HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-20; City Council; MinutesMINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING: CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
DATE: September 20,2011
TIME: 11:00 AM
PLACE: CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 173B, 1635 FARADAY
The Mayor called the meeting to order on September 20, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. Present: Hall, Kulchin,
Packard, Douglas, Blackburn.
1. Regional Reports:
Packard: Presented a brief report on NCTD ridership and budget matters.
Douglas: Reported that she would be attending the Annual League of California Cities Conference
September 21 - 23, 2011.
Blackburn: No Report.
Kulchin: Reported that she had recently had dinner with former Mayor Bud Lewis.
Hall: Presented a brief report on the SANDAG Transportation Committee and the 2050 RTP plan that is
scheduled to be presented for approval in October, 2011,
REQUESTS TO SPEAK: None
2. Reemployment of Retired Annuitants
The following document was distributed for this item and is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
• Re-employment of Retired Annuitants, Power Point Presentation, September 20, 2011.
Staff Member Presenting: Julie Clark, Human Resources Director.
Ms. Clark gave the presentation regarding the current procedures for rehiring retired annuitants,
including those that have retired from other PERS agencies. She explained the differences between
rehiring retirees as a part-time, limited hour, employees and rehiring retirees as independent
contractors. She also explained the current CALPERS general rules and limitations regarding the
temporary employment of retired PERS members, and outlined the statutory exceptions (as contained
in the PowerPoint presentation). Ms. Clark also briefly reviewed the requirements for retirees to
City Council Workshop September 20, 2011
qualify as independent contractors.
In response to Council inquiry, Ms. Clark clarified some of the qualifications of independent contractors
(consultants), such as the requirement to have formed a licensed business, and to have clients other
than the City of Carlsbad. She also explained that the hiring of such contractors must follow the City's
purchasing ordinance and IRS regulations.
Ms. Clark also outlined the options for Council consideration:
• Continue to follow CALPERS rules and regulations and state law without establishment of a city
policy
• Adopt a policy to formalize the City Council's intent to following existing rules and regulations
• Adopt a policy to make the rehiring of retired annuitants more restrictive
Following the presentation, the Council discussion ensued as follows:
Council Member Blackburn expressed his support for continuing to follow CALPERS rules and
regulations.
Council Member Douglas requested that Council consider adopting more restrictive policies regarding
the hiring and use of retirees and contractors.
Council Member Packard expressed support for the current process following CALPERS rules and
regulations.
Mayor Pro-Tern Kulchin expressed support for the need for transparency in the process and concurred
with Ms. Douglas's comments.
Mayor Hall also spoke of the need for transparency in this process and the need to ensure the best value
for the City in these hirings.
City Attorney Ball clarified that the City, even as a Charter City, cannot adopt policies in the area of
hiring retirees that conflict with CALPERS rules and regulations or state law.
In response to Council inquiry, Ms. Clark stated that the Council could adopt a policy that would be more
restrictive, such as limiting the number of hours for part time workers to less than the 960 hours per
fiscal year allowed by CALPERS. She also explained that during the past 5 years, the city has hired a
total of 24 retirees as part time employees, noting each had worked from 11 hours to 959 hours per
fiscal year.
The Council requested that additional information regarding the compensation spent on re-hired
retirees be provided for their review, and that information regarding the numbers and compensation for
those hired as contractors during the past five years also be provided.
At 12:00 p.m. the Mayor called a recess. The Mayor and Council Members Douglas, Packard, Kulchin
and Blackburn returned at 12:10 p.m.
City Council Workshop September 20,2011
3. Best Value Services Plan
The following document was distributed for this item and is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
• Best Value Services Plan , Power Point Presentation, September 20, 2011.
Staff Member Presenting: Cynthia Haas, Deputy City Manager.
Ms. Haas gave the presentation regarding the proposed Best Value Services Plan, explaining how
managed competition could fit into Carlsbad's efforts to provide high quality services at the lowest cost
to taxpayers. She also outlined the proposed phases of the plan as follows:
« Phase 1 - Initial Screening - Select the major services to be assessed.
• Phase 2 - Operational Assessment - Determine if services are candidates for managed
competition or alternate delivery model.
• Phase 3 - Managed Competition - Determine the best value provider for service.
• Phase 4 - Performance Management - Ensure effective delivery of services.
Council Member Blackburn commented about questions he had received regarding the City evaluating
contracting for safety services (both Police and Fire). Council Members noted that contracting for
safety services had not been discussed as part of the Plan.
Deputy City Manager Haas continued with the presentation, explaining the proposed use of outside
experts to assist with the initial screening, operational assessments, and preparing and evaluating
Requests for Proposals. She also presented cost estimates for such services, and proposed timelines for
implementing each phase (contained in PowerPoint presentation). Ms. Haas also presented options
for including public involvement in the process, through the appointment of a five member committee,
if Council determined it appropriate.
Council Members discussed the need for fairness and transparency throughout this process. Council
Member Blackburn requested that any citizen appointments follow the established processes, requiring
the nomination by the Mayor and approval of the Council.
City Attorney Ball stated that the proposed timeline should be revised to add Meet and Confer, as
required, with any affected employee groups.
By consensus, the Council agreed that the Best Value Services Plan, as presented, be implemented, and
that the determination regarding public involvement be made at a later date. Council Member Douglas
requested that, when this matter is brought back, Council consider increasing the size of the
committee.
Council Member Blackburn requested that details regarding the Plan be provided as quickly as possible
to all employees. Mayor Pro-Tern Kulchin requested that information provided to employees also be
given to the Council to assist them in responding to questions.
City Council Workshop September 20, 2011
City Manager Hildabrand reported that this information has been provided to members of the Strategic
Change Team, and will also be shared with all other employees, both through communications and
meetings.
ADJOURNMENT TO JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION;
Mayor/Chairman Hall convened the Joint Special Meeting at 1:00 p.m., with five members present.
REQUESTS TO SPEAK: Kerry Siekmann addressed the Commission, in opposition to the proposal by
NRG to eliminate Conditions Land-2 and Land-3, which would require the elimination of the existing
Encina Plant.
1. Housing & Redevelopment Commission Finding Regarding Proposed Conditions for Second Power
Plant: and
2. Update on California Energy Commission Proceedings Regarding a Second Power Plant.
City Attorney Ball presented the report as contained in his memoranda to the City Council and Housing
and Redevelopment Commission, dated September 19, 2011, and in Housing & Redevelopment
Commission Resolution No. 513. (Copies on file in the City Clerk's Office). Mr. Ball explained that NRG
at a recent hearing proposed to eliminate Conditions Land-2 and Land-3, which require the demolition
and remediation of the existing Encina Power Station. He also explained that, since the request was
made without prior notice to the other parties, the hearing officer has requested additional comments
by September 23, 2011.
On motion by Packard, the Commission adopted the following:
RESOLUTION NO. 513. CONSIDERING PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR A SECOND POWER
PLANT PROPOSED BY NRG AND PROVIDING COMMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION AND THE ASSIGNED COMMITTEE.
AYES: Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Douglas, Blackburn
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ADJOURN JOINT SPECIAL MEETING AND CONVENE REMAINDER OF CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP:
Mayor Hall reconvened the City Council Workshop at 1:25 p.m., with five members present.
4. Discussion re Efficiency and Effectiveness: None.
5. Council Priorities:
Ms. Hildabrand passed out the Council Priority Project Worksheet and explained its format. This
worksheet, dated September 20, 2011, is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
City Council Workshop September 20, 2011
Council asked for updates on the following projects:
• Car Country Carlsbad Working Group
• Westfield Lease and Project Review
• Alga Norte Community Park
• Prop D Implementation
Council Member Douglas requested that Council consider establishing a policy to give priority to local
businesses in the bid process.
6. Discussion of Feedback and Communications: None
Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
«tz,
Assistant City Cle!
9/19/2011
Reemployment of
Retired Annuitan ts
Julie Clark
September 20, 2011
'^-', •"
t^-V
Two Distinct Post-Retirement
Reemployment Methods
CALPERS
Retired
Annuitant
- Govt. Code
CalPERS rules and
regulations
Independent
Contractor
- Purchasing Ordinance
-IRS Regulations
- Cargill case
9/19/2011
^i
Temporary Employment of
Retired PERS Members
General Rule:
Retiree receiving PERS retirement allowance
is not permitted to work for...a PERS
contracting agency without first being
reinstated
However...
There are always exceptions to every rule!
Statutory Exceptions
-Governing board of contracting agency:
• Leave of absence of regular employee
exception
:•• Litigation exception
Special skills or to prevent stoppage of work
(21221(h)) exception
• * ,-*
CARLSBAD !jfci*"~~~
9/19/2011
Statutory Exceptions (cont.)
sf.
CalPERS:
:• "Special position" exception
•••Disability retirement exception
Statutory Exceptions (cont.)
"Appointing power" of public agency:
• Special skills or to prevent stoppage of work
(21224) exception
• •' > tV ".
CARLSBAD
v
•'-../£ ^'TSfc*
9/19/2011
.
'-
Ifce of Retired Annuitants
Workload spikes
Work-related injuries
Maternity leaves
Vacations
Hard to fill positions
Background investigations
Limited term special projects
Retired Annuitants Working
Under the 21224 Exception
Can be:
• Working up to 960 hours in
^ a fiscal year
?• On call, as needed
?|» Used for supplemental,
* seasonal type work
]• Used to fill gaps for regular
j employees
I* Used for special projects
Cannot be:
• Working on a continual
basis
• Working in a regular, part-
time position
.... <«Mfei
CARLSBAD i!/f *'*&
9/19/2011
Cost Comparison Example
EXAMPLE: BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS
Retired annuitant
Hourly rate Hours/year Annual cost
$ 25.00 1918 $ 47,950
-, Hourly private investigator $ 125.00 1918 $ 239,750
*.*?.
• "<<"i"..- | Assumption:
f External investigator would use the same number of hours "on an annual basis as a retired annuitant.
>..,1.t .«
Council Policy Options
Follow CalPERS rules and regulations and state;
law without a formal policy :
Adopt a policy to formalize the City Council's
intent to follow existing rules and regulations
Adopt a policy to make the rehiring of retired
annuitants more restrictive
9/19/2011
More Restrictive Policy Options
Prohibit the reemployment of retired
annuitants
Reduce the number of hours that can be
worked in a fiscal year to < 960
Limit the number of fiscal years that can be
;'-i worked
'"':4:?.'-1« Impose a waiting period between the date of
i. I retirement and the date of rehire
Separate Council Policy Follow CalPERS regulations
Demonstrate transparency
Standardize the way all
retired annuitants will be
treated
Provides a way to customize
city's practices if we want to
make them more restrictive
City is already in compliance
with CalPERS rules and
regulations
Regulations governing this
issue are extensive and
subject to change
May open city up to legal
challenge if regulations
change and we are not
complying with our policy
9/20/2011
Best Value Services Plan
City Council Workshop
September 20, 2011
Background
• Transition to build out
• On-going commitment to quality and value
• Changing economic environment
• Greater government transparency
• New government service delivery models
Research
Quantitative and qualitative research studies
conducted by other cities and trade organizations
Academic research
Articles from newspapers and trade publications
Case studies from other cities and public agencies
White papers compiled by industry experts
Interviews with representatives of cities
9/20/2011
Research Findings
Current Status
•^Research
^Initial City Council Workshop
^Department/Management Meetings
^Document Lines of Business/Major Services
across the city
^Developed framework for Best Value Services
Plan
>City Council Workshop
Assumptions
Maintain current, high quality service levels
Independent third party expertise where
appropriate
Consistent methodology for cost analysis
Internal and external providers will be able to
compete
Meet and confer considerations
Process will be refined/improved overtime
9/20/2011
Best Value Services Plan
Phase I
Phase 2
Phase 3
Best Value Services Plan
Phase I
Phase 1: Initial Screening
Purpose: To select Lines of Business/Major
Services for operational assessment
9/20/2011
Best Value Services Plan
Phase I
Phase 2: Operational Assessment
• Purpose: Determine if Line of Business/Major
Service is a candidate for managed
competition or alternative delivery model
Best Value Services Plan
Phase I
Phase 2
9/20/2011
Best Value Services Plan
Phase I
Phase 3: Managed Competition
Purpose: Determine the best value provider
for the Line of Business/Major Service
Best Value Services Plan
Phase I
Phase 2
Phase 3
9/20/2011
Phase 4: Performance Management
Purpose: to ensure the effective delivery of
services
Best Value Services Plan
Phase I
Best Value Services Plan
Phase 2
9/20/2011
Outside Experts
Phase 1: Initial Screening
— Assist city team in evaluation/confirmation of
candidate(s)
Phase 2: Operational Assessment
— Assist city team in determining current service levels
and outcomes
- Develop/conduct cost and quality analysis and
prepare report and recommendations
- Assist city team in reporting recommendations to City
Council, city management and staff
Outside Experts
Phase 3: Managed Competition
- Assist city team in preparing RFP
- Assist city team in evaluating proposals
- May assist in development of implementation
plan(s)
Cost estimate:
- $10K to $25K for screening/cost methodology
- $25K to $50K for assessments/evaluation
Public Involvement
• Not Required
-May provide higher level of
transparency and legitimacy to the
process
-If scope too broad or size too large,
could add time to the process
9/20/2011
Public Involvement Options
• 5 Member Committee
• 2 Community Members
• 2 Staff Members
• City Manager
• Community participant selection process
— Development of criteria for selection of community
members
- Nomination by City Council/final selection by Mayor
Best Value Services Plan
Public Involvement Option
Phase I
Phase 2
Phase 3
Timeframe
Phase 1 Initial Screening - completed by end of January
2012, includes selection of 1st group of candidate(s),
experts, and community participants (if desired)
Phase 2 Operational Assessment - completed in 2-4
months, including cost and quality analysis, report and
recommendations
Phase 3 Managed Competition - completed in 6-9
months, including readiness period, RFP, selection of
service provider
Implementation - Time would depend on service and
provider selected
9/20/2011
City Council Direction
• Initiate Best Value Services Plan as
presented and direct staff to begin
implementation
• Public Involvement
• None
• 5 Member Committee Option
• Other Ideas
Questions
Best Value Services Plan
Phase I
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
C I T Y O F
Council Priority Projects CARLSBAD
FY 11/12
Priority Goal/Project Title Status Responsible Dept.Team Leader
Current
Milestone
Complete
Estimated
Project
Completion
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
*
*
*
Partner with property owners in the Village to create
a "Main Street" type program to spur local
investment and foot traffic.
Launch a business attraction and retention program.
Streamline city processes to support faster
turnaround times & more efficient handling of
business requests:
- Development Review Process Recommendations
- Prop D Implementation - CCC Process
- Business License Process Streamline
- Car Country Carlsbad Working Group
CURRENT MILESTONE: H&R Commission appointmented five citizens to sub-committee at
8/23/11 Workshop. Sub-committee will assemble and evaluate proposals.
NEXT MILESTONE: Recommend preferred proposal to H&R Commission and obtain approval
to negotiate contract scope of services.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Outreach visits ongoing; 2 of 12 leadership visits complete; 7 of 50
staff visits complete; have met with 7 companies considering expansion in, or relcation to
Carlsbad.
NEXT MILESTONE: Develop list of target type companies for attraction & develop a
communication outreach strategy. Complete Tech Incubator RFP selection.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Title 20 CMC amendments for Vesting TM's Ordinance Adoption
scheduled for 09-13-11 CC Hearing. "Decision Making Level" proposed amendments out for
public review.
NEXT MILESTONE: Schedule "Decision Making Level" amendments for PC and CC hearing.
Submit LCPA CMC Amendments to CCC.
CURRENT MILESTONE: LCPA application submitted to California Coastal Commission in
07/11. Achieve "complete status" on LCPA submittal to CCC by September 2011.
NEXT MILESTONE: LCPA scheduled for CCC Hearing.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Initial meeting held, working on process flow and identifying best
practices.
NEXT MILESTONE: Identify improvement and streamline measures.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Staff working on work program schedule and cost estimates for CC
consideration in 2nd Quarter FY 11/12.
NEXT MILESTONE: Work program schedule and cost estimates to CC for consideration by
end of 2nd Quarter FY 11/12.
CM
CED
CED
CED
CED
CED
J.Coates
K. Dodson
G. Barberio
G.Barberio
K. Dodson
G. Barberio
Oct. 2011
Oct. 2011
Sept. 2011
Sept. 2011
Sept. 2011
Dec. 2011
Jan. 2012
June 2012
Dec. 2012
Dec. 2012
June 2012
June 2012
* = FY 11/12 Priority 9/20/2011
1 of 7
Council Priority Projects
4 •£ CITY OF
> CARLSBAD
FY 11/12
Priority
*
*
Goal/Project Title
Expand the amount and quantity of useful city
information available to businesses:
- Economic Development Communications Plan
- Development Services Manager Communications
Plan
Proposed Power Plant
- Power Plant State permitting
- Power Plant Land Use Amendments
Westfield Lease and Project Review
Envision Carlsbad Phase II - General Plan Update
Status
CURRENT MILESTONE: Website updated, Broker's Forum held 9/8/11, property search tool
has gone live on website, second e-newsletter sent, planning Isis opening media blitz.
NEXT MILESTONE: Develop Biomed company attraction communication outreach piece by
12/11.
CURRENT MILESTONE: CBJ article ran in September edition. "How to" guide for
homeowners and developers completed and posted to web and available at Dev Services
counter. Development of video explaining the role of the Development Services Manager
underway.
NEXT MILESTONE: Video completed and available in October. Update website pages to
provide clear information.
CURRENT MILESTONE: EPA Review.
NEXT MILESTONE: Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES Permit.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Draft text changes considered by PC considersation on 09/07/11 and
CC consideration on 09/27/11. Final report on moritorium to CC on 09/27/11.
NEXT MILESTONE: CC hearing in Sept.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Finalize lease deal points with Westfield. City Attorney coordinating
w/Westfield
NEXT MILESTONE: Return to Council in closed session to review final deal points.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Task 2 - Draft Land Use Alternatives presented to ECS on 08/10 and
PC on 08/17. Two community workshops on land-use alternatives in November, web
feedback Nov/Dec.
NEXT MILESTONE: Report to PC & CC results of alternative analysis and community
feedback, February 2012.
Responsible Dept.
CED
CED
PEM
CED
PEM
CED
Team Leader
K. Dodson
M. Peterson
J.Garuba
D. Neu
J. Garuba
G. Barberio
Current
Milestone
Complete
Sept. 2011
Oct. 2011
TBD
Sept. 2011
Nov. 2011
Nov. 2011
Estimated
Project
Completion
June 2012
June 2012
TBD
Dec 2013
TBD
Dec. 2013
* _= FY 11/12 Priority 9/20/2011
2 of 7
CITY OF
Council Priority Projects CARLSBAD
FY 11/12
Priority Goal/Project Title Status Responsible Dept.Team Leader
Current
Milestone
Complete
Estimated
Project
Completion
FINANCIAL HEALTH
*
*
*
*
Streamline city operations to ensure balanced
budget & most efficient use of resources:
Complete a plan to maximize the value & use of city-
owned real estate
Implement golf course operational improvements to
reduce operating subsidies
Public/Private Salary Survey
Constituent Relationship Management Program
Maintenance and Operations Center Construction
Desalination Plant Review
Human Capital Management System
CURRENT MILESTONE: Presentation of draft Best Value Services plan at 9/20 City Council
workshop.
NEXT MILESTONE: Revise plan as directed and begin implementation.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Retain financial property consultant and initiate highest and best use
analysis.
NEXT MILESTONE: Prepare draft report.
CURRENT MILESTONE: 18th hole green design.
NEXT MILESTONE: 18th hole green construction. Tentative October Council Workshop to
discuss dedicated players lounge.
CURRENT MILESTONE: September 2011-Meet with City Manager to outline scope of the
project.
NEXT MILESTONE: November 2011-Select compensation consulting firm to assist on the
project
CURRENT MILESTONE: Release RFP for CRM solution.
NEXT MILESTONE: Evaluate CRM proposals and negotiate with vendor; secure services of
external project manager.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Retain consultant to prepare performance specifications and
authorize design-build process.
NEXT MILESTONE: Prepare performance specifications and bridging documents and
authorize solicitation for design-builder.
CURRENT MILESTONE: City Council to consider approving agreement with CWA on 9/13
NEXT MILESTONE: Enter Reimbursement Agreement with Poseidon.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Finish parallel testing.
NEXT MILESTONE: Go live with all of Phase 1 deliverables no later than January 1, 2012.
CM
PEM
PARKS & REC
HR
LIBRARY
PEM
UTILITIES
HR
CMT
D. Mauser
C. Hazeltine
J.Clark
D.Curtis
P.McGarry
G. Pruim
J. Clark
Sept. 2011
Oct. 2011
Dec. 2011
Sept. 2011
Sept. 2011
Nov. 2011
Sept. 2011
Sept. 2011
Ongoing
Jan. 2012
Apr. 2012
TBD
Oct. 2012
March 2015
Sept. 2011
TBD
* = FY 11/12 Priority 9/20/2011
3 of 7
CITY OF
Council Priority Projects CARLSBAD
FY 11/12
Priority Goal/Project Title
Hydro Electric Project
Labor Negotiations
Status
CURRENT MILESTONE: Select preferred equipment provider and obtain Council direction on
whether to proceed with project based on latest information.
NEXT MILESTONE: Finalize design, obtain FERC approval and advertise project.
CURRENT MILESTONE: 2nd tier for all miscellaneous employees approved by City Council.
NEXT MILESTONE: Begin negotiations with Carlsbad Police Management Association and
Carlsbad Fire Association.
Responsible Dept.
UTILITIES
HR
Team Leader
B. Plummer
J. Clark
Current
Milestone
Complete
Sept 2011
Oct. 2011
Estimated
Project
Completion
Sept. 2012
Dec. 2011
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
*
*
Improve traffic flow by upgrading & synchronizing
all traffic signals on major thoroughfares throughout
the city, beginning with Palomar Airport Road and El
Camino Real.
Install lighted, pedestrian friendly crosswalks along
Carlsbad Boulevard in the Village & other areas with
heavy foot traffic.
La Costa Avenue Traffic Calming
CURRENT MILESTONE: Install equipment and connect to TMC on ECR & PAR.
NEXT MILESTONE: Implement Phase 2 to install equipment on remaining primary corridors.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Prepare staff report outlying ped crossing options.
NEXT MILESTONE: Present staff recommendations to TSC.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Submit community vision plan for La Costa Ave. for Council
consideration.
NEXT MILESTONE: Depends on Council direction.
TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION
D.Bilse
Bryan Jones
D.Bilse
Dec. 2011
Oct. 2011
Oct. 2011
7/2013
12/2012
TBD
PARKS, OPEN SPACES AND TRAILS
*
Alga Norte Community Park:
- Finalize Alga Norte Park operating plan
- Construct Alga Norte Park
CURRENT MILESTONE: RFP draft currently being reviewed and will be distributed in October
2011.
NEXT MILESTONE: Pre-submittal meeting November 2011.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Retain Bridging Consultant and obtain Council approval for
Design/Build Process
NEXT MILESTONE: Prepare performance specifications and bridging documents and obtain
Council authorization for solicitation of design-build contractor
PARKS & REC
PEM
C. Hazeltine
D. Mauser
Sept. 2011
Sept. 2011
Jan. 2012
Nov. 2014
= FY 11/12 Priority 9/20/2011
4 of 7
C I T Y O F
Council Priority Projects CARLSBAD
FY 11/12
Priority
*
*
Goal/Project Title
Create new coastal land for recreation & economic
development by completing land exchange w/ the
state for the Manzano property & realigning
Carlsbad Blvd.:
- Carlsbad Blvd. Preliminary roadway design and
environmental review to facilitate land exchange
Expand the amount of open space & trails in the city
through active monitoring of potential acquisition
sites and partnering with others, where possible, to
leverage taxpayer funds.
- Lake Calavera Master Plan Implementation
Landscape improvements to Pine Park (Madison
Property)
New restrooms at Pine Park
Status
CURRENT MILESTONE: Complete appraisal of lands.
NEXT MILESTONE: Identification of lands to be exchanged.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Submit PSA contracts for CC consideration.
NEXT MILESTONE: Consultants update land exchange schedule.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Staff continues to explore potential open space acquisition and
partnerships as opportunities become available. Council recently approved purchase &
agreement for 30 acres of county gnatcatcher Core Area Conservation Credits (AB 20,637).
(formerly known as Perkins Property)
NEXT MILESTONE: Scheduled second of on-going quarterly meetings with appropriate staff.
Staff is scheduling improvements for trail acceptance of 1.25 miles of trail easement in Santa
Fe Trails in SE Carlsbad near Encinitas and La Costa Canyon H.S.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Complete construction documents. (Note: will continue to make
improvements to upland trails while awaiting agency permits).
NEXT MILESTONE: Start construction of boardwalk (contingent on agency permit success).
CURRENT MILESTONE: Construction underway.
NEXT MILESTONE: Project complete.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Prepare plans and specifications.
NEXT MILESTONE: City Council to authorize bid.
Responsible Dept.
CM
TRANSPORTATION
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
Team Leader
C.Haas
S. Hammann
C. Hazeltine
L Ketabian
M. Steyaert
M. Steyaert
Current
Milestone
Complete
Sept. 2011
Oct. 2011
Oct. 2011
Nov. 2011
Sept. 2011
Oct. 2011
Estimated
Project
Completion
Ongoing
July 2013
Ongoing
May 2012
Oct. 2011
Aug. 2012
BALANCED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
*
Housing Element Program Implementation
CURRENT MILESTONE: Amendments to HE to update timelines as directed by court order in
Friends of Aviara lawsuit approved by CC on 07/26; F of A has appealed court decision.
Program 2.1 amendments (minimum density/mixed-use) to PC in Nov, 2011.
NEXT MILESTONE: Implement various programs in adopted Housing Element.
CED D. de Cordova Nov. 2011 Apr. 2013
* _= FY 11712 Priority
9/20/2011
5 Of 7
C I T Y O F
Council Priority Projects CARLSBAD
FY 11/12
Priority Goal/Project Title Status Responsible Dept.Team Leader
Current
Milestone
Complete
Estimated
Project
Completion
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Agua Hedionda dredge project
Solid waste strategy and contracts
Vista-Carlsbad interceptor
Sewer Master Plan
CURRENT MILESTONE: Secure agency permits and approval of mitigation plan.
NEXT MILESTONE: Council approve plans and authorize project advertisement.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Prepare long term collections and disposal draft agreements with
WM and Allied.
NEXT MILESTONE: Approval of agreements by Council.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Planning Commission Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration
and associated permits.
NEXT MILESTONE: Council approval of MND and associated permits, resolve outstanding
utility issues, acquire necessary easements.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Complete Encina Canyon Multi-Agency Relief Sewer Study.
NEXT MILESTONE: Integrate above study into Sewer Master Plan, prepare required PEIR and
incorporate information into CIP and replacement funding program.
UTILITIES
UTILITIES
UTILITIES
UTILITIES
G. Pruim
C. Ruess
T.Smith
T.Smith
Mar. 2012
Oct. 2011
Oct. 2011
Sept. 2011
Nov. 2012
Jun.2012
May 2013
Apr. 2012
SAFE COMMUNITY
Joint First Responders Training Facility (JFRTF):
- Construct JFRTF
- Prepare Operations Plan
Fire Station 3 relocation
CURRENT MILESTONE: Under construction - completion scheduled for 1st Qtr. 2012.
NEXT MILESTONE: Deliver project to owner for operation.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Approve consultant contract and begin preparation of Operations
Plan.
NEXT MILESTONE: Prepare draft operations plan.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Complete the design.
NEXT MILESTONE: Obtain Council approval to issue plans & specs for bid.
TRANSPORTATION
PEM
PEM
P. Vaughan
D. Mauser
P.McGarry
Mar. 2012
Sept. 2011
Aug. 2012
Mar. 2012
Mar. 2012
Summer 2013
* = FY 11712 Priority 9/20/2011
6 of 7
C I T Y O F
Council Priority Projects CARLSBAD
FY 11/12
Priority Goal/Project Title Status Responsible Dept.Team Leader
Current
Milestone
Complete
Estimated
Project
Completion
WATER
Water Master Plan
Recycled Water Master Plan
Recycled Water Phase III Feasibility Study and North
County Cooperative Use Project
CURRENT MILESTONE: Complete Draft Master Plan.
NEXT MILESTONE: Prepare required PEIR and incorporate information into CIP and
replacement funding program.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Complete Draft Master Plan.
NEXT MILESTONE: Prepare required PEIR and incorporate information into CIP and
replacement funding program.
CURRENT MILESTONE: Complete Phase ill Feasibility Study.
NEXT MILESTONE: With Council approval, select preferred project, apply for grants/loans,
obtain agreements/letters of intent from recycled water purchase partners.
UTILITIES
UTILITIES
UTILITIES
B. Plummer
D.Ahles
D.Ahles
Sept. 2011
Sept. 2011
Oct. 2011
Apr. 2012
Apr. 2012
Apr. 2012
* = FY11/12 Priority 9/20/2011
7 of 7
<^U^ For the Information of the members of the
£~Jy .— . _. . — Housing & Redevelopment Commission
re: Agenda Item #1
CARLSBAD
September 19, 2011
To: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
From: CITY ATTORNEY
Subject: SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 - UPDATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENERGY COMMISSION COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS ON THE PROPOSED
SECOND POWER PLANT IN THE SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
This special meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission is necessary
as a result of a request for comments by the assigned committee of the California
Energy Commission (CEC) on, among other things, whether or not a redevelopment
permit would be issued by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission without
conditions Land-2 and Land-3. The deadline for comments is 5:00 p.m. on Friday,
September 23, 2011. Attached as Exhibit 1 to this memorandum is a copy of the hearing
officer's memorandum of Wednesday, September 14, 2011.
But for the paramount jurisdiction of the CEC, this commission would be required
to issue a redevelopment permit for the Project. At the hearing in Sacramento on
September 13, 2011, the applicant, NRG, asked for relief of conditions which it proposed
a few months previously because it had now determined they were too expensive.
Those conditions are known as Land-2 and Land-3 and basically would require
demolition and remediation of the existing Encina Power Station. Copies of those
proposed conditions are attached as Exhibit 2.
Since, as the hearing officer noted, this request by NRG was made without notice
to the other parties, he has requested additional comments by September 23, 2011.
Even though the CEC has paramount jurisdiction for the licensing of power plants
exceeding 50 megawatts, it must respect and consider local laws and regulations before
it exercises that paramount jurisdiction and then may override local law but only when
it makes the additional findings that the project is necessary despite a conflict with the
local law due to public convenience and necessity and there are no better feasible
alternatives.
City Attorney
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2891 760-434-8367 fax www.carlsbadca.gov
Page 2
If the Housing and Redevelopment Commission possessed jurisdiction to consider
NRG's application for a second power plant to be located between 1-5 and the railroad
tracks, it would be issuing that redevelopment permit under the South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopment Plan adopted in 2000 and amended in 2005. Among other things, a
proposed project in this redevelopment area must further the goals of the
Redevelopment Agency to eliminate blight. The Redevelopment Commission recently
approved such a finding for the Wavecrest Resort and Hotel which is now under
construction. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission determined that a first
class, high-quality hotel on a formerly underutilized property would help eliminate
blight.
The purpose of a redevelopment project area within a city or county is to
eliminate blight in that area. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission determines
whether or not a proposed project will do that and, if so, may issue a redevelopment
permit with conditions. In the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project area
which basically runs south from Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the southern city limits and
includes the proposed project, it must make this finding for electrical generation
projects that it serves an extraordinary public purpose within the area.
For certain specific uses the Housing and Redevelopment Commission requires
that those uses serve an extraordinary public purpose. Among those uses were
desalination projects and projects for the generation of electrical energy.
This Commission has made the finding of an extraordinary public purpose for the
desalination plant (Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution Number 420,
adopted on June 13, 2006). Among other things, the extraordinary public purpose was
served by the safe, reliable and secure local water supply at a favorable price, a class-A
looking office building housing the desalination plant, and the dedication of land and
resources over and above what would normally be required from any other
redevelopment project.
On June 15, 2011 and again on June 30, 2011, the California Energy Commission
considered the recommendation of the Committee that the siting of a second proposed
power plant with the inclusions of Land-2 and Land-3 would present extraordinary
public benefits in the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan. The Commission was
not convinced that it should license the proposed project and remanded the case for
reconsideration by the Committee (attached is a copy of that order dated June 30,
2011). Under that order, the committee was to take additional evidence and hold
additional hearings and to consider among other things those issues associated with
Page 3
conditions Land-2 and Land-3 and their environmental impacts. The Committee may
still do that, however, as explained above, in an "unnoticed motion" NRG has requested
relief from these conditions.
Based on direction from the Committee, the applicant proposed conditions Land-
2 and Land-3 as a way to satisfy this finding. It did not submit it to the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission but instead submitted it to the assigned committee of the
Energy Commission.
City staff has opined that, the future demolition and remediation of the existing
Encina power station would eliminate a blighting condition. However, the construction
of a new power plant would present a new blighting condition since it would perpetuate
an industrial use in a coastal area better served by other redevelopment projects that
would enhance the use and enjoyment of coastal resources to the betterment of
Carlsbad citizens. However, if the CEC were to issue a license for the construction of the
proposed power plant, it would assist in eliminating blight if the existing Encina power
station were removed and land remediated. This does not, however, constitute an
extraordinary public purpose since the proposed project does not provide any benefits
over and above those normally required such as additional land dedications or
additional funds that would be used to further eliminate blight. Attached to this memo
is a staff report further explaining the background of this issue.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission
adopt Resolution No. 513 finding that the proposed 2nd power plant, without proposed
conditions Land-2 and Land-3 is not sufficient to eliminate blight and to serve an
extraordinary public purpose.
y yours
Ronald R. Ball
CITY ATTORNEY
cc: City Clerk
City Manager
Available for public distribution
Ron Bali .,n,mm_u.umm.mm..1..^_ ..._..—____—_.
From: Paul Kramer <Pkramer@energy.state.ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:30 PM
To: Gloria Smith; mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com; siekmann1@att.net; e-recipient@caiso.com;
Joe Garuba; Ron Ball; megan.sebra@ch2m.com; robert.mason@ch2m.com;
allanori@comcast.net; William Rostove; Docket Optical System; Dick Ratliff; Jim Boyd;
Marlena Elliott; Mike Monasmith; Public Adviser's Office; Paul Kramer; Sarah Michael; Tim
Olson; george.piantka@nrgenergy.com; Jennifer Hein; tim.hemig@nrgenergy.com;
rob@redwoodrob.com; powerofvision@roadrunner.com; John McKinsey;
aprilsommerlaw@yahoo.com
Cc: Galen Lemei; Karen Douglas
Subject: Solicitation of Written Comments following Sept 13 Carlsbad Committee Conference
Carlsbad Parties:
During the September 13, 2011 Committee Conference discussion of the
schedule going forward, the Applicant said Conditions LAND-2 and LAND-
3 relating to the demolition and removal of the existing Encina power
plant would make it difficult, due to financial considerations, to
build the Carlsbad Energy Center Project. It asked that the Committee
first consider whether to recommend the removal of Conditions LAND-2
and LAND-3; depending on the Committee's answer, it would then decide
whether to further pursue the project.
As this request was first made during the Committee Conference without
time for the parties to consider and prepare responses, the Committee
is allowing additional time for all parties to file written comments
to supplement those made during the Conference. We invite the parties
and members of the public to comment regarding the appropriate
response to the Applicant's request. In addition, we invite comments
on the schedule going forward if we are to proceed with further
evidentiary hearings, including the appropriate time intervals between
deliverables such as the Applicants testimony, other parties*
testimony, Prehearing Conference, etc., and any vacations that you
have planned.
The deadline for submitting your additional written comments is 5:00
p.m. on Friday, September 23, 2011. File with the Commission's
Dockets Unit and serve them on the Proof of Service List as you would
any other document. A revised Proof of Service List will be out
shortly to include newly appointed Associate Member Commissioner
Douglas and her Adviser, Galen Lemei.
Following review of the written comments, the Committee will issue an
order or take other action as it deems appropriate.
i Exhibit 1
Paul Kramer
Hearing Officer
Carlsbad AFC Committee
power plant located to the west of the rail corridor with a plant to the east
of the corridor, further from the shoreline. The CECP furthers a Plan Goal
to 'Tflacilitate the redevelopment of the Encina Power Generating Facility to
a physically smaller, more efficient power generating plant." ^ / .;
9. The CECP is consistent with the PU zoning applied to the CECP site, which
allows the "generation and transmission of electrical energy" subject to
approval of a Precise Development Plan. This Commission approval
serves as the equivalent of a Precise Development Plan approval.
10. The City's urgency ordinance placing a moratorium on the processing of
permits for power plants in the coastal zone does not apply to the Energy
Commission.
116. The CECP is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not result in any
unmitigated public health or environmental impacts to sensitive receptors.
122. With implementation of Conditions of Certification LAND-1 . LAND-2 and LAND-
3j the CECP's contribution to cumulative impacts of existing and proposed
projects will not be cumulatively considerable.
50. Land Use, p. 26, add new Conditions LAND-2 and LAND-3, as follows:
LAND-2 On or before January 1. 2016. the project owner shall prepare and
; ' submit a Demolition. Removal, and Remediation Plan (PRRP) to the
CPM. the City of Carlsbad, and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency.
The PRRP shall propose the process, schedule, and legal
reguirements for the demolition, removal, and remediation of the
Encina Power Station (Units 1 through 5). associated structures, the
black start unit and the exhaust stack. As part of completion of the
DRRP. project owner shall consult with the California Energy
Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the City of
Carlsbad, the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency, the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board, the San Diego Air Pollution
Control Board, and the California Independent System Operator to
ensure the DRRP best reflects the procedural and substantive
requirements that will apply to the site.
On or before January 1. 2017. project owner shall prepare and submit
to the CPM. the City of Carlsbad, and the Carlsbad Redevelopment
Agency, a study of the estimated costs associated with
implementing the DRRP.
Project owner shall demonstrate, to the CPM's satisfaction, fiscal
capability to implement the DRRP prior to commencement of
demolition activities. Such demonstration could be accomplished by
33
Exhibit 2
submittal of a financial plan, deposit of funds into a dedicated
account, or any combination thereof.
Concurrent with submittal of the DRRP. or by a date mutually agreed
to by project owner and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency,
project owner shall initiate the process with the Carlsbad
.-' Redevelopment Agency for redeveloping the existing Encina Power
Station area of the project by submitting a redevelopment
application.
Verification: On or before January 1. 2016. project owner shall provide the DRRP
to the CPM for review and approval and to the City of Carlsbad, the Carlsbad
Redevelopment Agency, and the California Coastal Commission for review arid
comment. The City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency shall
provide comments on the DRRP to the CPM and project owner within 60 days or a
date mutually agreeable to project owner and the City of Carlsbad and the
Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency.
On or before January 1. 2016. project owner shall submit to the CPM evidence
that the redevelopment process with the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency for
redeveloping the Encina Power Station site has begun or shall submit to the CPM
evidence of a later mutually agreed upon date by project owner and the Carlsbad
Redevelopment Agency to begin the redevelopment process.
On or-before January 1. 2017. project owner shall submit the results of the study
on estimated costs of implementing the DRRP to CPM for review and approval
and to the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency for review
and comment. The City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency
shall provide comments on cost estimate to the CPM and project owner within 60
days or a date mutually agreeable to the project owner and the City of Carlsbad
and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency.
*The project owner shall report to the CPM on June 30. 2012 and every June 30
thereafter until notified by the CPM that reports are no longer reguired. as to the
progress made toward satisfaction of this Condition and Condition LAND-3. The
reports shall include all relevant information, including an assessment of the
factors which continue to reguire that any or all of Units 1 through 5 and the black
start unit remain operational.
LAND-3 On or before July 1. 2016. project owner shall submit applications for
reguired permits and approvals for demolition, removal, and
remediation of the Encina Power Station (Units 1 through 5).
associated structures, the black start unit and the exhaust stack.
Upon the commencement of commissioning activities of the project,
project owner shall request permission from the California Public
34
Utilities Commission (CPUC) to permanently shut down Units il
through 5 at the Encina Power Station and the black start unit.
Within six months following the shutdown of Units 1 through S at
Encina Power Station and the black start unit pursuant to the above
CPUC approval, and in compliance with all permits and approvals
necessary to perform such activities, project owner shall commence
, demolition, removal, and remediation of the Enci na Power Station
(Units 1 through 5). all associated structures, the black start unit and
the exhaust stack.
Verification: Project owner shall provide evidence to the CPM. not later than .
September 1. 2016, of the submitted of permit and approval applications to
required agencies for the demolition, removal and remediation.
Within six months following approval by the CPUC. project owner shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the CPM that it has shut down Units 1 through
5 of Encina Power Station and the black start unit and commenced the
demolition, removal, and remediation. Concurrent with such demonstration.
project owner shall also demonstrate compliance with any fiscal capability
funding requirements related to the CPM's approval of the financial plan for
demolition, removal and remediation in LAND-2.
Within 36 months of the start of demolition, removal, and remediation, the project
owner or its parent company shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of CPM that
demolition and removal of the Encina Power Station Units 1 through 5. all
associated structures, the black start unit and the exhaust stack and remediation
of the site is complete.
SOCIOECONOMICS
51. Socioeconomics, p. 5, Finding 8, revise as follows:
8. The project will have a construction payroll of approximately $54.6544 million.
NOISE AND VIBRATION
52. Noise, p. 8, last partial paragraph, revise as follows:
The evidence further explains that other identified projects have not progressed
sufficiently to enable the performance of meaningful cumulative impacts analyses.
(2/4/10 RT 261; Ex. 200, pp. 4.6-12 - 4.6-13.) For example, the noise impact, if any.
from the possible future widening of I-5 is speculative and impossible to discern at
the present time. The evidence indicates that the project is as much as 10 years
in the future, making the estimation of traffic levels, traffic speeds, and vehicle
noise emissions very inexact. Moreover, the project is still at the planning and
environmental analysis stage, so there is no certainty about what kind of
35
BEFORE THE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1516 NINTH STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
1 -800-822-6228 - WWW.ENERGY.CA.GOV
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR THE
CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER PROJECT DOCKET No. 07-AFC-6
ORDER No. 11-0630-1
COMMISSION ORDER ON MOTIONS OF
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, ROBERT SIMPSON,
AND CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER, LLC
This Commission Order addresses four motions pending prior to or made during the
Energy Commission's consideration of the Presiding Member's Proposed Decision
(PMPD) and Errata on June 30, 2011.
ORDER
The Commission ORDERS the following:
1. On June 29, 2011, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a New Motion for
Evidentiary Hearing regarding greenhouse gas issues, cumulative impacts and
alternatives analysis including all issues related to SDG&E's application for
approval of Power Purchase Agreements with three power plant projects. We
GRANT the motion with respect to evaluation of the impact of the three new
projects on our cumulative impacts and alternatives analysis. In addition, we
REMAND the matter to the Carlsbad AFC Committee to take evidence and
revise the PMPD as needed on those issues and in addition 1) issues associated
with Conditions Land-2 and Land-3 and their environmental impacts, and 2) the
grid reliability issues raised by the comments from CAISO during the June 30,
2011, Business Meeting. The Committee may, in its discretion, consider other
issues, with or without additional hearings.
2. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the
Commission's denial of its June 8, 2011 Motion to Take Official Notice and Re-
Open the Evidentiary Record. The Petition is MOOT to the extent that the
proposed additional evidence can be offered at the Evidentiary Hearing
described above. As to evidence not relevant to those issues, if any, the Petition
is DENIED.
Exhibit 3
Update Report on Proceedings before the CEC on September 19, 2011
Carlsbad Energy Center Project
Introduction & Background
Staff of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission present this report for its
consideration at its special meeting of Tuesday, September 20, 2011. F This
matter concerns conformance of the NRG proposed Carlsbad Energy Center
Project (CECP) with the requirements of this Commission, notably the
requirement that any proposed industrial facility to be constructed in the South
Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area demonstrate "extraordinary pubic
purpose" to the Commission.
NRG filed its Application For Certification with the California Energy Commission
(CEC) in September, 2007. The City of Carlsbad and Housing and Redevelopment
staff reviewed the application and filed its concerns with the CEC in October 2007.
To date, there has been no final decision by the Energy Commission, and a
number of issues remain to be determined. On June 30, 2011, the Commission
remanded the draft decision back to the Assigned Committee to take evidence on
a number of matters, including impacts associated with implementing Conditions
of Certification Land-2 and Land-3. Since that time, the assigned committee has
determined that the parties should consider the effects of deleting these two
conditions. Although there is a great deal of confusion, staff here requests this
Agency to determine if the CECP, without the two conditions of certification,
provides extraordinary public purpose.
The Housing and Community Development Director has submitted prepared
testimony and testified to the effect that the CECP did not provide sufficient
benefits. Recognizing the merits of this requirement, the CEC presiding members
expressed the desire for additional benefits from CECP in the proposed decision.
-i-
Exhibit 4
NRG then proposed two Conditions of Certification (Land-2 and Land-3) which
would guarantee that the entire Encina Power Station (units 1-5) would be retired
and demolished when the proposed CECP is constructed and begins operations
with date certainty on several of the required actions. Unfortunately, on
September 13, 2011 NRG asked that the CEC Committee if it Would withdraw its
requirement of these conditions and, if so, it may withdraw its application if the
Committee believes they should remain. Staff believes the CEC record will benefit
from a determination on whether the CECP meets the standard of extraordinary
public purpose.
This staff report will give a brief review of the CEC proceedings and the history of
the two Land Use conditions. It also presents and discusses the required benefits,
and the benefits proposed by these conditions Finally, it compares the proposed
benefits of the second power plant with the benefits obtained from Poseidon, the
only other industrial development to meet the extraordinary public benefit
requirement in this redevelopment area.
California Energy Commission and the CECP Proposal
Housing and Redevelopment Commission staff have been consistent over the
course of this proceeding in defending the criteria for industrial development in
the area covered by the Redevelopment Plan. Following is a brief history of this
involvement:
• Approximately two months after the filing of the CEC application by
CECP, Carlsbad filed a 9-page "Issues of Concern" which stated the
purpose of redevelopment is to "free up" property along the Pacific
Ocean and create visitor serving areas. Staff pointed out that the CECP,
as planned, gave no Encina units 1-5 retirement guarantee. Also, the
comments pointed out that the retirement of Encina 1-3 would leave
the plants in place.
-2-
In May of 2008 Carlsbad filed a document entitled "Land Use
Information", which stated that the primary purpose of the
Redevelopment Plan is to convert industrial land west of the railroad
tracks to a more appropriate land use. The comments concluded that
the CECP did not offer "extraordinary public purpose". The comments
suggested benefits for the consideration of the CEC and CECP. These
included electricity for use in Carlsbad at preferential rates and
assurances of a decrease in "blackout" possibilities. Also, the CECP
represents an incompatible land use and no certain date for Encina 1-5
decommissioning was given.
CEC staff issued its testimony (entitled Preliminary Staff Assessment) on
December 11, 2008. Staff found the CECP to be consistent with
redevelopment law as zoning was consistent and Encina units 1-3 would
be decommissioned. Carlsbad staff responded that the CECP would not
be in conformance as it represents an enlargement, not a decrease in
industrial facilities in the redevelopment area. The elimination of blight
does not occur with an addition of a power plant in this area. Ms
Fountain offered testimony that Housing and Redevelopment
Commission Resolution 401 determined that the CECP would not be in
conformance with the redevelopment plan, primarily due to the refusal
of CECP to update SP 144. Ms Fountain again testified that a binding
commitment to decommission and remediate the Encina 1-5 units was
very important in demonstrating extraordinary public benefit.
Fifteen months elapsed between the testimony and the publication of
the CEC Committee's Draft Decision (entitled Presiding Member's
Proposed Decision). This document revived the discussion on the
extraordinary public benefit standard and clearly states its uncertainty
that the CECP, as then proposed, meets that standard.
-3-
Conditions of Certification Land-2 and Land-3
These two Conditions of Certification were offered by NRG on June 3, 2011
and incorporated in the Revised PMPD. On September 13, 2011, NRG argued
against the feasibility of these conditions, and stated it may not accept a final
decision that contains the conditions, as they currently appear in the CEC's
Revised PMPD. However, the issue before the Commission is whether or not the
proposed second power plant without conditions land-2 and land-3 would meet
the test of an extraordinary public purpose. It is of note that the Energy
Commission, when it remanded this project back to the CEC committee, thought
the conditions were part of the project. These conditions mandated steps
leading to the demolition and remediation of the Encina 1-5 power plant and
were included to satisfy the requirements of the South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopment Plan.
CECP Benefits
The CECP has claimed various benefits in this proceeding. Below are listed
the claimed benefits with comments provided by staff.
(1) Consistency with the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area Plan.
CECP claims that the CECP is consistent with the redevelopment plan
and is an authorized use under the Plan. The CECP will be a smaller,
more efficient power plant which will be located on the eastern side of
the railroad tracks.
Staff agrees that the CECP will be smaller than the existing Encina units
1-5 and will be located east of the railroad tracks. However, we believe
that the CECP is not consistent with the Plan because the Plan
contemplated redevelopment of lands west of the railroad tracks for
development. The main thrust of the redevelopment plan is for land
uses west of the railroad tracks to be redeveloped to higher and better
uses. The CECP Plan is to have two power plants in the redevelopment
-4-
area instead of one. This would intensify the industrial uses in the
redevelopment area. The negative impacts could be ameliorated by a
definitive plan to retire and demolish Encina 1-5, but NRG may not
commit to such a plan. Finally, the CECP must still show that it provides
"extraordinary public purpose".
(2) Retirement of Encina Units 1-3. CECP will retire three of the five Encina
units upon the commencement of operation of the CECP. The major
benefit of this retirement would be a reduction in aquatic biota losses
due to entrainment and entrapment due to the existing once-through
cooling system.
Staff recognizes that there will be some benefit from the retirement of
these three units, but do not believe this benefit is significant. In staffs
opinion, these three units will likely be retired at the end of 2017 due to
the restrictions placed on certain coastal power plants by the State
Water Resources Control Board. CECP has recognized that construction
of the CECP cannot commence for at least a year due to the lack of an
EPA approval. If construction takes 25 months, the CECP could be
operational in late 2014, leaving a little over two years of aquatic biota
losses. The major difficulty with this CECP claim is that the CECP would
increase, not decrease, blight in the Redevelopment Area. Encina units
1-3 are housed in a massive building with a large 400 foot stack.
Retirement of units 1-3 would not result in the demolition of this
structure.
(3) The CECP could lead to the demolition of the EPS. The entire Encina
power plant could be demolished if sufficient electric capacity is
available to SDG&E so that the Encina plant would not be needed. With
the retirement of Encina 1-3 and the construction of the CECP, over 250
MW of additional capacity would be available to SDG&E.
-5-
Staff does not believe that SDG&E needs this electric capacity in order to
retire the Encina power station. SDG&E filed a request with the
California Public Utilities Commission on May 19, 2011 requesting that
the agency approve three power purchase agreements representing
about 400 MW of new capacity. SDG&E offered testimony that "the
deployment of these new units will enable the retirement of OTC and
other vintage generation." Additionally, and more importantly, CECP
has made no commitment to retire the Encina units. CECP has indicated
that they will operate Encina units 4 and 5 as long as they are profitable.
Given the lack of need for this capacity, and the lack of a definite plan
for the retirement and demolition of the Encina units, Staff believes that
the CECP does not lead to the demolition of the EPS.
(4) Local energy benefits. CECP claims that there will be local benefits, such
as increased local reliability and less local pollution. Presumably, the
increase of 350 MW of additional local capacity and the retirement of
Encina 1-3.
NRG does not offer proof that there will be increased reliability, except
for whatever benefits that may come from another power plant in the
area. We believe this benefit is very minor. With regard to the decrease
in pollution, there will be a reduction in emissions from the retirement
of Encina 1-3, but CECP, being more efficient, would likely operate more
hours per year and thus there may not be any benefit.
(5) Electric grid benefits. NRG claims that the California electric grid will be
more efficient and that the CECP will help integrate renewable
resources into the grid.
Staff believes these are area-wide benefits and do not serve any
purpose of the redevelopment plan. Additionally, Staff believes that
these grid benefits will be provided by the three projects under review
-6-
bytheCPUC. Staff believes SDG&E is in the best position to determine
threats to grid reliability and to contract with electric generation
projects that will make the grid more efficient and assist in the
integration of renewable resources.
(6) Tax benefits. CECP will contribute to the local tax base.
Staff is of the opinion that an alternate redevelopment project may
provide greater tax increment benefits to the redevelopment agency in
the long run. Although the CECP represents a sizeable investment, tax
increment revenues from the CECP are likely to be less than tax
revenues from a redeveloped area west of the railroad tracks. Staff
does not believe this item represents any local benefit.
(7) Decommissioning of oil tanks. CECP will decommission and demolish
three oil tanks in order to construct the CECP. The CECP and attendant
electric equipment will be constructed in the area freed-up by the
removal of these tanks.
Staff does not believe there are any benefits to the removal of these
unused oil tanks as the CECP will be constructed in the space vacated by
the tanks. There is no redevelopment benefit in replacing one industrial
facility with another.
Poseidon Desalination Extraordinary Public Purpose
Staff here presents a brief review of the benefits provided by the Poseidon
desalination project. TheCommission may want to use the Poseidon benefits as a
baseline point of comparison with the CECP benefits. It is instructive that
Poseidon will occupy four acres and will be housed in a class A building that is
only 35 feet high. The CECP, on the other hand, will occupy 30+ acres, will have
stacks 139 feet high and will be an exposed industrial facility. Poseidon offered
the following benefits:
-7-
(1) Secure supply of potable water, at an attractive guaranteed price. This
benefit is local in nature and helps secure a long-term supply of water
for the city of Carlsbad.
(2) Dedication to the public of the Hubbs site for the expansion of the fish
hatchery
(3) Dedication to the public of the fishing beach on the Agua Hedionda
lagoon
(4) Dedication of the bluff area on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard for
recreational and coastal access purposes, and
(5) Dedication of the parking lot on the south end of the Encina parcel.
Issue Presented to Redevelopment Agency
The CEC Assigned Committee, in its draft decision, stated that it found that
there are benefits but it was not yet convinced that the benefits rise to the
"extraordinary" level. The Energy Commission remanded the draft decision back
to the CEC assigned committee to take evidence on a number of issues, including
issues associated with Land-2 and Land-3. Despite this direction, NRG appears to
have asked for a determination of conformance with Carlsbad's redevelopment
law without these conditions.
It is staffs recommendation that the Redevelopment Commission clearly
articulate that the inclusion of Land-2 and Land-3 is a minimum requirement for
project approval and that the development of an additional power plant clearly
contravenes the expressed purpose of the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment
Plan.
-8-
CITY OF
CARLSBAD
For the Information of
Members of The City Council
re Joint Special Meeting
Agenda Item#l
September 19, 2011
To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
From: CITY ATTORNEY
Subject SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF TUESDAY, SEPTERMBER 20, 2011, FOR
AN UPDATE OF THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED SECOND PO WER PLANT IN CARLSBAD
At its meeting of Tuesday, September 13, 2011, the assigned committee of the
California Energy Commission through its hearing officer determined that additional
comments were necessary in response to the applicant's, NRG's, unnoticed request for
relief of proposed conditions to site certification of its proposed power plant, conditions
Land-2 and Land-3. Under those conditions, basically a condition to site certification of
this proposed power plant would be that at some time in the future the existing Encina
power station would be demolished and the site remediated.
The Council's long-term objective for this coastal property is to be developed
with uses that enhance and improve the coastal use of this site to the betterment of
Carlsbad users and residents and such uses do not include power plants. At its meeting
of Tuesday, September 27, 2011, the City Council will be considering the
recommendations of the Planning Commission for a change in the General Plan, the
Local Coastal Plan and the Zoning Ordinance which will basically prohibit the location
and operation of power plants exceeding 50 megawatts.
In contrast to the redevelopment plan which has a limited life and a specific list of
purposes, the City Council administers the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan for
the health, safety, general welfare and betterment of the lives of all Carlsbad citizens
perpetually. It does not need to consider or approve land uses which are inconsistent
with its long-term vision.
However, the siting of power plants exceeding 50 megawatts is an exception to
this general rule, and notwithstanding a local government's laws, the Commission may
site such a project provided it consults and meets with the local government in an
attempt to correct or eliminate the non-compliance with local laws and, if the non-
City Attorney
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2891 I 760-434-8367 fax I www.carlsbadca.gov
Page 2
compliance cannot be corrected or eliminated, the Commission must inform the city
that it intends to make certain findings overriding local laws and standards. In making
those determinations, the Energy Commission must consider the entire record of the
proceedings, the impacts of the facility on the local environment, its consumer benefits
and the electrical system reliability. It cannot make those findings unless it determines
that a facility is required for public convenience and necessity and that there are not
more prudent and feasible means of achieving public convenience and necessity.
The project team will be available to answer further questions or provide further
information to the Council on the status of the proceedings before the CEC.
Ve rvxtrtrlvvvo u r s
Ronald R. Ball
CITY ATTORNEY
cc: City Clerk
City Manager
Available for public distribution