HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP 144; San Diego Gas & Electric Co.; Specific Plan (SP) (2)• •
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
April 30, 1992
Mr. Thomas G. Acuna, Land Planner
San Diego Gas & Electric
P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 921 1 2-41 50
SUBJECT: SDG&E ENCINA POWER PLANT PROPOSED WASTEWATER FACILITY
UPGRADES
Dear Mr. Acuna:
This letter is in response to your April 22, 1 992 letter requesting Administrative Approval for
SDG&E to upgrade its existing wastewater facility located at the Encina Power Plant to comply
with revised State of California regulations. The proposal includes the following:
1. Containment Wall - Nc- higher than three (3) feet to be constructed around the
perimeter of the existing holding tanks.
2. Concrete Slab - Approximately 3,500 square feet of concrete slab constructed within
the area surrounded by the containment wall.
3. Exposure Of Existing Piping - Removal of approximately 200 linear feet of
underground piping from its existing location and placing it above ground.
The above actions which are reflected on the enclosed plan are hereby being granted
administrative approval and do not require any further Planning Department permits. The uses
are consistent with and accessory to uses allowed under the current Encina Specific Plan. The
Building Department has determined that the proposed three (3) foot high wall will require a
Building Permit. It is recommended that you consult directly with the City's Engineering
Department to determine if a Grading Permit is required for the proposed work.
Any questions regarding this determination should be directed to Don Neu at (61 9) 438-1 1 61 ,
extension 4446.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
c: Gary Wayne
Robert Green
Don Neu
DN:lh
WATERUP.LTR
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 - (619) 438-1161
San Diego Gas & Electric
P.O. BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92112-4150 • 619/696-2000
April 22, 1992 FILE NO.
Mr. Michael J. Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
SUBJECT: SD6&E ENCINA POWER PLANT/PROPOSED WASTEWATER
FACILITY UPGRADES
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
Based on my meeting with Don Neu, please accept this letter
as SDG&E's official request to receive an Administrative
Approval allowing SDG&E to upgrade its existing wastewater
facility located at the Encina Power Plant.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Effective July 1, 1991, the State of California revised its
regulations affecting existing and proposed wastewater
treatment facilities. These new regulations have a direct
impact on SDG&E's existing facility. Specifically, the new
revisions make it mandatory that our wastewater holding tanks
be surrounded with a berm or retaining wall to hold
contaminated water in the event a tank leaked. The new
regulations also require that piping to and from our facility
be exposed so that any leaks could be easily detected. A copy
of these new regulations are enclosed and highlighted.
PROJECT PROPOSAL
In order for SDG&E to comply with the new regulations, certain
improvements must be added to the facility by September 1,
1993. Attached is a site plan showing the location and type of
improvement proposed:
1. Containment Wall - A retaining wall, no higher than 3
feet, needs to be constructed around the perimeter of
the existing holding tanks (its location is highlighted
in green).
[HOLZALTR.D22]
Mr. Michael J. Holzmiller
Page 2
2. Concrete Slab - Approximately 3500 square feet of
concrete slab must be constructed within area
surrounded by the containment wall. The purpose of the
slab is to prevent seepage in the event of a tank leak
(its location is highlighted in orange).
3. Exposure of existing piping - Approximately 200 linear
feet of underground piping must be removed from its
existing location and placed above ground (its location
is highlighted in yellow).
Construction of the above improvements will require no grading.
Wall foundation, slab and pipe excavation will be done by hand.
Jte jig not expect to excavate more than 150 cubic yards.
Material excavated will be analyzed to~fteTeTmi=ne~-'Tf" it" is
hazardous. Hazardous material will be hauled to a certified
treatment center. Clean material will be placed within the
already City approved stockpile area of the plant (refer to
City stockpile agreement PE 2.91.15.).
PERMITTING CONCERNS
We believe the proposed excavations will not require a grading
permit and that the improvements are consistent with uses
allowed under the current Encina Specific Plan. We are unclear
as tq_whether a building permit will be required for~tfie""'~
"retaining wallT N;<i'c _\*^~ ~~ '
As for environmental concerns addressed by CEQA, we feel our ~~f /"•
proposal .would qualify for exemptions under Section 15301 (a),
(b) N
yand ff) ; and Section 15304 (f) .
In regards to the need for a Coastal Permit, we discussed this
issue with Bill Ponder on April 21st. Bill felt that the
improvements might qualify for an exemption, but was fairly
certain that at least a wavier would be granted. As a follow-
up, we are asking him for a written determination.
Mr. Holzmiller, that pretty much sums up our proposal. We
would appreciate your earliest written response. If there are
any questions, please call me at 696-2496. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
•UU*tsr+~
Tom G. Acuna
Land Planner
cc: Don Neu
[HOLZALTR.D22]
§ 66264.176 BARCLAYS CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS Title 22
(b) A containment system shall be designed and operated as follows:
(1) a base shall underlie the containers which is free of cracks or gaps
and is sufficiently impervious to contain leaks, spills, and accumulated
precipitation until the collected material is detected and removed;
(2) the base shall be sloped or the containment system shall be other-
wise designed and operated to drain and remove liquids resulting from
leaks, spills, or precipitation, unless the containers arc elevated or are
otherwise protected from contact with accumulated liquids;
(3) the containment system shall have sufficient capacity to contain
precipitation from at least a 24-hour, 25-year storm plus 10 % of the ag-
gregate volume of all containers or the volume of the largest container,
whichever is greater. Containers that do not contain free liquids'need not
be considered in this determination;
(4) run-on into the containment system shall be prevented unless the
collection system has sufficient excess capacity in addition to that re-
quired in subsection (b)(3) of this section to contain any run-on which
might enter the system; and
(5) spilled or leaked waste and accumulated precipitation shall be re-
moved from the sump or collection area in as timely a manner as is neces-
sary to prevent overflow of the collection system. If the collected material
is a hazardous waste under chapter 11 of this division, it shall be managed
as a hazardous waste in accordance with all applicable requirements of
chapters 12 through 16 of this division. If the collected material is dis-
charged through apoint source to waters of the United States, it is subject
to the requirements of section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act, as
amended (33 U.S.C. section 1342).
(c) The owner or operator shall submit to the Department with the
application for a hazardous waste facility permit a written statement
signed by an independent, qualified professional engineer, registered in
California, that indicates that the containment system is suitably designed
to achieve the requirements of this section.
NOTE- Authority cited: Sections 208,25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25150(3), 25159 and 25159.5, Health and Safety Code; 40
CFR Section 264.175.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-91; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
§ 66264.176. Special Requirements for Ignitable or
Reactive Waste.
Containers holding ignitable or reactive waste shall be located at least
15 meters (50 feet) from the facility's property line.
NOTE.- Authority cited: Sections 208,25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25159 and 25159.5, Health and Safety Code; 40 CFR Section264.176.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-91; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
§ 66264.177. Special Requirements for Incompatible
Wastes.
(a) Incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials (see
Appendix V for examples), shall not be placed in the same container, un-
less section 66264.17(b) is complied with.
(b) Hazardous waste shall not be placed in an unwashed container that
previously held an incompatible waste or material.
(c) A container holding a hazardous waste that is incompatible with
any waste or other materials transferred or stored nearby in other contain-
ers, piles, open tanks, or surface impoundments shall be separated from
the other materials or protected from them by means of adike, berm, wall,
or other device.
NOTE- Authority cited: Sections 208,25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25159 and 25159.5, Health and Safety Code; 40 CFR Section
264.177.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-91; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
§ 66264.178. Closure.
At closure, all hazardous waste and hazardous waste residues shall be
removed from the containment system. Remaining containers, liners,
bases, and soil containing or contaminated with hazardous waste or haz-
ardous waste residues shall be decontaminated or removed. At closure,
as throughout the operating period, unless the owner or operator can dem-
onstrate in accordance with section 66261.3(e) of this division that the
solid waste removed from the containment system is not a hazardous
waste, the owner or operator becomes a generator of hazardous waste and
shall manage it in accordance with all applicable requirements of chap-
ters 12 through 16 of this division.
NOTE- Authority cited: Sections 208,25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25159,25159.5 and 25245, Health and Safety Code; 40 CFR
Section 264.178.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-91; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
Article 10. Tank Systems
§ 66264.190. Applicability.
The requirements of this article apply to owners and operators of facili-
ties that use tank systems for transferring, storing or treating hazardous
waste except as otherwise provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this sec-
tion or in section 66264.1 of this chapter.
(a) Tank systems that are used to transfer, store or treat hazardous
waste which contains no free liquids and are situated inside a building
with an impermeable floor are exempted from the requirements in section
66264.193. To demonstrate the absence or presence of free liquids in the
transferred/stored/treated waste, EPA Method 9095 (Paint Filter Liquids
Test) as described in 'Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physi-
cal/Chemical Methods" (EPA Publication No. SW-846 Third Edition,
November 1986) shall be used.
(b) Tank systems, including sumps, as defined in section 66260.10,
that serve as part of a secondary containment system to collect orcontain
releases of hazardous wastes are exempted from the requirements in sec-
tion 66264.193(a) of this article.
NOTE- Authority cited: Sections 208,25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25159 and 25159.5, Health and Safety Code; 40 CFR Section
264.190.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-91; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
§ 66264.191. Assessment of Existing Tank System's
Integrity.
(a) Tanks shall have sufficient shell strength and, for closed tanks,
pressure controls (e.g., vents) to assure that they do not collapse or rup-
ture. The Department will review the design of the tanks, including the
foundation, structural support, seams and pressure controls and seismic
considerations. The Department shall require that a minimum shell thick-
ness be maintained at all times to ensure sufficient shell strength. Factors
to be considered in establishing minimum thickness include the width,
height and materials of construction of the tank, and the specific gravity
of the waste which will be placed in the tank. In reviewing the design of
the tank and approving a minimum thickness, the Department shall rely
upon appropriate industrial design standards and other available infor-
mation.
(b) For each tank system which was in existence on or before July 14,
1986, that does not have secondary containment meeting the require-
ments of section 66264.193, the owner or operator shall determine that
the tank system is not leaking or is unfit for use. Except as provided in
subsection (d) of this section, and in addition to the requirements of sub-
section (f) of this section, the owner or operator shall obtain and keep on
file at the facility a written assessment reviewed and certified by an inde-
pendent, qualified professional engineer, registered in California, in ac-
cordance with section 66270.1 l(d), that attests to the tank system's integ-
rity by the dates indicated below:
(1) January 12, 1988, for tanks containing RCRA hazardous wastes,
unless the owner/operator is a conditionally exempt small quantity gener-
ator as defined in 40 CFR section 261.5, or is a 100 to 1000 kg per month
generator as defined in 40 CFR section 265.201; or
Page 748
Tide 22 Environmental Health Standards—Hazardous Waste § 66264.192
(2) July 1, 1992, for tanks containing only non-RCRA hazardous
wastes, and tanks containing RCRA hazardous wastes, if the owner/oper-
ator is a conditionally exempt small quantity generator or is a 100 to 1000
kg per month generator.
(c) This assessment shall determine that the tank system is adequately
designed and has sufficient structural strength and compatibility with the
waste(s) to be transferred, stored or treated, to ensure that it will not col-
lapse, rupture, or fail. At a minimum, this assessment shall consider the
following:
(1) design standard(s), if available, according to which the tank and an-
cillary equipment were constructed;
(2) hazardous characteristics of the waste(s) that have he'en and will
be handled;
(3) existing corrosion protection measures;
(4) documented age of the tank system, if available (otherwise, an esti-
mate of the age);
(5) results of a leakiest, internal inspection, or other tank integrity ex-
amination such that
(A) fornon-enterable underground tanks, the assessment shall include
a leak test that is capable of taking into account the effects of temperature
variations, tank end deflection, vapor pockets, and high water table ef-
fects, and
(B) for other than non—enterable underground tanks and for ancillary
equipment, this assessment shall include either a leak test, as described
above, or other integrity examination, that is certified by an independent,
qualified, professional engineer, registered in California, in accordance
with section 66270. ll(d), that addresses cracks, leaks, corrosion, and
erosion; and
(6) those design requirements and factors listed in subsection (a) of this
section.
(d) For tank systems that transfer, store or treat materials that become
hazardous wastes subsequent to the dates indicated below, this asses-
sment shall be conducted within 12 months after the date that the waste
becomes a hazardous waste:
(1) July 14,1986, for tanks containing RCRA hazardous wastes, un-
less the owner/operator is a conditionally exempt small quantity genera-
tor as defined in 40 CFR section 261.5, or is a 100 to 1000 kg per month
generator as defined in 40 CFR section 265.201; or
(2) July 1,1991, for
(A) tanks containing only non—RCRA hazardous wastes, and
(B) tanks containing RCRA hazardous wastes, if the owner/operator
is a conditionally exempt small quantity generator or is a 100 to 1000 kg
per month generator.
(e) If, as a result of the assessment conducted in accordance with sub-
section (b) of this section, a tank system is found to be leaking or unfit
for use, the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of sec-
tion 66264.196.
(f) Owners or operators of all existing tank systems shall submit to the
Department with Part B of the application for a hazardous waste facility
permit, a written statement, signed by an independent, qualified profes-
sional engineer, registered in California, in accordance with section
66270.11 (d), attesting that the tanks and containment system are suitably
designed to achieve the requirements of this article.
Nora Authority cited: Sections 208,25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25159 and 25159.5, Health and Safety Code; 40 CFR Section
264.191.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-91; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
§ 66264.192. Design and Installation of New Tank Systems
or Components.
(a) Tanks shall have sufficient shell strength and, for closed tanks,
pressure controls (e.g., vents) to assure that they do not collapse or rup-
ture. The Department will review the design of the tanks, including the
foundation, structural support, seams and pressure controls and seismic
considerations. The Department shall require that a minim urn shell thick-
ness be maintained at all times to ensure sufficient shell strength. Factors
to be considered in establishing minimum thickness include the width,
height and materials of construction of the tank, and the specific gravity
of the waste which will be placed in the tank. In reviewing the design of
the tank and approving a minimum thickness, the Department shall rely
upon appropriate industrial design standards and other available infor-
mation.
(b) Owners or operators of new tank systems or components shall ob-
tain and submit to the Department, at time of submittal of Part B informa-
tion, a written assessment, reviewed and certified by an independent, qu-
alified professional engineer, registered in California, in accordance with
section 66270.11 (d), attesting that the tank system has sufficient structur-
al integrity and is acceptable for the transferring, storing and treating of
hazardous waste and that the tanks and containment system are suitably
designed to achieve the requirements in this article. The assessment shall
show that the foundation, structural support, seams, connections, and
pressure controls (if applicable) are adequately designed and that the tank
system has sufficient structural strength, compatibility with the waste! s)
to be transferred, stored or treated, and corrosion protection to ensure that
it will not collapse, rupture, or fail. This assessment, which will be used
by the Department to review and approve or disapprove the acceptability
of the tank system design, shall also include, at a minimum, the following
information:
(1) design standard(s) according to which tank(s) and/or the ancillary
equipment are constructed;
(2) hazardous characteristics of the waste(s) to be handled;
(3) for new tank systems or components in which the external shell of
a metal tank or any external metal component of the tank system will be
in contact with the soil or with water, a determination by a corrosion ex-
pert of:
(A) factors affecting the potential for corrosion, including but not lim-
ited to:
1. soil moisture content;
2. soil pH;
3. soil sulfides level;
4. soil resistivity;
5. structure to soil potential;
6. influence of nearby underground metal structures (e.g., piping);
7. existence of stray electric current;
8. existing corrosion-protection measures (e.g., coating, cathodic pro-
tection), and
(B) the type and degree of external corrosion protection that are needed
to ensure the integrity of the tank system during the use of the tank system
or component, consisting of one or more of the following:
1. corrosion—resistant materials of construction such as special alloys,
fiberglass reinforced plastic, etc.;
2. corrosion—resistant coating (such asepoxy, fiberglass, etc.) with ca-
thodic protection (e.g., impressed current or sacrificial anodes); and
3. electrical isolation devices such as insulating joints, flanges, etc.;
(4) for underground tank system components that are likely to be ad-
versely affected by vehicular traffic, a determination of design or opera-
tional measures that will protect the tank system against potential dam-
age;
(5) design considerations to ensure that:
(A) tank foundations will maintain the load of a full tank;
(B) tank systems will be anchored to prevent flotation or dislodgment
where the tank system is placed in a saturated zone, or is located within
a seismic fault zone subject to the standards of section 66264.18(a); and
(C) tank systems will withstand the effects of frost heave; and
(6) those design requirements and factors listed in subsection (a) of this
section.
(c) The owner or operator of a new tank system shall ensure that proper
handling procedures are adhered to in order to prevent damage to the sys-
tem during installation. Prior to covering, enclosing, or placing a new
tank system or component in use, an independent, qualified installation
inspector or an independent, qualified, professional engineer, registered
Page 749 Regiawr 91. No. 21 5-31-91
§ 66264.193 BARCLAYS CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS Title 22
in California, either of whom is trained and experienced in the proper in-
stallation of tank systems or components, shall inspect the system for the
presence of any of the following items:
(1) weld breaks;
(2) punctures;
(3) scrapes of protective coatings;
(4) cracks;
(5) corrosion;
(6) other structural damage or inadequate construction/installation.
All discrepancies shall be remedied before the tank system is covered,
enclosed, or placed in use.
(d) New tank systems or components that are placed underground and
that are back filled shall be provided with a backfill material that is a non-
corrosive, porous, homogeneous substance and that is installed so that the
backfill is placed completely around the tank and compacted to ensure
that the tank and piping are fully and uniformly supported.
(e) All new tanks and ancillary equipment shall be tested for tightness
prior to being covered, enclosed, or placed in use. If a tank system is
found not to be tight, all repairs necessary to remedy the leak(s) in the sys-
tem shall be performed prior to the tank system being covered, enclosed,
or placed into use.
(f) Ancillary equipment shall be supported and protected against phys-
ical damage and excessive stress due to settlement, vibration, expansion,
or contraction.
(g) The owner or operator shall provide the type and degree of corro-
sion protection recommended by an independent corrosion expert, based
on the information provided under subsection (b)(3) of this section, or
other corrosion protection if the Department believes other corrosion
protection is necessary to ensure the integrity of the tank system during
use of the tank system. The installation of a corrosion protection system
that is field fabricated shall be supervised by an independent corrosion
expert to ensure proper installation.
(h) The owner or operator shall obtain and keep on file at the facility
written statements by those persons required to certify the design of the
tank system and supervise the installation of the tank system in accor-
dance with the requirements of subsections (c) through (g) of this section,
that attest that the tank system was properly designed and installed and
that repairs, pursuant to subsections (c) and (e) of this section, were per-
formed. These written statements shall also include the certification
statement as required in section 66270.1 l(d) of this division.
NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 208, 25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25159 and 25159.5, Health and Safety Code; 40 CFR Section
264.192.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-91; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
i § 66264."193t containment and Detection of Releases.
(a) In orderto prevent the release of hazardous waste or hazardous con-
stituents to the environment, secondary containment that meets the re-
quirements of this section shall be provided (except as provided in sub-
sections (f) and (g) of this section):
(1) for all new tank systems or components, prior to their being put into
service;
sJ2"Xfor all tank systems which were in existence on or before July 14,
198of which have been used to transfer, store or treat EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022, F023, F026 and F027, within two years
after the dates indicated below:
(A) January 12,1987, for tanks containing RCRA hazardous wastes,
unless the owner/operatoris a conditionally exempt small quantity gener-
ator as defined in 40 CFR section 261.5, or is a 100 to 1,000 kg per month
generator as defined in 40 CFR section 265.201; or
(B)July 1, 1991, for tanks containing RCRA hazardous wastes, if the
owner/operator is a conditionally exempt small quantity generator or is
a 100 to 1,000 kg per month generator,
(3) for those tank systems of known and documented age, which were
in existence on or before July 14, 1986, within two years after the dates
indicated below or when the tank system has reached 15 years of age,
whichever comes later:
(A) January 12, 1987, for tanks containing RCRA hazardous wastes,
unless the owner/operator is a conditionally exempt small quantity gener-
ator as defined in 40 CFR section 261.5, or is a 100 to 1,000 kg per month
generator as defined in 40 CFR section 265.201; or
(B) July 1, 1991, for tanks containing only non-RCRA hazardous
wastes, and tanks containing RCRA hazardous wastes, if the owner/oper-
ator isaconditionallyexemptsmallquantity generator orisa lOOto 1,000
kg per month generator,
(4) for those existing tank systems which were in existence on or be-
fore July 14,1986, containing RCRA hazardous wastes (unless the ow-
ner/operator is a conditionally exempt small quantity generator as de-
fined in 40 CFR section 261.5, or is a 100 to 1,000 kg permonth generator
as defined in 40 CFR section 265.201) for which the age cannot be docu-
mented, within 8 years of January 12, 1987; but if the age of the facility
is greater than 7 years as of January 12, 1987, secondary containment
shall be provided by the time the facility reaches 15 years of age, or within
2 years of January 12, 1987, whichever comes later,
(5) for those tank systems which are in existence on or before July 1,
1991, containing only non-RCRA hazardous wastes (and for those con-
taining RCRA hazardous wastes, if the owner/operatoris a conditionally
exempt small quantity generator or is a 100 to 1,000 kg per month genera-
tor) for which the age cannot be documented, within 8 years from July
1, 1991; but if the age of the facility is greater than 7 years as of July 1,
1991, secondary containment shall be provided by the time the facility
reaches 15 years of age, or within 2 years from July 1,1991, whichever
comes later, and
(6) for tank systems that transfer, store or treat materials that become
hazardous wastes subsequent to the dates indicated below, within the
time intervals required in subsections (a)( 1) through (a)(5) of this section,
except that the date that a material becomes a hazardous waste shall be
used in place of the dates indicated below:
(A) January 12, 1987, for tanks containing RCRA hazardous wastes,
unless the owner/operator is a conditionally exempt small quantity gener-
ator as defined in 40 CFR section 261.5, or is a 100 to 1,000 kg per month
generator as defined in 40 CFR section 265.201; or
(B) July 1, 1991, for tanks containing only non-RCRA hazardous
wastes, and tanks containing RCRA hazardous wastes, if the owner/oper-
ator is a conditionally exempt small quantity generator oris a 100 to 1,000
kg per month generator.
(b) Secondary containment systems shall be:
(1) designed, installed, and operated to prevent any migration of
wastes or accumulated liquid out of the system to the soil, groundwater
or surface water at any time during the use of the tank system; and
(2) capable of detecting and collecting releases and accumulated liq-
uids until the collected material is removed.
(c) To meet the requirements of subsection (b) of this section, second-
ary containment systems shall be at a minimum-
(1) constructed of or lined with materials that are compatible with the
wastes(s) to be placed in the tank system and shall have sufficient
strength and thickness to prevent failure owing to pressure gradients (in-
cluding static head and external hydrological forces), physical contact
with the waste to which it is exposed, climatic conditions and the stress
of daily operation (including stresses from nearby vehicular traffic);
(2) provided with a foundation or base underlying the tanks capable of
providing support to the secondary containment system, resistance to
pressure gradients above and below the system and capable of preventing
failure due to settlement, compression or uplift. This base shaU be free
of cracks or gaps and sufficiently impervious to contain leaks, spills and
accumulated precipitation until the collected material is detected and re-
moved;
(3) provided with a leak-detection system that is designed and oper-
ated so that it will detect the failure of either the primary or secondary
containment structure or the presence of any release of hazardous waste
Page 750 Register?!. No. 21 5-31-91
Title 22 Environmental Health Standards—Hazardous Waste § 66264.193
or accumulated liquid in the secondary containment system within 24
hours, or at the earliest practicable time if the owner or operator can dem-
onstrate to the Department that existing detection technologies or site
conditions will not allow detection of a release within 24 hours; and
(4) sloped or otherwise designed or operated to drain and remove liq-
uids resulting from leaks, spills or precipitation. Spilled or leaked waste
and accumulated precipitation shall be removed from the secondary con-
tainment system within as timely a manner as is necessary to prevent
overflow of the containment system, but within no more than 24 hours,
or in as timely a manner as possible to prevent harm to human health and
the environment, if the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Depart-
ment that removal of the released waste or accumulated precipitation
cannot be accomplished within 24 hours and that overflow of the contain-
ment system will not occur.
(A) If the collected material is a hazardous waste under chapter 11 of
this division, it shall be managed as a hazardous waste in accordance with
all applicable requirements of chapters 12 through 15 of this division.
(B) If the collected material is discharged through a point source to wa-
/ ters of the United States, the owner or operator shall comply with the re-
quirements of sections 301,304, and 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
as amended (33 U.S.C. sections 1311, 1314 and 1342, respectively).
(C) If the collected material is discharged to a Publicly Owned Treat-
ment Works (POTW), the owner or operator shall comply with the re-
• quirements of section 307 of the Federal Clean Water Act, as amended
(33 U.S.C. section 1317).
(D) If the collected material is released to the environment, the owner
or operator shall comply with the applicable reporting requirements of
Title 40 CFR Part 302.'
(d) Secondary containment for tanks shall include one or more of the
following devices:
(1) a liner (external to the tank);
(2) a vault;
(3) a double-walled tank; or
(4) an equivalent device as approved by the Department.
(e) In addition to the requirements of subsections (b), (c) and (d) of this
section, secondary containment systems shall satisfy the following re-
quirements.
(1) External liner systems shall be:
(A) designed or operated to contain precipitation from a 24-hour,
25-year storm event plus the greater of 10 percent of the aggregate vol-
ume of all tanks or 100 percent of the capacity of the largest tank within
its boundary, whichever is greater,
(B) designed or operated to prevent run—on and infiltration of precipi-
tation into the secondary containment system unless the collection sys-
tem has sufficient excess capacity, in addition to that required in subsec-
tion (e)(l )(A) of this section, to contain run-on and infiltration from a
25-year, 24-hour rainfall event;
(C) free of cracks or gaps; and
(D) designed and installed to surround the tank completely and to cov-
er all surrounding earth likely to come into contact with the waste if the
waste is released from the tank(s) (i.e., capable of preventing lateral as
well as vertical migration of the waste).
\J (2) Vault systems shall be:
(A) designed or operated to contain precipitation from a 24—hour,
25-year storm event plus the greater of 10 percent of the aggregate vol-
ume of all tanks or 100 percent of the capacity of the largest tank within
its boundary, whichever is greater,
(B) designed or operated to prevent run—on and infiltration of precipi-
tation into the secondary containment system unless the collection sys-
tem has sufficient excess capacity, in addition to that required in subsec-
tion (e)(2)(A) of this section, to contain run-on and infiltration from a
25-year, 24-hour rainfall event;
(C) constructed with chemical-resistant water stops in place at all
joints (if any);
(D) provided with an impermeable interior coating or lining that is
compatible with the waste being transferred, stored or treated and that
will prevent migration of waste into the concrete;
(E) provided with a means to protect against the formation of and igni-
tion of vapors within the vault, if the waste being transferred, stored or
treated:
1. meets the definition of ignitable waste under section 66261.21 of
this division; or
2. meets the definition of reactive waste under section 66261.23 of this
division, and may form an ignitable or explosive vapor, and
(F) provided with an exterior moisture barrier or be otherwise de-
signed or operated to prevent migration of moisture into the vault if the
vault is subject to hydraulic pressure.
(3) Double-walled tanks shall be:
(A) designed an integral structure (i.e., an innertankcompletely envel-
oped within an outer shell) so that any release from the inner tank is con-
tained by the outer shell;
(B) protected, if constructed of metal, from both corrosion of the pri-
mary tank interior and of the external surface of the outer shell; and
(C) provided with a built-in continuous leak detection system capable
of detecting a release within 24 hours, or at the earliest practicable time,
if the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Department, and the De-
partment concludes, that the existing detection technology or site condi-
tions would not allow detection of a release within 24 hours.
(f) Ancillary equipment shall be provided with secondary containment
(e.g., trench, jacketing, double-walled piping) that meets the require-
ments of subsections (b) and (c) of this section except for:
(1) aboveground piping (exclusive of flanges,joints, valves and other
connections) that are visually inspected for leaks on a daily basis;
(2) welded flanges, welded joints and welded connections, that are vi-
sually inspected for leaks on a daily basis;
(3) sealless or magnetic coupling pumps and sealless valves, that are
visually inspected for leaks on a daily basis; and
(4) pressurized aboveground piping systems with automatic shut-off
devices (e.g., excess flow check valves, flow metering shutdown devices,
loss of pressure actuated shut-off devices) that are visually inspected for
leaks on a daily basis.
(g) The owner or operator may obtain a variance from the require-
ments of this section for existing above-ground tanks in place, if the De-
partment finds, as a result of a demonstration by the owner or operator
that alternative design and operating practices, together with location
characteristics, will prevent the migration of any hazardous waste or haz-
ardous constituents into the groundwater or surface water at least as ef-
fectively as secondary containment during the active life of the tank sys-
tem, or that in the event of a release that does migrate to groundwater or
surface water, no substantial present or potential hazard will be posed to
human health or the environment. New underground tank systems may
not, per a demonstration in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of this sec-
tion, be exempted from the secondary containment requirements of this
section.
(1) In deciding whether to grant a variance based on a demonstration
of equivalent protection of groundwater and surface water, the Depart-
ment will consider
(A) the nature and quantity of the wastes;
(B) the proposed alternate design and operation;
(C) the hydrogeologic setting of the facility, including the thickness of
soils present between the tank system and groundwater, and
(D) all other factors that would influence the quality and mobility of
the hazardous constituents and the potential for them to migrate to
groundwater or surface water.
(2) In deciding whether to grant a variance based on a demonstration
of no substantial present or potential hazard, the Department will consid-
er.
Page 751 91. No. 21 5-31 -91
§ 66264.193 BARCLAYS CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS Title 22
(A) the potential adverse effects on groundwater, surface water and
land quality taking into account:
1. the physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the tank
system, including its potential for migration;
2. the hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surrounding
land,
3. the potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste
constituents,
4. the potential for damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation and physical
structures caused by exposure to waste constituents, and
5. the persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects;
(B) the potential adverse effects of a release on groundwater quality,
taking into account:
1. the quantity and quality of groundwater and the direction of ground-
water flow;
2. the proximity and withdrawal rates of groundwater users;
3. the current and future uses of groundwater in the area; and
4. the existing quality of groundwater, including other sources of con-
tamination and their cumulative impact on the groundwater quality,
(C) the potential adverse effects of a release on surface water quality,
taking into account:
1. the quantity and quality of groundwater and the direction of ground-
water flow;
2. the patterns of rainfall in the region;
3. the proximity of the tank system to surface waters;
4. the current and future uses of surface waters in the area and any wa-
ter quality standards established for those surface waters; and
5. the existing quality of surface water, including other sources of con-
tamination and the cumulative impact on surface water quality; and
(D) the potential adverse effects of a release on the land surrounding
the tank system, taking into account:
1. the patterns of rainfall in the region; and
2. the current and future uses of the surrounding land.
(3) The owner or operator of a tank system, for which a variance from
secondary containment has been granted in accordance with the require-
ments of subsection (g)( 1) of this section, at which a release of hazardous
waste has occurred from the primary tank system but has not migrated
beyond the zone of engineering control (as established in the variance),
shall:
(A) comply with the requirements of section 66264.196, except sub-
section (b)(5); and
(B) decontaminate or remove contaminated soil to the extent neces-
sary to:
1. enable the tank system for which the variance was granted to resume
operation with the capability for the detection of releases at least equiva-
lent to the capability it had prior to the release; and
2. prevent the migration of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents
to groundwater or surface water, and
(C) if contaminated soil cannot be removed or decontaminated in ac-
cordance with subsection (g)(3)(B) of this section, comply with the re-
quirements of section 66264.197(b).
(4) The owner or operator of a tank system, for which a variance from
secondary containment has been granted in accordance with the require-
ments of subsection (g)( 1) of this section, at which a release of hazardous
waste has occurred from the primary tank system and has migrated be-
yond the zone of engineering control (as established in the variance),
shall:
(A) comply with the requirements of section 66264.196(b); and
(B) prevent the migration of hazardous waste or hazardous constitu-
ents to groundwater or surface water, if possible, and decontaminate or
remove contaminated soil. If contaminated soil cannot be decontami-
nated or removed or if groundwater has been contaminated, the owner or
operator shall comply with the requirements of section 66264.197(b);
and
(C) if repairing, replacing or reinstalling the tank system, provide sec-
ondary containment in accordance with the requirements of subsections
(a) through (f) of this section or reapply for a variance from secondary
containment and meet the requirements for new tank systems in section
66264.192 if the tank system is replaced. The owner or operator shall
comply with these requirements even if contaminated soil can be decon-
taminated or removed and groundwater or surface water has not been
contaminated.
(h) The following procedures shall be followed in order to request a
variance from secondary containment
(1) The Department shall be notified in writing by the owner or opera-
tor that the facility intends to conduct and submit a demonstration for a
variance from secondary containment as allowed in subsection (g) of this
section at least 24 months prior to the date that secondary containment
is required to be provided in accordance with subsection (a) of this sec-
tion. Additionally, if a variance is sought from the requirements of sec-
tion 66264.193(i)(l), to the extent allowed under subsection (i) of this
section, the demonstration shall be submitted to the Department with Part
B of the permit application.
(2) As part of the notification, the owner or operator shall also submit
to the Department a description of the steps necessary to conduct the
demonstration and a timetable for completing each of the steps. The dem-
onstration shall address each of the factors listed in subsection (g)(l) or
subsection (g)(2) of this section.
(3) The demonstration for a variance shall be completed within 180
days after notifying the Department of an intent to conduct the demon-
stration.
(4) If a variance is granted under this subsection, the Department will
require the permittee to construct and operate the tank system in the man-
ner that was demonstrated to meet the requirements for the variance.
(i) All tank systems, until such time as secondary containment that
meets the requirements of this section is provided, shall comply with the
following:
(1) subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (e)(l)(A) or (e)(2)(A) (except for tanks
that do not contain free liquids), and (e)(l)(B) or (e)(2)(B);
(2) for nonenterable underground tanks, a leak test that meets the re-
quirements of section 66264.191 (c)(5) or other tank integrity method, as
approved or required by the Department, shall be conducted at least annu-
ally;
(3) for other than nonenterable underground tanks, the owner or opera-
tor shall either conduct a leak test as in subsection (i)(2) of this section
or develop a schedule and procedure for an assessment of the overall con-
dition of the tank system by an independent, qualified professional engi-
neer, registered in California, in accordance with section 66270.1 l(d).
The schedule and procedure shall be adequate to detect obvious cracks,
leaks, and corrosion or erosion that may lead to cracks and leaks. The
owner or operator shall remove the stored waste from the tank, if neces-
sary, to allow the condition of all internal tank surfaces to be assessed.
The frequency of these assessments shall be based on the material of con-
struction of the tank and its ancillary equipment, the age of the system,
the type of corrosion or erosion protection used, the rate of corrosion or
erosion observed during the previous inspection and the characteristics
of the waste being stored or treated;
(4) for ancillary equipment, a leak test or other integrity assessment as
approved by the Department shall be conducted at least annually;
(5) the owner or operator shall maintain on file at the facility a record
of the results of the assessments conducted in accordance with subsec-
tions (i)(2) through (i)(4) of this section;
(6) if a tank system or component is found to be leaking or unfit for use
as a result of the leak test or assessment in subsections (i)(2) through
(i)(4) of this section, the owner or operator shall comply with the require-
ments of section 66264.196.
Page 752
Title 22 Environmental Health Standards—Hazardous Waste § 66264.196
NOTE.- Authority cited: Sections 208,25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25159 and 25159.5, Health and Safety Code; 40 CFR Section
264.193.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-91; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
§ 66264.194. General Operating Requirements.
(a) Hazardous wastes or other materials (e.g., treatment reagents) shall
not be placed in a tank system if they could cause the tank, its ancillary
equipment or the containment system to rupture, leak, corrode, or other-
wise fail.
(b) The owner or operator shall use appropriate controls and practices
to prevent spills and overflows from tank or containment systems. These
include at a minimum:
(1) spill prevention controls (e.g., check valves, dry disconnect cou-
plings);
(2) overfill prevention controls (e.g., level sensing devices, high level
alarms, automatic feed cutoff, or bypass to a standby tank); and
(3) maintenance of sufficient freeboard in uncovered tanks to prevent
overtopping by wave or wind action or by precipitation from at least a
24-hour, 25-year storm.
(c) The owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of sec-
tion 66264.196 if a leak or spill occurs in the tank system.
NOT& Authority cited: Sections 208,25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25159 and 25159.5, Health and Safety Code; 40 CFR Section
264.194.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-91; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
§ 66264.195. Inspections.
(a) The owner or operator shall develop and follow a schedule and pro-
cedure for inspecting overfill controls and shall inspect the overfill con-
trols at least once each operating day to ensure that they are in good work-
ing order.
(b) The owner or operator shall inspect at least once each operating
day.
(1) aboveground portions of the tank system, if any, to detect corrosion
or releases of waste;
(2) data gathered from monitoring and leak detection equipment (e.g.,
pressure or temperature gauges, monitoring wells) to ensure that the tank
system is being operated according to its design; and
(3) the construction materials and the area immediately surrounding
the externally accessible portion of the tank system, including the sec-
ondary containment system (e.g., dikes) to detect corrosion, erosion or
signs of releases of hazardous waste (e.g., wet spots, dead vegetation);
(4) for uncovered tanks, the level of waste in the tank, to ensure com-
pliance with section 66264.194(b)(3).
(c) The owner or operator shall inspect cathodic protection systems,
if present, according to, at a minimum, the following schedule to ensure
that they are functioning properly.
(1) The proper operation of the cathodic protection system shall be
confirmed within six months after initial installation and annually there-
after.
(2) All sources of impressed current shall be inspected and/or tested,
as appropriate, at least bimonthly (i.e., every other month).
(d) The owner or operator shall document in the operating record of
the facility an inspection of those items in subsections (a) through (c) of
this section.
(e) As part of the inspection schedule required in section 66264.15(b),
and in addition to the specific requirements of subsection (a) of this sec-
tion, the owner or operator shall develop a schedule and procedure for as-
sessing the condition of the tank. The schedule and procedure shall be ad-
equate to detect cracks, leaks, corrosion or erosion which may lead to
cracks or leaks, or wall thinning to less than the thickness required under
section 66264.191 (a). Procedures for emptying a tank to allow entry and
inspection of the interior shall be established, when necessary, to detect
corrosion or erosion of the tank sides and bottom. The frequency of these
assessments shall be based on the material of construction of the tank,
type of corrosion or erosion observed during previous inspections and the
characteristics of the waste being transferred, treated or stored.
NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 208,25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25159 and 25159.5, Health and Safety Code; 40 CFR Section
264.195.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-91; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
§ 66264.196. Response to Leaks or Spills and Disposition
of Leaking or Unfit-for-Use Tank Systems.
(a) As part of the contingency plan required under this chapter, the
owner or operator shall specify the procedures the facility intends to use
to respond to tank spills or leakage, including procedures and timing for
expeditious removal of leaked or spilled waste and repair of the tank.
(b) A tank system or secondary containment system from which there
has been a leak or spill, or which is unfit for use, shall be removed from
service immediately, and the owner or operator shall satisfy the following
requirements.
(1) General emergency procedures. The owner or operator shall com-
ply with applicable requirements of section 66264.56 of this division.
(2) Cessation of use; prevention of flow or addition of wastes. The
owner or operator shall immediately stop the flow of hazardous waste
into the tank system or secondary containment system and inspect the
system to determine the cause of the release.
(3) Removal of waste from tank system or secondary containment sys-
tem.
(A) If the release was from the tank system, the owner/operator shall,
within 24 hours after detection of the leak or, if the owner/operator dem-
onstrates that it is not possible, at the earliest practicable time, remove as
much of the waste as is necessary to prevent further release of hazardous
waste to the environment and to allow inspection and repair of the tank
system to be performed.
(B) If the material released was to a secondary containment system,
all released materials shall be removed within as timely a manner as is
necessary to prevent overflow of the containment system, but within no
more than 24 hours, or in as timely amanner as is possible to prevent harm
to human health and the environment if the owner or operator provides
the demonstration required by section 66264.193(c)(4).
(4) Containment of visible releases to the environment. The owner/op-
erator shall immediately conduct a visual inspection of the release and,
based upon that inspection:
(A) prevent further migration of the leak or spill to soils or surface wa-
ter, and
(B) remove, and properly dispose of, any visible contamination of the
soil or surface water.
(5) Notifications, reports.
(A) Any release to the environment, except as provided in subsection
(b)(5)(B) of this section, shall be reported to the Department within 24
hours of its detection.
(B) A leak or spill of hazardous waste is exempted from the require-
ments of subsection (b)(5) of this section, but is not exempt from the re-
quirements of section 66264.56, if it is:
1. less than or equal to a quantity of one (1) pound, and
2. immediately contained and cleaned up.
(C) Within 30 days of detection of a release to the environment, a re-
port containing the following information shall be submitted to the De-
partment
1. likely route of migration of the release;
2. characteristics of the surrounding soil (soil composition, geology,
hydrogeology, climate);
3. results of any monitoring or sampling conducted in connection with
the release (if available). If sampling or monitoring data relating to the
release are not available within 30 days, these data shall be submitted to
the Department as soon as they become available;
4. proximity to downgradient drinking water, surface water, and popu-
lated areas; and
5. description of response actions taken or planned.
Page 753 Register?). No. 21 5-31-91
§ 66264.197 BARCLAYS CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS Title 22
(6) Provision of secondary containment, repair, or closure.
(A) Unless the owner/operator satisfies the requirements of subsec-
tions (b)(6)(B) through (D) of this section, the tank system shall be closed
in accordance with section 66264.197.
(B) If the cause of the release was a spill that has not damaged the integ-
rity of the system, the owner/operator may return the system to service
as soon as the released waste is removed and repairs, if necessary, are
made.
(C) If the cause of the release was a leak from the primary tank system
into the secondary containment system, the system shall be repaired prior
to returning the tank system to service. . •
(D) If the source of the release was a leak to the environment from a
component of a tank system without secondary containment, the owner/
operator shall provide the component of the system from which the leak
occurred with secondary containment that satisfies the requirements of
section 66264.193 before it can be returned to service, unless the source
of the leak is an aboveground portion of a tank system that can be in-
spected visually. If the source is an aboveground component that can be
inspected visually, the component shall be repaired and may be returned
to service without secondary containment as long as the requirements of
subsection (b)(7) of this section are satisfied. If a component is replaced
to comply with the requirements of this subsection, that component shall
satisfy the requirements for new tank systems or components in sections
66264.192 and 66264.193. Additionally, if a leakhas occurred in any por-
tion of a tank system component that is not readily accessible for visual
inspection (e.g., the bottom of an inground or onground tank), the entire
component shall be provided with secondary containment in accordance
with section 66264.193 prior to being returned to use.
(7) Certification of major repairs. If the owner/operator has repaired
a tank system in accordance with subsection (b)(6) of this section, and the
repair has been extensive (e.g., installation of an internal liner, repair of
a ruptured primary containment or secondary containment vessel), the
tank system shall not be returned to service unless the owner/operator has
obtained a certification by an independent, qualified, professional engi-
neer, registered in California, in accordance with section 66270. ll(d),
that the repaired system is capable of handling hazardous wastes without
release for the intended life of the system. This certification shall be sub-
mitted to the Department within seven days after returning the tank sys-
tem to use.
NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 208, 25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25159 and 25159.5, Health and Safety Code; 40 CFR Section
264.196.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-9!; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
§ 66264.197. Closure and Post-Closure Care.
(a) At closure of a tank system, the owner or operator shall remove or
decontaminate all waste residues, contaminated containment system
components (liners, etc.), contaminated soils, and structures and equip-
ment contaminated with waste, and manage them as hazardous waste, un-
less section 66261.3(e) of this division applies. The closure plan, closure
activities, cost estimates forclosure, and financial responsibility for tank
systems shall meet all of the requirements specified in articles 7 and 8 of
this chapter.
(b) If the owner or operator demonstrates that not all contaminated
soils can be practicably removed or decontaminated as required in sub-
section (a) of this section, then the owner or operator shall close the tank
system and perform post-closure care in accordance with the closure and
post-closure care requirements that apply to landfills section 66264.310.
In addition, for the purposes of closure, post-closure, and Financial re-
sponsibility, such a tank system is then considered to be a landfill, and
the owner or operator shall meet all of the requirements for landfills spe-
cified in articles 7 and 8 of this chapter.
(c) If an owner or operator has a tank system that does not have second-
ary containment that meets the requirements of section 66264.193(b)
through (f) and has not been granted a variance from the secondary con-
tainment requirements in accordance with section 66264.193(g), then:
(1) the closure plan for the tank system shall include both a plan for
complying with subsection (a) of this section and a contingent plan for
complying with subsection (b) of this section;
(2) a contingent post-closure plan for complying with subsection (b)
of this section shall be prepared and submitted as part of the permit appli-
cation;
(3) the cost estimates calculated for closure and post-closure care shall
reflect the costs of complying with the contingent closure plan and the
contingent post-closure plan, if those costs are greater than the costs of
complying with the closure plan prepared for the expected closure under
subsection la) of this section;
(4) financial assurance shall be based on the cost estimates in subsec-
tion (c)(3) of this section;
(5) for the purposes of the contingent closure and post-closure plans,
such a tank system is considered to be a landfill, and the contingent plans
shall meet all of the closure, post-closure, and financial responsibility re-
quirements for landfills under articles 7 and 8 of this chapter.
NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 208,25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25159 and 25159.5, Health and Safety Code; 40 CFR Section
264.197.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-91; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
§ 66264.198. Special Requirements for Ignitable or
Reactive Wastes.
(a) Ignitable or reactive waste shall not be placed in tank systems, un-
less:
(1) the waste is treated, rendered, or mixed before or immediately after
placement in the tank system so that
(A) the resulting waste, mixture, or dissolved material no longer meets
the definition of ignitable or reactive waste under sections 66261.21 or
66261.23 of this division, and
(B) section 66264.17(b) is complied with; or
(2) the waste is transferred, stored or treated in such a way that it is pro-
tected from any material or conditions that may cause the waste to ignite
or react; or
(3) the tank system is used solely for emergencies.
(b) The owner or operator of a facility where ignitable or reactive
waste is transferred, stored or treated in a tank shall comply with the re-
quirements for the maintenance of protective distances between the
waste management area and any public ways, streets, alleys, or an adjoin-
ing property line that can be built upon as required in Tables 2-1 through
2-6 of the National Fire Protection Association' s "Flammable and Com-
bustible Liquids Code," (1981), (incorporated by reference, see section
66260.11).
NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 208,25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25159 and 25159.5, Health and Code; 40 CFR Section
264.198.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-91; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
§ 66264.199. Special Requirements for Incompatible
Wastes.
(a) Incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials, shall
not be placed in the same tank system, unless section 66264.17(b) is com-
plied with.
(b) Hazardous waste shall not be placed in a tank system that has not
been decontaminated and that previously held an incompatible waste or
material, unless section 66264.17(b) is complied with.
NOTE Authority cited: Sections 208,25150 and 25159, Health and Safety Code.
Reference: Sections 25159 and 25159.5, Health and Safety Code; 40CFR Section
264.199.
HISTORY
1. New section filed 5-24-91; operative 7-1-91 (Register 91, No. 22).
Page 754 Reshttr91. No. 215-31-91
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
April 30, 1992
Mr. Thomas G. Acuna
Land Planner
San Diego Gas & Electric
P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112-4150
SUBJECT: SDG&E MULCHYARD PROPOSAL FOR ENCINA POWER PLANT
Dear Mr. Acuna:
City staff has reviewed your proposal for SDG&E to operate a Mulchyard at its Encina
Power Plant to determine what permits would be necessary. We agree that the proposed
use has many benefits. In addition, the location you propose for the use would appear
to prevent adjacent properties from being impacted by noise or dust generated by the
grinder.
Specific Plan 144 for the SDG&E Encina Power Plant and the numerous amendments
approved to the plan have been reviewed. The proposed use was not considered in the
Specific Plan. We have determined that a Minor Amendment to Specific Plan 144 would
be required to be approved to permit the Mulchyard proposal. This determination is
consistent with the required Minor Amendment to the specific plan approved by the
Planning Commission on July 19, 1989 allowing the construction of six wastewater
treatment tanks and accessory facilities to replace six wastewater ponds.
This proposal could also be considered through a Precise Development Plan application
for the property which has been discussed by representatives of SDG&E and the City to
replace the existing Specific Plan. Should you have any questions regarding this
determination or the application requirements for a Minor Specific Plan Amendment I can
be reached at 438-1161, extension 4446.
Sincerely,
DON NEU
Senior Planner
c: Michael Holzmiller
Gary Wayne
Robert Green DN:lh
Mulch.Kr
2O75 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161
San Diego Gas & Electric
P.O. BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92112-4150 • 619/696-2000
April 16, 1992 FILE NO.
Mr. Don Neu
Senior Land Planner
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
SUBJECT: SDG&E MULCHYARD PROPOSAL FOR ENCINA POWER PLANT
Dear Mr. Neu:
Thank you for meeting with me this past Monday. I appreciated your candor
and cooperation. As a follow-up, I would like to use this letter to request a
written determination of what permits would be necessary for SDG&E to operate
a Mulchyard at its Encina Power Plant.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
SDG&E currently has a program to recycle tree trim material (greenwaste) into a
valuable ground cover. The greenwaste is a result of powerline maintenance.
The recycling process involves placing the greenwaste through a grinder so that it
can be reduced to a smaller size. The resulting material is then stockpiled until it
can be sold to landscape companies. The benefits of this operation are clear.
SDG&E saves by not having to pay dump fees and the local landfills benefit by
not having to provide valuable space.
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Our basic criteria for selecting a site is that it be compatible with the surrounding
uses, preferably within an industrial zone, located far enough away from
residential uses so that noise will not be a nuisance. Other specific needs and
operational characteristics are as follows:
[DNEUALTR.D16]
Mr. Don Neu
April 16, 1992
Page 2
• Processing would occur about 10 days each month between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
• Approximately 21,000 cubic yards of material would be processed
annually.
• Average daily trips into the site would be 3 ADT per day.
• The operation does not require soil amendments.
• The grinding machine is mounted to a semi-trailer bed. It is portable
and requires no building. It operates at about 73 db at 100 feet from
the source and 53 db at 500 feet.
• The resulting product is usually delivered by SDG&E, but buyers do
occasionally pick it up themselves.
• 5 to 8 acres are needed to run an efficient operation.
• The material would be stored in piles with the dimensions of 8' high x
20' wide x 60' long.
• No odors are emitted.
PROJECT PROPOSAL
Attached is an aerial photo of the power plant. The area that SDG&E is
interested in utilizing is the 5 acres outlined in orange. The site is currently
unused. The proposed operation would require no building improvements nor
grading, however, it is probable that we would seek permission to demolish the
two existing dilapidated store rooms.
In terms of land use compatibility with the surrounding uses, we feel the site is a
good choice; to the west is our power plant and the railroad; to the east is
interstate 5 and agricultural lands; to the north are plant operations; and to the
south is the unused 6 acre SDG&E tourist/commercial parcel. All of these
surrounding uses offer good noise and visual barriers. Finally, since the mulch
[DNEUALTR.D16]
Mr. Don Neu
April 16, 1992
Page 3
material is the direct result of our utility operation (tree trim material from power
line maintenance), we feel that a mulchyard operation would be consistent with
uses allowed by the site's zoning designation of public utility.
Don, I think that pretty much covers what we went over. If possible, I
would appreciate a reply by May 1, 1992. Please give me a call at 696-2496, if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
UL>0)W*4 (r-
Thomas G. Acuna
Land Planner
TGA:kmd
cc: Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director
[DNEUALTR.D16]
• *
SD6&E EXPANSION PROPOSAL
4/13/92
Welcome to the archaeology
There is nothing in(Shis fiT^ because the volume of paper and
related materials would fill this file 50-times over. Also this
was not a traditional development project and the file tabs are
inappropriate for it.
What was it about?
In December 1989, SDG&E made a surprise announcement to the City
Council that it was applying to the California Energy Commission
(CEC) to begin the process to evaluate the feasibility of
expanding the Encina Power Plant. Encina was one of five sites
to be simultaneously evaluated. This process is known as a
Notice of Intention (NOI) (to file for permit processing). The
NOI is a combined engineering review/environmental review
process. CEQA does not pertain to power plant expansions greater
than 50 MW. It is a 1-2 year process.
The City Council assigned three staff to represent the City's
interests in this NOI process: Ron Ball (Assistant City
Attorney), Jim Hagaman (Research Manager) and Dennis Turner
(Principal Planner). Although the City officially maintained a
neutral posture in the process, there was great concern that its
interests would be compromised by the expansion. Several
strategies were immediately undertaken:
1. Implement an emergency ordinance to preclude any expansion
to the facilities subject to Specific Plan 144 (the whole of
the 640 acre SDG&E ownership). This ordinance was extended
twice.
2. Hire special legal counsel and engineering/environmental
consultants to assist in effective participation in the
complex NOI process. Jackson, Tufts, Cole (Alan Thompson)
become the legal counsel; Tetra Tech became the engineering,
environmental consultant.
3. Begin studies on the "appropriateness" of the existing land
use designation and zoning of the 640 acre site, with an eye
to changing the existing Public Utilities designations.
Tetra Tech was hired to prepare an EIR evaluating a half
dozen land use alternatives. (See files GPA 90-1 and EIR
90-2 Encina Power Plant, also.)
Bottom line
After nearly two years (and the expenditure of over $200,000 by
the City and hundreds of staff hours), SDGE&E first was granted
an "indefinite continuance" for half a year, then finally
withdrew its application from the CEC. The company was working
on a new "precise plan" (Carlsbad permit) for the power plant
site as this note was written.
To begin your archaeological dig...
Each of the three assigned staff members have their own caches of
files.
In Planning:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The original NOI of SDG&E is contained in seven(!) three-
inch, white binders in the department library. An eighth
white binder in the same place contains most of the
subsequent SDG&E official responses to requests for
technical information made by the numerous parties in the
process, including the requests of Carlsbad.
There is a drawer in a five-drawer file cabinet in Dennis
Turner's office labeled "SDG&E", which is full of files
related to this project. Some of this material is labeled
"confidential - attorney/client privilege" and is not
available to the public. There is some duplication in these
file, and mixing of NOI stuff with EIR stuff. Also there are
a couple of unofficial files on related SDG&E permit
activity the company tried to initiate in the same period.
Over the course of the project, lead was temporarily
transferred from Dennis to Senior Planner Steve Griffen (who
left the City soon thereafter) and then it came back to
Dennis Turner. Thus, some of the duplication and
intermixing of stuff.
There are two 3-inch white binders (un-labeled) containing
correspondence and other materials on a book shelf in
Dennis' office.
The originalC^pecific Plan 14^) (including amendments a - d
[or so]) should be consulted for related power plant
history. These files take up about three linear feet in the
official files.
The EIR 90-2 file should be consulted. It contains one copy
of the draft EIR (it was never circulated - work was
terminated soon after the NOI continuance). Several other
copies are in the store room. Also see the GPA 90-1 file.
Good Luck!
City of Carlsbad
March 20, 1991
Planning Department
Mr. D.S. Siino
SDG&E
Po Box 1831
San Diego, CA92112
RE: ENCINA POWER PLANT MODIFICATIONS
Dear Mr. Siino,
This letter is in response to your letter dated February 28, 1 991 , addressed to Dennis Turner, in
which you request that the Planning Department administratively approve modifications to the
entry to the above site.
Ordinance NS 1 1 1 adopted on January 23, 1 991 , limited improvements to the above facility. The
accompanying agenda bill (copy attached) specifically noted that "change(s) to the existing
entrance and guard shack" will be subject to a major amendment to the Specific Plan and review
of cumulative impacts of previous minor amendments. Based on this the City will not be able
to administratively approve the gate revision, and a Specific Plan Amendment will be necessary
for this proposal.
You may also wish to consider submitting any other changes you may be contemplating at this
facility in conjunction with the major amendment for the entry.
Based on the information provided, demolition of the warehouse would not require a planning
application, however, you should check with the City Building Department to determine whether
any other permits are necessary. Permits may, of course, be necessary for subsequent uses of
or construction on the warehouse site.
I have enclosed a copy of Ordinance NS 1 1 1 and draft specific plan requirements. If you have
any questions regarding the processing of your application please contact me at 438-1 1 61 ,
extension 4442.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT GREEN
Principal Planner
c: M. Holzmiller
G. Wayne
D. Turner
A. Landers
RG:km
PowerPln.ltr
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619)438-1161
HAND DELIVERED
San Diego Gas & Electric
P.O. BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92112 • 619/696-2000
February 28, 1991 FILENO
Mr. Dennis Turner
Principal Planner
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
SUBJECT: ENCINA POWER PLANT: BUILDING DEMOLITION AND
MAIN GATE ENTRANCE MODIFICATIONS
Mr. Tafler:
This letter will provide information on two planned projects
at Encina Power Plant. It also serves as our request for a
determination as to whether these projects are in compliance
with existing Specific Plan 144-C and Ordinance NS-111
(Moratorium Ordinance).
The first project is the demolition of an existing warehouse
structure located on the site of the Northcoast Operations
Center. No new construction or use is intended for the site at
this time. The City's Building Department has requested that
the structure be demolished because it is infested with
termites. It's precise location on the operations center site
is shown on the attached copy of an aerial photograph.
The second project involves the modification of the power
plant entrance on Carlsbad Boulevard to improve the safety of
this access point. Currently, large vehicles making deliveries
to the site during peak travel periods sometimes cause traffic
to backup on Carlsbad Boulevard because the absence of a
vehicle "stacking" area between Carlsbad Boulevard and our
security guard station. This condition has existed since the
recent widening of Carlsbad Boulevard. The installation of a
75 foot "stacking lane" or throat on the plant site is proposed
[TURNALTR.B28]
Mr. Dennis Turner
February 28, 1991
Page 2
to eliminate this safety problem. This solution will also
necessitate the installation of an auxiliary guard station at
the end of the throat to insure adequate security during peak
traffic periods. The location of these improvements is shown
on the attached exhibit.
The 75 foot throat area will reguire the installation of
approximately 175 feet of new 8-foot high chain link fencing
and a new automatic sliding gate as shown on the exhibit.
The auxiliary guard station will be a pre-fab building
having 10' x 10'x 81 dimensions. An illustration of the
station is attached including a basic description of other
building features. It will be built on a concrete slab.
The existing guard station on the exhibit will be maintained
since it contains kitchen and rest room facilities for the
security guards and will still be used during non-peak traffic
periods. No additional security guards are required as a
result of this needed safety improvement. The existing and
newly proposed additional guard station are not visible from
any point along Carlsbad Boulevard other than at the entrance
due to existing mature landscaping. (See attached photographs.)
It is our belief that the planned projects are consistent
with existing Specific Plan 144-C and Ordinance NS-111.
Building and Coastal Development Permits may be necessary for
the fencing concrete slab and guard station. A signature line
is provided at the bottom of this letter. A signature by the
properly authorized City representative will indicate
concurrence with SDG&E's belief that the proposed projects are
consistent with the above noted plan and ordinance. A
determination of concurrence will also trigger the forwarding
of an amended version of drawing M661 showing the deletion of
the warehouse and the addition of the new vehicle stack area
and auxiliary guard station.
[TURNALTR.B28]
Mr. Dennis Turner
February 28, 1991
Page 3
Please call me at 696-2410 if you have any questions
regarding this request or the above information.
Sincerely,
David S. Siino
Senior Land Planner
DSS : kmd
Attachments
cc: Paul O'Neal, SDG&E
Agreed to and Accepted:
Title:
Date :
[TURNALTR.B28]
San Diego Gas & Electric
P.O. BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92112 • 619/696-2000
January 25, 1991 FILENO
Mr. Dennis Turner
Principal Planner
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009-4859
Re: ENCINA SPECIFIC PLAN CHRONOLOGY
Dear Mr. Turner:
Attached is a chronology of events for the Encina Specific
Plan beginning in 1971, the year of its adoption. The chronol-
ogy includes amendments to the Specific Plan, administrative
determinations of consistency with the plan, various related
permit approvals for uses, and other noteworthy determinations
or regulatory decisions that have been made with regard to the
680 acre Specific Plan area.
Our review of files continues and we may discover additional
approvals, determinations or events that warrant incorporation
into the chronology. These will be forwarded to your attention
when they will serve to improve or clarify the city's under-
standing of the Specific Plan's history.
Our suggestion is that you take a few days to review the
chronology. Then, at your request, we can meet to review/
discuss the information as well as respond to guestions city
representatives may have about specific events. The Specific
Plan maps/exhibits noted in the chronology will be brought to
the meeting as we know there is also great interest in this
information.
[TURNALTR.A25]
Mr. Dennis Turner
January 8, 1991
Page 2
Please call me at 696-2410 or Paul O'Neal at 438-6111 if you
have any questions or need additional information regarding
this matter.
Sin
David S. siino
Senior Land Planner
Land Planning & Permits
DSS:gro
Enclosure
cc: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director w/attachment
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney w/attachment
Paul O'Neal, SDG&E w/attachment
[TURNALTR.A25]
\l-\1AO
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
December 11, 1990
Mr. David Siino, Senior Planner
Land Planning And Permits
SDG&E
P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
SUBJECT: REPLACEMENT EXHIBIT FOR DEMINERALIZER REGENERATION TANK
Dave:
Thank you for submitting the replacement exhibit, now correctly showing the placement of
structures as requested by SDG&E and approved by the Planning Commission. In the future,
please always submit exhibits that correctly show the most recent approvals. It saves time for
everyone concerned.
The exhibit has been placed in the file for the Specific Plan 144 record.
If this was the last condition requiring fulfillment, you are now authorized to pursue building
permits.
Sincerely,
Dennis A. Turner
Principal Planner
c: Ron Ball
Jim Hagaman
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619)438-1161
- 9a
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
November 29, 1990
Mr. David Siino, Senior Planner
Land Planning and Permits
SDG&E
P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
SUBJECT: ENCINA POWER PLANT DEMINERALIZER REGENERATION TANK
This department has reviewed your letter of November 20, 1990, regarding the
proposed demineralizer regeneration tank.
Based upon your letter, it appears that the tank is consistent with the approved
construction of plant needed to complete the replacement of the old in-ground
wastewater ponds, an activity conditioned and authorized by the Planning
Commission on July 19, 1989, via Resolution 2859. (copy attached).
This office understands that the installation of the proposed tank will support only
the existing plant, and will in no way facilitate expanded generating capacity at either
the existing units 1-5 or future power generating units. With this understanding,
installation of the tank would not be subject to Ordinance NS-111, establishing an
emergency moratorium on expansion activities at the Encina Plant.
Subject to satisfying all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution
2859 and obtaining all necessary and proper permits from the City and any other
agencies with jurisdiction in the matter, SDG&E is hereby authorized to proceed with
the project described as:
Demineralizer Regeneration Tank; to consist of a fiberglass tank 18 feet in diameter
and 28 feet high, to be located directly adjacent to the east side of the power plant
structure near the stack as shown on the submitted exhibit. The tank will receive
wastewater from the power plant demineralization unit prior to its discharge to the
new wastewater tanks.
2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161
Mr. David Siino, Senior Planner
November 29, 1990
Page 2
One final note: the exhibit submitted with your cover letter (drawing M-661,
revision A, dated June 1986) has not been correctly revised to show the removal of
the six wastewater ponds, the construction of the replacement wastewater tanks, or
the demineralizer tank. Consequently, this exhibit would not appear to satisfy
conditions 2 and 3 contained in Planning Commission Resolution 2859. Prior to the
issuance of building permits it will be necessary to submit to this department a
corrected drawing showing all of the changes implemented since 1986. This revised
drawing will be entered into the official file on Specific Plan 144 and is necessary to
satisfy the Planning Commission's conditions and to record all of the previously
authorized changes.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 438-1161, extension 4443.
Sincerely,
DENNIS A. TURNER
Principal Planner
c: Ron Ball
Jim Hagaman
DAT:lh
encina.ltr
San Diego Gas & Electric
P.O. BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92112 • 619/696-2000
FILE NO.April 17, 1990
Mr. Dennis Turner
Principle Planner
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92010
Subject: Encina Power Plant Shift Supervisor Office Enlargement
Dear Dennis:
This letter is a follow-up to our recent telephone
conversation regarding our need to enlarge an existing shift
supervisor office located within the power plant building. The
existing office is approximately 12' x 22' and we need to
increase it to 22' x 25' to accommodate increased storage and
equipment requirements and some minor convenience improvements.
The office is now used by four shift supervisors and seven
relief supervisors for meetings on power plant operation matters
and as a lunch area. There will be no change to this manpower
condition. It also houses a desk and typewriter, file cabinets,
a photocopier, a computer, and storage space for technical
training manuals. In addition, several file cabinets containing
tools are located outside of the office. Our preference is to
have these secured inside the office where there use can be
controlled by the shift supervisor.
Our increased storage and equipment needs include additional
file cabinets, technical manual storage and special tool storage,
and additional space for two computers for operational and
communication needs. Proposed working convenience improvements
include the installation of a counter area for a sink, two stove
burners and a microwave oven.
We believe that the proposed office enlargement is not
inconsistent with the January 23rd, 1990 City Council Ordinance
(NS-108) prohibiting the expansion of gas and electric utility
facilities. The proposed ordinance does not affect SDG&E's
ability to operate and maintain its existing power plant and
other existing facilities including the remodelling of interior
Mr. Dennis Turner -2- April 17, 1990
spaces and maintenance, repair and replacement of existing
facilities subject to staff's consideration of the possible need
for any city permits.
The needed enlargement constitutes a minor alteration to an
existing use to improve operational efficiency and working
conditions in support of operating and maintenance functions at
the power plant. It does not increase the size of the power
plant building nor does it result in any significant impact to
city facilities such as water, sewer, transportation networks,
etc. It is our belief that no amendment of the existing specific
plan is necessary given the extent and nature of the proposed
project. Your signature on the signature line provided at the
bottom of this letter will indicate the city's agreement with
this determination. We do recognize that a building permit will
be required for the project.
Please call me at 696-2410 if you have questions regarding
the above information.
Sincerely,
David S. Siino
Senior Land Planner
DSSrph
DENNIS TURNER
Principal Planner
12/15/89
To: Ron Ball, City Attorney's Office
From: Dennis Turner, Planning Department
Subject: History of SDG&E Encina Plant Development
Attached are two versions of my gleanings from the Planning Department's
files:
1) A chronological summary of major events, and
2) An annotated chronology of major events.
The entire history is recorded in ten not-too-well-organized file folders.
Much of the history is concerned with debate over the original specific plan
and construction approvals or the later proposal for construction of the
single smokestack, plus the dialog associated with the issues of air quality
testing and monitoring. The history I've assembled for you focuses
principally on approvals for construction of the plant and its accessory
facilities. I did not detail the battles over air quality testing and monitoring,
or processing of environmental documents, battles accounting for much of
the files' bulk.
In a letter to your office dated June 27, 1989, Michael Holzmiller attached a
listing of building permits and minor amendments associated with the plant.
I have found documentation for most of these in the our files. However,
there were a few for which I did not. Almost all of these cases are indicated
in Michael's list as building permit approvals. In the listing I've prepared for
you, I have included these items with the notation that I did not find
documentation in Planning Department files. Perhaps a review of the
Building Department's files should be conducted to verify these items and to
determine if perhaps there are others. I would be happy to assist in this
review. The only reason I didn't pursue it at this time was so as to provide
you with what was relatively easy to find as quickly as possible.
Please call if you have any questions (x 4443).
cc:
M. Holzmiller
G. Wayne
SDGfcE Eflcina Power Plant History (SuMury)
1. 4/6/71: Ord 9268 creates the P-U (Public Utility) zone
2. 6/22/71 PC recomm to Council to rezone Encina site to P-U (PC res 711)
3. 8/3/71: Council Ord. 9279 to adopt a specific plan for Encina Plant
4. 12/4/73: Ordinance 9372 incorporates an amended specific plan (SP-144)
5. 5/75?: Fuel tank installation (building permit).
6. 12/17/75 Meeting on SDG&E funding of road improvements.
7. 5/4/76: Ord 9456 amends Ord 9279, requires air monitoring of 400' stack (SP-144(B))
8. 5/18/76: CC motion and later agreement to deed beaches to state.
9. 5/3/77: Ord 9481 to build water treatment facility and maint. bldg (SP-144 (O)
10. 6/77: Two-story 50* x 16' control room built (building permit).
11. 11/30/77 Council "files" SDG&E request for final building permit to operate the stack.
12. 2/8/78: Council Res (5302) finding participate fallout problem is solved.
13. 2/28/78: SDG&E requests suspending work on SP-144 (D), connection of Unit 5 to stack.
14. 1/10/80: Move maint. bldg, expand switching substation, driveway (staff author)
15. 6/82: Expansion of distribution substation (approved by staff).
16. 10/9/84; New 6,168 sq.ft. admin building added (approved by staff).
17. 7/85: Remodel of electrical shop (building permit).
18. 12/85: Lunch room remodel (building permit).
19. 12/10/85: Letter from SDG&E, re: Carlsbad Blvd widening/access to Encina.
20. 1/86: Storeroom and repair facility remodel added (building permit)
Pagel
21. 2/86 Application to amend. SP-144(E) (50,000 sq. ft office, etc.)
22. 4/86: 20 x 40' pipe storage shed added (approved by staff).
23. 9/S6:30 x 30' metal paint shop added (approved by staff).
24. 10/S6: Microwave dishes/radio antennae attached to stack (approved by staff).
25. 4/9/87 SDG&E withdraws application for spec Plan Amend SP-144 (E) (2/86).
26. 7/15/87: Add two temp, office trailers (approved by staff).
27. 7/19/89: Six waste water tanks approved (by PC Res 2859).
28. 7/24/89: Letter: Holzmiller to Siino (SDGE): Major review next time.
/
Page 2
SDG&E Encina Power Plant History (Annotated)
1. 4/6/71: Ord 9268 creates the P-U (Public Utility) zone
This ordinance authorizes the power plant as a use under the zone, sets
requirement for all public utility uses to be subject to specific plans, and
stipulates that, "Any modifications from the original plan still in keeping with the
intent and concept of said plan, may be filed with Planning Department for
approval."
2. 6/22/71 PC recornm to Council to rezone Encina site to P-U (PC res 711)
The action also was accompanied by direction to annex the adjacent SDG&cE land
and apply the new zone to these lands also.
3. 8/3/71: Council Ord. 9279 to adopt a specific plan for Encina Plant
Ordinance 9279 approved a specific plan (unnumbered) for the 680 acre site
containing the existing Encina Power Plant. An 11 x 19 color graphic (dated
7/20/71) is in the file as is a 400-foot scale blueiine dated 1/9/70 (updated from a
12/21/61 drawing). The plant is shown to have four generator smokestacks (tops
at elevation 190 feet above grade.).
Condition 1 stipulates "...the area designated on the Specific Plan as 'Site of
Future Power Plant', east of the freeway, be subject to Specific Plan approval at
a later date". Condition 8 says further. "The proposed site for a future power
generating facility on the East side of Interstate 5 shall be planned so as to be
compatible with the present facility. The facilities shalL.be environmentally
compatible with the City of Carlsbad."
The ord. also stipulates: "...the Planning Director of the City of Carlsbad is
designated as the enforcing officer of this Specific Plan. His decision shall be
final as to whether the subject property has been properly developed and
improved. However, the owners of the subject property may appeal to the city
Council any decision of the Planning Director relative to this Specific Plan."
(Presumably, no one else may appeal (?)1.
4. 12/4/73: Ordinance 9372 incorporates an amended specific plan (SP-144)
Ordinance amends Ord. 9279 to include a revised plan labeled SP-144. (note: no
copy of this exhibit is found in the files) to authorize replacement of four smoke
stacks (190' above grade.) with one new stack (top at elevation 400' above grade)
to serve five generators. A new condition 14 is added stipulating that the plant is
to be subject to conditions (1-9,11) of Planning Commission Resol. 986 (11/13/73)
One of these conditions states that the construction of the stack had to be started
within one year of approval date or become null and void.
Section 2 is amended to require a review on a five year basis to determine (among
other things) if the 400' stack can be placed by one smaller or eliminated.
The Planning director may approve "minor" changes. "Substantial changes" will
be considered by the Planning Commision
Because of inability to obtain all the necessary approvals within the ensuing
one-year period the construction did not start and the approval became void on
12/4/84.
Pagel
5. 5/75?: Fuel tank installation (building permit).
No record of this project in Planning Dept. files.
6. 12/17/75 Meeting on SDG&E funding of road improvements.
Meeting in which SDG&E agreed to pay and hold funds in the amount of $231,200
in escrow at 8% interest until called for by City for payment, in lieu of
constructing improvements to Carlsbad Boulevard.
7. 5/4/76: Ord 9456 amends Ord 9279, requires air monitoring of 400' stack (SP-144(B))
Ordinance 9456 amended ord. 9279 Section 2 to replace the Specific Plan Map
(assumed to be SP-144A) with a revised plan tabled SP-144B dated October 10,
1975. Section 3 of Ord 9456 amends condition no. 14 of section 2 of Ord. 9279, to
add additional conditions to the earlier amendment (Ordinance 9372) that permitted
the fifth generator and a single stack to replace the original four stacks. These
conditions essentially re-authorize the single stack and add requirements to:
monitor air emissions (a problem was occur ing with "fallout" over Terramar, a
local residential project), require an annual report to Council on emissions (14
(j)), add APCD conditions, and add section 14(g), providing" In the event that the
city of Carlsbad determines that the 400-foot stack is no longer necessary as a
method of air emission dispersion, the 400-foot stack shall be removed at the
applicant's expense...."
8. 5/18/76: CC motion and later agreement to deed beaches to state.
An Agenda Bill 3657 measure found in the files was presumably approved by
council (and agreed to later by SDG&E) to deed beaches owned by SDG&E and
leased by the city to be deeded to state of California and to pay the city $42, 344
for improvements to these beaches unless SDG&E grants a public beach easement
9. 5/3/77: Ord 94S1 to build water treatment facility and maint. bldg (SP-144 (O)
Ord 94S1 added condition 15 to the original ord., authorizing construction of 1) 6
water treatment ponds (2S.380 cu. yds of grading) and 2) a new maintenance
building to replace existing facilities, both to be in keeping with a revised plan
SP-144 (C) (dated 1/31/77). (A copy of this plan dated April 5,1977 is in the
files.)
10. 6/77: Two-story 50' x 16' control room built (building permit).
No record of this project is contained in Planning Dept. files.
11. 11/30/77 Council "files" SDG&E request for final building permit to operate the stack.
An ongoing problem with particulate "fallout" from the old four stacks had ted to
earlier incorporation of Condition (h) in Ord 9456. This condition states. "The
paniculate 'fallout' problem shall be controlled to the satisfacton of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad and the Air Pollution Control Officer prior to the
final building permit clearance for Encina 5 and the single stack" As of Nov 29,
1977 the Council did not feel that the problem was resolved and, therefore,
deferred approving a final Certificate of Occupancy for operation of the fifth
generator and the new, single stack.
Page 2
12. 2/8/78: Council Res (5302) finding participate fallout problem is solved.
Although the Council now found that the particulate fallout problem was
controlled, final building permit clearance to operate the 400' stack in a
commercial (as opposed to test) mode was conditioned : "Provided San Diego Gas
And Electric continues to pay damages resulting from fallout and the City
Manager reports on the results of that effort prior to final building permit
clearance."
13. 2/2S/78: SDG&E requests suspending work on SP-144 (D), connection of Unit 5 to stack.
At SDG&E's request (letter in file) processing of the amdendment was suspended.
A refund of fees for processing SP-144 (D) was eventually made in November
197S. It is presumed that all the required conditions were met eventually,
however, and the Certificate of Occupancy was issued, although the dates of these
actions are not found in the files.
14. 1/10/80: Move maint. bldg. expand switching substation, driveway (staff author)
Letter (1/10/80) from Principal Planner Bud Plender to Don Rose authorizing 1)
the move of a maintenance building from its old attachment at the stack building, to
a site southerly and easterly, 2) conversion of a temp, curb cut on Cannon Rd..
previously used during construction of the power plant, to permanent use for
employees, and 3) expansion of the electrical switching substation (the source of
transmission lines crossing the freeway).
15. 6/82: Expansion of distribution substation (approved by staff).
The files contain an informational report only on this project from Planning
Department to Planning Commission, based upon the Planning Director's
administrative determination that the project was consistent with the adopted
Specific Plan and, therefore, no amendment was required. The project consisted of
expansion of the existing switching station to a capacity of 48 megawatts,
expansion to be contained within a 270* x 160' fenced area.
16. 10/9/84; New 6.168 sq.ft. admin building added (approved by staff).
Letter from Hoizmiller to Rose (SDG&E) on 10/9/84 for "administrative staff
approval" to construct a replacement administrative building and conversion of
the existing building to storage/maintenance. Approved with conditions: 1)
building is to be a replacement and will serve no new employees. 2) a previously
approved new maintenance building (see 1/10/80) will not be built and is to be
deleted from the Specific Plan exhibit, 3) parking and circulation to remain
unchanged, a new Specific Plan drawing showing precise location of all existing
improvements circulation elements to be submited to Planning Department. (There
is no record of this revised exhibit having been submitted).
17. 7/85: Remodel of electrical shop (building permit).
No record of this project in Planning Dept. files.
18. 12/85: Lunch room remodel (building permit).
No record of this project in Planning Dept. files.
Page 3
19. 12/10/85: Letter from SDG&E, re: Carlsbad Blvd widening/access to Encina.
Letter from Dave Siino complains that proposed improvements to Carlsbad Bivd
will "aggravate the already unsafe conditions" of access to the plant. Mentions
need to build 30.000 sq. ft. "service center" to house 250 employees and 15-20
customers at the plant site. Requests alternative access routing.
20. 1/86: Storeroom and repair facility remodel added (building permit)
No record of this project in Planning Dept. files.
21. 2/86 Application to amend. SP-144(E) (50.000 sq. ft office, etc.)
Proposal to amend SP-144(c) to show changes on two parts of the site. Power
Plant: 1), facilities previously approved by Planning Dir. and 2) future facilities
(lunch room, relocate guardhouse, relocate paint shop, "storage/office facility",
and traffic signal/driveway. Operating Headquarters the amendment proposed
replacement with a "Service Center", to include a 50.000 sq. ft. office building,
lunch /recreation area, parking, equipment warehouse, vehicle repair facility,
fleet vehicle parking .material storage area, vehicle gas facility, guardhouse, and
"other related accessory facilities". Additionally, the amendment would have
expanded the authority of the Planning Director beyond making findings of
consistency for proposed construction, to include the authority to approve
construction of "...minor accessory facilities not shown on the specific plan
without the processing of a plan amendment." (Application subsequently
withdrawn, see 4/9/87).
22. 4/86: 20 x 40' pipe storage shed added (approved by staff).
No record of this project found in Planning Dept. files.
23. 9/86: 30 x 30' metal paint shop added (approved by staff).
No record of this project contained in Planning Dept. files
24. 10/86: Microwave dishes/radio antennae attached to stack (approved by staff).
The Planning Department provided a letter (dated 10/1/86) to Planning
Commission at their October 1 meeting apprising them of the proposal and staffs
determination that it qualified for an administrative approval, unless P.C. wished
to require a formal Specific Plan amendment. (No following correspondence found
in file). The project consisted of installing seven mircowave dishes and six Bogner
radio antennae to the main stack. The city's satellite dish ordinance did not
pertain, as public utilities are exempted.
25. 4/9/87 SDG&E withdraws application for spec Plan Amend SP-144 (E) (2/86).
Withdrawal of proposed Specific Plan amendment, originally initiated in Feb. 86.
presumably due to staffs concerns over the impacts associated with the office
structure/"operating headquarters" and processing of environmental documents.
Page 4
26. 7/15/87: Add two temp, office trailers (approved by staff).
Trailers are 54 and 56 feet long, with a totalarea of 1175 square feet, auxilliary to
the existing office of 6,000 sq. ft. The "temporary" use is presumed to last until
such time as the city grants approval to the "operating headquarters", as was
proposed above, under the withdrawn SP144 (E) amendment.
27. 7/19/S9: Six waste water tanks approved (by PC Res 2859).
Planning Comission granted approval (PC Resolution 2859) of an amendment to
Specific Plan 144 to install six waste water tanks. Among other conditions, no. 3
states,"Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the
City with a reproducible 24" x 36", 100 scale mylar copy of an updated plan
showing the entire Specific Plan 144 area including all existing buildings." The
most recent correspondence from SDG&E (September 5, 1989, tetter from Siino to
Holzmiller) provides material to meet several of the conditions of the PC
Resolution. A copy of a 1910. sepia plot plan was submitted (thus meeting
standard condition 2J, but the letter says that the undated reproducible "...is still
under preparation and will be submitted soon". Therefore, as of this date, we
have no exhibit showing the area of SP-144 with all the existing improvements.
The implication also is that condition 3, needed for the issuance of building
permits for the waste water tanks, is still unmet. Status of building permits is not
known.
28. 7/24/89: Letter: Holzmiller to Siino (SDGE): Major review next time.
In this letter Holzmiller reports Planning Commission's approval of the minor
amendment to Specific Plan no. 144 to install the six wastewater tanks. Includes:
"...any future request for improvement to the Encina Power Plan will require a
complete major amendment to the Specific Plan processed in accordance with
Chapter 21.3 of the Carlsbad Municipal code. At that time, the cumulative impact
of ail previous minor amendments will be considered and an analysis will be made
as to whether any conditions are necessary to address the cumulative impacts"
ou.
PageS
San Diego Gas & Electric
P.O. BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92112 • 619/696-2000
September 5, 1989 FILENO
Mr. Mike Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2275 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: EHCIHA WASTEWATER TANKS:
MTwnR AMENDMENT
FOR SP 144 (RESOLUTION 2958)
•~-^_
Mike: ~^~~~ -
The attached is submitted to fulfill >p_rofipconditions of
approval: ~
• 24" x 36", 100 scale mylar copy of the site plan per
condition number 2.
• Landscape/Irrigation plan plus planting/irrigation
specifications per condition number 5.
• A sample of the color to be used in painting the tanks
per condition number 8. This is representative of the
larger oil tanks located directly north of the
wastewater tank site. You indicated recently that you
want the color to be similar to the oil tanks.
• Per condition number 4, we believe that the project is
in compliance with all conditions required by the Zone 3
Local Facilities Management Plan.
• Per condition number 9, adequate means for preventing
the discharge of oils, greases or hazardous materials
into environmentally sensitive areas have been
^4-' incorporated into the project design. Rainfall drainage
'" /i./i/ will be collected within the required containment area
(/) and manually released to a storm drain drop inlet via a
, drain valve. The drain valve shall be closed at all
other times. Manual control of project drainage
provides for the ability to visually inspect for oil,
grease or hazardous substances on the site. Visual
/"f inspection of wastewater tank operations will be a daily
Mr. Mike Holzmiller -2- September 5, 1989
function. Oils or grease are unlikely to exist on the
site because neither is necessary for the operation of
the waste water tanks facilities. Spill/cleanup
provisions for the hazardous waste processed in our
wastewater operations exist in the form of the required
perimeter containment system, tank design (100 percent
capacity redundancy) and the hazardous materials and
waste contingency plan and emergency procedures as
required by the State Department of Health Services.
The emergency procedures provide for the use of vacuum
equipment to remove these substances, if necessary. The
containment system and storm drain drop inlet with
manually controlled drain valve are shown on the project
grading plan and (see highlighted in yellow).
• Project building and site plans for review by the Fire
Department per conditions of approval 10 and 12 will be
submitted as part of the project building permit
£ submittal.
/ .
• •>*/ A reproducible viable mylar copy of an updated plan
ifr showing all existing buildings with the specific plan
kM. 144 area is still under preparation and will be
submitted soon.
Mike, our Coastal development permit application for the
wastewater tank project is scheduled for the September 12 meeting
of the Coastal Commission. Assuming coastal permit approval, our
desire is to begin project grading immediately. Release of the
project grading permit is contingent upon the approval by the
Planning and Engineering Departments of the information submitted
to satisfy conditions of approval 5 and 9 of Planning Commission
Resolution 2859. A prompt response to the adequacy of our
information for these items would be greatly appreciated.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding any of the
above information. I can be reached at 696-2410.
Sincerely,
David S. Siino
Senior Land Planner
DSS:kms
cc: Bob Wojclk, Engineering Department
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
July 24, 1989
San Diego Gas & Electric
P.O Box 1831
San Diego, California 92112
Attention: Dave Siino
RE: AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN 144/ENCINA POWER PLANT
Dear Mr. Siino:
At the Planning Commission meeting of July 19, 1989, the
Commission approved your request for a minor amendment to Specific
Plan No. 144 to install six wastewater tanks. As was discussed at
the meeting, this is to inform you that any future request for
improvement to the Encina Power Plant will require a complete major
amendment to the Specific Plan processed in accordance with Chapter
21.36 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. At that time, the cumulative
impact of all previous minor amendments will be considered and an
analysis will be made as to whether any conditions are necessary
to address the cumulative impacts.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions
concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
arb
cc:Planning Commission
City Attorney
SP-144 File:
2O75 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 (619) 438-1 161
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859
(619) 438-1161
Cttp of Cartebao
July 15, 1987
David S. Slino
Sr. Land Planner
San Diego Gas & Electric
P.O. Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
SUBJECT: USE OF TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILERS
Dear Dave:
I recently received your request for the
trailers at SDG&E's North Coast Center,
proposal I find that it appears to be in
conformance with SP-14-4-
use of temporary office
After reviewing your
substantial
It appears that the additional square footage will be minimal and
that the trailers will be screened from the public view. Both
these factors reduce the possibility of negative impacts on the
surrounding neighborhood. You also stated there would be no
additional employees, traffic, or impacts to public facilities.
Based on these statements, your proposal appears to be only a
minor revision and falls within our standards for substantial
compliance. I will forward a copy of this letter to both Brian
Hunter and Carter Darnell to expedite any permits you may
require.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ADRIENNE LANDERS
Associate Planner
AML:af
cc: Charlie Grimjjr
Brian Hunter
Carter Darnell
San Diego Gas & Electric
July 9, 1987
Mike Howes
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
Subject: USE OF TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILERS FOR
NORTH COAST DISTRICT OPERATING CENTER
Mike:
As you are aware, we desire to develop a service center (major
office building) on the site of our North Coast District Operating
Center. Resolving the land use and circulation issues to make this
possible has caused delay of its planned construction. During the delay
we would like to remedy our overcrowded conditions at the existing
operating center construction office. The proposed remedy is the use of
two temporary office trailers until the service center is built.
The trailers are 53' x 10' and 56' x 11' and roughly 11' high.
This provides for approximately 1175 square feet of additional office
space. The existing office is approximately 6000 square feet.
The proposed location for the trailers is shown on the at-
tached site plan. These areas are totally screened by an existing 8'
block wall and mature setback landscaping. These improvements would
provide effective visual and noise buffering from the adjoining Teramar
residential area. The attached photos illustrate these improvements
from the immediate adjoining neighborhood along the south side of Cannon
Road.
The trailers will be occupied by existing construction office
employees. There will be no involvement with members of the public. As
a result, no increase in traffic would result because of their proposed
use.
We believe that the use of the trailers could be permitted without
the need for a specific plan amendment. This opinion is based upon the
following reasons:
1. Section 21.36.030 of the Public Utilities zone states "No building
permit or other entitlement for any use in the PU zone shall be
issued until a precise development plan has been approved for the
property.
POST OFFICE BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92112 • TELEPHONE: 619/696-2000
Mike Howes -2- July 9, 1987
A precise development plan has been developed for the property.
The plan provides for administrative buildings and the minor
expansion is proposed to be located directly adjacent to the
existing construction office. All parking, access and circulation
shall remain as it presently exists.
2. The intent and purpose of the Public Utility Zone (Section
21.36.010) is to provide for certain public utility and related
uses subject to precise development plan procedure to:
(a) ensure compatibility of the development with the General Plan
and surrounding developments;
(b) ensure that due regard is given to environmental factors;
(c) provide for public improvements and other conditions of
approval necessitated by development.
We consider that the proposed trailers would be compatible with the
surrounding development and the General Plan. In this case, the sur-
rounding developments are all operating center related. Residential
development, Teramar, relates to this part of Encina but this relation-
ship would not be changed in any way by.the proposed use because of the
existing screening improvements.
With regard to environmental factors, the proposed structures would
not intensify the construction operations use of the site, nor will they
generate additional employees or traffic. Without additional employees
or traffic no additional impacts to public facilities would occur and
therefore, we feel that existing public improvements would adequately
serve the proposed facilities.
For these reasons, it is our opinion that the trailers are in
concert with the intent and purpose of the Public Utility Zone.
Hopefully, the above information will be helpful in making deci-
sions on this request. Please call me if you wish to discuss any aspect
of this letter.
Sincerely,
David S. Siino
Sr. Land Planner
DSSrjw
Mike Howes -3- July 9, 1987
bcc: GABishop
LJBrunton
HDCompton
FMDudley
MEMcNabb
JWShepard
TLSinnott
INFORMATION ITEM
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1986
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ENCINA POWER PLANT TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
San Diego Gas & Electric is requesting permission to install
seven microwave dishes and six Bogner radio antennas to the
Encina Power Plant's stack in Carlsbad. The microwave dishes
will be eight feet in diameter and the antennas will be thirteen
feet long and four inches wide. The equipment will be the same
color as the stack. This will minimize contrast between the
equipment and the stack without drawing additional attention
to the stack.
SDG&E is exempt from the City's satellite dish ordinance because
they are a public utility. Normally staff would process a minor
request from a utility administratively, however, since the stack
is so visible staff believes the Commission should be made aware
of this request.
SDG&E has informed staff that it needs to improve its
telecommunications at the Encina Power Plant. The existing
facilities and contracted communication services (telephone) are
inadequate to ensure effective communication for routine or
emergency functions. Their existing communication facilities are
located on a 50 foot high lattice. This structure is not high
enough to provide adequate microwave paths to areas served by the
Encina Plant. In addition, some of the existing equipment is
outdated. This 50 foot high lattice tower will be removed when
the equipment is installed on the stack.
SDGSE has submitted large sized photos that illustrate the
appearance of the equipment once it is installed on the stack.
After examining these photos staff felt that the proposed
telecommunications facilities would have no adverse visual
impacts. These photos will be available at the October 1,
1986 Planning Commission Meeting.
Staff believes the proposed change is in conformance with the
existing specific plan for this site and recommends that SDG&E be
allowed to install the requested telecommunications equipment on
the Encina Power Plant stack. For a more detailed explanation,
see the attached letter of August 21, 1986.
Attachment
1. Letter dated August 21, 1986
MH:dm
9/16/86
San Diego Gas & Electric
August 21, 1986
WINNING DEPART,
** CITY OF
Charlie Grimm
Assistant Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: ENCINA POWER PLANT TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
Dear Mr. Grimm:
SDG&E needs to improve its telecommunications facilities at
Encina Power Plant. Existing microwave facilities and contracted
communication services (telephone) are inadequate to insure effective
communication for routine and emergency functions. This letter
describes, in detail, our proposed plans for upgrading our facilities.
It also serves as our request for an administrative
determination that the proposed improvements are consistent with the
existing specific plan governing development of Encina Power Plant. We
feel an administrative determination of compliance is warranted because:
(1) The existing specific plan provides for telecommunications
facilities;
(2) The proposed location for the proposed facilities is in
proximity to existing telecommunication equipment;
(3) The proposed location and installation of proposed
telecommunications equipment does not increase the visual
impact of the power plant.
We are hopeful that after your review of this letter and other
information we provide, that staff can support our request.
BACKGROUND
The problem with existing facilities is inadequate microwave
paths to areas of our service territory served by Encina and outdated
equipment. Improving our telecommunications capability requires
replacing the existing facilities with "State of the Art" equipment and
installing the equipment in a location that will provide for reliable
microwave paths.
The new facilities we plan to install include:
o Microwave radio system
POST OFFICE BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92112 • TELEPHONE: 619/696-2000
Mr. Charlie Grimm -2- August 21, 1986
o 800 megahertz mobile radio system
o accessory radio equipment for operating both of the proposed
systems
MICROWAVE RADIO SYSTEM
The Microwave Radio System involves the installation of seven
(7), 8' in diameter microwave dishes. These will provide corporate wide
telecommunications for both voice and data requirements. The system
will also be utilized for direct line communication with other
utilities, governmental agencies and our customers. Most importantly it
will insure increased reliability for routine maintenance, dispatching
and monitoring communication from SDG&E's Mission Control in San Diego
and emergency communication from Encina to areas where existing
reliability is very poor.
MOBILE RADIO SYSTEM
The Mobile Radio System involves the installation of six (6)
Bogner radio antennas. Each antennae is 13' long and 4" in diameter.
The system will provide improved efficiency for company communication.
Expanded area coverage will result because of the increased number of
radio channels available to company field personnel and locations to
beam the signal.
FACILITY INSTALLATION
As mentioned earlier, the proposed improvements will replace
existing microwave telecommunication facilities. These facilities
include five microwave radio dishes installed on a 50' high lattice
structure and an adjoining telecommunications building that houses
associated radio communications equipment. The location of these
existing facilities is shown on the attached power plant specific plan
map. These improvements would be removed after the implementation of
the proposed system.
The desired location for the new telecommunications equipment
is the Encina stack. The height of the stack is the key variable to
achieving improved microwave paths to areas of our service territory now
plagued with unreliable and inefficient communication. The microwave
dishes would be located on the stack in various positions and elevations
related to the intended destination. The bogner radio antennas would be
mounted on the eastern side of the stack and positioned in a straight
line. Accessory radio equipment for operation of the microwave and
mobile radio systems would be located within the base of the Encina
stack.
Mr. Charlie Grimm -3- August 21, 1986
A schematic drawing is attached showing the proposed
improvements.
SDG&E recognizes that consideration of our request will
trigger the visual impact issue of placing equipment on the Encina
stack. We understand that it is important to provide you with
sufficient data that will support our request and aid your evaluation.
The most graphic data will be four photographs illustrating how the
equipment would appear on the stack from various vantage points. The
photographs were taken with a 50 millimeter lens. This lens most
accurately characterizes what the human eye sees. The photographs were
then enlarged to a scale (24" x 28") that is representative of what you
would actually witness in the field. The proposed equipment was then
painted onto the photographs in accurate proportion to the size of the
stack.
The equipment will be the same color as the stack. This will
minimize contrast between the equipment and the stack without drawing
additional attention to the stack. We believe the photographs will
illustrate that this can be effectively accomplished.
Now that you've had the opportunity to become familiar with
our request and the nature of the proposed facilities, we would like the
opportunity to meet with staff. The purpose of the meeting would be to
deliver the photographs, discuss the project in detail and respond to
any questions you might have.
We will make ourselves available at your convenience. I will
be contacting you shortly to arrange a meeting. If you have any
questions regarding this matter or wish to discuss the project in
general, please give me a call at 696-2410.
Sincerely,
David S. Siino
Sr. Land Planner
DSS:jw
cc: Mike Howes
SCHE?2\TIC
O ~ MICROWAVE RADIO DISH
| - BOGNER ANTENNAE
P
O
O
O
O
O
SOUTH FACE OF EAST FACE O^ STACK NOP.TH FACE O17 STACK
AQUATIC R
QUATICEATIAREA
OUTER LAGOON
EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES
DEVELOPMENTAL M ]$&? m 1200 ELM AVENUE
SERVICES mc'r&iijfmi CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE ^Qfjtfpfr (619)438-5591
€itp of Cartebab
October 9, 1984
Don Rose
San Diego Gas & Electric
P.O Box 1831
San Diego, CA 92112
SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN 144/ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
Dear Don:
This is to confirm that your request for administrative
staff approval to construct a new administrative building at the
Carlsbad Encina Facility is approved for the following reasons
and subject to the following conditions:
(1) The new administrative building is a replacement
for the existing, adjacent administrative facilities. No new
employees are being added as a result of the new building.
(2) The existing administrative facilities will be
converted to a maintenance/storage building. The previously
approved, new maintenance building will not be built and shall be
deleted from the specific plan.
(3) All parking, access and circulation shall remain as
it presently exists.
(4) A new specific plan drawing showing the precise
location of all buildings, parking and circulation shall be
submitted to the Land Use Planning Office.
If you have any additional questions concerning this
matter, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
-/I/
MJH/ar
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Land Use Planning Manager
cc: Marty Orenyak, Director of Building & Planning
Specific Plan 144 File
June 2, 1982
Mr. Charles Grimm
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO ENCINA POWER PLANT SPECIFIC PLAN
GENERAL
SDG&E requests administrative approval to the
construction of a distribution substation at the plant.
The substation represents an expansion to existing dis-
tribution substation facilities located at Encina.
PROJECT
The proposed project is to construct a 138/12
kV substation in the location shown on the attached plat.
The fenced area shown is approximately one acre in size
although the substation hardware will occupy considerably
less space and will not be very visible. (See the
attached construction plan and elevation drawings). The
substation is to be constructed in two phases, with app-
roximately 70 percent of the hardware to be installed
during the first phase. The ultimate capacity of the sub-
station will be 48 megawatts (Mw).
PROJECT NEED
The substation is required because of the 4Mw
demand of the Encina Water Pollution Control Facilities
scheduled to be in service in 1983. It will also serve
the rapidly growing areas along Interstate 5 and east to-
wards El Camino Real.
The existing 138/12 kV substation at Encina
presently experiences a 1 percent overload on its distri-
bution circuits. Extending service to the pollution
control facilities will increase the circuit overload to
27 percent. This substantially increases the potential
for a service failure or outage. A transformer bank or
circuit failure would cause a substantial amount of comm-
ercial and industrial load to be subject to an extended
outage (longer than 12 hours). The new substation will
eliminate the possibility of a circuit overload and re-
liability problems.
Mr. Charles J^imm -2- J^ June 2, 1982
PROJECT LOCATION
Encina Power Plant was chosen for the location of
the substation for the following reasons:
(1) It is centrally located within the future load
areas it is expected to serve.
(2) It is a cost effective situation for SDG&E and
the ratepayer to not have to purchase a sub-
station site, transmission rights-of-way and the
necessary transmission equipment.
(3) it is possible to avoid the visual and noise im-
pacts normally associated with a substation
facility. The proposed location is presently
screened from practically all areas adjacent to
the power plant, particularly from Carlsbad
Boulevard. Noise will not be an issue because
the ambient noise level in the area is much higher
than the noise that would be generated by operation
of the substation.
If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project, call me at (714) 232-4252, Extension 2469.
Sincerely/,
David S. oiino
Land Planner
OSS:mak
Enclosure
•San Diego Gas & Electric
April 13, 1982 FILE NO.
RECEIVED
APR 141983
Charles Grimm
City of Carlsbad PITV HP PARI QRAH1200 Elm Avenue Si1,1 Y Vr WtKUaBMUCarlsbad, CA 92008 Planning Depa lent
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF ENCIMA POWER PI ANT SPECIFIC PLAN
Dear Mr. Grimm:
SDG&E is proposing to build a 138/12 kV distribu-
tion substation within the Encina Power Plant site. The
substation is considered accessory to the principle power
plant use. The location of the proposed substation, a site
plan and substation profile drawings are attached.
The existing power plant specific plan does not
show the proposed project site as a substation expansion
area. We recognize that the specific plan must be amended
to show the expansion area. Before we can do so, we need
a determination as to type of amendment, major or minor,
that is appropriate for the proposed project. Call me at
232-4252, extension 1789, to advise me of your determination,
Sincerely
David S. Siino
Land Planner
DSS:mic
Attachment(s)
POST OFFICE BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92112 • TELEPHONE: 714/232-4252
San Diego Gas & Electric
July 3, 1980
JUL 3 1980FILE NO
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Pfenning Department
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Gentlemen:
This letter makes reference to San Diego Gas & Electric's
Encina property located off Carlsbad Boulevard, specifically to
an existing building which was being used by our Plant Construction
Department. Said Department has been phased out.
In our continuing effort to improve service for our
customers, it is proposed to use the building as a public office.
Some of the services we will offer are:
a.) New service information - both gas and electric.
b.) Engineering.
c.) Bill payment facilities.
Plant Construction employed approximately 50 employees;
we anticipate about 30 - 40 employees. This will mean a reduction
in traffic and provides ample parking for prospective customers.
Currently the only offices which provide the services mentioned
are located in Encinitas and Oceanside. We are anticipating to be
in operation by September 1, 1980.
Should this minor change cause any problem, please call
me at 232-4252, extension 1884.
Sincerely,
P. G. Haas
Land Planner
PGH:cag
POST OFFICE BOX 1831 -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 9211 2 • TELEPHONE 714/232-4252
4
San Diego Gas & Electric
FILE NO.
January 16, 1980
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ATTENTION: Bud Plender
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO SP-144
RE: Your letter of January 10, 1980
Dear Bud:
Thanks for your prompt response to my/inquiry. I
appreciate that. Of course, I am pleased witbt your determin-
ation too. I agree with your appraisal of the circumstances.
On my last trip up, Jim said that he did not think
SDG&E had provided the city with the 1979 Annual Report on the
Stack Emissions. I checked with the responsible department.
They claim to have submitted the report to the City Manager.
Let me know if you would like me to mail you one.
I suspect that there are some other minor projects
slated for the Encina plant site. I will contact you as soon
as I get involved. Thanks again.
Sincerely,
D. L. Rose
Land Planner
DLR:cag
RECEIVED
JAN 18 1980
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
POST OFFICE BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92112 • TELEPHONE: 714/232-4252
1200 ELM AVENUE M \Sg^ M TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 WL/W J M (714)729-1181
Cttp of Cartebab
January 10, 1980
Don L. Rose
Senior Land Planner
San Diego Gas and Electric
P.O Box 1831 x
San Diego, California 92112
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO SP-144
Dear Don:
I have reviewed the proposed addition and change to the
Encina Power Plant site as you noted in your letter of
January 2, 1980. All changes are minor in nature and will
not affect the operation or efficiency of the plant. Also,
the Engineering Department believes that the continued use
of the temporary driveway along Cannon will help traffic-
congestion on Carlsbad Boulevard. Therefore, you may
proceed with these projects, without the necessity of an.
amendment, to SP-144.
Very truly yours,
&J-
BUD PLENDER
Principal Planner
cc: Planning Department
Karen Lee, Plan Checker
BP: ar
Sara tectric
0U.M V9 0
tI.
?lanning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attn: Bud Plender
Re: Specific Plan 144, Proposed Work
Dear Bud:
January 2, .1980
11> W <P F TT V.8.1 il! 'O ill l v i
JAN 3 1980
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
This follows our recant discussion in your office regarding
proposed work at the Encina Power Plant Site. I have attached a map
(SP-I44) showing the subject work, Tha dimensions on the attached
drawing are approximate. I'll state our objective arid, explain each
project,
£BJECT1VE
The objective of this correspondence is to obtain an admin-
istrative approval .for the work described below as opposed to a specific
plan amendment. We understand that other non-discretionary permits
(such as building permits) may be required.
PROPOSED WORK
1. Maintenance Building - SP--144, as approved, shows a mainten-
ance building attached to the stack. We would like to locate the
proposed maintenance building slightly east and south of the' location
shown on SP-144. The attached copy of SP--144 s.hows both the existing
and proposed locations. Subject .maintenance, building will not: be
visible from any public street.
/2.J ^Driveway Access f romCannon Road-f Cannon Road was improved
by CTre^TIty'liiomeTimlf'TSalS?^ City provided E curb cut
froi-i. Camion Road at the request of SDG&E. It is my understanding that
this driveway was intended for the use of heavy equipment during con-
struction of Eitcina 5. Construction work has finished. We-would like
to continue use of this driveway but for employees also. • This would
•respond to requests from nearby residents regarding congestion of
Carlsbad Blvd. The. approved specific plan does nor. deal with driveways
and on-site traffic patterns. So I suspect that this is not an issue.
However, the; City Engineer may wish to comment on this.
POST OFFICE BOX 1831 • GAM DIEGO. CALIf ORNIA 921 12- TLCPHONE 714 /232-4 202
City of Carlsbad -2- January 2, 1980
3. Expansion of Substation - We intend to expand the substation
(identified on SP-144 as Electric Switching Station). I believe the
expansion will be within the area shown on the approved Specific Plan.
However, it might require a slight expansion to the south. The area
has not been surveyed yet. This expansion will not result in any new
freeway crossings with transmission lines. I think this is within the
scope of the approved plan.
REQUEST
Bud, we are requesting that the City provide us with a letter
stating that the above described work will not require a Specific Plan
Amendment, or any other discretionary actions. We would use such a
letter to establish "approval in concept" per Coastal Commission require-
ments.
That covers it. Please give me a call if you need any other
information or if there is going to be a problem obtaining your adminis-
trative approval.
D. L. Rose
Senior Land Planner
DLR:kes
Attachment
cc F. M. Dudley
H. E. Richmond
RECEIVED
•JAN 3 1980
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
S I) G S t
EXPANSION
AREA
C c! r i s bo d City C oLI nc i 1
City Of CaHEl'Gc!
.litJOn El 1,1 Avenue
Carlsbad-, Ca-
Re : Mov 2 EN Council Masting
Subject : Aaendci Bill St!5.u
Cent-' G?i;;Q
the:? or in 5. on-jj group in the fight to stop the air pollution fro.:,
the? S i) G/E.-Operat j onsi I trust this 1 attars contents wiiJ be
considered bafore faking your decision of ce:,ipI i onco or ;^-v D::i-;
T n -i —iJj i r i • •
First sHovi ;:::
the Nov .?.?] liis;
there were tw<
counci 1 . fJuiT.bc
•o rcrr-'iP .you to the City At.tprmeyK odvicc to- at
feet 'tl'iat -f.'t tl'iG; orioicnal hp.:;r i n:.1to the
A i r Po
;e and di st i nctsub jects bcofore tl'\:>
llution- Munbbr 2~ The MQDft Sta<
Uhilc? v.'s Fnlt your dacisionn as ths p&EuIt of thin rnGetino-; i-.f^s
not in ths pubi i cs intsPsstT ue respGctc^ci your riglit of c!a::i?ron
one! expGctcKl than ond now that the -conditions of the per;:;it would
be fully enforcRcl. '
I felt before and fe£l today that the City Attornny had dona an
excel! Rnt job in his i. ntsrpr'^tat ion of th^ counciir; decision ^nd
tho? public' in tha drafting of apticlr;^ ov coiripl i c-:nce govern! no.
thci construction of ths stsci< and the rc:c;u i romGnti: ccncQr-ning
pollution cbatRwant«ThQSG wars accepted by S D Gi\£.
'At th(2 council naetingn Nov 55 T much of present at ion by tha
S .!> G G E representatives wasiin my op in ion i irrelevant in r.iGny
v;ays and totally nhort of proof of compliance- Thereofora without
a lengthy rabuttal pleass allow ii;a to briefly covar pns point
only of their presentation. That point being Air or find currants
in the beach or plant area-•
Your review of the inf or net 5 or, presented to you will show that
that they spoke only, of monitering air currents flov;ing in! and
and falling on tha tomatoes pi ants. You c;sr.G diverted to think
about plant 1 if cane! not. .human life.
^fhe truth of the matter is that the air currents- here ere offshore
in r.:y cpinicnn longer th.-.:-; they are >o/vr:hore. Also tlinre arc: c'ef—
inatc periods n r.iorning and evening iuhr::n there is no air {iiovc'..:'j!u;
whatsoever. This is ccmmon throughout•the year except-when ua are
affected by the wi nter/spri ng storms or tropical weather front::.
If you wont "to see rollout come sea for yourself, lie are within
t,DD ft of the- stack. -
Still in view of all that has been said and done we still have
four- -C'-l> cmoke stacks and thai rpol lut i otin plusa ol!DD ft one.
At this time I would be in favor of perm?tting then to connect
stacks I through l! into the .new one; if it is Inga! to so do with
out 1 OKI rig control of the main purpose—PGLLlJTIOf] ABATLliLHT. This
is what we? were promised and this is what we expect-
UG were also assured at the origional hearing-i mentioned by coun-
cilman Skotnicki as lasting till 3 ami that in the? eventof ncn
coiiipliancn that'the A P C J> would move to take leoal action. He
are nov; concerned of the turn around of the A P C ]> in stntinr; -t
tha Nov P-l: niacting t'iiat there ues no way they would try to do so.
This ntatGi.rnnt i in my cpinionn is a rravo error end is tanta-
mount to havinr: the police say-i to a £:e!ectec! r.;roupn-go ahead cirsd
.steal we uontdo anything obout it.
.Our orirjicncil complaints were against pollutioiin per se nand its
effect upori tiie health of those of us who live Uill/ER the STACi;.'S
andbetween other sources of pollution by the operat i oncf ^ j G/'-L
plant operation.
A pollution prcblemthat i in my opinion T is as hazardous to cur
health as the stac:' e^mi ssi on exists but is played down- I have
been denied the right to speak upon the subject before the San
Diego Coast f'sgionaN State Coastal Commission as -wall c.c you .
planning commission.
Your records will show that during the origional hearings L spoke
on'Various matters in opposition to SI) C/£TS presentat ionnbut a—
bouve all and fornoct 1 urged the council menbers to fully in —
vest i gate the health effect upon the public as tha PR If IE '[-"ACTOR
for either granting or denying their application.
That pollution source ic the unloading of tankers and the loading
of barges and tankers in the present anchorage used by S 3) G/E.
I stated before previous bodys that somewhere or somtiwe this,
problem would be made public.
It now appeares that this type of pollution i s. recogni zee! by
the public hearings being hoi din lios Angeles regarding the
nSohio Project" in its receiving of oil and its' transhipment.
The L..A. Times article of f-Jov P.P. covered the hearing and the
battle for control 1 of of the admissions by both the Coast Guard
and the state A K C. .
This hearing covered the unloading of supertankers near San Clcr.r-
enta island into smaller tankers for movement ashoroi known as
lightering which contributes significantly to southern talif
air pollution. These e: •;;ii ssi pnn largely cone fror.ic hydrocarbon
gaser:: escape ing during unloading. •
It in i ntarnst 5 ng as we? 1 I as frightening to learn t~.hr.':. in her;dnl~-
ing TGDnCnD barrels of crude oil that it would ppoduce a ucxi —
nun of 3E-,L,2R pounds of SULI-'MIIR OXIDES - Mn pound:: of
J.'ITKCGIM OXIDES and 15^2 pounc.Jr.v- of P ARTICULATES.
Since t!ov IQn lc]7£> I have logged i to the best of r:y Ixnowl HL'TQI
all oi ! tankers del 5 vr.rinn oil cnc.! CD! 1 bcjpo^c and op ton!;arn
bainn loaded through tl'in S D C/E. onchorcoa. Ily rc-icor'dr.;
would show a mirninum of dalivorinc: due to bucir.Gac: ts-ipK end
vacation on SEPT a to OCT?;1-! ^77
It is iny opinion that tho aiiiount of oi ! del i vi^rnd to c:nd trGnn —
shipp?2ci throupji this anchorage- cont ibutnc :;i rjnif ecoiit ly nby itr
crnrai EG ions:n to our local end arsa pollution., ily poiirt' is sSno'y
this.
Burino nicht time unloocjing and th.s storarn tan'cs b.ainr; fiiind
thr? 'crHEsions than ars carriad ssow^rd through and ground our
During dcytirna loading of oij for transhi ppr.iQnt tha Gr^r.ii s-si or,::
ara than towardr; tine land and oricc again through and around
our hones.
It ic. furthar rr.y opinion tlict OP. e population end or area basis
corr.parac! to tiv.^ LOG An go Ice area that wo arc cert t inn as .much
poljution now from the S I) C /£. oil transfer as the Los Angalas
basin would gat from ths Si^iu Son TO Project.. a;-:d rai.H^bsr thcv.
ours v.'ill epproxinetsly double wl'ien unit S goes on the line-
, ..',,..••'•'-• * - L :J
liylog shows more oil received and shipped to date n Mpv E^L! 1177-1
than the year of l1-]?^. Log inactive from Sept u to Oct lll 1T77.
Three tankers are the primary delivering carrierscdf fuel oil
to the S I) G/T£ plant and according to the Coast Guard each has
a capacity of L;-[Ja-,ODD to L!SD-,DDa barrles.
oOna Barge is used to transport oil south and has a capacity
of SCQD barellsn according to the Coast Guard.
Two -C2> small tankers have been fi.lled to date, capacity
unknown. They were the Golden State and the Exxon Baltimore
listing U i Imington-, Jtelewarc as their home port.
v.To date n my log showsn the Barge has been filled 115 times plus
She two -£5> smal 1 tankers abouve-i
To date thirty six -C 3u > Tankers have unloaded! which includes
the tanker Cheveron Oregon one -CXI time and the rievada Standard
two -CEI3- times.
I will submit my records for verification upon request-
Ue in this area fee! that this pollution! by enr:;i ssioni siould or
ns much a part of your consideration as the stacks. Uc fu'-thus-1
urne you not to make o rush decision for the sake of making one
and before all the facts are in on ALL OF T!!I POLLUTION.
I'Je cjlso feel that S D G/E accepted tha terr.is of your par;.n't with
all its requirements and should therefore fully co;.:p!y.
It is our opiriion TSS interested oJ^eerver^r-i ' f-iat the info."1; '•'r
su'ji'itted to th.Q- council on Mov 2F.? reoll y said noticing and a!"ri',-e
-all die! not prove anything. This i believe: war; prove;: by i!r r, ;••.;•,•:
position and his refusal to clear- the project.
May we say at this time that we are very proud of .the prof err! or:-
attitude and courage of- fir Sin;;;;on in. his ecti.on to protect the
public in calling in the State Health Officials when faced with
a questionable problorr:. .
UG thank you sincerely for your indulgence and trust that your
efforts in these matters will be for the protection of the .
pub!ic.
Yours very truly'
cc:
M counci 1
1 c mgr
1 c att
3. aped
1 eirb
Edward L • Valentine
n' Tierra Del Oro
Carlsbad-.- Ca- 'SSOG