Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-28; Planning Commission; MinutesO-J CITY OF CARLdBAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER I The meeting was calle'd to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of December 10, 1975 were approved with two changes: 1) To reflect that under v7257, those in- dividuals that opposed this variance were advised of their right to appeal and to contact the Planning Departmene. if they had any additional questions. 2) Under CUP-114, the record to reflect that Com- missioner Jose said he "might" become involved in es- tablishing a Savings and Loan Association. d Minutes of January 14, 1976 were approved with one change: Should include under CUP-42(E) that the ' I applicant was advised that there were only four ~(4) Commissioners that would be voting on this applicatio and that he would need all four votes for the applica tion to be approved as two Commissioners abstained an one was absent. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Resolution No. 1213, Car1sb.ad Raceway, Larry Grismer (CUP-42E) - approved. Resolution No.' 1214, Bank of America - Continental . Services Corporation (CUP-101A) - approved. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Case No. 75-6(A), Alicante Hills - La Costa Land ComDanv - Reauest for an Amendment to the City Coun- I cil'Reiolution No. 3771, CT 75-6 (Alicante Hih) to provide two (2) additional lots for open space and park sites, and elimination of a 20' wide open space easement required by CT 75-6. Planning Director Don Agatep gave the staff presen- tation stating .that the request for an amendment to I the City Council Resolution was generated by a re- quirement to provide for park and open space facili- ties-within. the boundaries of the subdivision. One of the problems that the City has is the method by which we acquire such a park site by incorporating it into the boundaries of the subdivision. We only may require dedication for the amount of acres necessary to meet the requirements of the subdivision so even though it is a 6.2 acre site known as Lot 107 Staff is recommending an amendment to the request to require 2.3 acre dedication (generally located at the southerly end of Lot 10.7) and an approximate 0.8 L 1 . CITY OF CARLBAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION . DATE: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS acres to be required.as open space as part of the subdivision, which in, all probability will be pur- chased from park in lieu fees which are generated by La Costa Estates North. The balance of the 6.2 acre parcel (3.1 acres) would be left outside the sub- division boundaries at this time. At such time as the City and La Costa develop a mutually acceptable method by which we are going to acquire a park in the La Costa area, the City would acquire this additional 3.1 acres for park purposes. As per the Commission's request at-the January 14, 1976 of why this particular site, Mr. Agatep showed the Commission photographs of the site and told them that this proposed park had a tremendous view of the golf course and lagoon and would be a very usuabl park site. He also stated that Mr. Ed Johnson, Pa.rks and Recreation Director, was present to answer any questions. There was then a great deal of discussion by the Com- missioners about how the value of the land to be'dedi cated to the City or fees paid are determined (were advised that the ordinance is based on the Quimby Act which uses a particular formula). The Commission ers were also concerned about the $184,000 assessed valuation of the land, whether they could collect thi amount in fees and purchase land elsewhere in the Cit or if they were restricted to a particular area. The were advised by the Planning Director, City Attorney and Parks and Recreation Director that the reason for this inflated amount was that the land was assessed after improvements had been placed on the property and it was not raw land and also the Quimby Formula was used and this changes the amount. They were also advised that the park land has to be in a parti.cular park district (there are 7 park districts in Carlsbad and preferably in the subdivision itself. Bo'b Ladwig, Rick Engineering stated that he was re- presenting La Costa Land Company and they agreed with the conditions as listed in the staff report and asked that the Commission approve this request. A motion was made that this item be trailed to the end of this meeting so that a district park map could be brought in for the Commission to see. At 12:OO A.M., this item was continued. The seven districts were shown to the Commissioners. Fred Morey, Vice President, La Costa Land Company told the Commission that another reason for the high va1u.e on the land at this time was that when it was appraised the subdivision was to be multi-family instead of sing.le family as it now is and that it a1 so was developed land. A motion was then made recommending that the amend: ment to City Council Resolution No: 3771 be approved based on the findings and conditions'as outlined in the staff report. Case No. AP 76-1 and ZC472, Carltas Corporation - Request for the establishment of an agricultrual preserve with. the intent of entering into a Land Conservation Contract with the City according to the provisions of State Law (Williamson.Act) and City Council Resolution.No. 3810. The City is requesting a zone change from R-A-10 to E-A on jubject property per the requirements-of sa.ld resolution. Motion Ayes Motion Ayes J 'CITY OF CARLaBAD 3 A MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Page 3 Planning Direct0.r Donald Agatep gave'the staff pre- sentation stating that consistent with the C'ity Council's recent application and adoption of an Agricultural Preserve Guidelines and Programs, we received a-n application from Carltas Corporation (Pau Ecke) requesting the placement of some 340 acres into an ag preserve (property is 1ocated.East of. Interstat 5, east of Car Country, and north of Palomar Airport Road). The property is currently under truck crop I cultivation and is also located in the departure pattern of Palomar.Airport and on the-southerly bound ary of SDG&E's transmission corridors'. The property is currently zoned R-A-10,000 which is essentially a residential zone. Once an ag preserve has been placed on a piece of property (an ag preserv has to be prime agrjcultural land either as defined by the U.S. Soil and Conservation Servl'ce or prime in the context that even though it is not so classi- fied by the above as prime, it is prime because of high commercial production thus it has regional and statewide value) the assessed Val-ue is based on the fair market rent that can be achieved from the property (how much money can be generated from farm- land) and the value is then re-assessed. When con- sidering the tax revenue loss on an ag preserve, you must consider the net effect of other projects that will be developed during the year and look at the value to the general public as a whole rather than just isolate this one piece of property. Our General Plan has suggested that, land that is in the non- residential reserve (land that is being impacted by the airport) should be put to some other productive use other than residential land - this is probably as good a use for land in that approach or depart'ure pattern of the airport that is currently available, without substantially impacting city services. Doris Hoey, 5299 Los Robles Drive, Carlsbad stated that the property-that the property you are of speak- ing of is just south of my home. I vehemently object to the zoning being changed. Mr. Agatep then e.xplained the time limitations of the Williamson Act in that it states that a minimum contract period of 10 years must be entered into. After the first 10 years, if the property owner de- cided he wanted out of the contract, it would take him an additional 10 years to get out. If the proper. owner wished out of the contract prior to the end of the first 10 years, it would still take him 10 years to get out and his taxes would revert back to what they were prior to approval and he would face a sub- stantial- penalty. There was then discussion by the Commissioners that they felt that this ty.pe of land use was very good for Carlsbad in that it created more open space.. A motion was made recommending approval of AP'76-1 .' based on the. findings and recommendation of the Staff Report. A. motion was made recommending approval of ZC-172 based on the findings and recommendation of the Staff Report. a. ,/ .I . ..- I .. Motion Ayes Mot i on Ayes c . #CITY OF CARLJ3AD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 4 Case No. SP-l44(B) and EIR-205, SDG&E - Request for an amendment to SP-144 to Permit construction of a 400 foot single stack' to replace the four existing stacks at.the Encina Power Plant. Planning Director Don Agatep gave the staff presenta- tion and advised the Commission that "the City's ori- ginal action on the SDG&E holdings was conducied in. 1971 with the adoption of a Specific Plan for SDG&E utilities on its 680- acres east of the Pacific Ocean and south of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon.' In 1973, the City Council on request of the Company adopted ar Ordinance that amended that Specific Plan (amendment delt with the height of facilities that were to be constructed within the Specific Plan boundaries) which in effect allowed permission to construct the 400 foot stack. In 1973, the City also certified EIR-205 to the extent that it felt that the stack ' was a necessary amendment to the facility, that the major impacts were in fact visual and as a concern for certain facets of air quality, and that the mitigating measures as represented by the stack .based on information generated at that time (1973) were sufficient to justify proceeding with the project. One of the conditions of that Ordinance was that should construction of the stack not commence within one year of the approval, the permit or approval would become null and void. Because of the require- ments by other permit authorities (Utilities Commis- sion, Public Utilities Commission, State Energy Commission, Coastal Commission) construction was de- layed until December 19.75 when the final permits were secured from these agencies. By- this time, the one year had lapsed so a new application was then sub mitted to the City for processing." "The staff in analyzing the new application has found that the project as it was submitted in 1976 is identical to the project that was submitted in 1973. The staff also feels that the circumstances under which the stack is being proposed at this time are not substantially different from the circumstances which were proposed and identified in 1973. To that end, the staff did find that because of prior compli- ance to the EIR that a supplement EIR was not neces- sary. I' Mr. Agatep pointed out that ''a new problem has sur- Caced which does pose another kind of problem. For the last-several years, there has been a series of complaints filed by citizens who live in the vicinity of the SDG&E facility about certain air contamination and air pollution problems. The air pollution prob- lem has been assumed at this point to be the problem of cenospheres (this acid deteriorates paint on homes and cars). The staff has been in constant contact with the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District in trying to monitor their progress with respect to a series of studies which have been con- ducted by the APCD to find the source of the pr.oblem and if there are any suggested mitigations that can be incorporated into this application should the Planning Commission' and City Council proceed with approval. Mr. Richard Baldwin, Chief of Surveillance and Enforcement Division of the San Diego APCD is present for questions .'I ,CITY OF CARLAAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION, DATE : January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 5 "The Coastal Commission in its approval at both the regional and state levels conducted substantial in- vestigations into what were felt to be successful . or.reasonable mitigation measures to be imposed should the stack be constructed. Keep.in mind that the stack was originally recommend by EPA and the State Air Quality Control to ensure that certain ambient air levels were to be met if Encina 5 was to be constructed." "The APCD conducted two different types of studies - one is a backup report that suggests and evaluates the cenosphere problem. The other is in relation as to what effect a 400 foot stack would have to air emissions as compared to five stacks." Mr. Agatep said he was informed that a study conduct€ by the Environmental Protection Agency located in Denver has submitted a report to Mr. Baldwin. Anothe report is being conducted by the Lawrence-Livermore Lab. in Berkeley on the same problem. He added that should the Planning Commission elect to proceed .with the. staff recommendation of approval, it is recommend ed that the approval be subject to two conditions that.direct1.y involve APCD. Condition #8 is the same condition that was levied by the State Coastal Con- servation Commission in its approval. The staff is also recommending an additional condition, Condition #9 re APCD monitoring emissions from Encina Power Pl.ant and meeting State standards, Mr. Agatep gave an out1,ine of what is being proposed: "The power plant now has four generating facil-ities with four short stacks. If Encina 5 is to be built with air quality requirements, the air emissions at the site must be maintained to meet certain State requirements. If they built the fifth unit using the conventional stack, it would in fact exceed those standards. One way these standards can be met is to ha.ve a single stack for all five generators. The single stack is about 400 feet above sea level or 383 feet above the ground level at the plant. It will be located approximately in the middle of the facility. The only reason there is an amendment re- quirement to the original Specific Plan that was approved is 1973 is Condition #5 of City Council Ordinance 9279 limiting the height of all structures to 35 feet unless otherwise approved by the Specific P1 an. I' Question by Commissioner: Is this project identical to the one in 1973? .Answer by Planning Director: The project that was submitted in 1973 is the same pr0jec.t .as submitted now, identical. The conditions of approval are the same conditions in essence as the conditions that were contained in the original Ordinance with several exceptions: 1) requirement for additional mo:nitoring equipment or funds to monitor said 'APCD requirement; 2) include as part of the Specific Pslan any mitigatio measures which APCD should require at such time as their findings have been'made; 3) condition #3 that has "omit" written through it is a condition that was placed on the original S.P. for a period of one year. Staff is suggesting that this condition not be applied to this particular application. Should some subsequent action by another approving agency or by anybody else cause delay, the request would be back I I ,CITY OF CARLaBAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7330 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Page 6 again in two years. The staff, ther.efore,.does not feel it would se,rve a useful purpose to put the two year construction limitation. Question by Commissioner: Mr. Baldwin; when do you anticipate receiving the information from Livermore? Answer by Baldwin: Yesterday, they‘ told me. it would take about two weeks to perform the study and I would imagine another week to write the report. The Liver- more Study originally was to be the lead study with the EPA Study as a backup for the sam.e a‘nalysis - it now turns out th.at EPA is the lead study and Lawrence Livermore will be. the backup study. Question by Commissioner: With these changes you are making in conditions, one might assume that by puttin these changes in and making these conditions a part of consideration for this evening that’these studies and minitoring are an onging thing and do you feel that by changing these conditions as you outlined that it would be within the City’s power for curting what ills might be found in these reports as they go on? If new information on problems or there are solutions found in subsequent reports, what guarantee does the City have that they will be complied with? Answer by Plann.ing Director: Condition #10 of the Staff Report indicates that every five years or before the fifth year anniversary that the staff will review the project as it was presented this year with all the applicable cond,itions to ensure compliance and especially paying attention to new circumstances or regulations which may be defined by other regula- tory agencies and in this particular instance, APCD. The City has the obligation to make sure that ‘air quality standards and ambient air standards are being met at the highest levels within the City and what- ever regulatory agenci’es that we need to assist us in performing those evaluations will elect to do so. Question by Commissioner: Re Ordinance No. 9279, Condition #3, re leasing of park lands - have we resolved the leasing of-park-lands from SDG&E? Answer by Planning Director: Yes; the City has enter into an agreement with the Company for some 90 acres at the SE corner of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon (area east of the freeway and includes some of the beach facilities on the south shore plus some of the area adjacent to the would be Cannon Road alignment).. Ed Gabrielson, SDG&E, Land Engineering Supervisor - indicated ‘there is a tremendous amount of material availab1.e on Encina stack and the Planning Commission staff has s.uccessfully summarized it in a report. Our presentation tonight concentrates on the Air. Quality aspects of Encina using the proposed 400 foot stack. With me tonight is Bob Lacy, Manager, ... Mechanical Engine.ering Department of SDG&E, and. he” wil1,explain the steps that our Company used to 1ea.d us to the.de.cision for the 400 foot stack. We wil.1 ! show that our proposed stack.wil1 improve the ambient air quality conditions in the Carlsbad area. Comments by Bob Lacy: “Units 1-4 at Encina each em- ploys separate 50 foot stacks from the top of the building and 190 feet from the ground level for the discharge of flue gases. Because we were concerned , .. . . .. .. CITY OF CARLaBAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 7 about the affect of concentrating this much generatio at Encina and the effect of that on air quality, we . commissioned Stanford Research Institute to perform in the field measurements to determine.the impact on ambient air quality of the operation of Encina Units 1, 2 & 3. At that time, just those three units were in operation. We also asked SRI based on their field measurements to predict the effect of emissions from Units 1-5 on the surrounding environment. SRI con- cluded that the emissions from the existing Units 1-3 were well within ambient standards. They also pre- dicted that with Units 1-5 in operation, the Calif. Ambient Air Standard for SO2 could be periodically exceeded during adverse meteorological conditions. I should point out that the specific standard we are co cerned with and the reason we are requesting approval for this stack is the State 3mbient standard for 24 hour ambient standard for SO . We foresee no Problem in meeting other State or local limits. With the in- formation we obtained from SRI, we decided that we si ply couldn't commit at that time to a given stack design without additional study, so we hired the Bechtal Power Corporation to do additional studies and the resu.lts confirmed the SRI prediction and indicated the ground level concentration of SO2 with Units 1-5 in service could periodically exceed this 24 hour standard. It was SDG&E and not the Air Resources.:Board or the APCD that was concerned about roblem, identified it and suggested an appropriate So. ution to that problem. It was clear to us at that time that with the results of th Becktal study and th SRI study that the 5th '190 ft. stack was out off the question if we were going to comply with all of the standards. Some means of more adequate1 controling SO? concen- tratiorts in the vicinity of {he plant had to be devel' oped. These concentrations could be reduced by either reducing SO2 emissions from the plant or by dispursing them in a way that we would avoid excessiv ground level concentration. We examined both apgroac one method of control would be burning only natural gas, but it is not available. Another way would be to control the content of the su.lphur in the oil fuel th.at we are burning. The SDAPCD has been in the fore front in requiring the use of 10s sulphur fuel and that is exactly what we are burning today ,and we have been burning it since June 1971. Another way to re- duce S02concentrations in the vicinity of the plant would be to burn oil fuel with an even lower sulphur content, but it is simply not available in the quanti. ties that we would require. Moreover, the studies that' Becktal performed indicated that even if we were to burn oil fuel with a sulphur. c-ontent as low as .03, we would. still have to put in a single stack. A second method of eliminating SO2 .emissions from the plant would be to install a scrubbing system that would remove SO2 from the flue gases before they are discharged into the at osphere. We.have been-follow- ing the progress of SOy scrubbers and have visited- installati'ons for the last several years. We commissloned a study by the architect engineer that is designing Encina Unit 5 in order to- advise us of the state of the art on scrubbing systems for oil fired power plant applications. There are a number of active programs under way to develo processes that will limit SO2 emissions. The SO scrubbing devices that are under development are chemical "C S- 3 CITY OF CARLaBAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSIOFI DATE : January 28, 1976 TIME : 7:30 P.M., PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 8 processes with their own emission prpblems, Our study informed us that there are no developed processes that will provide us 'with the assurance that we Will re2 liably meet the State's 25 hour SO2 standards. SO removal systems are still in the experimental and pro;totype stages. Most venders we have tal ked to have insisted on pilot plant test programs that would in turn lead to development of a system-for the Encina facility. Most progress in thepast 2 years with SO2 scrubbers has been with coal fired applicatiols- they are still in prototype stages for oil fired applications. The-current estimated cos't of a system for the Encina Power Plant is $100 million doll'ars (roughly the cost. of Encina Unit 5). In addition, as I pointed out, a scrubbing installation is a complete chemical processing plant with a number of separate pieces of equipment each one of them subject to failure. In add'ition to that, installation of scrubbers would require roughly our doubling the number of personnel operating the Encina Plant. On the other hand, the stack is a passive devise and simply can't fail. Also, the impact on the aesthetics enormous - the installation would require a land area of the plant with the scrubber installation would be . greater than the plant building itself and would be material, wate surge and handling areas would probably located east of the existing plant building. Feed be located south of the plant building and between the rai 1 road and 1-5. I' Slides were then shown of scrubber installations. Mr. Lacy continued. "T'he single stack would provide us with absolute assurance that the State standard for SO2 would be met. Each of the five generating units would be discharged into the stack through duct work at the existing roof level of the plant. The duct work would be hidden by raising the facade around the plant. The stack would be of unpainted concrete, similar to the existing plant building. While it has been determined that the stack will not . be a hazard to air navigation, the FAA will require that it be lighted (strobe light during the day and at night a red light). "On a separate bu't related'and we agree, important subject, a number of complaints have been filed with vour staff and with the APCD. The complaint alleges that the operation of the existing generating , units is resulting in fallout which in turn is causins damage in the vicinity of the plant. As you know., the APCD is studying this problem at this time. We have made a commitment to the State Coastal Commissior to modify the plant operating characteristics or provide additional mitigation measures if the APCD determines .that the Encina Plant is part of the pro- blem. These same procedures of control could be. applied to Encina Unit 5. Now I recognize that your st3f:f like that of the Coastal Commission looks .t-o the APCD for expertise in matters of air quality. 'I would urge, therefore, that you rely,on the commitm.e'nt we have made. to Coastal Commission. Regardless of. the outcome of this issue, however, there is no question that the proposed stack will solve the anti- cipated SO2 problem. I think it is important. We really have two separate but important issues here and we are seeking from you permission to put in a stack. This conclusion is supported by the Air Resources Board which reviewed our studies in detai 1. . ." .I . .. CITY OF CARLJ3AD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 9 The APCD conducted an independent study and has pre- dicted even greater air quality benetis than we did from the installation of the stack. "In closi.ng, I would like to make a few brief commeni about your staff's report. I feel, too, that the sti report is well done and in most cases fairly states the situation which we are all confronted with, but I do have some reservations. Condition No. 8 as Mr. Agatep pointed out is a condition similar to that imposed upon us by the Coastal Commission. In respor se to that conditions, we delivered this week a check to the APCD for $81,240 which provided the APCD with three complete aire qual i ty monitoring stations. Subsequent to the delivery of this check, we were informed by the APCD that an additional amount of about $5,000 would be required to provide interface with this equipment in their computer. We will compl with that request for additional funds, but it is our clear understanding that by providing this addi- tional money, we have met with the requirements of both the Coastal Commission condition and this condition. Because of that understanding, we would request that this condition be struck. Condition #10 appears .to us to be somewhat vague, while we have no quarrel with the intent, we would propose a slight modification in the language". Don Agatep read condition 10. SD%&E would like to modify this condition as follows: "On a five year basis prior to the anniversary' date of this approval, staff shall review this project wit regard to the circumstances and regulations defined by other regulatory agencies (APCD, PUC, CC, etc.) and report such to the Commission" The staff in discusSing their alternative does not find substantia problems with the suggested change. Commissi-oner Watson stated - if he understands the changes that are recommended by the applicant, they want to place the Coastal Commission and the Air Quality Control Board as a policing agent and take this responsibility away from the City of Carlsbad. Agatep - ''1 think that Mr. Lacy's comments on conditions #8 merely suggest it is a City .response to the Coastal Commission condition- in fact, they have met the Coastal Commission's condition, however, I would suggest to you that not only would the Coasta Commission be obligated to perform some sort of monitoring but the City be obligated to ensure that .air 'quality is being monitored". Watson- Explained he was. more concerne'd with #lo. Agatep - "The wording of #10 as proposed by the proponent is essentially the same as the word:ing we have-now. The one difference being. that the re,view is not spelled out in the City's alternative nor i.s it identified who will review the report. The applicant is suggesting that the staff conduct the review and report to the Planning Commission and City Counci 1. f ' . 'CITY OF CARLdBAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DA T.E : January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS ' Page 10 Watson - Stated he interprets #10 to mean t'hat the Public Utilities Comiqission, Coastal Commission and the Air Pollution Quality Control, etc. would then report to' the City and the City would be the policing agency. He added that it is not clear' in the conditi tions. Agatep - "It is the basic intent that should new . circumstances or other issues arise that have been identified by some other regulatory body, the City would want to be apprised of those and. in apprising the City Staff, we would want to ensure that the Planning Commission and City Council were likewise -I-! informed. 'I Watson - Stated further that he thinks we are all talking about the same thing, but would like to have a condition drawn that would reflect that in layman's terms to be understandable. Packard - Requested clarification - "Did I understand correctly that the 400 ft. stack would not change the content of the emission, but change its dispersio Lacy - That is correct Packard - "You mentioned that the SO* requirements would be met with the stack whereas with the stack it woul dn I t" . . Lacy - "The amount of SO2 would be lower because of dispersion, but the amaunt emitting from the plant would be unchanged." Dominguez - Suggested condition #10 to be changed so that the review would be primarily by the Ci.ty with recommendations of Coastal Commission, APCD, etc Also, he would like a condition for review in five years to review technology changes. Lacy - "The single stack allows us to penetrate the inversion layer, get up above it so that the emission from the plant are not trapped and held down and per- mitted to concentrate. Another concern is downwash from the plant that is caused by w.inds that hit the plant building and on the downwind side pull the fume down towards the ground - by going to a tal ler stack you would avoid this downwash situation with the plant building." Jose - To your knowledge at the Moss Landing Power Plant, has there been any experience gained as to how far the pollutants have gone inland from their stack?" Lacy - ''1 don't, have any data. I d'o know that the stacks were instrumental in solving an air quality problem in the vicinity of the harbor" Packard - Asked if this stack were not approved what are the a1 ternatives. Lacy -''I don't know'that we have any as our company cannot afford the scrubbersM Packard - Asked if the stack is necessary for Encina Unit 5. Lacy -"Yes, it is.'' 4CITY OF CARLaBAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 PM PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 11 I PUBLIC HEARING OPENER: ' The following people spoke in favor of the item. I Mr. Palm-L.eis, 3455 Valley Street, Carlsbad, CA.- ''1 am a buyer of electricity ($30.000 in one month). Anything that would hinder the'building-of a power plant expansion in this area would involve the escal- ating of consumer goods costs from the product I am. involved with, which is mining sand in the City of Oceanside for Crystal Silica Company. I.feel that there should be no reason why we shouTd hinder ,the progress of getting power available to the public. ,- Jim Langford, 4878 Park, Carlsbad, CA - Security Guard with SDG&E - txPlained he is sDeakina as a citizen. 'I He stated that SDG&E has' the most up-to-date technology that is presently available to date, and the citizens need that plant if we want Carlsbad to continue to be the community it is today. The following people spoke in opposition to the item. r Vicki E. Zamora, 3557 Madison, Carlsbad,. CA - "I-am Chairman of the Research Team for Carlsbad Community Cause and we are firmly opposed to any expansion of the Encina Power Plant. We feel that to approve such a project would be an act of greatest irresponsibility by basing such approval on the available or rather the lack of available information on Encina 5. The EIR on the Encina stack is outdated and does not provide any answers or statistics on emissions and . possible property damage as a result'of those emission One of the most recent reports on Encina 5 is a staff report by the California Coastal Zone.Conservation Commission. This provides questionable uncertainties in lieu of facts and unsubstantiated and inadequate estimates and information, the greatest part of which comes from the most non-objective source available, the developer, SDG&#. .With regard to questions of need, many people have repeatedly demonstrated how the utility companies have over-estimated their electrical needs and how the present rate structure encourages capital over expenditures. Dr. Ronald D. Doctors, who is a member of the State Energy Commissio has stated that the utility industry in California has over-estimated the State's elec-trical needs by 19% He also said that the electrical needs forecast pre- pared by the PUC recently was little more than guess work. ccording to Doctors, the PUC forecast along wit SDG&E's projected needs .ignored mandated energy con- servation measures. This winter SDG&E had a total available electrical capacity of 2,275 megawatts and had expected a peak demand this winter of 552 mega- watts which amounts to 43% reserve capacity above the anticipat.ed peak demand. The threat of blackouts is the worst king of intimidation. According to.the State's chief electrical engineer, there are other viable alternatives ava.ilable to SDG&E that would pre- clude any blackouts. He said that SDG&E officia1.s are perhaps trying to .throw a scare into the public by a. talking about blackouts if the Encina, Power Plant is.. not on schedule. .. With regard to environmental effects and the lack of data, there are some things that are known to be factual and I will list them: According to the Fish and Game Department, 45 acres of kelp have been destroyed. 2) According to SDCAPCD ... . .. . - I .. c I . 'CITY OF CARLdBAD -. MEETING OF: PL.ANNING COMMISSION DA T E,: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 PM PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page TZ SDG&E is the predominant emitter of SO2 in the basin. 3) According to the staff of the State Coastal Commission."The reduction in emissions in the San Diego Air Basin would b,e even greater i.f the alter- native capacity were located outside the basin." 4) No air monitoring has been completed or evaluated since 1973. APCD is presently condicting their study. 5) About 28,000 people will be visually affected by Encina Unit 5. 6) Local residents are suffering from property damage and possible health effects 7) The applicant SDG&E has not met the burden of proof that there will not be a substantial adversb environmental effect from Encina Unit 5. Therefore, we the research team of CCC, request a denial of Encina Unit #5. 'I Edward L. Valentine, 5019 Tierra Del Oro, Carlsbad, CA nI have been a part of your hearings in 1971 , 1973 .and this one, and I think that each one of the hearing I have heard Mr. Lacy speak. I believe it was in . 1973 hearing that Mr. Lacy made the statement thqt the stack has nothing to do with the efficiency of the plant, but it only would dump the pollutants on the head of San Marcos. Mr Lacy also made the state- ment to the effect that your condition 10 was not a part of the original application. I believe this body was warned by your City Attorney that even though SDG&E made the statement that a review would be made in five years, the City had no control, and therefore it wasn't valid. Mr. Lacy a'lso mentioned here to- night that it would.cost 100 million dollars to put a SO2 scrubber on that plant. I think if you will look at the information that is in your possession, . primarily the Westec file on S02, you will find that it says 36 million dollars. I will refer now' to your report which is titled Environmental Impact Info., page 4, that Mr John Maloney of the APCD is quoted as saying in November 3, 1975, that the 2,500 ft stacks have alleviated the problem at Moss Landing. Now Gentlemen, in the conservation this morning with Mr. Everett Martin, the Harbor Master at Moss Landing, Mr Martin stated that these stacks have not helped or alleviated their problem whatsoever and the Harbor Master stated the weekly fallout is worse than ever. Mr Martin further stated that the P.acific Gas and Electric Company operating this plant at Moss Landing is still paying all claims yearly for boat and buildin mqintenance damage. This is contrary to your report and is contrary as to why you are here tonight. This is an issue that concerns everybody in this area. On Monday, January 26, 1976, there was a meeting held here by the APCD. There was approximately 17 persons from the APCD, six residents, and 2 City Co'uncilman. Late last year we asked for a review and help from the APCD from the fallout problem and what we felt was possibly from the blowdown of the stacks as they exist today and at the time we were 'notified that there was no money available for SDG&E to buy equipment to put in the property immediately adjacent %to the plan't and there was nothing SDG&E could do about it because they didn't have the money. It is an odd thing that the moment we go out and hire a private laboratory to come in and make a test that somehow or other they find the money. It is also a very enlightening thing that they can afford to come up here with 17 people- I <CITY OF CARLaBAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 PM PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 13 During the presentation, 'Mr. Simmons brought up the point that there was 83.1% of the sulfer-dioxide pollutants from power plants such as Encina.. Mr. Lac.y has -said that the stack does not make plants more efficient, ' it merely disperses the -pollutants to the atmosphere. Now he says it penetrates the layer and I caution that I will take issue with that statement and I will prove that he is wrong if he would care to challenge me on it." Mr. Valentine indicated that he believes the City of San Diego is not allowing enough shallow draft tankers into their harbor to run the plant that they have. This requires transferring oil from Carlsbad on barges to San Diego. This will lead to oil spills. He added tbat to-operate-the fifth plant on naphtha, there would not be a need for the 400 ft. stack, reduce the oil storage, and'reduce the loadings and unloading of oil. James Thomson, Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, El Camino Real, Carlsbad - Stated there is a pet'fect air .funnel directly from the Encina Plant right up to the north half of our Mobile Home Park. We can stand -there a.nd see the entire plant. and we have alway had a direct air flow and our feeling is that this higher stack is just going to throw a lot more polluti Lois Bonser, 5219 El Arbol, Carlsbad - Submitted a reDort from the Board of Directors of the Leaque of women Voters of San Dieguito (see attached reiort). She said this report rec*ommends that an electrostatic precipitator be used to clean the pollution. Dominguez - Asked what is an electrostatic precipitata Bonser Answered that it is an electical field to attract charged particals and hold them onto a grid of some type. Watson - Asked where does the collected pollutants ga Bonser - Said they would have to be cleaned, collect- ed and hauled away. Quite often, these recovered chemicals have some monetary value to the company and can. be sold. Mary Smith, -Carlsbad, - 13 years old - 10 .years ago my family moved to Carlsbad from the Los Angeles area. The air was clean, fresh, clear and cool. Today this air is almost as bad here as it was when we left Los Angeles and hardly a day goes by that you cann0.t see the yellow haze on the horizon. My ques- tion to you Commissioners, is what will the air be like when my friends and I become your .age if it is this bad now? Though we are not of voting age, I would remind you that the future is in your hands and that the decision you make will affect our lives as well as anyone else. Joan Jackson, 1120 Chinquapin, Carlsbad - I am Civi.c Action Chairman and member of the Board of Carlsbad Community Cause. We do believe that the EIR does not address the problem of the damage caused by the disintegration of the cenospheres that is occuring in the City. In fact, the EIR states that the number of particulates will be very low. The evidence from the existing plant which is visually dramatic con- tradicts this. As well as extensive property damage, there are also unknown health effect. T 'I 'CITY OF CARLdAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 14 We also note that the Warren amendme'nt which took effect Janaury, 1'975 says that all projects must in- clude in'their EIR measures to reduce wasteful, in- efficient and unnecessary consumptiom of energy in terms of the project, which hasn't been met. One of the measures listed is that of recovery of was'ted heat we think this is particularly appropriate to this project. In view of these and other inadequacies, we feel the EIR should be updated. The APCD is now in . the process of collecting data on the pollution damage to the Citizens and.businesses in Car1sba.d that is coming from the existing plant. We be.lieve that a decision by the Carlsbad government to grant permissio should be delayed until their report is completed. Although, there is much controversy over the effective ness of different types of technology, it seems that everyone is agreed that the 400 ft. stack would not solve the problem of the damage that the citizens are now suffering. - I talked with Bill Wimer (Manager of the Moss Landing Yacht Basin), and he said that to his knowledge, no equipment has been placed on th,e PG&E plant and that certainly the .problem has not been abated. In fact, he told me that he thought it was just as bad if not worse than it had been previously. We understand that SDG&E contracted with Stanford Research Institute to study the existing pollution problem and that the study is now complete. Perhaps SDG&E would like to comment on the results of this new study. We feel that a delay is called for because the state of the arts has advanced since the EIR and equi.p ment to abate the existing problem may. make it un- necessary to erect a sta'ck of that height. Until all the data analyzed and abatement methods studied, it would be premature to grant this permit. The stack should come up for review every five years - certainly it would be prudent and responsible to de- termine if the necessity for the 400 ft. stack might not be eliminated by other equipment. We ask that the permit not be granted until all facts are in..it would be much easier to review the 400' stack before it is erected than' to wait till it is an accomplished fact. 'I Robert Yehling, 1770 Bassway, Carlsbad - age 16 - ''I am a member of the Carlsbad High- School track team and I would like to talk about the minority of Citizens in Carlsbad that are either athletes or athletically involved Citizens. Although stated by SDG&E that the addition of a 400 ft. stack would reduc air pollution, it should be pointed out that the pollu tants would be shot higher into the atmosphere and it would spread out more. Pollution and smog settle in valleys and loy lying areas, and of course, Carlsbad High School is situated in a Valley. As an athlete, we breathe a lot of air while running and doi.ng our workouts, etc. and our lungs and everyboyd else's. lungs become more and more polluted as the days go on. As every athlete knows when you work out in, 1ate.after noon on a very warm day, it seems that the smog is '. much greater and you can't work out b,ecause you 'be-: come nauseatqd and would be coughing etc. If this stack is built, I feel that the. smog is. going to be spread out more and we are going to get it over at the High School more and all athletics are going to hazardous to your health mainly because of the pollu- tion. I like to ask that the decision be defeated until pollutants can be further reduced and standards met. I feel that if this is passed ,that in a few c . 'CITY OF CARLJBAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 PM PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Paqe 15 years the pollution will be so bad that athletics will be dangerous because of the chemicals causing harsh damage to the human body. In regard to air pollution,'what goes up must come down." John Miller, 5015 Tierra Del Oro, Carlsbad, CA - asked on what meterological report did SDG&E conclude that the 400 ft. stack was going to get above the inversion 1 ayer? Lacy - Explained it was based on .three years of meterological data based on computer studies by the Bechtel Power Corporation and it is 'in the EIR. He added that a woo ft stack would allow us to penetrate the inversion. That is caused primarily by two effect one is the height of the stack itself - the other is the buoyant effect of the hot gases. 10:20 - Recess 10:30 P.M. - Reassembled and all present. I Doris Hoey, 5299 Los Robles Dr., Carlsbad .- Said she lives near the plant and the situation is getting worsl Gene Jackson, 1120 Chinquapin, Carlsbad - Said he recalls the Planning Commission asking citizens to come up with solutions for SDG&E problems for which' I assume they have a great deal of money to hire experts to do. He added tha.t the EIR needs more discussion. The EIR indicates the inversion layer is frequently limited to 1,000 feet or less in southern California." He questioned if a 400' stack could . penetrate a 1,000 foot inversion layer and is thereforc contrary to the EIR. He further stated "there has never been adequate air monitoring around the pr.esent Encina Plant. APCD knows that, SDG&E knows that: In an effort to try and get this group they will come up with equipment and say now Carlsbad don't you come up with more monitoring equipment because you might find out some other things. The affect of this stack for those of us who live here is to make absolutely in- tolerable what is a very bad circumstance now several time of the year. If you have been out in the air the last two or three months, you notice that our winds have not been exclusively westerlies as pointed out by your. sketches here ... they come from a number of different directions. Tonight I noticed that the plum was going directly towards downtown Carlsbad and that is not an -unusual circumstance at that time of day or at this time of year. The people of Carlsbad moved here so that they could be in an environment which they found pleasant, healthy, that would give them a chance to .raise their family under circumstances that they felt were admirable. If you allow this stack and the rest that goes with it, you will have taken a significant step towards destroying this City as far a: that king of family existence is concerned." Jim Hassan, 5262 Carlsbad Blvd., Carlsbad, CA - Said he thinks the Planning Commission should wait for the reports. Lew Pritten, 330 Chinquapin, Carlsbad, CA - Said he ha: gone to all of the energy meetings at the Coastal Commission in San Francisco, Los-Angeles and San Diego and has read volumes of reports and yet when Encina 5 came up to the Coastal Commission, I don't recall seeing anybody from the City of Carlsbad that belonged to the City Council or Planning Commission. CITY OF CARI'BAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSfON DATE: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 PM PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 16 He added that there has been no mention of the cost to the citizen if Encina 5 is built. Chuck Hale, 3870 Highland. Drive Carlsbad, CA - Questior ed what will happen to the pollutants after being put through the inversion layer, He thinks that the emissions will be dispersed over a larger area and thal the current technology cannot monitor the distances in- vol ved. Isodore Stone, 1060 Chinquapin, Carlsbad' - Said the stack if built will emit about 45% more- po1,lutants thar the four stacks do presently because'Enci.na, 5 is equal to Encina 4 which is equal to 1, 2 and 3 and is supposc to.be about 10% more efficient than 4, therefore, will only use a little over %' million barrels of oil a year vs. about 600,000 barrels that 4 is using. Therefore an increase in the amount of pollutants will come out of the stack. George Flanders, 2168 Chestnut, Carlsbad, CA. - Questioned condition #3 that was omitted. He felt a date would be very important because the state of the art changes and if they don't start within a certain time, then it is a whole new situation. He added that condition 9 should be changed to read: "Any future measures required by the San Diego County Air Pollution Contro-l Officer to lessen Air emissions from the Encina Power Plan are hereby incorporated as part of this Specific Plan Amendment." This was suggested to turn control over to that officer -if the City doesn' want to keep control.. H.e added that he didn't know of any .building in downtown San Diego that is as high, whereas Carlsbad has a 35 foot limit on all the other buildings. He also believes that once this co.stly stack is built the City could not request it to'come down. Mr. Flander said the bill on the survey was made askin< the people 5 question. He said "An interesting question was 5a and 5b - everything considered, do you favor replacing the 4 present stacks with a single taller stack. Do you oppose and doesn't it make a difference to you either way. Thirty three percent favored, 12% opposed and 34% no difference, 21% no * ion. So then they asked another question of the ple.that said they oppos.ed it - if you knew the fer single stack would help reduce the ground level centration downwind from the plant, even if the plar e enlapged or if more oil were burned because of a rtage of natural gas, how would you feel about lding a taller stack? Well, I don't know how much ding you have done of surveys and questions, but t to me leads the people to believe that .this stack going to get rid of the pollution which is not the e at all - it just spreads it further around. t is a pretty leading question to ask people, ticularly with the 1st question "Have you ever rd about them going to build a single stack?'' and of the people had never even heard of the idea. .- n another interesting part about that survey in the clusion - question 5b regarding the effect of the ler stack on the ground level concentration of poll- nts is highly effective in winning support for the posal by all groups of respondants. Now what kind a statement in a supposedly impartial survey? So I think what is needed is new EIR for the stack, maybe a new, more impartial survey, maybe some inclusion of material that will come from the APCD and the pending CITY OF CARL-BAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 PM PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 17. r 1 studies and I think we certainly need much more teeth" in th.ese conditions to, bring some local control over this stack.and what it is connected to so that we are not relying upon the .County Board of Supervisors to police Carlsbad." Mark Nelson, 3831 Margaret Way, Carlsbad, CA - Said he has spoken about Encina Stack and the Power Plant several times in the past year at the Coastal ,Commissio and at State Energy Commission and to th,e Public Utilities Commission examiner down. in San Diego and :mad! the following points: - "1) We hear all the time informaiton about waiting til' the facts are in, wait till you have all the informatiol to make the decision; an'd at the very least, I think that the Commission should wait till the reports on impacts or possible pollution from the plant as it ' exists right now are in just on the chance that they might have a bearing. This has been going on for 4. years.and it certainly does not seem to me that a month or a month and a half could make that much difference. 2) The EIR was compiled in 1973 and this i.s 1976 and in no other area of our lives do we feel that things have stood still for three years, ye that is essentially being what we are being told with respect to this EIR and there are some very important points made tonight that I t-hink should be evaluated and should be con- sidered. Finally, I really do feel that we need to make sure that we don't leav.e this power plant to chance and outside agencies like t.he APCD because when it comes right .down, to it, it is the City of Carl'sbad that is going to want the final say on any of these problems with respoect to pollution. We have the right and we ought to exercise it so I would. j.ust urge that a little delay is not bad in this case." A. Pal-leis, Carlsbad, CA - Asked "what would happen if the 6th, 7th or even 8th generating unit were added at .a later date for any number of reasons. . Would the stack be able to expel the added pollutants at a safe level or would a second or third or fourth stack be necessary?" Dr. John Wenrick, 6525 Camino Del Parkway, Carlsbad, said that it is a question of survival, and we are near that end. Mt. Lacy, SDG&E, in rebuttal said, ''I have been through this hearing situation many, many times and part of the time I make presentations like the one I made tonight. Part of the time I testify as an expert witness under oath; and if you desire it and if your group desires it and if your attorney knows .of a mechanism.that will permit, I would be glad.to repeat my statement right now under oath if.that is a concern to you. I think there are two issues that everybody has been talking about: 1) One is the issue that precipitated this meeting here tonight and that is - our request for the amendment to the.Specific Plan fhat would permit the installation of a 400 ft. stack. The need for that stack is predicated on our need to ensure with complete reliance that we will not exceed the State's 24 hour standard for ambient SO2 concentrations. There is no doubt and it has been verified by the ARB and the APCD that the stack will accomplish that and in addition, it will improve the ambient concentrations of all other pollutants, but the one that we are con- cerned ab out is S02. 2) The other'is related to fallout in the vicini.ty of the plant and the issue .. . . .. _. -._ .. -. of vic our gat Dom to 5. - CITY OF CAR1 " 3AD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 PM PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page' 18 is studied by the APCD right now and whether.that 2 report is here today or here tomorrow or here next wee really doesn't matter,, because the APCD already has us where they.want us. We have in the Coastal Commission proceedings to agree to a condition that. says in effec that if it is determined by the APCD that we are a par the problem (the problem being the fallout in the i .i i , dl nity of the Terramar complex) that we will amend operating procedures-and/or add additional miti-. ng devices as necessary to solve that problem." nguez - asked if the emissions were actually going ouble with the startup of the operiti-on of Encina Lacy. - No, there wi amount of emissions because we are incre plant by some 50%. emissions don't resu fact, the ambient co what we are enjoying 11 be.an increase in the total from the power with all five units asing the capacity of the power. The stack is to ensure that those It in ambient concentrations - in ncentrations will be bet,ter. than right now." I Dominguez - "Would the 45% increase in emi.ssions be to the added capacity of the Encina 5 to burn fuel?" Lacy - "That is correct." In answer to another questi Mr. Lacy said the Warren Amendment provision for energ conservation was covered by the PUC in their final environmental report and it is available. Agatep - Said the City has a copy. Ilominguez - Asked about 'figure 5A-5 that was used in. t testimony involving the penetration of critical invers layers. The figure 5A-5 doesn't match up with .the statement that is in the center paragraph on pag'e 5A. 3-3. In the figure 5A-5 it doesn't show a penetration of the critical inversion layer. Lacy -"I don't.recal1 exactly what the critical in- version height that cam out of our studies was." Dominguez - "The figure shows no footage (1,000 ft., 500 ft., or whatever)" Lac-y - The statement of the narrative is essentially correct, that the studies established as a result of the air data we had and wind direction, etc., and inversion height data made critical inversion height which existed at the same time certain wind conditions existed would result in our exceeding the standard and it was that critical inversion height that we had to design a stack to penetrate. Frankly, I don't recall what that height was." Packard - "Increasing the use of naphtha fuel would reduce the overall fuel consumption, also therefore th pollutants. Could you tell us why naphtha is not being used more?" Lacy - "It is not available in the amounts we burn in a power plant. If naphtha were available, it could be burned in a power plant." Packard -Would you burn it in this power plant if it were available? lk t t n -CI-T-Y OF CARL-3AD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 PM PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS . Page 19 Lacy -I don't think i.t is available at prices that are anywhere close to what we can afford today. Packard - "It was indicated that the higher stack would transport more pollutants than they are present1 receiving, is that true?" Lacy - There will be decrease concentration downwind. from the power plant resulting from the stack. Packard - Is the intent that once.Unit #5 is completed that you go into full production along-with the four units or is it intended that it only be placed or othe be placed in production as need would increase. Lacy - Encina Unit 5 would be operated at essentially full load all of the time and the other 4 would be cyc to meet the load. The reason that Encina 5 would tie fully loaded all of the time is because it is the most efficient unit on our system or would be and fewer . po11u.tants. Packard - What assurance is there that there would not be additional units in the future - how long is it anticipated that the five units operating as capacity would serve the needs of the area in which the SDG&E plant serves? Lacy - I think we can assume that those 5 units will be in service for the certainly forseeable future. -Units 1, 2 and 3 are about 20 years old. The five units will serv,e the needs for about another,,25 or 30 years. As the nuclear units come in up the coast., they will tend to reduce the loading on all the Encina units ... again they will be more efficient. . .. 8 Dominguez - Asked for elaboration on e1ectrostati.c precipitators. Lacy - I do not have cost figures with me.. Electrosta precipitators have been in operation for some time back east on coal units. It is ironic that the qual- ity of the fuel we are burning does not make them acceptable alternatives. We are working with a low ash low sulfer fuel and those two a.ttributes make ele.ctrostatic precipitators essentially useless for removing particulates from our stacks. They are very effective with coal units where you have high ash and hjgh sulfer. Fikes: With the size of the stack being 400 ft., you have probably given a great deal of study to what is going to happen to the particules.' If I underatand right when the Quality Air Control people come out and check if you put that stack up there and it. doesn't really do what you say, then you are going to have to come up with another alternative. Approximately, what will the stack cost you? Lacy -- $10 million dollars. Chairman - Stated the Planning Commission has a couple of choices: 1) We may close the public hearing at this time and g into our discussion 2) We can keep the public hearing open and if we de- cide that we need to obtain further information, we ca take that course and at the time it is presented the public hearing will be open for the -testimony ,. CITY OF CARL-SAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 PM PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 20 it requires. Jose' - Stated that if the application should be re- commended'for c0ntinuanc.e that the staff be directed to proceed to obtain more information'ds has been referenced in our comments and has been brought up tonight and some of the comments of our citizens in the audience be verified. I believe we should con-. sider a continuance. Dominquez - Agreed with Commissioner Jose and added that APCD study commission in Nov'ember- is ,so close to being completed and the fact tha't this particular application is so significant I don't see'how the a.pplicant could get hurt.by waiting. L'Heureux. - Asked Mr. Baldwin if this matter is con- tinued for a period of time in order to receive the informtion that you anticipate will be forthcoming, what is a realistic time table? Baldwin - Explained that a study was omitted in. that SDG&E also did an ambient study where the information was submitted to the University of Califo'rnia at Davis, they did about 20 or 30% of the work. He explained that APCDshould be receiving the informatio in two or three weeks and then a month for reviewing the data. The.Livermore Lab Study won't be here for 3 weeks. L'Heureux- Stated that it would be a. minimum of six weeks for APCD to receive the information, digest and do ,whatever work they are going to do. So we are talking about two months before the information could get to staff. He asked if the applicant would like to comment on a continuance? Gabrielson - Stated SDG&E is certainly against a continuance. This project has gone on now for severa years and it'has cost a lot of money to keep carrying this project on - also probably an underlying fact that is we feel that the conditions imposed both by your staff and by the Coastal Commission staff amply take care of any future problems or any future action that might be necessary to mitigate any adverse im-pacts should they be so shown in'the studies of the APCD. I don't know what the additional time or information is going to do for this body or the City Counci. L'Heureux - Stated another alternative would be con- tinue the matter for two weeks and in the intervening weeks, forward a request to the C.ounci1 that EIR-205 be supplemented with the additional information that we feel is necessary in order to adequately make our decision. 2) We can close the. public hearing an vote on the application as it is before us (either approving or denying it) or 3) we can continue the matter for a period of 2 months over the applicant's objection for the 'purpose of receiving additional .- informtion.. Packard - Stated that it appears the basic proposal has not changed from the time it was approved 2 years ago. Certainly there has been a great deal more interest now than there was then and a lot more concern about it. I think this body has to depend upon the agencies that are charged with determining the facts relative to pollution and- its control in Order to make a decision. I think we should continue ', CITY OF CARL-SAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 1976 TIME: 7:30 PM PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 21' and wait for reports.. I would hope that the public heari.ng would only per'tain to the information in those reports and that we would not rehear all the pre- sentations. Jose - Motion that SP-l44(B) be continued to the meeting of March 24, 1976 and staff be directed to re- turn to the Commission information from reports of the various agencies and be brought back for consideration and further evaluation. Also, up.dating the staff re- port as it relates to the conditio.ns and the EIR-205. L'Heureux - Explained it is the des'ire of ,the Cornm-s ission to continue this matter for a period of two momths to the meeting of March 24, 1976, at which time hopefully we will have a.dditiona1 information as has been requested and at that time the public hearing will remain open to receive further testimony. The' intent of the Commission is not to undertake a formal EIR amendment, but rather to have a staff report suppl ment and answer a number of the questions ra'ised both in the Commissioner's mind and on public testimony to . information in the EIR .dealing ina Unit 5 problems. Also more ing Moss landing emission control update some of the especially with Enc information concern program. Gabriels.on - Stated with the alternative of a negattve vote the- company would accept a continuance. Packard - Added that Conditi'on #11 should be reviewed since we may wish to pia-ce a time limitation.,to re- move the stack. All Ayes. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 a.m. l