comment: The MND fails to analyze impacts to the existing facilities such as allowing
pedestrians along the Coastal Rail Trail next to the CECP.
Response: As previously mentioned, the CRT is not proposed as part of this project which has
independent utility from the proposed CRT segment. Furthermore, the alignment of the CRT has not
been determined. The proposed sewer bridge location and design has been determined by the
needs for the sewer pipe. This bridge can accommodate the CRT on either the east or west side of
the railroad tracks when and if the project is funded and the alignment determined. Nonetheless, as
indicated previously, staff will recommend to the City Council that it direct staff to conduct further
analysis in regard to the proposed CECP and if warranted, to revise and recirculate the MND
document per CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5(a).
D.10. Hydrology/Water Quality
Comment: No measures are included which would reduce or eliminate the possibility of a
sewer spill. The mitigation measures requiring an action plan in the case of spill or upset
should be identified in the CEQA document and not deferred to the construction phase.
Response: The MND includes Mitigation Measure BIO-11, which requires the applicant to prepare a
final Spill Contingency Plan that outlines actions to be taken in the event that an accidental
discharge of construction fluids occurs. Also, as mentioned above, the lift station design
incorporates extensive equipment and electrical redundancy and upstream storage capacity as a
fail-safe for ensuring that equipment failures do not result in sewage spills. In addition, the project
will comply with the city's Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, which was adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 2009-192 to ensure that discharges from the sanitary sewer system do not occur.
The mitigation measure, project design, and plan compliance demonstrate the city has responsibly
addressed the possibility of a sewer spill and has not deferred the mitigation until a future time.
CEQA places the burden on the party challenging a mitigation measure to show that it is inadequate.
No evidence has been provided that the required spill containment plans will not reduce the adverse
impacts of the project to a level of insignificance.
D.11. Recreation
Comment: No analysis of impacts associated with bringing recreation (Coastal Rail Trail)
into the power plant and lagoon area is provided.
Response: As stated previously, the CRT is not proposed as part of this project. The alignment
of the CRT has not been determined. The proposed sewer bridge location and design has been
POP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03-AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT
STATION, FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT
April 12,2011
Page 12
determined by the needs for the sewer pipe and can accommodate the CRT on either the east or
west side of the railroad tracks when and if the project is funded and the alignment determined.
D.12. Cumulative Impacts
Aesthetics
Comment: The MND Cumulative Impacts analysis fails to take into account the widening
of 1-5; or the visual impact to the CECP from the removal of 12 trees.
Response: The City's analysis concludes that the proposed project is located a minimum of 850
feet from the potential widened southbound lanes, too far for any impacts from or to I-5 freeway
motorists to be significant., The removal of the 12 trees and the mitigation thereof has been
previously addressed in this letter. The trees to be removed are located in the area of the proposed
lift station, on the opposite side of the property from I-5. In an abundance of caution however, the
staff is recommending to the City Council that it direct staff to more thoroughly address cumulative
impacts of the proposed project, in conjunction with other future projects in the area, including the I-5
widening.
Air Quality
Comment: Cumulative impacts on air quality are lacking.
Response: The MND analyzes the cumulative impacts of a number of reasonably foreseeable
pending or planned projects which have a nominal relationship to the proposed project, and which,
taken together, could possibly result in a collectively-significant change in the environment. The
MND concludes (page 99) that these cumulative projects would result in potentially significant
impacts with respect to Air Quality, Biological Resources and Cultural Resources. The MND further
concludes that, assuming mitigation measures for the cumulative projects similar to those adopted in
the subject MND that the projects in combination with the proposed project would not result in
significant environmental impacts. The level of analysis provided is consistent with the requirements
of CEQA Guidelines §15130.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Comment: Cumulative greenhouse gas emissions impacts on air quality are not
quantified.
Response: Based on the information available, and on the substance of the 2010 Amendments
to the CEQA Guidelines, cumulative GHG impacts on air quality are analyzed in the MND (pages 56-
57 and 99-100). Note also that the air quality analysis concludes that the sewer line and lift station
will result in significant air quality impacts during the construction operation only. And the proposed
project will not result in direct greenhouse emissions because it does not directly produce gases or
emissions (page 60). As indicated in the MND, GHG impacts are primarily a result of electricity use
from the EPS. Ateo, as indicated in CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(4); "The mere existence of
significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial
evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable." As stated
previously, in an effort to more thoroughly document the project's cumulative impacts including the
quantification of cumulative GHG impacts from this and a number of surrounding speculative
projects, staff will recommend to the City Council at its April 26, 2011 meeting that it direct staff to
conduct further cumulative impacts analysis and if warranted, to revise and re-circulate the MND
document per CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5(a).
POP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03-AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT
STATION, FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT
April 12,2011
Page 13
f?ecreaf/on
Comment: Cumulative impacts from other segments of the Rail Trail are not addressed.
Response: The proposed project will have no impact from any other segments of the CRT
inasmuch as those segments are not in the vicinity of the proposed project, are not related to the
proposed project, which has independent utility. Nonetheless, staff is recommending that the City
Council direct staff to conduct additional analysis of cumulative impacts of the project and the CRT,
as indicated previously.
CECP Power Plant Project
Comment: The MND must address the CECP when analyzing cumulative impacts.
Response: The cumulative impact section of the MND (pp. 98-100) does analyze the impact
from the proposed project upon the "NRG Power Plant Expansion". This analysis concludes that
three environmental issues could occur, but that these impacts would be expected to be mitigated by
mitigation measures proposed for adoption in the MND. Furthermore, as stated previously, staff will
recommend to the City Council at its April 26, 2011 meeting that it direct staff to conduct further
analysis in regard to the proposed CECP and if warranted, to revise and recirculate the MND
document per CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5(a).
E. Conclusion
As a result of the responses above, the city concludes that the MND is legally adequate and
consistent with CEQA, and the proposed project design is consistent with that provided to and
discussed with NRG staff without their objection. Furthermore, the project will not have any
significant effect on the environment since all potentially significant impacts resulting from the project
have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Nonetheless, staff will recommend to the City
Council at its April 26, 2011 meeting that it direct staff to conduct further analysis in regard to the
proposed CECP and if warranted to revise and recirculate the MND document per CEQA Guidelines
§ 15073.5(a). Assuming this action is confirmed by the City Council, we are hopeful that your client
will find that the revised CEQA document responds to your comments and answers its questions
sufficiently. The City will send a copy of the revised document to your client as soon as it is
completed.
Sincerely,
DON NEU
City Planner
Attachments
Ron Ball, City Attorney
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney
Ronald Kemp, Deputy City Attorney
Bill Plummer, Deputy City Engineer
Terry Smith, Senior Civil Engineer
David de Cordova, Principal Planner
Pam Drew, Associate Planner
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer
of
This space is foTthe County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-
Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of
Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the
County of San Diego, that the notice of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpariel), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
August 17th, 2010
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Dated at Escondido, California
This 17th,
Community & hconomk;
Development Department
Jane Alfefibuse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
; OF INTENT TO ADOPT yi'.^!1,.: ,," ,;.•
TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION . - , ;
-MCASW:NAME:-AGUA;HEDldNDA'SEWER LIFT-STATIQN'ANP- ,.•I'l-'.f.vis1)-- v:-:,^ GRAVITY AND FORCE MAINS •; v •':; ••• v~ '••
X^'-f -'CASE NO:S . POP 00-02(C) / SP i44(L)/;'RP:l6-26;/CDPiO-17/-.:!-.-';'.\ ;. ..-.:,• n.;v:v::HDP 10-05/;SUP,10-02/HMP 10-03 -..•-"
PROJECT LOCATION: - Between the coastline to the'west and the 1-5 freeway .-to the east: -The prbjecl'exlends Irom the north side ol Agua Hedionda Lagoon. •
approximately 500 feet south of Chinquapin Avenue^and'east pj the .railroad
tracks, within the railroad r-o-w, The '.pjoject continues south, on the east .side
of and parallel with-lhe-railroad tracks and continues through ihe; intersections.;of Cannon Road ahd Palomar'Airport Road .within/the public' right-of-way on
Ayenida Ehcinas: The project ends at the existinq'Encina Water Pollution Con-
trol Facility.->•• •>'••:i.-ff':. ,j•.':• ;v:jv':•.,.'.;.':f '• •:-;•f,-i-;-t.-~-.;;;:> j;.;"-.-s!v.f./.-.-V;|--J.1.'..iv.'.-;.! i.
PROJECT rjESCRIPTIONr.The proposed project involves the!installation of a •
sewer, trunk line (3,960-foot long force main and,a8,420-toot long gravity sewer,.; line); a sewer; lift statiori (5p;millibngall6ns/day'capacity,) and a sewer support
bridge (140-foot weathered steel span) improvements', on .the Vista/Carlsbad
Sewer Interceptor System^segments/VCir.iVClS.-VCl^'yCI^, and.VC15:'
The proposed project'eirtends.a'lotal distance, of 'approximately; 12,380 linear,
'feet (2.35.miles) in'alibrth-sputh direction located in coastal .Carlsbad from the
Agua HediondasLagpon'.to the" Encina Water Pollution.Control Facility. The
project also proposes a number of associated improvernents in the'.same work
area; including installation of'a recycled water-line, .replacement-of a potable •;
water .line, demolition of, ah existing sewer lift station and concrete overflow,-•'
basing demolition of theiwood trestje for the .existing.sewer line and the .option
of relocating a section 'of ;?h existing high'pressure .gas transmission ,line from.
its .existing trestle bridge (and removal of the bridge) to'the heW-sewer'bridge:'':.
'PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an eh-!
virpnmental review, of the above describedI project'pursuant yto the'Guidelines
for Irhplementation-'of the California Environmental Quality ;Act (CEQA) and they
Environmental Protectiph.prdinarice of ^he City of Carlsbad: As a result of said •
'review; the 'initial study (ElA 'Part 2),identified potentially significant effects on;
the environment,'byt (1) r'evisiqns in the project plans'or proposals made by, or'.:
agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial,
study are released for public' review .wpuld''avo,idi the effects ;or. mitigate the;
effects' to'a point where clearly no signific'anteffe'ct oh the.environment woOldj:
occur, and (2) there is. no substantial isyidence, in light of :.the whole record be-
fore the CityVJhat the projecti"as revised": may have a'-significant effect on the;
environmenCTherefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be.recommend-
ed foi;,adoption.byjthe .City of Carlsbad,C.ity.,.Council and .the City of Carisbad
Housingand Redeyelpp'rnent-Commissibn.^i.S^.Vr:.';';>., •..''.•. ' > .;. • :' >
A copy ol the.'initial study "(ElA Part 2) documenting reasons to'support the.proposed Mitigated.,Negatiye Declaration'is', on file in the Planning. Division,1
1635 Faraday Avenue,1 Carlsbad, 'California 92008. Comments from the public .are invited:'Pursuant to/Section j15204 of.the. CEQA Guidelines, in reviewing.,
Mitigated Negativfepeclaratidns^ persons and public agencies .should focus'on:
Ihe proposed finding that the project.will not have: a^signifjcant pffect.on the'1
environment.'.If personsiand public agencies believe that.the project may have
a significant effect;<they should: (1) identify the specific effect;, (2) explain why
they be.lieve ithb effect wciu|d !occur; an'dv(3) .explain why they believe the effectwould be significant. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Divi- .
sion within 30 days of ihe date of .this notice.'.' ''' • '• .•':. " '., ' i.
The proposed.'prpject and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review ,
ahd approval/adoption by'the City 61 Carlsbad .Planning Commission and City.:
Council. Additional public notices,will belissued when those public hearings:
'are scheduled'.,.li.you have any,questions, plea'se call-Parti .Drew in,;the Plan-:
ning Division at(760):6p2-4644.;:-^;?r:.' .:•.;/;": ;.:-.'•..'i;..'"'\- . . ,-
PUBLIC REViEW.PERlOD August 17, 2010-SeptemberJ6, 2010 ;••'
PUBLISH DATE August 17,,2010 net J267670 : , : ': ' . . .
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
This space is fdrche County Clerk's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I arn over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer
of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-
Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of
Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the
County of San Diego, that the notice of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpariel), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
January 21st, 2011
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Escondido, California
On this 21st, day ofJaiiuary^Oll
Jane Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
%£& NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be
^ar- affected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold
a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carls-
bad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday; February 2, 2011, to consider the
following: . ; ..-.••
POP 00-02(CVSP 144(L)/RP 10-26/CDP 10-17/HDP 10-05/SUP 10-02/HMP
10-03 - AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT STATION. FORCE MAIN AND
GRAVITY SEWER REPLACEMENT - Request for: 1) adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 2) a
recommendation of approval for a Precise Development Plan Amendment,
Specific Plan Amendment, Redevelopment Permit, and 3) approval of a Coast-
al Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit
(Floodplain), and Habitat Management Plan Permit'. ",
The requested actions are for: 1) an amendment to the Precise Development
Plan for the Encina Power Stati'on (EPS) and the proposed 50 million gallon per
day (mgd) capacity Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station and associated improve-
ments (SLS) proposed at the EPS; 2) an amendment to the Encina SpecificPlan to incorporate the proposed SLS; 3) a Redevelopment Permit for the SLS
and associated piping within the boundaries of the South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopment Area' and 4) a Coastal Development Permit, Hillside1 Devel-
opment Permit, Special Use Permit (Floodplain), and Habitat Management
Plan Permit.
.The total sewer project consists of a new 3,960-foot long force main (sewer
'line) and an 8,420-foot long gravity sewer line, a 50 mgd capacity SLS, asso:
elated utility'relocations (natural gas transmission and electrical overhead
relocations) and a pipe-support bridge spanning 140-feet across the Agua He-
dionda Lagoon channel. The proposed project extends a total distance of
approximately 12,380 linear feet (2.35 miles) in a north-south direction from
near Chinquapin Avenue, south of Tamarack Avenue, .to the Encina Waste-
water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF) on Avenida Encinas, south of
Palomar Airport Road. -.••',••'
The project will be constructed in three phases within the.City's Coastal Zone.
The locations and phases are as follows: Phase 1 - Cannon fload to the EW-
PCF within the public right-of-way on Avenida Encinas (sewer and gravity force
main and 12 inch recycled water line);'Phase 2 - south of Chinquapin Avenue
to the south-side of the Agua Hedionda^ Lagoon within .San Diego Northern
Railroad (SDNR) right-of-way (gravity sewer, including the pipe support bridge,
12 inch recycled water line arid 6 inch potable water-line); and Phase 3 - south-
ern edge of the lagoon to Cannon Road within SDNR, NRG, SDG&E,'and West
Development properties and within the city's public right-of-way oh Avenida
Encinas (SLS, sewer,force main, and 12 inch recycled water line). The pro-
posed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zones 1, 3, and22- . .. i'"i\: \ : r; .; • ,
The project has: potentially significant impacts in the areas of air quality, bio-
logical .resources,.cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous
materials, land use, transportation/circulation, and mandatory: findings of...significance. To reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less than sig-nificant level, mitigation measures contained in the project's MMRP, are
required. The City Planner issued a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Neg-
ative Declaration.
This project is not located.within the appealable area of the California CoastalCommission.
If you challenge these projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this noticeor in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the
public hearing.' ' :
Copies of the environmental documents are available at the Planning Division
at 1635 Faraday Avenue during regular business hours from 7:30 am to 5:30pm Monday through Thursday and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Friday.
Those persons wishing to speak on these proposals are cordially invited to
attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff reports will be available online at
htlp://carlsbad.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view id=6 on or after the Fri-
day prior to the hearing date. If you have any questions, please call thePlanning Division at, 760-602-4600:
PUBLISH: January 21, 2011 net 2281295
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION
(Jf^ CITY OF
'CARLSBAD
Memorandum
March 28, 2011
To: Mayor and City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Requested Information - Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station (AB 20,478)
As requested at the March 2, 2011 City Council Meeting, correspondence between the City and
NRG Energy relating to the Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station has been provided by staff. The
correspondence has been compiled into a binder that resides in Andrea Dyke's office for your
review. Please review the information and let staff know if there are any items that you would
like copied.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the information.
Cc: Lorraine Wood, City Clerk
Ron Ball, City Attorney
John Coates, Assistant City Manager
Cynthia Haas, Deputy City Manager
LH/src
City Hall
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 1 760-434-2820 760-720-9461 fax I www.carlsbadca.gov
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer
of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-
Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of
Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the
County of San Diego, that the notice of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpariel), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
Proof of Publication of
February 26tn, 2011
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Escondido, California
On this 28th, day of February, 2011
IN
F NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, bec*u«« your Interest may be
affected, that the City Council and Housing and, Redevelopment Com-
mission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a joint special meeting at the CouncilChambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, March; 8, 2011, to consider adopting a Mitigated Negative Declara-
tion and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; approving a PreciseDevelopment Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Redevelopment
Permit,'Hillside Development Permit, and Habitat Management Plan Permit on
•y .generally located south of Chinquapin Avenue to the Encirta Water
inGpntrol Facility, located within easeme(rts on public and private prop-
erty and wkhin the right-of-way of Avenkla Encinas in Local Facilities Manage-
ment Zones 1,3 and 22 and more particularly described as:
Approximately 500-feet south of Chinquapin Avenue, immediately east of the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks, within the railroad right-
of-way, south across Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the Encina Power Station
(identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 210-010-09). Associated underground
piping and the pipe support bridge are proposed in this area; and
A portion of the Encina Power Station, located north of Cannon Road and westof Interstate 5 at 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard (identified as Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 210-010-26 & 210-010-41). The sewer lift station and associated
piping are proposed on the grounds of the Power Station; and
A portion of SDQ&E's property, located north of Cannon Road and south and
east of the Encina Power Station (identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 210-
010-42). Associated underground piping is proposed in this area; and
Avenida Encinas, from just north of Cannon Road (identified as Assessor's
Parcel Number 210-011-05) and south to the Encinas Wastewater Pollution
Control Facility (south of Palomar Airport Road). Associated underground pip-
ing is proposed in this area
Whereas, on February 2,2011 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission vot-
* ed 6-0 to: recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration andMitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; recommend approval of a Pre-
cise Development Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Redevelop-
ment Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Habitat Management Plan
Permit; and approve a Coastal Development Permit arid Special Use Permit(Floodplain}.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and afterFriday, March 4,2011. rf you have any questions, please contact Pam Drew in
the Planning Division at (760) 602-4644 or oani}drewecarlsbadca.aov.
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoringand Reporting Program, Precise Development Plan Amendment, Specific Plan
Amendment, Redevelopment Permit, Hillside Development Permit and/or Hab-
itat Management Plan Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this noticeor in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn City
Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or pnor to
the public hearing.
CASE FILE:
POP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP
10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03
CASE NAME:AGUA HEDIONDASEWER LIFT STATION, FORCE
MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWERREPLACEMENT
PUBLISH:February 26, 2011CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCILnet 2284419
Jane Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council and Housing
and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a joint special meeting at the Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March, 8, 2011, to
consider adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
approving a Precise Development Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Redevelopment Permit,
Hillside Development Permit, and Habitat Management Plan Permit on property generally located south of
Chinquapin Avenue to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, located within easements on public and
private property and within the right-of-way of Avenida Encinas in Local Facilities Management Zones 1, 3 and
22 and more particularly described as:
Approximately 500-feet south of Chinquapin Avenue, immediately east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) railroad tracks, within the railroad right-of-way, south across Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the Encina
Power Station (identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 210-010-09). Associated underground piping and
the pipe support bridge are proposed in this area; and
A portion of the Encina Power Station, located north of Cannon Road and west of Interstate 5 at 4600
Carlsbad Boulevard (identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 210-010-26 & 210-010-41). The sewer lift
station and associated piping are proposed on the grounds of the Power Station; and
A portion of SDG&E's property, located north of Cannon Road and south and east of the Encina Power
Station (identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 210-010-42). Associated underground piping is proposed
in this area; and
Avenida Encinas, from just north of Cannon Road (identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 210-011-05)
and south to the Encinas Wastewater Pollution Control Facility (south of Palomar Airport Road). Associated
underground piping is proposed in this area
Whereas, on February 2, 2011 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 6-0 to: recommend adoption
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; recommend approval of
a Precise Development Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Redevelopment Permit, Hillside
Development Permit, and Habitat Management Plan Permit; and approve a Coastal Development Permit and
Special Use Permit (Floodplain).
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of
the agenda bill will be available on and after Friday, March 4, 2011. If you have any questions, please contact
Pam Drew in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4644 or pam.drew@carlsbadca.gov.
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Precise
Development Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Redevelopment Permit, Hillside Development
Permit and/or Habitat Management Plan Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the
City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the
public hearing.
CASE FILE: POP 00-02(C)/SP 144(L)/RP 10-26/HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03
CASE NAME: AGUA HEDIONDA SEWER LIFT STATION, FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER
REPLACEMENT
PUBLISH: February 26, 2011
CITY OF CARLSBAD/CITY COUNCIL
NOT TO SCALE
SITEMAP
Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station,
Force Main and Gravity Sewer Replacement Project
POP 00-02(C) / SP 144(L) / RP 10-26
HDP 10-05/HMP 10-03
MOODY PAUL&SYBIL
1501 OSTLER CT
NORTH VANCOVER BC
CANADA V7G2P1
CHERNICHEN DONALD J&NINA L
53MCKENZIELAKEPTSE
CALGARY AB CANADA
T2P3N9
TRUAX HARRY M&SALLY A
C/0 A+ TEACHING MATERIALS
39865 ALTA MURRIETA DR
MURRIETACA 92563
BENCHMARK PACIFIC POINSETTIA L P
C/0 BENCHMARK PACIFIC
550LAGUNADR#B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
COGNAC CARLSBAD PACIFIC CTR L L C
C/0 BRANDYWINE REALTY TRUST
705 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD #320
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SHARP FAMILY LTD PTNSHP
C/0 CHRYSLER RLTY
1000 CHRYSLER DR
AUBURN HILLS Ml 48326
THE COPLEY PRESS INC
C/0 DIANE JORDAN
350CAMINODELAREINA
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
SNYDER LEASING
C/0 IN-N-OUT BURGERS
13502 E VIRGINIA AVE
BALDWIN PARK CA 91706
STELLAR PROPERTIES L L C
C/0 LEXUS CARLSBAD
5444 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PACIFIC POINTE AT CARLSBAD
HOMEOWNERS ASSN
C/0 LUCAS &MERCIER
29712 AVENIDA DE LAS BANDERA
RCHO STA MARG CA 92688
BOI CARLSBAD INC
C/0 LYNN MINNICI
P 0 BOX 121604
ARLINGTON TX 76012
WINDSTAR CARLSBAD OFFICE L L C
C/0 MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT&HELGREN PL
600 UNIVERSITY ST #2700
SEATTLE WA 98101
ECKEPAULSRTR(DCSD)
C/0 PALOMAR & COMPANY
5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAC CA 92008
COGNAC PACIFIC CORPORATE L L C
C/0 PATRICK COFFEY
4 EMBARCADERO CTR #2700
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
SAN-GAL TRUST THE
C/0 PHILIP LGILDREDJR
550 WEST C ST #1820
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
COGNAC CARLSBAD PACIFIC CTR L L C
C/0 PRUDENTIAL REAL ESTATE INVEST
4 EMBARCADERO CTR #2700
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
CARLSBAD COMMERCIAL CTR ASSN INC
C/O REAL PROPERTY MGNT
PO BOX 1111
CARLSBAD CA 92018
KALPATI L L C
C/0 ROBERT REZNICHEK
3171 MONTESANO RD
ESCONDIDOCA 92029
ECKEPAULSRTR(DCSD)
C/0 SCHULZ MGMT
1351 DISTRIBUTION WAY #10
VISTA CA 92081
PRESERVE CALAVERA
ATTN: DIANE NYGAARD
5020 NIGHTHAWK WAY
OCEANSIDE, CA 92056
1994 BARONE FAMILY TRUST
65260CEANVIEWDR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
AARON DWAYNE P
14555 N SCOTTSDALE RD #120
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254
ADAIR KEVIN C 2004 TRUST 05-28-04
4009 CANARIO ST #1
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ADAMS FRANK J&JOAN P LIVING
TRUST 09-14-90
6602 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
ADAMS JUSTIN L
817KALPATICIR#106
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AFANSEV GEORGE&GLORIA FAMILY
TRUST 01-13-97
6506 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
AHNSHINSUK
817 KALPATI CIR #309
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AIQUN
18825 BARDEEN AVE
IRVINE CA 92612
AKAMINEJAYNE KTRUST02-13-08
PO BOX 271
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
ALL-COAST ENTERPRISES INC
149 S BARRINGTON AVE #804
LOS ANGELES CA 90049
ALPHA TRUST 05-04-06
2521 PARKER ST
SANTA CRUZ CA 95065
AMEENHENRY&MARYA
12811 CHAPARRAL DRIVE
GARDEN GROVE CA 92840
AMES ROBERT M&DENISE M FAMILY
TRUST 05-19-95
2158 TWAIN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AMRHEIN FAMILY LIVING TRUST 09-
16-03
4007 CANARIO ST#D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANDERSON RICHARD&HARRIET
1013 NATIVE TRL
HEATH TX 75032
ANNINOMICHELEM
1301 VISTA COLINADR
SAN MARCOS CA 92078
ARGENT JEREMY T&KUPER-ARGENT
KATHY C
4025 CANARIO ST #245
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BAILEY NANCY J
P 0 BOX 1091
BORREGO SPRINGS CA 92004
BALL FAMILY TRUST 10-02-99
4021 CANARIO ST #337
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BALLARD LON R
2429 HETTICK RD
HETTICKIL 62649
BANKS MICHAEL J&DEBORAH P
4009 CANARIO STftJ
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BANUKKIMJ
2209 MATHEWS AVE #B
REDONDO BEACH CA 90278
BARNETT KENNETH R REVOCABLE
FAMILY TRUST 01-12-9
6528 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BARNETT LYNDA L
541 N CLEVELAND ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
BARRETT ROBERT&ELAINE TRUST 07-
19-91
6525 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BARSKYJOHNI
13085 BROADWAY TER
OAKLAND CA 94611
BAUMANN SCOTT L&HOLLY L
5211 HIGHLAND AVE
YORBA LINDA CA 92886
BECK FAMILY TRUST 09-29-08
4016AGUILAST#A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BECKER MARK&PATIENCE
6529 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BECKWITH JOYCE Y
6498 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BENDIG CHARLES H&ANN
6509 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BENSON DAVID A
802KALPATICIR#D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BERDY JACK W TRUST 09-21-04
805KALPATICIR#129
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BERKHEIMER LEW YEE TRUST 05-06-
03
4011CANARIOST#E
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BERRY MICHELLE M
4014AGUILAST#F
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BERT CLEMENT A LIVING TRUST
PO BOX 901236
SANDY UT 84090
BETRODOMINICKF
6518 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BLACKBURN KAZUMI I
4150 HARBOR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BLAKEKRISTENATR
346 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BLAU ROBERTA
4009CANARIOST#D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BLESSING CHRISTINA LIVING TRUST
4012 AGUILAST#C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BOEHM KATHRYN E 2001 REVOCABLE
TRUST 02-09-01
P 0 BOX 550
DEL MAR CA 92014
BOELTER TIMOTHYS
4016AGUILAST#H
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BONAS BRYAN J&RITA B
241 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BONAS MARGARET J TRUST 12-07-94
231 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BONNER HOYT C&FRANCES M
6503 FRIENDLY PL #17
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BONNVILLE STEVEN R&TERESA J
2640 NORTE VISTA DR
CHINO HILLS CA 91709
BOUGHNERGAIL
2284CAMINOROBLEDO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRAHMS DAVID M&ISENHART MARY
812KALPATICIR#F
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BRENNAN ALLAN P&MARTHA S
65300CEANVIEWDR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BREWER DIANE S LIVING TRUST
4015CANARIOST#A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BROCK BARRY B
5620 PASEO DEL NORTE #127
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BROGE REVOCABLE TRUST 01-04-00
10127 BOGUEST
TEMPLE CITY CA 91780
BROOKS LISA
811KALPATICIR#C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BROWN RONALD O&ALICE E
802 KALPATICIR#B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BUEL FAMILY TRUST 05-22-90
65180CEANVIEWDR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BURGER DEBORAH K
4007CANARIOST#B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BUSCHER JAMES J
4525 COVE DR #10
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BUSSIO FAMILY TRUST 12-05-08
6513 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BUTLER DONALD M SEPARATE
PROPERTY TRUST 04-01-88
6618 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BUTTNERBERNICEM
204 SEA BREEZE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BUZBEE DOROTHY <LE> SKEBER
CYNTHIA G
2609 EL RASTRO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NRG WEST
GEORGE PIANTKA OR MICHAEL PEARSON
5790 FLEET STREET, SUITE 200
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
CABRILLOPOWERILLC
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSESSED 00000
CABRILLOPOWERILLC
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSESSED 00000
CANNON ROADLLC
591 CAMINO DE LA REINA #1100
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
CANTOR JOSHUAD
811KALPATICIR#B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD AUTOPARK PROPERTIES L
LC
450 W VISTA WAY
VISTA CA 92083
CARLSBAD POINT CORP
P 0 BOX 178870
SAN DIEGO CA 92177
CARLSBAD SEAPOINTE RESORT L P
5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS #200
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLTON DAVID C&CHERYL P
4869 KELLY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CASCARANO FAMILY TRUST 10-25-01
6533 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CHAPMAN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
6493 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CHAPPARONE MARK S&DEBORAH R
54140BERLIN DR #140
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
CHAVEZ DIANA K
6164 CASTEJON DR
LA JOLLACA 92037
CHILCOTE CHARLES W
801 KALPATI CIR #D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHRISTENSON RYAN A&MICKI M
LIVING TRUST 06-15-06
4021 CANARIOST #136
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHUNG YOUNG W FAMILY TRUST 03-
10-04
29151 WILLOWWOOD LN
HIGHLAND CA 92346
CLARK RKEN&HELEN L
4029 CANARIOST #348
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CLARKE FRANK&SALLYTRUST
201 EASY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CLARKE RONNIE M
4016AGUILAST#J
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CLAYPOOL KENNETH J&DOROTHY C
6522 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
COLLETTE CHARLES H&CYNTHIA B
5715 CHANNEL DR NW
CANTON OH 44718
CONKLIN BARBARA A
4007CANARIOST#A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CONWAY MICHELLE K
4006AGUILAST#E
CARLSBAD CA 92008
COOLEY KAREN J
4004AGUILAST#B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
COX DAVID C&JANETM
260 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
COY FAMILY TRUST 10-30-91
4025 CANARIOST #145
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CRAIG JEAN A TRUST 07-15-91
65140CEANVIEW
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CRANDALL TIMOTHY L&LESLYE A
7040 AVENIDA ENCINAS #104-250
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CULBERTSON EDWARD L&MARIA I
REVOCABLE LIVING TRU
3616 GENISTA PL
FALLBROOKCA 92028
CURRY PETER D&DORA P ET AL
PO BOX 231594
ENCINITASCA 92023
DBJ FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 232637
ENCINITASCA 92023
DAILEY WILLIAM&BETTY L
6496 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
DALUZ NANCY B
4025 CANARIOST #140
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DAUN JULIE 0 2005 TRUST 01-27-05
334 DATE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DAVIS DONNA
6498 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
DAVIS MARY L
236 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DEAN SHEILA A
65380CEANVIEWDR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
DEDERICK FAMILY TRUST 02-18-92
65240CEANVIEWDR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
DEMEOLIANE
817 KALPATI CIR #107
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DESAI RAVINDRA S&LALITA R
805 KALPATI CIR #300
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DEYOUNG MARTHA E
2555 BELLEVIEW RD
UPLAND CA 91784
DICKSON DONALD
817 KALPATI CIR #213
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DION MICHAEL S&MELODYE A
817 KALPATI CIR #115
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DIRECTORYVISIONLLC
1546 PACIFIC RANCH DR
ENCINITASCA 92024
DIVIONA FAMILY TRUST 06-30-04
6494 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
DONALDSON MORRIS L&AGNES W
TRUST 01-12-96
65100CEANVIEWDR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
DUCAL A TRUST 03-26-04
313 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DUFF THOMAS J
817 KALPATI CIR #112
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DUPLOOY JACOBUS J&LINDA
126 DUDLEY ST #201
JERSEY CITY NJ 07302
EDWARDS RONALD L&KATHLEEN J
817 KALPATI CIR #207
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EDWARDS TOMMY&TEXEIRA ALLEEN
4014AGUILAST#D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EINSPAR JAMES M&PATRICIA H
65020CEANVIEWDR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
ELBLING FAMILY TRUST 07-27-05
29055 SANDDLEBROOK DR
AGOURA HILLS CA 91301
EMAMJOMEH-COLLIER TANNAZ
4021 CANARIOST #238
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ENRIGHT CARL W&COURTENAY M
4021 CANARIOST #235
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EVANS HAROLD R&MARGUERITE
6519 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
FALCO DANTE J&KARENR
4012 AGUILAST#A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FENSKE CURTIS TRUST 09-11-08
4025 CANARIOST #144
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FERRARI TODD
393 DATE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FIELDING MAXWELL
1 SIR KENNETH CT
NORTHPORT NY 11768
FINKELSTEIN KAREN
4006AGUILAST#C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FINN JAMES J&DUNSHEATH
BARBARA
4193 PASEO DE PLATA
CYPRESS CA 90630
FINNIGAN THOMAS F&SANDRA
4025 CANARIOST #242
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FINWALL BARBARA 2001 TRUST
2647 S MISSION RD
FALLBROOKCA 92028
FITZPATRICK JOANNA FAMILY TRUST
4008AGUILAST#B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FITZPATRICK REVOCABLE INTERVIVOS
TRUST 03-12-96
PO BOX 932
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CA 92693
FLEMING JANICE TRUST 03-12-03
6522 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
FOND WILLIAM J TRUST 10-18-00
6515 EASY ST #55
CARLSBAD CA 92011
FONTES WAYNE S&APRIL M
42355 MOUNTAIN VIEW CT
MURRIETACA 92562
FRENCH FAMILY TRUST 04-01-92
65320CEANVIEWDR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
FULLER-ELLIOTT MARLA TRUST
2432 PAPYRUS CT
OCEANSIDECA 92054
FUNES CAROLYN REVOCABLE TRUST
331 OLIVE AVE #202
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FUTAMI FAMILY LIVING TRUST
20221 CAPE COTTAGE LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646
GAILFUS ALAN W&DEBORAH C
4029 CANARIOST #347
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GALLAND B BRITT&SUSAN B
PO BOX 1113
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
GASTAUER LIVING TRUST 09-21-89
805 KALPATICIR#331
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GEZON JUDITH A TRUST 11-25-91
4016AGUILAST#E
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GHAFFARY-KHOURY FAMILY 2003
TRUST 05-08-03
353 DATE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GIEBINK FAMILY TRUST 06-17-85
65060CEANVIEWDR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
GLS LLC
11999 SAN VICENTE BLVD #335
LOS ANGELES CA 90049
GLUCSJOHNDTR
6520 EASY ST#T
CARLSBAD CA 92011
GODFREY DAVID A
12930 VIA ESPERIA
DEL MAR CA 92014
GOEBIG WILLIAM&ANNETTE
4006AGUILAST#D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GOODHEIM CHERYL I
823KALPATICIR#203
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GRANT JAMES E FAMILY TRUST
5051AVENIDAENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GREENE DENNIS K&SHARON A 2008
TRUST
2274 CAMINO LARGO DR
CHINO HILLS CA 91709
GREENE RICHARD A&SHARON H
INTER VIVOS TRUST 09-2
812KALPATICIR#B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GRODSKY EDWARD FAMILY TRUST
11-22-06
4025 CANARIOST #139
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GRODY PROPERTIES LLC
6211 BEACH BLVD
BUENA PARK CA 90621
GRUNNAN NORMANN L&THELMAJ
6504 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
HAMILTON-GRAY CHERYL J
4021 CANARIOST #133
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HARKEY HENRY J&DONNAD
805KALPATICIR#132
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HARPOLE WOODROW W JR
REVOCABLE TRUST 11-16-99
63 W GRAND BLVD
CORONA CA 92882
HAWESJAMES&MARSHA FAMILY
2007 TRUST
4065 HARBOR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HAWKINS CHARLES J&ANN W
27580 BOSTON DR
SUN CITY CA 92586
HELLER JAMES R&EILEENJ
6490 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
HELLER JAMES R&EILEENJ
6520 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
HENNING ARTHUR JR
4125 HARBOR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HERBALY JANET C TRUST 11-13-01
8141 S PENINSULA DR
LITTLETON CO 80120
HERRINGTON N KEITH&ALICE M
6610 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
HLAWEK JAMES J&MATILDA J
324 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HOEHN ASSOCIATES LLC
P 0 BOX 789
CARLSBAD CA 92018
HOEYDENISEJ
1611 LA MADERA LN
SAN MARCOS CA 92078
HOLGUIN BENJAMIN D&MARY E
FAMILY TRUST 09-29-90
65360CEANVIEWDR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
HORTON GARY B&JANICE
3425 MERIDIAN LN
RENO NV 89509
HOWARD SIDNEY H&HARRIET K
TRUST 12-09-99
241 DATE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HUNTSTACIE
8706 SUNSET PLAZA PL
LOS ANGELES CA 90069
HUTCHINGS KARL
6517 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
IACOBELLIS FAMILY TRUST 06-17-03
817KALPATICIR#312
CARLSBAD CA 92008
IMBESI STEVEN G TRUST 06-18-07
4025 CANARIOST #344
CARLSBAD CA 92008
INNS OF AMERICA CANNON LLC
755RAINTREEDR#200
CARLSBAD CA 92011
J H N SYSTEM LLC
823KALPATICIR#303
CARLSBAD CA 92008
J WM III TRUST 06-18-01
12574 WOODGREENST
LOS ANGELES CA 90066
JALAMA LAND MANAGEMENT LLC
2122 CRYSTAL COVE WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92078
JANKOWSKY EDWIN A&FRANCES J
FAMILY TRUST 04-23-9
6490 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
JENNINGS ELIZABETH A REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST 03-0
8427RAINTREEAVE
RIVERSIDE CA 92504
JENSEN FAMILY TRUST 09-14-04
6534 EASY ST #67
CARLSBAD CA 92011
JEROME CO LLC
6037EJENAN DR
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85254
JOHNSON MARILYN E TRUST
6492 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
JONES LALEH S&FRANKLIN C
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
1315 EGRET DR
SUNNYVALE CA 94087
JONES MARTIN
4822REFUGIOAVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JONES RICHARD&LILLIAN FAMILY
TRUST
6496 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
JORDAN KARIN
940 DALE CT
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JUPINKO CELESTE
805KALPATICIR#130
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KABRE FAMILY LIVING TRUST
9551CASTINEDR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646
KALIAN SUSAN J
4009CANARIOST#A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KATZJOSEFINAL
7583 DELGADO PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KAUFMAN PATRICIA
4015CANARIOST#C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KEENAN FAMILY TRUST 11-18-04
67110 GARBING RD
CATHEDRAL CITY CA 92234
KEISER STEVEN J&PAULAB
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 0
1291 KINGS CROWN RD
SANTA ANA CA 92705
KEITHLEY FAMILY TRUST 07-01-96
75081 PROMONTORY PL
INDIAN WELLS CA 92210
KELLEY FAMILY TRUST 04-09-97
331 OLIVE AVE #104
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KENNEDY ANDREAS
8017 N VIA VERDE
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85258
KENNY JAMES F
6523 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
KENNY MICHAEL&JILL
4367 STANFORD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92010
KIKUTA LIVING TRUST 09-14-98
4029 CANARIOST #247
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KILLION INTER VIVO TRUST 11-20-87
5055 AVENIDA ENCINAS #100
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KING COMMUNITY TRUST 02-27-96
1520 RANCHO ENCINITAS DR
ENCINITASCA 92024
KING COMMUNITY TRUST 02-27-96
5120 AVENIDA ENCINAS #A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KLOSS GAYLE TRUST 04-24-06
4016 LAYANG LAYANG CIR #G
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KNOX CARL FAMILY TRUST 06-13-95
4130 HARBOR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KOPPEL SCOTT&DOANE MONA
FAMILY TRUST 06-25-07
1415 BUENA VISTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KRUMNOW SHELLEY C LIVING TRUST
10-18-06
P 0 BOX 23012
CRP CHRISTI TX 78403
KUBES TRUST 09-08-92
331 OLIVE AVE #201
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LABONTE HAROLD&KENT DEBORAH J
73-500 GRAPEVINE ST
PALM DESERT CA 92260
LACKEY TIM
4008AGUILAST#H
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LEE ELIZABETH B TRUST 12-05-07
817 KALPATICIR#308
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LEE JOHN A&TERRI L
12718 SOULEST
POWAY CA 92064
LEITCH DANIEL&CHRISTINA K
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
6491 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
LOSEY RICHARD&LINDA
4095 HARBOR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LOUGHRIN JAY R&YOLANDA
P 0 BOX 587
KERNVILLECA 93238
LUISI NINA
6531 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
LUOMA EDITH I 1987 TRUST 01-07-87
4015CANARIOST#E
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LYNCH MARY JO TRUST 11/30/83
510ESCONDIDOAVE#A
VISTA CA 92084
MACANGO FAMILY TRUST 07-01-05
817KALPATICIR#114
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MADDEN TODD TR&MADDEN KAREN
TR
4025 CANARIOST #244
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MANCUSI MARIO V&JOANNA R
3512 PRINCETON AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92117
MANNING JUANITA J TRUST OF 2004
6608 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MARNER RORY E REVOCABLE TRUST
4015CANARIOST#B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARTY JACQUELYN L TRUST 02-06-07
4021 CANARIOST #236
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MAXWELL PROPERTIES LP
2304 WINDMILL VIEW RD
EL CAJONCA 92020
MCBANE KIP K&WILLIAMS LESLIE
2691 CREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MCKINLEYKRISTAA
4016 LA YANG LAYANG CIR #A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MCMILLON COURTNEY J
817KALPATICIR#109
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MCNIFF TERRY&DUAGARD PRESCILLA
331 OLIVE AVE #203
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MCWIN CORP
PO BOX 2316
CARLSBAD CA 92018
MEANEYTHOMAS P
202 SEA BREEZE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MELLOTT EARL&THELMA FAMILY
TRUST 08-27-04
810 AVOCADO ST
BREACA 92821
MENDEZ ROBERT&RACHEL
802KALPATICIR#A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MENDOZA HERMINIO P JR ROLLOVER
IRA NO 75-1833678
4600 E OCOTILLO RD
PARADISE VALLEY AZ 85253
MERRIHEW G EDWARD&JANET E
6494 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MEYER JOYCE A REVOCABLE 2008
TRUST
4045 HARBOR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MEYN CATHERINE
4014AGUILAST#E
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MILLS JOSEPH J&KATHYS
6526 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MINED FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST 04-20-04
1751SUNNYPARK
REDLANDS CA 92374
MITCHELL JACQUELINE S
P 0 BOX 2410
EL CAJONCA 92021
MITCHELL JAMES C&GEORGIA A
515 W MONTECITO AVE
SIERRA MADRECA 91024
MITTSKUS VYTO&BETTYMAE TRUST B
6805 WATERCOURSE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MOLTENI LOREDANA B TRUST
4808 W 81ST ST
PRAIRIE VILLAGE KS 66208
MOODY LIVING TRUST 09-10-92
817 KALPATICIR#216
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MOXON TIMOTHY B
817KALPATICIR#111
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MULLOY ARTHUR R&PATRICIA L
4014AGUILAST#B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MUSCH CATHY L
19371 SIERRA INEZ RD
IRVINE CA 92603
NASH KURT L&MARGARET
811KALPATICIR#A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NEALE TED&CINDY A JOINT LIVING
TRUST 09-06-08
1137DELROBLESPL
SIMI VALLEY CA 93063
NELSON MARGERY A TRUST
220 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NG WALTER CHENGCHE&DOROTHY
SAUHAN REVOCABLE TRUS
7959CAMINOGATO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NITTIANNASETAL
1951 W MOUNTAIN ST
GLENDALECA 91201
NORTH SB CO TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PUBLIC AGENCY OQQOO
NOVEY ELI
4300GDENAVE#2
JERSEY CITY NJ 07307
OBRIEN BEVERLY J REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST 11-12-94
817KALPATICIR#208
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ODWYER ROBERT L REVOCABLE
TRUST 04-12-03
5341 DOWNET RD
FT MOHAVEAZ 86426
ORSBURN FAMILY TRUST 05-01-91
1735 BUTTERCUP RD
ENCINITASCA 92024
OSHIMA FAMILY TRUST 03-30-92
352 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OVEREND DAVID&DONITA
4021 CANARIOST #137
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PAGE HARRY C&JOYCE M INTER
VIVOS TRUST 03-16-89
6524 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
PALOMAR&CO
5850AVENIDAENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PIMENTELRENEH
4014AGUILAST#A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PIPER RAYMOND A FAMILY TRUST
6502 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
PLEICK LEONA E TRUST 09-27-04
6510 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
PROPERTY RESERVE INC
PO BOX 511196
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84151
QUINSAAT CLARISSA G
4011CANARIOST#A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RIPLEY FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST 07-08-84
4909 VALLEY GLN
LITCHFIELDPKAZ 85340
ROSS WILLIAM N
560CALLEABRONIA
PALM SPRINGS CA 92264
ROUNDTREE WAYNE&ELLEN FAMILY
SURVIVORS TRUST 11-
4021 CANARIOST #138
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RUBY CHARLES E&SANDRA
P 0 BOX 805
CARDIFF CA 92007
RUSCHEWSKI FAMILY TRUST 03-08-00
4165 HARBOR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RUSHFELDT HARVEY L
6508 EASY ST #27
CARLSBAD CA 92011
RUSSELL BERNA L TRUST 10-05-93
6508 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
RYAN BARBARA
217 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RYAN MARY LOU TRUST 08-30-95
331 OLIVE AVE #102
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SALMI SHAWNEM
4004AGUILAST#E
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAVILLE BENJAMIN J&GIIMA L
1301 KNOWLES AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SCHRITT FAMILY 2002 TRUST
2374SHORTHILLDR
OCEANSIDECA 92056
SCHUNCK LEO S M&ADELE S LIVING
TRUST 02-05-99
4008AGUILAST#D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SCHWARTZ G ANN
6507 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SCOULER NANCY L LIVING
REVOCABLE TRUST 05-15-00
4016AGUILAST#C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SETOPERRYA
4008AGUILAST#A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHAKER REZA
1340PINEVIEWCT
BROOKFIELDWI 53045
SHARP FAMILY LTD PTNSHP
1775 ELEVADO RD
VISTA CA 92084
SHEEN FULTON J&VIRGINIA A TRS
4012AGUILAST#D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHU&KIN FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST 04-03-03
4025 HARBOR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SHULLLYNN&NELDA
P 0 BOX 1047
ORLANDCA 95963
SILBERG FAMILY TRUST II 10-03-90
11526 SORRENTO VALLEY RD #A
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
SJOBERG CONSTANCE G TRUST
10685 FRANK DANIELS WAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92131
SIMMONS BARBARA B PERSONAL
RESIDENCE TRUST
6602 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SKINNER DAVID L&ROBBE L
204 EASY PL #T
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SIMONS JEFFREY R&SUSAN L
823KALPATICIR#103
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SKLAREWITZ BEATRICE C LIVING
TRUST 09-21-06
4025 CANARIOST #241
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SMITH CHARLES&MARYANNE FAMILY
2003 TRUST 09-25-0
4136GARFIELDST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SMITH CHARLES&MARYANNE FAMILY
203 TRUST 09-25-03
4136GARFIELDST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SORENSEN FAMILY TRUST 02-23-83
6508 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SPANN ALLISON E&SUSAN L
6516 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SPECTOR NOVERA H
4014 LAYANG LAYANG CIR #G
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SPECTOR RENEE N TRUST 06-07-00
331 OLIVE AVE #303
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SPINKROGER&SHAWNA
4145 HARBOR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STANLEY 0 L&E LTRUST 03-17-93
6504 OCEANVIEW DR#T
CARLSBAD CA 92011
STECKLING ADRIAN E TRUST 07-29-98
6512 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
STELLAR PROPERTIES LLC
6030 AVENIDA ENCINAS #220
CARLSBAD CA 92011
STELLAR PROPERTIES LLC
P 0 BOX 8681
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
STEVENS LEITHG&JUNEJ
4007CAIMARIOST#G
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STIFT MICHAEL T&CHOULES-STIFT
KAREN D
4008AGUILAST#E
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STILLWELL VIVIAN E
6535 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
STOCKTON FAMILY TRUST 12-27-94
222 ESCONDIDO DR
REDLANDSCA 92373
STUCKER JOHN&LINDA TRUST 05-31-
01
14591 MULBERRY AVE
IRVINE CA 92606
SWENSON DOUGLAS E&CAROLJ
2240 MIDLAND GROVE RD #303
ST PAUL MN 55113
TANGUMA MANUEL III&JENNIFER L
4014 LAYANG LAYANG CIR #J
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TAPP BETH A
6509 FRIENDLY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
TERAN SARA C
305 DATE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TESORO FAMILY TRUST 06-12-97
904 W STAFFORD RD
THOUSAND OAKS CA 91361
THOMAS JONNIER
4544WLAQUINTALOOP
YUMAAZ 85364
THURLOW LESLIE&JENNIFER I
6672 AVENIDA MIROLA
LA JOLLACA 92037
TOBIAS STEPHEN
817 KALPATICIR#210
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TOOHEY RICHARD M&MARY E
FAMILY 2006 TRUST 09-01-
6610 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
TOOTLE SHARON L
4014AGUILAST#H
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TRAMUTOLA MICHAEL D&MARY C
25442 REMESADR
MISSION VIEJOCA 92691
TRUFFA FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
817KALPATICIR#108
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TURNERJEFFREYS
208 PARADISE COVE RD
MALIBUCA 90265
VALENTINE MEGAN CW
4014AGUILAST#G
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VINE JAMES E&LII
237 DATE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VU TINH V&TRI T FAMILY TRUST
6534 OCEANVIEW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
WALLACE BRUCE A II
318VIASOPLADOR
FALLBROOKCA 92028
WALLACE EDWARD F
114 HARVARD DR
TRAPPE PA 19426
WALLACE FAMILY BYPASS TRUST
28469 CARRIAGE HILL DR
HIGHLAND CA 92346
WARTERS WENDY K
4011CANARIOST#D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WASSNER DOROTHY REVOCABLE
TRUST 01-24-95
812 KALPATI CIR #C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WATERBURY REBECCA A
805 KALPATI CIR #131
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WATKINS-EVANS FAMILY TRUST
4075 HARBOR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WATSON TRUST B 09-17-92
6702 DARYN DR
WEST HILLS CA 91307
WAVE CREST RESORTS
8292NDST#A
ENCINITASCA 92024
LLC WAXMAN TRUST 09-03-91
1605 RANSOM RD
RIVERSIDE CA 92506
WEBER FAMILY TRUST 11-24-97
15063 BINNEYST
HACIENDA HEIGHTS CA 91745
WEBER REGIS JTR
4016AGUILAST#G
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WESELOH CHARLES B JR&PATRICIA A
1520 HUNSAKER ST
OCEANSIDECA 92054
WEST DEVELOPMENT INC
5796 ARMADA DR STE. 300
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WHETZEL FAMILY TRUST 01-08-96
P 0 BOX 610
SKYFORESTCA 92385
WHITE DAVID N REVOCABLE TRUST
2431 E GRANITE VIEW DR
PHOENIX AZ 85048
WHITE FAMILY TRUST
4014AGUILAST#J
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WHITMER FAMILY TRUST 08-27-04
817 KALPATI CIR #314
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILDDAVID&SUSANW
4021 CANARIOST #134
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAMS LIVING TRUST 11-28-06
6527 EASY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92011
WILSON FAMILY TRUST 12-17-96
1150 GLEN VIEW DR
FULLERTONCA 92835
WILSON JOSEPH R&MONICA L
701 HEATHERSIDE RD
PASADENA CA 91105
WINTER PHILLIP RTR
4012AGUILAST#B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WOOD ROGER L
5411 FOXTAIL LOOP
CARLSBAD CA 92010
WOODWARD DAVID K&BEVERLY M
3413 CORVALLIS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92010
WRIGHT JANET
4011CANARIOST#C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WULFLEAA
4015CANARIOST#D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
YANG LIVING TRUST 04-18-86
10211 MELVINAVE
NORTHRIDGECA 91324
YUJIAO
23161 VENTURA BLVD #101
WOODLAND HLSCA 91364
ZARAGOZA ANTONIO
817 KALPATI CIR #110
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ZILLICH WILLIAM R SEPARATE FAMILY
TRUST 09-15-07
PO BOX 89183
SAN DIEGO CA 92138
ZIMMERMAN JODI A
812 KALPATI CIR #D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DISTRICT
STE 250
255 PICO AVE
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DISTRICT
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DISTRICT
710 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST
TIM JOCHEN
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OLIVENHAIN WATER DISTRICT
1966OLIVENHAINRD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AV
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
600 EUCALYPTUS AVE
VISTA CA 92084
VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT
201 VALLECITOS DE ORO
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949VIEWRIDGEAV
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STEB
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
10124 OLD GROVE RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92131
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
601 CHIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
ATTN TONI ROSS
STE103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
5934 PRIESTLEY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
STEVE MACIEJ - BIASD
STE 110
9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
RONALD W. ROUSE, PARTNER
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 619.699.2572
DIRECT FAX NUMBER 619.235.1338
EMAIL ADDRESS rrouse(5)luce.com
April 25, 2011
27740-1
HAND DELIVERED
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: City Council/Redevelopment Commission Agenda April 26, 2011 Item #23
(Agenda Bill #20,532)
NRG Energy, Inc. and Cabrillo Power I LLC Objections to Approval of Agua
Hedionda Sewer Lift Station and Sewer/Water Pipelines/Facilities
Dear Mayor Hall and City Council Members/Commissioners:
This letter is submitted in connection with the above referenced Council/Redevelopment
Commission hearing and in response to the MND comment response letter dated April 12, 2011
by Planning Director Don Neu regarding the above-referenced item. We are special counsel to
NRG Energy, Inc. and Cabrillo Power I LLC (collectively "NRG") and submit the following
objections on their behalf to the City's proposed approval of the multiple Agua Hedionda Sewer
Lift Station and associated Sewer/Water pipelines and facilities identified in the above
referenced Agenda Bill #20,532 (collectively the "Project"). Cabrillo Power I LLC is the
owner/operator of the existing Encina Power Station ("EPS") and NRG Energy, Inc., its parent
company, is processing the Carlsbad Energy Center Project ("CECP") Application for
Certification before the California Energy Commission ("Energy Commission") on a portion of
the EPS site between the railroad tracks and Interstate 5.
The original and ten copies of this letter are being filed directly with the City Clerk; we ask that
the original be incorporated into the administrative record and the copies be timely distributed to
all Council Members/Commissioners, City Attorney and City Manager. A courtesy copy has
been emailed directly to the City Attorney.
A. Reply to City Staff Letter dated April 12. 2011
The City's timely reply to our MND comment letter is greatly appreciated. We also support
Staffs recommendation that further environmental analysis of cumulative impacts, particularly
as they relate to the CECP, be conducted before certification of an appropriate CEQA document
SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO Los ANGELES CARMEL VALLEY/DEL MAR ORANGE COUNTY RANCHO SANTA FE
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 2
and approval of the Project. We look forward to reviewing a revised and recirculated CEQA
document (as outlined in our letter of March 7, 2011 and as reiterated in Section C below, the
appropriate CEQA document for this project is an EIR) addressing that additional analysis as
well as other deficiencies noted herein. In the meantime, please consider the following
comments, addressed in the same order they are raised in the City Staff response letter.
B. Legally Adequate Notice. NRG continues to believe that it did not receive legally adequate
notice of the Planning Commission hearing on the Project or of the intent to prepare a MND.
The City has admitted that no notice was mailed to NRG and that no notice was posted on NRG
property. Based on past discussions and the record of communications discussed below in
Section E., the City knew that NRG had unresolved concerns about the Project. Under these
circumstances, applicable law requires the City should do more than rely on a generic email
subscription notice or publication notice to provide NRG with an opportunity to be heard.
C. Scope of Project & Design and Engineering Incompatibilities. An EIR should be
prepared for the Project because a fair argument exists that the Project will have significant
environmental impacts, as stated below and in our comment letter dated March 7, 2011.
Moreover, the Coastal Rail Trail should be analyzed as part of the Project because the Project
proposes to "accommodate" the Coastal Rail Trail, making it reasonably foreseeable that the
Coastal Rail Trail ultimately will be located on the Project site. Under these circumstances, the
City cannot rely on the "independent utility" test to avoid analyzing environmental impacts
associated with the trail. The "independent utility" test, a NEPA concept, is rarely used in
CEQA analyses and has not been applied under facts similar to those presented here. For
example, in Del Mar Terrace Conservancy, Inc. v. City Council (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 712, EIR
certification for a segment of the SR-56 was upheld even though it did not fully analyze other
geographically separate segments of the SR-56 because each segment had "independent utility."
The Project, on the other hand, proposes to accommodate a portion of the Coastal Rail Trail on
the Project site, not on some other property as was the case in Del Mar Terrace Conservancy.
Appropriate mitigation for the trail use should be analyzed now, not as part of some future
project. (Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc., v. City ofSonora (2007) 155
Cal.App.4th 1214, 1230 [environmental analysis cannot be deferred simply because two activities
theoretically can proceed independently].)
With regard to the scope of the Project, NRG acknowledges that it has discussed a sewer lift
station and sewer line replacement with the City in the past. When those discussions ended,
prior to the February, 2010 Energy Commission hearings, the City and NRG had not resolved
potential design and construction conflicts between the proposed sewer lift station and the CECP.
It appears that rather than trying to resolve outstanding issues, the City tried to "sneak" approval
of the Project past NRG by not providing adequate notice of the Project proceedings. In any
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 3
event, the Project now proposed is much greater than what was previously discussed, as detailed
in our March 7, 2011 letter. Instead of a single lift station and replacement sewer line, the scope
of the Project now includes additional sewer lines and allowances for future potable and
reclaimed water lines.
Relocation of the overhead electrical line contemplated as part of this Project requires CEQA
analysis. The electrical line is located in and around very sensitive ecological habitat.
Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that construction associated with removing and relocating
the electrical line could adversely impact the environment. The City says that no such analysis is
required because relocation of the overhead line is "an insignificant aspect of the project
construction and no adverse impacts have been identified relative to this line relocation." The
MND does not provide any basis for that conclusion. As such, a fair argument exists that
relocation of the electrical line could have a significant impact on the environment.
Finally, we concur with the City Staff response that the Project's analysis of cumulative impacts
is inadequate in that it fails to adequately analyze the CECP, among other things. We look
forward to reviewing the City's revised cumulative impact analysis in the future.
D. The Proposed MND is Inadequate.
1. EIR is Required. For the reasons stated in our March 7, 2011 letter, NRG continues to
believe that an EIR should be prepared for the Project. The draft MND does not adequately
analyze all environmental impacts, such as cumulative impacts, and also fails to recognize that
there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant adverse environmental impacts.
2. Project Description/Project Splitting. As discussed above, the Coastal Rail Trail, at least
as it relates to the lagoon bridge, should be studied as part of the Project because approval of the
Project will render it likely that the Coastal Rail Trail ultimately will bring pedestrians over the
lagoon. Also as discussed above, the CEQA analysis needs to include a discussion of the
potential environmental impacts associated with relocating the overhead electrical line. Simply
stating that there will be no adverse environmental impacts without providing specific analysis to
support this conclusion does not satisfy CEQA's requirements for public disclosure and informed
decision making. With regard to the lagoon bridge removal and replacement, the analysis still
fails to substantiate claims that a bridge can be constructed over the lagoon without impacting
the lagoon. Also, there is no discussion explaining how the existing bridge can be removed
without impacting the lagoon and surrounding sensitive resources.
3. Environmental Setting. We fully support City Staffs recommendation to conduct further
analysis of the Project's potentially adverse impacts on CECP construction and operation
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 4
activities as that issue is not adequately analyzed in the MND. We look forward to reviewing
and commenting on a revised CEQA document containing that analysis.
4. Aesthetics. We appreciate that the 12 eucalyptus trees to be removed will be replaced per
a Landscape Concept Plan as those trees provide important screening for NRG facilities. The
requirement for replacement of the trees should be imposed as a mitigation measure to ensure
that they will actually be planted and will not be removed in the future. Including all
"mitigation" details in the MMRP document is standard practice in the City of Carlsbad and
should be followed here. Including replacement trees in a Landscape Concept Plan is not the
same thing as making the trees part of the Project's required mitigation. Also, will mature trees
be installed immediately after Project construction is complete? If not, adverse aesthetic impacts
will exist until the replacement trees reach a height and screening function similar to the existing
eucalyptus trees.
5. Air Quality. We look forward to reviewing a revised GHG analysis that includes
quantification of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. The City's response letter has failed to
address our arguments demonstrating that the Project will have significant direct ozone-related
impacts altogether. We hope this will be addressed in a revised CEQA document. Additionally,
we disagree with the City's assessment of the Project's cumulative ozone impacts. The Project
will exceed APCD standards for NOx, thus it will have a significant environmental impact in this
regard. The City relies on an ineffective mitigation measure to reduce this impact (as explained
in our March 7 letter) and does not even assume that the inadequate mitigation measure will be
sufficient to reduce the Project's cumulative NOx impact to a less than significant level. Under
these circumstances, the Project cannot be approved without an EIR and statement of overriding
considerations. Lastly, with respect to odors, NRG continues to believe that the requirement for
odor control facilities should be included as a mitigation measure to ensure that they will be
continually maintained in the future. Given that the Project concerns a sewer lift station, NRG is
right to be concerned about odor control and the City Council should not disregard it as a
"minute detail" as suggested in the City Staff response letter.
6. Cultural Resources. A mitigation measure calling for the development of "appropriate
mitigation measures" if cultural resources are encountered does not satisfy the requirements of
CEQA. This is classic, unlawful deferral of mitigation, notwithstanding the City's statements to
the contrary.
7. Geology. We look forward to an expanded analysis addressing geological issues as they
related to construction and operation of the CECP in the revised CEQA document.
8. Greenhouse Gasses. For the reasons stated in our March 7 letter, the Project's
greenhouse gas emissions analysis is inadequate. The City Staffs response simply restating the
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 5
faulty analysis set forth in the MND, does not amount to substantial evidence demonstrating that
the Project will not have a significant environmental impact. We look forward to a more detailed
and reasoned greenhouse gas emissions analysis in the forthcoming revised CEQA document.
As stated in our March 7 letter, the revised CEQA analysis should take the form of an EIR.
9. Hazards. The MND's analysis of the potential for bridge failure failed to take into
account the fact that pedestrians would cross over the bridge as part of the Coastal Rail Trail.
The risk of vandalism and accidents arising from public use should be addressed. In addition,
there is still no analysis of the impact the Project may have on existing facilities, such as safety
risks associated with installing pipelines adjacent to and crossing the existing high voltage wires.
10. Hydrology/Water Quality. NRG continues to believe that development of a spill
contingency plan should be performed as part of the CEQA analysis rather than being deferred
until the construction phase. The potential for a sewer spill is real as evidenced by the recent
Buena Vista lagoon event in the same sewer pipeline. Further, it should apply to both permanent
operations and construction phases. The public should have an opportunity to review the plan
and provide comments on its adequacy as part of the CEQA process. Additionally, mitigation
measures should be implemented to ensure that the City performs regular inspections and other
necessary maintenance of the pipeline. With respect to the potable water pipeline, an analysis of
impacts to existing and new potable water pipelines should also be included (for example,
analyzing the potential for contamination of public drinking water sources.)
11. Recreation. As discussed above, the Coastal Rail Trail, to the extent it is accommodated
by this Project, should be analyzed as part of this Project. As such, an analysis of impacts
associated with bringing public access trail users in close proximity to the power plant and
lagoon should be included in the Project's CEQA document.
12. Cumulative Impacts. The City Staff response letter did not resolve any of the concerns
raised in our March 7 letter concerning cumulative impacts. We hope that our concerns will be
addressed in the City's forthcoming revised cumulative impact analysis.
E. Record of City/NRG Communications
At the prior Council hearing on March 8, 2011, Council Member Douglas requested the record
of communications between City Staff and NRG be included in the record. Mr. Ball's office was
kind enough to provide a copy of the communications late Friday, as they were not included in
Agenda Bill #20,532 (simply reported as on file with the City Clerk). While we have not had
adequate time to digest the hundreds of pages in detail, the following additional points are clear
from the record of communications.
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 6
1. No communication to NRG during preparation of the MNP and Planning Commission
hearings. Between January, 2010 and the February 16, 2011 Planning Commission hearing,
there is no record of any communications or outreach regarding the numerous unresolved issues
and concerns about the Project, which issues and concerns were frequently addressed in the
preceding 12-24 months. This year long period without substantive communications
demonstrates that the Project MND process and Planning Commission hearings were undertaken
in a vacuum without the required notification to NRG and a meaningful opportunity to timely
comment. Hence, NRG was not able to raise its issues until the March 8, 2011 City Council
hearing.
2. City consistently linked Coastal Rail Trail to the Sewer Project design. Notwithstanding
the City's claims that the two projects are unrelated, the record of communications establishes
that the City consistently advocated a location for the Coastal Rail Trail easterly of the railroad
tracks notwithstanding objections from NRG and Energy Commission Staff recommendations in
the Preliminary Staff Assessment. The record of communications demonstrates the City linked
the two facilities in its design and cost considerations, yet failed to analyze the Coastal Rail Trail
impacts location in the MND.
3. Not all of the Project components were included in the communications. The Project as
analyzed in the MND and presented to the Planning Commission/City Council, included
elements that were previously not identified in the communications. For example, the record of
communications clearly show that early on, the City consistently described the Project as a
replacement lift station and sewer force main project; it wasn't until late in 2009 (just before
communications ended), did the City Staff mention that the replacement force main would be in
addition to leaving the existing sewer line in place and a recycled water line was to be added,
requiring additional easement width. No mention exists of yet a third sewer line or additional
potable water line.
4. The City ignored the CECP in evaluating impacts of the Project for CEQA purposes. As
part of the record of communications, the City included a number of letters to the Energy
Commission Staff to the effect that the City's Sewer Project, Coastal Rail Trail, NCTD double
tracking and Interstate 5 widening were all part of the "existing projects" that needed to be
evaluated for purposes of cumulative impacts. Yet, when it came time for the City to fully
analyze the other projects for cumulative impact purposes in the City Sewer Project MND, the
City dismissed the CECP and other projects from meaningful consideration in the City's
CEQA/MND document for the Sewer Project. Further, the record of communications fully
documents the concerns and issues NRG had been discussing with the City prior to 2010, so the
City was certainly well aware of the range of concerns and issues, yet chose to proceed without
addressing them or involving NRG in the CEQA process and Planning Commission proceedings.
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page?
F. Conclusion
While we appreciate the City Staffs responses to our March 7, 2011 comment letter, we
continue to believe that the Project MND is legally inadequate. Among other things, it relies on
improper mitigation measures, reaches unsubstantiated conclusions regarding Project impacts
and fails to fully analyze potentially significant environmental impacts, particularly as they relate
to cumulative impacts. We are encouraged by Staffs recommendation that approval of the
Project be delayed so that a more thorough CEQA document can be prepared. We urge the City
Council to accept that recommendation and direct Staff to prepare an EIR containing additional
analysis about cumulative impacts as well as additional analysis requested in this letter and in
our previous letter dated March 7, 2011.
Ronald W. Rouse
of
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
RWR/ppt
101494157.3
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
RONALD W. ROUSE, PARTNER
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 619.699.2572
DIRECT FAX NUMBER 619.235.1338
EMAIL ADDRESS rrouse@luce.com
April 25, 2011
27740-1
HAND DELIVERED
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: City Council/Redevelopment Commission Agenda April 26, 2011 Item #23
(Agenda Bill #20,532)
NRG Energy, Inc. and Cabrillo Power I LLC Objections to Approval of Agua
Hedionda Sewer Lift Station and Sewer/Water Pipelines/Facilities
Dear Mayor Hall and City Council Members/Commissioners:
This letter is submitted in connection with the above referenced Council/Redevelopment
Commission hearing and in response to the MND comment response letter dated April 12, 2011
by Planning Director Don Neu regarding the above-referenced item. We are special counsel to
NRG Energy, Inc. and Cabrillo Power I LLC (collectively "NRG") and submit the following
objections on their behalf to the City's proposed approval of the multiple Agua Hedionda Sewer
Lift Station and associated Sewer/Water pipelines and facilities identified in the above
referenced Agenda Bill #20,532 (collectively the "Project"). Cabrillo Power I LLC is the
owner/operator of the existing Encina Power Station ("EPS") and NRG Energy, Inc., its parent
company, is processing the Carlsbad Energy Center Project ("CECP") Application for
Certification before the California Energy Commission ("Energy Commission") on a portion of
the EPS site between the railroad tracks and Interstate 5.
The original and ten copies of this letter are being filed directly with the City Clerk; we ask that
the original be incorporated into the administrative record and the copies be timely distributed to
all Council Members/Commissioners, City Attorney and City Manager. A courtesy copy has
been emailed directly to the City Attorney.
A. Reply to City Staff Letter dated April 12,2011
The City's timely reply to our MND comment letter is greatly appreciated. We also support
Staffs recommendation that further environmental analysis of cumulative impacts, particularly
as they relate to the CECP, be conducted before certification of an appropriate CEQA document
SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • Los ANGELES • CARMEL VALLEY/DEL MAR • ORANGE COUNTY • RANCHO SANTA FE
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 2
and approval of the Project. We look forward to reviewing a revised and recirculated CEQA
document (as outlined in our letter of March 7, 2011 and as reiterated in Section C below, the
appropriate CEQA document for this project is an EIR) addressing that additional analysis as
well as other deficiencies noted herein. In the meantime, please consider the following
comments, addressed in the same order they are raised in the City Staff response letter.
B. Legally Adequate Notice. NRG continues to believe that it did not receive legally adequate
notice of the Planning Commission hearing on the Project or of the intent to prepare a MND.
The City has admitted that no notice was mailed to NRG and that no notice was posted on NRG
property. Based on past discussions and the record of communications discussed below in
Section E., the City knew that NRG had unresolved concerns about the Project. Under these
circumstances, applicable law requires the City should do more than rely on a generic email
subscription notice or publication notice to provide NRG with an opportunity to be heard.
C. Scope of Project & Design and Engineering Incompatibilities. An EIR should be
prepared for the Project because a fair argument exists that the Project will have significant
environmental impacts, as stated below and in our comment letter dated March 7, 2011.
Moreover, the Coastal Rail Trail should be analyzed as part of the Project because the Project
proposes to "accommodate" the Coastal Rail Trail, making it reasonably foreseeable that the
Coastal Rail Trail ultimately will be located on the Project site. Under these circumstances, the
City cannot rely on the "independent utility" test to avoid analyzing environmental impacts
associated with the trail. The "independent utility" test, a NEPA concept, is rarely used in
CEQA analyses and has not been applied under facts similar to those presented here. For
example, in Del Mar Terrace Conservancy, Inc. v. City Council (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 712, EIR
certification for a segment of the SR-56 was upheld even though it did not fully analyze other
geographically separate segments of the SR-56 because each segment had "independent utility."
The Project, on the other hand, proposes to accommodate a portion of the Coastal Rail Trail on
the Project site, not on some other property as was the case in Del Mar Terrace Conservancy.
Appropriate mitigation for the trail use should be analyzed now, not as part of some future
project. (Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc., v. City ofSonora (2007) 155
Cal.App.4th 1214, 1230 [environmental analysis cannot be deferred simply because two activities
theoretically can proceed independently].)
With regard to the scope of the Project, NRG acknowledges that it has discussed a sewer lift
station and sewer line replacement with the City in the past. When those discussions ended,
prior to the February, 2010 Energy Commission hearings, the City and NRG had not resolved
potential design and construction conflicts between the proposed sewer lift station and the CECP.
It appears that rather than trying to resolve outstanding issues, the City tried to "sneak" approval
of the Project past NRG by not providing adequate notice of the Project proceedings. In any
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 3
event, the Project now proposed is much greater than what was previously discussed, as detailed
in our March 7, 2011 letter. Instead of a single lift station and replacement sewer line, the scope
of the Project now includes additional sewer lines and allowances for future potable and
reclaimed water lines.
Relocation of the overhead electrical line contemplated as part of this Project requires CEQA
analysis. The electrical line is located in and around very sensitive ecological habitat.
Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that construction associated with removing and relocating
the electrical line could adversely impact the environment. The City says that no such analysis is
required because relocation of the overhead line is "an insignificant aspect of the project
construction and no adverse impacts have been identified relative to this line relocation." The
MND does not provide any basis for that conclusion. As such, a fair argument exists that
relocation of the electrical line could have a significant impact on the environment.
Finally, we concur with the City Staff response that the Project's analysis of cumulative impacts
is inadequate in that it fails to adequately analyze the CECP, among other things. We look
forward to reviewing the City's revised cumulative impact analysis in the future.
D. The Proposed MND is Inadequate.
1. EIR is Required. For the reasons stated in our March 7, 2011 letter, NRG continues to
believe that an EIR should be prepared for the Project. The draft MND does not adequately
analyze all environmental impacts, such as cumulative impacts, and also fails to recognize that
there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant adverse environmental impacts.
2. Project Description/Project Splitting. As discussed above, the Coastal Rail Trail, at least
as it relates to the lagoon bridge, should be studied as part of the Project because approval of the
Project will render it likely that the Coastal Rail Trail ultimately will bring pedestrians over the
lagoon. Also as discussed above, the CEQA analysis needs to include a discussion of the
potential environmental impacts associated with relocating the overhead electrical line. Simply
stating that there will be no adverse environmental impacts without providing specific analysis to
support this conclusion does not satisfy CEQA's requirements for public disclosure and informed
decision making. With regard to the lagoon bridge removal and replacement, the analysis still
fails to substantiate claims that a bridge can be constructed over the lagoon without impacting
the lagoon. Also, there is no discussion explaining how the existing bridge can be removed
without impacting the lagoon and surrounding sensitive resources.
3. Environmental Setting. We fully support City Staffs recommendation to conduct further
analysis of the Project's potentially adverse impacts on CECP construction and operation
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 4
activities as that issue is not adequately analyzed in the MND. We look forward to reviewing
and commenting on a revised CEQA document containing that analysis.
4. Aesthetics. We appreciate that the 12 eucalyptus trees to be removed will be replaced per
a Landscape Concept Plan as those trees provide important screening for NRG facilities. The
requirement for replacement of the trees should be imposed as a mitigation measure to ensure
that they will actually be planted and will not be removed in the future. Including all
"mitigation" details in the MMRP document is standard practice in the City of Carlsbad and
should be followed here. Including replacement trees in a Landscape Concept Plan is not the
same thing as making the trees part of the Project's required mitigation. Also, will mature trees
be installed immediately after Project construction is complete? If not, adverse aesthetic impacts
will exist until the replacement trees reach a height and screening function similar to the existing
eucalyptus trees.
5. Air Quality. We look forward to reviewing a revised GHG analysis that includes
quantification of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. The City's response letter has failed to
address our arguments demonstrating that the Project will have significant direct ozone-related
impacts altogether. We hope this will be addressed in a revised CEQA document. Additionally,
we disagree with the City's assessment of the Project's cumulative ozone impacts. The Project
will exceed APCD standards for NOx, thus it will have a significant environmental impact in this
regard. The City relies on an ineffective mitigation measure to reduce this impact (as explained
in our March 7 letter) and does not even assume that the inadequate mitigation measure will be
sufficient to reduce the Project's cumulative NOx impact to a less than significant level. Under
these circumstances, the Project cannot be approved without an EIR and statement of overriding
considerations. Lastly, with respect to odors, NRG continues to believe that the requirement for
odor control facilities should be included as a mitigation measure to ensure that they will be
continually maintained in the future. Given that the Project concerns a sewer lift station, NRG is
right to be concerned about odor control and the City Council should not disregard it as a
"minute detail" as suggested in the City Staff response letter.
6. Cultural Resources. A mitigation measure calling for the development of "appropriate
mitigation measures" if cultural resources are encountered does not satisfy the requirements of
CEQA. This is classic, unlawful deferral of mitigation, notwithstanding the City's statements to
the contrary.
7. Geology. We look forward to an expanded analysis addressing geological issues as they
related to construction and operation of the CECP in the revised CEQA document.
8. Greenhouse Passes. For the reasons stated in our March 7 letter, the Project's
greenhouse gas emissions analysis is inadequate. The City Staffs response simply restating the
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
PageS
faulty analysis set forth in the MND, does not amount to substantial evidence demonstrating that
the Project will not have a significant environmental impact. We look forward to a more detailed
and reasoned greenhouse gas emissions analysis in the forthcoming revised CEQA document.
As stated in our March 7 letter, the revised CEQA analysis should take the form of an EIR.
9. Hazards. The MND's analysis of the potential for bridge failure failed to take into
account the fact that pedestrians would cross over the bridge as part of the Coastal Rail Trail.
The risk of vandalism and accidents arising from public use should be addressed. In addition,
there is still no analysis of the impact the Project may have on existing facilities, such as safety
risks associated with installing pipelines adjacent to and crossing the existing high voltage wires.
10. Hydrology/Water Quality. NRG continues to believe that development of a spill
contingency plan should be performed as part of the CEQA analysis rather than being deferred
until the construction phase. The potential for a sewer spill is real as evidenced by the recent
Buena Vista lagoon event in the same sewer pipeline. Further, it should apply to both permanent
operations and construction phases. The public should have an opportunity to review the plan
and provide comments on its adequacy as part of the CEQA process. Additionally, mitigation
measures should be implemented to ensure that the City performs regular inspections and other
necessary maintenance of the pipeline. With respect to the potable water pipeline, an analysis of
impacts to existing and new potable water pipelines should also be included (for example,
analyzing the potential for contamination of public drinking water sources.)
11. Recreation. As discussed above, the Coastal Rail Trail, to the extent it is accommodated
by this Project, should be analyzed as part of this Project. As such, an analysis of impacts
associated with bringing public access trail users in close proximity to the power plant and
lagoon should be included in the Project's CEQA document.
12. Cumulative Impacts. The City Staff response letter did not resolve any of the concerns
raised in our March 7 letter concerning cumulative impacts. We hope that our concerns will be
addressed in the City's forthcoming revised cumulative impact analysis.
E. Record of City/NRG Communications
At the prior Council hearing on March 8, 2011, Council Member Douglas requested the record
of communications between City Staff and NRG be included in the record. Mr. Ball's office was
kind enough to provide a copy of the communications late Friday, as they were not included in
Agenda Bill #20,532 (simply reported as on file with the City Clerk). While we have not had
adequate time to digest the hundreds of pages in detail, the following additional points are clear
from the record of communications.
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 6
1. No communication to NRG during preparation of the MNP and Planning Commission
hearings. Between January, 2010 and the February 16, 2011 Planning Commission hearing,
there is no record of any communications or outreach regarding the numerous unresolved issues
and concerns about the Project, which issues and concerns were frequently addressed in the
preceding 12-24 months. This year long period without substantive communications
demonstrates that the Project MND process and Planning Commission hearings were undertaken
in a vacuum without the required notification to NRG and a meaningful opportunity to timely
comment. Hence, NRG was not able to raise its issues until the March 8, 2011 City Council
hearing.
2. City consistently linked Coastal Rail Trail to the Sewer Project design. Notwithstanding
the City's claims that the two projects are unrelated, the record of communications establishes
that the City consistently advocated a location for the Coastal Rail Trail easterly of the railroad
tracks notwithstanding objections from NRG and Energy Commission Staff recommendations in
the Preliminary Staff Assessment. The record of communications demonstrates the City linked
the two facilities in its design and cost considerations, yet failed to analyze the Coastal Rail Trail
impacts location in the MND.
3. Not all of the Project components were included in the communications. The Project as
analyzed in the MND and presented to the Planning Commission/City Council, included
elements that were previously not identified in the communications. For example, the record of
communications clearly show that early on, the City consistently described the Project as a
replacement lift station and sewer force main project; it wasn't until late in 2009 (just before
communications ended), did the City Staff mention that the replacement force main would be in
addition to leaving the existing sewer line in place and a recycled water line was to be added,
requiring additional easement width. No mention exists of yet a third sewer line or additional
potable water line.
4. The City ignored the CECP in evaluating impacts of the Project for CEQA purposes. As
part of the record of communications, the City included a number of letters to the Energy
Commission Staff to the effect that the City's Sewer Project, Coastal Rail Trail, NCTD double
tracking and Interstate 5 widening were all part of the "existing projects" that needed to be
evaluated for purposes of cumulative impacts. Yet, when it came time for the City to fully
analyze the other projects for cumulative impact purposes in the City Sewer Project MND, the
City dismissed the CECP and other projects from meaningful consideration in the City's
CEQA/MND document for the Sewer Project. Further, the record of communications fully
documents the concerns and issues NRG had been discussing with the City prior to 2010, so the
City was certainly well aware of the range of concerns and issues, yet chose to proceed without
addressing them or involving NRG in the CEQA process and Planning Commission proceedings.
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page?
F. Conclusion
While we appreciate the City Staffs responses to our March 7, 2011 comment letter, we
continue to believe that the Project MND is legally inadequate. Among other things, it relies on
improper mitigation measures, reaches unsubstantiated conclusions regarding Project impacts
and fails to fully analyze potentially significant environmental impacts, particularly as they relate
to cumulative impacts. We are encouraged by Staffs recommendation that approval of the
Project be delayed so that a more thorough CEQA document can be prepared. We urge the City
Council to accept that recommendation and direct Staff to prepare an EIR containing additional
analysis about cumulative impacts as well as additional analysis requested in this letter and in
our previous letter dated March 7, 2011.
Ronald W. Rouse
of
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
RWR/ppt
101494157.3
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
RONALD W. ROUSE, PARTNER
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 619.699.2572
DIRECT FAX NUMBER 619.235.1338
EMAIL ADDRESS rrousefSluce.cora
April 25, 2011
27740-1
HAND DELIVERED
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: City Council/Redevelopment Commission Agenda April 26, 2011 Item #23
(Agenda Bill #20,532)
NRG Energy, Inc. and Cabrillo Power I LLC Objections to Approval of Agua
Hedionda Sewer Lift Station and Sewer/Water Pipelines/Facilities
Dear Mayor Hall and City Council Members/Commissioners:
This letter is submitted in connection with the above referenced Council/Redevelopment
Commission hearing and in response to the MND comment response letter dated April 12, 2011
by Planning Director Don Neu regarding the above-referenced item. We are special counsel to
NRG Energy, Inc. and Cabrillo Power I LLC (collectively "NRG") and submit the following
objections on their behalf to the City's proposed approval of the multiple Agua Hedionda Sewer
Lift Station and associated Sewer/Water pipelines and facilities identified in the above
referenced Agenda Bill #20,532 (collectively the "Project"). Cabrillo Power I LLC is the
owner/operator of the existing Encina Power Station ("EPS") and NRG Energy, Inc., its parent
company, is processing the Carlsbad Energy Center Project ("CECP") Application for
Certification before the California Energy Commission ("Energy Commission") on a portion of
the EPS site between the railroad tracks and Interstate 5.
The original and ten copies of this letter are being filed directly with the City Clerk; we ask that
the original be incorporated into the administrative record and the copies be timely distributed to
all Council Members/Commissioners, City Attorney and City Manager. A courtesy copy has
been emailed directly to the City Attorney.
A. Reply to City Staff Letter dated April 12, 2011
The City's timely reply to our MND comment letter is greatly appreciated. We also support
Staffs recommendation that further environmental analysis of cumulative impacts, particularly
as they relate to the CECP, be conducted before certification of an appropriate CEQA document
SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • Los ANGELES • CARMEL VALLEY/DEL MAR • ORANGE COUNTY • RANCHO SANTA FE
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 2
and approval of the Project. We look forward to reviewing a revised and recirculated CEQA
document (as outlined in our letter of March 7, 2011 and as reiterated in Section C below, the
appropriate CEQA document for this project is an EIR) addressing that additional analysis as
well as other deficiencies noted herein. In the meantime, please consider the following
comments, addressed in the same order they are raised in the City Staff response letter.
B. Legally Adequate Notice. NRG continues to believe that it did not receive legally adequate
notice of the Planning Commission hearing on the Project or of the intent to prepare a MND.
The City has admitted that no notice was mailed to NRG and that no notice was posted on NRG
property. Based on past discussions and the record of communications discussed below in
Section E., the City knew that NRG had unresolved concerns about the Project. Under these
circumstances, applicable law requires the City should do more than rely on a generic email
subscription notice or publication notice to provide NRG with an opportunity to be heard.
C. Scope of Project & Design and Engineering Incompatibilities. An EIR should be
prepared for the Project because a fair argument exists that the Project will have significant
environmental impacts, as stated below and in our comment letter dated March 7, 2011.
Moreover, the Coastal Rail Trail should be analyzed as part of the Project because the Project
proposes to "accommodate" the Coastal Rail Trail, making it reasonably foreseeable that the
Coastal Rail Trail ultimately will be located on the Project site. Under these circumstances, the
City cannot rely on the "independent utility" test to avoid analyzing environmental impacts
associated with the trail. The "independent utility" test, a NEPA concept, is rarely used in
CEQA analyses and has not been applied under facts similar to those presented here. For
example, in Del Mar Terrace Conservancy, Inc. v. City Council (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 712, EIR
certification for a segment of the SR-56 was upheld even though it did not fully analyze other
geographically separate segments of the SR-56 because each segment had "independent utility."
The Project, on the other hand, proposes to accommodate a portion of the Coastal Rail Trail on
the Project site, not on some other property as was the case in Del Mar Terrace Conservancy.
Appropriate mitigation for the trail use should be analyzed now, not as part of some future
project. (Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc., v. City ofSonora (2007) 155
Cal.App.4th 1214, 1230 [environmental analysis cannot be deferred simply because two activities
theoretically can proceed independently].)
With regard to the scope of the Project, NRG acknowledges that it has discussed a sewer lift
station and sewer line replacement with the City in the past. When those discussions ended,
prior to the February, 2010 Energy Commission hearings, the City and NRG had not resolved
potential design and construction conflicts between the proposed sewer lift station and the CECP.
It appears that rather than trying to resolve outstanding issues, the City tried to "sneak" approval
of the Project past NRG by not providing adequate notice of the Project proceedings. In any
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS UP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 3
event, the Project now proposed is much greater than what was previously discussed, as detailed
in our March 7, 2011 letter. Instead of a single lift station and replacement sewer line, the scope
of the Project now includes additional sewer lines and allowances for future potable and
reclaimed water lines.
Relocation of the overhead electrical line contemplated as part of this Project requires CEQA
analysis. The electrical line is located in and around very sensitive ecological habitat.
Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that construction associated with removing and relocating
the electrical line could adversely impact the environment. The City says that no such analysis is
required because relocation of the overhead line is "an insignificant aspect of the project
construction and no adverse impacts have been identified relative to this line relocation." The
MND does not provide any basis for that conclusion. As such, a fair argument exists that
relocation of the electrical line could have a significant impact on the environment.
Finally, we concur with the City Staff response that the Project's analysis of cumulative impacts
is inadequate in that it fails to adequately analyze the CECP, among other things. We look
forward to reviewing the City's revised cumulative impact analysis in the future.
D. The Proposed MND is Inadequate.
1. EIR is Required. For the reasons stated in our March 7, 2011 letter, NRG continues to
believe that an EIR should be prepared for the Project. The draft MND does not adequately
analyze all environmental impacts, such as cumulative impacts, and also fails to recognize that
there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant adverse environmental impacts.
2. Project Description/Project Splitting. As discussed above, the Coastal Rail Trail, at least
as it relates to the lagoon bridge, should be studied as part of the Project because approval of the
Project will render it likely that the Coastal Rail Trail ultimately will bring pedestrians over the
lagoon. Also as discussed above, the CEQA analysis needs to include a discussion of the
potential environmental impacts associated with relocating the overhead electrical line. Simply
stating that there will be no adverse environmental impacts without providing specific analysis to
support this conclusion does not satisfy CEQA's requirements for public disclosure and informed
decision making. With regard to the lagoon bridge removal and replacement, the analysis still
fails to substantiate claims that a bridge can be constructed over the lagoon without impacting
the lagoon. Also, there is no discussion explaining how the existing bridge can be removed
without impacting the lagoon and surrounding sensitive resources.
3. Environmental Setting. We fully support City Staffs recommendation to conduct further
analysis of the Project's potentially adverse impacts on CECP construction and operation
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 4
activities as that issue is not adequately analyzed in the MND. We look forward to reviewing
and commenting on a revised CEQA document containing that analysis.
4. Aesthetics. We appreciate that the 12 eucalyptus trees to be removed will be replaced per
a Landscape Concept Plan as those trees provide important screening for NRG facilities. The
requirement for replacement of the trees should be imposed as a mitigation measure to ensure
that they will actually be planted and will not be removed in the future. Including all
"mitigation" details in the MMRP document is standard practice in the City of Carlsbad and
should be followed here. Including replacement trees in a Landscape Concept Plan is not the
same thing as making the trees part of the Project's required mitigation. Also, will mature trees
be installed immediately after Project construction is complete? If not, adverse aesthetic impacts
will exist until the replacement trees reach a height and screening function similar to the existing
eucalyptus trees.
5. Air Quality. We look forward to reviewing a revised GHG analysis that includes
quantification of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. The City's response letter has failed to
address our arguments demonstrating that the Project will have significant direct ozone-related
impacts altogether. We hope this will be addressed in a revised CEQA document. Additionally,
we disagree with the City's assessment of the Project's cumulative ozone impacts. The Project
will exceed APCD standards for NOx, thus it will have a significant environmental impact in this
regard. The City relies on an ineffective mitigation measure to reduce this impact (as explained
in our March 7 letter) and does not even assume that the inadequate mitigation measure will be
sufficient to reduce the Project's cumulative NOx impact to a less than significant level. Under
these circumstances, the Project cannot be approved without an EIR and statement of overriding
considerations. Lastly, with respect to odors, NRG continues to believe that the requirement for
odor control facilities should be included as a mitigation measure to ensure that they will be
continually maintained in the future. Given that the Project concerns a sewer lift station, NRG is
right to be concerned about odor control and the City Council should not disregard it as a
"minute detail" as suggested in the City Staff response letter.
6. Cultural Resources. A mitigation measure calling for the development of "appropriate
mitigation measures" if cultural resources are encountered does not satisfy the requirements of
CEQA. This is classic, unlawful deferral of mitigation, notwithstanding the City's statements to
the contrary.
7. Geology. We look forward to an expanded analysis addressing geological issues as they
related to construction and operation of the CECP in the revised CEQA document.
8. Greenhouse Gasses. For the reasons stated in our March 7 letter, the Project's
greenhouse gas emissions analysis is inadequate. The City Staffs response simply restating the
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
PageS
faulty analysis set forth in the MND, does not amount to substantial evidence demonstrating that
the Project will not have a significant environmental impact. We look forward to a more detailed
and reasoned greenhouse gas emissions analysis in the forthcoming revised CEQA document.
As stated in our March 7 letter, the revised CEQA analysis should take the form of an EIR.
9. Hazards. The MND's analysis of the potential for bridge failure failed to take into
account the fact that pedestrians would cross over the bridge as part of the Coastal Rail Trail.
The risk of vandalism and accidents arising from public use should be addressed. In addition,
there is still no analysis of the impact the Project may have on existing facilities, such as safety
risks associated with installing pipelines adjacent to and crossing the existing high voltage wires.
10. Hydrology/Water Quality. NRG continues to believe that development of a spill
contingency plan should be performed as part of the CEQA analysis rather than being deferred
until the construction phase. The potential for a sewer spill is real as evidenced by the recent
Buena Vista lagoon event in the same sewer pipeline. Further, it should apply to both permanent
operations and construction phases. The public should have an opportunity to review the plan
and provide comments on its adequacy as part of the CEQA process. Additionally, mitigation
measures should be implemented to ensure that the City performs regular inspections and other
necessary maintenance of the pipeline. With respect to the potable water pipeline, an analysis of
impacts to existing and new potable water pipelines should also be included (for example,
analyzing the potential for contamination of public drinking water sources.)
11. Recreation. As discussed above, the Coastal Rail Trail, to the extent it is accommodated
by this Project, should be analyzed as part of this Project. As such, an analysis of impacts
associated with bringing public access trail users in close proximity to the power plant and
lagoon should be included in the Project's CEQA document.
12. Cumulative Impacts. The City Staff response letter did not resolve any of the concerns
raised in our March 7 letter concerning cumulative impacts. We hope that our concerns will be
addressed in the City's forthcoming revised cumulative impact analysis.
E. Record of City/NRG Communications
At the prior Council hearing on March 8, 2011, Council Member Douglas requested the record
of communications between City Staff and NRG be included in the record. Mr. Ball's office was
kind enough to provide a copy of the communications late Friday, as they were not included in
Agenda Bill #20,532 (simply reported as on file with the City Clerk). While we have not had
adequate time to digest the hundreds of pages in detail, the following additional points are clear
from the record of communications.
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 6
1. No communication to NRG during preparation of the MNP and Planning Commission
hearings. Between January, 2010 and the February 16, 2011 Planning Commission hearing,
there is no record of any communications or outreach regarding the numerous unresolved issues
and concerns about the Project, which issues and concerns were frequently addressed in the
preceding 12-24 months. This year long period without substantive communications
demonstrates that the Project MND process and Planning Commission hearings were undertaken
in a vacuum without the required notification to NRG and a meaningful opportunity to timely
comment. Hence, NRG was not able to raise its issues until the March 8, 2011 City Council
hearing.
2. City consistently linked Coastal Rail Trail to the Sewer Project design. Notwithstanding
the City's claims that the two projects are unrelated, the record of communications establishes
that the City consistently advocated a location for the Coastal Rail Trail easterly of the railroad
tracks notwithstanding objections from NRG and Energy Commission Staff recommendations in
the Preliminary Staff Assessment. The record of communications demonstrates the City linked
the two facilities in its design and cost considerations, yet failed to analyze the Coastal Rail Trail
impacts location in the MND.
3. Not all of the Project components were included in the communications. The Project as
analyzed in the MND and presented to the Planning Commission/City Council, included
elements that were previously not identified in the communications. For example, the record of
communications clearly show that early on, the City consistently described the Project as a
replacement lift station and sewer force main project; it wasn't until late in 2009 (just before
communications ended), did the City Staff mention that the replacement force main would be in
addition to leaving the existing sewer line in place and a recycled water line was to be added,
requiring additional easement width. No mention exists of yet a third sewer line or additional
potable water line.
4. The City ignored the CECP in evaluating impacts of the Project for CEQA purposes. As
part of the record of communications, the City included a number of letters to the Energy
Commission Staff to the effect that the City's Sewer Project, Coastal Rail Trail, NCTD double
tracking and Interstate 5 widening were all part of the "existing projects" that needed to be
evaluated for purposes of cumulative impacts. Yet, when it came time for the City to fully
analyze the other projects for cumulative impact purposes in the City Sewer Project MND, the
City dismissed the CECP and other projects from meaningful consideration in the City's
CEQA/MND document for the Sewer Project. Further, the record of communications fully
documents the concerns and issues NRG had been discussing with the City prior to 2010, so the
City was certainly well aware of the range of concerns and issues, yet chose to proceed without
addressing them or involving NRG in the CEQA process and Planning Commission proceedings.
LUCE FORWARD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
Mayor Hall and City Council Members
April 25, 2011
Page 7
F. Conclusion
While we appreciate the City Staffs responses to our March 7, 2011 comment letter, we
continue to believe that the Project MND is legally inadequate. Among other things, it relies on
improper mitigation measures, reaches unsubstantiated conclusions regarding Project impacts
and fails to fully analyze potentially significant environmental impacts, particularly as they relate
to cumulative impacts. We are encouraged by Staffs recommendation that approval of the
Project be delayed so that a more thorough CEQA document can be prepared. We urge the City
Council to accept that recommendation and direct Staff to prepare an EIR containing additional
analysis about cumulative impacts as well as additional analysis requested in this letter and in
our previous letter dated March 7, 2011.
Ronald W. Rouse
of
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
RWR/ppt
101494157.3
Continued Public Hearing on the AHdi dSLiftSt tiAgua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station, Force Main and Gravity Sewer yReplacementPam DrewPam DrewA il 26 2011A il 26 2011April 26, 2011April 26, 2011
BackgroundInformationBackground Information2-2-11–Planning Commission2211 Planning Commission3-8-11 - City Council and Housing & Redevelopment CommissionRedevelopment Commission
FurtherCEQAAnalysisFurther CEQA AnalysisGreenhouse Gas (GHG) EmissionsAir QualityCumulativeImpactsCumulative Impacts
Recommendation to City Council & dlHousing & Redevelopment CommissionCity Council Adopt Resolution No. 2011-080 Housing & Redevelopment Commission AdoptHousing & Redevelopment Commission Adopt Resolution No. 5011) Remand the application to the Planning1) Remand the application to the Planning Director for further CEQA analysis; and2) Schedule the application for a new hearing2) Schedule the application for a new hearing by the Planning Commission.