Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
EIR 528; WASTE WATER TREATMENT; Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Vo ID - F- ducY 21Z 1172r Mr. James Hagaman Planning Director City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California Re: Waste Water Treatment Facili- ty, Calavera Hills Dear Mr. Hagaman: Herewith is submitted the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION for the waste water treatment tacility for the Calavera Hills area of Carlsbad. The form and application have been prepared after many conversations between you and Ed Haworth , Planning manager for Calavera Hills. Any additional exhibits that you may feel necessary will be supplied you upon request. Environmental. Impact Report Draft 403 (EIR-403) for Lake Calavera Hills Master Plan has been prepared and has passed the public review stage. Included in this EIR are the salient and pertinent environmental issues dealing with the proposed waste water treatment plant, and subsequent potentials for water reclaimation. Since this plant will be a part of the master plan for Calavera Hills we request that the environmental impact report section covering the propsed waste water treatment plant be used with this application for conditional use permit. As per our conversations with the Planning department, it is our understanding that a CUP will be the extent of th applications required to get this proposal to the Public Hearing stage. This use is allowed both by the master plan ordinance and under the Open Space ordinace. Lake Calavera Hills Associates is also requesting this CUP under Section 13.08.110 of the Municipal Code of the City of Carlsbad which deals with the issue of hardship when sewer service is not available by normal means. 2 you,2s Roy .c ?ieral partner 3088 Pio Pico Di., Suite 201 • JCaad, Ca. 92008 • (714) 7294912 LAKE CALAVERA HILLS 4321 Birch Street • Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 • (714) 549-2988 - . I No, a PP\ ID • APPLICATION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY OF CARLSBAD (Please Type o' Print) Date: February 21, 1973 1) REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit topermit a waste water (briefly explain) treatment olant. 2) LOCATION: The subject property is gene on the soutti of east and north side of El Camino Re )located Highway 78 and APl67-10-ll: A\68-O40-i : AP1'7 -100-17 3) ASSESSOR'S NUMBER: Book\Page\ \ Parce Book AP967-040-\ll: AP\2sO81Q Page___ Parcel \(If mcr, 8 and -03 p ease list on boto-6) thi, page). 4) Addre\s City Zip Phone Roy J. (4'ar ', 3088 Pio Pico r., ,Sui\e 201, Carlsbad, CA 92008 General Partner, (Lake Ca1avra Hills 'ssociates (714)729-4912 5) Person Respon\siblA for Pr.epaation of Plan-: Name \ / Address City Zip Phone 6) Reg 'I'ration or\License No: 7) Applicts Signa\ure: I hereby desJare hat all information contained within this application f'trLIe; and that all standard conditions as indicated on the attachm&h.tjhave been read, understood and agreed to. Name Address City Zip Phone Roy J. Ward 3088 Plo Pico Dr., Suite 201 Carlsbad, C 92009 (714)729-4912 Representing (Company or Corporation)Lake Calavera Hills Associates Relationship to Property Owner(s) General Partner The City of Carlsbad Planning Department would appreciate the opportunity to work with the applicant throughout the Planning Stages of the pro- posed development. In an effort to aid the applicant, the Planning Department requests that it be given an opportunity to evaluate and discuss the application and plans prior to submittal. This request is not a requirement; however, it may avoid major redrafting or revision of the plan which only serves to lengthen the processing time. ATTACHMENTS: Supplemental Information Form Planning 22 Standard Condition-Planning 27 Preparation Check List - Planning 32 Procedures - Planning 36 ;nil /\I'lto%/c1l . . SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FORM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14c 4417' /3,4/s- 1) Gross Acres (or square footage if less than acr.e)PeZC. Povc 4441/ 2) Zone P.C. - Planned Community Zone 3) General Plan Land Use Designation Ooen Space 4) The Present Use of the Subject Property UndeveloDed 5) By law a Conditional Use Permit may be approved only if certain facts are found to exist. Please read these required facts carefully and explain how the proposed pro.iect meets each of these facts. Use additional sheets if necessary: a) Explain why the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located: The proposed use is a satellite waste water treatmentulant oro- proposed to serve future residents of Lake Calavera !iLLs. The location and development Of this facility is necessary because of recent stiTdies by the City and subsequent moratorium due to the inability of the Encina Plant to handle sewage flow. The development ot a this plant serves a two-fold purpose; increasing sewage treatment facility caDacity in the City and secondly, (over) b) Explain why the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accomodate the use:Location of the proposed use is in a designated open snace area in the Lake Calavera Hills P.C. plan. Theiting of the oropdsed use is anproximately 2000 feet from the nearest residential unit. In addition, the facility I s almost odorless. Preliminary landscaDing plans will also assist in shielding the facility from proposed residential development. Because of the topography thpr000sed plant is not visible frn(ovc c) Explain why you believe the proposed yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, etc., will be adequate to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood: This C.U.P. is to establish that the proposed use is acceptable to the City. It is proposed that subjp.r.1- 1- acceptance of the waste water treatment olant as an approDriat use that detailed site plans of the facility would be siihjeel- to review and approval of the City Staff. - d) Explain why you believe the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic gener- ated by the proposed use:-Not Applicable. "k If you need more space to answer the above, please use reverse -side of this form or separate sheets and attach to this form. FORM Planning 22 Date of Planninci Commission E5a. provide opportunities to conserve water resources. -5b. from existing residential units. - - \ 10 ---- \ - - \0U1 -50 00 ? ., • AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AND JAMES M MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A SATELLITE .SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY IN NORTHEAST CARLSBAD THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 20th day of June 1978 2 by and between the CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City," and JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., a California corpora- tion, hereinafter referred to as "Engineer." WI T N B S S B T H WHEREAS, the City has determined that capacity limitations at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility will unduly restrict planned growth in the outlying areas; and WHEREAS, the City has authorized staff to conduct a study to de- termine the. feasibility of establishing satellite sewage treatment faôili-ties for outlying areas; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to-conduct an independent engineer- . ing investigation to determine such feasibility; and WHEREAS, the firm of James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. has submitted a proposal in writing to perform the required services; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that the City retain the services of James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. as consulting engineers to perform-the services in the manner, at the time, and for the' coin- pensation set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereunto ag.reeas follows: . .. . - 1. Scope of Engineering Services. Engineer agrees to perform • those services specified in this Agreement and in Exhibit "A," which is attached to and by this reference made a part -of this Agreement. Engineer further agrees to submit a complete draft document to the City, for review, within 70 days of the date of notice to proceed. 2. Compensation. Compensation for the engineering services shall be in accordance with the procedures outlined in Exhibit "B" of this Agreement, which is attached-to and by this reference made a part of this Agreement. 3. Scope of City Staff Assistance. The City will make available to the Engineei its pertinent records, data and reports. • The City staff's participation is limited to the involvement of the Public Works Administrator on an "as available" basis. • 4. Responsibility of the Engineer. The Engineer is employed herein to render . professional service only and any payments made to him;are.compensation solely for :such s è rvices as he may render • and recommendations. he may make in-the course- of the project. .The Engineer makes no warranty, either expressed or implied, as to his findings, •recoinmendations, or professional advice, other than they were promulgated after following a practice usual to the engineering profession. S. Changes in Scope of Project. control of the Engineer necessitate a- after engineering and management work has commenced, the guaranteed maximum If conditions beyond the change in scope of the project under Paragraph No. 1 above fee shall be adjusted as fol- lows: • (a) Increased or decreased in.proportion to the net change in the agreed-upon estimate of the level: of effort required; and (b) increased by the amount ofcharges for any work accomplished -2- •• . to the date of change in scope which cannot be incorporated into the changed project. • 6. Suspension of Services' or Termination of Agreement. The • City, for any reason, may by written notice postpone or suspend all or any part. of the engineering services authorized under this Agree-' inent, or by written notice may terminate the entire Agreement. In the event of such suspension or termination, Engineer shall have the right to expend additional time to assemble the work in progress for the purpose of properly closing the job. Such additional time shall not 'exceed ten percent of the total time expended on the por.- tion.of the project affected by such notice of suspension or termina- tion before the receipt thereof. In the event that suspension of services,exceeds twelve months in duration, the-Engineer may, by not less than thirty.days' notice, terminate this Agreement as it applies to the suspended portion of • the project. ' -- - 7. Status of, Engineer. The Engineer will perform the services provided for herein in' its own way as an independent contractor and in the pursuit of its independent calling, and not as an employee of the City; and it shall be under the control of the City only as to the result to be accomplished, and the-personnel assigned to the project.. The personnel assigned to th.e project by Engineer shall -..be those listed in a letter dated June 12, 1978 (Exhibit "C"). Any change in project personnel listed therein shall be subject to the prior approval of the Public Works Administrator. 8. Conformity to Legal Regui'reniënts. The Engineer shall cause all recommendations to conform to all applicable requirements of law: Federal, State and local, to all requirements of all bodies formed -3- '4 10 under Federal, State or local law whose, approval must be obtained. 9. Ownership of Documents. Any plans, studies, sketches, drawings or specifications supplied, as herein required, are the property of the City. In the event this contract is terminated, any documents, plans, specifications and drawings shall be deliv- ered forthwith to the, City. 10. Hold Harmless Agreement. The City, its agents, officers and employees shall not be liable for any claims, liabilities, pen- •. alties, fines or for any damage to goods, properties or effects of any person whatever, or for personal injuries to or death of them,. or any of them, caused by or resulting from or claimed to have been caused by or resulting from any act or omission of Engineer, or its agents, employees or representatives. Engineer further agrees to indemnify and save free and harmless the City and its authorized agents, officers and employees against any of the fore- going liabilities and claims therefor, and any cost 'and expense that is incurred by the 'City on account of any claim therefor. 11. Assignment of Contract. The Engineer shall not assign this contract or any part thereof or any monies due or to become due thereunder'without the prior written consent' of the City. 12. Subcontracting. If the Engineer shall subcontract any of the work to be performed under thiscontra'ct by Engineer, the Engineer shall be fully responsible to the City for the acts and omissions of its subcontractor and of the persons either directly or indirectly employed by its subcontractor, as it-is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by it. Nothing con- tamed in this contract shall create any contractual relationship me between any subcontractor of Engineer and the' City. The Engineer shall bind every subcontractor :and every subcontractor of a sub- contractor by the terms of this cotitract applicable to its work • unless specifically noted to the contrary in the subcontract in question approved in writing by the City. 13. Prohibited Interest. No official of the City who is authorized in such capacity and on behalf of the City to negotiate, make, accept or approve, or to take part in negotiating, making, accepting or approving any architectural, engineering, inspection, construction or material supply contract or any subcontract in con- nection with the construction of the project, shall become directly or indirectly interested personally in this contract or in any part thereof. No officer, employee, architect, attorney, engineer or inspector of or for the City who is authorized in such capacity and on behalf of the City to exercise any executive, supervisory or other similar functions in connection with the performance of this contract shall become directly or indirectly interested personally in this contract or any part thereof. - 14. Verbal Agreement or Conversation. No verbal agreement or conversation with any officer, agent or employee of the City, either before, during, or after, the execution of this contract, shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations herein con- tained, nor such verbal agreement or conversation entitle the En- gineer to any additional payment whatsoever under the terms of this contract. 15. Successors or Assigns. Subject to the provisions of Paragraph No. 11 above, all terms, conditions and provisions -5- APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney P •1 hereof shall inure to and shall bind each of the parties hereto, and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. • . • 16.. Application of ASCE Manual No. 45. Applicable provisions of American Society ofCivil Engineers Manuals and Rep'orts on En " gineering Practice No. 45. shall apply to all matters not otherwise covered by this Agreement. . .• • 17. Effective Date. This contract shall, be. effective on and from the day and year first above written. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,' we have hereunto set our hands and seals. ATTEST CITY OF CARLSBAD • . * GAI B. ADAMS,Lity Clerk RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING • NGINEERS, INC. By sid • iceP esi Qe 7" By. -6- --l* ~ ; '' - ",*'-, ". 7777 F, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUMMARY (Exhibit E) ( . Max Gross Village ZONING Development Type #___DU's Acres A Open Space Elementary School -- 10.0 B R-l-7500 Single Family .282 70.6 C RDM-Q oItipl F4mXLy 117 29.4 D RDM-Q Multiple Family 298 294 8 E.C-i-Q..Cotnmercial& nstitutional --..10.0 F Open Space Park -- 10.0 G R-]..-7500 Single Family 150 H R-l-20,000 CE) Siyigle Family Estates 33 22.0 I R-1-20,000 CE) Single Family Estates . 42 27.8 J RDM-Q Multiple Family 260 26.0 K RDM-Q Multiple Family 428 21.4 L RPM . . Multiple Family 243 24.3 M Open Space . Elementary School -- 10.0 N Open Space Park -- 'g -5.0 0 R-1-6000 (PLJD) Clustered Single Family 221 5543 P R-].-7500 Single Family 460 115.0 Q RDM-Q . Multiple Family 52 13.0 R R-1-7500 Single Family 273. . 68.4 $ Open Space . Junior High School -- 20.0 T R-l-7500 Single Family . . 210 52.4 U R-1-1 Acre CE) . Single Family Estates 27 18.6 V R-l-7500 . SingleFan%ily 151 37.8 W R-1-10,000 Single Family 116 29.0 X R-1-20,000 Single Family . . 34 . 23.0 Y.. Open Space Park . . . - •. 5.0 Z-1 R-1-l0,000 CE) Single Family Estates 3Ô • ; 20.3 Z-2 R-1-20,000 Single Family Estates 25 16.4 Z-3 Open Space San Diego Gas & Electric ____ 20.0 Easement I I TOTAL . . . 3,452 828.0 " ~'~ C - ~' - , - " '-'~ ,,,,-,~~,~,-,:"",~":-,l"",--~"",~, i :' , : , - , , , : ~ ~'~ - - "; A ~ --~' -""'~: - *."'.- ~""-. l" ~ ." ~ , ~'~ ~i' " ' I I I " -, ~, IL ' 1 i, I ~, .,~ 1 *,r " i - , ,j -1 ~, , , _ " , ": ~_ ~ ~ , ,~,,,_ 1 ~ ~ . ", I. ; I ~ I #~ : -, - !, 17 1 "; ,- , 1--~:l~:,_.-Ill"', I * ~ I (7" 1, I , - _-, - .1, ~ I ~~ a _; " , , I .s , " - 4,41, W. I ;11. ~ , ", "I , , ,;o , .5 . . . , I - ~ , - I - ~ — ) , I V oJ: . • •\ •—• • • a . • • a — . -; -..' •. . N - • I . • . • • • . • a . . . ;/..... .•' c4 : •: -11 I - 1 -.--- - %, . . I I I 11" - ... L 1!! - - - I - . ~ -, -~, - :_ i -_', , , , , i , - - " -1 r", . lw - - , , .- 'I- - , " , ~ ~ , , " ,~, . ,,-O ~ ~ , ~ , . ~ $1 t . p ~ , I V,"ll" "IfIr " ~ - ;. ;el , IH; I• Q \ \ S. \( \ '\. • ••• 7 ~ t : , :"-A":,~k, " I ", -_ ". ~ - "`;~ , '', _ , ~,_.,~,,, ".~~ 2rn iiiU :."JL- i . :. I ,~ —T,"', ' ".:, _-,; , " , " ~ - , ~, , ~ 17C ;d ~ " ~', " C •• _.:/,•,\_• .- ...... --'S;. - ;-; I ., • - .- ---•. -f •- S • • -. / •4#I ) 1 IA ;' - h• I. .I i :i.-- 4- •- - -.4 4 - :-- •;;;;:; • I'-: -- _,j~ , ~ - `~ ~ k , - ~4~ ,,,~,,,, -, '', — ,_~"_ _4 ~`_,_,~' 1 " , ", _ -, -,,/ - I I •- '111-1-- ., . 1, , ", _ " , .1-1-1 I ', ~_ , . ` ~` ',- - ,- " , '. , , `_ ~ _ ~ I 1_: 1. 11 , , ,: , ".", -11, " ", - ,, ,, - k I , , "'n ~ " -, ~ ". ,~':,- -11, — " _ " ~ , 1~., "?" ,,~, ~ ~~ .,,_-, -, ~ ~, '_ ,,,,,,, '::,~`, ,,- I , . -W ,,_,,_,, ~, , I - __,,,,~l I __ ~ : , " "' - - - I "`,~~ . ". - - - - " " tk~, , - _ " ,,~~:' 'I-'- I 11 _ 7,:" ;___J IL A - .4 1 - I A I I _'}- ./L/' , A- 41 - '• / 4 . / I - - -I 4 1 -"••'--'I / I I A .1 I - /;A-.•----.. 1 .'-V -.1 y*.j-, I -• . : ,::. . - . ------ ---.--- --' . ,- -i--,..- ..-- - . -. - 0 •• _ •_-_:_______ .o-. .- . . - ------------------ ,-- .---.-_ - H f ~ ,f-_ ~ . I \ r-011 (? I ~#,, \ g ' V V V L I,- \ . \ - , , VV V V / •_ V V V V V V VV V V V - V - V - V Z /-17 2 - 'V V - V V ~ 14 ~ . , , - , ~ . 'I,' - -t . ~, , , - I - , - t. -, 0. < V V IN 1. 1-1 OF ' V V ' , V >'<'J,: ', V ~ , , I , , - , , -4 - 1,; 11 , ", - , , , , ,4 ,,; " I _r,_,.,, ,~, _,~,,,.,-__, , ,~., ., - - , - , -,Ii~~."~-""",~,,~',~'ll~'-,~'~l, , ;111I'll ft ( - V,. V: V V V ; V V y q ' I SIIIH EJBAEIBD B)1E1 saseqd \ %OO • H.. . . •/\( . / OOIOJd . J ¶.J . ... . . . ?AeT13 P ooInos • •.! .. • • I • .11 1 1DM - • • . • / • \ f' '4 / • S • a r ( . •. S . ••• . •• . r. . . ••• - . . . . • - / / r". •.••S • j \ 5 . • : / i .. •) , :_....._.__.n....I...mn.fl / . . . •.• 1. _.i ' /..) '.. I •. •• - •\ . . . . • . . I .: . I /1 (••••••' 0 •s- ' 1 . •. •i •,l \ ( .. V . . 1'1 .• •. . - N . •. I • . ---." . . I' . \ \ ' oO iv OK • . . . a . , .•• L.eD2 "D -E.2 • 81C2 FeE2 • LeE2 - • . LvF3 . ShC . LeC2 • CmrG LeE3 . . • . • • OaF - FxE • FeC2 . FXE - HrC • OaF • • -FeE2 ChE LeE3 I FxE - - 0cC 81C2 - FxE • • LeE3 EsE2 FxE • : • FxE Sc I I 7? \Le02\ • FxE •. I. Scale .1 ;i000 • E2:,. . . . .•. Figure 3 1 I IH I J IF. 6Jn5j ; SI!c3S .SV OWLId I 1: •:: sI!bSif::: . - ; t 8 - -.- - JR V ---------------------------------------------------V. ----------L...- ................................-.--.-.'--------------------------------------'-V.-.., _: _. — I H : ",-- usa — UI'S. - . 1I1 - • - -• -•- -•,--- - -' '• • • \ i - -' • — I- • • - 0 urn Nil • I5 ills' ?II - N - - - I 1._i . .. •••,.1% 'ST 0 - - :- •' , ,_..'11X ' I - , , _ , I _ ,f 1~', , , , tll "" 1".., .~,, :',,Z.~, I [11-111 I — 11 " .. . '. ay wii*w • , •U'S*-U• 1UI?Ij NIUCIPO - • IITu PP $t1ON P!sUr4M$ I-11QN *y - • moNm .• -, -'•- •0. P*$*CIS ' '"S I - -- o - • S.,. I I SS5l p$• - : T4WT4T/V1 R1#4AMAI'll • • • '• •; -, - - - -- 1__•___ -_----. .. __&&_.. '. - ., ~ -, , , - ,,-: " 'I' Nt"Ill-', ~`~"lil`_'.,_`~' , , , I •• ,;i -11 I I ,- 1 2 11 I <1s1 L.. . Li H. noN sn'is - • . . --T c-rr . -'- . -- - -.,--•- •, __________ .,' :. ;.' . * • : •. ,, . . - w ~ ~ . ~ I I - -,~ ~ , .~- . - - - -' : ,.., - - .. - ' .. - -,~ ~ , ~, , , , ,- -~, - I ~-, , , - - . ~ , - ,,.,,, ,,, ,~ - - I , -41 - I - .~ - L-I ~., --. ~~, - I 1~ ~ , - - , , , - , , , " , . , - - ~ - - : I - - - , ~"-. -- ~'-- : : I , ~- ,`~ , :: : - : t f : : \ )4 -- F \ '- ---- . -.--- i _1 :.;$EW RECLAi4110$. PUN:': ;, . ,, AwP41oAGEFAc1frrIE6 I : : :' ; : . .'-,-.- \ \ j J ' ' . . *- - _: ;:_-._: , 4: .. • 4 i ? ' . I Ij - / , , - ,4~ ATELL1TE PLNT CONCEPT I III : •: "- .. - -, - _-i :':F: z •-: --. - -• -' -- - -. - - - .-"-- -,.-.- -,-* -- - - - - :-: - . - :-. :-- - :- -- - -- :-- : - -':.- - .- -1 - :.._i .-.--.i'_ -::-i - ' --_.:__ I -- k ----- i ocwI:v- ]'-E%I5TING PtNT - ' gAv,Oi $1A1• I - tc&A't' .. .1.. - -- --- .-., --- . •:•• •... -.--,- . - .,' - -t: '--: ---•1 1 11 - wv - - ' * . vw -T \ I (- - - t).__ .-IL - 104GE 4. 4- - - - c i i 1.1 -4 I I I I ~ 11 : I\ 1 EGONI. RECUMATION çO4CEPT - - I - '- -' :L::l 4079 - '4071 4000 .,. I ' , 401*_ 4014 CRE* ' 407$ - -. L r '1' ASUA NEA 40I4 * -r ----—--- 4i' : H,. ./ 401$ - - -, 4% •d L' -- 4O rLLL_fJ LL\i : -' 11 . . : : - SAN M4RCOS - 11 CRIk 401$ - • .' fl,. 4014 -, L1 , I , : , . - ~ , - ,~~ZQ--, - ,-,--, ~,,,, ~ dl: i . ~ - , - ~~ t. ~, - - I - ,• .•• L 11 ?' •:' • • "' -,~;-,;--:~-~,, A'' , -: -, 1--' - -9,, ~,,`~,:,,.~~,,,;,,~~V -q4,,,,;,4 ,~,$M.,,~,ll _q.." I- " - -; ~ I, `%%""', -,Y,--`i,, , .,,-,,l,-.,-,, -~,,,.,-,,.Z~,.,,-~,- ~ ,--.,-,,,-;~ -- ~~ll % , ,,-~ ~, -- , - ~;, -1, 1'~l .., 11 - ~_ _ i /I ~~,,; ~ * - - ST , - ,.' • -, - - 4OI4IU •' ' - P!UR zr-s • -• - - _______ DISTR/SI/7'IQWQPpOfl/LAT,QN __ • . _ I SkI. ISVh4 _________ ?., ( 'C4( -'11" UI1NIS .ioc_I . ( - V.. i'1 L.,. j..rrr... .• a. \.•.. F r"'l . ' c j:: 'J' .* I5 - I.. [11'~ , , , , , ~ , - . I a VILLAGE , ;i ',,"ii.1 IMi 'I 0,4 IMlIIS?•kI -v' 1151111 5 N3 11141 SI I •. •• J. w"°' I. t11l;lldIt .J •. P CENTER 1. - __ I —I___ • .. . . • . 1 5. . . / f S1•51 III KNQOLII$ J 50CM 111111$ Is - Y MAJOS 50*55 Al -1011IltOl 50*55 45 - / CooSscsai • • . . . 4N5*4(5 SN , Is_LSIUW1 115&C54*IS WSMSU N J 14505114*5 4 . . — -•.• ..:. MASTER PLAN J i"~k, v~ ;; - , , ' L I - ,, - ~ ~ ~ ' I' 1 ,1 ~ `, , , , , , " , ,.L " - ", 1 ~ , I ~ , , 'C . , . ~' , _ - " , z i -, ~ ' , , , %. . . ~ ,I 4 . -~ ,,,_, " ' - ~~ ~ ~ " _ ,, . ~ - . -, _ , ,~ ' , 1 . ,, - : . , ,- , i ~ . , .- ~: ~ I ,,% ; t ; . - - , - . . , ` , ,~ , ' ~- ., ,,, m1 ,~ - . , ! -, , ~ _ ,, ' , " ,, ~ ~ - zz -:, - . ; ,, ~ , ,, . ,, ,, _ , I LAKE CA.LAVERA HILLS PANMAP __ - . . . 1O.)w.suu.'i.sss CARISIAD, CALIFORNIA . • . . CAL.AVEPA ppvo;i,ic3 ic. -• - - . . . .: ..: ( ) Ul.(p$ION( 714.134 $Q . L. - •• . 1 hhI . — 777 4, : .. r•"';S It J 1 •' r- 01: cl 00 3 c :_t_?•. l. •••.: — -'- • ., aif lot, 4 U447 j tL MCA Vsaaafvt uail Ridqe - . I IC) • A El Car'uflO Mese — - Vacant ' '-'11001 1bine "h TeITtP1fl & Under Cultivation'> ' 2. • Rancho Carlsbad 671, '1 1 I 4 1 t 11 1 11 1 1 II I , I - riiIiFjiT. A (_ '\ \ •\- '\ '\ ;L'Z'1 iiTirai v17~1 -. I. 4—r4'---iV w V •4•$ • • \\ j :J :t • • :11,dli.fjh!.&' d! - , , ,, ~ - -_ ,"~,._-~~_~', ~-~- -"'-'----` -- -- , ",--~,`~: , ~~( f -, , ~ , - -~~ ~ ;,i I, - -1 - 11 ,~ '~ - ,I~, , T . --`~"lTl'l-'- -1 I I.-~,~~, - .-;.. , ~ ~ -";". - I ,T, . 1. ~': . - -- , ,,, . . ~- - . ~ - ~: - I, . — , " '~".- 11 11 ~:, ~ I - ,,, , 1-11- , ,.,~Illl, - " ' "I "!!";~ , ~,' -",- cl-,~41* t'~'-' ~, ;.7~ , , I -,--~~ , T ,',~ , ~ , - ," ~- , f. t " ~ , - , ~ - -, ~- ~ 1: - I F \\ 1••'l 4 :w r , I '- ,,-,:~_ffT ~`~---' - ~T,l - - ~ , - ~ ,- 't , ~T- - ~ , , ~ , ; - - ,, - - - I, ,Y! r t 6, ; , - , , ~ . , ~i -, ., I .,:;~,~",:,. ,-',." ,Z,--- :~..; -,,-~ "'i ,,:,-,, , ~ ~ ~ ,~ , -- I ~Jay. , —', - — - ~ ,—, I,- ","; ~ t , (J_J 4!P.P, z - - - , - , I -~T , - - - - ':2 , , r ,,, _r - - _ _- — , ;, ,~ " , - - , - ml ,, ~ -14' i; W , ~- -1 ~4 I ,, . - - - , , 6 , ~,,-__--,,,~~,:-,, "~"":,-:, , .,~; . ,:,- - -- o<d WWr4 ty : iT rm ww9 I /\ , 1, 1-1'~ -1 , - I - I -- - - I ~ ,- - I -~~-, 'li- ,,, T:-~-,t.~ - ,,~`. ,~ ~ < ~~,:, . - ~ , - ~ ': ~~ ~ 42 ci1~ 1 -..~, -1 ~ : ' - I - r'-,~ - . ", , -, T ,o 1 ,-1~ ,-,"- , , '~,~ 7 . ' i ~ . , .. ,- ,—v . Z-: .d , " . - - ~ IT r :,, , - , , , l - ,; -l" -~ " ,, ~ , ' , ~ - ,`I,~ , ~,-~ ,-.' , - . , . / - V - ''-: - :1 ;1I/ I ~ . ' I L'. I `~ 1; , I I - ~ 'L , - -- " ' ~ " ' " - ' ~ " - - ~~ ," : , - --, -, ~ •:i1:1 I " ( II I hi - ,- ;;- I 'V '• -,1: !e V j - •-- - - - I - I:;-_ 4 1 1 - - : :--. '':--- ;:- _$4-• ;- • ,-• 1 / , ~ ~,,,, ~'! " t,7 -~,, It I I I I 11 1 — III;9 I' 1 - •Y • •, • • •- I 1 ) I -•: ---: -V -V - I I. 'I ••) - •- •• • '' -- • - 4 , . t ,,, - - ' \ r ' k - : ' - - - I I j4, -i ')(;..F:jId2.•. jj-/ I&: . . 11.. .- • \ )• . • J' ,_LJ• .. . . . . . .. .. %• • p • •, _.2 • #1 t .,.- -8 ,. • . • •••••• (1 1 ..-' _>' 4/) •1 LY \ : . :. . . . ... . .. . • •• • • • .. •. • :. .. • : . •. • !IIIi I I Ps V• . Apj jWN • ,)I ,ft .SJ W.4I.tIt \ l''"' kII 4L a •tA. ,. _,.,.e,t, W7IV 1. • -,• tnI.,.%&ha II1Vib. Ilu.,. ?. 11••"" " (,~~`,~ I,.. • • • •• • • • I'r.i.. . MASTER PLA 0 W, LAKE CALAVERA. H I ill . AORN CALAVRA PROPERTIES INC. $550 GAØOCN OPOvt OrILE • CiARDtN 0OVt. CM.WOA $2144.........• ______ • • • iAs!r1RPrAN';u 0 ovod '7, . S ,. • •Wo 4 • - -'-- '9* • •••t••.• S • • t * •-•' . . . • • - • ? 0 "71 ~ - ~ , .,.,-- _,,:~,~"":,~~,, - - , ~~; ... F . - , .- qqgn ~ii,:-'~-_ ',-.' 1 .1 '" o "I;ist;.Otl"'',-- , — ~,~;, ~ ` " ------,.! -,, - , -, I _ -:, ,r, — ,_ .., %-~,,,_,~', '1 _ -i . ~ "', ,,'~ 1',,,__ " -,- Lt~--- ,'~,~, " ~_; ~;,:_ , , ,~; ~; " " '' - r- , , __ :, - -, _~, - ~'~,;,-"Z_,i,-,'1`,' f , . ~', - `• Er' • 1••• •' P___ - ,;,~ ~- - - Ii , :-- • S S - WWW • •,k• . . • • - -I$ I • - - )(M VILLAGE •ç:; :c • I*II•II•I ' • EUII.114, 2 '" Z L • ' S CENTER' • • •• - •• . -• :5 - ijif J 4 • . •. &.q J '' I I S t 41• . Q • . S •1'tLateM! - - • KNO*tII$ III • • • .f tOCAt .t.nM 14 • Y MAO* isi •. • • . *âØ ISI - - • / • COMIICSM • • IS • • . - NI*IWSSI £ - - -. . - . S •/ ••14IIt ft', • -.# - NIt ACIII IllS ACIN • _•,_-• IOIM Se. sqn S - Mt MCIII? s - - ,,, .• I IS • . 'PLAN MAP ____11 5 5 • • . .. r i-N,Nb - - . I ]ISCMMS , - ¼ , - • - - . - 1v a S lICk SIIOIIEN ?I*NNSNt INC - I • • . --= - CORRESPONDENCE 1111111111111111 2000 mc Ohl Oki *061:1111 lL 191:3 11L 000z 1111111111111111 33N30NOdS2O3 ØJyA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 20, 1979 TO: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director FROM: Charles Grimm, Assistant Planner RE: ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE, SATELLITE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT The Precise Development Plan (PDP) and Zone Change applications for the Lake Calavera Hills satellite sewage treatment plant were recently moved up on the Planning Commission agenda from April 25 to April 11, 1979. The EIR for the sewage plant went to the Planning Commission on March 14, and is scheduled for Council on April 3. CEQA is fairly vague on the certification process but I think it can be interpreted to mean that the Planning Commission may act on the Zone Change and PDP on April 11 even if the Council does not certify the EIR on April 3. The reason is that the Planning Commission is only a recommending body on both applications and the will be forwarded to the Council for hearing. It will be necessary, however, for the Council to certify the EIR before they act on the Zone change and Precise Development Plan. I checked with several other cities and they concur with this interpretation. Please let me know is you want this redrafted into a memo from you to Paul. CG:jd 3/20/79 . MEMORANDUM DATE: March 16, 1979 TO: James C. Hagaman; Dave Abrams; Mike Zander; Brian Milich, Charles Grimm; Catherine Nicholas: 1147 FROM: Bud Plender, Assistant to the Planning Director eldt RE: SCHEDULING LCH TREATMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE STEP DATE TIME 1. DCC review of application -Brian 3-20 9:00 A.M. will explain application and relate to EIR and NP 2. Planning staff meeting. Brian will 3-20 2:30 P.M. explain application, relate to EIR and MP, explain DCC concerns, and outline major issues 3. Brian to complete preliminary report 3-23 5:00 P.M. and recommendation and distribute to staff and interested members of DCC, City Manager, and Attorney 4. Peg to notice P98 and Change of Zone 3-26 5. Planning staff and interested members 3-27 9:00 A.M. of DCC to meet and review Brian's preliminary report 6. Brian complete final report and submit 3-30 5:00 P.M. to DCC 7. DCC, Brian to present project, Ward to 4-3 9:00 A.M. to attend 8. Brian to prepare final report for 4-4 5:00 P.M. Planning Commission distribution 9. Distribute packets 4-6 5:00 P.M. 10. Review with Planning Commission 4-9 12:00 Noon Chairman 11. Planning Commission meeting 4-11 7:00 P.M. 12. City Clerk to notice hearings 4-16 ~ 11% W44 . 0 .0 13. Agenda Bill prepared by Bud 14. Agenda Bill submitted to City Manager 15. Agenda Bill review 16. City Council meeting BP: j d 3/16/79 4-18 12:00 Noon 4-20 12:00 Noon 4-23 2:30 P.M. 5-1 6:00 P.M. low STATE OF CALIFORNIA— HEALTH AND WELFAR EN CV EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 714/744 P STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 322-2308 March 7, 1979 Mr. Tim Flanagan, City Engineer City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RECEIVED ci( OF CI\RLSBD Eng~jneering Department ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND FACILITIES PLAN FOR A SATELLITE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY -- SCH 78112042 The State Department of Health Services has reviewed the subject report. A fail-safe line to the Encina Outfall is proposed for the reclamation project; however, it is stated on page 8-25 of the report that the fail- safe line may not be constructed with the first increment of treatment capacity but perhaps could be delayed for five years. There should be no delay in providing such needed fail-safe facilities. Kenneth Buell, Chief Environmental Health Branch cc: Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region 6154 Mission Gorge Rd., Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92120 San Diego County Dept. of Public Health 1600 Pacific Hwy. San Diego, CA 92101 . STAFF REPORT Date: To: Planning Commission From: Planning Department Subject. E I R for Satellite S ewa geTreatmentFacjjj,t' Background The document you have before you is both a project report and an E1R. You should focus your efforts on the EIR, portion of the document. Whether or not to have satellite sewage treatment facility is a policy question to be addressed by the Council. It is not a question to be addressed in the certification of the subject EIRO According to the State EIR Guidelines Section 15011.G: a. The purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which such significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. EIR information is contained in chapters one thru five and chapter 8. An index to the required section of an EIR appears on the backside of the second page of the Montgomery document, labeled "table This should be helpful in your review of the document. Discussion Staff has worked closely with the Montgomery firm in the preparation of the subject EIR. The document has been the subject of several meetings and as a result some changes have been made to insure compliance with CEQA and the State EIR Guidelines. Remember, you will be asked to recommend that the document be certified as being completely pursuant to CEQA and the State EIR Guidelines only. Such certification is not tantamount to a project approval -or endorsement. It means that the EIR adequately describes the impacts and alternatives and identifies mitigations to reduce significant to reduce significant impacts. Of course there are other details of CEQA that the document must fulfill such as providing an accurate project description. In staff's opinion the letter of CEQA as well as the spirit of CEQA has been met with the EIR now before you. You received the draft document earlier this month. Accompanying this staff report are the comments received during the review of the draft and the City's responses to those comments. This together with the draft constitutes the final EIR. If you are satisfied with the final you should recommend that the Council certify that the document has been completed pursuant to CEQA and the State EIR Guidelines. However, if you are not satisfied or if during the public hearing, new evidence or testimony is submitted that indicate that S 1] STAFF REPORT February 21, 1979 the document is not complete, you should continue the hearing and refer the document back to staff for completion. Recommendation That the Planning Commission at the conclusion of the public hearing, forward EIR No. 528 to the City Council with the recommendation that said EIR be certified as being completed pursuant to CEQA and. the State ER Guidelines; or, Should testimony or evidence be submitted at the public hearing that indicates that EIR 528 has not been completed pursuant to CEQA and the State EIR Guidelines, the Planning. Commission should continue the public hearing and refer the document back to staff for completion. DLR:ar 2/21/79 GARY D. WRENCH 3531 CHARTER OAK DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 March 8, 1979 Mr. Stephen M. L'Heureux Chairman Planning Commission City Hall 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 .11 cR1 17 1 p 1979 AD pq- SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SATELLITE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY Dear Hap: As I indicated at our last meeting, I am writing to set forth some comments regarding the subject EIR. I feel that the report is, in general, quite complete and represents an honest attempt to deal with the important issues. I am con- cerned, however, that because of the report's size and broad- reaching scope, some of the most important issues are perhaps buried or not adequately emphasized or accurately character- ized ,and it is these I would like to address. In particular, I feel the report does not adequately highlight the impacts on the environment of odor and the consequences of sludge disposal problems (which are well identified as a serious, county-wide problem). Also, better perspective needs to be given to the issue of the very high levels of dissolved solids in the effluent which seem likely to impair the prac- tical viability of waste water reclamation. 1. In discussing the odor problem on Page 5-8 and elsewhere, the report seems to conclude that no problems will arise because sludge will be regularly removed, never allowed to accumulate, and that equipment malfunctions will always be promptly corrected. I find all of these assump- tions unacceptably naive. Even allowing for the best available engineering, maintenance, and planning for sludge disposal, I believe fervently in Murphy's Law and expect that periods of extended malfunction will unavoid- ably occur and that for reasons now unforeseen, sludge accumulation will be a definite possibility. I think it is wrong for a report such as the EIR to assume otherwise. 2. The report conveys a much too limited view of and treats, in an inadequate fashion, the extent of the areas likely to be impacted by any possible odors. I think a much more thorough discussion needs to be given on the move- ment of odors during periods of very low velocity wind. . . Mr. Stephen M. L'Heureux Page 2 March 8, 1979 Such "light airs" can occur from all points of the com- pass during the day, but especially during nighttime hours. I submit that everyone---including those at all compass points---will be impacted at some time or another. I think it is clear that this will unfavorably impact residential neighborhoods already existing and to be developed including those which are outside the designated study area. I think it is absolutely wrong to term the odor impact "minor or insignificant" (Reference Page 5-23). I think a more accurate assessment would include the statement that, "major and significant amounts of increased odor are possible during any period of equipment malfunction and in the most severe occurrences of malfunction could extend for a mile or more in any direction" 3. Virtually no discussion is made of the odor potential from percolation beds although the possibility is acknowledged. I believe EIR should treat this impact in a more compre- hensive manner. 4. With respect to the quality of reclaimed water, it seems to me much too little emphasis is given to the assumption that water softeners must be prohibited in the study area if the TDS standards are to be realized. With the TDS content of our water already on the rise and likely to become worse, it seems to me that pressures for water conditioning including the possibility of "illegal" conditioning units installed by individual home owners must be recognized. This, together with the need to assure well functioning percolation beds and 400 acres or so of agricultural land to use the reclaimed water in perpetuity seem to me all need to be summed up clearly and concisely at some point in the report. I would hope that the planning staff will be able to forward these thoughts and those expressed by other members of the Commission to the City Council and other key decision makers in an appropriate way. The fauna most impacted by this project will be humans. Sir Gai cc: Mr. James Hagaman, Planning Director . . PROJECT ENGINEER'S STATEMENT CITY OF CARLSBAD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A SATELLITE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY The recommended project is labeled as Alternative 3B. Facilities would include raw sewage pump stations, effluent pump station, force mains, gravity lines, a 1.2 mgd oxidation channel type treatment, percolation beds, a fail-safe outfall connection to Encina, wells, and pumping station to deliver reclaimed water to reuse applications. This recommended project was developed as a result of consideration of many alternatives involving degree of treatment, treatment processes, sludge processes and disposal, plant sites, and percolation sites. In the final analysis, treatment plant siting is the most important considera- tion, and it is the major variable considered outside of the "no project" consideration. The parameters that were considered in evaluating the alternatives included the cost of the system; reliability of the collection system; flexi- bility to adjust to technological advances, changes in development patterns, and changes in regulatory requirements; environmental impact, including physical, biological, and human impacts; public acceptance; ease of implementation; reuse potential; and provision of treatment capacity to serve the City's needs. The recommended Alternative 3B is the alternative which best satisfies all of the criteria. In this alternative, the treatment plant would be located 4,000 ft north of the intersection of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive. The major issues of the project, as we see them, involve the following: . -2- . 1. The need to ensure that the reclamation component of the project is ineed a true Type I reclamation; that is, reclamation which results in replacing an existing water use or some necessary future use and has the effect of increasing water supply for the City. This is opposed to Type II reclamation which results in using water for beautification where such use would not occur using potable water supply, and where such use would be more closely associated with wastewater disposal rather than with increasing water supply. Type I reclamation is an integral component of the satellite plant concept developed in the report. 2. A definition of acreage involving agricultural lands or other lands involving Type I use. The danger to be avoided is that the existing Type I reclamation potential may vanish through development made available by the satellite facility. 3. The question of growth impacts. The City must consider such growth and adopt a growth management policy or determine that projected growth in absence of a policy is consistent with the City's interests. 4. The question of how higher operation and maintenance costs of a satellite facility may be justified and paid for by the residents of the City. These are some of the topics beside environmental impacts which were addressed in the document prepared for the City. Since the su1nittal of this report comments have been received in accordance with the review process. These comments appear to focus upon four major topics: . -3- I 1. Sludge 2. Salts to the groundwater basin 3. Fail-safe line 4. Odors The main points of these comments and our responses are as follows: 1. Sludge: One question relates to the capacity of landfills in the area. The question of alternate landfill sites, once existing Bonsall landfill, and other landfill sites become full is beyond the scope of the present investigation. It is a regional problem and not a problem of this project alone. The tonnage of sludge relative to the tonnage of other solid wastes generated within the project area would be insignificant. It-would appear that if there is, indeed, a shortage of landfill capacity that studies are needed to solve the concerns of the City. Another comment related to sludge was, to the effect, that if landfills are not available, then sludge drying beds would be necessary which, in turn, could increase odor problems. The thing to remember here is that sludge drying beds are not a disposal in themselves, but are an alternate means of de- watering and these dewatered sludges from the drying beds must be trucked to a landfill or some other disposal or use. There would be little, if any, volume difference in the amounts dried mechanically or dried on a sludge drying bed. It should also be noted that the sludge dried to 25% solids handles and appears like moist dirt rather than liquid material. I . -4- S 2. Salts: If 1.2 mgd of water at 1,000 gpm is applied six months per year to the agricultural areas this would correspond to 900 tons annually of salts to the areas being irrigated. If this same water is applied 365 days per year, 1,800 tons of salt would be applied annually. By comparison, the use of Colorado River water for irrigation would result in approximately 20 to 25% less salt applied to the agricultural areas. This difference in salt load is not expected to affect agricultural or other irrigation uses as there are many areas in the world where water greatly in excess of this TDS level is successfully used for agriculture. What it can mean, however, is that slightly more water is used for the irrigation when salt content increases. No sifnificant problem is foreseen within the groundwater basins that would be recharged with treated effluent. Based on the limited data available for the groundwater quality within these basins, it appears that the existing water quality may not meet the objectives that have been established for it. With the ability to apply reclaimed water with quality meeting the objectives, it then would be reasonable to expect that the quality.of the basins may be maintained within the objective established for the basins. In any case, when water is available at 1,000 mg/l or below to apply as recharge for these basins, no degradation of the basins relative to the objectives would occur. 3. Fail-Safe: The fail-safe lines are an integral part of the Basin Plan alternatives studies back in the early 1970's and are integral components of satellite treatment facilities. The fail-safe connection was originally conceived as an emergency outlet in the event of a biological upset or other hazard occurring at the satellite . -5- . plant. However, it is also apparent that the fail-safe connection may be used for discharge of excess reclaimed water and serve as a means of distributing reclaimed water to potential reuse areas. This flexibility is a part of the recommended alternative. Also, flexibility may be provided so that flow from the fail-safe line may be directed either to the influent or effluent of the Encina plant. The corridor for the routing of the fail-safe line is generally known. The line ought generally proceed in the most direct route to Encina facilities. However, at the same time it ought to be laid in existing rights-of-way and where there will be minimal disturbance to sensitive flora and fauna. The purpose of the environ- mental review process is to examine potential environmental impacts and point out those areas which need special consideration during the implementation of the project. Sensitive plants and erosion which would subsequently endanger sensitive plants have been topics raised in the environmental review process. Certainly all reasonable means will be made during construction to avoid either the direct or indirect disturbance to the sensitive flora and fauna within the area. With regard to the Aqua Hedionda Creek crossing, there is a bridge on El Camino Real which may serve as a potential environmentally sound means of crossing the creek without disturbing the sensitive areas. On the other hand construction methods specified during the preparation of plans and specifications would prevent any excess silting in the creek channel should the detailed engineering determine that a creek crossing, other than the bridge, is the most cost- effective alignment. Some of the more obvious specification require- ments could include construction during summer months when there is little, if any, flow in the creek, trucking away of any spoils not suitable for backfill, prohibition against placement of excavated material within the creek channel, requirements for housekeeping activities, limitations on types of equipment which may be employed within the creek channel and other such measures more appropriately specified during the detailed design phase of the project. 4. odors: Questions of odors are, no doubt, important to the City because of the experience of the Encina plant. This experience is the exception rather than the rule. The Environmental Protection Agency has made a careful review of sewage treatment facilities throughout the United States and have found that the oxidation ditch type of treatment proposed for the satellite plant was remarkably odor-free. The EPA study reported that plants operated with a 24-hour channel hydraulic retention time at a 20 to 30 day solid retention time produce a biologically stable waste sludge that could be handled without odor problems. All the plants examined, even those with poor operating conditions, were characterized by a lack of odor. The choice of a low odor treatment method, such as an oxidation channel system and a decision to dispose of sludges in landfills rather than in on-site drying beds are significant odor mitigation measures inherent within the proposed project. In addition to this, odors from plant malfunction would be controlled by prechiorination or by sending waters to the fail-safe line and out of the project area. Beyond these mea- sures, the project team has recommended that a minimum distance of 100 yards from plant boundaries be maintained to the nearest residence. There is no mathematical reason for this distance. It is based upon the judgement of our firm. The distance could be 99 yards, 50 yards, etc., however, . -7-. 1 100 yards is a round figure and would not appear to be unduly restrictive and simply provides an additional safety factor. These were the questions raised most frequently. There are others which will be responded to in accordance with EIR review procedures. We are avail- able to answer additional questions. r r ) 0 L f t / • • . / . •• 1200.ELM AVENUE 92003 CARLS3AD.CAJFQRNIA (714)729-1 Qflt' i March 2, 1979 Jan Fahey . .. . .. .•S. • James M. Montgomery Engineering, Inc. . .. . • 555 East Walnut St. .. •.• . . Pasadena, Ca. 91101 . . . . I ... •. . . • . . Dear Jan: • • . . . . I am enclosing some of the comments the Planning Commission made concerning the satellite treatment plant EIR discussed • at the February 28, 1979 meeting. Many of the comments are • sketchy and in some cases it may be difficult to determine • from the material what exactly was meant.. • It is hoped, however, that these notes riay help your firm • to prepare for the March 14, 1979 meeting. • Sincerely, . . • • . • • • :. • • %7 CHARLES D. GRIMM . . • . . • Assistant Planner ., . .. . .- CDG:ms . . • • . • • . .. . • -eric. . • •.• • . . • . -/ • FCRICK 2-. The term "potential health hazards" is used but nowhere • in is it addressed except on page 7-11 and that is relative to separate systems. "Produce water of marginal quality, high in TDS" Page 4-7 states "not clear whether existing groundwater quality in these subunits meets even the new objectives" (EIR 403 of January 26 1978 gives some alternatives and solutions) • Istatements relative to plant and wildlife are not consistent with facts that were presented at the time of "Tootsie K"EIR report was recertified. • The statement of 840 persons and about 1500 living in the present 4,150 acre study area is inconsistent with a remark on page 4-17 that states "present study area connections number • approximately 1000". SDG&E states 2340. • 25. "Class.II landfill disposal" couldn't locate a potential cost to this operation. •6.. "Prime agricultural soils" didn' know we had any. 5 tons salt daily = 1825 tons annually, on page 5-3 a figure of 900 tons annually, who is right Odor should be a problem associated only with equipment mal- function and would be carefully monitoried and mitigated in the report? : [iequire land use commitments" etc. How do we get a commitment out of the golf course and other potential users - coupled L.with the expense of tying into the system. 2-7. 3B requires (1) do we have a type one situation? - page 2-2 (2) define 400 acres of land, page 8-6 states in part "it ..is concluded that the most viable reclamation concept would have to incorporate agricultu±e irrigation to fully justify a sat- ellite facility: Now do we afford cost of this effort (Pg. 8-24) • .2-8. 0 & 11 costs for first full year estimated at $109,300. •Pg 8-23 states "annual 0 & M $321,900" page 10-15 does contradict the above cost and reflects page 2-8 figures. Figure 4-5 seeks to rearrange the Roman numeral system. Types or names of businesses in Carlsbad. 4 ... .) .. . • •. : WRENCH •• . • 5-23 Basic concern with odor issue. "Minor insignificant k .amounts of increased odor potential in surrounding residen- tial areas". Well, that's one of the listed primary impacts. • They later address mitigating measures in a sequence of significant mitigating to significant impacts and then sort of dismiss mitigating measures for insignificant impacts. I would take exeption at the top of 523 with the designation of the increased odor potential as an insignificant issue. During periods of normal and correct operation I would stipulate that the odor potential is insignificant, the • odor hazard is insignificant, during periods of equiptment • malfunction I would suggest that the. odor potential is a significant environmental impact and I think that must be addressed. Overall problem of solid waste disposal is not dealt with adequately. It keeps cropping up that all will work well assuming orderly and prompt removal of the sludge and that the sludge can actually be trucked out. It then points out that the problem of sludge disposal in land fill sites is basically a problem that no one has figured out. That is a very severe problem which must be highlighted in the summary. 5-8 I would propose the paragraph next to bottom, here again; • . the odor issue is treated in one of the more comprehensive • ......fashions, four paragraphs worth, it says no sludge drying basins, • with a potential odor potential would be necessary. 1ell,- they would not be necessary if there were disposal facilities, but the disposal is a significant problem. I don't see how the • last conclusion is drawn in the final sentence of that next to the last paragraph on 5-8 are justified and I would take great exception to that particular issue. Day-night flow of wind not treated. We generally speak of .prevailing winds. On the average the wind in from the west or the northwest, but here along the coast the winds changes around every night and there is a period of the day when it's of low force, but in fact the wind turns around and blows from the water. I would suggest that some sort of chart that takes into effect the diurnal movements of air. 5-8 states that only those down wind will be affected. I believe they are dead wrong. ) ROMI3OTIS • •: 40.0. acres of ag land not properly addressed. If you read 527 it seems to be that building the satellite plant : • binges on securing long term use of reclaimed water generated on the logical extension of facilities in the growth area. Then • . read on and find that in certain places you need 400 acres of ag land. This could have some. severe fiscal restraints that are not addressed. Also did you give away all of your land • use decisions on those 400 acres in the future. How . • important is that agriculture? There were some difinitions • I didn't understand: 4-4 definition of severe, shrink, swell, soil people usually use a percentage chart. Could we get some kind of definition. . . - • 4-9 are tomatoes really a coastal crop? It seems to make a statement to that affect. • •0 • • 5-17 not all the schools are mentioned, some are, but not all. • Somewhere it talks about augmenting the stream flow as one of the proposed uses of reclaimed water and then it dropped it. I want to know why we would consider pumping it over the hill . •. on a fail safe line, and what are the uses suggested. . • fistake on 7-8 in the top numbers there Royal Homes and El Carnino J I think are screwed up on the numbers, at least on the Lnits. . . . . •z.• A.-25 they make a statement relative to siting the sites at other • locations. They are talking about acquisition costs. I'm not too sure that some of those owners wouldn't dedicate a site if they had a sewer in today's present economic conditions. • •.. ......• • •-:. •:.::.:. •0•• I • • I I • I Larson - Contradiction regarding fail safe. On 8-25 be built sometime in the future once the plant on 5-13 mentions that the fail safe would be a biological failure occurs in the plant. that the line could is operating and necessary item if - 5 tons daily of salt, any solutions or problems it would cause to the drainage basin, didn't seem to be adequately addressed. - Section 832 regarding the ability of the outfall line at the £ncina Plant. It appears that only ½ of the flow from the satellite plant would consume all of Carlsbad's expected extra capacity on the outfall line and that's assuming that water is being reclaimed. I see a problem occurring during those times of the year when there is no reclaim use due to the wet season. I would appreciate those figures run through again. - Coastal Commission on Section F-16 concerning mitigation measures or comments on construction of the fail safe lines. Staff's response was that it would.be taken cars of at the time but since we know where the EnOina plant is and we know basically where, or have an idea which drainage basin this plant will be in,, it seems that some kind of a route could be basically set up and perhaps some mitigation measures or some comment made to that fail safe lines at the Encina plant. Section F-22 mentions that the plant will be located 100 yards from residential areas for odor abatement and because of potential odor problem.. 1 was curious why 100 yards was chosen, itseems like a nice, round number and I'm not too sure that there was any specific reason for 100 yards. In the way the mitigation measures are set up I have a question / as to what is the difference between a proposed and a potential ( mitigation measure. I though all mitigation measures should be considered as proposed measures, it was confusing having two lists of mitigation measures. On the problem of hauling sludge, it would seem it should be included as a required mitigation measure in this report. The • problem of sludge disposal should be of supreme importance. The report paints a gloomy picture as far as where sludge will be disposed of in the future, with the landfills being filled and alot of landfills not accepting and thepossibility of hauling clear to San Diego and perhaps there are some other potential ways to dispose of sludge. That should be a required mitigation measured to be solved before construction begins. 'There does not appear to be enough mitigating measures concerning the possibility of accident potential meaning power failure, cholorine release, etc., accidents and how they might the close residents within 100 yards or further, yet close to the plant. Could the fail safe lines he used to transport raw sewage, in the case of a biological failure, if that occurs where does it go, is it attached to the outfall line, the potential for hazard seems great. • .. .. .::: . . . .. . . .. .. • . . :_,i •0 . .• • ., .• . . •. . ..• . • •:..:: • .ta. • . • March 1, 1979 To Dave Abrams V EN From: Mary Marcus • . . . . . . .. . . . Subject: My comments on the EIR for •. .• 1AR 2 1979 .Satellite SewageFacility. . . Feb. 28, 1979 meeting . . CITY OF CARLSBAD min •.:F1 2 D3primnt This just puts my last night's comments in a more organized . . • .. •.. form, I hope. . .• . I repeat the pressure of time expressed by other members. There is so much information and data, all at once, that I • found it difficult to focus on the EIR. .• . . •. .In 'my effort to get the "big picture" my focus was on the • . •-• projections, which seemed in the end to be the same: lots of people, lots of-.loss of air .quality, no matter what we do. Accepting these projections, the question is the best -.-way.. to get there from here. Does our approval of 3B : as - . -opposed to No Project,-get us there sooner, or later, or better, or more importantly with more control? It would seem to .me that it- would. In this time of every jurisdiction • seeming to have a policy of "controTled growth" (and that must have infinite definitions) this would be desirable, but • do we, or can we, have such control under any procedure? Is this something staff would properly address, or is this .the time? My other questionwas the 0.6 MGD being the ultimate buildout • because Encina would be expanded and we would never need the . finiI0.6-MGD? I don't think this is extremely vital, but •there are unforeseen conditions that might slow the second ...... half. Such as problems with the first half...Would we need the whole thing, even withEncina. . . ... The fail safe seemed a little hard to get hold of. Just when ............ ..was i,going to be- built, if later, could there be -a problem • of where it would go. I can foresee that we couldn't get a fail safe line from there to the ocean because there would be no wayo get it through the endangered flora and fauna. • -I'm exaggerating, of course, but every posibility would have • problems to overcome, I am sure. . • Site approval: Our approval of this EIR with a site, 38 for • example, would seem to me to have tremendous "clout" when we have hearings later on for the exact location. (I am correct is that procedure, am I not?) I am not objecting to this, or saying I am against the Commission's weight in this, is it proper at this time. • '. • - .•• • 'I- ••• .1 . • • i ) ) Page - On the problems of odors - Commissioner Wrench has a good point in that you can talk about the flora and fauna all you want, but the final thing is.the smell. Because of • Encina no one believes (well,.hardly anyone) believes that it will be odor free. There are a lot of IFS, IF it functions. properly, IF the personnel is trained, etc. Same way with the salts buiJd-up, IF such and such is done, it is mitigated. So, another question: Who monitors all the various mitigating • measures that we et forth? As I pointed out in my final remarks, this EIR pointed out that some of-the mitigating • measures on LCH, which was recently acted upon, are now Laid 0 to have doubtful value as mitigation measures. It is true, - • these may not be significant items in the overall .EIR, but I am concerned that we approve ElkIs with long lists of miti- gations that may be"shot down later. (At the Monterey Confer- • ence there seemed to. be some remarks •(dèrogeratory) about ErRs • 0 and who reads them, and they are all the same and only the • • ..names are changed, and Isome forgot to -do that) 0 • • Fiflally: while unwieldy, I felt the-report was certainly rather well-done-and I have not studied it closelyenough • • yet to pick up various discrepancies in figures, etc.,:-,.but frankly-I am grateful for the additional time. • • • •• • 0 • • Mary Marcus JOSE STAFF REPORT F-5 3rd paragraph, What are endangered species? Please name them. F-6 Mid page, should read proposed, no fail safe F-7 2nd para., what are the sensitive plants impacted F-7 percolation site will or won't impact archaeological site F-14 3rd para., should read investigated F-15 5th para., environment F-21 2nd paragraph, I am opposed. 100 yards is not considered adequate for plant and housing. F-23 3rd para., middle of paragraph, would be proposed plant, not sure. F-26 3rd & 4th, agee of lagoons and coa F-33 4th para., 60-80 development. This and reclamation of with the Coastal Commission in protection tal resources acres of 400 has already been rezoned for will have a bearing on agricultural use water consumption Mainly concerned with: Erosion, flood plain, lagoons, Coastal resources, cost to tax payers, storm drain and dam failure, and seismic hazards. EIR 2-4 3rd para., name sensitive plants 2-6 3rd, pipelines route thru sensitive plants 2-6 7th, impact on archaeological sites 2-7 1, secondary impacts of concern though would occur eventually -4-3 3 & 4, erosion hazards, not adequately considered 4-6 1, average rainfall of 13" per year is malarky 4-6 4, flooding effect on sites outside of LCH development 4-7 5, question of annual Carlsbad precipitation - 15" year? 4-8 1, Lake Wohiford is not 10 mi east of . .4-11, 4-13 name sensitive plants, what measures taken to protect 5-2 2, plant sites most sensitive to flooding 5-3 2, concerned about 900 tons of salt added to ground water basin 5-4 4, reclamation, i.e. satellite treatment site se1f defeating 5-12,13 4, disposal of sludge 5-13 3, leaking of chlorine gas and gas supply for standby generator 5-15 4, impacts on Biota, significant and irreversible over 5-16 1-4, controlled growth 5-17 6, community services, school problems GARY D. WRENCH 3531 CJJJIRTER OAK DRIVE CARLSBAD 1 CALIFORNIA 92008 JIUECEflTE March 8, 1979 I.L4R 12 1979 Mr. Stephen M. L'Heureux .Cf[Y OF CA LS'D Chairman Planning Commission City Hall E1n DeprLm....4 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SATELLITE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY Dear Hap: As I indicated at our last meeting, I am writing to set forth some comments regarding the subject EIR. I feel that the report is, in general, quite complete and represents an honest attempt to deal with the important issues. I am con- cerned, however, that because of the report's size and broad- reaching scope, some of the most important issues are perhaps buried or not adequately emphasized or accurately character- ized ,,and it is these I would like to address. In particular, I feel the report does not adequately highlight the impacts on the environment of odor and the consequences of sludge disposal problems (which are well identified as a serious, county-wide problem). Also, better perspective needs to be given to the issue of the very high levels of dissolved solids in the effluent which seem likely to impair the prac- tical viability of waste water reclamation. 1. In discussing the odor problem on Page 5-8 and elsewhere, the report seems to conclude that no problems will arise because sludge will be regularly removed, never allowed to accumulate, and that equipment malfunctions will always be promptly corrected. I find all Of these assump- tions unacceptably naive. Even allowing for the best available engineering, maintenance, and planning for sludge disposal, I believe fervently in Murphy's Law and expect that periods of extended malfunction will unavoid- ably occur and that for reasons now unforeseen, sludge accumulation will be a definite possibility. I think it is wrong for a report such as the EIR to assume otherwise. 2.. The report conveys a much too limited view of and treats, In an inadequate fashion, the extent of the areas likely to be impacted by any possible odors. I think a much more thorough discussion needs to be given on the move- ment of odors during periods of very low velocity wind. p a. t Mr. Stephen M. L'Heureux Page 2 March 8, 1979 Such "light airs" can occur from all points of the com- 'pass during the day, but especially during nighttime hours. I submit that everyone---including those at all compass points---will be impacted at some time or another. I think it is clear that this will unfavorably impact residential neighborhoods already existing and to be developed including those which are outside the designated study area. I think it is absolutely wrong to term the odor impact 'minor or insignificant" (Reference Page 5-23). I think a more accurate assessment would include the statement that, "major and significant amounts of increased odor are 22sible during any period of eciuipment malfunction and in the most severe occurrences of malfunction could extend for a mile or more in any diEction". 3. Virtually no discussion is made of the odor potential from percolation beds although the possibility is acknowledged. I believe EIR should treat this impact in a more cornpre- hênsive manner. 4. With respect to the quality of reclaimed water, it seems to me much too little emphasis is given to the assumption that water softeners must be prohibited in the study area if the TDS standards are to be realized. • With the TDS content of our water already on the rise and likely to become worse, it seems to me that pressures for water conditioning including the possibility of "illegal" conditioning units installed by individual home owners must be recognized. This, together with the need to assure well functioning percolation beds and 400 acres or so of agricultural land to use the reclaimed water in perpetuity seem to me all need to be summed up clearly and concisely at some point in the report. I would hope that the planning staff will be able to forward these thoughts and those expressed by other members of the Commission to the City Council and other key decision makers in an appropriate way. The fauna most impacted by this project will be humans. Since/ply yours, Gary ']5'rch cc: Mr. James Hagaman, Planning Director 40 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 TELEPHONE: (714) 729-1181 QJttp at February 2, 1979 LM--Montgomery Consulting Engineers 555 E Walnut Street Pasadena, California 91101 ATTENTION: Ms. Janet Fahey Subject: Draft EIR for Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility, Carlsbad, California. Janet: Attached for your review and response are copies of the responses that we received to subject EIR. We will be holding a meeting here at 3:00 P.M. on Wednesday, February 7, 1979, to discuss the responses among ourselves. You may wish to attend. I'm sure it would be informative. Please let me know if you need anything else. Sincerely, /(I t k,,. , Don L. Rose A$$OCTATF3 PLANNER DI4:ar Enclosure MEMORANDUM DATE: January 30, 1979 TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager Ron Beckman, Administrator, Public Works Don Rose, Associate Planner Bud Plender, Assistant to the Planning Director FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director SUBJECT: Processing the Proposed Satellite Waste Water Treatment Facility for Lake Calavera Hills The attached letter from Ed Haworth is the result of our conversation relating to processing this matter. If there are any concerns or questions relative to this, please advise as soon as possible. JCH:jd t F ( hrth 11 C son, 1 development urban planning & 114111 46/ / TO: Jim Hagaman '4b,7y/~Z, 8, & FROM: Ed Haworth DATE: January 25, 1979 SUBJECT: Processing the Proposed Satellite Waste Water Treatment Facility for Lake Calavera Hills As I indicated in our last meeting, Jim, I am writing down my under- standing of processing the proposed Lake Calavera Hills Waste Water Treatment Facility. Once you have read this memorandum please let me know if I am in error of the understanding of the process. 1. On February 28 the Planning Commission will hold a hearing on the EIR prepared by Montgomery Engineers. As I understand it, this EIR will be the base environmental document for (a) evalua- tion of the concept of satellite waste water treatment facilities, (b) the proposed zone change for a specific site on Lake Calavera Hills, and (c) the specific site plan that is required in conjunc- tion with a PU zone change request. Action by the Planning Commis- sion at this meeting will be to determine the adequacy of the Environ- mental Impact Report. At the conclusion of this meeting (it may take more than one meeting) the Planning Commission will recommend certi- fication of the EIR to the City Council. 2. The next step will be for the City Council to hold a hearing on the EIR and eventually certify the EIR as adequate. In addition, it is anticipated that the City Council will also make a policy decision on whether satellite waste water treatment facilities are a feasible alternative. As you recall, Ron Beckman has indicated that he is 31882 camino capistrano, suite 270 san juan capistrano, ca. 92675 (714) 6616212 . . prepared to make a staff recommendation on the use of satellite waste water treatment facilities. His staff report could be available for the February 28th Planning Commission meeting, if, in your judgment, you feel it would be appropriate to give his report to the Planning Commission at that time. 3. Once the City Council makes a policy decision on satellite waste water treatment facilities, the Planning Commission (assuming a favorable decision by the City Council) will then hear the proposed zone change and site plan review applications busniitted by Lake Calavera Hills. I am assuming that the EIR prepared as a part of the Montgomery Report will, for all practical purposes, serve as the EIR for the zone change and site plan review applications. It is impor- tant, however, not to forget to incorporate the CEQA requirements for these two hearings. 4. Once the Planning Commission has heard these two applications their recommendations are forwarded to the City Council. At that time a public hearing will be held by the City Council on the zone change and the site plan review. -2- r ,-' -, 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 - £ ?FO of CarWbab January 16, 1979 TELEPHONE: (714) 729-1181 Mr. Edward E. Haworth, President Haworth, Carroll and Anderson, Inc. 31882 Camino Capistrano, Suite 270 San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Dear Ed: We have reviewed your request to process the Lake Calavera Hills satellite water treatment plant zone change and precise development plan concurrently with the EIR and facilities plan (Montgomery Report). Although concurrent hearings may provide better review of the various interrelationships between these actions, and possibly save time, our City Council has deferred a decision on siting the satellite plant until after approval of the Montgomery Report.. I indicated this to Roy Ward in my letter dated November 3, 1978. I believe there is good reason for the City Council to defer such decision. The Montgomery Report is not only an EIR, but a project and financial report on alternative sites. Therefore its possible that the site favored by Mr. Ward would differ from the site selection of the City Council. If this occurred a great deal of time and expense would be wasted by all of us. I also stated in my November 3, 1978, letter that It appeared not in Mr. Ward's best interest to apply for a specific satellite plant until City Council action. However, I indicated that should Mr. Ward wish to apply for a Zone Change and Precise Development Plan he may do so at this time even though staff will not be able to make recommendation until such time as Council has considered the project report. For your information I have enclosed my November 3, 1978, letter with attachments. Yours very truly, PME ann SC. ling 'II JCH: BP: jd Enc. - " Ias)rth• a N Le- -CC carr911C& 1 f~~ andrson, I n 0 . December l8, 78 . It 4.. IL CL I L - Mr. Jim Hagaman . Planning Director City of Carlsbad UJ 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Jim: We recently received notification of the review of the draft EIR for a satellite and sewage treatment facility for the Lake Calavera Drainage basin. It is our understanding that the subject of this hearing will be the Montgomery Report. As you are aware, two additional actions will be required on the Lake Càlavera Hills project that relate to the satellite sewer treatment facility. These are (1) a zone change for the specific location (P.U. zone),and (2) a site plan review of the proposed facilities. Since there is a strong inter-relationship between all three proposals we respectively request that the hearings on all three items be held on -a concurrent basis. We sincerely believe that this would afford the City Council as well as the Planning Commission an opportunity to see the en- tire proposal rather than on a segmented basis. We, of course, understand that the decision on each item will be separate and on a sequential basis (i.e., a decision must be reached on the acceptance of the concept of a satellite wastewater treatment facility before action can be taken on a specific proposal). Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, HAWORTH, CARROLL & ANDERSON, INC. : Edwarc E. Haworth President EEH:mkn cc: Mr. Roy Ward E." DEC2i 1978 C1( Ur CALS' PiEmr1no Uzpan. - 31882 camino capistrano, suite 270 san Juan capistrano, ca. 92675 (714) 661-6212 ! .. 41 F, 1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPI4ONE CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 7294131 City of Carib November 3, 1978 Mr. Roy J. Ward General. Partner LAKE CALAVERA HILLS 3088 Plo Pico Drive Suite 201 Carlsbad, California 92008 fl,O\J 14 1973 Dear Mr. Ward: We have your letter of October 30,-1978 which indicates you are submitting an "amended Application for Zone Change and. Precise Plan for Waste Water Treatment Facility to he located in Lake Calavera Hills". Before responding to your letter, I think it would be useful to place your request in -c perspective by reviewing the status to date of your request for City approval of a satellite sewage treatment facility for your project. The matter first came officially to the City Council's attention when you addressed a letter, dated March 8 19781 to the Mayor and City Council. That letter recognized that the City was faced with two separate major policy decisions in connection with Lake Calavera Hills.. You correctly identified those decisions as; first, a judgment by the Council on what constitutes a feasible alternative to..the Encina Treatment Plant, and second, the actual project.. TO assist the. Council in making a judgment on the first of - those decisions, you volunteered to provide an overview report dealing with the feasibility of satellite waste water treatment facilities in the City of Carlsbad. The letter also contained a discussion of other related matters and asked the Council to give certain directions to their staff.. That letter was presented to the City Council at their March 21, 1978 meeting. The City Council set it to hearing at their adjourned work session meeting on March 28, 1978. Pending that meeting, you applied to the Planning Department for a conditional use permit for a sewage treatment plant - That application was returned to you by Mr. Plender via a letter dated March 20, 1978. Mr. Plender indicated that Mr. Roy Ward I November 3, 1978 Page two the application could not properly be received since there was no provision in our Code for a conditional use permit for a sewer plant. We assumed that you agreed to our action in that regard as we have received no further communication relative to that application. The City Council considered the matters raised in your March 8, 1978 letter at their adjourned meeting on March 28, 1978. A copy of the minutes of that meeting is enclosed for your reference. The City Council indicated a willingness to consider further the concept of regional satellite sewage treatment plants; however, they declined to either approve your specific application or direct staff as you had requested.. Specifically, the City Council unanimously took the following actions: 1. Accepted the overview report of Waste Water Reclamation Opportunities in the City of Carlsbad. 2. Accepted the recommendations of the Public Works Administrator that satellite treatment plants for individual projects not be considered and that such plants would beconsidered further on the basis of drainage basins. 3. Directed the staff to return with a report on the appropriate procedure for processing your master plan amendment and a satellite sewage treatment plant for the basin within which your project is located. As the City Attorney indicated to you in his letter of October 24, 1978, it is his opinion that your request for approval of a separate satellite treatment plant to serve the Lake Calavera Hills master plan area was denied by the City Council on March 28, 1978. At that time, you specifically requested the Council to authorize staff to proceed to process that request and the City Council declined Based on the City Council's action, the specifics of the satellite treatment plant included in your master plan amendment (150- A) and EIR-403 were removed. The master plan is being processed on the basis that the specific sewage treatment proposal has already been denied. In accordance with, and based upon Council's direction, the staff returned with reports on the processing of the master plan amendment and the treatment plant at the City Council's meeting of April 18, 1978. The Council had before them at that time a report from the City Attorney, dated April 12, 1978; a report from the City Manager, with the same date; and a report from the Public Works Administrator, dated April 11, 1978. Again, you took the opportunity to present to the Council your views of how the matter should proceed. Again, the city Council's action, by unanimous vote, was November 3, 19, Page three . I to decline to proceed as you requested. The City Council unanimously voted to authorize the City Manager to proceed as outlined in the City Attorney's report-of April 12, 1978- A copy of that report is enclosed for your reference. In accordance with the Council's direction, my staff has been operating on the basis of the April 12, 1978 report.. In approving that report, the City Council reaffirmed their previous action and accepted the City Manager's recommendation that the sewage plant for the basin was a City concern and should be treated as a City project. In that regard, the City Council approved his recommendation that the City fund the Environmental Impact Report, the Project Report and the Financial Plan necessary to allow the City Council to give further consideration to the plant. •,0 I think it might be useful to review the processes outlined in the City Attorney's memorandum and give you my under- standing of the current status of the matter. In that regard, the-report contained five separate actions as follows: 1. Direct the City Manager to take the steps necessary to prepare a Project Report, Financial Report and En- vironmental Impact Report for a satellite treatment plant to serve the drainage basin in which the Lak Calavera Hills project is located as outlined in the City Manger's memorandum and Public Works Adminis-- trator's memorandum.. That process is well underway. The City Council on June 6, 1978 appropriated the sum. of $33,000 to pay the City's costs for those reports. At the same time, the Council commissioned J. N. - Montgomery to prepare drafts of the required reports. 2. The City Council initiated a general plan amendment to revise the land uses in the Lake Calavera Hills area and to provide a mechanism to accommodate the siting of satellite sewage treatment plants. In addition, the staff was instructed to prepare an EIR on those amend- ments.. The -EIR has been certified and the required amendments have been accomplished. - 3. The City Council instructed staff to initiate a hearing to revise the ru, OS and EA zones as necessary to accommodate the siting of satellite sewage treatment plants. Those amendments have been made, which clearly permit sewage treatment plants in the Public Use (P.U.) Zone. - 4. The City Council authorized the Planning Department to continue work on the Lake Calavera Hills master plan. • Mr. Roy Ward November 3, 1978 Page four As-you know, the master plan amendment is before the City Council for approval at a public hearing which will be held on November 14, 1978. 5. The City Council deferred .a. decision on siting the - satellite sewage treatment plant until after approval of the Project Report, Financial Report and EIR. As you can see, substantial progress has been made in processing your request and -all those matters necessary to complete the processing are well underway. Your letter of October18 indicates it is an amended Application for a Zone Code Change and Precise Plan for a Proposed Waste Water Treatment Facility in Lake Calavera Hills. As indicated above, the City Council has denied your request in that regard. Based on Council action your amended application is hereby returned. If you disagree with that action, or with our characterization of the status of your requests to . date, please notify us in writing as soon as possible. It would appear not in your best interest to apply for a specific satellite sewage treatment plant as outlined ' in the alternatives of the Montgomery report until further Council action. However, should you wish, to apply for a Zone Change • and Precise Development Plan for a satellite sewage. treat- ment plant you may do so at this time. Staff will not be able to recommend approval of said application however until such time as Council has considered 'the Project Report. If you do wish to apply for:the Zone Change and Precise Development Plan, we have enclosed the proper form for a Precise Development Plan, which was .not included in your application and October 30 letter.' 1n that case you submitted the Conditional Use Permit application form. . You may have been misinformed of the proper-application forms as they have just recently been instituted. - In addition, staff is reviewing your project as submitted and if you do intend to reapply with the proper forms, the * necessary information needed for a complete application for a sewer treatment plant will be forwarded in .a separate letter. '- ' . • - Should you choose to submit a new application at this time. the staff will review it and inform you as to whether or not the application is complete as submitted. As of that date, when the application is deemed complete, the time constraints November 3, 1978 Page five of AB 884 will commence. I wish to assure you that my staff is taking the necessary steps to set the Project, Financial and EIR Reports on the satellite sewage treatment plant to hearing before the City Council in as expedicious a manner as possible.. I regret the continued confusion in regards to processing, however, there has been substantial progress made, based on Council's direction as indicated in this letter and the matter is well in hand to reach a conclusion in the near future. If the Council certifies the EIR and approves the Project Report and the Financial Plan, it will then be necessary to work out the various legal and financial arrangements necessary to accomplish the construction of the plant. Any nec essary: land use approvals can be processed concur- rently with that effort. A new application from you at that point would-.be appropriate in our view. We think this letter correctly sets out the status of Lake Calavera Hills at this time. If you disagree, please let me know in writing with specifics as soon as possible.. Very truly yours, CANES C. Planning JCH:ms Enclosures cc: P. Bussey V. Biondo R. Beckman MEMORANDUM ___V. • DATE: April 12, 1978 TO: Mayor and City Counci1membrs; FROM: City Attorney V V SUBJECT: BECONMENDATIONS RE PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING SATELLITE TREATMENT FACILITY FOR THE LAKE CALAVERA HILLS DRAINAGE BASIN V V The City Council, at your'March 28, 1978 adjourned meeting,- considered a series of staff reports regarding a proposal for construction of a satellite sewage treatment plant in connection with the Calavera Hills Development After considering the • reports the VCouncil indicated their willingness to consider V the matter furthe±- provided the proposal was viewed in the - • context of the entire drainage basin. The Council directed V the staff to return with a specific series of recommendations - on how to proceed. The City Manager, City Attorney, Public V V V Works Administrator and Planning Director have discussed the matter at.length. Since the majority of the procedural steps depend on interpretations of our existing ordinances, tlfe City Manager has asked that I prepare this report. It includes his recommendations and those of the Public Works Administrator • - and the Planning Director. V V VV V PROJECT REPORT, FINANCIAL REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: The Public Works Administrator is of the 'opinion that in order to give further consideration to the development of a satellite treatment facility in the Lake Calav?ra Hills drainage basin, that it is necessary to commission the preparation of a Project Report, Financial Report and Environmental Impact Report. The Council wi].1 recall that a similar procedure.was utilized in considering the approval of the Phase III expansion of the V Encina Plant. The Public WorksAdrainistrator has prepared a V memorandum outlining the matters to be covered in those reports. The City Manager is of the opinion that the reports should be funded by the City. His memorandum discussing the basis for that recommendation and the Public Works Administrator's memorandum have been V furnished to the Council.. If the City Council concurs, your action is as follows:. Recommendation No.l: Direct the City Manager to take the steps necessary to cause the preparation of a Project Report, a Financial Report and an EIR. for a satellite Mayor aflcL City CounCiJnenueL -. . treatment plant to.serve the drainage basin in which the Calavera Hills-Project is located as outlined in the City Manager's and Public Works Administrator's memoranda. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: As outlined in the City Attorney's memorandum of March. 23, 1978, the first step in processing the revised Calavera Hills Master Plan is a General Plan amendment to revise the land use elemen€. In view of the Planning Moratorium, it will be necessary for the City Council to take action to initiate the amendment. The amendment to the land use element would place those changes necessary to accommodate the proposed revised Master Plan before the Council for a decision. That matter would be heard in conjunction with the hearing on an Environmental Impact Report. The bulk of the staff work has already been done in connection with work on the revised Master Plan.. - A General Plan amendment in regards to the satellite plant would also be required. It is contemplated that we would not specifically site the plant but rather provide in the General Plan authority for the Council to locate a satellite plant within a particular drainage basin and outline the procedure for accomplishfng a specific siting of such a plant which cbuld include Master Plan approvals or Specific Plans. This amendment could be heard in conjunction with the hearing on the land use axaendmeriis and the BIR could cover both matters. It will be necessary to-expand the draft EIR prepared for the revised Master Plan to consider. the effects of the satellite plant throughout the drainage basin. It is anticipated the staff will undertake that obligation. If the City Council concurs, you should proceed as follows: Recommendation No. 2: By motion the City Council should initiate a General Plan amendment to revise the land use elexnent.in the Calavera Hills area and to provide for the siting of satellite treatment plants .and instruct, staff to prepare an EIR on the amendments.. ZONE CODE AMENDMENTS: . As outlined in the City Attorney's memorandum of March 23, 1978, the p-U Zone is considered the appropriate vehicle for develop- ment of a satellite sewage treatment plant. It will be necessary to revise the P-U Zone to make sewage treatment plants a permitted use in the zone. At the same time it has been suggested by the a 41- Mayor and City Councilmembers -3- April 12, 1978 Planning Director that the permitted uses in the 0-S and B-A Zones be revised slightly to clarify that the utility uses provided for therein are limited to accessory uses... If the Council concurs your action is as follows: Recommendation No..3: By motion instruct staff to initiate hearings at the Planning Commission to revise the P-U, 0-S and B-A Zones as necessary to accommodate satellite sewage treatment plants and clarify the permitted utility uses. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT: The same time work is progressing on Recommendations 1, 2 and 3, staff contemplates continuing to work on the Calavera Hills Master Plan amendment. It would not be possible to bring that amendment forward for hearing until after the EIR was certified.. and the General Plan..athendments were approved. However,,the hearings could occur within two weeks of such approval.. The Project Report, Financial Report and BIR on the plant should. be heard before the Master Plan amendment. That wou1dl1ow the specific site and other matters regarding the plant to be included in the Master-Plan. This may not be possible due to the AB-884 time limits or political considerations. In that event, provisions will need to be included in the Master Plan to accommodate a range of possibilities for the plant.. The amendment would contain authority for locating a public utility area within the community should the Project Report indicate that was the appropriate location for the satellite plant. This would obviate the need for subsequent rezonings or Master Plan amendments. Appropriate conditions would be attached to the - Master Plan to assure that no further development or building would occur until the matter of sewer service had been finally resolved. The Master Plan would provide further that the plant would be specifically sited by approval of a Precise Plan for development under the procedures of the P-U Zone. If the plant is to be located outside the Lake Calavera Hills boundaries, a more complicated series of conditions would be required as well as some additional actions as discussed below.. If the City Council concurs your action is as follows: Recommendation No. 4: Council should authorize the Planning Department to continue work on the Calavera Hills Master Plan to include prQvisions for accommodat- ing a satellite sewage treatment plant. Mayor and City Counci].members -4- April 12, 1978 SITING OF SATELLITE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT: Staff contemplates that a decision on siting of the. satellite sewage treatment plant would not occur until after approval of the EIR, Financial Report and Project Report.. If the reports indicate that the plant should be located within the boundaries of Calavera Hills Master Plan, staff will proceed to work out the various arrangements necessary to accomplish the construction of the plant. Those will be outlined and developed more fully as part of the Project Report and Financial Plan. As indicated above, the procedure to site the plant would be accomplished through the processing of a Precise Plan Development under the procedures of the P-U Zone. If the report indicates that the site should be outside the boundaries of the Calavera Hills Development, then there are some additional steps which must be taken. It would be necessary , for the Council to initiate rezoning of the site to P-U. Arrangements would also have to be made to acquire the site through purchase or condemnation. It would also be necessary to acquire those properties or easements over properties in the vicinity of the plant that could be adversely effecjed since it is now established that the City can be liab]in inverse condemnation if a plant has an adverse effect on the surroundinç properties. Once arrangements have been made for acquisition of the necessary site, and the rezoning, staff would proceed to process the specifics of the plant using the Precise Plan process in the P-U Zone. No City Council action is necessary at this time and details of this recommendation will be more fully developed in the context of the development and the Project Report.. ASSEMBLY BILL 884: As the Council knows, AB-884 requires all development approval-s' in connection with a project to be accomplished within one year or the development is automatically approved. The City Manager and the City Attorney contemplate meeting with the developer of Calavera Hills in the near future in an attempt to reach an agreement on the status of the Calavera Hills project vis-a-vis AB-884. No Council action is required at this time but it is - - anticipated that we will be bringing a further report on this matter to the Council in the future. Mayor and City C•cilmembers -5- April 12, 1978 ALTERNATIVE PROCESSES: The procedural steps out1ined above are based on the City's existing ordinances and General Plan..: There may be alternatives... The developer has suggested, for instance, that the plant should be sited utilizing a Specific Plan. The Specific Plan would contain ordinance provisions for processing and siting the sewer plant. This alternative was not recommended for a number of reasons, including: 1. The recommended process is in keeping with established practice in the City of Carlsbad and utilizes existing ordinances. 2. The essential steps in the processing; that is, the General- Plan amendments, the EIR's, Project Report, construction agreements, site acquisition, etc. are the same irresDective of the procedural. steps which would be substantially the same in any case.. 3. The option of siting a sewer plant by Specific Plan, could be included in the General Plan and Master Plan amendments. If it is later determined to be desirable, it couidbe used in pladé of the P-U Zone process without changing the substance of these recommendations. If the City Council wishes to consider alternative means of pro- cessing, it is recommended that they direct the City Manager and the City Attorney to report further in detail on those alternatives- CONCLUSION: The recommendations contained in this report are in an attempt to summarize those recommendations contained :in the City Attorney's report of March 23, 1978 atid the reports from the City Manager, Planning Director and Public Works Administrator The Council should keep in mind thatthis proposal is a complex matter and that these recommendations are subject to refinement - - in the. future. - - :VINCENT F. )3IONDO, JR. City Attorney VF/m1a 0 Narch 28, 1978 Council agreed that the suggestions of Mayo Packard be facijitated where possible. 2. 1A COSTA OPEN SPACE MAINTENA NCE STRICT. Administrative Assistant, •Hr. Frank Nannen, gave a brief introduction of *the matter indicating the purpose as to provide Council with back— .ground information as to the progress of forming an Open Space Nainteriace District in the Green Valley Knolls Subdivision. Mr. Frank Salfinqere, Consultant with the firm of Urban Engineering' '. 19720 Camino De Rosa, Walnut, California, addressed Council. He indicated the District is td be implemented under the Land- scaping and Lighting Act of 1972.. He indicated the areas to be considered when es- tablishing a District were as follows: 1. Identification of nature Of improvements.. - 2.. Verification Of public purpose being served... 3. Identification of boundary of District of properties involved; and 4. Assessments themselves and basis for spread- ing those assessments. He explained each briefly and refereiced a wall' • exhibit showing the Assessment District. He. .indicated i.t was an annual •program.and wou1d - come before Council each year at which time - • Council couldmake modifications or changes. - He stated the assessments would rane from $10.00 to $15..00 per month and would be filed-with the .County-Tax Collector and.becorne part of the tax bill. .. .-- • . . • - 3. PROCESSING OF LAKE CALAVERA HILLS SEWAGE • TREATMENT FACILITY (Agenda Bill 3069, Supplement • ____ •- :- •. • .• - The City Manager gave .a brief in oductiôn of the matter indicating Council .should consider the basic question of satellite- treatment plants and how the entire processing would occur including processing on the Calavera. Master-Plan.. k 1 TS I I Egg I Motion Ay&s 1x -x p1 £ V : ---I • I ' •- • I • • . fE I I 1.- The Public Works Administrator then gavea staff report.. . He stated there are three basic ques- tions for Council consideration.. 1. Is the City willing to consider satellite facilities? If the deterhination is yes, the following questions need consideration.. 2.. Should City consider this concept as a City wide Master Plan typeofprogram or on the basis of a project by project evaluation.. 3. Should City consider each service area as a whole entity or small projects within each drainage basin service area.. • I • •• •.• • . . - - . - - - . - - ,.- - - -•-• •t -.- - - •• - •_%_•• - -----S • .•••••.•,•- . • .. . • •-. •- • S _______________ -S .1 He detailed tne nu i lloei . ii.- three questions' which should be considered in reaching a deterati0fl. Council questioned whether it would require application to EPA and if it could possibly affec EPA's outlook on the. Encina expansion; Staff reponse indicated there would not be a need to apply to EPA unless the ocean outfall would be Used. In addition, the plants would initially be treatment plants and would be reclamation plan s later when it was. determined to be economically Council expres~sed concern about the proposed methods of financing .these plants creating growth that would exceed the CPU Population Forecast.. Council also expressed concern -about the many factorsthat would have a direct bearing on the Capital Improvement Program and the City's abilit to provide all other services. Council questioned where the funding for such plants would be obtained other than City.. • Staff respbnse indicated realistically at this ti e private enterprise would be the only source; • however, a possibility may be State funding or funds from. other service agencies... • - - C&üncil then questioned how the resulting sludge • • from these plants would be treated. Staff indicated ifCouncil desired to '-proceed wit satelliteplants, the problem of sludge as well .• ' as other areas would be addressed in a major • project report which would need to be. completed.. •Council recognized Mr. Roy Ward, 3088 Rio Pico - Avenue, Carlsbad,.one of the land owners.of Lake - * Calavera Hills.. He stated they are anxious to • proceed- but wish to indicate the most important • factor is the long term planning-for Carlsbad. • hr. Ward introduced Mr. Dennis O'Leary, Mr. • 'William Fannon, Mr. Ed Haworth and Mr. Roger Grab e • to Council, whowere present to respond to Counci • questions. . . .•• . . •.• •: • • . • -. - - Mr. Ed Haworth of Haworthand Anderson, Inc 31882 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, - addressed Council. He stated the proposed system should not be considered a replacement for the Encina facility. He indicated if Council deter- mined it. was a feasible concept, a great deal of consideration should be given to how it' wtll- be processed. . . Mr. Dennis O'Leary of Lowry & Associates, 3505 El Camino del Rio South, San Diego, addressed Council. He stated the report. was intended as a conceptual plan only, to provide an analysis of reclamation opportunities in this area.. He dis- P')l1c3rI + c rnrar chnwinrj f-hQ •I-b-cS;I ••cSf -r • -. ( L. S "is •_ . '-' • '- •• -. ,• '•, •, . •• I. I I .• L4 I " I J ii .. I I tratjon in the report and proposed locatioas of the plants. I I Ii • t •1 • t•. .i. I LI • .,• •; - 1.•"T1 MM - 'March 28, 1978 He'continued stating the basic concept would require failsafe connections to the Enc'ina ocean outfalL In addition, if it is not possible to put the sludge into, the sewer system to be carrie to Encina for processing, it would be processed via a different method on site of the reclamation , plant Mr.. O'Leary concluded by stating this general concept and the satellite plants are in the 208 Program.. . . . . • RECESS: Mayor Packard -called a recess at 9:02 P.M.. and Council reconvened at 9:12 P..L_ with all Council members present. Council discussed the desirability of obtaining' opinions re this matter from the other member agencies ,of JAC, the Regional Water Control Board • and CPO in that they are mentioned .in the report. • and may be affected.. .. .. '•• • The City Attorney reported to Council briefly on • • procedural matters indicating if the City desired to prepare an amendment to the Sewer Master Plan . to include satellite plants, it'would require a '.complete EIR.. . ., ... •.. . . . It was moved that:the report be filed without Motion- further action. The motion died for lack of a • second'..• .. . • ..• •. - .• . Council accepted the Overview of Waste Water Motion Reclamation Opportunities as an acceptabl.e concep-.iyes. • Council accepted the Public Works ,Admnistrator's Motion recommendation that satellite treatment plants be Ayes • considered on the basis of drainage basin.. • . Staff then reported on the status àf the Lake • Calaverá Hills project and additional work re- • quired as a result of Council's previous action-. Discussion then related to the desirability of returning the matter to staff for preparation. of a report containing a recommended course of actio - • for processing a satellite -plant in a drainage' . basin. . • . . . - -• Mr. Haworth, Haworth and Anderson, Inc., addresse Council.. He concurred with the desirability of staff furnishing an additional report and request ed it be accomplished and rettirned to Council at the earliest possible meeting.' Council instructed staff to return with a report. otion yes I •;.;, , Mayor Packard requested the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate wording of the motion and to furnish same to the City Clerk. ADJOURNMENT: . By proper motion, the 'meeting was adjourned at 10:04 P.J4.. .. •. . •I I I. :j C1T( OF CARLS3/ - - -1 - 5 - • • - • : •. • .• ..•: • ..• ••• • • •.: March 28. 1978 • •d:1f 4 - *--- -. Respctfuly submitted, • •:. - • ••. MAR AT E. ADAMS, City Clerk. Lee Rautenkranz, Recording - . - • Secretary - - The motion as prepared. by the City Attorney is as . follows: : .• •. • - • '•••-F Council di'rected staff to report back with a - I recommendedcourse of action for processing the - Lake Cal avera. Hills Master Plan and a satellite sewer plant for that drainage basin. - - --. - - • • • - • • -.- • - • H / . . •- • ...- .---- .--:. - ---. - • -- • • - • • •.- - . • •.--• ;•• ••-•..-- • - • -. • •. - -•:---. - -... •••. -•• .'-_x_ - law JAJ'A E lvi. K4QMTQfv1 R'Y', CQNJLJLT I r4Q ENI NI RS, I NI c. 555 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, California 91101/(213) 796-9141/ (21 3) 681-4255 Cable Address: Montgomery Pasadena California Telex: 67-5420 796.0016 V - December 21, 1978 DEC 25 1978 C!yy ut UARLSBI-O Planning City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Don Rose, Current Planning Subject: EIR and Facilities Plan for a Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility, Carlsbad, California Dear Don: I find, after careful inventory, that I have ten more copies of our report. Bear in mind that Ted Donald and Company want dibs on six of those. I am, however, sending you all ten, to distribute as you see fit. Could you please inform Ted, et. al. of that for me? Our printing costs plus shipping are as follows: 10 copies at $6 each = $60 Shipping (ups) 2 Total Happy Chanukah from Santa Monica Fa la la la la, la la la la Very truly yours, Janet Fahey, D.Env. Al $62 PLANNING ... RESEARCH ... ENVIRON MEN TAL ENGINEERING CHY LAKI CALAVERA HILLS 3088 Plo Pico Dr., Suite 201 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (714) 729-4912 DATE JOB # TO: Mr. Paul Bussey .tv , / 12/21/78 SUBJECT: COPY OF LETTER FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR Mr. Edward Haworth suggested that you might be interested in a copy of the letter which was sent to Mr. Jim Hagaman, Planning Director, on December 18, 1978, for your informa- tion. Penny Felker paf Enclosure LJED 4B19 F CARLSB' citn Department / hav>örth, 0 L jcarró11&, 46 C. . - _, J HTfi~OQT urban planning & development December 18, 1978 Mr. Jim Hagaman Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Jim: We recently received notification of the review of the draft EIR for a satellite and sewage treatment facility for the Lake Calavera Drainage basin. It is our understanding that the subject of this hearing will be the Montgomery Report. As you are aware, two additional actions will be required on the Lake Càlavera Hills project that relate to the satellite sewer treatment facility. These are (1) a zone change for the specific location (P.U. zone),and (2) a site plan review of the proposed facilities. Since there is a strong inter-relationship between all three proposals we respectively request that the hearings on all three items be held on a concurrent basis. We sincerely believe that this would afford the City Council as well as the Planning Commission an opportunity to see the en- tire proposal rather than on a segmented basis. We, of course, understand that the decision on each item will be separate and on a sequential basis (i.e., a decision must be reached on the acceptance of the concept of a satellite wastewater treatment facility before action can be taken on a specific proposal). Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, HAWORTH, CARROLL & ANDERSON, INC. Edward E. Haworth President EEH:mkn cc: Mr. Roy Ward 31882 camino capistrano, suite 270 san juan capistrano, Ca. 92675 (714) 661•6212 CH cy LAK• CALAVERA HILLS 3088 Plo Pico Dr., Suite 201 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (714) 729-4912 DATE JOB # TO: Mr. Bussey 12/21/78 SUBJECT: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 1978 RE FEES IN CONDITIONS 2 & 3 Here is a transcript of the minutes of the City Council meeting of December 6, 1978 regarding the discussion of fees in Conditions 2 and 3. The tape is available if you wish to hear it; in many places, it is totally inaudible. Penny Felker paf Enclosure A . I CITY OF CARLSBAD MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 6, 1978 MEETING RE FEES IN CONDITIONS 2 AND 3 Mike Zander: Let me paraphase a bit of the policy issues here. Initially the policy issues here, essentially the policy issues here are the two conditions. If you look at your memo of November 29th, we have really written this out and it's condition number two and condition number three. Condition No.2 speaks to a fee schedule in terms of the construction fee or whatever the terminology is appropriate at this time, in terms of placing within the general plan the ability to collect a fee from public facilities and also indicates that some time in the future and the city- wide program is adopted, this condition will be null and void and that would essentially take the first half of the policy issue of the original memo page 4, which contemplates the full . . . of 21, 22, and 23. The second issue is concerned with the growth management of the decision brought before you. We are suggesting that while in 3 there is no actual limitation on the number of units to be built in the Calavera Hills c annual growth, that there may be some growtn ontrol measures from other agencies of the city council. We may have to limit units per year on the master plan subject to any limit the city may adopt in the future. Those are the two policy issues contained in that statement. Mayor Packard asked if there were any questions or clarifications. Mary Casler: On the first one - if you impose this as a condition on the master plan, do you not need to go to the voter. Roy Ward: Mr. Mayor, I can give you an answer concerning that. It's number two on the November ballot. Mary Casler: That answers my question. I just wanted to be sure that we were briefed no matter what the situation. Mr. Lewis: I have a question. The fee is so stated that should there be need for additional fees, would that go to a citywide vote? Mr. Bussey: We have not developed the language for financing the plan. adjustment We will try to bring about something that will allow an A or inter- pretation on the plan. If, instead, at some appropriate time, we will CITY OF CARLSBAD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 1978 Page 2 assertain that this is successful, the same answer applies that we do not yet know not only about the development but whether that might be the year of flexibility. Mr. Skotnicki: I was wondering in reference to Mrs. Casler's remark regarding the building, is it fairly certain that a citywide construc- tion tax need to be put on the ballot or is that just something that we feel might be done? Mr. Biondo: Los Angeles city attorney's office advised counsel about property tax, according to some . . . outlining space. (much of this is inaudible as was not near the microphone). Notes of steno present states, "Mr. Biondo then spoke at length about voting in Los Angeles and business license taxes". Mr.Skotnicki: And the other question I had on this, I feel that some- thing like this is essential. I am rather concerned that the conditions couch and what may be necessary be said, that each village shall pay the applicable fee outlined in the set fee schedule necessary to mitigate the deficit and identify them. I wondered about whether we are tying ourselves down and could gradually find another, better way of determining fair fee. If we did, it would mean that we could make a revision; other- wise, we would be bound by this and the Levander report - well, I have no argument with the general frame of it, but the staff is fairly assured that the basis ofthe computation of what we have here and have in mind. Mike Zander: Let me indicate one thing that we did draft this in a rather hastey manner as indicated at the last meeting, with the full intent of direction of the council. We, too, are looking at it ourselves at some areas we would like to work on with Mr. Biondo, who is going to help us with that. Mr. Skotnicki: Staff is aware of this and that's O.K. with me, anyway. CITY OF CARLSBAD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 1978 MEETING PAGE 3 Mike Zander: Does Mr. Biondo have additional writings? Vince Biondo: Well, I have and I think the basic policy (fades out). Steno present stated:"Mr. Biondo responded that they are still working on it. It is a policy decision and would attempt to do that work as part of the Master Plan. Council will develop fee schedule based on the judgement of its discussion." The word mitigate became of central interest. Mr. Skotnicki: You're quite right that we debated and discussed the issue in the context of the Levander Report, but I sort of felt that your ideas knowing that the construction tax had been applied in the other system, the research may prove a closer look as a basis than the Levander report. Mike Zander: I tried to choose the words carefully on this first attempt and that the city attorney would probably rewrite it, but the one word I tried to deal with very carefully '-which committee meeting has been used alot and needs to be delt with - you can look it up in the dictionary and it says "used for the level of acceptability" and since the council will be making a determination on that T schedule since it wasn't really determined about full-cost recovery or some level of alleviation, I think that really leaves it open on what is the acceptable level of reduction. Mr. Skotnicki: I think that is a word well chosen, because I think the council must discuss something less than not-necessarily full recovery cost but something less than that without stating exactly what, and certainly mitigate would be the proper word for it, and if the staff fees secure and it is acceptable, I would suggest that there is no point in discussing it further and finally writeup any feelings to the contrary which will be taken up in the final master plan. Roy Ward: I have some concerns which are not serious concerns; however, we would like to go on record that the proceedings based on the former committee report be of public concern. I think we need to do everything we can to have some sort of capital improvement fee. I just think that this is essential. However, on this particular recommendation and condi- CITY OF CARLSBAD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 1978 MEETING PAGE 4 tion written by staff, we have a reservation about term "prior to issuance" on this fee schedule which has taken place. We understand why that's there, but we think it might be a little unfair in light of other kinds of conditions and other possibilities that staff had to come up with other items as important, if not more important. I would really like to have you consider directing the city attorney cooperate to the point where we can say that prior to the permits being issued a fee schedule acceptable to the city council or other acceptable agreement between concerned parties - well, I can't foresee it being a further problem, but one never knows. I think we ought to leave that open. (Fades). THIS TAPE IS AVAILABLE: YOU MAY BE BETTER ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT. TRANSCRIBED ON DECEMBER 20, 1978. paf 09 1200 ELM AVENUE O TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 / )i4 ._i/ (714) 729-1181 Qrttp of (artba k December 15, 1978 Lake Calavera Hills 3088 Pio Pica Drive, Suite 201 Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Roy Ward RE: Pending application's for a zone change and a precise development plan for a satellite: sewage: treatment facility. Mr. Ward: This letter follows our telephone conversation of December 14, 1978. We discussed the subject application and agreed upon the following: 1) To remove the attachment to the applications entitled "amended application to locate, design, and construct a satellite sewer treatment facility - Lake Cala.vera Hills." I'm returning said attachments to you with this letter. 2) You will supplement and thereby complete your application by providing pictures or elevations of the proposed buildings of the precise development plan and provide a preliminary landscape plan. The purpose of this information is to demonstrate the appearance of the proposed development for all sides including from above. 3) You suggested that you may prepare a scale model of the development. This would certainly help staff, the decision makers and the public envision how the development will ultimately appear. Following receipt of the above requested information, I will provide formal notice to you that your application is complete. In the meantime we will continue processing the E.I.R. Thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Ward, and I sincerely hope you have a joyous Christmas and a pleasant vacation. Sincerely, Don L. Rose ASSOCIATE PLANNER DLR:ar n .. . 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 TELEPHONE: (714) 729-1181 December 13, 1978 State of California The Resources Agency Secretary for the Resources 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, California 95815 Re: Notice of Completion for Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility, Carlsbad, California Gentlemen: This Notice of Completion rplaces the Notice sent to you on 12/12/78. There was an error in plant capacity on the 12/12/78 Notice. The correct capacity is 1.2 million GPD not 1 million. The attached new Notice reflects this correction. I understand that a form CA-189 will also be required. This form will follow. If you have any questions regarding this. letter, please call the undersigned. Sincerely, DON L. . ROSE Current Planner DLR: j Enc. . I 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 U itp of Cartbbi TELEPHONE: (714) 729-1181 December 13, 1978 Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, California 95814 Attn: Scott Warner RE: Environmental Impact Report For A Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility, Carlsbad, CAlifornia Mr. Warner: Transmitted herewith are eight copies of the subject E.I.R. I'm sorry, you asked for 10 copies; eight is all I have. If you must have more, please call me and I'll Xerox them. I understand that a Form CA-189 must be completed prior to distribution. This will be accomplished via telephone per your directions. Please return any copies that you do not need for distribution. Thanks for your help and cooperation. Have a good Christmas. Sincerely, DON L. ROSE Current Planner DLR:jd Enc. MEMORANDUM DATE: December 7, 1978 TO: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director Ron Beckman, Director of Public Works FROM: Don L. Rose, Current Planning SUBJECT: MONTGOMERY REPORT, E.I.R. FOR SATELLITE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY. Attached is a draft "notice of completion". I will forward this notice to the secretary for the resources as soon as we can decide on the following: 1. The date that copies of the E.I.R. will be available for distribution. 2. The amount of time necessary for staff response to comments received, preparation of staff reports to the Planning Commission and assembly of the final E.I.R. 3. The public hearing date. Also attached is the cover letter that accompanies each E.I.R. sent for review. You may wish to revise it in some form or fashion. I propose to attach a copy of the "Notice of Completion" to the cover letter. DLR : ms 1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 729-1181 Qlit' of (arttiab State of California The Resources Agency Secretary for the Resources 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, Ca. 95814 Project Title: Project Location: Project Description: Project Applicant: Lead Agency: (copy of E.I.R. available at this address) NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of Carlsbad, acting as Lead Agency, will hold a public hearing on the E.I.R. for the above referenced project in the Council Chambers at 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, on Those persons wishing to speak on this matter should appear and present comments at the specified time. TO: SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (E.I.R.) FOR A SATELLITE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY, CITY OF CARLSBAD The City of Carlsbad, acting as lead agency, is circulating the subject E.I.R. for review and comment. If you wish to comment on this E.I.R. please send your written comments to: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Your comments must be received by or, if you wish to testify in person you are invited to do so at the public hearing for subject E.I.R.. See the attached Notice of Completion for the time and place of said heraing. If you have any questions regarding this letter, the attached notice or the subject draft E.I.R. please contact Don Rose, Planning Department, City of Carlsbad, (714) 729-1181. DLR : ms . •flC Z~mc JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Ik6p 07 1978 555 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, California 91101/(213) 796-9141 / (213) 681-4255 Cable Address: Montgomery Pasadena California Telex: 67-5420 Ch \ .:. rfl11fl L 4 : City of Carlsbad DATE: December 4, 1978 1200 Elm Avenue SUBJECT: Draft EIR Lake Calavera Hills Carlsbad, CA 92008 Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility Attn: Don Rose Gentlemen: The following items are: ( ) Requested Enclosed X ) Sent separately via Express Mail Report ( ) Specification ( ) Cost Estimate ( ) Progress Est. ( ) Test Result ( ) Blank Form ( ) Test Sample ( ) Other No. of Copies Description 50 Each of Pages (11 sheets) to be inserted in Draft Reports These data are submitted: x ) At your request ( x ) For your action For your approval ( ) For your files ( ) For your review ( ) For your information General Remarks: Very truly yours, Ends. ( x ) JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Copies to: File 797.0017 GO-4 (10/68) 1r . . STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SAN DIEGO REGION 6154 MISSION GORGE ROAD, SUITE 205 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120 TELEPHONE: (714) 286.5114 LD 1i November 28,28, 1978 Dr. Janet Fahey Montgomery Engineers, Inc. 555 East Walnut Street Pasadena, California 91101 I CID LU NOV 29 1978 INC. Re: Supplement to Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR, Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility, Calavera Hills Area, City of Carlsbad Dear Dr. Fahey: As you requested, we have reviewed the supplement to the Notice of Preparation for the above project. The City of Carlsbad is investi- gating the possibility of allowing the capacity of the proposed Lake Calavera Hills sewage treatment plant to be increased from 0.5 to 1.2 million gallons per day. The Regional Board staff is aware of the proposed change in capacity. We therefore have no special concerns with the supplement Notice of Preparation of a draft EIR. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Roland Rossmiller or. Mr. Pete Michael at the above number. Very truly yours, ARTHUR L. COE Senior WRC Engineer DEC 011978 CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department iT OFF I JAM] OJFiOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 555 Eas Street, Pasade California 91101/(213) 796-9141/(213) 681-4255 Cable Address: California Telex: 67-5420 St9 City of Carlsbad DATE: November 27, 1978 Planning Department SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation for 1200 Elm Avenue Calavera Hills Satellite Sewage Treatment Carlsbad, CA 92008 Facility EIR Attn: Mr. Don Rose, Current Planning Gentlemen: The following items are: ( ) Requested X ) Enclosed Sent separately via First Class Mail Report ( ) Specification ( ) Cost Estimate ( ) Progress Est. Test Result ( ) Blank Form ( ) Test Sample ( x ) Other No. of Copies Description 1 Notice sent to CALTEANS 1 Notice sent to PUC 1 Response to Notice from CPO These data are submitted: At your request For your action ( ) For your approval X ) For your files x ) For your review For your information General Remarks: Very truly yours, Ends. ( 3 JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Copies to: GO-4 (10/68) FWM ~Mro,,AZ MA rA , ffv.77 November 21, 1978 Dr • Janet Fahey James M. Montgomery 555 East Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91101 UJI luw COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION Suite 524 Security Pacific Plaza 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, California 92101 (714) 236-5300 - . o SAN DIEGO REGION'S COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS StJBJECP: Construction of a Satellite Treatment Plan in Lake Calavera Hills: Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR Dear Dr. Fahey: On June 19, 1978, the CEO Board of Directors adopted the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan for the San Diego-Riverside Area • On August 1, 1978, the City of Carlsbad adopted a resolution agreeing to carry out certain activities recommended in the Areawide Plan. My review of this Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR is based on this Areawide Plan. The Areawide Plan has a wastewater facilities "needs assessment" based on the Regional Growth Forecast and a list of recommended wastewater reclamation projects. The reclamation facility at Lake Calavera Hills is in the Areawide Plan and would be considered consistent with the overall plan if the project had the following characteristics: 1. Qily existing agencies providing sewer service are used to operate the proposed wastewater reclamation project. 2. The identification of a reclaimed water market for this project is coor- dinated with the proposed projects being studied by the San Diego Water Reuse Study. 3. Brine from demineralization facilities (if necessary) will not be dis- posed into any downstream existing or proposed reclamation facility (Enema WPCF is a proposed reclamation facility). 4. The reclamation facility is intended to be a permanent facility. In addition to addressing the above four points in the EaR, it will also be necessary to address site and project specific impacts such as energy use, fiscal impacts, archaeology, odor, and residual waste disposal. If you have any questions, please contact me at 236-5374. Sincerely, VLHULZ Senior Regional Planner : ce MEMBER AGENCIES. Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, Vista, and County of San Diego / EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: California Department of Transportation / HONORARY MEMBER Tijuana, B. CFA. o . / _-'t --< - vAAMEES M. 4QT.4TGQFAERf, aNJGlJLTIr4G ENJG I NE ERS, I NC. 555 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, California 91101/(213) 796-9141/(213) 681-4255 Cable Address: Montgomery Pasadena California Telex: 67-5420 November 21, 1978 CALTRANS 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility Project Description: Construction of Satellite Sewage Treatment Facilities in the Calavera Hills Area of the City of Carlsbad Gentlemen: Our firm has been retained by the City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, to prepare the subject EIR. This EIR in many respects will address the same issues as the final EIR-403 for Lake Calavera Hills Master Plan of Development and Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility, dated June 26, 1978, on which you have had an opportunity to comment. The City of Carlsbad is the lead agency for the preparation of the subject EIR. Please sent your response in relation to your legal responsibilities and what information you feel should be included in the EIR to: James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Dr. Janet Fahey 555 East Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91101 When certified, the EIR will be used as the EIR for all responsible agencies involved with the project. Very truly yours, Janet Fahey, Senior Biologist /hl PLANNING ... RESEARCH ... ENVIRON MEN TAL ENGINEERING I %)AJMIES M. M01NTS00rv1ER"f, CQNJGLJLTItQ 555 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, California 91101/(213) 796-9141/ (213) 681-4255 Cable Address: Montgomery Pasadena California Telex: 67-5420 November 21, 1978 CALTR1NS 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Project Title: Project Description: Gentlemen: Supplement to Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility Construction of Satellite Sewage Treatment Facilities in the Calavera Hills Area of the City of Carlsbad Because of time constraints, we are requesting that you send your comments to Dr. Janet Fahey no later than November 27, 1978. If you are unable to comply with this request, please notify us at your earliest convenience. Pertinent information about the project is attached. Very truly yours, Janet Fahey, D.Env. Senior Biologist /hl Enclosures PLANNING RESEARCH E N V I R ON MENTALE NGIN E E R I N G 7~7 -.,::e I JAPv1 EB Pvl. v1QtJTG1v1RY, CQNJSLJLTING MfiCSINFEEE RS, I N(--. 555 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, California 91101/(213) 796-9141/(213) 681-4255 Cable Address: Montgomery Pasadena Cal ifornia Telex: 67-5420 October 30, 1978 Public Utilities Commission 350 McAllister San Francisco, CA 94102 Subject: Project Title: Project Description: Gentlemen: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility Construction of Satellite Sewage Treatment Facilities in the Calavera Hills Area of the City of Carlsbad Our firm has been retained by the City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, to prepare the subject EIR. This EIR in many respects will address the same issues as the final EIR-403 for Lake Calavera Hills Master Plan of Development and Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility, dated June 26, 1978, on which you have had an opportunity to comment. The City of Carlsbad is the lead agency for the preparation of the subject EIR. Please sent your response In relation to your legal responsibilities and what information you feel should be included in the EIR to: James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Dr. Janet Fahey 555 East Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91101 When certified, the EIR will be used as the EIR for all responsible agencies involved with the project. Very truly yours, (~r Janet Fahey ' D.En v. Senior Biologist /hl PLANNING ... RESEARCH ... ENVIRON MEN TAL ENGINEERING iL 0 S JAME M. .JT(3Qrv1ER, QP49LJLT NIG NJ I NJ EE PG. I NJ . 555 East Walnut Street, Pasadena California 91100213) 796-9141/(213) 681-4255 Cable Address: Montgomery Pasadena California Telex: 67-5420 November 21, 1978 Public Utilities Commission 350 McAllister San Francisco, CA 94102 Subject: Supplement to Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility Project Description: Construction of Satellite Sewage Treatment Facilities in the Calavera Hills Area of the City of Carlsbad Gentlemen: Because of time constraints, we are requesting that you send your comments to Dr. Janet Fahey no later than November 27,1978. If you are unable to comply with this request, please notify us at your earliest convenience. Pertinent information about the project is attached. Very truly yours, Janet Fahey, D.Env. Senior Biologist /hl Enclosures PLANNING ... RESEARCH...ENVIRON MEN TAL ENGINEERING a I SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P 0. BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92112 (714) 232-4252 F1LENOPLA 000 November 27, 1978 James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. 555 East Walnut Street Pasadena, California 91101 Attention: Janet Fahey, Senior Biologist Dear Ms. Fahey: Reference is made to your letter dated November 1, 1978, requesting information on San Diego Gas & Electric Company's ability to provide service to a proposed Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility in the Calavera Hills area of the City of Carlsbad. Electric service is available from 12kv distribution facilities adjacent to El Camino Real, emanating from Encina Substation, approximately 2½ miles west of the project site. Present electric facilities should be adequate to serve the proposed development. It has been a pleasure assisting you in this project. Should you need additional information please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, B. J. Williams Land Planning Analyst BJW:dr RECEIVED L --I UiLi LU DEC 01 1978 CITY OF CARLSBALi Planning Department A\. /VfSJP )UI\EJ cRpc1To I ip I -I- ~ I 3088 Pio P1C0 Dr., Suite 201 S \7lv i;1 frJ Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (714) 729-4912 A )pLe" \ LAKE CALAVERA HILLS CHJ TO: Mr. Jim Hagaman City of Carlsbad Planning Director DATE I JOB# 11/23/781 t1"1 '.v' SUBJECT: Dear Jim: On November 9, 1978, I sent you a memo regarding certain public and other notices required under City Ordinance 19.04 (CEQA) involved with both EIR 403 and the Montgomery EIR for the northeast basin satellite sewer service. The intent of that memo was to clue you as the lead agency to get the proper notices filed if you had not already been doing SO. Although I may have misinterpreted the particular para- graph (according to your staff), I stil L have not received for my records the copies of proper notices required of the lead agency involving these two matters. Would you please look into this matter with your staff and respond to me as soon as possible. Roy J. W RJW:paf Enclosures C H7 LAK• CALAVERA HILLS 3088 Plo Pico Dr., Suite 201 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (714) 729-4912 DATE JOB # at 1. ii L e 3 wer 11/9/78 Tretnt r lax. L TO: Pir. Tim FL3ç3 ain F'lannintJ Director CiLv o[ Carlsbad C a rl: ba :i, c:A. SUBJECT: CEQ1 Ordi.nanc Paaq.rrtph 19.06. 2:i 5 P'IJ jnrr O )'Ot1C? ot i) LiiiL:1)1 i" iear Jim: The selecti on of hc firi of J. ' r'.:y tc complete a. s Ludy ; ::be Envjrouflicnta1 i:ar'act. i.pc:'rh and Fncilitie Plan For a $ate:Llit.e Sowaqo Treatment Fci !ity fr north East Car1shaCi was approved by City Council on. June 7, 1978 with a stipu.ia Lion t the hudy be complatel wi. t? .n 71) 3aya JouJ d you please furnish e wI :h Lhe c.fi.ciaJ. daL.x that the Nü Li ..e 0 E rLrn. na L1 Ofl W.1 Li :ti it h the County C1 erh nd la f o es at thr sLriLe levi?.? aci hope CULLY a COTf Cit tuO nCtiL In that I havn tilad an a p_Lica Lion tCIL Ei cone chanqe and preise plan approva l for Lhi. n saLell! Le lant I would appre- ciFJte above iu:fta:mation for our ro:ords Thank yoU.. )QyT ;. rcl pat C i:::c?,4 IC/77 ¶ /• against any positive effects and any benefit to the City and the public which could result from the proposed project. The Council or Commission may disapprove a project if they find that the adverse consequences outweigh the positive aspects of the project. They may approve a project if they find the reverse to be true. They may also conditionally approve or modify the project in light of the information in the report. (4) When the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant effect identified in the final EIR, the Council must state in writinq reasons to support its action based on the final EIR or other information in the record.These reasons may be set forth in a Statement of Overridinci Considerations. 19.4.211 Consideration of environmental documents. In considering whether or not to approve a project for which a Negative Declaration has been processed, a determination of exemption, exception or prior compliance made, or any other environmental document issued which results in an Endorse- ment of Compliance pursuant to this chapter, the decision- making body shall first review and consider such document and all the information contained therein. The standard of review prescribed in Section 19.04.210 for evaluation of Environmental Impact Reports shall be applied 9.04.215 Notice ormTh Aer-the-deesie e-a 8-?_e en-on-EnverThiernPaetReP03, After the staff, Planning Commission or City Council has approved a project for which an EIR or neqative declaration has been prepared., •rthe Planning Directshal1 file a Notice of Determination. • an identification of the project by its common name where possible, the decision of the City to approve or carry out elisapeve the project, the deter- mination of whether the project in its approved form will or will not have a significant effect on the environment, a brief statement of the mitigation measures which were • adopted by the City to reduce the impacts of the approved project, and a statement that an Elil or Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the EIR was certified as required by Section 19.04.19Qwhethe -a ies-ef-the-Gafofna-Eflvornea-Ua1±tYAet. The Notice of Determination shall be filled with the County Clerk. -23- 1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 729-1181 Citp of QtarIbab November 21, 1978 Mr. Roy Ward Lake Calavera Hills Associates 3088 Pio Pico Drive Suite 201 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Re: Applications for Zone Change and Precise Development Plan for waste water treatment facility at Lake Calavera Hills Dear Mr. Ward: We have received the aforementioned applications and have reviewed them for completeness. There are some changes which you must make before we can accept and process them. 1. You used the wrong forms for both the Zone Change application and the Precise Plan application. The correct forms are enclosed with this letter. 2. The minimum fee for processing each application is $100.00. The fees increase depending on the number of lots involved. The check you enclosed is for $100.00. A minimum of $200.00 will be needed. The escalating fees structure is explained on the attachments to the enclosed applications. 3. Each application includes a list of the information and attachments that must accompany each application. Please review the lists before resubmitting. 4. Include with your applications a large map of reasonable scale showing the relationship of the proposed plant site, pipeline easement and spreading beds to the L.C.H. Master Plan (open space, roadway, residential areas, trailways, etc.) and the relationship to other lands not in the L.C.H. Master Plan area that look down on the proposed site. 0 q& Mr. Roy Ward November 21, 1978 Page two A draft EIR addressing your project is being prepared under contract to the City. This EIR must first be certified pursuant to CEQA before the City considers your submitted applications. The draft EIR is nearly completed. You will receive a copy as soon as it is ready for circulation. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please give me a call. Sincerely, DON L. ROSE Associate Planner DLR:ins attachments . I ame JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 555 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, California 91101/(213) 796-91411(213) 681-4255 Cable Address: Montgomery Pasadena California Telex: 67-5420 City of Carlsbad DATE: November 21, 1978 1200 Elm Avenue SUBJECT: Responses to Notice of Carlsbad, CA 92008 Preparation - Satellite Treatment Facility Lake Calavera Hills Attn: Don Rose Gentlemen: The following items are: ( ) Requested x ) Enclosed ( ) Sent separately via Report Mail Report ( ) Specification ( ) Cost Estimate ( ) Progress Est. ( ) Test Result ( ) Blank Form ( ) Test Sample ( x ) Other No. of Copies Description 1 Each Letters from Air Pollution Control District 1 Each Letters from City Fire Department 1 Each Letters Department of Fish and Game These data are submitted: At your request ( ) For your action ( ) For your approval ( X ) For your files For your review ( ) For your information General Remarks: Ends. ( 3 Copies to: Very truly yours, JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GO-4 (10/68) . 1275 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 729-5937 0A Lai E PIP NOV 20 1978 Li LU JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSUL TIN G ENGINEERS INC. Citp of Cartbab FIRE DEPARTMENT November 17, 1978 James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 555 East Walnut Street Pasadena, California 91101 Attention: Janet Fahey, D. Env. Senior Biologist In Re; Comments - Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility Calavera Hills - Carlsbad Environmental Impact Report This department has made specific requirements on this project such as additional manpower, access to the project, looped water mains, an additional fire station - all within a certain time frame. The only impact we can foresee is that with this sewage treatment facility, the entire project can become a reality much sooner along with our requirements. A. Wolenchuk, B/C Fire Marshal NOV22 1978 CLTY. OFi CARLSBAD . . STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, CA 90802 (213) 590-5113 November 17, 1978 Dr, Janet Fahey James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers t Inc. 555 East Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91101 Dear Dr. Fahey: -- UJ NOV 20 1978 w UJ JAviES M. MONTGOMERY cc CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. An Environmental Impact Report for the Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility should include discussions of water quality as it relates to receiving streams or groundwater resources secondary impacts such as urban or indus- trial growth inducement, and possibilities for water reuse. Al]. natural resources that will be affected by this project should also be described. We appreciate the opportunity to make our interests in this project known. If you have any questions, please contact Dwayne C. Maxwell or Jack L. Spruill of our Environmental Services staff. The telephone number is (213) 590-5137. Sincerely, Rebert D. Montgomery Regional Manager Region 5 •AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 1I 0 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CCC R. J. Sc*Tulervi!e 9150 Chesapeake Drive Air Pollution tU San Diego, Calif. 92123 Ui Control Officer (714) 565-5901 (MS 0176) NOV9 1978 Ui JAMES M. MOiGOME' November 7, 1978 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INCH James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attn: Dr. Janet Fahey 555 East Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91101 Dr. Janet Fahey: In response to your request for information required in the air quality section of an Environmental Impact Report, the District is currently preparing a short document listing items we would expect to be included in the report. However, this document is not available at the present time. In the interim, the comments below will suffice. The air quality section should include maps, tables and/or discussions of the project in terms of the following topics: 1. Project location 2. Topography of project area 3. Meteorology 4. Present zoning and land use 5. Existing air quality 6. Project impact 7. Mitigating measures PROJECT LOCATION - The project should be located on a topographical map showing the project's exact boundaries. The project should also be located on a regional map to locate the project in the San Diego Air Basin. 2. TOPOGRAPHY OF PROJECT AREA - In many cases, the transport and diff of air pollutants is complicated by terrain features. Therefore, narrative description of the specific local topographical features the project site should be included in the report (e.g., inland co valleys, foothills, mountainous areas, river canyons, etc.). 3. METEOROLOGY - Meteorological conditions can cause extreme variatio: air quality on a daily, seasonal and year-to-year basis. The two meteorological parameters are winds and mixing heights. 1. Consulting Engineersc. -2- •ulber 7, 1978 Mixing height refers to the maximum height at which pollutants may dilute. The meteorologist estimates this figure on the basis of expec- ted maximum temperature and the early morning temperature profile. A low mixing height without strong breezes suggest elevated pollution levels. 4. PRESENT ZONING AND LAND USE - The existing zoning and land use should be discussed in layperson's terms (e.g., the existing zoning allows for "X" number of dwelling units per acre; the land use is designated on the community plan as agricultural preserve). If the proposed pro- ject requires rezoning or a change in the community plan, then this should be so stated. S. EXISTING AIR QUALITY - A three to five-year summary of available and current ambient air quality data which encompasses the project impact area is required to demonstrate the present severity of the air pollu- tion problem. A table illustrating the number of days standards were exceeded for each year and the annual high one-hour concentrations at appropriate air monitoring stations in or near the project area should be presented. At a minimum, photochemical oxidants, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter need to be included. 6. PROJECT IMPACT - Air quality impacts should be discussed in quantita- tive terms as much as possible. The analysis should include both mobile and stationary sources. The emissions associated with vehicle traffic should be discussed and presented in tabular form. The discussion should include an estimate of the number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. The method- ology used to estimate the emissions should be included in the report itself, or as an addendum. Emissions from stationary sources should be addressed as well as an analysis of the pollution associated with the increased generation of electrical power. If future residents or existing homes, parks or employ- ees will be impacted from pollutants up-wind of the project location, then this should be stated, including a discussion of the type of pollution impact and possible adverse effects on public health and property. 7. MITIGATING MEASURES - This discussion should identify those mitigating measures .which are proposed by project proponents to be included in the project and other measures that are not included, but could reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts. . Mitigating measures should, include the relevant Regional Air Quality Strate'ies (RAQS) tactics which include,, but are not limited to T - 1 (?iodified) Proposed process for coordinated land use and trans- - - portation actions to improve air quality "This proposec po.cess 'envisions modifications to both - - - general p'laas ana tne regional corprehcrsive plan - ,.•--..-':- ......... - - EF ..7.. -. Consulting Engine, Inc. •mber 7, 1978 so as to achieve consistency of purpose and achieve air quality benefits. Compatibility among plans and policies would be brought about by a cooperative effort between local agencies and the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO), wherein incompatibilities adversely affecting air quality are jointly identified, appropri- ate changes determined, and then these changes proposed to local agencies or CPO as appropriate." T - 2 Maximum carpool and vanpools with incentives. -. The most essential incentive to carpooling is a computer matching program to identify potential carpools groupings and to promote the formation of carpools by assisting with matching, routing and scheduling. Industries and business can provide another incentive for carpooling by designating preferential parking areas for carpool cars. These spaces could be closer to the destination building or in a covered area protected from the weather, or in another desirable location. Vanpools - This tactic is initiated by the employer who purchases a van which is driven by an employee. The employee drives a group of employees to and from work. Operating expenses of the vanpools may be paid by either the employer or employee. A subscription transit program entails the charter of buses by employers from public or private transit opera- tors to provide employees with subscription buspool service. Subscribers are ensured that they will have a space on the bus. In addition, the employer sometimes guarantees a minimum number of passengers or subsidizes a portion of the subscription fare. Buspools are com- parable to carpools in that the same individuals may ride together each day and the same advantages accrue to the employer and employee. T - 7 Maximum bicycle system. This tactic envisions a major expansion of bicycle facil- ities, including: the adopted regional bicycle route system, community oriented routes, bicycle feeder system to public transit, possible employer incentives and includes facilities. Such facilities include theft resistant racks, connections with express bus service, showers and locker rooms. 8. REVISED REGIONAL AIR QUALITY STRATEGY •- A coordination process to include air quality considerations in land use and transportation planning is included in both the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) and the Air Management Process (AMP). The AMP stipulates: V a I Consulting Engineers,. -4- •mber 7, 1978 "The cities in San Diego County, the County of San Diego, the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPU), the Unified Port District, and other appropriate agencies will include air quality considerations in all land use and transportation actions subject to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) by addressing consistency with the RAQS as part of required Environ- mental Impact Reports." The relevant RAQS tactics are addressed under mitigating measures. 9. REGIONAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT - The project should be identified as to which designated land use category it belongs in, as specified in the Regional Growth Management (RGM) Plan, i.e., which of the following RGM designated land use categories is it in: - 1985 Current Urban Development Area - 1995 Future Urban Development Area - Estate Development Area - Rural Development Area - Country Town - Environmentally Constrained Lands - Special Study Area Additionally, the availability of adequate facilities as discussed in the Regional Growth Management Plan shall be included in this section. The required information need not necessarily be included within the Air Quality section of an EIR or EIS, but must be appropriately referenced in the Air Quality section if discussed elsewhere in the document. If you have any questions, please contact me at 565-5904. RAYMOND L. WEEKS Environmental Management Specialist RLW: sb Enclosures I W. rIl ODSIDE/KUBOTA N 0 V 211 ' INC. CONSULTING CITY OF CARLSBAD 2465 Plo Pico Drive • P.O. Box 1095 • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (714) 729-1194 0 FF, ~ W LE 5o UJ NOV 211978 w w November 17, 1978 JAMES M. MONTGOMERY cOHSULT1NG ENGINE E RS, INC. Dr. Janet Fahey Senior Biologist James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 555 East Walnut Street Pasadena, California 91101 Re: Supplement to Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report - Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility - Calavera Hills, City of Carlsbad - Carlsbad Municipal Water District Dear Dr. Fahey: Thank you for your letters of October 30th and Novem- ber 1, 1978, inviting the Carlsbad Municipal Water District to participate in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject facility. Our review of the information that you have submitted prompts the following comments for your consideration: (1) The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides public water service to our 20,000 plus acre service area and almost all of the entire study area is pro- vided water service through our existing District facilities. Included in that study area is an abun- dance of agriculture. (2) Our District is now embarking on a study pro- gram to evaluate supplementing of our agricultural water service with a high quality reclaimed wastewater, treated ground water, or other possible sources of "non-potable" water that can be made available to agriculture on the basis of a firm volume of flow and practical price range. In this context the Draft Report may well address the issue of the impacts that would accrue to the service area to have availability of this locally generated water resource. In Orange County, Santa Ana I . Dr. Janet Fahey, Senior Biologist James M. Montgomery, Consulting ccwommunsto Engineers, Inc. November 17, 1978 Page Two (3) In the development of a "secondary" public water supply system there are inherent technical and management considerations for the operation. In particular, it is very important that there be "total water management" so that the Draft Report should isolate upon the need for complete control by the public water service agency. I would appreciate an opportunity to meet with you personally and share with you some of our thoughts on this most important assignment that you have. Our comments at this point are brief; however, we believe it is important that you have the benefit of our working experience and knowledge in providing water service to the area since 1954. Please contact this office at your convenience and we will arrange a time to meet with you. (Ver'\truly yours iJack V. 'Kibota, District Engineer Carl Iba/t'1unicipa1 Water District JYK:cp CMWD 78-111 cc: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Skip Schmidt, Consultant / C I 1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONED CARLS3AD, CALIFORNIA 92008 - (714) 723-1181 Qtitp of Carfiqbabr November 3, 1978 L C E I, f'JO'f 1 4 1973 Mr.. Roy J. Ward C;"': General Partner - LAXE CALAVEEA HILLS 3088 Pio Pico Drive Suite 201 Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. Ward: We have your letter of October 30, 1978 which- indicates YOU are submitting an "amended Application for Zone Change and Precise Plan forWaste Water Treatment Facility to be located in Lake Calavera Hills". Before responding to your letter, I think it would be useful to place your request in perspective by reviewing the status to date of your request for City approval of a satellite sewage treatment facility for your project. The matter first came officially to the City Council's attention when you addressed a letter, dated March 8, 1978 1. to the Mayor and City Council. That letter recognized that the City was faced with two separate major policy decisions in connection with Lake Calavera Hills. You correctly identified those decisions as; first, a judgment by the Council on what constitutes a feasible alternative to.the Encina Treatment Plant, and second s. the actual project. To assist the Council in making a judgment on the first of those decisions, you volunteered to provide an overview report dealing with the feasibility of satellite waste water treatment facilities in the City of Carlsbad. The .letter also contained a discussion of other related matters and asked the Council to give certain directions to their staff. That letter was presented to the City Council at their March 21, 1978 meeting. The City Council set it to hearing at their adjourned work session meeting on March 28, 1978. - Pending that meeting, you applied to the Planning Department for a conditional use permit for a sewage treatment plant. That application was returned to you by Mr. Plender via a letter dated March 20, 1978. Mr. Plender indicated that C Mr. Roy Ward • . November 3, 1978 Page two the application could not properly be received since there was no provision in our Code for a conditional use permit for a sewer plant. We assumed that you agreed to our action in that regard as we have received no further communication relative to that application. - The City Council considered the matters raised in your March 8, 1978 letter at their adjourned meeting on March 28, 1978. A copy of the minutes of that meeting is enclosed for your reference. The City Council indicated a willingness to consider further the concept of regional satellite sewage treatment plants; however, they declined to either approve your specific application or direct staff as you had requested. Specifically, the City Council unanimously took the following actions: 1. Accepted the overview report of Waste Water Reclamation Opportunities in the City of Carlsbad. 2. Accepted the recommendations of the Public Works Administrator that satellite treatment plants for individual projects not be considered and that such plants would be considered further on the basis of drainage basins. 3. Directed the. staff to return with a report on the appropriate procedure for processing your master plan amendment and a satellite sewage treatment plant for the basin within which your project is located. As the City Attorney indicated to you in his letter of October 24, 1978, it is his opinion that your request for approval of a separate satellite treatment plant to serve the Lake Calavera Hills master plan area was denied by the City Council on March 28, 1978. At that time, you specifically requested the Council to authorize staff to proceed to process that request and the City Council declined.. Based on the City Council's action, the specifics of the satellite treatment plant included in your master plan amendment (150- A) and EIR-403 were .removed. The master plan is being processed on the basis that the specific sewage treatment proposal has already been denied. In accordance with, and based upon Council's direction, the staff returned with reports on the processing of the master plan amendment and the treatment plant at the City Council's meeting of April 18, 1978. The Council had before them at that time a report from the City Attorney, dated April 12, 1978; a report from the City Manager, with the same date; and a report from the Public Works Administrator, dated April 11, 1978. Again, you took the opportunity to present to the Council your views of how the matter should proceed. Again, the City Council's action, by unanimous vote was JYJ.r - rsc.'y OYCLkk.._ November 3, 1978 Page three S to decline to proceed as you requested. The City Council unanimously voted to authorize the City Manager to proceed as outlined in the Ci ty Attorney's report of April 12, 1978. A copy of that report is enclosed for your reference. In accordance with the Council's direction, my staff has been operating on the basis of the April 12, 1978 report. In approving that report, the City Council reaffirmed their previous action and accepted the City Manager's recommendation that the sewage plant for the basin was a City concern and should be treated as a City project. In that regard, the City Council approved his iecornmendation that the City fund the Environmental Impact Report, the Project Report and the Financial Plan necessary to allow the City Council to give further consideration to the plant. I think it might be useful to review the processes outlined in the City Attorney's memorandum and give you my under- standing of the current status of the matter. In that regard, the report contained five separate actions as follows: 1. Direct the City Panager to take the steps necessary to prepare a Project Report, Financial Report and En- vironmental Impact Report for a satellite treatment plant to serve the drainage basin in which the Lake Calavera Hills project is located as outlined in the City Manger's memorandum and Public Works Adminis- trator's memorandum. That process is well underway. The City Council on June 6, 1978 appropriated the sum of $33,000 to pay the City's costs for those reports. At the same time, the Council commissioned J. M. Montgomery to prepare drafts of the required reports. 2. The City Council initiated a general plan amendment to revise the land uses in the Lake Calavera hills area and to provide a mechanism to accommodate the siting of satellite sewage treatment plants. In addition, the staff' was instructed .to prepare an EIR on those amend- ments. The •EIR has been, certified and the required amendments have been accomplished. 3. The City Council instructed staff to initiate a hearing to revise the PU, OS and EA zones as necessary to accommodate the siting of satellite sewage treatment plants. Those amendments have been made, which clearly permit sewage treatment plants in the Public Use (P.U.) Zone. 4. The City Council authorized the Planning Department to continue work on the Lake Calavera Hills master plan. Mr. Roy Ward November 3, 1978 Page four • As-you know, the master plan amendment is before the • City Council for, approval at a public hearing which will be held on November 14, 1978. 5. TheCityCouncil deferred.a decision on siting the - satellite sewage treatment plant until after approval of the Project Report, Financial Report and EIR. As you can see, substantial progress has been made in processing your request and' all those matters necessary to complete the processing are well 'underway. Your letter of October18 indicates it is an amended Application for a Zone Code Change and Precise Plan for a Proposed Waste Water Treatment Facility in Lake Calavera Hills. As indicated above, the City Council has denied your request in that regard. Based on Council action your amended application is hereby returned. If you disagree with that action, or with our characterization of the status of your requests to. date, please notify us in vriting as soon as possible. It would appear not in your best interest to apply for a specific satellite sewage treatment plant as outlined in the alternatives of the Montgomery report until further Council action., However, should you wish, to apply for a Zone Change and Precise Development Plan for a satellite sewage. treat- rnent plant you may do so at this time. Staff will not be able to recommend approval of said application however 'until such time as Council has considered 'the Project Report. If you do wish to apply for:the Zone Change and Precise Development Plan, we have enclosed the proper form for a Precise Development Plan, which was not included in your application and October 30 letter.'--In that case you submitted the Conditional Use Permit application form. - You may have been misinformed of the proper-application forms as they have just recently been instituted.. In addition, staff is reviewing your project as submitted and' if you do intend to reapply with the proper forms, the necessary information needed for a complete application for a sewer treatment plant will be forwarded in .a separate letter. ' Should-you choose to submit a new application at this time. the staff will feview it and inform you as to whether or not the' application is complete as submitted. As of that date r when the application is deemed complete, the time constraints Very truly yours, ANES C. Planning JCH:rns Enclosures Mr. Roy Ward November 3, 1978 Page five of AB 884 will commence. I wish to assure you that my staff is taking the necessary steps to set the Project, Financial and EIR Reports on the satellite sewage treatment plant to hearing before the City Council in as expedicious a manner as possible.. I regret the continued confusion in regards to processing, however, there has been substantial progress made, based on Council's direction as indicated in this letter and the matter is well in hand to reach a conclusion, in the near future. If the Council certifies the EIR and approves the Project Report and the Financial Plan, it will then be necessary to work out the various legal and financial arrangements necessary to accomplish the construction of the plant. Any necessary-'land use approvals can be processed concur- rently with that effort. A new application. from you at that point would be appropriate in our view. We think this letter correctly sets out the status of Lake Calavera Hills at this time. If you disagree, please let me know in writing with specifics as soon as possible. cc: P. Bussey V. Biondo R. Beckman MEMORANDUM DATE: April 12, 1978 TO: .Mayor and City Councilirterrthers; FROM: City Attorney - - SUBJECT: REC04ENDATIONS RE PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING - SATELLITE TREATMENT FACILITY FOR THE LAKE - CALAVERA HILLS DRAINAGE BASIN The City Council, at yourMarch 28, 1978 adjourned meeting,. considered a series of staff reports regarding a proposal for construction of a satellite sewage treatment plant in connection with the Calavera Hills Development. After considering the reports the council indiáated their willingness to consider the matter further provided the proposal was viewed in the context of the entire drainage basin. The Council directed the staff to return with -a specific series of recommendations on how to proceed. The City Manager, City Attorney, Public Works Administrator and Planning Director hava discussed the matter at.length. Since the majority of the procedural steps depend, on interpretations of our existing ordinances,. thC City Manager has asked that I prepare this report. It inchfdes his recommendations and those of the Public Works Administrator and the Planning Director. PROJECT REPORT, FINANCIAL REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: The Public Works Administrator is of the opinion that in order to give further consideration to the development of a satellite treatment facility in the Lake Ca1avra Hills drainage basin, that it is necessary to commission the preparation of a Project Report, Financial Report and Environmental Impact Report Th Council will recall that a similar procedure. was utilized, in considering the approval of the Phase III expansion of the Encina Plant.. The Public Works' Administrator has prepared a. memorandum outlining the matters to be covered in those reports... : The' City Manager is of the opinion that the reports should be - funded by the City. His memorandum discussing the basis for that recommendation and the Public Works Administrator's memorandum have beenfurnished to the Council. If the City Council concurs, your action is as follows:- - Recommendation No.1: Direct the City Manager to take the steps necessary to cause the preparation of a Project Report, a Financial Report and an EIR for a satellite Mayor and City Coi1members -2- - • April 12, 197 treatment plant to-serve the drainage basin in which the Calavera Hills-Project is located as outlined in the City Manager's and Public Works Administrator's memoranda. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: As outlined in the City Attorney's memorandum of March-23, 1978, the first step in processing the revised Calavera Hills Master Plan is a General Plan amendment to revise the land use elemen In view of the Planning Moratorium, it will be necessary for the City Council to take action to initiate the amendment. The amendment to the land use element would place those changes necessary to accommodate the proposed revised Master Plan before - the Council for a decision. That matter would be heard- in conjunction with the hearing on an Environmental Impact Report The bulk of the staff work has already been done in connection with work on the revised Master Plan. - A General Plan amendzrènt in regards to the satellite plant would also be required. It is contemplated that we would tot specifically site the plant but rather provide in the General Plan authority for the Council to locate a satellite plant within a particular drainage basin and outline the procedue for accomplishfng a specific siting of such a plant which could include Master Plan, approvals or Specific Plans. This amendment could be heard in conjunction with the hearing on the land use amendments and the FIR could cover both matters. It will be necessary to-expand the draft EIR prepared for the revised Master Plan to consider. the effects of the satellite plant throughout the drainage basin- It-is anticipated the staff will undertake that obligation.. If the City Council concurs, you should proceed as follows: Recommendation No. 2: By motion the City-council should initiate a General Plan amendment to revise the land use element in the Calavera Hills area and to provide for the siting of satellite treatment plants .and instruct staff to prepare an FIR on the amendments. ZONE CODE AMENDMENTS: As outlined in the City Attorney's memorandum of March 23,- 1978,. the P-U Zone is considered the appropriate vehicle for develop- ment of a satellite sewage treatment plant. It will be necessary - to revise the P-U Zone to make sewage treatment plants a. permitted use in the zone. At the same time it has been suggested by the Mayor and City Councilmembers -3- April 12, 1978 Planning Director that the permitted uses in the 0-S and E-A Zones be revised slightly to clarify that the utility uses provided for therein are limited, to accessory uses. If the Council concurs your-'action is as 'follows: - Recommendation No.3: By motion instruct staff to initiat hearings at the Planning Commission to revise the P-U, : 0-S and E-A Zones as necessary to accommodate satellite sewage treatment plants and 'clarify the permitted utility uses. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT: The same time work is progressing on Recommendations 1, 2 and 3, staff contemplates continuing to work on the Calavera Hills Master Plan amendment. It would not be possible to bring that amendment forward for hearing until after the EIR was certified and the General Plan.amendments were approved.. However, the hearings could occur, within two weeks of such approval. The Project Report, Financial Report and BIR on the plant should be heard before the Master Plan amendment. That wou1dllow the specific site and other matters regarding the plar ~t to be included in the Master-Plan. This may xiot be possiblie due to the AB-884 time limits or political considerations. In that event, provisions will need to be included in the Master Plan to accommodate a range of possibilities for the plant-- The amendment would contain authority for locating- a public utility, area within the community should the Project Report indicate that was the appropriate location for the satellite plant. Thi s, would obviate the need for subsequent rezonings or Master Plan amendments. Appropriate conditions would be attached to the Master Plan to assure that no further development or building would occur until the matter of sewer service had been finally resolved. The Master Plan would provide further that the plant: would be specifically sited by approval of a Precise Plan for development under the procedures of the P-U Zone. If the plant is to be located outside the Lake Calavera Hills boundaries,' a more complicated series of conditions would be required as well as some additional actions as discussed below. If the - City Council concurs your action is as follows: -- Recommendation No. 4: Council should authorize the Planning Department to continue work on the Calavera Hills Master Plan to include prqvisions for accommodat- ing a satellite sewage treatment plant. Mayor and City Councilmembers -4-- April 12, 1978 SITING OF SATELLITE SEc1AGE TREATMENT PLANT: Staff contemplates that a decision on siting of the satellite - sewage treatment plant would not occur until after approval of the EIR, Financial Report and Project Report. If the reports indicate that the plant should be located within the boundaries of Calavera Hills Master Plan, staff will proceed to work out the various arrangements necessary to accomplish the construction of the plant. Those will be outlined and developed more fully as part of the Project Report and Financial Plan.. As indicated. above, the procedure to site the plant would be accomplished through the processing of a Precise Plan Development under the procedures of the P-U Zone. If the report indicates that the site should be outside the boundaries of the Calavera Hills Development, then there are some additional steps which must be taken. It would be necessary for the Council to initiate rezoning of the site to P-U.. Arrangements would also have to be made to acquire the site through purchase or condemnation. It would also be necessary to acquire those properties or easements over properties in the vicinity of the plant that could be adversely effeced since it is now established that the City can be 1iah1è 1Ln inverse condemnation if a plant has an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. Once arrangements have been made for acquisition of the necessary site, and the rezoning, staff would proceed to process the specifics of the plant using the Precise Plan process in the P-U Zone.. No City Council action is necessary at this time and details of this recommendation will be more fully developed in the context of the development and the Project Report... ASSEMBLY BILL 884: As the Council knows, AB-884 requires all development approvals in connection with a project to be accomplished within one year or the development is automatically approved. The City Manager and the City Attorney contemplate meeting with the devel9per of Calavera Hills in the near future in an attempt to reach an agreement on the status of the Calavera Hills project vis-a-vis AB-884. No Council action is required at this time but it is - - anticipated that we will be bringing a further report on this matter to the Council in the future. 14- Mayor and City cIncilmeers -5- • April 12, 1978 ALTERNATIVE PROCESSES: The procedural steps outlined above are based on the City's existing ordinances and General Plan. There may be alternatives.. The developer has suggested, for instance, that the plant should be sited utilizing a Specific Plan.. The Specific Plan would contain ordinance provisions for processing and siting the sewer plant.. This alternative was not recommended for a number of reasons, including: 1. The recommended process is in keeping with established practice in the City of Carlsbad and utilizes existing ordinances. 2. The essential steps in the processing7 that is, the General- - Plan amendments, the EIR's, Project Report, construction • agreements, site acquisition, etc. are the same irrespective • of the procedural. steps which would be substantially the same in any case.. - 0 -- 3. The option of siting a sewer plant by Specific Plan could be included in the General Plan and Master Plan amendments. If it is later determined to be desirable, it couldbe used in p1ae of the P-U Zone process without changing' the substance of these recommendations. If the City Council wishes to consider alternative mean's of pro- cessing, it is recommended that they direct the City Manager and the City Attorney to report further in detail on those alternatives. CONCLUSION: The recommendations contained in this report are in an attempt to summarize those recommendations contained in the City Attorney's report of March 23, 1978 atid the reports from the City Manager, Planning Director and Public Works Administrator.- The Council should keep in mind thatthis proposal is a complex: matter and that these recommendations are subject to refinement in the. future. 0 - • : .VINCENT F. 3TODO, JR. City Attorney VFB/ml a • - 0• •0 - - .----.-•-----,.--.....------ -------------- --- I • r a r atiorz - Ay&s - • Dl, t I Ii I I 1 ii F I 1 I Ii . I I I It --I F I I narcn Council agreed Sat the suggestions ofM , *r Packard be facilitated where possible 2. LA COSTA OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT- Administrative Assistant, Mr.. Frank Nannen gave a brief introduction of 'the matter indicating the purpose was to provide Council with back- ground information as to the progress of forming an Open Space Naintenace District in the Green Valley Knolls Subdivision. Mr. Frank Salfingere, Consultant with the firm of Urban Engineering,. 19720 Camino De Rosa, Halnut, California, addressed Council. He indicated the District is td be implemented under the Land- scaping ' and Lighting Act of 1972.. The Public Works Administrator then gavea staff report.. • He stated there are three basic ques- tions for Council consideration.. - 1. Is the City willing to consider satellite facilities? If the deteriiiination- is yes, the following questions need consideration.. 2.. Should City consider this concept, as a City wide Master Plan type-of program or on the basis of a project by project evaluation. 3. Should City consider each service area as a whole entity or small projects within each drainage basin service area.. -. I. t. • 2 [99] He indicated the areas to be considered when es- tablishing a District were as follows: 1. Identification of nature df improvements.. 2. Verification of public purpose being served... 1 3. Identification of boundary of District of properties involved; and 4. Assessments themselves and basis for spread-. ing those assessments. He explained each-briefly and referenced. a wall exhibit showing the Assessment District. He •indicated -It was an annual-program-and would- cthe' before Council each year at which time Council could -make modifications or changes.. He stated the assessments would range .from $10.00 to $1500 per month and would be filed-with the ,County-Tax Collector and.become part of the tax 3-. PROCESSING bill. - . . . • OF LAKE CALAVERA HILLS SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY JAgenda Bil l O69, Supplement The City Manage gave a brief inraductiOn of the matter indicating Council-should consider the basic question of satellite' treatmentplants and how the entire processing would occur including processing on the Calavera. Master.P1an... - ____ •1 I ________________ I I. ; •- a -' I-_S S. - -S.--- • - - '5...- ...• . •. • .-- - .-.; .•- . - • • .-•,*..,.,•------..- - • ..- . - 5'S -- - ___________ -• • I-ti.... - - rlt=.`Uc LCA i & eu - - - three questions' hich should be considered in reaching a de.teflatlofl. Council questioned whether it would require application to EPA and if it could possibly affec EPA's outlook on the. Encina expansion. Staff reponse indicated there would not be a need to apply to EPA unless the ocean outfall would be used. In addition, the plants would initially be treatment plants and would be reclamation plan s later when it was determined to be economically feasible. . . . Council expres'sed concern about the proposed methods of financing-these plants creating growth that would exceed the CPO Population Forecast. Council also expressed concern-about the many factorsthat would have a direct bearing on the Capital Improvement Program and the City's abilit to provide all other services. Council questioned where the funding for such plants would be obtained other than City. • Staff response indicated realistically at this ti e private enterprise would be the only source; • wever, a possibility may be State funding or funds' from Qther service agencies-... - -. • Coluftil then questioned how the resulting sludge • from these plants would be treated. . . ...•• Staff indicated ifCouncil desired to* * proceed wit .. satellite plants, the problem of sludge as well . • as other areas would be addressed, in a major • project report which would need to be. completed. •Council recognized Mr. Roy Ward, 3088 No Pico " Avenue, Carlsbad,one of the land owner's of Lake Calavera Hills. He stated they are anxious to • proceed. but wish to indicate the'most important • factor is the long term planning'-for Carlsbad.. Mr. Ward introduced Mr. Dennis O'Leary, Mr. 'William Fannon, Mr. Ed Haworth and Mr. Roger Grab -e I-n r,-j1,-41 ,.rh,-i c-t'. +r'i vcrinnrt +, I - I • " ' - I I IP II J vp P I II 1. 1. %J L r " ''' ' ' _•4 I • questions. .. . . . . • . • . -. Mr. Ed Haworth of Haworthand Anderson, Inc.., - - 31882 Camino Capistrano - Juan Capistrano, addressed Council. He stated the proposed systm should not be considered a replacement for the Encuna facility-. He indicated if Council deter- mined it was a feasible concept, a gr.eat deal of consideration should be given to how it will-be processed.. . . Mr. Dennis O'Leary of Lowry & Assoiates, 3505. El Camino del Rio South, San Diego, addressed Council. He stated the report was intended as a Conceptual plan only, to provide an analysis of - - reclamation opportunities in this area. He dis- played a transparency showing the re&of concen- tration in the report and proposed locations of the p]ahts.. . I Wia1Ik. MN -.' -- -- - fl a r c h 28, 1978 He continued stating the basic concept would require failsafe connections to the Encina ocean outfall; In addition, if it is not possible to put the sludge into, the sewer system to be carried to Encina for processing it would be processed • via a different method on site of the reclamation'- plant.. • - - Mr. O'Leary concluded by statingthis general concept and the satellite plants are in the 208 Program. -RECESS: Mayor Packard called a recess at 9:02 P14.. and Council reconvened at 9:12 P.M.. with all Council members -present..' Council discussed the desirability of óbtaining opinions re this matter from the other member agencies of JAC, the Regional Water Control Board and CPO in that they are mentioned .in the report tn, ho. • •--•1 I '-I I I I. • - The City Attorney reported to Council briefly on • procedural matters indicating if the City desired - to prepare an amendment to the Sewer Master Plan to include satellite plants., itwould require a 'complete EIR.. •.' - •• - •• -' It was moved that :the report be filed without Motion" further action.. The motion died for lack of a - • seconcL .• .. -- - • '. - • : ' -- • Council accepted the Overview of waste Water Motion Reclamation' Opportunities as an acceptable concep-Ayes. -' • - Council accepted the Public Works .Admi'nistrator's Motion - recommendation that satellite treatment plants be Ayes • - - considered on the basis of drainage basin- Staff then reported on the -status' of the Lake - Calaverá' Hills project and additional work re- ' • qu -Ired as a result of Council's previous action.. Discuss -ion then related to the désirabilily of -. returning the matter to staff for preparation of - -. a report containing a recommended course of actio - - - - for processing a satellite plant in a drainage' -: basin.. ?4r Haworth, Haworth and Anderson, Inc. addresse Council... He concurred with the desirability of staff furnishing an additional report and request ed i,t be accomplished and returned to Council at - - the earl -lest possible meeting. • - - Council instructed staff to retun with report.. Mayor Packard requested the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate wording of the motion and to furnish same to the City Clerk. An-) ('it? 1) ?t PA r ii T.. - By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:04 P.M.. - - • otion yes -p Ii - • _.._..-.------. •-- -. ---. -• - -.--•--------.-----• -•-••--. —v. - - • : •. - . •. IT Respectful • ly - submitt•:ed, • . .. • .• 11. MAR GAPfT E. ADAMS, City Clerk.. • Lee Rautenkranz, Recording . . . . •. . - - Secretary :- .•. - - The motion as prepared. by the City Attorney is as • • -1 -follows: : . • ..• :- . • Council directed staff,. to report back with a • recommended -course of action for processing the Lake Calavera. Hills Master Plan and a satellite . sewer plant for that drainage basin.. - - - - • • I - - I • _______ _________________ _iav March 28, 1978 i 1. _IJ -- • _••;'•. - ..-... - •• .- ••.'•.. .• ..-.- ...--..• . • - r.:. :c;•),i_—•. .-- ..•• .. - . ---,•- - - - I "Jim wo-1 . I %),AME=—c-3M. '4TQi1Ff, QQNJLJLTING Ef.J I NJ RS, I NJ . 555 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, California 911011(21 3) 796-9141/(213) 681-4255 Cable Address: Montgomery Pasadena California Telex: 67-5420 November 8, 1978 Mr. Don Rose Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Don: Enclosed for your review are the revisions to the EIR on Satellite Treatment and Reclamation Facilities for the Lake Calavera Hills area. Revisions include: Foreword Chapter 3, Description of Project Insert to Chapter 5, entitled "Significant Primary and Secondary Environmental Effects" (repeated in Chapter 8), pages 5-22A and 5-22B. Insert to page 5-30, entitled "Alternatives to the Proposed Action" Table 5-5, page 5-31, entitled "Proposed v.s. Potential Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project." Insert to page 8-32 entitled "Outfall Capacity." Please feel free to comment, to make further revisions and to call me for any deciphering needed. Revisions in response to additional agency comments will be forwarded to you as they are prepared. Thanks again for a pleasant and productive meeting; I look forward to working with you. Very t uly yours, Janet Fahey Received Enclosure NOV 13 1978 CITY. OF CARLSBAD PLANNING ... RESEARCH ... ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 1101701 QUALITY ORIGINAL (S) FOREWORD This report is submitted to the City of Carlsbad to aid in its 40liberations on implementation of a satellite tre$flt and reclamation program for the largely un- 4ev*1s the nthast section of the City. - - N MIMI 10,0 MEN "Tot IRS Contents of ver Many lflterrejated topics which may not be fully comprehended until the entire re - port is read. For the reader who intends to read the report in its entirety, it is suggested that the Chapters be read in the following order: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 4, 5, 9, 10. For those readers who want only environmental impact information, it is suggested that the first 5 char*cr '!!! 2r r rII y;w L I _ - The Project Team wishes to express its appreciationt the - City staff, particularly Mr. Ronald Beckman, who assisted greatly in providing background information and in review- ing draft report material. Frank A. Grant, Vice President Project Engineer September, 1978 J I -7 .1 I ------ -------------------- ------- ±1• 7 I 1: .-. .-. I.III ..... .... 'N I'•i -•-•: : . . iI -..-- 1: . . - -, . : --.-..-.-..--. . ::ii. .-.----- .- :e: . - :iii - : :iiii ---.. ii .... 'I-- . -. .. -.--...- -------- -.-. ... ---.-----,-.- .---'j ..... - . -.----.----------. - .................................................... .1i1.i . S CHAPTER 3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT I (!1) Chapter 3, Project Description, together with Chapter/ 4, Environmental Setting, and Chapter 5, Environmental Impacts and Miigation Measures, - normally make up the heart of an Environmental 11npa94 Report. Chapter generally begins with a discussion of the project'sYobjectives and the 1 alternatives considered for meeting those objectives. i&-rC' &ocA -ro1 IM ka (aL) ?i {u, 4( '( ox YZQ ü7 k YOöJ7 /VA6 9'1. d/ 4/C~5- 4CC1?fi/'14 Z(d 'S Ink skw/i W et PW E =5< -7 0a-tr7&5 77: 1'th5 6F'7 frq2OcL • - t'/ui-4. /M /t tz 7- liJe 7) 7t 7 • . , ,1jWifZ d7wai /(a7 41 7 i/ (1q1 c,r,ttra'fs c/(Li(( 7(c:5 7Z fr€4 '17 c7/4'th)e i6(eii Af Ie5CIW h() No 'Project: No further sewage capacity made available in the Study Area until Encina is again expanded. Continuation of the present sewer moratorium in Carlsbad. Project actions consist of install - ing collection system at the future time. & poAa( - Alternatives 1, 2, 3A and 3B,$ropose a 1.2 mgd oxidation channel satel- lite wastewater treatment p/ant on or near the proposed 800+ acre Lake I Calavera Hills development' Effluent would be percolated and pumped out for reclamation through agricultural irrigation. Sludge would be -- thickened, dewatered and hauled to the nearest Class II landfill. 1 Effluent flows in excess of irrigation need would be percolated for later use or shunted down a failsafe line -$C the outfall of the Encina - Water Pollution Control Facilities. Alternatives 1, 24ing. and 3B differ 1 among themselves primarily with respect to facilities Diagrams and detailed descriptions are given in Chapter 8 of this document. Alternative 1: Locate treatment and disposal (percolation - bed) facilities at lowest point in Study Area drainage near Rancho Carlsbad Mobile 1 l'fome Park; influent collection primarily by gravity flow. . . Alternative 2: Locate treatment and percolation facilities in small canyon at base of Woodbine develop ment at second lowest potential site in Study Area; influent collection requires slightly more pumping, but is primarily by gravity flow. Alternative 3A Would place the treatment plant in the south and 3B: west corner of the Lake Calavera Hills proprty as proposed by the developer. Alternative 3A: Percolation sites would be downhill from the 1.2 mgd treatment plant in canyons near El Camino Real. Alternative 3B: Percolation sites would be at the site in the northwest corner of the LCH property proposed by the developer; with a second potential site near El Camino Real. In both 3A and 3B, influent would be pumped to the treatment plant site. In 3B, effluent would also be pumped to the percolation beds and reclaim- ed water pumped to the potential reclamation site. Alternative 3C is developer's proposal outlined in the "Preliminary Design Report for Lake Calavera Hills Waste Water Treatment Plant, March 1978" prepared for Lake Calavera Hills Associates by Lowry and Associates. This proposal is not comparable with the other plants proposed, as it includes only 0.5 mgd of treatment and percolation capacity, no failsafe line and no reclamation. The treatment plant and percolation bed would be on the LCH property as in 3B. Energy require- ments for each alternative are shown in Table 5-2. EHV (ft/L)AIF,UT?? ( 0114 F4cTE3rcs Eased on an evaluation arid analysis of issues deemed most critical, Alternative 3B was selected. The selection process and criteria are given in Chapter 8 and 9 of this document. Implementation of the recommended plan is dependent on securing land for long-term agricultural irrigation which is the only significant Type I use within the Study Area to justify costs of a satellite facility. Growth controls are necessary to protect the City from consequences of rapid growth once treatment capacity is opened up. Besides usual concern for services and facilities which must accompany growth, the City must be concerned with regional population planning and the impact from loss of state and federal grants and funding if regional population goals are disregarded. The City's consideration of these mitigation measures are djaraimned in Chapter 9 .MOO (d- -& 1'CttLcQ.cIL fz frc2 =>. afrt c/Jc q- P/1Ofrifl(11L 45'5 (S (/1 . . CL (0)1' e 0/1 77cr I p444 tU / (1'VU- oc 11 Lake Cal%nHills cil ;tse:tion Y an SIGNIFICANT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ,#4>4tth €5 SIGNIFICANT PRIMARY EFFECTS 4 ut Primary effects resulting associated with construction and operation would include increased erosion from sites prepared for structures, major seismic hazard to structures on alluvial soils, and liquefaction at percolation sites and flooding due to storms or Calavera Dam facili- ties. Sediment loads would be added to surface waters as the result of erosion. All of these are mitigable with special analyses, structures, and engineering practices. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3A to a lesser extent would eliminate some existing agriculture. Percolated effluent could surface downstream if percolation beds are improperly operated. Year-round percolation and ultimate reclamation could add up to five tons of salts daily to the local Vista and/or Agua Hedionda groundwater basins. Project alternatives locating facilities near El Camino Real would eliminate up to thirteen acres of agricultural land; those facilities located on the LCH property would eliminate up to 13 acres of natural vegetation and wildlife. Major pipeline routes would be laid through stands of sensitive plants. Implementation of the satellite plant project will require land use decisions to secure agricultural lands on which to apply reclaimed water. Several procedures are available but require a City commitment to implement. Noise from construction could be significant but would be temporary. Odors would be a problem associated with only equipment malfunction and would be carefully monitored and mitigated immediately. Aesthetic impacts of facilities could occur along El Camino Real which is a scenic and historical corridor and on adjacent existing housing developments or alternatively to future housing developments at LCH. Construction of a percolation site at the LCH property could impact an archaeologic site. All alternatives would consume energy as electricity, natural gas, and gasoline. Annual project energy consumption would be only a small fraction of that consumed by the LCH development alone. Project implementation requires the cooperation of a number of state, regional, county, city, and other local agencies plus local landowners. The City of Carlsbad will also need to make decisions regarding land use and growth management. Alternatives and role in the .. I TI TI :i . 1 or U , U, I — Lake -ClaaHjfls F t4Qs Alternatives and yss SIGNIFICANT SECONDARY EFFECTS Building a satellite plant with excess capacity would have a significant and rapid growth-incuding impact on the Study Area. This growth could in turn have significant adverse impacts on the provision of community services, air quality, traffic circulation, and the area's existing biological resources, including one endangered and several rare species of plants. Significant increases in development are planned for the Study Area; however, the significance of these impacts lies in their timing. With the implementation of land use and growth controls, these impacts could be mitigated, allowing planned growth to continue in an orderly . way. The No Project alternative would not necessarily mean no growth. Signi- ficant growth would occur in neighboring areas in the interim, creating air quality degradation and traffic in Carlsbad and major services prob- lems and land use demands in neighboring jurisdictions. When growth did occur in the Study Area with the availability of Encina capacity, it could be even more rapid and create more severe demands on services. Secondary impacts are summarized in Table TABLE SUMMARY OF SECONDARY IMPACTS Secondary Alternatives Physical Biological Human No Project Significant but Significant; only Significant, dif f- mitigable and slightly initigable icult to mitigate, implicit in and implicit in no reclamation. General Plan General Plan Disrupts planning of City and adjoining communities 1 Significant but Significant; on Significant, but initigable and implicit in slightly mitigable but implicit in mitigable for land use and 2 General Plan General Plan growth controls. As mitigated, 3A in keeping with the City Plan and promotes reclama- 3B tion 3C Fails to consider growth b Cdii . 2. . Environmental Impacts located underground. These amenities could be included as conditions of approval of the project. Archaeology and Historic Sites Mitigation measures for anticipated direct on-site impacts and indirect on and off-site impacts on archaeological sites are given in the EIR on LCH pages F-7 and F-8. Energy Carrousel oxidation channel systems are less energy-intensive than competing biological treatment systems. An EPA report comparing such systems with competing processes reported that a 1 mgd contact stabili- zation plant would use 800,000 kwh/yr, a 1 mgd activated sludge plant' 546,666 kwh/yr, and an oxidation channel facility 500,000 kwh/yr. These treatment processes are described in Chapter 8, "Treatment and Reclam- ation Options." The recommended satellite treatment plans (3A, 3B, 3C) would, however, require pumping effluent to the treatment facility, from the treatment facility to the percolation ponds, and from the percolation ponds to the reclamation site. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not. This impact is not mitigable. Alternative sites at lower elevations would reduce con- sumption but are not implementable. Use of alternative fuels is not feasible with present technology. Reclamation of wastewater through agriculture near the satellite plant would reduce the pumping of -potable water to the area, resulting in an energy savings there. This is one of the major benefits of reclamation and satellite facilities. Additional energy use mitigation measures for structures are given in the Finl EIR on LCH, pace F-8, fl(4 - tt- M elt le f & — 11*1 Ae,(147?Oe'S 7 Taig PkbP05C-,D ,4cz70 u tuornwt5 caei- ?'k 6 çoedCC(i L C E1 JAMES M. M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. 5-30 MENNEN MEME ran 4m.-m £ . $ 'a, . ' vil XMIAMA, 111--Z W, ~ Rn.w M in M-11"VOW, MOREMOMMEM RURRR PVfl3i EF1?'1T7fAp.1W!)AW "I __ RU1RRRR. ' __ EI Ammmm I4. M Room ISAINEW MEN V I / d I - ..IA4 I --I - ----------______ -- ---- -_I ii Ii .J ' A I14 *•r L _ Ar , /, WA UWA / L ' Oia 1i J4 I 4ry#.r I. Immal Wag- MA I -4 IPA - d . d -- Af i ' / / I 1141 II '4 I I I [1'1-i I I I I Ii IIIIII 11111 !1tIIIIIII 11111 IllllkjI '11111 ••• ItlitIl 11111 IEIIIIIi1IN IuruuhIu :i \ T I I F I 1 H I I LH I; . 0 ENCINA JOINT POWERS 6200 Avenida Encinas • Carlsbad, California 92008 Telephone (714) 438-3941 E j j L LJ Z, NO\' •7 978 LQ November 6, 1978 4u . MflOMERY CONSULT ENGINEERS, INC. Janet Fahey, Senior Biologist James N. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers 555 East Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91101 Re: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report This letter is in response to your request for the views of this agency as to the scope and content of the environmental informa- tion which is applicable to our legal responsibilities in connec- tion with the Reactivation of Water Reclamation System. The Encina Joint Powers is not aware of any legal responsibilities it might have in connection with the proposed project. However, on August 28, 1978, the Encina Joint Advisory Committee addressed the issue of utilizing the ocean outfall as a "failsafe" for reclamation facilities. The Committee agreed Encina member agencies should be permitted to use their share of the outfall capacity for failsafe purposes within NPDES permit restrictions. The system for insuring that the City's water reclamation system will not cause them to exceed either their ownership capacity or NPDES capacity in the outfall should be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the system for monitoring the quality of any effluent discharged into the outfall should be discussed in the EIR. Finally, a discussion of the impact of the City's Phase III increased capacity in the Encina Treatment Plant and any reclamation failsafe discharge to the ocean outfall should be discussed in light of the NPDES permit and Coastal permit discharge limitation of 18 mgd. The contact person for the Encina Joint Powers will be Les Evans. Les Evans General Manager LE/mgt . ©r©J uduqkd ©© doo&00V 001 pine avenue carlsbod,california 92000 729-9291 November 3, 1978 James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 555 East Walnut Street Pasadena, California 91101 Attention: Janet Fahey Gentlemen: I VIA , 0 NOI '3 1S78 tiJ lu 0- JAMES M. Mo;TGOERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. In response to your letter of October 30, 1978 regarding the Environ- mental Impact Report for the Lake Calavera Hills Master Plan of Development and Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility, the Carlsbad Unified School District's response is as follows: The school district has no legal responsibilities relative to the Lake Calavera Hills Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility nor has it any special information that it feels should be included in your report. As far as the development of Lake Calavera Hills, the developer has designated forty acres (three separate sites) for future school development and has indicated a willingness to contribute developers fees for use in school construction. Very truly yours, District Superintendent RAC: aw ROBERT A. CRAWFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION THOMAS L CURTIN, M.D. W. ALLAN KELLY JOHN J. MAMAUX RICHARD R. O'NEIL, M.D. MARY A. SCHERR DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT . %J.&MFESM. MOT4 TGQI.4 R'f, CN LJLT I NIG 555 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, California 91101/(213) 796-9141/ (21 3) 681-4255 Cable Address: Montgomery Pasadena California Telex: 67-5420 November 1, 1978 RECEIVED NOV 21978 City of Carlsbad Department of Public Works CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Engineering Department Subject: Supplement to Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility Project Description: Construction of Satellite Sewage Treatment Facilities in the Calavera Hills Area of the City of Carlsbad Gentlemen: Because of time constraints, we are requesting that you send your comments to Dr. Janet Fahey no later than November 20, 1978. If you are unable to comply with this request, please notify us at your earliest convenience. Pertinent information about the project is attached. Very truly yours, Awt-e 90(le Janet Fahey, D. Env. Senior Biologist /kj Enclosures PLANNING ... RESEARCH ... ENVIRON MEN TAL ENGINEERING . I DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PROJECT The City of Carlsbad is currently under a moratorium on further sewage connection to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. This mora- torium will exist until after the proposed Phase 3 expansion is designed and constructed. The Phase 3 expansion is expected to only partially satisfy the demand for sewage connections within the City's sphere of interest. As a result of inadequate capacity, alternate approaches to treatment at the Encina plant have been proposed by developers and presented to the City for consideration and approval. The concept of satellite treatment facilities to provide inland treat- ment and reclamation of wastewater with failsafe connections to the ocean has been considered a viable wastewater management alternative for the North San Diego County area at least as early as the development of the San Diego Basin Plan in the early 1970's. Such satellite treatment facilities at the present time would satisfy the dual needs of providing the potential for reclamation to increase total water supply and providing sewage treatment capacity to satisfy demand for sewer connections. The City has received a specific proposal from Lake Calavera Hills Associates to provide a satellite reclamation facility in a drainage basin which encompasses the proposed Lake Calavera Hills development. In considering this specific proposal the City has determined that the concept should be investigated further than with respect to the Lake Calavera area, and that a study be conducted to determine the feasibility and environmental impacts of a satellite facility for this area. A major concern of the City is that such a facility be consistent with overall planning for the City and that the facility be designed to satisfy the needs of a reasonable area of service and reclaimed water demand. I I Satellite wastewater treatment plants represent a concept which is intended to compliment centralized treatment facilities. Regional treat- ment facilities like the Encina plant have lower overall wastewater treatment costs, but are located at some distance and at a lower eleva- tion than the sites of potential reclaimed water use. Satellite plants may be constructed close to the potential reuse sites and, thus, save the costs associated with pumping and transmission of reclaimed water. However, satellite plants are inherently more costly to build and operate on a unit capacity basis than are centralized treatment facilities. It is evident then, that in order to justify a satellite plant there needs to be general, overall benefits from reclamation which equal or exceed the added costs associated with satellite treatment. There are three major benefits of a satellite treatment facility in Carlsbad: 1. Provides wastewater treatment capacity perhaps several years before capacity could be made available at the Encina plant. 2. Increases the available water supply in the City's sphere of interest. 3. Allows for continuation of existing water uses such as agricultural operations. The probable project study area is shown in the attached figure (4-1). The project would be in the Lake Calavera Drainage Basin. The developer's proposed treatment plant site is in the southwest corner of the Lake Calavera Hills property with a percolation basin at the northwest corner of the property in the Buena Vista Creek Drainage (Figure 11-1). The area is presently vacant, except portions under agricultural irrigation. Alternative treatment plant and percolation sites along El Camino Real will also be considered as will alternative treatment and sludge handling methods. Probable flow treated would be 1.2 mgd. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Probable environmental concerns are described in the attached "Additional Comments on Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility," written by city staff. SCAN A - PAGES . . . S LEGEND I GB CITY OF CARLSBAD l N- Lo ,F , •( . . 0 CITY OF OCEANSIDE ISDCI COUNTY OFSAN DIE \ 1170 17' 3011 W, 33° 10' N GB CB GB PORTION OF USGS SDC . .. . 1 SAN LUIS REY I QUADRANGLE : . ' •• s••. :• • ... 7 .5 MINUTE '.'- . .... vil 0 GB SDC cl ... .... '............ :t7 : .: ••• \ CB SDC :SDC - CB SCALE 1000 0 1000 2.000 3000 ~FE ET . . .... ... ....... . .. . STUDY AREA FIGURE 4—I . . i000 0 1000 -- - SCALE IN FEET ./—.. \ .. ... PERCOLATION PONDS 5— STATION ¶1----FORCE MAIN FORCE MAIN LAKE CALAVERA . HILLS PUMP STATION! FORCE MAIN RECLAMATION PLANT I /. .1 /• /011*1 FACILITIES MAP FIGURE-11-1 TT-2 *ABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA• Additional Comments on Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility • Although not reflected in either the agency responses or in written responses from members of the public, various concerns regarding the potential impacts of the proposed satellite sewage treatment facility have been raised, both by analysts and members of the public. The following information is not intended to be a complete, detailed description of the specific impacts of the facility or its operation or maintenance. Those details will be covered in a report being prepared by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1. Growth Inducement The proposed satellite treatment facility could be growth inducing in two ways. First, it would be providing treatment capacity to an area that is presently unserved. Secondly, if the satellite plant is successful, it could serve as a prototype to other areas of the city that are currently without capacity. Approval may also serve as prototype to other agencies beyond Carlsbad to do similar sewer projects. The present General Plan does not include a phasing plan. However, it does include two action programs, Growth Monitoring Program (aka Public Facilities and Services Management Program) and Urban Land Reserve Program, that, if developed, could identify where and when development should occur based on the efficient expansion of public facilities and services. Additionally, the Urban Land Reserve Program would provide, the city the ability to preserve agricultural uses and prime open spaces areas and not prematurely commit land to urbanization. 2. Land Use It is the -intent of the city that the proposed satellite facility will be the first step in the creation of an integrated wastewater reclamation program. It is recognized.that the implementation of a reclamation program will involve land use commitments on the part of the city. These are primarily the maintenance of agricultural land and the encouragement of development in marginal terrain not suitable for agricultural uses. Additional information on this matter can be found in a report entitled "Overview of Waste Water Reclamation Opportunities" prepared for the city by Lowry & Associates. - 3. Visual Aesthetics Wherever the proposed facility is located, there should be provisions to screen the site from adjoining • properties, Screening may include landscaping, fencing, and enclosure. 4. Noise Noise sources, such as electric motors, should be shielded in such a way that noise levels at the boundary of the site be less than 55 decibels (dB) 5. Odor Under normal operating procedures, virtually no odor at all should emanate from the facility. It is possible that the system could malfunction and produce offensive odors. For this reason, in addition to the previous two impacts, surrounding development should be separated by a substantial distance from the site. It may also be possible to enclose the operations of the facility within sane form of structure. 6. Other Impacts The aforementioned study for the specific siting of the plant will also have to cover such potential impacts as archaeological resources, biological resources, energy consumption, solid waste disposal, air quality, etc. LAK• 3088 Plo Pico Dr., Suite 201 4VECEIVED CALAV ERA Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (714) 729-4912 NOV - 61978 HILLS CITY OF CARLSBAD of -. U CH DATE I JOB # TO: MEMO TO FILES,---- 11/1/78 SUBJEGT: SATELLITE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PROPOSAL MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 1978 PRESENT: Paul Bussey, City Manager Jim Hagaman, Planning Director Ron Beckman, Public Works Director Ted Donald, Roy Ward TOPIC: LAKE CALAVERA HILLS SATELLITE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PROPOSAL GENTLEMEN: This memo is forwarded to you to review briefly the items discussed in the meeting this date. 1. Processing of the Montgomery Report. The EIR portion is delayed due to J. M. Montgomery failing to notice the appropriate public agencies when the report was begun. There is a maximum 45 day response for these agencies. A list previously used for EIR-403 was supplied and the Regional Coastal Committee was added. An additional reply period of 45 days is required after the "notice response" period for public review and draft preparation. The staff will diligently pursue the shortening up of the reply periods. Roy Ward will proceed to "have hand carried" the EIR draft through channels in Sacramento with the aid of local and other political people. The first possible public hearing on the proposal itself will not be made until after the EIR for the Basin Study is certi- fied - after January 1 1 1979. 2. In light of the delays and to avoid the potential threat Of invoking rights under AB-884, Mr. Ward suggested that the city attorney prepare an extension of the hearing period, regardless of his legal opinion and feelings, and that Lake Calavera Hills agree in advance that they waive any rights that they might have under the law. This action is provided for within the AB-884. 40a ff LA4 CALAVERA 3088 Pio Pico Dr., Suite 201 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (714) 729-4912 HILLS DATE JOB # TO: Page 2 11/1/7 8 SUBJECT: SATELLITE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PROPOSAL It is our opinion that this frees the staff and the city from this potential cloud over the proceedings now well under way for the consideration of the Satellite Waste Water Treatment Facility for the Northeast Basin of Carlsbad. Lake Calavera is willing to cooperate to obviate zany fears on the part of staff and the city in this matter. 3. Waste Water Generation and Potential Reclamation. The Lake Calavera Hills Staff, upon request of the Public Works Director, prepared a preliminary report to define the potential waste water generation and potential reclamation over the predictable future for Lake Calavera Hills. A map illustrating the potential generation for the next five to six years was presented with explanation of uses within the Master Plan Community through year six. It was interesting to note that should the predictable genera- tion of reclaimable water be used within the development, it would take 22 years to fill the volume of the escape channel and aquafier used for discharge and fail safe of the proposed project. 4. A brief discussion of plant site expansion to serve beyond the year 2000 was entered. Since 65 - 70% of growth will take place in the north half of the basin and will probably occur in the north half first, a rid the fact that the south half is mainly low density zoning, some other alternate may prove more practical than trying to expand the north half treatment site. •: :' / K2 t\ø -. .sI November 1, 1978 James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 555 East Walnut Street Pasadena, California 91101 Attention: Dr. Janet Fahey Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility i. Project Description: Construction of Satellite Sewage Treatment Facilities in the Calavera Hills Area of the City of Carlsbad Dear Dr. Fahey: After consultation with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, it has been determined that the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Carlsbad is not a responsible agency and issues no per- mits relative to the project. The Parks and Recreation Department will review project landscape plans. Yours truly, Joseph N. Eggleston Coordinator Parks and Recreation Department JNE:swf cc: Planning Department WHITE IT—DON'T SAY IT INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUMI TO7LJ F-> - DATE 10 19 1t -I T%-'E Ac4-t I k t- icic 141o4 4-\ç c7Lr t C7tf u- i4 iJc \\/-tV3 t-7 ctrc!L 'r\ *P tLJt, my2 REPLY ON THIS SHEET FROM WILMER -SERVICC UNE STANDARD TNTER DEPT. MEMO FORM 12-24- D 4 I. * I • 308 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14 (Reistor 78, No. 5-2448) 15066. Consultation. (a) When more than one public agency j•C 01,111 15LILtZiO will be involved in undertaking or approving a project, the Lead Agency shall consult with all Responsible Agencies (i.e., all the other I E agencies involved in carrying out or approving the project) before completing a draft EIR or adopting Negative Declaration. Con- I 1 sultation is designed to insure that the hR or Negative Declaration will reflect the concerns of all Responsible Agencies which will issue ap- provals for the project. (b) Prior to determining whether a negative declaration or environ- mental impact report is requiredfor a project, the Lead Agency shall I consult with all Responsible .Agencies. This first step of consultation may be done quickly and informally. (c) Immediately after deciding that an environmental impact repori . is for Lead Agency to Respons i- required a project, the shall send each ble Agency by certified ml à Notice of Preparation stating that an - environmental impact report will be prepared. This notice shall also be •' sent to every federal agency involved in approving or funding thej project. (1) The Notice of Preparation shall provide the Responsible Agen- cies with sufficient information describing the project.and the envi- Tonmental effects to enable the Responsible Agencies to make a I meaningful response. At a minimum, the information should include: K, ~11 112 riZl • (A) Description of the project, OTF (B) Location of the project, and (C) Probable environmental effects of the project. I - (2) A sample format for a Notice of Preparation is shown in Appen. I I dix J. Public agencies are free to devise their own formats for this I notice. A copy of the Initial Study may be sent with the notice to I • supply the necessary information. - (3) The Lead Agency may begin work on the draft EIR immedi- ately without awaiting responses to the Notice of Preparation. The draft EIR in preparation may need to be revised or expanded to , I conform to responses to the Notice of Preparation. I (d) After receiving the Notice of Preparation under subparagraph I (c), each Responsible Agency shall provide the Lead Agency with spe- cific detail about the scope and content of the environmental informa- rtti'5 tion related to the Responsible Agency's area of statutory responsibility I which must be included in the environmental impact report. —1 1gtia4 (e) In order to expedite the consultation, the Lead Agency, a Re- sponsible Agency, or a project applicant may request one or more meetings between representatives of the agencies involved to assist the Lead Agency in determining the SCOC and content of the environmen. • I tal information which the Responsible Agency may require. Such meet- ings shall be convened by the Lead Agency as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days, after the meetings were requested. (f) After completing the draft Eli! or Negative Declaration, the Lead Agency shall also consult with and seek to obtain comments from • each Responsible Agency and other public agencies having jurisdiction by law and should consult with persons having special expertise as described in Sections 15033 and 15085. J - -' ¼J TT 0 0 ~ C - Jt4 ES M. MQI'4 T3cP4 ERY, oco"suL-rir,44sNJ I NJ E E I NJ 555 East Walnut Streets Pasadena, California 911 011(213) 796-91411(213) 681-4255 Cable Address: Montgomery Pasadena California Telex: 67-5420 October 30, 1978 City of Carlsbad Department of Public Works 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility Project Description: Construction of Satellite Sewage Treatment Facilities in the Calavera Hills Area of the City of Carlsbad Gentlemen: Our firm has been retained by the City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, to prepare the subject EIR. This EIR"in many respects will address the same issues as the final EIR-403 for Lake Calavera Hills Master Plan of Development and Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility, dated June 26, 1978, on which you have had an opportunity to comment. The City of Carlsbad is the lead agency for the preparation of the subject EIR. Please send your response in relation to your legal responsibilities and what information you feel should be included in the EIR to: James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Dr. Janet Fahey 555 East Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91101 When certified, the EIR will be used as the EIR for all responsible agencies involved with the project. Very truly yours, 47 ECEfl i OCT 31 1978 Janet Fahey, D.Env. Senior Biologist crrY OF CARLSBAD /kj incertng Departnlefl PLANNING...RESEARCH ... ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING iMEMORANDUM DATE: October 24, 1978 TO: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director Ron Beckman, Director of Public Works FROM: Don L. Rose, Current Planning Section SUBJECT: E.I.R. FOR SATELLITE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY PREPARED BY THE MONTGOMERY FIRM. This memo responds to questions raised at our meeting on Monday, October 23, 1978. I've divided it into three sections: I. Requirements to complete a draft E.I.R. pursuant to CEQA and Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. II. Steps remaining to make the Montgomery document a completed draft E.I.R. III. General Comments Throughout this memo I'll be referring the CEQA guidelines. All the sections in rising numerical order. Some notes for ease of reference. Also attached I preparation and a notice of completion. essential part of the E.I.R. process. to pertinent sections of referred to are attached are provided in the margin s a copy of a notice of Both forms are an I. REQUIREMENTS TO COMPLETE A DRAFT E.I.R. (DEIR) The guidelines for the implementation of CEQA are quite specific on what constitutes a completed DEIR. It is a statutory respon- sibility of the lead agency to complete the E.I.R. pursuant to CEQA and the state guidelines. The steps necessary to fulfill this requirement are: 1. Lead Agency decides to prepare an E.I.R. 2. Immediately after deciding to prepare an E.I.R. the Lead Agency shall send a Notice of Preparation (NP) to each responsible agency by certified mail (sec. 15066(c), 15085(b)(1)). 3. Prior to completing the DEIR the Lead Agency should also consult with entities concerned with the project's environmental effects (sec. 15085(b) (2). 4. When one or more state agencies are responsible agencies the N.P. shall be sent to each state responsible agency with a copy to the state clearing house (sec. 15066(g)). 0 0 I a 5. Responsible agencies must respond with certain infor- mation as soon as possible but within 45 days maximum (sec. 15054.3, 15066(d), 15085.5(b)). 6. Lead agency prepares DEIR. The DEIR to reflect respon- sible agency's response to NP (sec. 15066(c) (3)). The DEIR shall also contain the following (sec. 15141): A. A summary of the proposed action and its consequences in laymen's terms (sec. 15140(b)). B. Project description which shall include (sec. 15141): 31) Maps showing location of project on a regional map and a precise location map. (2) A statement of objectives sought by.the proposed project. (3) A general description of the project's technical, economic and environmental characteristics. C. Environmental Impact of the proposed project. This shall include the subjects listed below. The EIR shall include a table showing where each of the subjects are discussed, if not discussed separately (sec. 15143) (1) The significant environmental effects of the proposed action. (2) Any significant effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented. (3) Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the significant effects. This section shall distinguih between mitigation measures proposed as part of the project and those that are merely suggested. (4) Project alternatives. (5) The relationship between local short-term use of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. (I don't think anyone knows what this means). (6) Resulting significant irreversible environ- mental changes. (7) Growth inducing impacts. D. A list of organizations and persons consulted. E. Water quality aspects. 0 n 7. The completed document must reflect the independent evaluation, analysis and judgment of the Lead Agency (sec. 15061(B) (G)) 8. Notice of completion filed (sec. 15085(c)). 9. General public is notified that a DEIR has been completed and is available for public review. Notice shall include review period (sec. 15085(d)). 10. DEIR is distributed for review pursuant to sections 15085, 15160, 15161.5 and 15161.6. NOTE: An E.I.R. may be prepared as part of a project report. However, it must still contain in one separate and distinguishable section the elements required of an E.I.R., including the seven elements specified in section 15143 of the state guidelines (sec. 15061(d)). II. STEPS REMAINING TO MAKE THE MONTGOMERYREPORT A COMPLETED DRAFT E.I.R. The steps listed below are what I feel is necessary to prepare the document for distribution and to comply with CEQA. Some of the items refer to omissions in the Montgomery document. Others refer to format variations that I feel do not fulfill the letter of CEQA although the spirit of CEQA may have been met. flrni crr,c 1. Notices of preparation (NP) have not been sent. This must be accomplished prior to distribution. The Montgomery document may have to be revised to reflect the results of this process (sec. 15066(c), 15085(b) (1), 15066 (g) , 15066 (c) (3) 2. A list of responsible agencies is needed prior to sending the NP's (15061(b)). 3. The section entitled "Description of Project" should be completed pursuant to section 15141. 4. A notice of completion must be filed pursuant to sec. 15085(c). 5. Public notice must be provided pursuant to sec. 15085(d). Format Variations 1. When an E.I.R. is prepared as part of a project report it must still contain in one separate and distinguisable section the elements required in sec. 15143 of the state guidelines (sec. 15061(d)). For the most part this has been complied with except that the section required by 15143(d), alternatives to the proposed action is in chapter 8. The other sections are in chapter 5. The heading "Alternatives to the Proposed Action" should be included in chapter 5 with reference to chapter 8. 2. Although the information required by sec. 15143 is provided it is not easy to locate. A table should be provided showing where each subject is discussed (sec. 15143) 3. Mitigation measures should be separated into those that are part of the project proposal and those that are suggestions. 4. Titles of sections should correspond to the section titles of state guidelines. Meanings change when this is not done. Example: The state guidelines require a section entitled "The Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project". The Montgomery document uses "Primary Impacts" and "Secondary Impacts" and then mixes significant with insignificant impacts. This is confusing. NOTE: Before any further processing, we should decide who the project applicant is. III. GENERAL COMMENTS I haven't reviewed the document for factual correctness. The required review period should help us in that area. The review I did was quick and dirty - I might have missed something. Generally speaking I think the document will be adequate for distribution once the "omissions" mentioned above are taken care of. Montgomery's crew was certainly thorough in their research. I can't criticize them on that. However, I don't think the terms of the contract have been fulfilled. The attached exhibit A is an excerpt from the contract approved by City Council Resolution No. 5445. Included in task No. 7 is "completion of the draft E.I.R.". This hasn't been accomplished. The items outlined in Section I, steps 1 through 6 should be required as a minimum. This report, like many others, is a bit thicker than is necessary. That's unfortunate. Because the document is so unweildy it's difficult to review. That's a problem to City staff as well as the public not to mention the Commission and the Council. If the document has to be so heavy, then the report should be better organized, should include a more descriptive and complete index and some directions on how to use it. DLR:ms . to / a) Operation and Maintenance Costs .Review and develop financial analyses that identify the revenue re4uirements for operation and maintenance costs. • Recommend a financial plan which identifies financing al- ternatives and recommends a method for meeting financial obligations, including consideration of existing sewer fees. We would assess and recommend a method to allocate the costs incurred. b) Capital Costs - Provide a financial analysis which identifies the revenue requirements, if any, for the City to build and/or expand the facilities Identify sources and level of funding. Prepare preliminary revenue programs which estimate user charge rates. TASK 7 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT n environmental impact report will be prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines. This effort, while it may incorporate the proposed EIR for Lake Calavera Hills, shall be complete for the study area and shall in- clude all necessary requirements to complete the project. Growth-inducing impacts outside the City's General Plan Area will not be included. The re- view will address both the short-term and long-term impacts of the project. The assessment will include discussion of. any necessary modifications to the existing land use plans, within the exterior boundary of the City's. General Plan Area, required to accommodate the treatment facility and areas suitable for utilizing reclaimed water. This task shall include the environmental investigation of alternate sites, completion of the draft Ell', and response to public comments on the draft EIR. Attendance at public meetings, beyond those outlined in Task 0, are not included in the Scope of Work. TASK 8 - FINAL REPORT . . . . Prepare 10 copies of the draft report for submittal to City and following review and comment prepare final report. Fifty copies of the final report will be provided. . ElrT A c' Uo. 302 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14 (Register 78, No. 5-24-78) (C) The time required to prepare such a combined document would be less than the time required to prepare each document separately, and (D) The applicant has requested or consented to the waiver. (5) If the Lead Agency waives the time periods as provided in subsection (4), the Lead Agency must approve or disapprove the project within 60 days after the combined document under CEQA and NEPA has been completed. (Government Code Section 65951.) (c) Within 45 days after accepting an application as complete for a project involving issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use, a Lead Agency shall make an initial determi- nation of whether the project will need an EIR or a Negative Declara- tion. (d) A Lead Agency shall convene a meeting with one or more Re- sponsible Agencies to discuss the scope and content of a proposed EIR as soon as possible but not later than 30 days after the meeting is ) requested as provided in Section 15066(e). History: 1. New section filed 2-2-78; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 78, No. 5). 15054.3. Responsible Agency CEQA Time Limits. As soon as after receiving a Notice of Preparation and in no event more possible A*171 ilii'z51 than 45 days after receiving the notice, a Responsible Agency shall inform the Lead Agency of the scope and content of the environmental information that the Responsible Agency would need in the EIR. History: 1. New section filed 2-2-78; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 78, 1 No. 5). 15055. Delegation of Responsibilities. (a) A public agency may assign specific functions to its staff to assist in administering CEQA. Functions which may be delegated include but are not limited to: (1) Determination of whether a project is exempt. (2) Conduct of an initial study. (3) Preparation of a Negative Declaration or EIR. (4) Preparation of responses to public comments. (5) Certification that the decision making body has reviewed and considered an EIR or Negative Declaration. (6) Filing of Notices. (b) The decision making body of a public agency may not delegate the following functions: (1) Review and consideration of a final EIR or Negative Declara- tion prior to approving aproject. (2) The making of findings as required by Sections 15088 and 15089. • (c) Where an advisory body such as a planning commission is re- to to the decision making quired make a recommendation on a project body, the advisory body shall also review and consider the EIR or Negative Declaration. History: 1. New section filed 2-2-78; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 78, No. 5). • ) TITLE 14 RESOURCES 303 (Register 78, No. 5-24-78) Article 6. Application of the Act to Projects 15060. General Rule. The requirements set forth in these Guidelines apply to projects which may have a significant effect on the environment and which involve discretionary governmental action. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not covered by the requirements set forth in CEQA, and these Guidelines concerning the evaluation of projects and the prepara- tion and review of environmental documents do not apply. History: 1. Amendment filed 1-3-75; designated effective 4-1-75 (Register 75, No. 1). 15061. Projects Controlled by State or Local Agencies. (a) When a public agency plans to carry out or approve a project which is subject to CEQA, which may have a significant effect on the environment, the EIR or Negative Declaration for the project shall be prepared directly by, or under contract to, a public agency. (b) Where a project which is subject to CEQA is to be carried out by a nongovernmental person subject to approval, financial support, or some other involvement by a public agency, the EIR or Negative Decla- ration shall be prepared directly by, or under contract to, the Lead Agency. However, the Lead Agency may require the person to supply data and information, both to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment, and to assist in the preparation - of an EIR or Negative Declaration by the Lead Agency. This informa- tion may be submitted in the form of a draft EIR if the Lead Agency desires. If information is provided in the form of a draft EIR or Negative t5I Declaration, the Lead Agency may not use the document as its own without independent evaluation and analysis. The draft EIR or Nega- tive Declaration which is sent out for public review must reflect the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency should require an applicant to specify to the best of his knowledge which other public agencies will have jurisdiction by law over the project. (c) Where the project is to be undertaken by a local agency, as defined in these Guidelines, but requires state approval or financial assistance, the state agency shall require the local agency to prepare the EIR or Negative Declaration, to be submitted with the request for approval of the proposed project. This must also be done where federal funds are involved, but only if a state agency has discretionary authority over the use of those funds. If the local project has been mandated on the local agency by a state agency, the EIR prepared by the local agency may be limited to consideration of those factors and alternatives which do not conflict with the order. (d) The EIR may be prepared as a separate document, or as part offl 1 _Vt. a project report. If prepared as a part of the project report, it must still contain in one separate and distinguishable section the elements re- quired of an EIR, including the seven elements specified in Section J'" 15143 of these Guidelines. -- V.- V * '.4. S (e) All public and private activities or undertakings pursuant to or 7) in furtherance of a redevelopment plan constitute a single project, be deemed which shall approved at the time of adoption of the redevel- opment plan by the legislative body. The EIR in connection with the redevelopment plan shall be submitted in accordance with Section 33352 of the Health and Safety Code. (f) All of the above is subject to the Lead Agency principle which provides that not more than one EIR shall he prepared in connection with the same underlying activity and that the EIR shall be prepared by the lead agency. A (g) Any person may submit information to the Lead Agency to assist in the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration. Such information "-L 1,/ILJ tVC O.Lt may be submitted in any format and may be included in whole or in part in any such EIR or Negative Declaration if the Lead Agency sub- jects the information to its own independent evaluation and analysis. History: 1. Amendment of subsections (a), (b) and (f) filed 12-14-73 as an emergency; ) effective upon filing. Certificate of Compliance included (Register 73, No. 50). 2. Amendment of subsections (a) and (b) filed 1-3-75; designated effective 4-1-75 (Register 75, No. 1). 3. New subsection (g) filed 10-8-76; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Regis- ter 76, No. 41). Note: Order designated that compliance with this amend- ment is authorized but not mandatory before 1-1-77. 15062. Private Projects. . History: 1. Repealer filed 12-14-73 as an emergency; effective upon filing. Certificate of Compliance included (Register 73, No. 50). 15063. Federal Projects. (a) When a State Agency officially comments on a proposed federal pro.ject which may have a significant effect on the environment, the comments shall include a discussion of the material specified in Section 15143. (b)When an EIR is required by CEQA and a federal EIS has been or will be prepared for the same project, all or any part of the EIS may be used as all or any part of the EIR if the EIS or part used complies with these Guidelines. In cases where a federal EIS is used, discussion of mitigation measures, growth-inducing impact, and energy conserva- tion will have to be added or supplemented if the EIS does not include 2 an adequate discussion of these elements. (c) When a project requires both an EIR and an EIS, the Lead Agency shall whenever possible, use the EIS as the EIR as provided in subsection (b). (d) If a Lead Agency finds that an EIS for a project would not be prepared by the Federal Agency by the time when the Lead Agency will need to consider an EIR, the Lead Agency should try to prepare a combined EIR-EIS. To avoid the need for the federal agency to pre- pare a separate document for the same project, the Lead Agency must involve the federal in the EIR-EIS. This agency preparation of the involvement is necessary because federal law generally prohibits a fed- eral agency from using an EIR prepared by a state or local agency unless the federal agency was involved in the preparation of the document. 110 -I • H 304 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14 (Register 78, No. 5-2-4-78) 11 . t 308 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14 (Register 78, No. 5-24-78) 15066. Consultation. (a) When more than one public agency CL(LZ1OI.1 will be involved in undertaking or approving a project, the Lead Agency shall consult with all Responsible Agencies (i.e., all the other • public agencies involved in carrying out or approving the project) before completing a draft EIR or adopting Negative Declaration. Con- I 4At4 sultation is designed to insure that the Elfi or Negative Declaration will reflect the concerns of all Responsible Agencies which will issue ap- provals for the project. (b) Prior to determining whether a negative declaration or environ- mental impact report is required for a project, the Lead Agency shall consult with all Responsible Agencies. This first step of consultation may be done quickly and informally. (c) Immediately after deciding that an environmental impact report* ' is required for a project, the Lead Agency shall send to each ResPonsit T0P.l ble Agency by certified mail a Notice of Preparation stating that an environmental impact report will be prepared. This notice shall also be sent to every federal agency involved in approving or funding the project. (1) The Notice of Preparation shall provide the Responsible Agen- cies with sufficient information describing the project and the envi- ronmental effects to enable the Responsible Agencies to make a meaningful response. At the information a minimum, should include: (A) Description of the project, - (B) Location of the project, and (C) Probable environmental effects of the project. -10 (2) A sample format for a Notice of Preparation is shown in Appen • dix J. Public agencies are free to devise their own formats for this notice. A copy of the Initial Study may be sent with the notice to supply the necessary information. - (3) The Lead Agency may begin work on the draft EIR immedi- ately without awaiting responses to the Notice of Preparation. The draft EIR in preparation may need to be revised or expanded to conform to responses to the Notice of Preparation. After • (d) receiving the Notice of Preparation under subparagraph (c), each Responsible Agency shall 1 e the Lead Agency provi with spe- cific detail about the scope and content of the environmental informa- tion related to the Responsible Agency's area of statutory responsibility ?01 ti- • which must be included in the environmental impact report. (e) In order to expedite the consultation, the Lead Agency, a Re- sponsible Agency, or a project applicant may request one or more meetings between representatives of the agencies involved to assist the Lead Agency in determining the scope and content of the environmen- tal information which the Responsible Agency may require. Such meet- • ings shall be convened by the Lead Agency as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days, after the meetings were requested. (f) After completing the draft EIR or Negative Declaration, the Lead Agency shall also consult with and seek to obtain comments from each Responsible Agency and other public agencies having jurisdiction by law and should consult with persons having special expertise as described in Sections 15083 and 15085. •) H .•. 5:... TITLE 14 RESOURCES 309 (Register 78, No. 5-.-2.4-78) (g) When one or more state agencies will be a Responsible Agency, " the Lead Agency shall send a Notice of Preparation by certified mail 14 to each state Responsible Agency with a copy to the State Clearing- housein the Office of Planning and Research. The State Clearinghouse will ensure that the state Responsible Agencies reply to the Lead 1' Agency within the required time. History: 1. Repealer and new section filed 12-14-73 as an emergency; effective upon filing. Certificate of Compliance included (Register 7, No. 50). 2. Amendment filed 1-3-75; designated effective 4-1-75 (Register 75, No. 1). 3. Amendment filed 2-2-78; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 78, No. 5). 15067. Subsequent EIR. (a) Where an EIR or Negative Decla- ration has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless: (1) Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR, due to the involvement of new environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR on the project, or (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, such as a substantial deterio- ration in the air quality where the project will be located, which will require major revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of new environmental impacts not covered in a previous EIR, or (3) New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available, and (A) The information was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified as complete or the Nega- tive Declaration was adopted, and (B) The new information shows any of the following: 1. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed previously in the EIR, 2. Significant effects previously examined will be more severe than shown in the EIR, 3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, or 4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which were not previ- ously considered in the EIR would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment. (b) If the EIR or Negative Declaration has been completed but the project has not yet been approved, the Lead Agency shall prepare or cause to be prepared the subsequent EIR before approving the project. (c) If the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the condi- tions described in Subsection (a), the subsequent EIR shall be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been completed. History: 1. Amendment filed 12-14-73 as an emergency; effective upon filing. Certifi- cate of Compliance included (Register 73, No. 50). 2. Amendment filed 2-2-78; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 78, No. 5). H TITLE 14 RESOURCES 312.9 (Register 78, No. 5-24-78) ) (3) If the Lead Agency is a State agency, the Notice of Determina- tion shall be filed with the Secretary for Resources. (4) If the Lead Agency is a local agency, the Notice of Determina- tion shall be filed with the county clerk of the county or counties in which the project will be located. If the project requires a discretion- ary approval from any State agency, the Notice of Determination also shall be filed with the Secretary for Resources. (5) The filing of the Notice of Determination with the Secretary for Resources or the county clerk starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA. (P.R.C. 21167(b)) History: 1. Amendment filed 12-14-73 as an emergency; effective upon filing. Certifi- cate of Compliance included (Register 73, No. 50). 2. Amendment of subsections (a) and (d) filed 1-3-75; designated effective 4-1-75 (Register 75, No. 1) 3. Amendment filed 10-8-76; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 76; No. 41). Note: Order designated that compliance with this amendment is authorized but not mandatory before 1-1-77. 4. Amendment of subsections (b) and (f) filed 2-2-78; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 78, No. 5). 15084. Decision to Prepare an EIR. (a) If the Lead Agency finds, after an initial study, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency must prepare or cause to be prepared an Environmental Impact Report. (b) An EIR should be prepared whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (c) An EIR should be prepared when there is serious public contro- versy concerning the environmental effects of a project. Controversy not related to an environmental issue does not require the preparation of an EIR. History: 1. Amendment filed 12-14-73 as an emergency; effective upon filing. Certifi- cate of Compliance included (Register 73, No. 50). 2. Amendment filed 10-8-76; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 76, No. 41). Note: Order designated that compliance with this amendment is authorized but not mandatory before 1-1-77. 15085. EIR Process. The following steps shall be followed after the Lead Agency decides to prepare an EIR. (a) General. When an agency decides that an EIR will be re- quired for a project, it shall follow the procedures contained in this section. j,, o (b) Early Consultation. (1) After determining that an EIR will be required for a project, the Lead Agency shall send a Notice of Preparation to each Responsible Agency and consult with the Re- sponsible Agencies as required by Section 15066. (2) Prior to completing the draft EIR, the Lead Agency should also —h t7xfl od consult directly with any person or organization it believes will be concerned with the environmental effects of the project. Many pub- ITh lic agencies have found that early consultation solves many potential y',r3 igr problems that would arise in more serious forms later in the review ( ) process. 4-77278 ft .. 312.10 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE .14 (Register 78. No. 5-2478) (3) For projects where federal involvement might require prepa- ) ration of a federal EIS, the Lead Agency under CEQA shall consult with the appropriate federal agencies as provided in Section 15063. (c) Notice of Completion. As soon as the draft EIR is com- c7- pleted, a notice of completion must be filed with the Secretary for the Resources Agency. The notice shall include a brief description of the ) project, its proposed location, and an address where copies of the EIR are available and the period during which comments will be received. Lti A form for this notice is provided in the Appendices. The Notice of Completion will provide the basis for information published by the t Secretary for Resources in an EIR Monitor. Where the EIR will be reviewed through the State review process handled by the State Clear- inghouse, the cover form required by the State Clearinghouse will serve as the Notice of Completion, and no Notice of Completion need be sent to the Resources Agency. (d) Public Review. (1) After completing a draft EIR, the Lead Agency shall consult with and obtain comments from public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and should consult with persons having special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. The Lead Agency shall provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the EIR. (2) The Lead Agency shall provide public notice of the compl lion of a draftEIRat the same time asitsendsaNotice of Completio to the Resources Agency. Notice shall be given to all organizatio and individuals who have previously requested such notice and shat' I also be given by at least one of the following procedures: (A) Publication, no fewer times than required by Section 606 of the Government Code, by the public agency in a newspaper general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. (B) Posting of notice by the public agency on and off the site in the area where the project is to be located. (C) Direct mailing to owners of property contiguous to the project. (3) The alternatives for providing notice specified in subsection (2) shall not preclude a public agency from providing additional ) notice by other means if such agency so desires, nor shall the require- ments of this section preclude a public agency from providing the public notice required by this section at the same time and in the same manner as public notice otherwise required by law for such project. (4) Public agencies shall use the State Clearinghouse to distribute EIRs and other environmental documents to state agencies for re- view and should use areawide clearinghouses to distribute the docu- ments to regional and local agencies. (5) To make copies of EIRs available to the public, Lead Agencies should furnish copies of draft EIRs to appropriate public library sys- tems. ,1 312.12 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14 (Register 78, No. 5—.2.4-78) (i) Filing of Final EIR. If the Lead Agency is a state agency, a copy of the final EIR shall be filed with the appropriate planning •1 agency of any city, county, or city and county which will be affected by the project. (j) Use of Final EIR by Responsible Agencies. Each responsible agency shall consider the Lead Agency's final EIR before acting upon or approving the project pursuant to Section 15064. History: 1. Amendment flIed 12-14-73 as an emergency; effective upon filing. Certifi- cate of Compliance included (Register 73, No. 50). 2. Amendment filed 1-3-75; designated effective 4-1-75 (Register 75, No. 1). 3. Amendment of subsections (a), (b), (d), (g) and (h) filed 10-8-76; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 76, No. 41). Note: Order designated that compliance with this amendment is authorized but not mandatory before 1-1-77. 4. Amendment of subsection (b) filed 2-2-78; effective thirtieth day thereaf- ter (Register 78, No. 5). - 15085.5. Process for a Responsible Agency. (a) General. A Re- sponsible Agency complies with CEQA by considering documents pre- pared by the Lead Agency and by reaching its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the project involved. This section identi- fies the special duties a public agency will have when acting as a Re- sponsible Agency. (b) Response to Consultation. A Responsible Agency shall re- spond to consultation by the Lead Agency in order to assist the Lead Agency in preparing adequate environmental documents for the project. By this means, the Responsible Agency will ensure that the documents it will use will comply with CEQA. (1) In response to consultation, a Responsible Agency shall explain its reasons for recommending whether the Lead Agency should pre- pare an EIR or Negative Declaration for a project. Where the Re- sponsible Agency disagrees with the Lead Agency's proposal to prepare a Negative Declaration for a project, the Responsible Agency should identify the significant environmental effects which it be- lieves could result from the project and recommend either that an EIR be prepared or that the project be modified to eliminate the significant effects. (2) As soon as possible, but not longer than 45 days after receiving a Notice of Preparation from the Lead Agency, the Responsible Agency shall send a written reply by certified mail. The reply shall specify the scope and content of the environmental information which would be germane to the Responsible Agency's statutory re- sponsibilities in connection with the proposed project. The Lead Agency shall include this information in the EIR. (c) Meetings. The Responsible Agency shall designate employees or representatives to attend meetings requested by the Lead Agency to discuss the scope and content of the EIR. 0 . 318.2 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14 (Register 78. NO. 5-24-78) (b) Changes in the grade structure in a school which do not result in changes in student transportation. - History: 1. New section filed 2-2-78; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 78, No. 5). 15123. Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings. Class 23 consists of the normal operations of existing facilities for public gatherings for which the facilities were designed, where there is a past• history of the facility being for the kind Facilities used same of purpose. included within this exemption include, but are not limited to race- tracks, stadiums, convention centers, auditoriums, amphitheaters, planetariums, swimming pools and amusement parks. History: 1. New section filed 2-2-78; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 78, No. 5). 15124. Regulation of Working Conditions. Class 24 consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies, including the Industrial Welfare Commission as authorized by statute, to regulate any of the following: (a) Employee wages, (b) Hours of work, or (c) Working conditions where there will be no demonstrable physi- cal changes outside the place of work. History: 1. New section filed 2-2.78; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 78, No. 5). Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports 15140. General. (a) Environmental Impact Reports shall con- tain the information outlined in this article. Each element must be covered, and when these elements are not separated into distinct sec- tions, the document shall state where in the document each element is discussed. 4 (b) Each report shall contain a brief summary of the proposed action 6U and its consequences in language sufficiently simple that the issues can 7 be understood by the average member of the lay public. The EIR shall also contain a table of contents or an index. (c) The information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plotplans, diagrams and similar relevant informa- tion sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public. Placement Of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR. Appendices to the EIR be may prepared in volumes separate from the basic E1R docu- ment but shall be available for public examination and shall be submit- ted to all clearinghouses which assist in public review. A TITLE 14 RESOURCES 318.2.1 (Register 78. No. 5-2.4-78) • (d) The EIR should be prepared using a systematic, interdisciplinary approach. The interdisciplinary analysis shall be conducted by compe- tent individuals, but no single discipline shall be designated or required to undertake this evaluation. Preparation of EIRs is dependent upon information from many sources, including the engineering project re- port and many scientific documents relating to environmental features. The EIR shall reference all documents used in its preparation including where possible, a citation to the page and section number of any techni- cal reports which were used as the basis for any statements in the EIR. (e) The EIR should discuss environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. Effects dismissed in an Initial Study as clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the EIR unless the Lead Agency subsequently receives information inconsistent with the finding in the Initial Study. • A copy of the Initial Study shall be attached to the EIR to provide the ' basis for limiting the impacts discussed. (f) An EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons for determining that various effects of a project that could possibly be considered significant were not found to be significant and consequent- ly were not discussed in detail in the EIR. (g) Drafting an EIR necessarily involves some degree of forecasting. While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can. (h) If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a par- ticular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note -) its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. History: 1. Amendment filed 10-8-76; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 76, No. 41). Note: Order designated that compliance with this amendment is authorized but not mandatory before 1-1-77. 15141. Description of Project. The description of the project7 shall contain the following information but should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environ- mental impact. t' (a) The precise location and boundaries of the proposed project shall be shown on a detailed map, preferably topographic. The location of the project shall also appear on a regional map. (b) A statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project. (c) A general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, considering the principal engineering proposals and supporting public service facilities. History: 1. Amendment of subsection (c) filed 12-14-73 as an emergency; effective upon filing. Certificate of Compliance included (Register 73, No. 50). 15142. Description of Environmental Setting. An EIR must in- clude a description of the environment in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before commencement of the project, from both a local and regional perspective. Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region. Specific reference to related projects, both public andprivate, both existent and planned, in the region should also be included, for purposes of examining the possible cumulative impact of such projects. 318.2.2 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14 (Register 78, No. 6-2-4-78) 15143. Environmental Impact. All phases of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment: planning, • acquisition, development and operation. The following subjects shall be discussed, preferably in separate sections or paragraphs. If they are not discussed separately, the EIR shall include a table showing where each of the subjects is discussed. • .• • • •D • ••.•• 4 TITLE 14 RESOURCES 0 31&3 (RgIt.r 77. No. 1-1.1.77) )(a) The Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project: Describe the direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long- term effects. It should include relevant specifics of the area, the resources in- volved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems and changes induced in population distribution, population concentration, the hu- man use of the land (including commercial and residential develop- ment) and other aspects of the resource base such as water, scenic quality and public services. (b) Any Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoid-ed if the Proposal is Implemented: Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be reduced to an insignificant level but not eliminated. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described. Describe significant impacts on any aesthetically valuable surroundings, or on human health (c) Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Significant Ef- ets: Describe significant, avoidable, adverse impacts, including •1 inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy, and measures to minimize these impacts. The discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures which are proposed by project proponents to be included in the project and other measures that are not included but could reasonably be expected to reduce adverse im- pacts.This discussion shall include an identification of the acceptable levels to which such impacts will be reduced, and the basis upon which such levels were identified. Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Energy conservation meas- ures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be dis- cussed when relevant. Examples of energy conservation measures are provided in Appendix F. (d) Alternatives to the Proposed Action: Describe all reasonable al- ternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and why they were rejected in favor of the ultimate choice. The specific alternative of "no project" must also always be evaluated, along with the impact. The discussion of alternatives shall include alternatives capable of substan- tially reducing or eliminating any significant environmental effects, even if these alternatives substantially impede the attainment of the project objectives, and are more costly. (e) The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's En- vironment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Pro- ductivity: Describe the cumulative and long-term effects of the proposed project which adversely affect the state of the environment. Special attention should be given to impacts which narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long-term risks to health or safety. In addition, the reasons why the proposed project is believed by the sponsor to be justified now, rather than reserving an option for further alternatives, should be explained. • 318.4 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14 (Register 77. No. 1-1-1-77) (f) Any Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented: Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary im- pacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as a highway improve- ment which provides access to a nonaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such cur- rent consumption is justified. (g) The Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action: Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or popu- lation growth, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environ- ment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). In- creases in the population may further tax existing community service facilities so consideration must be given to this impact. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. History: 1. Amendment filed 12-31.74 as an emergency; designated effective 1-7-75 (Register 75, No. 1). 2. Certificate of Compliance filed 4-29-75 (Register 75, No. 18). 3. Amendment filed 10-8-76; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 76, No. 41). Note: Order designated that compliance with this amendment is authorized but not mandatory before 1.1-77. 15143.1. Limitations ont Discussion of Environmental Impact. The information required by subsections (e) and (f) of Section 15143 need be included only in EIRs prepared in connection with any of the following activities. (a) The adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or ordinance of a public agency. (b) The adoption by a local agency formation commission of a resolu- tion making determinations. (c) A project which will be subject to the requirement for preparing an environmental impact statement pursuant to the requirements-of—__ the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21000 through 21176, Public Resources Code. History: 1. New section filed 12-27-76 as an emergency; designated effective 1.1-77. Certificate of Compliance included (Register 77, No. 1). ..t TITLE 14 RESOURCES 318.5 (Register 78. No. 5-24-78) 15144. Organizations and Persons Consulted. The identity of all federal, state or local agencies, other organizations and private in- dividuals consulted in preparing the EIR, and the identity of the per- sons, firm or agency preparing the EIR, by contract or other authorization must be given. 15145. Water Quality Aspects. Describe in the environmental setting section, and other sections where applicable, water quality as- pects of the proposed project which have been previously certified by the appropriate state or interstate organization as being in substantial compliance with applicable water quality standards. History: 1. Amendment filed 1-3-75; designated effective 4-1-75 (Register 75, No. 1). 15146. Contents of Final Environmental Impact Report. (a) The Final EIR shall consist of: (1) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft. ) (2) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. (3) A list of persons, organizations and public agencies comment- ing on the Draft EIR. (4) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmen- tal points raised in the review and consultation process. (b) The response of the Lead Agency to comments received may take the form of a revision of the Draft EIR or may be an attachment to the Draft EIR. The response shall describe the disposition of signifi- cant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed prQiect to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular the major issues raised when the Lead Agency's position is at variance with rec- ommendations and objections raised in the comments must be ad- dressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted, and factors of overriding importance warranting an override of the suggestions. History: 1. Amendment filed 12-14-73 as an emergency; effective upon filing (Register 73, No. 50) 2. Amendment of subsection (a) filed 1-3-75; designated effective 4-1-75 (Register 75, No. 1). 15147. Degree of Specificity. The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. (a) An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more de- tailed in the specific effects of the project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy. S I TITLE 14 RESOURCES 318.7 (Register 78, No. 5-2.4-78) (c) Where an EJR uses incorporation by reference, the incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible or briefly described if the data or information cannot be sum- marized. The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described. NOT: Authority cited: Sections 21033 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21000-21176, Public Resources Code. History: 1. New section filed 10-8-76; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 76, No. 41). Note: Order designated that compliance with this amendment is authorized but not mandatory before 1-1-77. 15150. Standards for Adequacy of an EIR. An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelli- gently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21000-21176, Public Resources Code. History: 1. New section filed 10-8-76; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 76, No. 41). Note: Order designated that compliance with this amendment is authorized but not mandatory before 1-1-77. '. 15151. Use of Registered Professionals in Preparing EIRs. (a) A ) number of statutes provide that certain professional services can be provided to the public only by individuals who have been registered by a registration board established under California law. Such statutory restrictions apply to a number of professions including but not limited to engineering, land surveying, forestry, geology and geophysics. (b) In its intended usage, an EIR is not a technical document that can be prepared only by a registered professional. The EIR serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the project and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects. As a result of information in the EIR, the Lead Agency should establish require- ments or conditions on project design, construction, or operation in order to protect or enhance the environment. State statutes may pro- vide that only registered professionals can prepare technical studies which will be used in or which will control the detailed design, con- struction, or operation of the proposed project and which will be pre- pared in support of an EIR. History: 1. Renumbering of Section 15075 to Section 15151 filed 2-2-78; effective thirti- eth day thereafter (Register 78, No. 5). For prior history of former Section 15075, see Register 76, No. 41. Article 10. Evaluation of Environmental Impact Reports 15160. Adequate Time for Review and Comment. The lead agency should provide adequate time for other public agencies and members of the public to review and comment on an EIR that it has prepared. 318.8 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14 (Register 78, No. 5-2.4-78) (a) Public agencies may establish time periods for review in their implementing procedures and shall notify the public and others de- scribed in Sections 15085 (b) and (d) of these Guidelines of the time for receipt of comments on EIR's. (b) In setting time periods for review, public agencies shall give consideration to their obligation to obtain comments from public agen- cies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to the policy favoring public participation. A (c) In order to provide sufficient time for public review, review periods for draft E1Rs should not be less than 30 days nor longer than J -'1 90 days except in unusual situations. The review period for draft EIRs for which a state agency is the Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency I shall be at least 45 days unless a shorter period is approved by the State prJc • Clearinghouse. (d) A review period for an EIR does not require a halt in other L P Planning in planning activities related to a project. should continue conjunction with environmental evaluation. History: 1. Amendment filed 12-14-73 as an emergency; effective upon filing Certifi- cate of Compliance included. (Register 73, No. 50). 2. Amendment of subsections (a) and (c) filed 1-3-75; designated effective 4-1-75 (Register 75, No. 1). 3. Amendment of subsection (c) filed 10-8-76; effective thirtieth day thereaf- ter (Register 76, No. 41). Note: Order designated that compliance with this amendment is authorized but not mandatory before 1-1-77. 15160.5. Purpose of Review. The legally required preparation, review and comment procedures for environmental documents pro- vide the opportunity for citizens, all professional disciplines, and public agencies to evaluate critically the environmental document and the • manner in which technical data are used. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21000-21176, Public Resources Code. History: 1. New section filed 10-8-76; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 76, No. 41). Note: Order designated that compliance with this amendment is • authorized but not mandatory before 1-1-77. 15161. Review of Environmental Impact Reports. (a) Public agencies must develop procedures for reviewing EIR's which Lead ) Agencies submit to them for comments. (b) Cities and counties should compile listings of other agencies, particularly local agencies, which have jurisdiction by law and/or spe- cial expertise with respect to various projects and project locations. Such listings should be a guide in determining which agencies should be consulted with regard to a particular project. • (c) Reviewers should focus on the sufficiency of the EIR in discuss- ing possible impacts upon the environment, ways in which adverse effects might be minimized, and alternatives to the project, in light of the intent of the Act to provide decision-makers with useful information about such factors. Public agencies reviewing projects should explain the basis for their comments, and whenever possible, should submit data or references in support of such comments. ) TITLE 14 RESOURCES 318.9 (Register 78, No. 5-2-4-78) • (d) Upon completion of reviewing an EIR, it is suggested that re- viewing agencies supply the Lead Agency with the name of a contact person who is available for later consultation should this prove neces- sary. History: 1. Amendment of subsections (a) and (b) and new subsection (e) filed 12-14- 73 as an emergency; effective upon filing. Certificate of Compliance in- cluded (Register 73, No. 50). 2. Amendment of subsections (a), (b), and (d), and repealer of subsection (e) filed 1-3-75; designated effective 4-1-75 (Register 75, No. 1). 3. Amendment of subsection (c) filed 10-8-76; effective thirtieth day thereaf- ter (Register 76, No. 41). Note: Order designated that compliance with this amendment is authorized but not mandatory before 1-1-77. 15161.5. Review by State Agencies. (a) EIR's and Negative Dec- larations to be reviewed by state agencies shall be submitted to the State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, California 95814. (b) The following environmental documents shall be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies: (1) Draft EIR's and Negative Declarations prepared by a state agency where such agency is a Lead Agency. (2) Draft EIR's and Negative Declarations prepared by a public agency where a state agency is a Responsible Agency or otherwise has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project. (3) Draft EIS's and Negative Declarations prepared pursuant . to NEPA, the Federal Guidelines (Title 40 CFR, Part 1500, commencn with Section 1500.1) and Parts I and II of Office of Management an ct Budget Circular A-95. (c) Public agencies may send environmental documents to the State Clearinghouse for review where a state agency has special expertise with regard to the environmental impacts involved. (d) When an EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse, the re - view period set by the Lead Agency shall be at least as long as the period E in the state review system operated by the State Clearing- house. In exceptional circumstances, The State Clearinghouse may set shorter review periods when requested by the Lead Agency. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21088, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21000 through 21174, Public Resources Code. History: 1. New section filed 1-3-75; designated effective 4-1-75 (Register 75, No. 1). 15161.6. Projects of Statewide, Regional or Areawide Significance. (a) Projects meeting the criteria in this section shall be deemed to be of statewide, regional or areawide significance. EIRs or Negative Declarations prepared by any public agency on a project described in this section shall be submitted to the State Clearinghouse and should be submitted also to the appropriate metropolitan area council of govern- ments for review and comment. (b) The Lead Agency shall determine that a proposed project is of statewide, regional, or areawide significance if the project meets any of the following criteria: (1) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (2) A project which would interfere with the attainment or main- tenance of State or national air quality standards including: __t1Vt~ r%,\KZ WVe3~' 318.10 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE 14 (Register 78. No. 5-2-4-78) (A) A proposed residential development of more than 500 ) dwelling units. (B) A proposed shopping center or business establishment em- ploying more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (C) A proposed commercial office building employing more --than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (D) A proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms. (E) A proposed industrial manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupy- ing more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 -- square feet of floor area. (3) A project which would result in the cancellation of an open space contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) for any parcel of 100 or more acres. • (4) A project located in and substantially impacting on an area of critical environmental sensitivity for which an EIR was prepared including: (A) The Lake Tahoe Basin. (B) The Santa Monica Mountains Zone as defined by Section • 67463 of the Government Code. (C) The California Coastal Zone as defined in, and mapped - pursuant to, Section 30103 of the Public Resources Code. (D) An area within '/ mile of a wild and scenic river as defined by Section 5093.5 of the Public Resources Code. (E) The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as defined in Water Code Section 12220. -. (F) The Suisun Marsh as defined in Public Resources Code Sec- tion 29101. (C) The jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission as defined in Government Code Sec- tion 66610. (5) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian lands, wetlands, bays, estuaries, marshes, and habitats for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (6) A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide waste water management plan. History: 1. New section filed 2-2-78; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 78, No. 5). 15162. Failure to Comment. If any public agency or person who is consulted with regard to an EIR fails to comment within a reasonable time as specified by the Lead Agency, it shall be assumed, absent a request for a specific extension of time, that such agency or person has no comment to make. History: 1. Amendment filed 1-3-75; designated effective 4.1-75 (Register 75, No. 1). 3 a 4 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 S . ' CA 19 7 'poc Citp 10OTICE OF PREPARATION-.-.- TELEPHONE: (714) 729-1181 TO: FROM: CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Carlsbad will be the Lead Agency for the preparation of the subject E.I.R. Please let us know what your concerns are in relation to your legal responsibilities and what information you feel should be included in the E.I.R.When certified, the E.I.R. will be used as the E.I.R. for all responsible agencies involved with the project. A copy of the pertinent Initial Study is attached to help you with your evaluation. Please send your comments to the Carlsbad Planning Department no later than DATE: SIGNED: JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Planning Director .• NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of Carlsbad has prepared a draft environmental impact report in accordance with the Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972 (Ord. 1158) regarding a request for on property generally located The draft environmental impact report is on file with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department and Public Library and will be available for public review and comment until All comments shall be submitted to the Planning Director in writing. CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: I Rev. 9/16/77 1 if MEMORANDUM TO: Distribution List FROM: Public Works Administrator DATE: October 6, 1978 SUBJECT: MONTGOMERY SATELLITE PLANT REPORT Attached for your information and review is the final printing of the draft EIR and Facilities Report' Your attention is drawn to the Forward Statement wherein suggestions as to proper chapter sequence are given for those reading the report. Ronald A. Beckman, P.E. Public Works Administrator RAB:VEB Distribution: City Manager (1) Planning Director (5) City - Engineer (2) EWPCF General Manager (1) MEDRANDUM C TO: City Manager nwi Public Works Administrator DATE: August 23, 1978 SUBJECT; )tONTGOU.Y ENGINEERS' SATELLITE PLANT STUDY Attactd are copies of (1) brief status report submitted by Hontgonery and (2) record of nrnting bat=on lontgonery, Lowry, Roy Ward and City. The project Is on time and the draft vill be submitted and ready for City staff review and coineut when I return fron vacation (9111/78). onald A. Beekin P.E, Public Works Adtainlctrator RAB:vcb CC: City nainazr Planning Director AttacIaents CONSULTTN ' JAMES rVL ' La Playa, La Jolla, California 92037/(714) 459-2931 PROGRESS REPORT SATELLITE SEWAGE TREATMENT STUDY Task 0 - Project Management One-half of this task is reserved for public presentations and hearings. The remaining one-half would be divided into two equal payments; thus the 25 per- cent completion for this task. Task 1 - Review All available data was reviewed during this period. Task 2 - Define Study Area Identification of the area to be considered in sizing and location of a satellite wastewater treatment plant has been completed and reviewed by City staff. Task 3 - Wastewater Treatment Several types of wastewater treatment facilities are being studied and eval- uated. No decision has been made as to the selected alternative. Task 4 - Alternative Analysis General studies such as applicability to other plants use of existing facil- ities, process dependability and environmental impacts have been made. - Task 5 - Recommended Alternative No work has been done on this task. Task 6 - Financial Plan No work has been done on this task. Task 7 - Environmental Impact Report Environmental concerns of the several treatment systems being considered have been studied and data has been collected for the final EIR. Task 8 - Final Report A draft outline of the report has been prepared. O RECEIED MEMO TO: DENNIS O'LEARY 119,78 DATE: FROM: BILL FANNON CITY OF CARLSBA() Engineering Departmer SUBJECT: LAKE CALAVERA HILLS MEETING WITH MONTGOMERY ENGINEERS 8/8/78 A meeting was held in the Carlsbad City Hall to discuss the re- port being prepared by Montgomery Engineers relative to the con- struction of a satellite treatment plant in the Lake Calavera Hills area. Present were: Ron Beckman City of Carlsbad Frank Grant Montgomery Ken Weeks Roy Ward Lake Calavera Bills Ted Donald W Bill Fannon Lowry & Associates The purpose of the meeting was to report where Montgomery felt there opinions from LCH. The discussion change of information, Frank Grant were promulgated by Montgomery and or positions of the City. liscuss several items in the should be some input Or was intended to be an ex- noted that all questions did not represent opinions The following items were discussed: 1. Delineation of Service Area Frank stated that the service area was established primarily to include an area which would produce an estimated 1.2 MGD of waste water.. Be stated this was based on the assumption that plants smaller than 1.0 MGD could not be economically operated.. Using this criteria, the study area developed in- cluded LCH and land along the main, channel of Agna Hedionda Creek up to, but not including, the Carls- bad Oaks project. WF noted that with the exception of the area along Aqua Hedionda Creek this was essentially the same drainage area as developed in the LCH Design Report. 2. "Hard vs. "Soft" Reclamation Frank stated that it is the opinion of Montgomery that "hard" reclamation projects involving irriga- tion of commercial crops is preferred to "soft" reclamation of landscape areas, greenbelts and cut slopes. Based on this fact, it is his opinion that any irrigation project should include firm commit- ments for adequate "hard" reclamation land to pro- vide complete disposal of the flows... WF stated that 4 MEMO Dennis O'Leary 8/8/78 Page 2 the Lowry approach has been somewhat different with "soft" reclamation provided, usually on land owned or controlled by the developer. "Hard" re- clamation is preferred, but follows once the water becomes available. It is therefore not necessary to delay construction of a project until the neces- sary "hard" reclamation land can be acquired. 3. Use of Lake Calavera Roy suggested the use of Lake Calavera as a recla-. mation measure. Frank pointed out that its prin- cipal use would be for wet weather storage which would involve a number of interrelated new issues. These include development of a park at the Lake, degree of treatment for recreational reuse, and other items beyond the scope of the present project. 4. Alternative Sites Frank stated that there are two basic sites in- volved, Site No. 2 (LCH) as presented in their project report and Site No. 1 somewhere at or near the low point of the study area. This would be where Agua Hedionda Creek crosses El Camino Real. Prank stated that they had not yet run cost-effective comparisons.of the two sites, nor conducted any en- vironmental or social impact studies. However, based on past experience, it would appear that Site No. 1 would be preferable from an engineering point of view. WF stated that he could agree with that finding, noting that Site No.. 1 was the one shown in the "Overview Report". It was stated that the LCH proposal was a specific proposal offered to pro- vide service to a given area. WF stated that in \ his opinion, Montgomery's task was to review that proposal and to determine whether there was some / other superior alternative. (Later in the meeting Ron took exception to this statement pointing out that Montgomery's task was to develop the best solution to providing service to the area and then it would be decided if the LCH proposal could be used or adapted as an alternative to that best solu- tion.) 5. Plant Phasing Frank stated that preliminary cost estimates in- dicate a 40% saving if the plant were constructed in two phases of 0.6 MGD rather than four phases o MEMO Dennis O'Leary 8/8/78 Page 3 at 0.3 MGD. Roy agreed with this pointing out that the LCH proposal had indicated two phases at 0.5 MGD for a somewhat smaller ultimate flow. 6. "Emergency" Fail-Safe vs. "Excess Flow" Fail Safe Frank raised the point that there is a difference in semantics in the use of the term "fail-safe". Originally it was intended to provide an outlet for untreated or partially treated waste in the event of unforeseen mechanical breakdown. He noted that the term in the "Overview Report." referred to an outlet for excess treated effluent on a seasonal basis. He stated that if this were so there would still be a need for "emergency" fail-safe facili- ties. WF stated that these could be provided in redundant treatment units and equipment or in tem- porary storage of untreated waste. Roy stated that there was some planning in progress whereby a reversible force main line could be constructed from homes connected to the existing sewer in Kelley Road back up to LCH. In the event of equip- ment breakdown this line could be reversed and -"the flow transmitted through the Encina treatment plant on an emergency basis. Frankpointed out that this would preempt Encina capacity. However, WF stated that this would probably be acceptable if it were on a truly emergency basis or if some of the capacity released by this diversion of flow from Encina to LCH could be reserved for such emergency flows. During this discussion , it was brought up by Frank that it would be possible to utilize a fail-safe line as a reclaimed water dis- tribution line in the final project design. 7. Subsurface Disposal WF asked how the 0.5 MGD subsurface disposal facility included if the LCH project was to be incorporated into the larger project. Frank ex- pressed reservations about percolation in general, indicating that after a ten-year period they may not operate as well as initially. He pointed out the difference between laboratory soil column test and in situ test. WF agreed, but stated that the 0.5 MGD was a conservative design de- veloped by Lowry and the soils engineer. WP re- quested that any negative statement in the Montgomery report regarding the percolation capabilities of the site be documented with tests rather than con- sist of unsupported statements. -4 MEMO Dennis O'Leary 8/8/78 Page 4 8. Financial Arrangements Frank stated that he was thinking along the lines of a plant construction with private financing by LCH and purchased on the installment plan by the City. Roy stated that his thinking had been more along the lines of reimbursement by connection fees from new homes in the area. This would per- mit the city to connect a limited number of exist- ing homes to the system without cost. 9. O&M Cost Frank stated that O&M costs could be spread on a city wide basis or confined in the service area. Frank's basis for a city wide cost would be the intangible benefits of "soft" reclamation and the fiscal benefits of "hard" reclamation. It was agreed that this decision will rest finally with the City. 10. Cost-Effective Approach WF noted that the discussions of cost had revealed the fact that there were two classes of taxpayers involved, the existing taxpayers of the City of Carlsbad and new taxpayers purchasing homes in LCH and other new developments. WF requested that these two classes of people be recognized in any cost-effective analysis presented by Montgomery. 11. Multiple Plants Roy raised the possibility of providing two plants within the drainage basin, presumably one at Site 1 and the other at Site 2. Frank reverted to his original statement that any plant smaller than 1 MGD would not be cost-effective. 12. Capital Costs Irrigation Distribution In a general discussion of future costs for irriga- tion piping, Roy pointed out that the income from the number of homes to be connected to the new facilities far exceeded the treatment plant cost which LCH wished to recover from the project. This additional income could be used to finance irrigation projects. MEMO Dennis O'Leary 8/8/78 Page 5 The meeting broke up with an indication by Frank that a draft of the Montgomery report would be available during the first week of September for review by the City and LCH. WWF:csh cc: Roy Ward Ron Beckman Frank Grant 'I AUG @91978 August 8, 1978 CITY OF CARLSBAD I L3nflfr3 Department Frank Grant J. M. ibntgoiuery Engineers 55 L Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Proposed Outlino for Project Report Enclosed is a marked-up copy of your project outline with comments from tme Plaiming Department While many of these are self-explanatory or have been discussed with me as a result of my comments, I would suggest a call to Mike Zander of our Planning Department to insure your under- standing of their comments Ronald A. Beckman, P.E. Public Works Administrator RAE: veb CC: Planning Department Janet Fahey o1oaurea BC: Mike Zander W OUTLINE • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND FACILITIES PLAN • FOR SATELLITE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES CITY OF CARLSBAD . The Environmental Impact, Report, Facility Plan and Financial Plan -.Will all be contained under one cover. There would be 10 chapters. Chapters 1 and Z would stand alone. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 would comprise the Environmental Impact Report. Chapters 6,7, 8, and 9 would coniprisethe Facility -flan, and Chapter 10 would be the Financial Plan. The outline of the report follows CHAPTER TITLE 0• IntroductiOn .: .Y.::•. • ••.. This chapter would introduce the :reader' to the report, outline the historical sequence of the project, indicate the purpose of the present report The chapter would probably contain no tables, but would include a figure showing Carlsbad, the surrounding areas, and the proposed Lake Calavera planned community 2 Summary and Conclusions This c apter would summarize the environmental impacts and the alter-. native evaluations of Chapter 7 and 8' Conclusions regarding the impacts, the recommended project and the financial planning would be • presented. • There may be several small tables to summarize data, but. probably no figures. • ,. : . . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT • • • Description of Project • - .• A. General discusion of objectives and alternatives considered. B. Desc -iptions of viable alternatives.. C. Energy requirements of viable alternatives. D. Objectives/recommended alternative. Figures would include a diagram for each alternative, tables would include energy requirements. Environmental Settin • en v efhnj A. Summary ofAdocuments prepa.-d to date. B. Supplemental informtion.on physical, biological and - -c1 human environment/.as related to satellite treatment facilities..'4 • .- Environmental 1m2act anj Oflh4easurs S A. • - •5 S aoe n Surñrnary of viable alternatives S -f S B. Summary of nfeasible alternatives. (It should be noted here that we are looking at two basic levels of alternatives The first level involves the overall picture in terms of the numbers, sizing and locationof satellite treatment facilities. The second level for the Callavera Hil1:facility. The concept of satellit haäl1eady been adopted by ,'the Cit Councjj—''Alternatives such aexpanThnq the Encina treatment C~due ant to serve the entire study area has already been judged nfe to institutional constraints.) C . • . • Vi--S S 1 Primary impacts. The primary impacts would be sunarized in tabular form for the following: I. Physical environment a. Topography, geolog' b. Soils- 5555• •: . -..-.,.---..'.,.•---.- 5.- •5•S___• S - --5- 5 . .__-••.-•,,-..-- -. -5-.---.. -5..- .•.-.-S-.--.-,---_.-.S_-- - 4 1 63 I6r LT c. *Hydrology ci. Cli mate -a4-qua44-t-y-.-. 2. Biotic environment • a. Comthunities b. Flora C. Fauna - • 3. Human Environment • a. Population Pkvi ciid erej B) • b. Land Use 0 c. Economics - - d. institutional Organizations • e. Noise • -: .q L3 I --- uibt h.00AOr- 4. Archaeological and historic sites 5. Energy and chemicals consumed - use summary and energy budget D. Secondary Impacts .•••- •;•- • • • • 1. : Physical Environment • • • 2. Biotic Environment • -- • 3. Human Environment • - 4. 0 ..Historical Setting 0 • 5. Energy and Chemicals •. • 6. Air Quality 0 • E. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • -• • - - - 0 - F. Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity G. Any Irreversible Environmental Changes H. Growth - Associated Impacts 0•0 - •-::--: - - - •0_ - - - -: - .0 I. Mitigation Measures 1. Physical Environment 2. Biotic Environment 3. Human Environment 4. Historical Setting 5. Energy Conservation 6. Alternative techniques, methods Alternatives Evaluation , Based on: 1. Cost - Capital, O&M, Total Present Worth 3Jkvt o' 2. Significant primary and secondary environmental effects (Tel 1 e 3. Legal or institutional constraints (modifications to land use plans) $LcA e0A 6 ^4 4. - Compliance with Regulatory Requirements - O o 3 j)v1 (The outline would be used to develop a ma.rix of impacts and mitigation measures for the study area. The existing EIR document would serve as basic reference. for information. The impacts would be extrapolated'\' fç to the Study Area, and certain cumulative impacts from development of satellite plants would be identified.) FACILITY PLAN 6 Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plans for North County Area A. Background to development of satellite concept. B. Reclamation potentials. C. Overview plan as presented by Lowry. D. CPO 208 Plan E. Potential variations to satellite concept (PWA memo and others) 7 Study Area Definition and Relationship to North County Area A:H;.Criteria for definition of study area. - ..:.L.. I . : Assume that desire,\for satellite sewage treatment plant is uniform and equal to desire of Carlsbad. : 2. Criteria for including areas outside Lake Calavera development are as follows: • a. Area is shown as future development of General Plan. b Area would drain by gravity or low lift pumping to treatment facility. c Area is not an isolated area within an already sewered drainage basin tributary to the Ericina Plant Currently sewered area could be included if cost savings resulting from 1nClion'in the satellite plant can be demonstrated B. •Popu1atiori and Land Use C Plant Size versus Capital and O&M Costs D. Characteristics of Study Area E Wastewater Volume and Composition F. Potential for Reclamation G Definition of Study Area (Based on Above) H. Relationship of Study Area to Other Potential Satellite Plant Sewer Service Areas in North County Area 8 Lake Callavera Satellite Facility Alternatives and Analysis A. Treatment and disposal alternatives 1 Alternative)nethods and associated discharge requirements 2 Applicability for reclamation and reuse B Alternative plant sites 1 Identification of potential sites 2 Ability to meet service area collection and treatment needs 3. . Ability to serve reclaimed water needs C. Land requirements: • . . D. Fail safe requirements . . E. Construction phasing, capital costs, and O&M-costs - ........... ......... F. Implementation considerations .. . . . .. G. Alternative treatment process comparison and selection — •1 -'. •.. • ........ .'L..'4_ ........''.1 . ..-e . .5 5• •4I.. _ / 1 NOTE: Selection to Aeased upon: .1. Applicability as a general system for other satellite plants 2. Maximum usage of-existing facilities • 3. Energy consumption . . .. 4. Process dependability . . 5. Waste generation and disposal . • • :.. . 6. . Process monitoring costs . . . • . . ..• Costs of construction, operation and maintenance of total project .8. Flexibility • . . . . . • :1. 9. Environmental impacts . . . ., •. . . 110. cic acce Ve-y tp*v • .: • 11. Priority of reuse markets ••.•• . . .••. 9 • •. Rcommndd Prnict . . • • I. • • .:. •.• 2 - ,/ 12 MUM" M -z- DATE: July 31, 1878 Briefly updating the progress on this project, we have had several meetings discussing the infovnation base available to the engineer, ten- tative study area, tentative plant sites (wjll include site proposed by developer), environmental concerns, etc. ,A copy of the tentativeprojec report outline has been forwarded to the Planning Director for his cora The work with the engineers is on schedule and the environmental consultant is already into the project a week ahead of schedule. I will inform you of anything that even looks like it might delay the scheduled coopletion. Ign i CC: City Ingineer Planning Director JUL 1 1978 UL ' 1978 : :rv OF C44RLSn ç:t :nri DrLrH. , o4 City *inager P4: Public Works Administrator - - - July Jim flcKy 'sin **tcis cojnty Va*r 910triolt 79-8 $er ?ltrcc,* Mvd, n flavws w CA 92069 Dick Hanson LoucdIa County Wator Dktrict P. 0 t3ox Z397 Loucidh, 92024 letter tter to: Joe Zapotocky City of Vista P. 0. pox 188 Vista1 CA 92083 I Id Oppr=1020 S 1ta t$ avjr InII of 00 IAgamot war agency might hOV4. ,n*Id A. actutan, POE. Public Vorks AIrator C: City iuger och*a Gan.rel #Ansaer v'P)amtsW Director Ctty EsgInar Emlosum V I78 Mr. tcn fillayardt Vice President L A. M toery Cel Ing Eor4 2255 Avenida de to Playa Li Jolla,, Cot iforni 37 ubJ*u Project Phui1 Flamcial Plan, UR for S1i1 Sago Trøztruit Ffliy I tul4 appreciate ro=lvlag a copy of a dctaBd wvrk sahodulo which re- flects the tss and, t1r.0table as b1tted In your p roposal of May 19, 1978. Information as 10 stoff assigood to each task, optim= and aln1pim invoivont of tho Public Woru Administrator, mmoting Schodula, rcvio prJods pro oreas reports, tc.1 muld b vcry holpful to no in duUtt pkto noxjws Involvemnt. It tud al so for reporting to tho City 1mor ond City Couzc I I on projoct progress. Ronald Am gackman o P.E. Public wki AdinItrtor am: Vab CC City Msoaer PLnnIn Irctr City Engineer JUN 29 1978 CITY OF Planning Department tiff 1 41 Ale% CARLSBAD, CALIF dANIA 92008 Qrttp of (Cartbab TELEPHONE: (714) 729-1181 June 23, 1978 James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2255 Avenida de la Playa La Jolla, California 92037 Attention: Mr. B. G. Hildyard, P.E. Vice President & Manager Subject: Lake Calavera Hills Drainage Basin Study - Notice to Proceed The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of June 20, 1978, adopted Resolu- tion No. 5445 authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement for the referenced study. That approval was conditioned upon the insertion of wording estab lishing the time of completion as being 70 days from notice to proceed. The necessary changes have been made and the agreement has been signed by all parties. You are hereby notified to proceed with the necessary work. Two copies of the executed agreement are enclosed for your records. Ronald A. Beckman, P.E. Public Works Administrator RAB:veb CC: City Manager City Attorney (!Cityngin ge n Planning Enclosures -.0STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL HOARD SAN DIEGO REGION 6154 MISSION GORGE ROAD, SUITE 205 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120 TELEPHONE: (714) 286-5114 MAY 16 0 1978 Ctiv OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT P. 0. Box 265 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 GENTLEMEN: RE: ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ,A NUMBER OF EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DISPOSAL SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ON AN EXPERIMENTAL BASIS, AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CONVENTIONAL SEPTIC TANK/LEACH LINE SYSTEMS. APPROVAL FOR THESE SYSTEMS WAS GRANTED BY THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE REGIONAL BOARD. - RECENT STAFF INVESTIGATIONS REVEAL AN ALARMING RATE OF FAILURE FOR THESE EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS. WE ATTRIBUTE THESE FAILURES MAINLY TO POOR DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. As A RESULT OF THESE FAILURES, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT EVAPOTRANSPIRATION SYSTEMS (AND POSSIBLY OTHER TYPES OF ALTERNATIVE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS) MAY BE INSTALLED IN AREAS AND SUBSEQUENTLY FAIL LEAVING NO CHOICE FOR PROPER DISPOSAL OTHER THAN HAULING OR SEWERINC, EITHER OF WHICH WOULD BE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE FOR THE HOMEOWNER. BECAUSE OF OUR CONCERN, WE REQUEST THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT ISSUE NO APPROVALS FOR PARCEL MAPS, SUBDIVISION MAPS OR INDIVIDUAL HOMESITES, UTILIZING ALTERNA- TIVE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS,- UNTIL WRITTEN APPROVAL OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIRE—. MENTS ARE OBTAINED FROM THIS BOARD. WITH REGARD TO PROJECTS OF THIS TYPE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, WE REQUEST THE FOLLOWING: 1. WITHHOLD FINAL APPROVAL UNTIL WRITTEN APPROVAL OF WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ARE OBTAINED FROM THIS BOARD; 2. SEND US A LIST OF ALL APPROVED SYSTEMS. THIS REQUEST DOES NOT APPLY TO PARCEL MAPS, SUBDIVISION MAPS OR INDIVIDUAL HOMESITES WHERE CONVENTIONAL SEPTIC TANK/LEACH LINE SYSTEMS OR COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEMS WOULD BE UTILIZED. - E ID 11 AY 17 197 8 1TY OF CARLSBAD planning Department Ciiv OF CARLSBAD -2- * MAY 16, 1978 WE APPRECIATE YOUREFFORTS IN RESOLVING SOME RATHER KNOTTY PROBLEMS IN THE SEWAGE'-- DISPOSAL FIELD AND LOOK FORWARD TO A COOPERATIVE EFFORT ON THIS PROGRAM. PLEASE CALL MR. LADIN DELANEY AT (714) 286-5114 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. VERY TRULY YOURS, LEONARD BURThAN EXECUTIVE OFFICER .1 rA 4 •0 NOTES ON MEETING. Lake Calavera Hills Friday, April 28, 1978 8:30 A.M. We decided to have regular meetings once a week if possible, with Lake Calavera, in order to maintain communications of the highest degree possible. We discussed several items which could affect the processing of the plan. Mr. Hayworth presented us with the activities which he perceives as necessary for the final processing of the master plan. He indicated that he will, based on the meeting, return this next Friday (May 5, 1978 @ 8:30 A.M.) with a schedule of what he perceives is the process discussed. As a matter of information, the following points were brought out: 1. Can we hear the master land use plan along with a precise development plan, as will be required in the P-U zone, concurrently with the Planning Commission and City Council, or must we trail some of the hearings? 2. If the final report on the sewer treatment plant suggests a location outside the boundaries of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, what other actions will be necessary in order to implement the plant? 3. A tentative schedule for the special report on the satellite treatment plant will be; the RFP's must be returned by MAY 19, and be reviewed by City staff by MAY 26. The Council will consider the staff's recommendation on JUNE 7. The contract will be signed by JUNE 23, and JULY 1 the work should commence. 4. Activities concerning General Plan Amendments in which the planning development will be immediately involved are two fold. First, there must be a text amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan which permits siting of satellite waste water treatment facilities as a permitted use. This will require environmental assessment which could possibl y be in the form of a negative declaration. Second, the Land Use Map of the General Plan should be amended to designate a category somewhere in the Calavera Drainage Basin in conjunction with that amendment. The Land Uses in Calavera should be modified to reflect the current proposal. This will require modification to the current environmental impact record wherein we are suggesting that staff hire a consultant to advise us on the matter. The second group of activities are classified under Zone Code Amendments. The P-U zone in the Zone Code should be amended to allow sewer treatment plants as a permitted use. This will require an environmental assessment. Along with that amendment, the 0-S and E-A zones should be amended to remove sewer treatment facilities as a permitted primary use, which also will require an environmental assessment. With these activities completed, the amended CalaveraHills Master Plan, 0 11 Calavera Hills Master Plan Notes on Meeting Page Two with its environmental impact record, could This, however, should wait until after the plant project record is completed so we can specific and the master plan amendment. be processed. sewer treatment deal with a site JCH: le CH LAK• CALAVERA HILLS APR 19 1978 CITY OF CARLSBAD - TO: Mr. Paul Bussey '1YtTE JOB # City Manager 4/19/78 SUBJECT: Lake Calavera Hills Satellite Sewer Plant! Amended Master Plan Process At last evening's council meeting, Council agreed on a methodology to process a waste water treatment facility for the Lake Calavera Hills drainage basin and a method of processing the amended Master Plan, dated March, 1977 and the environmental impact report amend- ment draft which was completed in August, 1977: all public review completed November 6, 1977. With these items prepared and ready for public hearing, we again request for the record that public hearing dates be set for these items according to the city ordinance govern- ing Planned Communities (Ordinance 21.38). We do realize, however, that it is a new step for the City of Carlsbad to consider the matter of a satellite waste water treatment facility, and therefore, we would like to request that a meeting be held immediately between the City Manager, the Public Works Director, the Planning Director, our consultants and Lake Calavera Hills principals to set up a schedule for all of the necessary functions that must be prepared for or, in the aternativa, to agree that the developer/owner of the land is to provide that schedule and have all department heads aware of its schedule and agree to the specific timing situation. We believe, as does the City Council and the City Attorney, that many of these functions can move forward together in the same time frames. We should agree on a plan and augment it with additional consulting staff to support the city in their efforts to see this to public hearing date. It is our intent to assist all department heads in any way possible to facilitate the expeditious processing of both CH7 LAK• . CALAVERA HILLS DATE JOB # TO: Mr. Paul Bussey P.ge 2 4/19/78 SUBJECT: Lake Calavera Hills Satellite Sewer Plant/mended sewer treatment plant to public hearing, and the amended Master Plan also, Any function/service that any department head feels that he does not have the staff and/or the capability to address, we request that the city allow the developer/land owner to provide that con- sulting staff to the city to expedite the processing time. We are much aware of the concern of Carlsbad and many other cities over what effect AB884 will have on the normal processing proce- dures of a city in discretionary matters. It is our earnest wish not to create a problem in this area for the City of Calrsbad therefore, we want and we voluntarily agree to provide at our expense any facilities, staff, or consulting that the city might feel nec- essary for the city to process expeditiously but independently of so-called pressures from the land owner/developer. We would appreciate discussion and a meeting to set up procedural matters within the agreed upon process to assign responsibility and to discuss gaps or other matters which might cause further delays in the normal processing of the two matters herein discussed. Thank you for your time and effort expended to date. V t/)a1Ldzt Roy . afi$i RJW:p c V Councilpersons cc: r. Ronald Packard, Mayor A.J. Skotnicki Ron Beckman, Public Works Director Mary H. Casler Jim Hagaman, Planning Director,— G. W. Anear S DATE: APRIL 14, 1978 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: CALAVERP HILLS SEWER PROJECT REPORT FINANCING At the March 28, 1978 meeting, City Council approved in concept the development of a satellite sewage treatment plant for Calavera Hills. The City Attorney by memo dated April 12, 1978, has outlined what will be required as part of the sewer project report. Up to this point the Council has required that the developer finance all reports necessary to make the determinations that Council has made. The developer has seen this as his responsi- bility in the past and continues to see this as his responsibility for the project report and EIR supplement. The Council may wish to consider the preparation of the project report and its funding as a City responsibility. Consideration of this is suggested for several reasons. As the City allows the developer to expend more funds, Council may find it more difficult to not approve or to modify sig- nificantly the findings of such reports. Additionally, the proposed plant will be designed for the potential of serving a drainage basin rather than a single development. The solution to such community problems has-generally been accepted as a community responsibility. An example of this is the City's direct participation in the funding of the planning of the Encina plant. City responsibility for preparation of the reports provides for greater control over their content. Even if prepared by the con- sultant, the City would have to retain a consultant to review and check the work since staff does not have the time or probably the expertise for this kind of work. Mr. Ward has expressed concern that such an approach would create time delays and the City staff, I believe, understands those concerns. However, much of the data has already been. deieloped by the developer and where the information proves valid, we would incorporate it into the City's report without doing all the research necessary to produce such information. The Public Works Administrator has estimated that this effort should not exceed $25,000. If the Council concurs with this approach they should authorize the staff to solicit proposals from qualified firms to prepare the project report. PAUL. BUSSEY City Manager PDB: ldg a / • IF : In order to bring the Lake C.flavera Hills (LCI-I) proposal into con- formance with the satellite plant concept accepted by the City Council, it will be necessary to prepare a project report, a financial report and an Environmental Impact Report. These reports should be prepared by the City or by consultants under contract to the City. While there is much •c data available, considerable additional effort will be required to complete the project.-- Estimated cost to complete reports is $25,000. The project, financial and environmental reports, while using existing data, should be expanded to cover the following issues Project Report -What area should be served? -Should we provide for extension of service into adjoining agencies t service areas? Adjoining Carlsbad service areas? -Should we provide for service to all development within the defined service area or just new development? -What are the potential reclamation needs (present or future) in the proposed service area? -What is the maximun volume of sewage from proposed service areas? -'What are the physical and chemical characteristics of the sewage to be -generated in service area? ;-Should any unique treatment needs be anticipated? -What is the proposed treatment technology? -What alternatives were considered? -What are the operations and maintenance costs anticipated for each alternative? -What technology is proposed? -Will effluent be of sufficient quality to dispose of in ground? In ocean? -Will the proposed technology be suitable on a City-wide basis? -Will it minimize City-wide operations and maintenance costs? -How will solids be disposed? will brine be disposed? -What is maximum land area needs for ultimate service area system? -What is .capacity of available percolation sites? -What maximum capacity will be needed in a fail-safe to the ocean outfall? -Where can fail-safe-line be located? -Alternatives.? -What is optimum site for project? -What alternative sites may be used? -Pros and cons of each alternative? -What project phasing is propoed? -What impacts on operations and maintenance? -What capacity allocation programs should be developed for each project phase? -Who gets capacity? -When is capacity made available? -What is impact on moratorium? -What is capital cost of project? -Of each phase? -What is impact of need to provide public facilities to each area allowed to develop with each phase? -Flow can provision of public facilities be coordinated and financed? - I I , 4 Financial Report -How are capital funds for project to be provided? -Entire project? -Phase by phase? -Impact on serving present development? -How will operations and maintenance costs be funded? -Basin by basin? -City-wide service fee? - -How will they vary with phasing? -Will any of proposed capitalization or operations and maintenance funding programs result in inducement to develop? -Give, details. -What connection fees will be necessary to capitalize project and expanded ocean outfall capacity? • Environmental Impact Report -What are impacts of project?- -Will it induce growth? -What are impacts on adjoining agencies? -What are impacts on Regional Water Quality Control Board goals? • - -What is impact on agricultural and open space lands that could use reclaimed water? -What are mitigation measures? -Growth management controls? -From adjoining agencies? - - •-••,-••- --••-•- ---•-•--,-----.-----,.-- •-• ----- • - -.---- • ------S - IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO March 31, 1978 /44 1 4 V '1UFANIIOLIO.IRVZI ,)AMFS Il TUCKER SR, 335.ISSCI Or 40 IV GA HE CF-lEN 0 HUrT flOGGER IC '4 EEL BERRY R. LAuGSCHFI' S '3. IJC*VII PAUL C. LOIZCAUX JR. C "414.41 F. 514 LLC44REI4OCR O.E\'IO C. LARSEN •-'T.3 F. MCGIll. HF 44' VAt ICCIT JOHN C. TEAL JR, DANIEl. II V'INVOIJ RCACI1V L S LLEV CLIFFOIC E. rIl,EDEN 51.14 I4IET4Er-II 1.11544 JOHN A. GLOGER HOMER L. t',IVCIJIIEICIS JR ARTHUR C (rOMAN 5047/.110 I. 1.44 1l,SOIq MICHAEL £2. RUSIN .IAI.IES F Efl,CIISON ELIZABETH A. STRAUSS V/.LI.IAM P. S. EL MARC WINTHROP RICI,A1IO A. CURNUIT IRA C. IRVIN L Cc) l.AI'D A . 1-1*1/PCI. CHARLES T. IIARRINC.TON LI I- IJAELIIJY. JR. NED I *51454 ..0 "AE W. 1/Mr LI. JEAFI4EY Ill OOERIAN 0 C /414 C. 0. *445 IIC'CEI1T S. OCIWER '.1110 /.. I/IlL. JR. .14 14C5 C. GLEASON. JR. I WA LACE 4I4 0*510 G. CASNOCHA. 54 JA54 V. ALl 1'P GLENN CI. NELSON C IRC/-RO Fl/ION GAIL RORCMA'I 41150 IC ,-,/45O P l/I .45 WLLIA1.I DROWN ELLIS ILL? C. DI 1.1/N MARCIA A. FORSVTI-I 11J GER A. DII' SEE WILLIAM M II*RIICORENA COWARD 0 SVBC IIA. JR. THOMAS A. RJSTCNC 4I'GE'AS S. LI.LICCR ROBERT J. ZEFFEL SEILI'4 r. S. Co.'RETI I' V I. /W X , RU TA N & rucKE APR 0 1 1978 LI.4..Il' _cfIU& J4~~ NEWPORT BEACH OFFICF 910 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 9OO 77 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 95660 TELEPHONE 17441 935-5230 ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE BANE or CALIFORNIA BUILDIN 401 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST POST OFFICE BOX 1976 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 7I4) 935-2200 Mr. Vincent Bioru3.o City Attorney City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 7 5' il ( Ou I / (VAJ -;--I 1-t-1 Re: Lake Calavera Hills Sewer Treatment- Facility Dear Vince: Based upon the Council's action last Tuesday night and the direction of the Council as 1 perceive it, I would like to suggest an alternative format for the processing of the sewer treatment facility and the basin wide sewer treatment and water reclamation plant. My suggestion is that the City initiate a Specific Plan for the basin wide sewer treatment and water reclamation plan and facilities, Government Code Section 6541(a) specifically contemplates the use of Specific Plans for the siting of solid and liquid disposal facilities. The advantages of a Specific Plan are that th.e City can process the proposal in a single package and that the flexi- bility inherent in a Specific Plan wiiJ allow the City the maximum latitude insofar as the type and detail of regulations are concerned. In addition, if it is the City 1 s desire, a Specific Plan would allow the establishment: of a separate administrative agency to adminisLer the plan for the basin including the financing of the improvements. An example of the' f:Lexihility referred to above is th ability to establish sitnq criteria in the plan and allow implementation via a site desiqn process. Future sites could then be integrated with uctunli development without the necessLy of general plan amendments and zone changes This would also permit a phased implementation of the plan within the basin as deve1op;-icnt: progresses. 46 RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Vincent Biondo March 31, 1978 Page Two I have assisted in the utilization of the specific plan -approach in other jurisdictions where similar planning constraints have existed.. The approach proved quite effective where the use of the zoning mechanism would have proved cumbersome. Procedures for the adoption of a Specific Plan provide for hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council, and, therefore, a maximum amount of public input will be provided during the process. A Specific Plan also permits concentration on a single area (Government Code Section 65450.1) so that the particular planning constraints unique to a given area may b taken into account without the necessity of being applie.d on a City-wide basis. The advantages of a Specific Plan over traditional zoning mechanisms in this situation are readily apparent. I'm sure you agree that the zoning process was never intended for the siting of public facilities. In fact, numerous textual amendments would be required to the existing zones in Carlsbad if this approach is utilized in addition to amendments to the land use map for specific siting. The zoning process would inhibit flexibility insofar as siting and development regulations are concerned. A parti- cular disadvantage where, as in this case, the considerations will be impacted by the actual course of development and the physical constraints within each basin. A use permit process would offset some of these concerns, but not all, and would add a separate approval process unnecessarily. In addition to the advantages set forth above, I believe that a reasonable interpretation of the general plan would allow the sewer project to proceed ahead without the necessity of a General Plan amendment if a specific plan is utilized. The Land Use Element of the General Pln specifi- cally does not provide for the siting of future public utilities. The Public Facilities Element, however, does indicate that additional facilities are contemplated. The Purpose section of the Public Facilities Element provides as follows: - A substantial impact will be created on existing public facilitie?, including schools, as new subdivisions and other developments occur, In 0 RUTAN & TUCKER Mr. Vincent l3iondo March 31, 1978 Page Three the now undeveloped portions of the Carlsbad planning area. In addition, such development will create the need for many new public facilities, . . In order to implement the General Plan, it will be necessary to carefully administer the subdivision and zoning processes to insure that all necessary public services are made available concurrent with need. It seems to me that a reasonable construction of this language is that the additional public facilities required to serve the land uses contemplated by the General Plan are to be imple- mented through the subdivision and zoning process. No criteria are established in the plan however. It would appear to me that. the most expeditious means of implementing the pro- visions of the Public Facilities Element is the adoption of Specific Plans for. the various basins as development occurs. The specific planning process, in fact, is contemplated by the City's General Plan in subparagraph 4, of the Land Use Element, where it is specifically recognized that the Specific Plans should be utilized in implementing the objectives ofthe Land Use Element. I believe that the foregoing is a reasonable construction of the General Plan in that the plan does not specifically make provisions for the siting of future public facilities, rather leaving these to implementation through the subdivision and zoning process. Accordingly, a Specific Plan and sub- sequent subdivision and zoning approval consistent therewith would seem to be permissible without the necessity of an Amendment to the General Plan. I am sure you are aware of the Office of Planning and Research Guidelines for the adoption of general plans published in September qf 1973. Page 11 of Part II contains guidelines for determination as to consistency which I have attached for your review. The thrust of this guide is that compatibility, as opposed to duplication, is the key. This approach was also recognized as appropriate by the Attorney General in 58 Ops. Cal, Atty. Gen. 21 (1975) , a copy of which is attached as well. I believe that the approach suggested is compatible with the Land Use Element and the Public Facilities Element of the Carlsbad General Piano. RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Vincent Biondo March 31, 1978 Page Four After you have had an opportunity to review this, please give inc a call and let me know your thoughts. If you desire any additional input, please do not hesitate to ask. Very truly yours, RUTAN & UCKER Roger A. Grab e RAG: loh Enclosures -C g. The (rowth Inducing Impact of theJpposed Action The principles and policies of the general plan all hava an impact on coninunity growth and development. Evaluation of the impact of the population growth policies should be a primary subject of consideration in the formulation of the general plan. 1'. TiI..' 3 )NTN;OIIDIiV.1NCE A NI) THE GENERA L PLAN-- ,INAIPTIOA OH TO DETERIiJ NIt/C CONSISTENCY Chapter 4 of the planning act enables cities and counties to regulate the use of land in order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Recent amendments to the zoning law require a closer relationship between the objectives, policies, and land uses of the general plan and the regulatory devices provided for in the zoning ordinance. Section 65860 consistency of zoning with the general plan: County or city zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan of the county or city by January 1, 1974. A zoning ordinance shall be consistent with a city or county general plan only if: a. The city or county has officially adopted such a plan; and b. The various land use authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and prograis specified in such a plan. 2. Any resident or property owner within a city or a county, as the case may be, may bring an action in the Superior Court to enforce compliance with the provisions of subdivision (a). Any such action or proceedings shall be governed by Chapter 2 (com- mencing with Section 1084) of Title 1 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any action or proceedings taken pursuint to the provisions of this subsection must he taken within ix months of January 1, 1974, or within 90 days of the enactment of any new zoning ordinance or the amendment of any existing zoning ordinance as to said amendment or amendments. 3. In the event that a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a general plan by reason of amendment to such a plan, or to any element of such a plan, such zoning ordinance shall be amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended. The requirement that there be consistency between the zoning ordinance and the general plan emphasizes the importance of clearly defining the purpose and nature of the zoning ordinance as having immediate force and effect on eah_parc]_J . land and the general plan as a body of Al though many general plans are becoming more comprehcns ye and at the same time more detailed, the plan is intended to provide a broad haeofpojcy1gr_gdlng decision s On . S the other hand, the zoning ordinance Is a set of specific legal regulations which prescribe the various uses allowed within each zoning district in the jurisdiction. The range of uses allowed and the standards related to each district set forth in specific detail and are controlling until changed through amendment procedures. For this reason, there will be differences between the zoning map and the districts as applied, whereas the general plan indicates the general extent of use areas and relationships between those areas. For example, the plan diagram may indicate functional areas such as neighborhood units with a range of residential densities, dwelling types, and general guidelines for the arrange- ment of residential and residence serving uses within the neighborhood unit. In addition to review of the map and diagram, it is necessary to reviethe text of the general plan to determine if land 1U ILL Z yThe zoning with thJjLL1vns, pollc]es, gencal land uses nd general plan and the text of the zoning ordinance should be clearly described. Questions of type of use, intensity of use, characteristics of uses in relation to environmental values expressed in the plan should also he evaluated. Also requiring evaluation is the timing and sequence of change in use, particularly where the change is from a lower intensity., to a higher intensity use. The sequence of change is particularly important and may be either covered in specific terms in the general plan or inferred. The zoning ordinance, being current and precise, reflects the existing phase of land development, but should gradually follow the general plan into the future as appropriate in relation to timing and sequence of uses. Thus it would be inconsistent with the plan to zone a large area of existing low intensity use to a more intensive use as shown in the general plan, when the transition to the more intensive use would occur so gradually that scattered uses might result and contravene a general plan policy calling for compact urban development. Even though the zoning ordinance may indicate uses different from those shown in the general plan, the zoning in this case will carry out general plan policies as to ordely development, and thus is consistent with the general plan. The attainment of consistency lies in the degree of compatibility between the policies in the general plan and the regulatory devices available in the zoning ordinance. 10 a recent opinion by the Attorney General at the request of Assemblyman John F. Dunlap dated May 15, 1973 regarding consi stency of the open space zoning ordinance with the open space plan, the following question is con- sidered: 'Question: Assume an open space plan that identifies an area as being an important water recharge area and an important area for maintaining water quality standards or an area which exhibits features of 'soil instability. Would zoning provisions. .that permitted various uses and established various development standards which.. .failed to reflect development considerations consistent with the policies and designations in the open space plan be,. .consistent with such plan?" 11-12 "Answer: It is our conclusion that the failure of the zoning provision to reflect any of the considerations enti- fied in the open space plan renders such zoning incon- sistent with the plan." "The question informs us that the uses allowed and the development standards provided by the zoning ordinance do not reflect the concerns of the open space plan. The issue again is whether the zoning provision is consistent with the open space plan. It is our conclusion that since the zoning ordinance does not reflect the concerns of the plan relating to water recharge needs, water quality or effects of soil instability, it fails to further or implement the policies contained in the open space plan. Therefore, the ordinance would not be con- sistent with that open space plan for purposes of Section 65910." The zoning ordinance should be considered_ consist-ent with the 'general plan when in öTthëzoniñ ordinance tend to further th p01 icies in the cjeneral plan anddfThThtFUct the attanmenT oftThose articulated policies. The following check list may help in determining consistency: Are the T wo Com patible? Treatment of specific areas Phased development Zoninq Ordinance Regulations for distributed uses Are the regulations applied so as to be directed toward the attainment of the policies? Are there devices available to attain specific objectives? Will present allowable uses preclude or obstruct future uses as outlined by the plan? General Plan & Elements Range of uses distributed Policies and objectives C. AREA S ' J?IJ'Ji',l f. (O(/CERN (c7'l TE ElI VF?ONt:EVTA 1, '24 1J5 AND Sections 65041-65049 of the Government Code call for the preparation of a compre- hensive State Environmental Goals and Policy Report. Section 4 of Chapter 1534 - (Statutes of 1970) states that: 11-13 (2 2O 42 1 - c •- .- '2 --i.- - at 4 2 L. - k'"' -, .- JANURY 1975) ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINIONS 21 eluding chartered cities are preempted in adopting regulations less stringent for high rise structures than those imposed by the State Fire Marshal. I--- Opinion Nu. CV 72-114 (a)—January 15, 1975 MI SUBJECT: CITY AND COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCES AND ADOPTED GENERAL PLANS—City and county zoning ordinances are to be consistent with adopted general plans and their lements as required by Government Code. Residents, property owners, or Attorney General may bring action for compelling, under court supervision, ordinance compliance with adopted general plan ordinances. Subdivision Map Act is indirectly affected by Government Code section; while two Business and Professions Code sections differ in their scope of cos erage Requested by: DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH I Opinion by I VFLLI JYOUNGER, Attorney General Bruce S flushimin Deputy . - The Honorable Robert J. Dc Monte. Director of the Office of Planning and Research has requested an opinion on the follosing questions 1. Does Government Code section 65860(a) require thar a city or county zoning ordinance be consistent with each of the elements of the general plan as set forth in Government Co/ic section 65302? 2. If so, what constitutes consistency with a general plan and its elements? 3. What action may he taken against a city or county, if: a. A city or county zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the general plan or any general plan element as set forth in Government Code section 65302: b. Any of the general plan elements required by Gocrnmcnt Code sec- tion 65302 to be adopted by the city or county within a certain time have not been adopted by the prescribed date; 4. \XJlt is the difference between Business and Professions Code sections 115.19.5 and 11526(c), and do Government Code section 65860 (a) and (b) have any impact on these provisions of the Subdivision Map Act? The conclusions are: I. Gernment Code section 65860(a) requires a city or county zoning ordinance to he U)OSiStCOr \\—I'll the adopted general plan and each adopted general plan element required by Government Code section 65302 and 65302.1, or enacted pursuant to Cm cr0 meot Code section 65W3. 2. The iiiidelincc for cor1istcncy with gerieral plans are set forth in Govern- ole-nt Code section (15800. - 2. .,;. :1 f T r,•, 4V(.' t. &" V.4- ,, •' • 4 4 44 1 •". '' -.. 4- 4' & t r 4- •'-1 4 4- 4- .- 4- .4 1 •' 4 /.--L4 •t'i1,,., "-4-'t •-. _4-_)'_-' 22 ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINIONS [VOLUME 58 )( - : i-1 .24 :1 3. (a) Section 65860(b) of the Government Code authorizes a resident or property owner of a city or county to bring an action to compel a city or county to enact a zoning ordinance which is consistent with a general plan of a city or county. Such an action would arise when the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with an adopted general plan or when there is no adopted general plan, or an adopted general plan does not include all required general plan elements. (b) In such a mandate action where no general plan or its required elements has been adopted, a court would probably retain jurisdiction to compel such adoption in order to 'enforce compliance" with the requirement that a zoning ordinance be consistent with the general plan. -. As a method of enforcing compliance, the court could also enjoin the issuance of building permits or the taking of other action under a zoning ordinance until a general plan with which the zoning ordinance is to be judged for consistency has been adopted. - General mandamus principles allow the Attorney General and qualifying citizens -to bring an action to compel the adoption of a general plan or any one of its required but not yet adopted elements, or, if there is an adopted general plan, to require the local legislative body to adopt a zoning ordinance consistent with that general plan. - In a.ny event, a resident or property owner or the Attorney General could bring a separate action to compel adoption of a general plan or of the elements required by Government Code section 65302, as well as a consistent zoning ordinance. 4. While both sections 11549.5 and 11526(c) of the Business and Profes- sions Code concern the same subject matter, there is a difference in that section 11519.5 requires a much broader scope of inquiry than does section 11526(c). Government Code section 65860 has a substantial indirect impact on the provisions Of the Subdivision Map Act insofar as both tentative and final subdivision maps, in common with zoning ordinances, must he consistent with a general plan and required elements not later than January 1, 1971. ANALYSIS The first question asks if Government Code section 65860 subdivision requires chat city or county zoning ordinances be consistent with each of the ele- ments of the general plan its set forth in Government Code section 65302. A general plan which must be adopted by cities and counties (65300) is described in section 65302 as: "astatemen t of dev opmcnt policies ...[including) a diagram or I i.urams and text setting forth objectives, proc pIes. standards and plan prnl'nS.11 s. The plan shall inc lode [certain] ....lcmen ts [as set forth in Government Code section 65302(.0 -00 and Government Code SCctiOtl 65502.1 ]." All 4-4-4-lion rek'r'tu.vc are to the Gost-rumeiti ('ode uulc-c oiln-rsvise iIL,Ii)aWI. The rL-quirc'n)e-)4ls for 4 C1)1?1.1I 'Lin apply to cli.tocr dries, C 65 ;02), including the 44.01 lar 40' cI1tcl)t.4 iherco I ('450)4. 1 12, - / . C C pr, / it - - -- cve- (I1 1 - JANUARY 19753 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS 23 T The general plan may also include certain other elements. § 65303. The elements presently required are a land use clement circulation clement a housing clement, an open space clement, a conservation clement, a seismic safety element, a noise element, a safety clement, and a scenic highway element. (Sec also section 6563 relating to open space plans).' A study of the 1971 and subsequent statutory changes makes it clear that the Legislature intended that local government engage in the discipline of setting forth their dci clopinent policies objectives and st sod iids in general plan composed 0 various elements of land use § 6)0,0 65302,65,0 2 2 Tht general phns and their constituent elements are no the local constitutions to which all local dci elop ment in its many and iricd phases shill repair. § 65 i02 65 0 Thuswith this indication from the I egislCturc the oft quoted sttemcnt in 0 Loine i 0 Roitrke, 231 Cl App 2d 77 782 (1965),then prophetic, s no a guiding principle of construction The court said: It is ,rcnt that the [encr1]] phn is in short a constitution for all future deve lopment within the city ...... The recent legislation ( 6)860) -chic' os this objective by requiring that arning orclinnceS ( 6) 60 suhd () ) and cuhdii vision ni (Bus & Prof.Code § 11526 subd (c), § 115261 § 11549-5 must be consistent with the local general phri Section 65860 subdivision (a) provides in part: County or city zonin g ordinances sh ill be consistent ith the pen en1 plan of the count) or city by January 1 197 Smts 1971 ch 1 416 858; Stars. 1973, di. 120, P. 150 § 6, 7 1 moved the date to January I, 1974. If the Legislature iture r o mci di it zoningordiinnee must be consistent ii ith the gener ml plan by January 1 197-1, it also) muir have intended that i general pho and its required cd etc mc ntS ii ould hC\ e Ken adopted t the l atest by that date in I order to iclitcie the olijictis C of consisteflc\ is ith the geflerCl I Col'. ,1Cf.rflCiCOiit Code had almost an opposi Prior to 1971 sectiOn )k) Ct tIlL - It read: .1 1' connotation. shdl he required to adopt i cnci il plan prior to I Ni) count), ni city adopt i on Of 1 ii1 ordiimlfl the - - Ic idol tcd h inru IL I to ncr ii plans must ICLILiftr(ihrr ckmeflil I Lull IiiCOL for iltr ILl ir utiCiCi If such ckuilctmts later hut (COt Year I CII 155011 the 'I 'lot CCCII 6510 1 2 U on ic simo h i city or - k th ( IWO!1 Clii Inicr_ 1\(rICCC1LICI ii III IC! CCCI Council On huiiLr_Clicrnmhhht CI 1stt 1(11101 01 tfl Ccci of e\treme Is CI Shill C\t1i1 I U. OCLICILCI ilic 1 relIC)0 IICIC perild of time. — thi: date Or !C.ICICiIlC 50(11 CI(iilCiliS CI c 65flfl i - 65'60 IS part I 1 tIc C I /C)OCICL Rc LUI 1111011 C 1110115 L\cCOt si hcrc C..I Cli (\C Iii Its (IC uriC r uttc (room ii c t (CliliOL Ic LUI LiC m ( 1) S tOil) CIII Crc iIC) It hi Cr tiiitiitc Cli chirtcr I: rift: V - in 1 CCI iti u \CLC11 tlmit tICL\ s( Ii mm io.s 5 iCC -. C p lo-() i c r - 1/ C I • ............. ; ',-• e-. - ? •¼ +. ,.? " f.l — 3? '4 1)7 'h' ¶. •" I -',. .tt• ."s "• 't .. I ! '1 iJ 7$'$ fiJ1 LU •1. -....".,.I;3.' L. •"' /-.. 1 . ..,.p4 'i..,' .,..... 1 ' ..... kk 24 ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINIONS [VOLUME 58 The 1971 substitution (Scats. 1971, ch. 1446) changed the direction full circle by providing, in effect, that before adopting a zoning ordinance, a general plan, with its required elements, had to be in existence. In 1971, the same statute which enacted the substitute section 65860 also amended the Subdivision Map Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11500, et seq.) to provide that ". . . a tentative or final sub- division map [shall not be approved] unless the governing body shall find that the proposed subdivision . ... is consistent with applicable general or specific plans of the city or county." (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11526, subd. (c), Scats. 1971, ch. 1/16. p. 2863, § 3). As already noted, the 1973 amendment to section 65860 (Stats. 1973, ch. 120p. 150) moved to January 1, 1974, the date when zoning ordinances had to be con- sistent with general plans. The 1973 Bill also amended section 65302 which sets forth the required elements of general plans. The urgency clause stated that 'Post- ponement of the required date of adoption of these requirement elements of city and county general plans" was made necessary in order to allow "adequate time for study and preparation of plans, includin,g compliance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, prior to their adoption." Section ,4 of Stars., 1073, ch. 120, P 150. Consequently, it is our opinion that a county or 'general law city must have had a general plan in effect at the latest by January 1, ,- 1974, with the elements which were then and are now required, in order that the local legislative body in adopting a zoning ordinance may comply with the con- sistency requirement. Obviously, as the section itself states, such consistency with a eneral plan cannot he found unless "The city or county has officially adopted such a plan." (§ 65860 subd. (a) (i) ). QUESTION 2 Consistency with the General Plan The second question concerns the required consistency of zoning ordinances provided by section 65860. When the section was written in 1971 (Stars. 1971 ch. 1116, p. 2858. § 12) it merely provided that the city or county zoning ordinance should he consistent with the general plan by January 1, 1973. In 1972, the section was amended to provide that: "(a) County or City zoning Ordinances shall he consistent with the general plan of the county or city by January 1 , 1973! A zoning ordinance shall be consistent with a city or cottnt general plan only if: i ) The city or county has officially adopted such a plan, and ''(ii) The various land uses authorized by the ordinance are corn- p.itihlc' with the obiecrives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a plan." Stars. 1972, ch. 69, p. 1190, § 2." it its are n' .t stihiec ç 6580 re ions n(v of 7011itIV ord mi nccs sink ih e nerd 1,,Lm 1 ste 1.0100w ' , we helii sc ihat the L&i:isI.itiirc intended the litter I. ') i. k.iihinc' to .i'Iy ii the Qcneral rims of durtcr tics. § 65200. See 5/by kit/it ('.. N. (/it 'ii ,V,iu 644, wit c'$Iurj. It) Cal. , 10, 116 (1 ,)-,3). Deadline date I.ucr set for Ltnu.ry I, 1'F I, Sr.ttc. 19'1, cli. 120, p. 10. JANUARY 1975] The urgency provi' that the term 'consistent Consequently, a zoning there was a general p1. consistent. The other te the various 1-and uses nut policies, general land ua. Apparently, the ter: with." (The Random } the phrase "consistent Roib, 64 Cal. App. 314, ing "harmony, agreeroc-: Dictionary 1961, p. 47 agreeable to. 11rI.ie/car P However, it is quit require an exact identir: e.g., Anna. 40 A.L.R. 3d (1968). On the oilier hand for residential multiple which called for the arc an easy matter to say plan. Nevertheless, for that a city or county z• required element of the in the general plan. § ment in the "General F!. sidered consistent with contained in the text of general plan and do r.r: policies." General Pi.in Relations, page 1111' 13 'aid . We arc next inconsistent w jilt the adi Suhsccr ion ( h ) t( owner may bring an .sc to is not COO5i)t with the elements h.1 e not lcs is objectives, Policies. eeoc: subsection reads: . 4, ,, •' '.-.,-' .... ,.g": • ••;' W. - .'l .jt-' •I .7 W.. 'S-:- -',d•- . 7,'- , .-' . ': .. is- .. •,., . . .5.1, ,_. .. 7-' 777-77-7. 7'. 1' . -. ,' I ' ' -4 7. ) .ç' -p. - 17 .7-7 •,77. .....-'7' ..i: l' - . - .; - -:.,-• .'..,.1 - 7 .: . . : I JANUARY 19751 1975) ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINIONS 25 The urgcncy provision for the amendment to section 65860 said "it is necessary that the term consistent be defined immediately:' Stats. 1972, ch. 659, p. 1190, Consequently, a zoning ordinance would not be Consistent with a general plan unless < there was a general plan encompassing the required elements with which to be / consiste nt. The other test of consistency, as set out in the second provision, is that the various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives. po licies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan. Apparently, the term 'consistent with' is used interchangeably with 'conformity with. (The Random House dictionary 1966, p. 500.) The courts have held that the phrase 'consistent with" means "arcement with; haroniOcis with;" Shay v. Roth, 64 Cal. App. 31-1, 318 (1923). Webster defines "conformity with," as mean- ing "harmony, agreement when used with 'with'." Tebster's Third International Dictionary 1961, p. '175. The term "conformity means in harmony therewith or agreeable to. i lth1cetrck v. Riske, 21 N.W. 2d (ND) 218, 221 (1916). However, it is quite apparent that the "consistency" or "conformity" need not require an exact identity between the zoning ordinance and the general plan. See, e.g., Anno. 40 A.L.R. 3d 372, U1l1 V. lLt7is, 21 N.Y. 2d 463, 235 N.E. 2d 897, 901 (1968). On the other hand, a zoning ordinance, which, for example, zoned an area I' for residential multiple would not he considered consistent with a general plan which called for the area to be zoned as single family residential. It is not always an easy matter to s.iy that a particular use is or is not consistent with a general plan. Nevertheless, for the purpose of answering the questions herein, it is clear that a city or count)' zoning ordinance must be found to be consistent with each required element of the general plan, and with each optional clement that is adopted 7 in the general plan. § 65300, et seq. As a general approach we endorse the state- ment in the 'General Plan Guidelines' that "The zoning ordinance should be con- sidered consistent with the general pl.in when the allowable uses and standards contained in the text of the zoning ordinance tend to further the policies in the general plan and do not inhibit or Obstruct the attainment of- those articulated policies." General Plan Guidelines, September, 1973, Council on i ntergovernmental Relations, page 1111-iS. QUESTION 3 Action Whet e the Zoning Ordinance is inconsistent with time General Plan We are next asked \vhat action may be taken when the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the adopted general pl.mn or where no plan has been adopted. Subsection (11) of section 65860 makes it clear that a resident or property owner fl.l)' bring an action in mandae when a zoning ordinance is enacted which is not consistent with the general plan, either because a general plan and its requisite elements have not been adopted or where the ordinance is not coni pat iNc vi c ' th the nhcct ives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such is plan. The subsection reads: I 77 M' q. VA, ; '3 26 ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINIONS [VOLUME 58 "(b) Any resident or property owner within a city or a county, as the case may be, may bring an action in the superior court to enforce ccvi- pli.ince with the provisions of subdivision (a). Any such action or pro- ceedings shall be governed by Chapter 2 (commencing with section lOOd) of Title 1 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any action or pro- ceedings taken pursuant to the provisions of this section must be taken within six months of January 1, 1974, or within 90 days of the enactment of any new zoning ordinance or the amendment of any existing zoning ordinance as to said amendment or amendments. "(c) In the event that a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a general plan by reason of amendment to such plan, or to any clement of such a plan, said zoning ordinance shall be amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended," As already noted in the discussion of Question 2, section 65860 (a) requires that zoning ordinances ". sliall be consistent with the general plan" and states that it will be consistent "only if" there is an olliciallv adopted plan. § 65360(a) (i). Each city or county has the duty of adopting a general plan and all of its mandatory elements. §§ 65300, 65302, 65302.2, ScI/,'y ReaIt, sit/ma, 10 Cal. 3d at 116. Hence, where no general plan has been adopted, the court would "enforce compliance" by mandating a delinquent city or county to adopt a general plan and its required constituent elements in order that zoning ordinances may be found to he consistent.-' See Lcçis/otioe v. Rcineckc, 6 Cal. 3d 595, 598 (1972); Sc'rim,'o v. Priest, 5 Cal, 3d 581, 618 (1971); Young v, G'noss. 7 Cal. 3d 18, 28-29 (1972). By the same token, when a general plan has been adopted and a zoning ordinance is inconsistent with that adopted general plan because ''the various land 'uses authorized by the ordinance are not "compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in [the] general plan, the courts would order consistency between the ordinance and general plan no he achieved. This could be done by way of amending the ordinance. Section 05860(c). Amendment of the zoning ordinance to conform to the general plan should take place "within a reasonable time" Iii. By xvas' of furlier enforcing compliance, the court could also enjoin the issuance of building permits or taking of other action under the zoning ordinance until an ordered tencral plan has been dopred. See C .E.B. CiIiforiiii Zo,;i,,' Pr,iciicc, section 3.1 to 3.80 (1969), flusiness and Piolessions Code sections ll526(c) and II 510.1.5, 6ol4 n V. !V,enni;i'. flo,er,/, 30 NY 2d 359, 568 (I 972 ) , sections 65102 and 6585$, Cl. ,ll,irIInhc,uI Land Cu. s'. City of Los A,içcler, .17 F. 2d 52$ (1931). ,\ ni.tn'!,it, .i(tiiot ,trsarentiv would tint lie under Sr tim (561) suM. ii) acainct .t &h.irt& r Jtv, .i sCLtj'ifl (5in ' f'crilR.tiiv 'ixiudes ii.0 Icr du.s Imni the rrix siunc il I tiC (.Ii.u'rcr i. '/,iitine RCL'ul.iti',ns. if hi It seti''it (,SxO() is a i'Jrr, cxcet ssl,crc..in I to the (xtcnt. It.ir 'tire y'nittu rc'nii.irinns in th.ir title ire ,iIiii'tc5l ic shiner or h' nr,lin,oite. But rii,res . .ini rh tes'C(t ii the rxquirx Ins nt h.it Ji.irtcr sties must .i ,iit't ,ecncr.il 'lots oil tiit'jr ni.ot,l,ttiirv cicmc'ntc. sliix ii ss,ul,l lej'ctrl ij'i,ti the rt.'l,cI snuelrr by tIts' I-mfi,uhr 1'l,rirttitI. J JANUARY 1975] A further quest to compel a city or c no zoning ordinance mus is as ailable "to enjoins, a'a duty rev Generally, that duty cretion where there 11 inthe exercise thence The fact that the ad lative matter and they adoption, as distinc' through mandamus pelled to exercise ti' exercise of its discrc' or a failure io recogu (C.E.B.), § 5.29. § S A long line of the object of the m. enforcement of a he is a citizen intere' enforced; not that h. - San Bernardino I'a'L v. Quit-or iano, 268 C. The specific pro property owner of a when a zoning orJin,. nition of the stand inn: to compel adoption of it is equally true thu it and it is found that a (a) (ii), the local tii' ordinance. § 658601 AC'I The Attorney delinquent cir\' or C( Ai cnnsistcflt zoning ord Cl. 2d :59, 761.62 (I 671 (1963). Tin.' next x1110rtmot 11500 CtSC/.' 'I he Sub_li' ml.-', ...'.,.i,I ,'T;, - V;. 5' ' '. , ... -. , " ,'• .......... ,.''j.; - 01.1.. -' s'.' ,c . -. m, ss. ,, ' S.'__l t ".'., ' ' ,,_ I'5 7,.' . , ' , .. .n" ". -'•" .', ' ',". . ' . , ' , . . . • ,' . V..., ' _",4. - 1 I I V i51 .. --i.,*".,...;-• •'i.'V •'•. • I.. v:- / -L I Vi 'V J. '-V V I' , V S v r - 7 V I / V - r ,, •" -, '• V 51 "5 01 —1 5., JAN UARY 19751 ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINIONS 27 A further question implicit in the discussion is whether an action can be taken Ii) compel a city or county to adopt a general plan and its requisite elements where fVV) zoning ordinance is involved. In our opinion such an action would lie. Manda- InUs is available 'to compel the performance of an act which the law specially c-ttjoinS, as a duty resulting from an ollice, trust or station.' Code Civ. Proc. § 1085. Generally, that duty has been judicially construed to include the duty to exercise dis- ret ion where there is a discretionary duty: and the duty not to abuse such discretion Ill lie exercise thereof. See California Civil Writs, C.EB. § 5.2.1 pp. 78-79 ( 19'O). The f:ict that the adoption of a general plan containing certain elements is a legis- lii ive matter and therefore calls for the exercise of discreiion does not mean that its :V(IVVpIIV)V1, as distinguished from the details of its contents, cannot be compelled liruti;;li mandamus proceedings. While the local legislative body may not he corn- 1'Jled to exercise this discretion in a certain manner, a court can mandate the xcrcie of its discretion or the raking of an action where there is a refusal to act or a failure to recognize that discretion must be exercised. California Civil Writs § 5.29, § 5.30. See R1inccke, supra; Serrano, s;pra: Oii;zg, s:prl. A lont line of cases holds that where the question concerns a public right and VII object of the mandamus action is to compel the performance or procure the Vit&,r(einent of a public duty, the individual citizen-petitioner need only show that citiCn interested in insuring that the laws he executed and the duty involved .l1(L)Iced: not that lie has any legal or special interest in the result, e g.. F;illcy v. Va/IC)' Af.v;i. lVatcr Dirt., 2-12 Cal. App. 2d 52, 56 (1966); Dii: e•'/?u i,;iio. 268 Cal. App. 2d 807. 811 (1969). ilie specific provision in section 65860 subd. (b) authorizing a resident or ('[SCV y owner of a city or county, as the case may he, to bring an action in mandate :rsning ordinance is not consistent with a general plan is legislative recog- Ii VV'V1 of the standing a resident or property owner has to bring a mandamus action V'mpcl adoption of a general plan or of one of its required elements. Of con rse. lv true that if there is an adopted general plan (with all required elements a is found that a zoning ordinance is inconsistent 1 irsuant to section 65860 - the local governing body can be mandated tV) enact a consistent zoning 05800(b), see T"ciicckc', Yololg, Scrr,unn, .171/) VI. ACTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL •\ttsrncy General would also have standing to bring an action to compel ii city or con sit' to adopt a general plus and its mandated elements, or .1 :LMlfI (1 ord (;al. comt.,Art. V, § i Pierce v. S.-iperior Co:irt. I —61-621 (193 I); Pco/V1c y. i\'m'u' Penn. Aline.c, Inc.. 212 Cal. App. 2d 6o7. - - QUESTION :1 Subdivision ?\fap and General Plans rcxt qIlestiV)Vu concerns the Suldivision ?ship Act, Bus. & Prof. Code, sectiV'n -I : i'.I is i5iVIV M.Vji A t is herci nit let referred to as the Map Att. - .... •, , .,•.. — -, ..,,..'.,. ''. .:..... •.' , .. ,. ..- .,.. .. ,'•v' ' F D Ii '3 .1.1 '¼ (I p3 oJJJ); 31 Sul d CW 3M))') U3) 1' 31J31I jurnbai SI voyarj up 3 \ )l'.1U V in 3jadal 331'LiWl jr)03wU011.\U.) lW )3\J .1I1I1I) l'JU.)IUUUJi \IVI 3111 J.TLIII Jr)II i 0I rii 31 ç6! cii pUI ) '1)(10¼ 9Z, 1 1 500) )D3 '¼ftW 31 jo 1i'.\oJLidV .1I3p ! 11101 •i 31.) 3)I3S !1 A¼ pJ33.\O3 .Vfll S'W ,\Ur 00 I1IU IJ .L\ I11'1LJJ C p31 I11b71 3 j1'W 01 iP'J Apoq Squjamd W°i DqI PILIOIIS L1CU.I .1111 I.') .11)S p35(1¼11.)JLi V 01 3)UV )1 Si 1U0JJLi V 1J3i 3UI UJ,1\03 IV:)()[ 3L1 .9 SU pUIJ 3.\l 11:101 tjjV 711i)b71 11)011 co cii pu (3) PI 115 j ±1335 tL13.\\)3(j 1313111P 331.110 00 5! 3131 IN cii 1iOflD3S JO 3¼10S J3p1'01l1 JO u' !' ''""°1 I Apoq 1! UJ.).\O3 1V)01 71I JO 110 Ai nbui 331)I.\\ 11DIlUi C 531)01)31 )UC 7¼10)S J3ifl0)J11 111U J ! M cii 0011)35 ( (3)1)1.105) 9cI I Uoy)35A11 p3111tI)3J liV1d C 3U3d V 1.I)13\ A.11i,n5151103 JO pu y 01 1101 1! PPC U! S1) U 3C11) 03 531 p01. 1i1UJ.3.'0 P°i !P.I11d °i '1 P! b)C 1S0!311.I 53u0 CO )li)I\!11b3 Xjl±ilurlsqns 311 1i! JULI) l')LIU 'I)31)i.\OJLI aq fll.. 3S11 103 in SS3))L .10J 'SJLI3I1I3SL'3 UUJ3IJC nIl) 5P1t.J Ii 3! IICW C 3.\OJddC (EUI .\p0< ?U1UJ3.\O3 DIII'UOID.JUUOJ Siq3III °!!'!P11° p OJOJIT oLp Ui1j)iA X)13dO.)d 'JO 35)3 .10 Ii 11011 11 SS3.))L jol aSiq au jqqnd'1 P31!0b)C Nnioulawo 1i1!\\ ))!1i1103 ii!Al S1U3UI3A0JJWi JO JIIA) 3111 10 U0IS!.\Ip1US 3111 Jo U?is.Dp oip IVIIJ, (i),, 'SIUJ1(101d 1i)IC3hi )!iLIiloT SnO!13S 35012) 01 Xpjij Si S)U3W3,\0JLTUIT JO 3J.() 311) JO UOTS!Alp InS DII) JO U3IS3p a, )lliL (j),, iuqqml J!3111 JO 3J!iPi!'JO 1(SJ 31111J! Xfqr.poAC ptiii X11ununsqlls in 3L'UIUp ICIU3W'J01!.\U3 1r1)UlosqIls 3500) 0) Ap.jq 3112 S)U3UI -3.lOJJUJ! p3SO(TO.Td 31j) 30 U0!Si,\! pLins 3111 Jo UIS3F) 31) 3121LL (3),, 111310J013.\31 ) 31.) Alisu3p pDSO51OJd 31k) 303 31(jL')iflS A111015.cI(d 100 Si 3)IS oll.1 IULI -L ( P) • •JU3U) -d013.13p JO 3d.() 3111 103 3q11m0S AliC)!5lJ IOU ! 3113 3Ohi.L (3),, •5i•i(C1 )1J0.?JCTS PUV j1)J3U3I 31qL')r((Jdc 1()i.\\ )1i3)SISUO3 IOU Si UOiS!.\ipl1flS p3SOITOJCI 31(1 JO )U3W3.\OJJIU! JO Uis3p 31(1 121LL ( q) SUC(LT 31(1)305 puC pono 31C(12)11dC10 tpi.''. 3U3)SISUO3 IOU Si dCUi pDSOc.JoId 31(1 031.1, (C) :s?u!puJ U1M0[(0J i?'-11 JO ,Cuu S3(L'1U q J C112W U0fS.\pqi1S 3,T)t)U3) JO 30 112\OhhTd13 111h15 (IUIIO) JO A)!) ii Jo Apoc1 3U!UJ3.O , :11:113 S3piAoJd ccpc ii UO!)D-3S ,;A10007 JO AUJ '-i) JO SUC(LT )yp3ds 30 Ie1oUoo3 3cp:7ic1du 1P!. IU3IS!SUOD Si '))I3UJ32O3JdWF 1W 1!53P SI) 103 SUOIS!.\0JJ 31(1 hi3!'l 1311)300) 'tI0!S1MPII0S ()3SOdOJd 31(3 )U1() NY HOP Apoq QwOmd0 3111 5531110 dtlu UO1S1 MP(1ilS JJ JO 3,\!3L'3U31 C 7.\OJLIJC ((121(5 iC)000J JO A)!) °N.. :Spli7J 9ci J IJ0Ifl3S JO ) 000)351111S 5310)1215 31(3 In MqAM ii Xc1 p31i!W3313i) .(i!P1'31 aq lit) 5!1LL JJQJ i put (3) •pqns ggi J UO1)33S u33Allaq 3)u313JJip We 9 3131(3 3311131i.\\ pOJ(SC We NA 1: W. On 8c ZJNIYJOA] SNOTNIdO S,7IVi1IN19 Ai1N0IIV 0/•• . MAT!", .1 - c "'J , W 5 JANUARY 19751 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS 29 Pub, Res. Code, § 21080. This would Concern a number of items set out in section I 15.19.5. The requester asks what impact section 65860 subd. (a) and subd. (b) will have on sections 11526 suhd. (c) and 11519.5 of the Map Act. SCCtIOOS 11526 suEd, (C) and 11549.5 require that tentative and final maps must be consistent with the general plan of a city or county. Section 65860 subd. (a) provides that zoning ordinances of a city or of a county must be consistent with the general plan 'by January 1, 1974,"R' thus indicating that cities and counties should have adopted their general plans and requisite elements, at the latest, by that dare in order that suBdivision maps may be validly approved. \Ce have already advised that this statutory duty' could be man- dated by the court, either through privatcT action or upon suit by the Attorney General. 21 -r 4 r'j ..t,'4.-• •'_If : -- -% 1.t• - ,-c --_, - 47. 4 v'. - -.•"-c•zii.'.. '';:', • ' r , : t I I, ,•, ' .,, ,% Opinion No.-CV 74-153----January 23, 1975 SUBJECT: GENERAL FUNDS FOR STUDY OF EFFECTS OF PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT_Gencral funds of fire protection district or county \vatcr district may be expended to pay for stidv and evaluation of effects of proposed consolidated government on district and its taxpayers. Requested by: ASSEMBLYMAN, Stli DISTRICT ASSEMBLYMAN, 12th DISTRICT Opinion by: E\TELLE J. YOUNGER, Attorney General George J. Roth, Deputy The Honorable Walter W. Powers, Assemblyman, Eighth District, and The Honorable Doug Carter, Assemblyman, 'Twelfth District, have requested an opinion on the following question: May a lire protection district or a county water district properly ex- pend genctal funds to pay for a study and evaluation of the effects of a proposed consolidated government on the district and on tic taxpayers of such district? The conclusion is: A fire protection district or a County water district may properly expend its genci al funds to pay for a study' and evaluation of rhe effects of a proposed consolidated governmc'nr on the district and on the taxpayers of such district. - ANALYSIS This question arises because of the enactment of Proposition S at the June -I, 197-I, Priinajv Elcctjoti which added Constitution article XX, section I, reading: tI. 12n, p. 150, 6, 2. The elements m.m'latcl hr ceciinn 65 ;02.2 must Ii.t, hc-n .'l,'rn'I bc epo-mher 20. I t. (;cm,-r.,l Plar, (uitljns, Septcmhcr, ) , Council on Int('reocc'rnmc'niil Rc'latiogic, '.icc 1-,). Section 3 i2l 1 . 1, - ' 5'- -'y 1 - I- r4, 4 •..,C.f -'• ,•-.-.--,. IS,,-, I • I ,I,'&-, I - •, 4 ---' ,.,-' ,'_ , 4 ç ' 'I" t''•,, ) ,,f' _"i , c - i':-.-> ':' - ' '-' - • '-: ". -- i.. '.--;''1 I . MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Pub Hc Works Administrator DATE: March 24, 1978 SUBJECT: Satellite Facilities 1978 CITY 0,- Manning C/ RLSBAD Departmet The City Council, at their workshop meeting of March 28th, will be discussing the general concept of satellite facilities and specifically the proposed Lake Calavera Hi I Is project Referenced documents for that discussion will be a report entitled Overview of Waste Water Reclamation Opportunities which addresses the general question of satel I lie facilities and the proposed Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report for the Lake Calavera Hills Project. This memorandum wi II address both the general questions concerning satellite treatment facilities (and in this context is intended to be a supplement to the Overview of Waste Water Reclamation Opportunities) and the specific details of the proposed Lake Calavera Hi I Is project (and in this capacity is intended to serve as a source of staff information con- cerning the specific project at hand). WASTE WATER RECLAMATION OPPORTUNITIES It must be constantly kept in mind the concept we are investigating in the report en-titled Overview of Waste Water Reclamation Opportunities is a system of satellite treatment plants which provides the potential for water reclamation at such time as the economics warrant it. If the pro- gram is acted upon, the system of providing inland sewage treatment ca- pacity will always be there. The potential for waste water reclamation will occur only at such time as market changes create an economic balance in favor of reclamation providing a market is developed for the reclaimed water. The Overview Report deals with the combined operation of treat-' ment and reclamation and the economic analysis is projected on that basis. Should a project report be developed for a specific project, the report should.address in a more exhaustive manner the costs of operating the facility as a satellite treatment only as well as in combination with reclamation facilities. There are approximately 5,000 acres of open space land identified in the Land Use Element. The potential for the development of open space maintenance districts and, therefore, the potential market for irrigation water, when coupled with the fact that approximately one-half of all the imported water used within the City of Carlsbad is used for agricultural purposes, shows there is a tremendous potential for a market in reclaimed water. The incorporation of open space mainienance districts in a general reclamation program would not only provide a significantly broader econom- ic base making the program feasible, it would also allow for more effective and efficient management of waler demands and, hence, a higher percentage -. of reclamation on a year-around basis. if,. 9 City Manager -2- March 24, 1978 It might be beneficial at this point to discuss processing variables. If the program presented in the Waste Water Reclamation Opportunities Report is agreed to by Council as being a generally acceptable concept, then that will allow and require that individual project reports (for each proposed satellite plant) address the necessary CEQA issues in that project's Environ- mental Impact Report. However, if the Council accepts the report as a Master Plan, then, by definition, it is a project and CEQA requirements must be addressed before it can be formally adopted. If this 'program were considered to be a Master Plan and CEQA requirements were met on a City-wide basis, we would have to deal with the general "boilerplate" issues of en- vironmental impact (biological, archaeological, air, traffic, etc.). We would have to address in a general manner the issues we could identify at this point in time for each of the drainage basins. We would probably have to discuss the impact on the development of the Local Coastal Plan, the growth impact on surrounding communities, and the general impact on growth patterns. We would probably -have to address the overall impact this change of concept would have on our planning processes and other steps that would be necessary'in order to maintain those processes in balance. Such a re- port, while being exhaustive, would, by the very nature of it, be more of an overview process and, therefore, not have specific enough details or be current enough to be applicable when we deal with individual projects (ne- cessitating considerable duplication of effort). If the Overview Report were received as a generally acceptable concept, then individual projects would have to deal with the CEQA process. Indi- vidual projects with their defined drainage basins could more adequately identify and address the environmental questions existing in each'basin. The report would also deal with the current capability of the Encina ocean outfal I to handle flows from this area should the fail-safe measures be re- quired; they would address the cumulative impact of growth created by this project; it could deal on a siep-by--step basis with the balancing measures required to maintain a managed growth program; and address, op an area-by- area basis, the impact on immediately neighboring Joint Advisory Committee agencies. It is my opinion that handling the necessary reviews on a pro,jecl- by-project basis, while duplicating some of the "boilerplate" data always contained in Environmental Impact Reports, would allow the City to exercise greater control over the program and would not commit the City to the program beyond the service area for the project in question. - The program would require the City to get involved with many other agen- cies. The Environmental Protection Agency would be involved regarding the use of the ocean outfall. The Regional Water Quality Control Board would be involved as the licensing agency for sewer treatment faci I ities as well as water reclamation faci I ities. The Joint Advisory Commitlee would be in- volved because such a program would necessitate modification of the use of the existing joint facilities. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District would probably be involved regarding the water service agreement we currently have. The California Coastal Commission would be involved because permits would be required from them to construct the fail-safe lines and, in fact, some of the potential plant sites in the Coastal Zone. Until such time as a Local Coastal Plan is adopted, the California Coastal Commission would be greatly invotved concerning any plant sites existing within the zone. All the same questions City Manager -3- March 24, 1978 would arise then as arose for the Phase III expansion project at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. Project locations outside of the Coastal Zone, however, are exempt from their control providing the area of service is outside the Coastal Zone. While it would be necessary to get a permit from the Coastal Commission for the fail-safe lines from plants outside the Coastal Zone, it is believed their impact by imposition of conditions would be-minimal. The Regional and State Clearinghouses would be involved in all the normal processing of environmental concerns in any report. While all the above agencies would have to be dealt with whether the program were considered as a City-wide program or on a project-by-project basis, the latter would allow us to deal with more specifics thereby making the remarks of the responding agencies more pertinent to the project at hand and allowing mitigating measures to be more readily managed. The question may arise at this time, "Would this program have an impact on our present grant application and program for the Phase Ill expansion of the Encina facility?" While nothing involving State agencies or the Environ- mental Protection Agency is certain, conversations with personnel at the State Water Resources Control Board indicate this kind of a program, at this point in time, would not have any impact on our Phase Ill grant application. Assurances that the City would conform to the Series IV growth projections would certainly go far to mitigate any concerns State and Federal agencies may have in this matter. Siting satellite treatment plants is perhaps the most significant step in this program. It requires very careful consideration of a number of engineering and political decisions. lnvestigati.on must be made to. deter- mine potential flow to a particular site; the potential use of reclaimed Water in the area of that site; the ability to economically move reclaimed water from the site to the area of use with minimum consumption of power; the ability to provide economical storage of reclaimed water in the area; the affect on adjoining land uses; the possibility of locating the spread- ing (disposal) beds in the area; and the potential needs of adjoining ser- vice agencies for capacity in the facility. The cost of imported water is expected to approach $200 per acre foot in 1987 (current cost is $120 per acre foot).. This increase is due almost solely to an anticipated increase in the cost of power. If we are to miti- gate this impact on agriculture in the North County in any way, we must carefully locate the satellite plants so as to minimize their need for power thereby giving them an economic advantage over imported water. In so doing, all of the considerations of the paragraph above must be care- fully looked at. The proper site must be selected and sufficient area with proper land use designation and zoning must be set aside for ultimate ex- pansion of the plant facilities. The inclusion of adjoining agencies' flows in our program, if acceptable, has the advantage of providing a larger and more constant flow; therefore, a larger source of reclaimed water. The other advantages, such as political leverage, may be offset in some manner by our lack of controlling the mitigating actions which adverse environmental impacts of growth in their areas might create. I City Manager -4- March 24, 1978 Another consideration in plant site location is operational economics. Since certain overhead costs accrue to a site regardless of its size, it makes some sense, where practicable, to consolidate smaller plants into one larger plant. An example in this case might be the consolidation of potential Plant Sites 6 and 7. The following map (Exhibit I) shows a pos- sible site location for a combined facility. The change in service area, when compared-with the map showing drainage basins for each of the ten pro- posed sites in the Lowry Report (Exhibit 11),-shows the significance of the change. Another possible change to the site locations, as shown on Exhib- it II, is the potential for combining Plant Sites 9 and 10. This is an analysis and decision that must be made by the Leucadia County Water Dis- trict. If no economical, agricultural or industrial use can be found for reclaimed water from plants at Sites I and 2, we might be better served to eliminate them from the proposal and continue to serve that area by ca- pacity in the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. Another possibility is that Site 4 might be expanded to replace the need for Site 2. This could be accomplished by construction of a deep pipeline from Site 2 to the local-ion of Site 4. Capacity in Site 4 might also be provided for that area of Oceanside, south of San Francisco Peak, and that portion of the City of Vista between the present Vista Sanitation District and he Buena Sanitation District service areas. While considering adjoining agencies' needs, the project study should also address the possibility of providing future capacity needs for the adjoining upstream service agencies. This would require a political de- cision to be made by the City and the adjoining service districts, and be- fore the project. could proceed, we should require from that agency an Environmental Impact Report addressing the impacts of their portion of the project (collection lines, outfal Is, etc.). It should also address all CEQA related issues in their service areas. Our report could consider the impacts of larger service plants within our political jurisdiction. This latter course of action would obviously create the need for major replanning considerations by the Joint Advisory Committee. The impact on the provision of future capacity needs could be met, or at least postponed, without the expansion of the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. If future needs could be met by satellite plants, we could possibly even get by without the Phase Ill project of the Encina Water Pollution Control Fa- - cii ity expansion. While this change of present programming may not be acceptable for a number of reasons, it certainly would eliminate some of the constraints we presently face in the development of our Local Coastal P1 aris. Other waysof involving adjoining agencies would be by the diversion of flow from those agencies' outfall lines localed in Carlsbad to the proposed satellite plants. This would free capacity at the Encina Plant which could be used by Carlsbad anywhere in the City. This would present us with a need to reanalyze much of our planning program with the idea of establishing balancing constraints to offset the impact of this program. The whole basis of our present planning policies revolves around the logi- cal extension of public facilities into growth areas. if we are to accept •'•\ ,,.r L1 o 10 MCD — I — r II - Buena VIio L 0000n onto, LOW F j ,__/) 1 If '•/' 'I I I I •"-2 L / .. I , I' .• C.' NO.5 ENCINA WATER- POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES I I I I E OCEAN OUTFALL" 93 Tn \11 rn4Pmc SC.4L& IN PEEr 0 — — — CARLSBAD CITY BOUNDARY EXISTING INTERCEPOR EXISTING PUMP STATION PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLANT FLOW FROM VISTA 440 0:2 MCD FROM BUENA Palo 1.2 MCD FROM SAN MARCOS FAIL SAFE CONNECTIONS FUTURE FAIL SAFE EXHIBIT I •_..-'../-\.,.--.--j. .. .j-. 1' / r°° 0 • • - AZ- •;i.• NO2 . — 1. ,,,• — — 'NO_I LOL, PE DS \& EO4L - l *\ L F E 0.3 p 'I •1 I, , U • C') .'•% ("I ENTINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES OCEAN OUTFALL' vn AIRPORT NO T A4 LJ Ll Bat jqvIi0l .0 mGD ...- •' \\J, / CRAP/f/C $CAL( 11/ PEEP 0 LECWD — — CARLSBAD CITY BOUNDARY EXISTING INTERCEPOR EXISTING PUMP STATION PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLANT FLOW FROM VISTA 0,2 MGD FROM BUENA 12 MGD FROM SAN MARCOS FAIL SAFE CONNECTIONS F:J PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLANT OPERATED BY OTHER AGENCIES •'. • • • . • •. FUTURE FAIL SAFE 1.0 MGD i OLIVE IN AD 1' / I.) I, I EXHIBIT II . . City Manager -7--- March 24, 1978 the Series IV population projections some new planning tools must be devel- oped. This could be done by adopting specific growth plans or by restruc- turing the Capital Improvements Program to manage growth. We would proba- bly want to modify it in any event. It is currently based on expansion of services from a regional treatment plant. Going to satellite facilities would inbalance the Capital Improvements Program creating areas of demand prior to programmed provisions for public facilities. At this point, some observations might be in order concerning each plant site. Plant Site No. I would serve the northerly-most portion of the City and the shopping centers along El Camino Real and Highway 78. Re- claimed water from Plant Site No. I could be used on small flower fields and to provide freeway irrigation. Plant Site No. 2 would handle all the flow from the Vista Sanitation District. Uses of reclaimed water from this facility could be freeway irrigation and storage (in Lake Calavera) for other usage. Plant Site No. 3 could be fed from the City's pump sta- tion at Foxy's Landing. Uses from this site could be in the agricultural fields south of the lagoon and west of El Camino Real. Small pumps would probably be needed. Flow from Plant Site No. 4 could be used to serve agricultural needs east of El Camino Real. The biggest potential for use of reclaimed water from Plant No. 5 would be in industrial needs for plants to be constructed in the area of Burroughs and Sargent Industries. It could also serve some agricultural areas east of Car Country if small pump- ing stations were constructed. Plant Site No. 6 could serve the Carlsbad Oaks area and Carlsbad Raceway. Reclaimed water from this site could be used for agricultural purposes in Japatul and Macairio Canyon and adjoin- ing the airport. Plant No. 7 could provide treatment services to the Carri I lo, Bressi and North La Costa area while providing reclaimed water for agricultural uses in the North La Costa area. If Plant Nos. 6 and 7 were combined it would serve the above-described areas as well as portions of the airport, the Japatul area adjoining and the Palomar Airport Business Park. Reclaimed water from this plant could serve a number of agricultural purposes in the Coastal Zone west of El Camino Real. Plant No. 8 would service the area north of Batiquitos Lagoon and would be capable of provid- ing reclaimed water for agricultural uses in this same area. The existing pump station could be incorporated into the fail-safe system. Some small pumps may be needed to provide agricultural use in the area. Agricultural Impoundment could be provided by the construction of small dams in the valleys north of Batiquitos Lagoon. Operations and service areas for Plants 9 and 10 are in the purview of the Leucadia County Water District. A new question which would be facing the CounOi I should this program be implemented is the establishment of sewer service charges. While served from a regional plant, sewer service charges have been established on a uniform basis throughout the City. If Council accepts that an expanded system, regardless of the location of its satellite plants, is of uniform benefit to the whole of the City service area, then a uniform sewer service charge could be maintained. However, if Council wishes to hold the view that the operational charges associated with each satellite plant should be shared by those who benefit from that specific plant, then it is proba- ble that sewer service charges could vary throughout the City. Such factors City Manager -8- March 24, !978 as the type of plant proposed, the basic overhead costs of that plant in re- lationship to its size and efficiency and the nUmber, of dwelling units ex- isting in its service area at any point in time could greatly impact ser - vice charges. If a plant is sized to serve an adjoining service agency, then a policy determination must be made as to whether the advantages of a larger, and more efficient operation, because of the adjoining agencies' flows, should accrue to that site plant alone or to the entire City system. A factor that will probably generate much discussion is the need and function of the fail-safe system. The concept of satellite treatment is in essence the relocation of treatment capacity from a regional plant site (Encina) to an inland location. The remaining pipeline system is essen- tially unchanged. The need exists for a collection system to take the sew- age from its source of generation to a central point. Here, instead of going into an outfall line as raw sewage, it is treated and the effluent is put into a fail-safe line. Except when reclamation is practiced, the fail-safe line will be carrying essentially the same volume as would an outfall sewer from that area to the Encina site. One of the advantages a satellite plant provides is the abi I ity to bypass the Encina Plant and go directly in-to the ocean outfall. Therefore, it is my opinion the satel- lite treatment facility is comprised of the collection system, the satel- lite treatment plant and.the fail-safe lire. Should any spreading beds be proposed it is highly unlikely the capacity of those spreading beds would serve the entire drainage basin and, therefore, some fail-safe system should be required. The benefits of the fail-safe system and the spreading beds should accrue to all potential users of that facility and, therefore, all potential users should share in the proportionate cost of constructing both the spreading beds and the fail-safe line. Another question that might be addressed is, "Can capacity at a par- ticular facility be restricted to use in certain areas?" We might logi- cally establish new ordinances-requiring flow to a particular satellite facility to be only from areas within that facility's drainage basin; how- ever, restricting flow within a drainage basin to a particular development might be very difficult and would certainly require new ordinances. - It is my opinion a drainage basin serving a particular plant site (as outlined on the exhibit maps) is the smallest unit which should be considered in this program. A drainage basin is a coherent unit that de- termines definite capacity requirements and definite potential for reclama- tion in an economic manner within that service area. It determines defin- ite demand for capacity in a fail-safe line and establishes definite capa- bi I ities for groundwater recharge or disposal of secondary effluent. All of these components form one functional unit. The cost of operation and maintenance of that functional unit should be shared by all who use it. Likewise, the capital cost of providing the facilities should be shared by all who enjoy them. If any one development proposes to provide a package facility or a smaller unit which is not part of, or capable of being incorporated into, the final system for thai drainage basin, then such a proposal should be considered as a temporary facility and appropri- ate guarantees made by that party for providing their fair share of the uI ti mate system. • City Manager -9- March 24, 1978 The use of the fail-safe system recalls another consideration to mind. While Carlsbad has a larger capacity in its ocean outfall than is required for its share of the Encina treatment plant facilities, that capacity is not sufficient in its present state to provide ocean outfal I capacity for all of the proposed satellite facilities. If we embark on this program it will be necessary for us to participate in a project which would construct pumps at the ocean outfall thereby significantly increasing its capacity. A project which would increase the ocean outfall capacity from a present peak wet weather flow of 38 million gallons per day (mgd) to a peak wet weather flow of 60 mgd would cost in the neighborhood of $825,000. Carls- bad's share of this cost, based on our present 28.66% ownership, would be in the range of $240,000. Our peak wet weather flow would increase from 10.89 mgd to 17.2 mgd. This last equates to an average daily flow in the vicinity of 7.2 mgd or an increase over our post-Phase ill capacity of 2.64 mgd. Again, it should be pointed out that the close interrelationship of the various elements of this program must be carefully considered and its effects on our planning policies carefully analyzed to determine what balancing actions must be taken. Should we fall to do so we might jeop- ardize such regional issues as the development of the Air Quality Main- tenance Program. We could also be accused of being an uncontrolled growth-inducement factor in Carlsbad and in the North County area. As previously mentioned, one way of establishing a degree of balance would be a reanalysis of our Capital Improvements Program. Another way, as yet to be discussed, would be analyses of our present land use plan and grad-- - ing ordinances. Our present policies and ordinances encourage development to occur in valleys and on mesas while discouraging development of slope areas. This results in the potential source of our reclaimed water (de- velopment) being in direct competition for land area which is best used by the potential user of reclaimed water (agriculture). We should perhaps take a careful look of the possibi I ity of modifying our present policies to allow for compatible coexistence. This could be accomplished by convert- ing portions of the mesas and valleys to a land use which is suitable for the maintenance of agricultural purposes, while setting our slope develop- ment standards to allow for low density development. If properly handled, and subject to appropriate review, development on slopes could result in the elimination of some of the erosion problems that occur from adjoining agricultural uses. • The ceclamation of water is a worthwhile goal. While making more effective use of a scarce commodity it would also have the side benefit of reducing the demand for increased faci I ities for importing water. Reducing the need for capital investment and the attendent operational costs associated with constructing additional aqueducts to bring water to this semi-arrid area would go far to offset the capital and opera- tional costs of reclamation programs such as outlined in the accompany- lug report. S OS. City Manager -10- March 24, 1978 LAKE CALAVERA HILLS PROJECT The Environmental Impact Report for the Lake Calavera Hills project pro poses to construct a system comprised of an aeration pond, a clarifier, a chlorinator, sludge bed and percolation bed. First stage capacity of this project is proposed to be 250,000 gallons per day (gpd) with 500,000 gpd the maximum capacity of the project due to limitations in the capability of the aquifer to receive effluent from thepercolation beds. The Environmental Impact Report also states the project can generate up to 98,000 gpd of sewage with landscaping and other uses approaching approximately 800,000 gpd. While it is obvious there is great poten- tial for open space and other use of reclaimed water in this area, it is also obvious the capacity needs of the basin, and indeed of the project itself, exceed the capacity proposed for the sate!! ite .plant and in particular for the percolation bed associated with the satellite plant as outlined in the Project EIR. Consideration, therefore, must be given to reserving sufficient land to expand the project and to provide for construction of a fail-safe system whereby capacity of the plant, when it exceeds the abi I ity of the percolation bed to handle it, may be routed down to the Encina ocean outfall. The site proposed in the Lake Calavera Hi I Is EIR is not consistent with the site location outlined in the Overview Report for Site No 4; therefore, the Lake Calavera Hills report should address how their pro- posed site meets the needs of the basin and other potential uses. It should also satisfy the Council that whatever site is used is the best one to meet the needs of the treatment service for the basin while maxi- mizing the potential for reclamation. The overhead and maintenance costs must be shown to be optimized. The ability to connect to the fail-safe, the degree of participation in its financing and the provision for its eventual construction must meet with the Council 's satisfaction prior to proceeding with any element of the project. While dealing with these issues, which are primarily administrative in nature, we must also deal with other issues raised such as impact of the project on growth in the area (an expressed concern of the State Air Resources Control Board). There are a number of technical specifics which should be considered. The, project outlined in the EIR does not-conform with requirements estab- lished by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The latter agency has indicated tentative concurrence with the project based on its using an activated sludge process (Exhibit Ill). This is a significant change. A small package tilant could meet the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements but then we must address the issues of controls and guar- antees with regards to the permanent system. Is a package plant compatible? If not, it must be considered as a temporary facility. Should these issues nol be addressed at this time, then we may jeopardize both the possibility of extending service to the remainder of the drainage basin and of being able to economically reclaim water. S S . City Manager -II- March 24, 1978 While this project may not cause us to exceed our existing capacity in the Encina ocean outfall, should it be required to participate in the program to increase the ocean outfall's capacity? This is a policy ques- tion which must be answered. It would be difficult to compare the cost of providing treatment via the proposed satellite system with treatment at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. Treatment at the Encina facility costs in the neighbor- hood of $80 per million gallons, but this is for primary treatment only. It has been speculated treatment costs could easily double when secondary treatment is included at the Encina site. As previously discussed, the processing required regarding the Lake Calavera Hi I Is project will depend on how Council accepts the Overview Report. If it i.s received as an acceptable concept then it will be neces- sary tosupplement the Lake Calavera Hills EIR to address the specific is- sues related to this drainage basin, the type of facility used, the fail- safe line, the ocean outfall and the balancing growth management actions re- quired in this basin. This project wi I I have some impact on the balance of our public facili- ties program. It will create the need to involve the Joint Advisory Com- mittee regarding using the ocean outfall. All these issued should be de- termined so the City can make the necessary decisions regarding plant loca- tion, area needs, easement needs, etc. RECOMMENDATION ,) It is my recommendation to Council theyacceptthe Overview of Waste Water Reclamation Opportunities ag-&n aeeo.pa-lo onp± and that the EIR for the Lake Calavera Hi I Is project be ordered to be supplemented to ad- dress such questions as the capability of the Encina ocean outfall to handle flows from this project; the appropriate size and location of a fail-safe system; the financing and construction thereof; the operation and maintenance costs and possible systems for setting sewer service charges; the impact, if any, that this satellite facility will have on the cumulative impact of growth in the area; the need for balancing mea- sures required to maintain a managed growth program as defined by the City's accepted Series IV population projections; what impact this proposed sate I I ite faci I ity would have on adjoining service agencies; and any other issues identified by Council. roeebL y - Ronald A. Beckman, P.E. Public Works Administrator 3) p=pJ RAB: vob . SlATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER UUAUTY CONTROL BOARD SAN DIEGO'REGION 6154 MISSION GORGE ROAD, SUITE 205 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120 TELEPHONE: (714) 286-5114 MARCH 8, 1978 RECEIVED MR. RONALD A. BECKMAN 0 4 ) PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR 1978 CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 ELM AVENUE CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Engineering Department DEAR MR. BECKMAN: SUBJECT: LAKE CALAVERA HILLS YOUR FEBRUARY 8, 1978 LETTER ASKED THAT WE SEND YOU A LETTER CONTAINING STAFF'S TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ON WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED LAKE CALAVERA HILLS FACILITIES. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE LAKE CALAVERA HILLS DEVELOPER WISHES TO BUILD AN ACTIVATED SLUDGE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THEIR PROPERTY. THE PLANT WOULD BE SIZED TO TREAT AN AVERAGE QAILY FLOW OF 0.5 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY OF DOMESTIC SEWAGE; TREATED EFFLUENT WOULD BE DISPOSED OF BY PERCOLATION0 THE PERCOLATION AREA WOULD BE EXTENDED NORTH OF LAKE CALAVERA HILLS PROPERTY BY MEANS OF A FRENCH DRAIN SYSTEM. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS LETTER, WE HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE CITY OF CARLSBAD WOULD ASSUME OWNERSH.IP OF THE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES0 BASED ON THE INFORMATION NOW AVAILABLE TO STAFF, WE WOULD PROPOSE TO RECOMMEND THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED BELOW, WE HAVE ASSUMED THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE ACTED UPON BY THE REGIONAL BOARD AT THEIR MAY 22, 1978 MEETING. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS COULD CHANGE PENDING REVIEW BY OUR CONSULTING AGENCIES AND FINALIZING OF THE REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE BY THE CITY. HOWEVER, WE WOULD NOT EXPECT ANY MAJOR CONCEPT CHANGES IN THE TENTATIVE REQUIRE-' MENTS PROPOSED BY STAFF. THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE CITY OF CARLSBAD SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LAKE CALAVERA HILLS DEVELOPMENT: A. PROHIBITIONS 10 DISCHARGES OF WASTES TO LANDS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED TO THE REGIONAL BOARD AND FOR WHICH VALID WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN FORCE ARE PROHIBITED. EiLhL+ fli 1/, . . MR. RONALD A. BECKMAN MARCH 8, 1978 2. BYPASSING OR DIRECT DISCHARGE OF TREATED OR UNTREATED LIQUID OR SOLID WASTES TO BUENA VISTA CREEK OR TRIBUTARIES THERETO IS PROHIBITED0 3. DISCHARGE OF WASTES TO RUNOFF IMPOUNDING FACILITIES IS PROHIBITED* k. THE WASTEWATER OR SLUDGE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS SHALL NOT CAUSE ODORS OR OTHER NUISANCES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE TREATMENT PLANT SITE. , DISPOSING OF SLUDGE BY METHODS OR AT LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE OR IN THE FINDINGS OF THIS ORDER IS PROHIBITED. 6. DISCHARGES OF WASTES OTHER THAN DOMESTIC SEWAGE INTO THE SEWER SYSTEM ARE PROHIBITED. DISCHARGES OF WATER SOFTENER REGENERATION BRINES INTO THE SEWER SYSTEM ARE SPECIFICALLY PROH I I TEI) 7. THE DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER OR SLUDGE SHALL NOT (A') CAUSE THE PRESENCE OF COLIFORM OR PATHOGENIC ORGANISMS IN WATERS PUMPED FROM THE BASIN; (B) CAUSE THE OCCURRENCE OF OBJECTIONABLE TASTES AND ODORS IN WATERS PUMPED FROM THE BASIN; (c) CAUSE WATERS PUMPED FROM THE BASIN TO FOAM; () CAUSE THE PRESENCE OF TOXIC MATERIALS IN WATERS PUMPED FROM THE BASIN; (E) CAUSE THE PH OF WATERS PUMPED FROM THE BASIN TO FALL BELOW 6.0 OR RISE ABOVE 900; (F) CAUSE THIS REGIONAL BOARDS OBJECTIVES FOR THE GROUND OR SURFACE WATERS OF THE VISTA HYDROLOGIC SUBUNIT AS ESTABLISHED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION TO BE EXCEEDED; (c) .CAUSE ODORS SEPTICITY, MOSQUITOES OR OTHER VECTORS 1 WEED GROWTH OR OTHER NUISANCE CONDITIONS IN BUENA VISTA CREEK OR ITS TRIBUTARIES; ~ TLT V .. . MR. RONALD A. BECKMAN MARCH 8, 1978 (H) CAUSE A SURFACE FLOW IN BUENA VISTA CREEK OR ITS TRIBUTARIES; OR () CAUSE A POLLUTION, CONTAMINATION, OR NUISANCE. B. DISCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS 1 THE CONCENTRATION OF 5W-DAY 200 DEMAND IN THE DISCHARGE TO THE EXCEED 30 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER PROPORTIONED-TO-FLOW COMPOSITE PER LITER IN ANY SINGLE GRAB S CENTIGRADE BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN PERCOLATION POND SHALL NOT AS DETERMINED FROM A 24-HOUR SAMPLE, NOR 1+5 MILLIGRAMS MPL E0 2. THE CONCENTRATION OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN THE DISCHARGE rO THE PERCOLATION POND SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER AS DETERMINED FROM A 21+HOUR PROPORTIONED-TO-FLOW COMPOSITE SAMPLE, NOR 1+5 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER IN ANY SINGLE GRAB SAMPLE0 3. THE PERCOLATION BEDS SHALL BE SO MANAGED THAT A DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION OF NOT LESS THAN 2.0 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER IS MAINTAINED IN THEM AT ALL TIMES 1+. CONCENTRATION OF MINERAL CONSTITUENTS IN THE DISCHARGE TO PERCOLATION BEDS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE FOLLOWING: CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 1000 MG/L CHLORIDE 1+00 It SULFATE 500 ti SODIUM 1+00 It FLUORI.DE 1,0 if BORON 0.5 ti PERCENT SODIUM 60 5. ALL WASTE TREATMENT, CONTAINMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES (INCLUDING PERCOLATION BEDS) SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST 100-YEAR PEAK STREAM FLOWS AS DEFINED BY THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY, 6. ALL WASTE TREATMENT, CONTAINMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES (INCLUDING PERCOLATION BEDS) SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST EROSION, OVERLAND RUNOFF AND OTHER IMPACTS RESULTING FROM A 100-YEAR FREQUENCY 24--HOUR STORM. UT- -3 J, .. . MR. RONALD A. BECKMAN MARCH 8, 1978 C. PROVISIONS 1, THE DISCHARGER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AS SPECIFIED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFPIcEr\, UNLESS OTHER- WISE SPECIFIED THE MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SHALL BE - IN EFFECT UPON INITIATING THE DISCHARGE TO THE PERCOLATION PONDS. IN ACCORD WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13267(13) WATER CODE, THE MONITORING REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. 2. ALL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES SHALL BE COMPLETELY CONSTRUCTED AND OPERABLE PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF DISCHARGE AND THE COMPLETE FACILITIES SHALL HAVE ADEQUATE CAPACITY FOR THE FULL AVERAGE DAILY DESIGN FLOW OF Cl..5 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY, A REPORT FROM THE DESIGN ENGINEER CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF EACH COMPONENT OF THE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE DISCHARGER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE DISCHARGE, THE CERTIFICATION REPORT SHALL CONTAIN A REQUIREMENTBYREQUIREMENT ANALYSIS, BASED ON ACCEPTABLE ENGINEERING PRACTICES OF HOW THE PROCESS AND PHYSICAL DESIGNS OF THE FACILITIES WILL ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS, THE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL AFFIX HIS SIGNATURE AND ENGINEERING LICENSE NUMBER TO THE CERTIFICATION REPORT AND SHOULD SUBMIT IT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITIES. THE DISCHARGE SHALL NOT BE INITIATED UNTIL: (A) THE CERTIFICATION REPORT IS RECEIVED; (a) THE REGIONAL BOARD HAS BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE COMPLETION OF FACILITIES BY THE DISCHARGER. (c) AN INSPECTION OF THE FACILITIES HAS BEEN MADE BY STAFF OF THE REGIONAL BOARD; AND (D) STAFF HAS NOTIFIED THE DISCHARGER BY LETTER THAT THE DISCHARGE CAN BE INITIATED. 3, THE DISCHARGER 1 S WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SHALL BE SUPERVISED AND OPERATED BY PERSONS POSSESSING CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATE GRADE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3, SUBCHAPTER 1, TITLE 23, CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. +. THE DISCHARGER SHALL NOTIFY THIS REGIONAL BOARD BY LETTER OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE DISCHARGE. L17- .. MR RONALD A. BECKMAN -5 MARCH 8, 1978 5 THE DISCHARGER SHALL GRANT ADMISSION TO THE PREMISES OF THE WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES TO MEMBERS OF THIS REGIONAL BOARD AND ITS STAFF AT SUCH TIMES AS MAY BE NECESSARY IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR DUTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED HEREIN. 6 WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS SHALL REMAIN APPLICABLE REGARDLESS OF CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP OR LESSEE0 A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP SHALL BE REPORTED PROMPTLY TO THIS REGIONAL BOARD BY LETTER. 7. THE ABOVE PRESCRIBED WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ARE ESTABLISHED ONLY FOR (A) A DISCHARGE TO LANDS OWNED OR LEGALLY CONTROLLED BY BY THE DISCHARGER AND SPECIFICALLY RESERVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EFFLUENT DISPCSAL (THIS INCLUDES THE DOWNSTREAM PERCOLATION AREAS); (B) A WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATION AS DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE AND IN THE FINDINGS OF THIS ORDER; AND (c) A WASTE DISCHARGE VOLUME NOT IN EXCESS OF DAILY AVERAGE FLOW OF 0.5 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY0 8 PRIOR TO INITIATING DISCHARGES OF WASTES FROM THE LAKE CALAVERA HILLS PROJECT AT LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE PROVIDED FOR BY THIS ORDER OR PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY MATERIAL CHANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS OR VOLUME OF DISCHARGE, THE DISCHARGER SHALL (A) SUBMIT 12 COPIES OF A SUPPLEMENTAIY REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGES COMPLETE WITH FILING FEE S DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED CHANGES, AND (B) OBTAIN WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGES. 9. THIS ORDER IS RESCINDED ON MAY 22, 1983. IF THE DISCHARGER WISHES TO CONTINUE THE DISCHARGE AFTER THAT DATEs AN APPLICATION FOR NEW WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY MARCH 22, 1983. 10. THE DISCHARGER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING TIME SCHEDULE IN ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITH DISCHARGE SPECIFICATION B.k: COMPLIANCE TASK DATE PROGRESS REPORT ON DECEMBER 1, 1978 RECEIVING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER OR ON BACKUP PROJECT TO LIMIT EFFLUENT MINERAL CONTENT. II JUNE 1, 1979 It DECEMBER 1, 1979 COMPLIANCE REPORT DUE DECEMBER 15, 1978 JUNE 15, 1979 DECEMBER 15, 1979 E ict 1);i& 274 511,11. .. MR RONALD A. BECKMAN - MARCH 8, 1978 COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE TASK DATE REPORT DUE FULL COMPLIANCE EITHER BY JUNE 1, 1980 JUNE 1, 1980 USE OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER OR PHYSICAL TREATMENT FAQ LITIES0 IN THE INTERIM, UNTIL COMPLIANCE WITH DISCHARGE SPECIFICATION 13.4 IS ACHIEVED, THE CONCENTRATIONS OF MINERAL CONSTITUENTS IN THE DISCHARGE TO THE PERCOLATION BEDS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE FOLLOWING: CONSTITUENT TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CHLORIDE SUE PH ATE SODIUM FLUORIDE BORON PERCENT SODIUM CONCENTRATION 1100 MG/L 44-0 it 550 It kJ-fo It 1.1 Ii 0.55 It 60 11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITIES DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE HAS NOT BEGUN BY MAY 22, 1979, THIS ORDER WILL EXPIRE ON THAT DATE. SHOULD THE DISCHARGER WISH TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS ORDER, A WRITTEN REQUEST MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER NO LATER THAN MARCH 22, 1979. SHOULD THE DISCHARGER WISH TO INITIATE THE PROJECT FOLLOWING THE EXPIRATION OF THIS ORDER, 12 COPIES OF A NEW REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE, COMPLETE WITH FILING FEE MUST BE FILED. 12. A COPY OF THESE REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE POSTED AT A PROMINENT LOCATION AT OR NEAR THE TREATMENT/DISPOSAL FACILITIES* THE ABOVE PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS SHOULD HELP YOU TO COMPLETE YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE LAKE CALAVERA HILLS PROJEC-T. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL MR0 ROLAND ROSSMILLER AT (714) 286-5114. VERY TRULY YOURS, LEONARD BURIMAN EXECUTIVE OFFICER cc: MR. DENNIS A. O 1 LEARY LOWRY AND ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO I .. MEMORANDUM IV DATE: March 23, 1978 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Attorney MAR 2 4 1978 CITY OF (;AkLS6AD Planning Department SUBJECT: PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING CALAVERA HILLS AMENDED MASTER PLAN AND SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY The City Council at your March 21, 1978 meeting considered a letter from the Developer of Lake Calavera Hills ("Developer") regarding the appropriate procedure for processing the above- referenced development ("Project"). The City Council set the matter for discussion at the workshop meeting of March 28, 1978. The City Manager has suggested that I prepare this memorandum setting forth my understanding of the facts and my opinion as to the required procedure as set out in our Municipal Code. The subject property is zoned P-C (Planned Community) Amaster plan was approved for the property in May of 1974. It authorized the construction of a 3,452 unit development on 808 acres, subject to a number àf conditions. Subsequent to that time, in conjunction with the revision of the general plan, the land use element was amended to reflect the land uses set out in the master plan. A copy of the land use map from the master plan is attached. A copy;.. of the appropriate portion of the land use element Of the giéza plan is also attached. In 1976 the City Council adopted' theY revised Planned Community Zone (Chapter 21.38). 2138.150 governs planned communities like Calavera Hills which exceed 10.0 acres and have a master plan approved prior to adoption Of the revised P-C Zone, Calavera Hills ma continue to develop via planned unit developments, with the density and other conditions of. the master plan constituting the underlying zone, for the purpose of,the PUD permit.. The section provides further that either the City Council or the property owner may institute proceedings to amend the master plan to bring it intoaccord with the provisions of the new P-C Zone. The Developer has applied for an amended master plan. Staff is working on the plan and the Environmental Impact Report. In 1977 the Developer applied for a 138-lot subdivision and PUD. After initial Council action to deny was reconsidered, the PUD and subdivision map were ultimately approved subject to a number of conditions. The conditions provide in . 4 Mayor and City Council -2- March 23, 1978 part that the map may not final and that building permits will not issue until the City Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available. To date the tentative map has not been finalled. The Developer's situation is complicated by the lack of sewage treatment capacity in the Encina Plant. It is not possible to accomplish any construction in either the subdivision or the balance of the planned community without sewer service. The Developer determined that it did not appear likely that sewer would be available from the City in any significant quantities. He, therefore, asked to pursue the option of an alternative sewer treatment facility. The City Council expressed some interest in considering that matter further and as an aid to that consider - ation, the Developer has undertaken to furnish the City with certain background studies. On March 8, 1978 the Developer addressed a letter to the City Council. The letter indicates that there has been a misunder- standing on how to proceed to accommodate the developer's wishes. After reviewing the letter, I am in agreement that there have been some significant misunderstandings which I think can be resolved by reviewing the Developer's views as set out in the letter in light of what I understand to be the City Staff's position and the true facts of the matter. The Developer indicates that the subdivision and PUD were approved subject to the availability of existing sewers or the development of an alternative sewer system. While that may have been the Developer's intention, no such condition was attached to the map. The tentative subdivision map was processed because it was applied for prior to the moratorium and it was approved, as have a number of other such maps, subject to the conditions that the map would not be allowed to final or building permits issued until the Council determines sewer service is available. The possibility of an alternative sewer system was suggested by the Developer and did not result from any City action. The letter indicates that the matter of how the Project should proceed issolly amatterof policy. In my opinion, that is not so. Certainly there are a number of significant policy questions which must be addressed and answered by the Council. How these questions are answered will significantly affect the method of processing. However, there are a number of matters which are governed by our existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinances which, unless changed by the Council, must be followed as a matter of law. S • Mayor and City Council -3- March 23, 1978 The Developer indicates that the first policy judgment the Council must make is whether or not to instruct the staff to consider further his proposal for a self-contained satellite sewage treatment plant. The staff agrees. It is my under- standing that the Public Works Administrator is preparing a separate report which will discuss some of the relevant policy considerations. The Developer indicates further that he has contributed a study to aid the Council in resolving that matter. It is my understanding that the Public Works Administrator will utilize that study as part of the background information in formulating his report to you. The letter indicates that after reviewing the study the City Council can establish a policy that satellite waste water treat- ment facilities in the City are feasible alternatives to the Encina Plant without CEQA review, if such review is accomplished by looking at the individual plants. In my legal opinion the Developer misapprehends the law. A decision by the City Council to approve the use of satellite treatment plants throughout the the City of Carlsbad, in lieu of the Encina Plant, àonstitutes a major change in the City's plans for disposal of sewage treatment and, in my opinion, requires a full Environmental Impact Report to assess all of the environmental effects,:-,includ- ing the growth-inducing aspects of such a change in City policy. On the other hand, if the City Council, based on the Public Works Administrator's report, wishes to instruct staff to further investigate the possibility of a satellite treatment plant in theCalavera Hills drainage basin, that action could be taken without a full EIR with the understanding that, of course, part of the staff's investigation would be the preparation of an EIR on the plant. The Developer represents that the City staff is of the view that our ordinances are unclear as to how to proceed with the processing of the Project. After an estended meeting with the City Manager, the Planning Director and the Public Works Administrator, it appears the staff view is that our ordinances are quite clear in that regard and that there is very little room for interpretation. The ordinances will-be discussed below. The Developer's letter states that the master plan is being amended solely for "technical changes" and that no changes are . . Mayor and City Council -4- March 23, 1978 proposed in land use designations. I have reviewed the land use map of the proposed master plan amendment. In my opinion the amendment is substantially different in its particulars from the existing master plan and it is inconsistent with the land use element of the general plan. The Council should understand that I am not indicating that the total effect of the overall planned community will be substantially different if the amended plan is approved or that the amended plan is not as desirable or more desirable from the City's point of view than the existing plan. The important point is, however, that the amended plan substantially changes and rearranges the land use designations and does so in a way which does not conform to the general plan. Several examples should suffice to illus- trate this point. On the westerly portion of the plan are two large open space areas. The revised plan proposes single family residential homes in those areas. On the northerly portion of the plan the designation is medium density. The revised plan would change that to low-medium density. The general plan high school site is eliminated, parks and open space are rearranged, school sites and-roads are moved and there are a series of other variations between the revised master plan and the land use element which can be pointed out orally on the 28th. It is my opinion, therefore, that the first step in processing the Project must be a general plan amendment. The EIR, which is in preparation for the master plan, could easily be adapted to act as the EIR for the general plan change. The Developer then indicates that in his view, pending the amendment, the land uses in the master plan are subject to the provisions of the E-A Zone. The Developer is not correct in his reading of our ordinances. We have already discussed above that his situation is governed by Section 21.38.150(3) and his existing master plan and a subdivision and PUD have been approved pursuant to that plan. According to Section 21.38.020 which specifies the permitted uses in the P-C Zone, the E-A Zone uses only come intd play prior to the approval of a master plan. That provision is to accommodate the use of the Planned Community Zone as a holding zone and allows agricultural uses to take place pending approval of a master plan. The E-A Zone does not apply. In any case, a sewage treatment plant is not a permitted use in the E-A Zone. That is obvious by reference to the purpose and intent of the E-A Zone, as well as the land use element of the general plan. The zone does permit certain 'p A 1,0 . . Mayor and City Council -5- March 23, 1978 accessory utility facilities, primarily electrical transmission lines, pipe lines, and related structures. You may recall. that the San Diego Gas and Electric Company, in connection with our consideration of the AguaHedionda Lagoon plan, maintained that the E-A Zone would accommodate, a power plant. At that time the City Council affirmed that the E-A Zone was not intended for primary utility facilities. Finally, a CUP is required - for utility uses in the E-A Zone which must be consistent with the general plan. For the reasons discussed below, the general plan simply does not contemplate a sewage treatment plant outside the boundaries of the Encina property and the CUP would have to be denied on that ground. In our consideration of this matter we had occasion to review the zoning code and general plan to determine how they contemplate the accommodation of sewage treatment facilities. Section 65302(a) of the Government Code, which specifies the contents of a land use element, expressly contemplates that a land use element should site facilities for the disposal of liquid wastes. The appropriate land use designation in our general plan for sewage treatment plants'is the fl u" (Utility) designation. That designation was placed on the Encina Treatment Plant and the other sewage treatment facilities within our general plan area includThg those owned and operated by Leucadia and San Marcos. There is no other provision in the land use element text or map for sewage treatment facilities. The "Utility" designation text indicates that it was intended to inventoy the existing sewage treatment sites and that there is no provision for any other sites. It is obvious that the plan contemplates exclusive reliance on the Encina Plant within the City's sewer service area. The general plan does not site all possible public utility uses. It contemplates that certain accessory uses and facilities can be sited throughout the City upon approval of a conditional use permit. The City has processed things such as neighborhood electrical switching stations and small sewer pump stations in that way. In my opinion, the sewer plant proposed for Calavera Hills is a primary facility and thatit cannot fit within the general plan definition for accessory uses. Therefore, in order to site and accommodate a satellite sewer treatment plant, it will be necessary to amend the general plan to so provide. Such an amendment could specifically site the facility, or could provide by proper references in the text and the land use map, that it could be located within certain parameters to . Mayor and City Council -6-- March 23, 1978 be fixed by some other discretionary approval, such as a master plan. As indicated above, the revised master plan submitted for staff review by Calavera Hills, in my opinion, would require a general plan amendment. That amendment could be combined with the amendment necessary to accommodate the proposed sewage treatment plant. The EIR which is in process would then have to deal with both the land use element-changes in regards to the master plan as well as those that would be involved with the satellite treatment plant. Those hearings could all be combined. Assum- ing the general plan amendment for both the master plan and the sewer plant were approved, the next step which could be instituted as soon as two weeks thereafter, would be the hearings of the master plan amendment. The question remains as to what process would be required to specifically approve the sewer treatment plant. At the present time the only provision in the Municipal Code for sewage treat- ment plants is that they may be permitted only in Industrial Zones by conditional use permit. That provision is consistent with the treatment generally afforded sewage plants; that is,'that they are uses with a potentiality for adverse effects on the surrounding area which should be limited to Industrial Zones and be subjected to the strict discretionary reviews of the conditional use permit process. One of the two options in the processing of specific sewer plant requests would be to include in the master plan amendment a designation that an area was reserved for the sewer plant. Since, under our Code, the master plan acts as the underlying zoning, it is my opinion that such a designation would constitute Industrial Zoning for purposes of the sewer plant CUP. Once the master plan was effective, the applicant could then proceed with the conditional use permit. It is my view that the CUP process and the traditional view of sewer plarts may not be appropriate given the situation which now confronts us in regards to sewer service. If satellite plants are to be utilized in our City, and located throughout the planning area, such locations may not correspond to our Industrial Zones. In addition, a CUP does not provide for Council review. The more appropriate vehicle to accommodate satellite treatment plants seems to be the P-U (Public. Utilities) Zone. That zone contains a detailed precise plan procedure C. p b S . Mayor and City Council -7- March 23, 1978 which would be reviwed not only by the Planning Commission but the Council as well. The P-U Zone provides for a close review of utility uses to insure that they are not developed in a way that will adversely affect the surrounding area and provides for the imposition of conditions in that regard. In order to accommodate this option, a short amendment to add sewer treatment plants as a permitted use in the zone would be required. That could be instituted immediately. It would then be appropriate in the master plan amendment to provide for the satellite plant with the provisions that it would be processed in accordance with the P-U Zone standards. In conclusion, assuming the policy questions are resolved and the Council wishes to consider a satellite plant in the Calavera Hills area, it is recommended that the following steps be followed in processing the Lake Calavera Hills Project: 1. A general plan amendment for the satellite sewer plant and the revised land use plan to be heard in conjunction with the hearing on the EIR for the two items. 2. A master plan amendment to revise the master plan as.,: desired by the Developer and to bring it into accordance with the new P-C Zone. 3. A precise plan for the sewer plant under the P-U Zone (assuming in the meantime we have accomplished the amendment to the zone in that regard). This step could be combined with the hearing on the master plan amendment. The processing outlined above is relatively simple. It follows established City practices. The timetable for that process is more difficult to outline because it depends on available staff resources, the public hearing process and the Council's policy judgments. This matter has been complicated by Assembly Bill 884 which sets forth severe new time constraints within which the City must complete processing of private development projects. All necessary City actions for Lake Calavera Hills must be completed by the end of this year or the development will be automatically approved. It may not be possible to meet those deadlines. We Mayor and City Council -8-- March 23, 1978 will be discussing this aspect of the problem in more detail with the City Manager and the Council in the next few months both in regard to this Project and the other major land use matters pending in our City., • VINCENT F. BIONDO, J1. • City Attorney • V/rn1a Attachments . cc; City Manager hi AMENE 31A MASTER LN LAKE CALAVERA H(LLS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 0 ç\- Lm .40 R Ui ar , — ( ' ' HEIGHTS UR L MA : R LM 4.0 48 RLM v ( RLM d.lo. 0 L I r \ 00 .O RLM RLM PLAN (Pg0F05LO F LANO USe 4:i L. It 646 8.tOTULjje00SI 0i :40 L E G E N 0 oth - R V YUS?CD PLAN IM2,10ARY e.erti.oro — ft nO 0DWV*0 LAND USE MAP • EXHIBIT 'I1 I, A I. UIYH 4o o N, CPCM SPACE AREAS — O Get CO RIG$1..**1 — — — tA04e US! 50UNDARY V tCptAfl00 vC.Co.0 R....0 ACAS :••. i':4 u.:, . fY.: t L•... . . IJ TXkiKi , \ • ____j'_''_ .,- _:'.)\• L.'• .• . ,• • •'t.- •.\. . • . ' .: - _ •___•• •.,I . : ;tTIi L4A rj ci . ••'c\ I; . J rr ;L• lY. . •\.i• • "•• • , Jj • / TL tvp gV I tA y. 71 Vy r • • / (Tf Nq, , •&)/ / City Of a d a a Land Use Plan IAV 10 -- X ; ' I • ' - 31 . . MEMORANDUM March 23, 1978 TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director SUBJECT: Processing of Calavera Hills Master Plan and Alternative Sewage Treatment Facility. 1arTcaRc)TThTn The attached chronological history of the Lake Calavera Hills development lists key action dates and a brief description of the actions. The original applications envisioned sewage treatment at the Encina Facility. However, early in 1977, the City and the developer became aware of the capacity limitations at Encina. Because of this, the developer began exploring alternative methods of treating the sewage to be generated from his project. The present outcome of all of this was the developer's proposal to construct an on-site, secondary treatment facility with ground disposal into the Buena Vista drainage basin. The first phase of the plant would have a capacity of 250,000 GPD. The percolation field would be able to accommodate the first phase discharge without any reclamation facilities. Some minor reclamation facilities would be necessary if the plant capacity was increased to 500,000 GPD. Extensive facilities would be needed if the plant were expanded to a capacity of 1 MGD. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The environmental impact report (EIR-403) that staff is now finalizing addresses the environmental impacts of the entire master plan, including the satellite treatment facility. The impacts of the treatment facility are evaluated solely on its relationship to the master plan development. In other words, such things as growth inducement to the areas outside of the master plan area are not discussed in direct terms. If the subject of the satellite treatment plant is not to be included within the scope of the larger land-use decisions of Calavera Hills, or if the impacts on the entire drainage basin are desired, substantial revision to the existing environmental impact report would be necessary. It should be noted that the existing EIR recommends the following mitigation measure: Prior to final approval of the alternative facility by City Council, a study shall be made of the number of alternative facilities proposed or desired in the City, the proper agency to operate and maintain those facilities, the costs and revenues associated with those facilities, and the most equitable means of assigning those costs and revenues. This study shall include an evaluation of the cumulative environmental and social impacts of such alternative facilities. . The first phase of Lowry's report explores the feasibility of establishing a wastewater reclamation program in the City. This report covers many of the issues mentioned in the above mitigation measure with the exception of "an evaluation of the cumulative environmental and social imp acts of such alternative facilities." Some environmental issues are discussed in the report but not substantially enough to qualify as an environmental impact report. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT The proposed Master Plan Amendment, including all of the text, plans and economic reports required in the P-C zone, is now complete and ready to begin processing. The Master Plan includes discussion of the proposed sewage treatment facility as follows: "Current practice in the City of Carlsbad indicates the Encina Treatment Facility as the primary source of sewage treatment and it would be desirable to Lake Calavera Hills to be serviced by this facility. But, because of the restricted capacity at the Encina Treatment Facility and the probability that it will continue for a long period of time (five years plus), Lake Calavera Hills proposes that a separate district be formed and a 500,000 gallon waste water reclamation facility be constructed to service the planned community using Alternative #9 of the Lowry & Associates Feasibility Study (see technical supplement). In addition to the system proposed in Alternative #9, Lake Calavera Hills plans to reclaim water through the use of wells at the north property line for redistribution and use throughout the project for agricultural and irrigation purposes. "A suitable location for the satellite plant to serve the Lake Calavera Hills project is available within the master-planned area (See Exhibit G). It is the intent of Lake Calavera Hills to build this plant provided that it is located within the boundaries of the Lake Calavera Hills property. The facility will be built at no cost to the City of Carlsbad and will then be turned over to the City under a reimbursement agreement for the purpose of repaying Lake Calavera Hills thorugh the normal collection of sewer hook-up fees for the cost of the facility (most of these fees will be paid through the future development and build out of Lake Calavera Hills). The proposed waste water reclamation facility will be designed with the potential for expansion in the event that the City of Carlsbad should determine that additional capacity be made available to other areas of northeast Carlsbad." The proposed treatment plant, with up to a 500,000 GPD capacity, would allow the Calavera Hills project to begin construction and, at maximum development, would provide capacity for approximately half of the total project. This would be true if all of the proposed capacity were reserved for the Calavera project. If the City were to take over the operation of the plant, it is unresolved at this time whether or not such a restriction can be initiated. It should be noted that the State Air Resources Board, in their review of the EIR, stated a concern of whether excess capacity in the plant would be available for other developments and recommends a condition-of-approval which would require the capacity of the plant be reserved solely for the Calavera project. - 2 - . I SEPARATION OF ISSUES The staff and developer have been exploring ways of separating the issues of the sewage treatment proposal from the many other issues involved with the Master Plan Amendment. This will be the first Master Plan processed under the new P-C Zone. Because of this, I anticipate lengthy, continued meetings to delve through all of the new material, including the Economic and Environmental Impact Reports. To further complicate this necessary process with the questions of the satellite treatment plant may be disasterous. Important considerations of the Master Plan may be lost due to discussion on the treatment plant or vice versa. These two major issues, the Master Plan and the treatment plant, should perhaps be split into two separate processes for the sake of clarity. POLICY ISSUES The technical feasibility of a waste water reclamation program is covered in the first phase of Lowry's report. It is my understanding that the Public Works Administrator is preparing a separate report which will discuss the major issues contained in Lowry's report. As pointed outin the City Attorney's report, staff concurs with the developer's statement that the first policy judgment the Council must make is whether or not to instruct the staff to consider further his proposal for a self-contained satellite sewage treatment plant. I would like to establish the different processes that would be required for compliance with CEQA and Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 1. If the Council decides not to pursue the idea of waste water reclamation or satellite treatment facilities, the proposed Master Plan Amendment and EIR could proceed under the current process of restricting final map recordation and building permits until adequate capacity exists at Encina. 2. If the Council decides to pursue a city-wide program of waste water reclamation through the preparation and adoption of such a program, an environmental impact report covering the entire program would be necessary. Calavera's project would either have to wait until the overall program was adopted or proceed as discussed in No. 1 above. 3. If the Council decides to further investigate the feasibility of a reclamation program and wishes to review each drainage basin as an independent unit, supplemental information to the existing EIR for Calavera Hills would have to be prepared. The supplemental report would have to cover such things as growhh inducement within the basin, land use policies affecting areas of reuse of the reclaimed water, cost- effectiveness of each facility, and the operational and governing aspects of each facility. Perhaps phase two of Lowry's report will cover many of these issues. 4. If the Council does nolwish to pursue a comprehensive reclamation program but decides to recognize Calavera's proposal as an "alternate method of sewage disposal" as provided for in the sewer moratorium ordinances, no further environmental reports would be needed and processing of Calavera's proposal could begin. The major issues surrounding this alternative are two-fold. First of all, the proposed treatment facility must be - 3 - S S operated by the City or a special district. This creates the need to consider such things as "general welfare" and "public good" that are not as important to consider when individual septic systems are proposed. Secondly, Calavera's proposed treatment facility does not have the capacity to provide for the entire project. Provisions for future capacity would have to be covered in the Master Plan and in the procedures needed to turn the operation of the plant over to the City or special district. rrmiriii TCN The Planning Department concurs with the process outlined in the City Attorney's report. The policy decision of the Council as outlined above will dictate what further work must be done by staff. CI-iRO1'K)iX)(ICAL HISTORY OF LAKE CALAVCPJA HILLS 5/7/74 MP-150/EIR- 230 (Farrow Bros.) APPROVED (CC Res. 3407) 5/21/74 ZC-138 (Farrow Bros.) to P-C APPROVED (CC Ord, 9388) 7/20/76 New P-C Zone Adopted (CC Ord, 945) 9/3/76 Application submitted for CT 7$-12/PUD-4 (Calavera Hills Associates) 2/22/77 CC moved to deny CT 76-12/PUD-4 3/1/77 Res, to deny continued at Applicants request. 3/15/77 Action tabled until sewer problem resolved, 4/26/77 Application submitted for vff-150 (A) /EIR-403 4/26/77 Moratorium placed on building permits (CC Ord, 7047) and discretionary approvals (CC Ord. 7048). 5/3/77 Economic Report agreement with consultant APPROVED. 8/4,1 77 CT 76-12/PUD-4 APPROVED (CC Res. 5145 & 5146) 10/3/77 State Clearinghouse received draft EIR fcr review. 11/1/77 Council APPROVED scope-of-work for Lowrys feasibility study. 11/3/77 Final Economic Report submi Lted. 11/20/77 State Cledringhouse review period ended. 11/28/77 Received comments on draft Bill from State Clearinghouse 12/23/77 Lowry Report, Phase I, scheduled for completion, not yet complete HZ: le 3/13/78 C j•r (Up of Carldab March 20, 1978 . 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 TELEPHONE: (714) 729.1181 Mr. Roy J. Ward Lake Calavera Hills 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 201 Carlsbad, California 92008 SUBJECT: Waste Water Treatment Facility, Calavera Hills 01 Dear Roy: Your application for a conditional use permit for the waste water treatment facility for the Calavera Hills area of Carlsbad must be returned since it is.not the appropriate application for such a request. It appears at this time that the proper applications will be a General Plan Amendment and a Master Plan Amendment. This will be discussed further by the City Council in their workshop on March 28, 1978. I suggest not making application until after this date when we may expect direction from the City Council. Please call me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, gi Bud Plender Assistant Planning Director BP: s . STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND 0. BROWN JR., Goyerr,or CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SAN DIEGO REGION 6154 MISSION GORGE ROAD, SUITE 205 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120 TELEPHONE: (714) 286-5114 MARCH 8, 1978 RECEIVED MR. RONALD A. BECKMAN 1 3 1978 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 ELM AVENUE CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Engineering Department DEAR MR. BECKMAN: SUBJECT: LAKE CALAVERA HILLS YOUR FEBRUARY 8, 1978 LETTER ASKED THAT WE SEND YOU A LETTER CONTAINING STAFF'S TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ON WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED LAKE CALAVERA HILLS FACILITIES. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE LAKE CALAVERA HILLS DEVELOPER WISHES To BUILD AN ACTIVATED SLUDGE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THEIR PROPERTY. THE PLANT WOULD BE SIZED TO TREAT AN AVERAGE DAILY FLOW OF 60 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY OF DOMESTIC SEWAGE; TREATED EFFLUENT WOULD BE DISPOSED OF BY PERCOLATION. THE PERCOLATION AREA WOULD BE EXTENDED NORTH OF LAKE CALAVERA HILLS PROPERTY BY MEANS OF A FRENCH DRAIN SYSTEM. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS LETTER, WE HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE CITY OF CARLSBAD WOULD ASSUME OWNERSHIP OF THE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES. BASED ON THE INFORMATION NOW AVAILABLE TO STAFF, WE WOULD PROPOSE TO RECOMMEND THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED BELOW. WE HAVE ASSUMED THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE ACTED UPON BY THE REGIONAL BOARD AT THEIR MAY 22, 1978 MEETING. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS COULD CHANGE PENDING REVIEW BY OUR CONSULTING AGENCIES AND FINALIZING OF THE REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE BY THE CITY. HOWEVER, WE WOULD NOT EXPECT ANY MAJOR CONCEPT CHANGES IN THE TENTATIVE REQUIRE- MENTS PROPOSED BY STAFF. THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE Cirv OF CARLSBAD SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LAKE CALAVERA HILLS DEVELOPMENT': A. PROHIBITIONS 1. DISCHARGES OF WASTES TO LANDS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED TO THE REGIONAL BOARD AND FOR WHICH VALID WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN FORCE ARE PROHIBITED. 'p . rr MR. RONALD A. BECKMAN -2- MARCH 8, 1978 2. BYPASSING OR DIRECT DISCHARGE OF TREATED OR UNTREATED LIQUID OR SOLID WASTES TO BUENA VISTA CREEK OR TRIBUTARIES THERETO IS PROHIBITED. 3. DISCHARGE OF WASTES TO RUNOFF IMPOUNDING FACILITIES IS PROHIBITED* k. THE WASTEWATER OR SLUDGE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS SHALL NOT CAUSE ODORS OR OTHER NUISANCES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE TREATMENT PLANT SITE. 5. DISPOSING OF SLUDGE BY METHODS OR AT LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE OR IN THE FINDINGS OF THIS ORDER IS PROHIBITED. 6. DISCHARGES OF WASTES OTHER THAN DOMESTIC SEWAGE INTO THE SEWER SYSTEM ARE PROHIBITED. DISCHARGES OF WATER SOFTENER REGENERATION BRINES INTO THE SEWER SYSTEM ARE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED* 7. THE DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER OR SLUDGE SHALL NOT: (A) CAUSE THE PRESENCE OF COLIFORM OR PATHOGENIC ORGANISMS IN WATERS PUMPED FROM THE BASIN; (a) CAUSE THE OCCURRENCE OF OBJECTIONABLE TASTES AND ODORS IN WATERS PUMPED FROM THE BASIN; (c) CAUSE WATERS PUMPED FROM THE BASIN TO FOAM; (o) CAUSE THE PRESENCE OF TOXIC MATERIALS IN WATERS PUMPED FROM THE BASIN; () CAUSE THE PH OF WATERS PUMPED FROM THE BASIN TO FALL BELOW 6.0 OR RISE ABOVE 9.0; (F) CAUSE THIS REGIONAL BOARD'S OBJECTIVES FOR THE GROUND OR SURFACE WATERS OF THE VISTA HYDROLOGIC SUBUNIT AS ESTABLISHED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION TO BE EXCEEDED; (G) CAUSE ODORS, SEPTICITY MOSQUITOES OR OTHER VECTORS, WEED GROWTH OR OTHER NUISANCE CONDITIONS IN BUENA VISTA CREEK OR ITS TRIBUTARIES; . I MR. RONALD A. BECKMAN -3- MARCH 81 1978 (H) CAUSE A SURFACE FLOW IN BUENA VISTA CREEK OR ITS TRIBUTARIES; OR (i) CAUSE A POLLUTION, CONTAMINATION, OR NUISANCE. B. DISCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS 1. THE CONCENTRATION' OF 5-DAY 200 CENTIGRADE BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND IN THE DISCHARGE TO THE PERCOLATION POND SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER AS DETERMINED FROM A 24'-.HouR PROPORTIONED-TO-FLOW COMPOSITE SAMPLE, NOR 45 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER IN ANY SINGLE GRAB SAMPLE. 2. THE CONCENTRATION OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN THE DISCHARGE TO THE PERCOLATION POND SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER AS DETERMINED FROM A 24-HouR PROPORTIONED-TO-FLOW COMPOSITE SAMPLE, NOR 45 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER IN ANY SINGLE GRAB SAMPLE. 3. THE PERCOLATION BEDS SHALL BE SO MANAGED THAT A DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION OF NOT LESS THAN 2.0 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER IS MAINTAINED IN THEM AT ALL TIMES. 4 CONCENTRATION OF MINERAL CONSTITUENTS IN THE DISCHARGE TO PERCOLATION BEDS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE FOLLOWING: CONSTITUENT TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS CHLORIDE SULFATE SODIUM FLUORIDE BORON PERCENT SODIUM CONCENTRATION 1000 MG/L 400 It 500 It LO0 It i r 1.0 It 05 it 60 5. ALL WASTE TREATMENT, CONTAINMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES (INCLUDING PERCOLATION BEDS) SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST 100-YEAR PEAK STREAM FLOWS AS DEFINED BY THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY. - 6. ALL WASTE TREATMENT, CONTAINMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES (INCLUDING PERCOLATION BEDS) SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST EROSION, OVERLAND RUNOFF AND OTHER IMPACTS RESULTING FROM A 100-YEAR FREQUENCY 24-HOUR STORM. . . MR. RONALD A. BECKMAN _1+ MARCH 8, 1978 C. PROVISIONS 1. THE DISCHARGER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AS SPECIFIED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER. UNLESS OTHER- WISE SPECIFIED, THE MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SHALL BE IN EFFECT UPON INITIATING THE DISCHARGE TO THE PERCOLATION PONDS, IN ACCORD WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13267(s) WATER CODE, THE MONITORING REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. 2. ALL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES SHALL BE COMPLETELY CONSTRUCTED AND OPERABLE PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF DISCHARGE AND THE COMPLETE FACILITIES SHALL HAVE ADEQUATE CAPACITY FOR THE FULL AVERAGE DAILY DESIGN FLOW OF 0.5 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY. A REPORT FROM THE DESIGN ENGINEER CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF EACH COMPONENT OF THE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE DISCHARGER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE DISCHARGE. THE CERTIFICATION REPORT SHALL CONTAIN A REQUIREMENT—BY—REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS, BASED ON ACCEPTABLE ENGINEERING PRACTICES, OF HOW THE PROCESS AND PHYSICAL DESIGNS OF THE FACILITIES WILL ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS. THE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL AFFIX HIS SIGNATURE AND ENGINEERING LICENSE NUMBER TO THE CERTIFICATION REPORT AND SHOULD SUBMIT IT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITIES. THE DISCHARGE SHALL NOT BE INITIATED UNTIL: (A) THE CERTIFICATION REPORT IS RECEIVED; () THE REGIONAL BOARD HAS BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE COMPLETION OF FACILITIES BY THE DISCHARGER. (c) AN INSPECTION OF THE FACILITIES HAS BEEN MADE BY STAFF OF THE REGIONAL BOARD; AND (o) STAFF HAS NOTIFIED THE DISCHARGER BY LETTER THAT THE DISCHARGE CAN BE INITIATED, 3. THE DISCHARGER'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SHALL BE SUPERVISED AND OPERATED BY PERSONS POSSESSING CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATE GRADE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3, SUBCHAPTER ik, TITLE 23, CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. 1+. THE DISCHARGER SHALL NOTIFY THIS REGIONAL BOARD BY LETTER OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE DISCHARGE. S . MR. RONALD A. BECKMAN —5— MARCH 8, 1978 5. THE DISCHARGER SHALL GRANT ADMISSION TO THE PREMISES OF THE WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES TO MEMBERS OF THIS REGIONAL BOARD AND ITS STAFF AT SUCH TIMES AS MAY BE NECESSARY IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR DUTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED HEREIN. 6. WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS SHALL REMAIN APPLICABLE REGARDLESS OF CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP OR LESSEE. A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP SHALL BE REPORTED PROMPTLY TO THIS REGIONAL BOARD BY LETTER. 7. THE ABOVE PRESCRIBED WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ARE ESTABLISHED ONLY FOR (A) A DISCHARGE TO LANDS OWNED OR LEGALLY CONTROLLED BY BY THE DISCHARGER AND SPECIFICALLY RESERVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EFFLUENT DISPOSAL (THIS INCLUDES THE DOWNSTREAM PERCOLATION AREAS); (B) A WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATION AS DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE AND IN THE FINDINGS OF THIS ORDER; AND (c) A WASTE DISCHARGE VOLUME NOT IN EXCESS OF DAILY AVERAGE FLOW OF 0.5 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY. 8. PRIOR TO INITIATING DISCHARGES OF WASTES FROM THE LAKE CALAVERA HILLS PROJECT AT LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE PROVIDED FOR BY THIS ORDER OR PRIOR TO INITIATING ANY MATERIAL CHANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS OR VOLUME OF DISCHARGE, THE DISCHARGER SHALL (A) SUBMIT 12 COPIES OF A SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE, COMPLETE W.TH FILING FEES DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED CHANGES, AND (B) OBTAIN WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGES. 9. THIS ORDER IS RESCINDED ON MAY 22, 1983. IF THE DISCHARGER WISHES TO CONTINUE THE DISCHARGE AFTER THAT DATES AN APPLICATION FOR NEW WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY MARCH 22, 1983. 10. THE DISCHARGER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING TIME SCHEDULE IN ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE WITH DISCHARGE SPECIFICATION B.1+: COMPLIANCE TASK DATE PROGRESS REPORT ON DECEMBER 1, 1978 RECEIVING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER OR ON BACKUP PROJECT TO LIMIT EFFLUENT MINERAL CONTEN1. 1I JUNE 1, 1979 COMPLIANCE REPORT DUE, DECEMBER 15, 1978 JUNE 15, 1979 II DECEMBER 1, 1979 DECEMBER 15, 1979 MR. RONALD A. BECKMAN ME MARCH 8, 1978 COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE TASK DATE REPORT DUE FULL COMPLIANCE EITHER BY JUNE 1, 1980 JUNE 1, 1980 USE OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER OR PHYSICAL TREATMENT FAC I L I TI ES. IN THE INTERIM, UNTIL COMPLIANCE WITH DISCHARGE SPECIFICATION a.k IS ACHIEVED, THE CONCENTRATIONS OF MINERAL CONSTITUENTS IN THE DISCHARGE TO THE PERCOLATION BEDS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE FOLLOWING: CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 1100 MG/L CHLORIDE +40 It SUIPHATE 550 of SODIUM 1+140 - II FLUORIDE 1.1 BORON 0.55 " PERCENT SODIUM 60 11. Jr CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITIES DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE HAS NOT BEGUN BY MAY 22, 1979, THIS ORDER WILL EXPIRE ON THAT DATE. SHOULD THE DISCHARGER WISH TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS ORDER, A WRITTEN REQUEST MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER NO LATER THAN MARCH 22, 1979. SHOULD THE DISCHARGER WISH TO INITIATE THE PROJECT FOLLOWING THE EXPIRATION -OF THIS ORDER, 12 COPIES OF A NEW REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE, COMPLETE WITH FILING FEE MUST BE FILED. 12. A COPY OF THESE REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE POSTED AT A PROMINENT LOCATION AT OR NEAR THE TREATMENT/DISPOSAL FACILITIES. THE ABOVE PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS SHOULD HELP YOU TO COMPLETE YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE LAKE CALAVERA HILLS PROJECT. Jr YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL MR. ROLAND ROSSMILLER AT (711+) 286-5111+. VERY TRULY YOURS, 4~~C/44 4'", LEONARD BURTMAN EXECUTIVE OFFICER CC: MR. DENNIS A. O'LEARY LOWRY AND ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO 1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 a (714) 729-1181 ED• ..• Citp of Carldab 1V!fLR G 1978 March 3, 1978 CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Departfneri.L Mr. Roy Ward Lake Calavera Hills Associates 4321 Birch Street Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: Carlsbad Wastewater Reclamation Feasibility Study Dear Roy: As outlined in my letter of October 24, 1977, the referenced report would be done in two separate and distinct sections. The first section would deal with a general City-wide study and, upon completion and acceptance of the first phase, any subsequent work necessary for the purposes of the Lake Calavera Hills project would be pursued. As you know, this process is being followed in an attempt to: (1) insure the objectivity of the first phase report; and (2) insure that any subsequent reports are sisten-b with the conclusions contained in the first Dhase report as ac- ceDted. That way the interests of the community and of the developer could be safeguarded. I have reviewed the first draft of the phase one report (except for in- comnlete chapters) and transmitted my comments to the consultant. I re- viewed the final chanters of the second draft, met with the consultant to clarify concerns I had expressed and indicated I would forward comments on the first 12 sections as soon as I had an opportunity to re-read them. This disjointed review was done to accommodate the needs expressed by your staff to start work on the second phase of the report. After my last meet- ing with the consultant it was my opinion that the conclusions and recom- mendations were consistent witli the logic of the report, based on my first preliminary review, and, therefore, sufficiently established to allow for work to begin on the second phase, if you so desired. I so indicated to your consultant and, by this letter, am indicating to you. A fact that must not be forgotten is that unless and until the City Coun- cil accepts the significant change in concept proposed by the phase one report, any work you have done on subsequent reports is a result of your choice and not as a result of City direction. As a matter of information, I have secured two additional copies of the second draft and am having them reviewed by City staff. We are analyzing various methods on how the report might best be presented to Council for . . Mr. Roy Ward -2- March 3, 197 approval as well as the way to insure that it complies with C.E.Q.A. We will stay in touch to keep you informed of our determination. We will al- so continue to work with you to insure that your proposed project is han- dled in as expeditious a manner as possible consistent with the best in- terests of the community. Very ;truly yours, Ronald A. Beckman, P.E. Public Works Administrator CC: City Manager City Attorney Planning Director City. Engineer Lowry & Associates I rI-fl flY\fl A ATT\rn fl TO: Planning Director City Engineer FROM: Public Works Administrator DATE: March 2, 197 SUBJECT: Overview of Wastewater Reclamation Opportunities for the City of Carlsbad Attached, for your departmental review, is a draft of the referenced report. It outlines some thoughts on a system of satellite treatment plants which provide the opportunity for wastewater reclamation. I would appreciate your comments so that I might give di- rection to the consultant for preparation of the finalized re- port for presentation to Council. Ronald A. Beckman, P.E. 13 Public Works Administrator CC: City Manager Attachment I TUNUT116017.11i"19 MY] DATE: March 2, 1978 TO: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director FROM: Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director SUBJECT: Sewer Plant - Lake Calavera The following are my findings and my determination for the proper processing requirements for the subject use: I ) Zoning. The property that the sewer plant is proposed for is zoned P-C. Section 020, the uses permitted section of the F-C Zone indicates that uses permitted must be established by the master plan or other methods as listed in the P-C Zone, which are FUD or Specific Plan, and further provided that such use is consistent with the general plan. Section 120 of the P-C Zone permits a minor amendment by the Planning Commission if such amendment does not change density or is not a new use to the master plan. This appears to exclude a sewer plant since it eliminates density and is a new use. Section 130 indicates that in the P-C Zone, uses that require CUP'S in other zones also require CUP'S in the P-C Zone, and that a conforming master plan is necessary. Section 150 indicates how a P-C Zone can be developed that do not have an updated master Plan. It permits a FUD or an amendment to the master plan. However, the amendment would be a total amendment to the master plan not a partial because the present master plan is not conforming. Also, it appears that a PUD would not be a proper mechanism since it is a public service use not a unit development. 2) Master Plan 150. Presently there is a master plan on the property, this would mean that any development would have to be consistent with this master plan. Master plan 150 is considered non-conforming, therefore, before any development can take place within master plan 150, the master plan would have to be updated or approved through a PUD. 3) CUP Requirements. It appears that a sewer facility as proposed would require a CUP un1er Section 21.42.010, paragraph I & J. This is a requirement with both the present non-conforming master plan or a new conforming master plan. 4) P-U Zone. The possibility of rezoning the property to P-U to allow a sewer plant has been discussed. However, I feel this is not appropriate for various reasons. One, is that the P-U Zone does not indicate-specifically that sewer plants are permitted uses in the P-U Zone. (The P-U Zone indicates that public -uti I ities, district maintenance storage and property faci I ities are uses permitted but the sewer plant does not fit this description). The Encina Sewage Disposal Plant is zoned F-U, but by reading the P-U Zone I question the validity of such zone at Encina. The second reason I don't feel the P-U Zone is appropriate is the fact that other uses are permitted in the zone and therefore rezoning the property would leave the door open- for C. . various other uses. If the P-U Zone was placed on the property, a precise development plan would be required which, is a public hearing to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. 5) General'Plan. The public uti I ities as shown on the general plan are clearly inventory only, see page 28, Land Use. The general plan does show the Encina Plant because it is existing, but would not show any future sewage plants or any other public uti I itiés until after they were built. Public facilities comes under "unique and special uses" on page 32. They are not to be shown on the general plan but must be reviewed on individual site basis with certain findings to be made for their approval as listed on page 32. On page 8, of Land Use, it is indicated that specific plans are to be used to approve public facilities. Staff has always interpreted that the master plan of the P-C Zone meets the State definition of a specific plan. Conclusion It is my conclusion that to approve sewer facilities at Lake Calavera the following must be done: • Adopt a revised master plan that shows a sewer facility, (with EIR). The master plan EIR to provide mechanism to expand plant to service other areas. The master plan would not have to be amended for expansion, but a new EIR would be required. 2. Approve a conditional use permit for such facility. The CUP to contain provisions for expansion by public hearing amendment. 3. After such facility is completed the City amend the general plan upon the annual yearly report to reflect the inventory of a new sewer faci I ity. 4. Subsequent request to expand sewer plant to provide additional service area to be a modification to the CUP and new EIR. I:I- I I IIEIi1JIi11Jii DATE: March 1, 1978 TO: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director FROM: Mike Zander, Associate Planner SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment for Calavera Hills Treatment Facility BACKGROUND In an earlier memo, I suggested that a General Plan Amendment might not be needed for the proposed sewage treatment facility for Calavera Hills. I based this suggestion on the fact that the description of the Public Utility (U) land use designation states that the designation shows existing facilities and, therefore, is an inventory designation (placed on the plan after implementation) rather than a planning designation. Subsequent to that memo, I have done further research on the subject and discovered further evidence that may now warrant the necessity of a General Plan Amendment. STATE REQUIREMENTS Section 65302(a) of the California Government Code requires a Land Use Element within all city and county General Plans which designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, ..., education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of the land." To me, this section implies that both existing and planned sewage disposal facilities must be shown on the Land Use Plan. CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN It is true that the description of the Public Utility designation states that "this category of land use designates areas currently being used for public and quasi-public functions, such as power generation, energy transmission, and sewage treatment. However, at the time the Land Use Plan was prepared, there were no plans for additional sites than those shown on the plan. Another sim1lar designation, Governmental Facilities, also is described as designating areas "currently being used for." However, the description then goes on to state that "as they develop, additional facilities such as branch libraries, auditoriums, and community centers may be included in this category." This description implies that future governmental facilities would have to be shown on the Land Use Plan prior to implementation. (Also see Item B. 1. on page 10) .1 CALAVERA HILLS The staff and developer have been trying to come up with the appropriate process to take the issue of the sewage treatment plant to Council, separate from the Master Plan. A General Plan Amendment may be that process. First of all, the EIR addresses the land use development, albeit in terms of a Master Plan, plus the treatment facility. I feel the present EIR would be appropriate to use with the General Plan Amendment. This is the same process that was used with La Costa's EIR and General Plan Amendment. Secondly, this process would take the issue of the treatment facility along with the proposed land use concepts to Council separate from the other complex issues of the Master Plan (i.e. Economic Report, phasing, etc.). The CUP that the developer has applied for would not necessarily go to Councils. Lastly, I think the General Plan Amendment to place the Public Utility designation on the property (and minor land use adjustments to better fit the Master Plan if determined necessary) would be a relatively simple process. Actual staff work necessary would be minimal, plus approval of the amendment by Council would clearly indicate their intentions of accepting the satellite plant concept. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that we utilize the General Plan Amendment process discussed above. The GPA would be accompanied by the existing EIR and Lowry's first phase report. The Master Plan would then follow this process if the Council certifies the EIR and approves the GPA. eel r' : V- MZ:le WA S I. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 1978 TO: Jim Hagaman, Planning Director FROM: Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director SUBJECT: Lake Calavera Sewer, Appeal on Hardship Basis Apparently Mr. Ward of Lake Calavera wishes to have the question of sewer treatment plant construction for Lake Calavera before the City Council as soon as possible, in any acceptable manner. Planning Staff has been reviewing methods of the zoning code to bring this question to the City Council for their decision. Mr. Ward has indicated that he feels that Section 13.08.110 of the "Sewers" could be used to bring the question to the City Council. This section deals with appeals in hardship cases. It states that "in a case of unusual topography or unique lot size or shape that result in a disportionate inequity in hardship in either of the application or administration of this chapter. Then in such event, the person claiming to the aggreived may make an appeal in the form of a written statement to the City Council setting forth his basis for grievance... I don't believe that this section applies to Mr. Ward's situation, since his problem has nothing to do with unusual topography or unique lot size or shape. His 'problem is simply that he wishes to build a sewer treatment plant to serve his property because of a present sewer moratorium. Copies of this memo have been sent to Tim and Vince for their review. Assuming they agree, I suggest that you have Mike contact Mr. Ward and tell him that Section 13.08.110 is not an appropriate method for the City Council to review his request for construction of a sewer treatment plant. cc: Tim Flanagan Ron Beckman BP:le MEMORANDUM DATE: February 9, 1978 TO: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director FROM: Mike Zander, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Processing Scenarios for Calavera Hills As discussed at today's meeting with Ed Hayworth, there is some question as to the proper method of processing Calavera Hill's • • application. This memo attempts to lay out, through the use of scenarios, the various options that we can choose from. The attached appendix contains sections of the Municipal Code and General Plan .that pertain to the different scenarios. The basic assumptions used to develop these scenarios are as follows: L Council review of the Phase I report by Lowry will allow further consideration of the use of satellite treatment plants. 2. The proposed Master Plan is basically in conformance with the General Plan. 3. The Master Plan, Economic Report, and Environmental Impact Report are adequate for Commission and Council review. SCENARIO I The logical process would be to take the Master Plan, with the Economic and Environmental Impact Reports, to public hearing as the first step. This would place the overall consideration of land-use as firt priority. The proposed treatment plant would only be one of many considerations necessary for the Master Plan. As noted in Section 21.38.020 of the P-C Zone, the permitted uses and structures shall be established by a Master Plan and may include any use found to be necessary and desirable. Section 21.38.060(1) (B) further provides that the location of the various land uses of the Master Plan shall be indicated by the use of zone designations as provided in the Zoning Ordinance. The site for the proposed treatment plan could be designated as P-U (Public Utility) on the Master Plan. One of the development standards within the P-U Zone would then require the approval of a "Precise Development Plan" prior to the issuance of building permits for the treatment plant. . In terms of General Plan consistency, I feel that the discussion on Page 22 of the Land Use Element,under the description of the "Residential" classifications, covers the treatment plant. Specifi- cally, that section states that "all urban residential classifications may include . . . all public facilities . . ., as legitimate supporting facilities and services." Also, the description of the "Public Utility" classification states "this category of land use designates areas currently being used for public and quasi-public functions." To me, this implies an "inventory" designation and is not meant as a planned land-use designation. Although this process may be the most logical, it still has problems. First of all, this will be the first Master Plan processed under the new P--C Zone. Because of this, I anticipate lengthy, continued meetings to delve thtough all of the new material, including the Economic and Environmental Impact Reports. To further complicate this necessary process with the question of the satellite treatment plant may be disasterous. Important considerations of the Master Plan may be lost due to discussion on the treatment plant or vice versa. These two major issues, the Master Plan and the treatment plant, should perhaps be split into two separate processes for the sake of clarity. Secondly, the concerns of the developer should be considered. Calavera Hills has an approved tentative map-(CT 76-12) with a. condition that the "final map shall-not be approved-unless the City Council. finds as of the time of such approval that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision." The developer would obviously like to get this tract underway to start generating some cash flow. As men;ioned, processing under this scenario could very likely cause long delays before the final approval of the treatmentplant which is necessary prior to the development of CT 76-12. SCENARIO II This, and later scenarios, look at ways of separating the treatment plant decision from that of the Master Plan. Under this scenario, the actual rezoning of the proposed treatment plant site form P-C to P-U is discussed. - I am uncertain whether or not a General Plan Amendment would be needed prior to such a zone change. Again, this uncertainty arises out of my premise that the Public Utility designation in the Land Use Element is an "inventory" classification only. If this premise is incorrect, then a GPA would be necessary. - The zone change (or GPA, if necessary) would have to then be accompanied by an EIR. The EIR would only be discussing the environmental impacts of the development of the treatment plant. Also, the P-U Zone would require the approval of a "Precise Development Plan" prior to the issuance of building permits. This process and others which put the decision of the treatment plant as a "first" step have the following problems: 1. The EIR for the treatment plant would have to identify. the direct impacts of the plant (i.e. odors, water quality, etc.) and - 2 - also the general growth inducing aspects of the plant's capacity. Such an EIR is not available at this time, and I expect would take quite a while to prepare. 2. The necessary discretionary actions, especially if a GPA is required, could probably take as long, and be as complex as, Scenario I. SCENARIO III This scenario involves development of the treatment plant within the existing P-C Zone by Conditional Use Permit, Section 21.38.020 states that "prior to the approval of a Master Plan, the property may be used as permitted by Chapter 21.07 for the E-A (Exclusive Agricultural) Zone. Uses permitted in the E-A Zone by Conditional Use Permit include "public works projects" and "utility facilities." Problems with this process again involve the need for a proper EIR. Also, the fact that a Master Plan, although non-conforming to the new P-C Zone, has been approved for the overall project and it does not provide for the development of a treatment plant. SCENARIO IV This scenario differs from the previous two by linking the need for the treatment plant with an approved development (PUD-4/ CT 76-12). First of all, PUD-4 could be amended to include the treatment p-ant. Also, a new PUD could be applied for under the provisions of Section 21.38.150(3). This process would provide a solution to the condition of approval for CT 76-12 requiring adequate sewer facilities prior to development. Although this process differs from the previous two scenarios in the sense that it links the treatment plant to a development project, it still has similar problems. First of all, an EIR regarding the treatment plant would still be necessary because the EIR for the subdivision did not discuss the satellite plant. The previous EIR- only speaks of sewage treatment at the Encina Treatment Facility. Secondly, the projected effluent from the approved subdivision is far less than the proposed first phase capacity of the satellite plant. The excess capacity of the plant would have to be reviewed through some form of environmental process. SUMMARY Each of the scenarios discussed involve problems relating to timing and/or clarity of the different aspects of the project. I still feel that Scenario I is the logical process to use, Perhaps the City Manager or City Attorney can determine a less complex and time-consuming process using the other scenarios. Perhaps such a process exists that I haven't considered. - 3 - . . APPENDIX (underlining added) LAND USE ELEMENT OF GENERAL PLAN 1. Page 22 (under description of "Residential" classification): "All urban residential classifications rn ay include neighborhood commercial uses, generally less than five acres, as well as all public facilities and open spaces, as legitimate supporting facilities and services, when they are located in accordance with the policies and criteria for determining consistency." 2. Page 28 (under description of "Public Utility" classification): "This category of land use designates areas currently being used for public and quasi-public functions such as power generation, energy transmission and sewage treatment." CHAPTER 21.38 PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE 1. Section 21.38.010(2) & (3) (under "Intent and Purpose"): (2) Provide a flexible regulatory procedure to encourage creative and imaginative planning of coordinated communities involving a mixture of residential densities and housing types, open space, community facilities, both public and private, and, where appropriate, commercial and industrial areas; (3) Allow for the coordination of planning efforts between developer and City to provide for the orderly development of all necessary public facilities to insure their availability concurrent with need'. 2. Section 21.,38.020 Permitted uses and structures. In the P-C, Planned Community Zone, tbeperrn±tted_uses_and structures shall be established by Master Plan ofoment approved in accordance with this chapter which may include any use found to be necessa rid desirable for.a community planned in accordance with the purposes of this chapter Provided_that such permitted uses and structures shall he consistent with the General Plan arid applicable Specific Plans. Prior to approval of a Master Plan, the property may be used as permitted by Chapter 21.07 for the E-A Exclusive Agricultural zone. After approval of a Master Plan, such agricultural uses may be continued if the Master Plan so provides. 3. Section 21.38.040 Mastej21afl_required. Prior to the approval forany perntits for development on property zoned P-C, Planned Community, a Master Plan of Deve l opme nt must be approved by the City Council in accord with the prov.sions of this chapter. A Master Plan when approved by ordinance shall establish the regulations for the development of the planned community within the P-C zone and said regulations shall become a part thereof. 4. Section 21.38.060(1) (B), (D) & (G) (under "Contents of Master Plan") 1. (B) Location of the various land uses shall be indicated by the use of zone designations of development zones and overlay zones as provided in this title. Development of property within the area of each such zone shall be subject to the regulations of the indicated zone unless specifically modified as a part of the Master Plan approval. (D) Specific deve1oent provisions to be applied such as a Planned Unit Development permit or a Conditional Use Permit shall be indicated. Development of property within areas so indicated shall be in accord with the terms of the permit and the provisions of this title applicable to such permits. (G) Facilities for water supply and sewerage disposal, including sewer and water trunk lines, fire station sites, storm drainage .and flood control structures and any other public facility needed to properly service the proposed community shall be indicated. 5. Section 21.38.060 (2) (A) & (D) (under "Contents of Master Plan"): (A) A description of each type of land use by acre and area indicating: the number and type of anticipated dwelling iiiflis in each of the residential areas, anticipated uses in the commercial, industrial zones, and the land area for parks, schools, common open area and other publicfacilities and community services. (D) A program to meet the needs for parks, schools, and other public facilities based on the anticipated population of the community and the timing of its development 6. Section 21.'38.150(3) (under "Undeveloped areas of existin planned communities " (3) Properties of more than 100 acres, with an approved Master Plan, shall require Planned Unit emits which shall he accomplished in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21.45. The density and other provisions of such plan shall constitute the ünderlying zone for purposes of the Planned Unit Development permits. The City Council, by motion, or the property owner, by appli- cation, may initiate an amendment to the MasterPlan to bring it into accord with the provisiof this chapter. If such amendment is approved, the development of such property shall be in accordance with this chapter. - A-2 S . Chapter 21.45, Planned Unit Development 1. Section 21.45.010(2) (under "Intent an& Purpose") (2) Encourage imaginative and innovational planning of residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas by offering a wide variety of dwelling units and building types and site arrangements withwell-integrated communi ty_ facilities and services; - 2. 21.45.040 Permitted uses. Any principal use, accessory use, transitional use, or conditional use, permitted in the underl y ing zone is permittedin a planned unit development (Ord. 9459 Paragraph 2 (part), 1976). 3. 21.45.160 Amendments. (a) Amendments to a planned unit development permit may be initiated by the property owner or authorized agent as follows: (1) A request for an amendment shall be submitted to the planning department in written form and shall be accompanied by such additional graphics, statements, or. other information as may be required to support the proposed amendment. The planning commission shall consider the proposed amendment at its next regular meeting. (2) If the planning commission considers the amendment minor in nature, the additional graphics, statement or other information may be approved by the planning commLsion resolution and made part of the original city council approval without the necessity of public hearing. (3) A minor amendment shall not change the densities or the boundaries of the subject property, or involve an addition of a new use or group of is not shown on the oriqfT p ermit crthe rearrangement of uses within the development, or changes of greater than ten percent in approved yards, coverage, height, open space or landscaping, provided no changes shall be less than required by this chapter. If the planning commission determines that the amendment is not minor or that a hearing is otherwise necessary, it shall set the matter for public haring. (4) If a pbiic hearing is required, the applicant shall submit a completed application with graphics, statements, or other infor- mation as may be required to support the proposed modification. (5) A fee of fifty dollars plus one dollar per unit is required for all property within the portion of the planned unit development to be amended. (6) An application for an amendment of a planned unit development permit for which a hearing is required shall be processed, heard and determined in accordance with the provisions of this- chapter applicable to the adoption of a planned unit development permit. (b) The city council may by motion initiate an amendment to a A-3 I ~ & 0 6 planned unit development permit. Such, an amendment shall be proces sed, heard and determined in accordance with the. terms of this chapter ap- plicable to the adoption of a planned unit development permit. 4. Section 21.45.180(b under "Final Planned Unit Development Plan") (b) The final planned unit development plan shall be submitted to the planning director within eighteen months from date of approval of the tentative planned unit development permit or within the period of any extension of the permit. The plan shall reflect all required revisions and refinements. The final planned unit develop- ment plan shall include: (1) Improvement plans for private streets, water, sewerage and drainage systems, walkways, fire hydrants, parking areas and storage areas. The plan shall include any off-site work necessary for proper access, or for the proper operation of water, sewer a g e or drainage systems; (2) A final grading plan; (3) Final elevation plans; (4) A final landscaping plan including methods of soil preparation, plant types, sizes and location; irrigation system plans showing location, dimensions an0 types; and screening; (5) A plan for lighting of streets, driveway, parking areas, walks, and recreation areas. Chapter 21.36, Public Utility Zone 1. 21.36.010 Intent and purpose. The intent and purpose of the P-U zone is to provide for certain public utility and related uses subject to a precise development plan procedure to: (1) Insure compatibility ,of the development with the general plan and the surrounding developments; (2) Insure.-that due regard is given to environmental factors; (3) Provide for public improvements and other conditions of approval necessitated by the development. (Ord. 9441 P1 (part), 1975: Ord. 9268 P1 (part), 1971: Ord. 9060 P1390). 2. 21.36.020 Permitted uses and structures. In the P-U, public utility,, zone only the following uses and structures may be permitted subject to the requirements of this chapter and to the requirements of Chapters 21.41 and 21.44: (1) Generation and transmission of electrical energy; (2) Public utili ty di strict maintenance, storage and oating facilitiE A-4 S I (3) Governmental maintenance and service facilities; (4) Processing, using and storage of: (a) Natural gas, (b) Liquid natural gas, (c) Domestic and agricultural water supplies; (5) Using and storage of fuel oils; (6) Energy transmission facilities, including rights-of--way and pressure control or booster stations for gasoline, electricity, natural gas, synthetic natural gas, oil or other forms of energy sources; (7) Petroleum products pipeline booster stations; (8) Agriculture: Only the following agricultural uses, and buildings accessory to such agricultural uses, are permitted in the P-U zone: (a) Field and seed crops, (b) Truck crops, (c) Horticultural crops, (d) Orchards and vineyards, (e) Pasture and rangeland, (f) Tree farms, (g) Fallow lands, (h) Greenhouses, (9) Recreational facilities (public or private, passive or active); providing there shall not be permitted any use which creates noxious gas or odor, excessive sound vibration or signifi- cant atmospheric pollution. (Ord. 9441 Pl(part), 1975:Ord. 9268 Pl(part) , 1971: Ord. 9060 P1391) . 3. 21.36.030 Precise development plan. No building permit or other entitlement for any use in the P-U zone shall be issued until a precise development plan has been approved for the property. The precise development plan may include provisions for any accessory use necessary to conduct any permitted use. (Ord. 9441 Pl(part), 1975: Ord. 9268 Pl(part), 1971: Ord. 9060 P1392) 4. 21.36.100 Final precise development plan.- After approval, A-5 LJ I • the applicant shall submit a reproducible copy of the precise development plan which incorporates all requirements of the approval to the city manager for signature. Prior to signing the final precise development plan,-the city manager shall determine that a11 applicable requirements have been incorporated into the plan and that all conditions of approval have been satisfactorily met or otherwise guaranteed. The final signed precise development plan shall be the official site layout plan for the property and shall be attached to any application for a building permit on the subject property. (Ord. 9441 Pl(part), 1975). Chapter 21.42, Conditional Uses 1. Section 21.42.010(2) (J) (Under "Permitted Uses" in "All Zones includinsidential"): (J) Public utilities or utilities operated by mutual agencies consisting of water wells, gas metering, and regulating stations, telephone exchanges, booster stations or conversion plants, with the necessary buildings, apparatus, or appurtenances incident thereto, but not including distribution mains; 2. Section 21.42.010 (6)(c) (under "Permitted Uses" in "Industrial zones only"): (c) Sewage disposal plants r A-6 UP 1200 M AVENUE CARLSBA LFORNIA 92008 A) \ I I ELEPHONE: 714) 729-1181 Cttp of carbdab LLi February 8, 1978 Mr. Roland Rossmiller Regional Water Quality Control Board 6154 Mission Gorge Road San Diego, California 92120 FF 1 1978 crry c - .- _•;_ - The City of Carlsbad has been informed that Mr. Dennis O'Leary, represent- ing Lake Calavera Hi I Is Associates, has requested that a water quality dis- charge letter be issued for the sewer treatment facility proposed by Lake Calavera Hi I Is Associates. The City of Carlsbad is now in the proess of analyzing the potential for waste water reclamation using satellite treatment facilities. We are also studying the effect this system will have on the master sanitation plan for the City. I am aware of he developer's request that the City operate and maintain fhe fad ity upon completion and approal for operation. While a disiori by the City has not been reached, public hearings for necessary local ap- proval of the facility and its operation are tentatively scheduled for March and April. The Environmental Impact Report concerning the treatment facility will be considered for certification at the same time. All pre- liminary work on the EIR has been completed and submitted to the State Clearing House as well as the appropriate county agencies. Comments re- turned to the City have been studied and the City's planning staff is now completing appropriate additional responses. It is my understanding a copy of the report has been delivered to your office for your information. I have received a request by the developer to correspond with you to enable your board to consider this matter at your February 26, 1978 meeting. I understand that a conditional discharge letter or a tentative recommendation could be forthcoming at that time. This would enable the developer to pro- ceed with preparation of the plans and specifications which must be presented to the City of Carlsbad for approval prior to public hearing before the City Council I hope this letter has been of assistance to you. Ronald A. Beckman, P. E. Public Works Administrator RAB: veb C: City Manager, City Attorney, City Engineer, Planning Director, Roy Ward, Dennis O'Leary, Bob Ladwig MEMORANDUM November 2, 1977 TO: Mike Zander, Associate Planner FROM: James Hagaman, Planning Directo SUBJECT: Proposed Lake Calavera Package Sewer Plant It seems to me that we are going to have to place several statements into the document which allude to future environmental consistencies for the Package Sewer Plant and its development. As an example I would suggest the following: a 1) Until we have a final environmental impact report on the Package Sewer Plant as a separate project, the Master Plan Land Uses may require amendment and adjustment. 2) Since it hasn't been decided what method of sewer treatment will be utilized at this time, one method would be a package sewer plant; another method would be a direct hookup with the Encina plant. 3) We need a detailed plan of the proposed sewer plant showing the relationship to surrounding land uses and how the plant is to be esthetically planted and screened in relation to the-surrounding land uses. 4) Information should be developed on the cost of this plant to the Carlsbad project vs. the potential services area of the plant which could be outside of the Carlsbad project. We also would need the operational costs for the plant. Iwould suggest the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad plant show the siting and relationship of the proposed plant in order to allow us the opportunity to review the matter up-front. JCH:s / y 4 WRITE IT—DON'T SAY IT INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM A. M. TO tyng DATE 19 P.M. 77 Cify U91mer Parks &RcreatIcnDIrecPor ,.. Ptnn4ng Director Ut1I1tles/M8inteumce Director Attached is an outline for a report tbot,wm b. prpara$ for the. City by towry and 1zaociafz. I antarwar4lçy it for your infomaiion and coznt. If will b3.pre*entedfor 1ouncf Ps approval on tbvenher I, 1977. .. .. .. 4 .n o1I01flng any con$ you wi tov. r4ottzIng that this .pmgrm, if uak,n by tho C1ty could effect each and 9VOS' oe of you Also attached Is a copy of tatas from our flrst with ItI fannon. . Thanks 1. ie' REPLY ON THIS SHEET . FROM :T 7 r C1 . STANDARD INTER DEFT. MEMO FORM 11-24 WILMER SERRICE LIKE 'ary 4ssociates 7. Vie in or a it clut n C012 itif1mn1j File .Jrorn: Bill Fannon 2aie 9/26/77 Sujci: CITY OF CARLSBAD RECLAMATION PROGRAM Pay, 1 4 ITEMS FOR REPORT The following items should be included in the Carlsbad Reclamation Report. Final outline and format will be developed later. 1. Reclamation Philosophy In keeping with the remarks made by Ron Beckman it would be well to have a rather long discussion of reclamation philos- ophy. This will point out that we are shifting from a concept of regional collection sewers connected to a single point of treatment on the ocean to a series of satellite plants. The effects of this philosophical shift on land use and other items should be discussed. 2. Reclamation Practices A general discussion of-reclamation practices should be pre- sented. This would include both agricultural and open space irrigation, industrial use, impoundments, and live stream demonstrations. (Must be careful to talk about reuse not disposal which is the theme of most of our other reports.) We might also consider a more detailed presentation of cli- matological data and other information in an appendix if this seems appropriate. Such work would be based on similar studies for other jobs, including the 208 Study, 3. Encina Outfall Capacity Use of the Encina outfall as a fail-safe point of discharge should be discussed. This would involve the construction of effluent outfall pipelines to Encina. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that we could propose to discharge to the ocean an off-peak mixture of treated secondary efflu- ent and raw sewage. This concept would have to be investi- gated carefully. 4. Encina Treatment Capac Some thoughts should be given to incorporation of the Encina Treatment Plant into the Reclamation Program. It might be possible to consider discharging all sludge from the satel- lite plants to Encina for treatment. This would drastically change the treatment system at Encina; perhaps necessitating Memo To File 9/26/77 Page 2 chemical addition to the primary plant or even a secondary plant regardless of the final requirements of EPA. The point is that it is not necessary to think of the Encina treatment facilities as providing full service for certain areas and zero service for areas where reclamation is practiced. 5. Geographic Distribution The idea of drawing a dividing line along a certain contour level as suggested by Ron Beckman is excellent. It should be presented as a basis for the Reclamation Program. The location of the line can be such that all downstream popula- tion is sQrved at Encina. The size of this downstream popu- lation will determine the ultimate treatment capacity required at Encina. Conversely the location of the dividing line could be shifted to equal the available capacity. 6. Population Projections The type of document proposed should go heavy on formal population projections. These can be developed from CPO d—pfeee4u. If standardized procedures are avail- Lableth _c ~t—be---u±Led to show the effects of several ent overall popyAation approaches. We are not limited O or D-lOO tpe'projections nor should we be constrained istin_CPOdata. We should be guided more by the data opedby the City and recently presented to CPO. 7. Population Distribution The different philosophy of providing sewerage service may result in some changes in location of interceptor sewers which, in turn, might have an effect on the population distribution previously developed by CPO for regional sewerage facilities. If this can be determined from CPO procedures without going into a detailed research project, the effect should be incor- porated in the Report. 8. Treatment Methods There should be a discussion of methods to be employed to pro- vide secondary treatment at the satellite plants. It is probable that conventional activated sludge will be preferred in the long run, but an analysis of trickling filters, oxida- tion ponds, oxidation ditches, and other methods should be presented. At this point the possibility of-discharging sludge downstream to Encina would also be evaluated. Energy considerations should be presented as part of these analyses. •1 •• . Memo To File 9/26/77 Page 3 9. Agricultural Practices Some generalized information, applicable to the entire study area, should be presented on agricultural practices. This would include types of crops, irrigation, etc. The thought is to present general information which can be utilized by-re- ference when specific sites are considered. This might well be tied in with some of our work on the 208 Study. 10. Open Space Irrigàtion Similar presentations should be made for general information on irrigation of open space and landscaping. Again this will serve as a reference for specific sites discussed subsequently. Some thoughts can be given here to maximizing the irrigation uses in order to justify larger reclamation plants. Once theabovelisted background information has been estabLished we can pro- ceed with a step by step development of a proposed reclamation program for the City and surrounding areas. Some of the items which would be included in this section are as follows: 11. Delineation of Basins Utilizing population data and topographic maps, the locations of reclamation treatment plans can be determined and the result- ing drainage basins established. The intent here is to provide plants of reasonable size, 0.5 MGD to 1.5 MGD,.at locations suitable to existing and proposed interceptor and outfall sewer lines. This approach may lead to the decision to install two rows of satellite plants. Although at this time it would appear that a single line of plants, perhaps six in number, would suffice. 12. Reclamation Sites After the plant site has been selected nearby areas where -recla- mation can be practiced should be examined. Agricultural and open space uses will be the most important. Industrial uses will be limited to existing or proposed industrial zoned areas. There will be some give and take with plant size and location in order to develop the best balance of plant siting and reclamation use. 13. Industrial Reuse Industrial reuse should be included in the report evenif it does not lend itself directly to the reclamation program which will be established primarily with irrigation in mind. Existing industrial zones should b e pinpointed and worked into the program as much as possible without sacrificing irrigation re- use opportunities. • .• Memo To File 9/26/77 Page 4 14. Specific Plan If desired by the City, the procedure described above will lead to a definite specific plan for reclamation and re- use which will pinpoint treatment plant sites and areas to be irrigated. This should be checked out thoroughly with 4 rj the City Since they may not wish to limit themselves to sitesj selected at this time. Extreme care should be taken to I 4 I -Ii coordinate selection with land use patterns, planning N' f frVI activities and other outside influences. 15. Environmental Effect 4 //CA though we have been specifically told that this is not art , we must devote some thought to environmental effects ticularly with regard to growth inducement, which could /substantial. A relatively short section on this subject l have to be included in the Report. 16. Other Affects It will also be necessary to make some statements regarding other affects .of the implementation of a reclamation pro- gram. These affects will be based on the recognition that we are abandoning the previous philosophy of centralized regional treatment plants. Affects will include land use, population location, population densities, and other similar items. 17.. General Items / Report should open with some generalbackground information regarding water use practices, drought conditions, future cost of raw water, .and other general items. The usual good 'J- word concerning reclamation and reuse should be included and 'U hopefully improved upon. This information should be J" Thr9P'ared so that the items their proper location. WWF: csh cc: D. O'Leary R. Beckmant-' R. Ward reviewed when the outline of the Report is being discussed can be incorporated into the outline ., REPORT ON RECLAMATION PROGRAM (OUTLINE) Prepared for CITY OF CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY November 1977 Prepared by LOWRY AND ASSOCIATES 3505 Camino de Rio, South San Deigo, CA. APO .. I. INTRC DUCTION A. General Background B. Value of Reclamation C. Purpose of Report D. Authorization II. SCOPE OF STUDY A. Objectives B. Study Area C. Depth of Study III. TECHNICAL PARAMETERS A. Water Supply System B. Design Population C. Population Distribution D. Flow Available for Reclamation IV. REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS A. Discharge Requirements B. Title 22 C. Coastal Commission D. Local Requirements V. RECLAMATION PRACTICES A. Agricultural Irrigation B. Open Space & Landscape Irrigation ., V. RECLAMATION PRACTICES (Cont'd) C. Indus 'trial Reuse D. Impoundments E. Supply vs. Demand, VI. REGIONAL RECLAMATION PROGRAMS A. Centralized Treatment and Export B. "On Stream" Plants C. Satellite Plants D. Independent Facilities VII. SATELLITE PLANT CONCEPT A. Genera1 Theory B. Side Effects C. Application to Carlsbad D. Use of'Encina for Sludge Handling VIII. TREATMENT PLANT SITE SELECTION A. Analysis of Drainage Basins B. Population and Flow C. Tentative Site Selections IX. FAIL-SAFE REQUIREMENTS A. Reason for Fail-Safe Facilities B. Alternatives C.' Use of Encina Facilities • . X. RECLAMATION PROJECTS A. Analysis of Agricultural Parameters B. Location of Industrial Areas C. Other Reuse Potentials D. Relationship to Treatment Facilities E. Selection of Tentative Sites XI. PROGR A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. M DEVELOPMENT Satellite Plant Locations Proposed Reuse Sites Method, of Operation Benefits Achieved Interaction with Other Agencies Methods of Implementation Time Schedules Institutional Arrangements XII. GENERALIZED UNIT COSTS A. Capital Costs B. O&M Costs C. Administrative Costs D. Estimated Income XIII. IMPLEMENTATION A. Inter Agency Action B. Financing C. Land Acquisition B. Legal Agreements & Contracts XIV. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve Report B. Adopt Program as City Policy C. Establish Methodology D. Specific Steps 1, 0 andGrson Mir' CALAVERA HILLS - PROCESSING ACTIVITIES • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEtTS 7_ 1 G64Mcr1? 1. Revision to land use element permitting the siting of satellite wastewater treatment facilities as a permitted use -possible N .D. 1_12eneral Plan Amendment - Lake Calavera Hills Master Plan (requires Council action due to moratorium) - EIR required. / • ZONE CODE AMENDMENTS (2-. Amend the PU zone to allow sewage treatment plants as a permitted use -ibjeN.D. Amend the EA zones to remove sewage treatment facilities as _gS a permitted use - possibieN.Q. • MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Amend the Lake Calavera Hills Master Plan - EIR required. ZONE CHANGE 1. Revise the Lake Calevera Hills P.C. zone to include a P.U. zone for the plant site - EIR required (would include the project report, A financial report and the EIR). • PRECISE PLAN APPROVAL _ , k 1. Submittal of a precise plan under the P.U. zone for siting a 4)ç satellite wastewater treatment plant - EIR required. • SPECIAL DISTRICT 1. Establishment of the appropriate vehicle for reimbursement of plant costs as well as continual operation and maintenance of the plant - EIR required. ? 31882 cornino Capistrano. suite 270' sari juan capistrano. ca'. 92675 (714) 661-6212 Cc\LAVE2/ HILL-z, & VJT ES __ :. --.-. ------r= LTIV1TIE, iF itYm I.eiE çxep. F'~ •__J- -Til 11 -- -- - - -- - • . ?t revtn Q L..-. . C • . C C . C Thb -tcçç e n e 'r' to be pri tq Cift ____ r ... H. . : I. . . .. •' . L .,. . - -- .,1 • to 2fl3 br1' • •.. Ci-1 H CH •, Cl-1 : :Ck 5uppo , .• H. . . . : which c.re - - C I C. C ' - Ii nethtv deotr II i oil , • • . . . . . . •.. H&cr - . I. .LH...II.. . . C C •...- cc ncve re ti.j nI18ir: ---. .. . .... C ..: . -estip ..: r sfec-pn.4rl to :t*. j.CH... 't o1 Chr .... - . :. •1 .• : , . . - . -P -r )C b rnbrn rdued - w thi por? lmtmeO zn*l I itu _______ . ________ . . _______ • _____ _________ Ii • ZL:I2 • . . C.4 . . , CH . , • ;... . . . . . . dL)d'prjjecr _______ r ________________ 1r1 r&iol 46r,5 H . .Hre •rd irob ep&r,b itnt 4, .1... -, ____ •.TYcor. ...J D-4. 0-1 . Ci1, It t.\d ,• I . . . , . . . . I. , • 3' CH. CH . • . i , iVk ' Od tQ. )m pt t Ord stcr 32 tLtk + ç OZQ& r lIT çrbt)rept . . . •.. b I 1 ie HH 'cos5 ch uIe. . ''I, ' ''I '. 'I•l - • '"H • - __:_•.__________•_. ---H- __. •i'---- _____________________________________ --! ••••. . , _______ _________________ - __________