Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP 144D; SDG&E Wastewater Facility; Specific Plan (SP) (2)1200 ELM AVENUE H ^7 , H X V / J^ /TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92003 BU£W <SB \ / \\S / (714)729-1181 Office of the City Manager Citp of Cartefoafc August 23, 1978 Art Bishop San Diego Gas & Electric Co. P. O. Box 1812 San Diego, California At the August 15, 1978 meeting of the City Council a report by the city staff was considered concerning the resolution of the remaining conditions associated with the use of the fifth generating unit at the Encina Power Plant. These included an indication from the State Department of Public Health that they were satisfied with the studies conducted in connection with the additives used in the fuel burnt at the plant and with the company's efforts in resolving insurance claims which resulted from the plant operation. The City Council accepted the report and I have instructed the Building Director that he may give final clearance to the Building Permit when he is satisfied that matters relating to the Building Permit under his jurisdiction are completed. The finaling of the Building Permit and occupancy will be authority to utilize the fifth generating unit. BUSSEY City Manager PDBrldg cc: Planning *^ Public Works Engineering Building SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92112 (714) 232-4252 MO. CAB 500 January 27, 1978 Mr. Paul Bussey, City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Paul: Reference is made to Mr. Bill Simmons' letter of January 25, 1978 regarding Carlsbad Ordinance #9456. Based on the findings of the Air Pollution Control Officer and the State Department of Health, we believe that conditions of Ordinance #9456, requiring that particulate fallout from our Encina Plant be controlled, have now been complied with. Accordingly, we would appreciate your placing this matter on the City Council Agenda at your earliest convenience. Please let me know if you need anything further from San Diego Gas & Electric. Sincerely, G. A. Bishop Regional Affairs GAB:bjj Extension: 1993 cc: William Simmons, APCO AN INVESTOR-OWNED CORPORATION AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO WILLIAM SIMMONS Air Pollution Control Officer January 25, 1978 Paul Bussey, City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 9150 Chesapeake Drive San Diego, Calif. 92123 565-5901 (MS 0176) Subject:Carlsbad Ordinance No. 9456 APCD Order of Abatement No. 607 Dear Mr. Bussey: As you are aware, the APCD Hearing Board found SDG&E in violation of Section 41700 of the Health and Safety Code and District Rule 51 (public nuisance) and as a result of that finding issued an Order of Abatement on June 10, 1976, SDG&E proposed to comply with the Order primarily through the use of a magnesium based fuel oil additive. Due to concerns on the part of the District over possible health implications of additive use, it was found necessary to extend the final compliance date of the Order and provide for extensive testing to resolve this question. The State Department of Public Health (Dr. John Goldsmith) was requested to advise the District on this issue. Extensive testing on "fallout" abatement has demonstrated that the use of the fuel oil additive and supplemental control efforts have been successful in substantially reducing (greater than 90%) the incidence of acid parti- culate fallout. To provide necessary information to the Health Department, a variety of studies and analyses of collected data were conducted specific to the additive used, viz. magnesium with a maximum manganese content of 0.2 percent. While a change in particulate size was observed in the stack, the Paul Bussey 2 Jan. 25, 1978 Health Department has determined that there is no risk of toxicity due to the additive. This position is expressed in the attached letter from Dr. John Goldsmith and was further discussed and supported at the January 8, 1978 meeting of the State Department of Health's Air Quality Advisory Committee. I am satisfied that the fallout problem is controlled with the additive. In my opinion San Diego Gas & Electric has met all the conditions of the APCD Hearing Board Abatement Order of June 23, 1977, and can operate in compliance with our rules without adverse health effects from the additive. I hope this letter clears the way for use of the tall stack, As you know I have always felt that its use could only have a beneficial effect. Sincerely, WILLIAM SIMMONS Air Pollution Control Officer WS:vch Cc: APCD Hearing Board Art Bishop, SDG&E California State Department of Health AIR QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE TWENTIETH MEETING Wednesday, January 18, 19?8 Envoy Room Little America Westgate Hotel 1055 2nd Avenue San Diego, California (71*0 232-5011 Pickup Service at Airport 3:00 PM to 6:50 PK AGENDA 1. Review and approval of minutes. 2. Developments since last meeting: .a. .Correspondence with FAA on aircraft ozone* b. EPA proposed standard for lead 1.5 ug/M . c. Follow-up report on Carlsbad power plant fall out. d. Recent research findings: El Marino Los Angeles Sulfur Pollutants 3. Vinyl chloride standards, k. Policy concerning pollutants standards index. 5. Impact and studies on children. 6. Other items. 7o Time and location of next meeting. / .Primary Purpose ACTION INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 2151 BERKELEY WAY BERKELEY 94704 C+15) 8A-3-7900 Ex. 505 ^t/ January GOV> Mr. William Simmons Air Pollution Con'trol Officer County of San Diego 9150 Chesapeake Drive San Diego, California 92123 Dear Bill: My colleagues and I have spent many useful hours during recent months in conference with San Diego Gas and Electric Company staff (Mr. Bishop and Mr. Van Wagenen) and with their SRI International contractor and consultant (Mr. Cantrell, Mr. Cavanagh, and Dr. Cooper), reviewing the possible health impact of fuel oil additives at the Encina Power Plant. Our discussions have covered two general topics, the need and hazard of manganese additives compared to magnesium additives, and the possible health impact of increasing emissions of respirable particles. It appears that magnesium additives are capable of resolving the acid smut fallout without any risk of specific toxicity due to magnesium. This is because of the low inherent toxicity of magnesium oxide, and the large dilution with native magnesium compounds. Manganese does not have as low an innate toxicity and is believed to produce a catalytically active aerosol*. We have advised SDG&E and SRI International of our views. As long as the additive includes 0.2/6 or less of manganese, no metal toxicity is likely. As the admixture of manganese increases, our concern does alsoj the technical staff we met with are not able to demonstrate any advantage to operations or that any other savings occur with higher amounts of manganese. It is known that magnesium additives (and also other types) cause a larger fraction of particulate matter to be emitted in the respii-able size range (under 3 urn) and presumably they increase the pH (reduce the acidity) of sulfur containing particulate matter. We do not yet know what specific changes in particle size, pH, and biological activity of particulate matter in the breathing zones,magnesium additives produce, but the technical staff plan to collect relevant data on these points,. We concur with this being a desirable activity. Mr. William Simmons January 12, 19?8 It had been thought that the first stage of testing had been done with a 2$ manganese additive. In fact, a 0.2% Mn additive was supplied by the manu- facturer. The technical people want to use a 2^ Mn additi\>-e for a short period to evaluate its effect on particle emissions* I have no views as to the desirability of the study, but neither would we advise against it on health grounds. I intend to report to the Air Quality Advisory Committee on January l8th and would welcome your participation. An agenda is enclosed* I believe that the approach to this problem has reflected good judgment and proper concern for health risks among all parties. I am pleased that we have been able to help on this issue. Sincerely, John R. Goldsmith, M.D. Medical Epidemiologist Epidemiological Studies Laboratory Enclosure SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O.BOX1831 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92112 (714) 232-4252 F.LENO. CAB 500 December 22, 1977 City of Carlsbad . Planning. Department 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Jim Hagaman, Planning Director Gentlemen: Subject: Proposed Amendment to Encina Specific Plan (SP-144B) ' SDG&E does hereby make application for modifications to Ordinance Number 9456 in order to achieve the following desired results: 1, Use of the tall single stack to receive the exhaust gases from Encina Units 4, 3, 2 and 1, in that order, commencing in March, 1978. 2. Use of the tall single stack to receive the exhaust gases from Encina Unit 5, commencing in April, 1978, in order to test Unit 5. This request is supported by the following facts and circumstances. BACKGROUND Encina Unit 5 was approved by the City of Carlsba'd in 1971 by Ordinance 9279 which adopted Specific Plan 144 to allow the installation of Unit 5. On May 4, 1976, the City of Carlsbad approved an amend- ment to the specific plan by the adoption of Ordinance 9456 to allow a height variance to accommodate the installation of the tall stack which would receive the exhaust gases from Encina Units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Concurrent with that proceeding the APCO for the County of San Diego brought an abatement action against SDG&E to bring about the control of an acid fallout condition which was being experienced in connection with the operation of Units 1-4. AN IHVESrOH OWNFD CORPORATION Jim Hagaman A, ~2- 4fe December 22, 1977 Because these separate events were occurring at the same time th.e City. Council of Carlsbad responded to public input by imposing conditions upon the height variance process which related to the acid fallout condition. It is those conditions from which SDG&E seeks relief. The conditions do not relate directly to the subject matter which was before the Council for approval and it will be recalled that the city staff argued against the imposition •of these conditions because of their doubtful enforceability. They were imposed in response to an expression of public concern. The Planning Commission in approving the SP Amendments had included in it's Resolution Number 1224 a provision which would have allowed the City Council to extend the time limit for compliance past the final building permit clearance for Unit 5 and the stack, but this was not incorporated into Ordinance 9456. OTHER OPTIONS These conditions are by no means the only remedies which were available to respond to that public concern. Additional remedies which were, then and still are available include the following: Citizen Action At least four independent remedies were then and still are available to the citizens of Carlsbad who experience property damage resulting from the acid fallout. (a) Settlement of claims with SDG&E. • . (b) Lawsuit for the damage to property. (c) Lawsuit for inverse condemnation of ' . .citizens' property rights. (d) Lawsuit to abate a private nuisance. Carlsbad Action The City of Carlsbad, independent of the conditions in the Ordinance had and still has the option of bringing an action to abate a public nuisance. APCO Action The Air Pollution Control Officer had the option, which it exercised, to seek an abatement order pursuant to Rule 51. This abatement order can be backed up with an enforcement action by the County of San Diego for injunctive relief or civil penalties. -3- Based on this review of other options available to remedy the fallout problem we can place the conditions imposed by the City in their true perspective. It is apparent that even if the City Council had chosen not to impose any conditions on the use of the stack in Ordinance 9456, the citizens of Carlsbad, the City of Carlsbad, the APCD and the ARE all would have, and still do retain their independent remedies against'SDG&E. SDG&E'S ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY COUNCILS INTENT On November 22, 1977, SDG&E requested the City Council to clarify the Council's intent with respect to the language contained in Ordinance 9456 and expressed our desire to use the stack (i) to receive the exhaust gases from Units 4, 3, 2 and 1,'in that order; and (ii) to further use the stack to receive the exhaust gases from Unit 5 in order to test Unit 5 prior to the final building permit clearance of that Unit, currently scheduled to occur in October 1978. On November 29, 1977 the City Attorney rendered an opinion to the City Council that the clarification sought by SDG&E could only be achieved through public hearings and amendments to the Ordinance. A copy of that opinion is attached and incorporated herein by reference. The-Council "filed" the request from SDG&E leaving SDG&E the flexibility to adopt whatever course of action it deemed appropriate. SDG&E'S OPTIONS Three separate courses of action appear to be available to SDG&E. 1. Seek a judicial interpretation of the enforceability of the conditions contained in Ordinance 9456; 2. Seek modifications to Ordinance 9456 which would, if approved, achieve the desired results; or 3. Initiate no action and wait for the APCO and the City Council to express that the fallout problem has been controlled to their satisfaction. The third alternative is the preferred alternative from SDG&E's point of view. However, pursuit of that alternative alone is not without risks which involve (i) our ability to deliver an adequate and reliable supply of energy to SDG&E's customers, (ii) substantial economic detriment to SDG&E's rate payers, and (iii) postponement of (postponing) the implementation of beneficial air quality measures. Should the preferred alternative, for any. reason, not occur within the anticipated time frame (January 1978) then the time available to process modifications to Ordinance 9456 becomes critically short before SDG&E would encounter delays in the schedule for transferring the exhaust gases from the I existing stacks to the new tall stack. While the probability of these delays occurring may be small, the consequences, should they occur, are substantial and severe. Therefore, SDG&E has elected to commence the process of seeking the modifications in order to receive a timely decision on the requested modifications should the preferred alternative for any reason be delayed. CONSEQUENCES OF SCHEDULE DELAY At the public hearing before the Planning Commission, and the City Council, SDG&E would propose to present evidence on the consequences of delays in the scheduled use of the single stack to receive the exhaust gases from Units 4, 3, 2, and 1 and to receive the exhaust gases from Unit 5 for testing purposes prior to its scheduled commercial operation in October of 1978. Energy Supply Encina 5 will be the largest most efficient generating unit on SDG&E's system. A delay in Unit 5 will place the burden of power generation on smaller, older, less efficient units. This sacrifice in efficiency will result in the burning of an additional 50,900 BBLs of fuel oil per month. Reserve margins necessary to supply adequate amounts of power will be jeopardized. Both the use of the tall stack and Encina 5 are scheduled ahead of peak generating periods. Any delay in the schedule will cause capacity shortages on SDG&E's system and require the purchase of costly off-system power.. Operating and Mai-ntenance Major overhauls are scheduled for equipment during the tall stack tie-in construction period. Other major over- hauls are scheduled following the commercial operation of Unit 5.- Delays in these overhauls could effect system relia- bility as well as increase maintenance and overhaul expenses when the work is eventually performed. Air Quality The overall air quality in the Carlsbad area will be improved by the use of the tall stack. There is substantial testimony and documentation on record, to show that the use of the stack will improve air quality. The San Diego Air Pollution Control -Officer, Mr. Bill Simmons has confirmed that dispersion transport of the single plume dischared at 400 ft. elevation by the tall stack will reduce ground level concentrations of both particulate matter and aerosols, he further strongly incourages the use of the tall stack.as soon as possible. Overall San Diego basin air quality will be improved by utilizing Encina 5 as scheduled as the 50,900 BBLs per month fuel savings will result in a commensurate reduction of overall power plant emissions. -5- Impact on Rate Payers Increased costs attributable to inadequate reserve margins, off system purchase power, delayed scheduling of maintenance and use of less efficient generating units all contribute to the electric rates paid by each ratepayer. . The incremental cost of the 50,900 BBLs of fuel oil alone is estimated to be $942,000 per month based upon an average price of residual oil in 1979 of $18.50/BBL. Interest during construction, a continuing cost until the equipment is declared commercial, amounts to $52,000 per mo. for the stack, and $617.000 per mo. for Unit 5. 'i'hese costs would ultimately be borne by the ratepayer. .CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE CONTROL OF THE FALLOUT PROBLEM If this request goes to public hearing it will be because either the APCO or the City Council was unable to indicate that the fallout problem has been controlled to their satisfaction. It seems obvious under that assumption that prior to granting the relief requested that the City would desire to preserve a mechanism which maintains some leverage over SDG&E to control the fallout problem to the council's satisfaction. We believe that the leverage sought to be imposed through the conditions contained in Ordinance 9456 can be ratained by the City through the imposition of conditions relating exclusively to controlling the fallout problem prior to the commercial operation of Unit 5. Thus, the City can retain its control over the resolution of the fallout problem and at the - same time avoid the enormous consequences assiciated with the conditions which were, in the opinion of the City Attorney, imposed on the use of the stack as well. To the extent that any of these conditions are legally enforceable, they.could apply to Unit 5 rather than to the stack without jeopardizing the control measures sought to be imposed by the City. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS In addition to the many remedies cited in the background section above, the City could impose the additional condition of requiring SDG&E to continue to pay all valid property damage claims resulting from the fallout problem, should they occur, after the relief sought herein had been granted. The enforce- ment of this condition could easily be achieved by the City through it's ability to control the ultimate commercial operation of Encina 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SDG&E further requests a finding that there has been no change in circumstances requiring any additional environ- mental reviews over and above the environmental impact statement already approved and accepted in this proceeding. -6- WHEREFORE, SDG&E requests '-.he following relief: 1. A finding that additional environmental reviews are not necessary; 2. That Ordinance 9456 be amended to allow SDG&E to use the tall stack to reveive the exhaust gases from Units 4, 3, 2 and 1, in that order, commencing in March of 1978; 3. That Ordinance 0456 be amended to allow SDG&E to use the tall stack to receive the exhausts gases from Unit 5, commencing in April of 1978 in order to test Unit 5; and 4. That Ordinance 9456 be amended to impose as a condition precedent to the commercial operation of E-5 that the fallout problem be controlled to the satisfaction of the APCO and the City Council. We submit this application in anticipation that it will be considered during the January 25, 1977 Planning Commission Regular Meeting. If we can answer any questions please do not. hesitate to call Mr. Jay Shepard at 232-4252, extension 1504. Sincerely, £y*F..\M. Dudley ' Land Planning Supervisor FMD:dr cc: Paul D.' Bussey, City Manager City of Carlsbad CARLSBAD COMMUNITY CAU 3831 MARGARET WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (714) 729-8065 April 27, 1976 Paul Eussey City Kanayer Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Bussey, Carlsbad Community Cause requests that the public hearing on the San Diego Gas and Electric 400 foot stack be renoticed. We are aware that this is an unusual request but we feel, that the circumstances are such that it is reasonable. The public hearing did afford many concerned citizens to speak, but the conditions were not generally available for inspection. The Councilpeople did indicate that they were asking for rather substantial changes at the conclusion of that very long night, and the final copies of the ordinance werenot available until this afternoon. We do not feel that there has been sufficient time to examine the ordinance and since there does not appear to be any-other time in which to address the Council as a group on the conditions, it would seem appropriate to grant our request. He were unable to properly prepare for this evening's meeting because the material was not available, however we must point out that S(A) of the Ordinance would appear to be inaccurate. The provisions of the PU zone (21.56.020 (9) states ..."There shall not be permitted any use which creates noxious gas or odor, excessive sound vibration or significant atmospheric pollution." We'feel"that not providing time for the public to properly prepare is an effective way of denying public participation in the decision making process. Sincerely^ -rvi.* /^ Bowen, President Carlsbad Community Cause ea 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Manager TELEPHONE: (714)729-1181 Citj> of Cartebab November 12, 1976 Art Bishop San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 1812 San Diego, California 92112 At the City Council meeting of July 20, 1976, by proper motion, it was moved to reaffirm Ordinance No. 9456 and declare that it be reinstated to full force and effect and thus not subject to the referendum process. The effective date of the Ordinance in meeting the time conditions of Paragraph (D) and (F) under Section 3 shall be July 20, 1976. PAUL D. BUSSEY City Manager PDBrvm CEIVED CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department if* t (6}Revision #2 v "\ J EMGabrielson TALL STACK AT ENCINA WILL IMPROVE GROUND AIR QUALITY. IN CARLSBAD AND SURROUNDING AREAS The ground level concentrations of Encina Unit 5 will be less with the additon of a single tall stack than with the present four stack configuration. Emissions from the single tall stack downwind will not exceed any Federal, State, or Local ground level air stan- dard. With all five units in operation, the tall stack will disperse emissions effectively to improve ground level air quality. These conclusions are from a 1973 study conducted for San Diego Gas & Electric by Bechtel Power Corporation. Results of that study, which is the basis for the proposed 400 foot stack at Encina, have been reviewed many times during . v v- the past two years in public hearings conducted by the Calif- ornia Public Utilities Commission, City of Carlsbad, San Diego Coast Regional Commission and the California State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. During the entire environmental review process, no factual evidence was given to dispute the results of Bechtel 's engineering design study. The State Air Resources Board sup- ports Bechtel 's calculation procedure. In June 1975, the San Diego County APCD concluded an independent study of the air quality impact of the proposed Unit' 5 addition with the 400 foot stack at Encina. That study used different calculation methods than used by Bechtel, but arrived at the same conclusions. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission approved San Diego Gas & Electric Encina Expansion on November 18, 1975• For your information the approval was conditioned to the following language: II. A. Permit Approva1s. Applicant shall not commence on-site construction of any portion of the pro- posed development until necessary permits and approvals have been issued for the construction of the development as proposed,, and evidence, satisfactory to the Executive Director of the Commission, has been submitted by the applicant showing that such approvals have been issued. B. Air Quality Monitoring and Emission Controls. 1. Applicant, prior to commencement of on-site construction, shall provide funds to the San Diego Air Pollution Control Dist. for the purchase of air quality monitoring instrumentation capable of monitoring ambient particulates, NQX) a,nd SC>2 concentrations for use at three new sites selected by the Air Pollution Control Officer in the vicinity of the Encina Power Plant. Should the officer select monitoring sites on applicant's property, applicant shall provide the sites and reasonable access at no expense to the District. 2. If the San Diego Air Pollution Control Officer or Hearing Board on appeal determines (1) that the Encina Power Plant is the source of the emissions causing the property damage and/or health impact to residents of the Terramar subdivision described in Finding 3t>, and (2) that operating practices and/or emission control devises are capable of eliminating such damage or impacts, the applicant shall submit to the Air Pollution Control Officer within 60 days of the determinations specified above, a compliance schedule, including such operating practices and/or emission control devises to be used in the Encina Power Plant as are necessary to eliminate such damage or impacts and time schedules for their use, which is acceptable to the Air Pollution Control Officer or Hearing Board on appeal. Upon acceptance of the compliance schedule, its terms shall become a condition of this permit and such emission control measures shall be incorporated into the proposed development. This condition shall not be construed as exempting the applicant from any requirements Imposed by law and necessary to conform l.o the terms of this con- d i 11 ori. 2 GABishop EMGabrielson 2/6/76 STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE FIELD TESTS SHOW THAT EMISSIONS FROM ENCINA PLANT ARE LIMITED IN EXTENT AND MINIMAL IN SIGNIFICANCE Stanford Research Institute (SRI) recently completed a study test program for San Diego Gas & Electric during which numerous air samples were taken, both in and out of the influ- ence of the Encina Power Plant. SRI has concluded that effects of the Encina Power Plant on the atmosphere and vegetation in the vicinity of the plant are limited in extent and minimal in sig- nificance. Twenty-one samples were analyzed for quantity of total particulates. Particulates are the solid particles in the air including dust, sand, ocean salt spray, and products of com- bustion. Eleven samples were analyzed for the sulfate concen- tration in the particulate sample. Sulfate, which can originate from ocean spray as well as fuel combustion, provides some index of the corrosiveness of the air particles. The results showed that particulates and sulfates were present in all samples collected, which included the area along the coast from Oceanside to Encinitas and inland to San Marcos. The tests did not show any significant increase in the quantity of particulates or sulfates in the air due to operation of the Encina Power Plant. Fifty samples were analyzed for trace elements to determine the source of the particulate matter. Only three of fifty samples, all within two miles of the power plant, con- Revision 2 GABishop EMGabrielson 2/6/76 Page 2 tained any particulate matter which could originate from the power plant. The other forty-seven samples, which included thirty samples taken within a two mile radius of the plant, did not contain any emission particles from the plant. SRI also surveyed the vegetation in the area for effects or symptoms that might result from emissions from the power plant. Their field inspection showed no effects on vege- tation due to emissions from the power plant. However, several plant diseases were observed, with the most common being sooty mold on the leaves of many plant species. Sooty mold is a disease which develops a black sooty and oily appearance on the surface of plant leaves. This could easily be confused with the alleged fallout which has been reported in the area. Analysis of this test program led SRI to the conclusion that the effects of the Encina Power Plant on the atmosphere and vegetation in the vicinity of the plant are limited in extent and minimal in significance. DRAFT DRAFT OF TESTIMONY FOR THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ON ENCINA 5 POWER PLANT On December 12, 1972 the APCD issued an authority to construct for Encina 5. On February 28, 1975 the APCD extended the time for the authority to construct to December 11, 1977, peg—Ru-lo-17-r Our recent written analysis (June, 1975).of the impact of emissions from Encina 5 with the tall stack concludes that "the proposed Encina addition would slightly decrease basin degradation and would markedly decrease ground level concentration of pollutants downwind in the plant vicinity." The latter conclusion is based on the tall stack. APCD The RASS is presently investigating the problem of property damage in the vicinity of the power plant. No conclusions can be drawn at this time. as However, if Encina 5 is built with a tall stack for all units, XK" proposed, the damage problem should be reduced rather than worsened. If the APCD studies show that the power plant is causing the damage, there is no question but that the situation must be remedied. Remedial action is a condition of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission permit «t for Encina 5. It is of course the duty of the APCD to see that any problem is remedied. One effective tool is to issue an abatement1order to SDGSE. abatement Failure to comply with the conditions of an a»a«ft3«ct order subjects the violator to a maximum $6,000 per day penalty. MEMORANDUM March 26, 1976 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: EIR's FOR ENCINA #5 AND THE STACK MODIFICATION AMENDMENT With regard to the upcoming hearing on the SDG&E Stack Modi- fication Amendment, it will be necessary for Council members to review all of the previously certified EIR's for the pro- ject prior to taking any action. In order that you have adequate time for this review, I am attaching a copy of the Stack Modification EIR which was certified in California Public Utilities Commission Encina of sheer bulk, cannot be reproduced. However 1973. The #5 EIR, because I have placed the three volumes of the EIR in the Councilmanic Office where you may review them at your convenience. Additional environmental information will be enclosed in your agenda bill packet. cc: City Attorney SDH:cpl AREA CODE (408) 758-3861 MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 1270 NATIVIDAD ROAD SALINAS, CALIFORNIA 93901 BQX 4g? Ms. Dana Hield Planning Department City of Carlsbad.: Carlsbad,CA. 92008 Subject: Report on Encina Power Plant Dear Ms. Hield: I have just had an opportunity to review your report dated March 24, 1976 to the Planning Commission regarding the Encina Power Plant of SDG§E. I believe that your report has captured the main basic points although we might have phrased some of the statements differently if we had been the author. Considering the scope of the problem you were required to investigate I think you have done a very good job. The package you have sent us has assured us that the time we spent with you and others interested in this problem has been well spent. We wish you success in the resolution of the problem and I am sure that we will keep in touch from time to time on progress either at Carlsbad or Moss Landing. Sincere L. Maloney \i'r Pollution Control Officer' JLM:ac SERVING THE COUNTIES OF MONTEREY, SAN BENITO AND SANTA CRUZ MEMORANDUM DATE: March 25, 1976 RECElVE Planning Director gg FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT : SDG&E STACK 9!JY OF CARLSBADPlanning Department This memorandum is to remind you regarding the EIR requirements for the SDG&E specific plan amendment to allow the 400 ft. stack. We have previously completed an EIR for the stack which has recently be supplemented. The original report, and the supplement with all comments, as you know, must be furnished to the City Council. We must also consider the EIR prepared by the lead agency for the entire Encina 5 project. Copies of that Environ- mental Impact Report, as certified by the Public Utilities Commission, should also be furnished to members of the City Council with a cover memo indicating that they should consider all of that information prior to reaching a decision on the company's application. During the Planning Commission hearings representatives of the company indicated they expected to begin construction immediately upon the receipt of favorable action from the City Council. That will not be possible. At the first City Council meeting the Council's action will be to refer the matter to the City Attorney for the preparation of the documents so that we can include the necessary findings in support of their decision. At a subsequent meeting the matter will be before them in the form of an ordinance for first reading. The third meeting will be necessary for final adoption of the ordinance, which will then not be effective for a thirty day period thereafter. The purpose of the thirty day period is to allow the people of Carlsbad an opportunity to exercise their rights to a referendum on the ordinance. We are obligated to scrupulously respect and honor those rights. No permit for any work in connection with the 400 ft. stack may be issued until after the expiration of the referendum period. That is, after the effective date of the ordinance. VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR, City Attorney VFB/mla SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY JACK E. THOMAS. VICE PRESIDENT FOWER PLANT ENGINEERING ft CONSTRUCTION F,LENo. CNB 100. March 16, 1976 Mr. William Simmons . ... Air Pollution Control Officer Air Pollution Control District 9150 Chesapeake Drive San Diego, California 92123 Dear Mr. Simmons: San Diego Gas & Electric Company has been conducting studies to determine the source of the corrosive spotting around the Encina Power Plant. Although our reports are not final, the preliminary indications are that at least some of the corrosive spotting is traceable to the Encina Power Plant. We are not in a position to offer an immediate solution because we have not yet identified the particular operating condition or plant characteristic that may be responsible for the corrosive spotting. We believe that an additional study should be immediately undertaken to identify the cause. Once the cause has been identified, San Diego Gas & Electric Company will be in a position to offer a compliance schedule indicating which of the operating practices should be changed or what control devices should be installed to correct this problem. . During the course of this proposed study, San Diego Gas & Electric Company will agree to restore or pay property damage claims to those residents who have proveable property damage claims Very tru,Iy.,.your/s, JET:Jeb ack E. Thomas AN INVESTOR-OWNED CORPORATION SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA . 9211? (71-1) 232-4252 February 12, 1976. -RLE NO.CAB 500 Mr. Stephen M. L'Heureux, Chairman ^91 Loma Laguna Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Chairman-L1Heureux: I mentioned during the hearing on January 28 that San .Diego Gas & Electric Company had retained Stanford Research Institute (SRI) to do some studies related to the alleged fallout problem in the Terramar area. The results of that study were received late last week and have been turned over to the Air Pollution Control District for their use. I am enclosing a summary of the SRI report. While it does not prove that the Encina Power- Plant has no effect on its surroundings the study does reinforce my beliefs that its impacts are insignificant. I do not know what the AP.CD study will conclude. You, however, have the assurance that if the Encina Power Plant is part of the Terramar "problem" we will take action to solve it. I would be pleased to discuss the SRI study with you. • Sincerely, R. G. Lacy, Manager Mechanical Engineering REL:cn Enclosure . RECEIVED cc: All Planning Commissioners ,-rn -i o /Von. Agatep rtB 16 CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department AN INVkSTOH-OWNLD CORPORATION STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE FIELD T-ESTS SHOW THAT EFFECTS OF THE ENCINA PLANT ON THE ATMOSPHERE AND VEGETATION IN THE VICINITY OF THE PLANT ARE LIMITED IN EXTENT AND MINIMAL IN SIGNIFICANCE Stanford Research Institute (SRl) has completed a study test program for SDG&E during which numerous air samples were collected, both in and out of the area of influence of the Encina Power Plant. Twenty-one samples were analyzed for quantity of total particulates. Particulates are the solid particles in the air including dust, sand, ocean salt spray, and products of combustion. Eleven samples were analyzed for the sulfate concentration in the particulate sample. Sulfate, which can originate from ocean spray as well as fuel combustion, provides some .index of the corrosiveness of the air particles because of the chemical reaction of sulfate with water vapor to form sulfuric acid. The results showed that particulates and sulfates were present in all samples collected, which included the area along the coast from Oceanside to Encinitas and inland to San Marcos. The tests did not show any significant in- crease in the quantity of particulates or sulfates in the air due to operation of the Encina Power Plant. Fifty samples were analyzed for trace elements to determine the source of the particulate matter. Only three of these samples, all within two miles of the power plant, contained any particulate matter which originated from the power plant. The other forty-seven samples, which included thirty samples taken within a two mile radius of the plant, did not contain any emission particles from the plant. SRI also surveyed the vegetation in the area for effects or symptoms that might result from emissions from the power plant. Their field inspection showed no effects on vegetation due to effluents from the power plant. SRI Field Tests Page 2 However, several plant diseases were observed, with the most common being sooty mold on the leaves of many plant species. Sooty mold is a disease which develops a black sooty and oily appearance on the surface of the leaf. This plant disease could easily be confused with the alleged fallout which has been reported in the area. Analysis of this test program led SRI to the conclusion that the effects of the Encina Power Plant on the atmosphere and vegetation in the vicinity of the plant are limited in extent and minimal in significance. R.G.Lacy 2/9/76 t SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P. 0.80X1831 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92112 (714) 232-4252 November 26, 1975 F.LENO. MUG 010 Mr. Don Agatep Planning Director 1200 Elm Avenue City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Don: This letter will serve to clarify my understanding of the November 24 meeting concerning Encina 5, amendment to the Specific Plan, Batiquitos Substation, General Plan Amendments and San Diego Gas & Electric property in the Carlsbad area. It is my understanding that your staff is presently working on a report for the Specific Plan Amendment. The report should be completed about the second week of December. A Planning Commission hearing will then be scheduled for the latter part of December. The report will cover the Mooring Facility and its relation to Encina 5 and the Single Stack, the relationship of the stack to Encina 5 in- cluding pertinent facts on the other four units, the need for a power plant on the east of Interstate 5, and last the question of what zoning should be applied to our property on the north shore of the outer sector of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. As was pointed out, one of the major issues of the amend- ment will be that of emissions and the more recent information from APCD. In this regard, it would be appropriate for a meeting the first week in December with the San Diego Gas & Electric personnel who are responsible for design and operation of Encina 5. This way we could short-cut your review and bring to your staff information concerning the emissions. Batiquitos Substation: The property is now owned by San Diego Gas & Electric and planned for an electrical substation. Batiquitos is now being re- zoned residential to be compatible with the surrounding uses. The City hopes to have that rezoning finalized in the very near future. San Diego Gas & Electric will then process a conditional use permit to allow for construction and operation of Batiquitos Substation. AN INVESTOR-OWNED CORPORATION t SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY Mr. Don Agatep November 26, 1975 Page 2 Japatul Parcel: The public utility designation on the Japatul parcel being leased to San Diego Gas & Electric for storage, situated in the northwest quadrant of Interstate 5 - Cannon Road will be changed back to commercial zoning. Staff has no objection to re- turning the property to commercial zone which is the most appropriate use for that parcel. Staff indicates that they will initiate the necessary action to bring the General Plan in conformance with existing commercial zoning on that property. Property North of our Outer Lagoon-5.96 Acre Parcel: Recently the City proposed to rezone the property north of the outer lagoon to open space. However, after public testimony they agreed to postpone any rezoning until we have an opportunity to discuss with staff what would be the most appropriate use of that property. Staff has taken a position that the most appropriate use is residential medium high density. Their reasoning is that re- sidential is more consistent with existing land uses in the area. Presently the zoning of that property is public utility, however, the General Plan slightly conflicts with it insomuch that staff initially indicated that it should be open space. They have altered their recommendation and now feel that the most appropriate is residential medium high density. No action is necessary by San Diego Gas & Electric on that parcel until after the Specific Plan Amendment is approved. Sincerely, E. M. Gabrielson Supervisor Land Engineering EMG:Ima Extension: 1885 cc: Paul Bussey TERRAMAR ASSOCIATION, INC. P.O. Box 860 Carlsbad, California 92008 November 25, 1975 Chairman Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Chairman: The San ^iego Gas & Electric Company has prepared a summary of "Encina Activities" in Carlsbad, which was forwarded to you on October 19, 1975i by Mr. F.W. DeVore, Manager, Engineering Land Development. In Section 10, Recreation, of that Summary, it states: "Cannon Park, located at Cannon Road and Carlsbad Blvd. is leased to the °ity by San Diego Gas & Electric for one dollar per year. Improvements and playground equipment were all donated and put in place by San Diego Gas & Electric," That statement is not quits correct. The Terramar Association donated and put in place in Cannon Park the tot-lot equipment, the basketball court, and the baseball backstop. These donations cost the Terramar Association more than $2669. They were made by agreement with and under the supervision of Carlsbad's Director of Parks and Recreation, It is requested that the Planning Commissioners be informed that the Terramar Association is the actual donor of the playground equipment presently installed in Cannon Park. SincereljK yours ,U A. Grayj Director Terramar Association, Inc.*•<•, WILLIAM SIMMONS Air Pollution Control Officer Appeal No 78-75 AIR POLLUTION CONTROliblSTRIG COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 9150 CHys-iptviko D.-ive Son DiiMi". C.-ilif. 92123 (714) 565-5901 (MS01VC) NOi/101975 CALIF. COAS7A- Z-' 19?5 Frank Broadhead Senior Permit Analyst California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission 1540 Market Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear Mr. Broadhead: The purpose of this letter is to inform your staff of recent air pollution problems which have occurred in the vicinity of San Diego Gas § Electric Company's Encina power plant. You may want to'consider the contents of this letter when you make your recoffirneridation to the Commissioners on the proposed Encina 5 power plant. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District has, during the past several months, received complaints alleging air pollution damage in the immediate vicinity of the plant. The District's initial investigation determined that the damage to house and auto paint was due to the disintegration of cenospheres. These cenospheres are composed in part of ferrous metals with some sulfates present. A primary source of cenospheres is the combustion of liquid and gaseous fuels in power plant size boilers. The size and quantity of the cenospheres is related to the inorganics in the fuel and the condition of the burner nozzle. The disintegration of these cenospheres in the presence of moisture has at least two known effects. These.are: a) The ferrous metal creates an orange-brown spot. b) The sulfates react to sulfuric or sulfurous acid. The acid then deteriorates the paint on homes and cars. i;ov 2:1375 - 2 - California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission November 7, 1975 In addition to the above problem these citizens have complained- of plant damage. The District has not at this time performed a pathological study of the plants to determine the cause of the damage. The District is currently undertaking the following investigative program in an effort to determine the source of the pollution and the extent of damage throughout the area. 1. By November 17, 1975 initiate impactor ambient sampling in the area of the power plant (one week). 2. By November 17, 1975 initiate in-stack sampling with a cascade slide impactor, a minimum of two boilers will be tested during normal conbustion and during soot blowing (one week). » 3. By November 17, 1975 initiate Hi-Vol sampling (3 sites) in the area of the power plant (2-4 weeks). 4. November 10, 1975 initiate preliminary plant pathology study (2 days). 5. - By November 17, 1975 initiate formal plant pathology study (1-2 weeks) 6. November 6, 1975 extensive analysis of all fuel oil currently in storage tanks. This analysis will be for sulfur content and trace metals (2 weeks). 7. By November 26, 1975 submit all impactor slides to laboratory for identification by x-ray flouresence. 8. By November 26, 1975 complete a photomicrographic study of the particles (by District), 9. By January 1, 1976 receive x-ray flouresence analysis report from the lab. 10. By February 1, 1976 have all data assimilated in a report with conclusions. The above investigative program will be initiated at SDGfjE's South Bay power plant about two weeks after the Encina study has begun. One of the more serious aspects of this case is determing if a health hazard is present down wind from the plant during normal combustion. The - 3 - California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission November 7, 1975 available literature on this subject indicates that sub-micron cenospheres are generated in the combustion chamber. These particles with their small mass.then become airborne and may travel a great distance from the source. Available literature also shows that it is the sub-micron particles which pose the greatest potential for causing or aggravating pulmonary diseases. Whether or not these particular particles pose a health hazard is not known at this time. Contact will be made with professionals who are knowledgeable in this area to determine the health affects from these particles. Considerable testing would be required to determine the over-all short term and long term affects of the sub-micron particles. Currently the District does not have budgeted funds for such a project, and if such funds were to become available it would not occur until our next fiscal year. The Air Resources Board and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency were queried by me as to the availability of special project funds for this problem. I was given a negative response from both agencies. Without this testing it will be difficult to prove or disprove the total impact on the environment from this station. Adequate ambient monitoring would require at least three stations measuring nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and particulates. Currently, the capital and the operating cost of such a project are beyond the fiscal means of the District. Should you have any questions pertaining to this or any related matter please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, RICHARD H. BALDWIN Chief, Surveillance § Enforcement Division RHB:kb .M AVENUE Illf'H 5i4,ES3!aEiCARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Wi-J'UI/ -•/ /• 4 l/H) I IHI Citp of Cartebab November 7, 1975 Mr. Ed Gabriel son SDG&E P.O. Box 1831 San Diego, CA 92112 RE: Transmission Lines in L-C Zone, City of Carlsbad Ted Richmond has expressed concern that the proposed ordinance amendment to the L-C Zone could prohibit SDG&E facilites, especially transmission lines. I have discussed this with the City Attorney and it is our opinion that the amendment as proposed does not affect public utilities any more than presently constituted. Both the present and the amended requiremends of the L-C Zone require a change of zone to a development zone prior to developing any facilities except those that are specifically excluded. See attached excerpt for the exclusion as listed in Section 21.44.080. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bud Plender ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR BP/vb cc: Ted Richmond 2.1 .000—-21.44.100 indicated potential scene as provided-in Chapter 21.52 and the map adopted thereby shall constitute an amendment to the yioriing map. This precise plan shall by map, diagram or test, or all of them, indicate boundeiries, design, arrangement and dimensions of any st3:eets , alleys, parking areas/ building sites and similar features pertinent to precise zoning. The comprehensive provisions of such precise plan shcill take precedence over the individual provisions of this title covering subjects such as parking, yards , etc . (Ord. 90G0 §1505).' —_^ Pubjl-ic__uti_litie3_. • The provisions of this title shall not be construed to limit or interfere with the installation, maintenance and operation of mutual water companies or public utility pip- lines and elecLric or telephone transmission lines, or railroads, when located in accordance with the applicable ru.les and regulations of the public utilities coiv.'aission of the state of Californi^i within rights of way, easements, o f s uch pub 1 i c u t i 1 i ties. (C) r d . franchises or ownerships 9060 §1506).. . . 21_.44.0_90_ JTempoj:ary_ real _e state ^office. In any newly created subdivision, the subclivider or his assignee may operate a temporary real estate office for the purpose of selling lots in the subdivision only. Such use shall cease no later than one year from the date of the recording of the final subdivision map of said subdivision, 'unless the planning commission, for good cause shown, shall a.llow a .longer period of time, up to one year per application therefor, for such use. The procedure 'for applying for such a longer period of time for such use and for appeal- ing from c'i decision of the planning commission on such an application shall be the same as that for a variance under Chapters 21.50 and 21.54. (Ord.-9186 §1: Ord. 9060 §1507). ?\^.- i^-^^_^^raP.££?rY iF-e^±-k ^Jltf;lJ:e_-£-iSI^' -*-n any newlycreated subdivision, the subaivider or his assignee may maintain two temporary reeil esterte billboards , not to exceed fifty square feet in area per face, or one bill- board not to exceed in area of one hundred square feet per face, for the purpose of selling lots in the. subdivision only. Such use shall cease no later than one year from the date of the recording of the final subdivision map of said subdivision, unless the planning commission, for good cause shown, shall allow a longer period of time, up to one year per application therefor, for such use. The procedure for applying for such a longer period of time for such use and for appealing from a decision of the planning commission on such an application shall be the same as that for a variance under Ch;>pte3:s 21.50 and 2.1.54. (Ord. 9106 §1: Ord. 90GO SJliiOS). 421 MEMORANDUM November 4, 1975 TO: PLANNING FROM: DANA HI ELD SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY STUDIES FOR THE ENCINA POWER PLANT In an attempt to obtain the most up to date information on the air quality effects of the Encina Power Plant's operations I have contacted several persons at the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District. The follow- ing is a summary of information (both verbal and written) provided to me by the APCD and other air quality experts. At the request of a number of private citizens, the APCD conducted a study of the projected effects of the Encina Plant 5th Generating Unit. Their study, published June 10, 1975, concluded that with or without the addition of the 5th unit, SOg emmissions from the plant are a significant air quality problem. Based on the company's projections of need, the study showed that ground level concentrations of S02 would decrease slightly with the install- ation of .the single stack. Nitrogen dioxide, hydrocarbons and particulate emissions were also examined; the APCD determined that these emissions were not a significant concern. These results are essentially the same as those contained within the older Encina 5 and Stack Modification EIR's. The APCD is currently undertaking a new study of particulate emissions from the Encina Plant. The study was prompted by complaints from a number of persons in the Terramar area who said that the plant periodically emitted fine grey particles which caused paint on their homes and autos to corrode. Dick Baldwin, Chief of the Permit Division explained to me that the particle samples they analyzed have been tentatively identified as cenospheres. These particles are ferous and, by themselves, can contribute to the formation of rust. It is believed that these cenospheres may also combine with sulfates and water vapor to form sulfuric acid. Baldwin referred me to John Maloney, head of the Monterey County APCD for further information on the cenosphere problem . Maloney recently headed up an intensive investigation of a similar problem at the PGE Moss Landing Power Plant. He was able to offer information on how and when the cenospheres are emitted, but he cautioned that comparing Encina with Moss Landing would be like comparing apples with oranges. The Moss Landing problem was traced to two 500' stacks. Complaints of fallout were coincident with periods of fuel oil usage (as opposed to natural gas usage). Formation of the cenospheres was lessened, but not eliminated with use of low sulfur fuel oil. Maloney suggested that design of the stack to provide for settling velocity (allowing the heavier particles to settle out) could prove beneficial. Another tactic would be to increase stack velocity, although this could possibly spread the problem over a larger area rather than diminish it. * * The San Diego County APCD will be taking particular"samples from the stacks and at ground level locations around the plant within the next couple of weeks. Samples will be taken during normal operations and during soot blowing operations. Soot blowing is used to clean the heat transfer surfaces of the generators in order to increase efficiency of the units. The APCD suspects that the cenospheres agglomerate during normal operations and are emitted primarily during soot blowing. The collected samples are to be analyzed by Crocker Nuclear Lab at the University of California at Davis. The following issues are pertinent to the upcoming Specific Plan for Encina Unit #5: (1) The new information concerning SC"2 emissions before and after the installation of Unit 5 corroborates the earlier data: with the single stack, a slight decrease in ground level S02 concentrations will be achieved. (2) Baldwin told me, off the record, that a notice of violation will probably be issued with regard to the cenosphere problem. At this point it is unclear as to what remedial measures will be required. It is possible that the APCD could require certain stack modifications to prevent the release of agglomerated cenospheres. (3) Knowledge of how and when cenospheres are emitted is presently limited. However the Monterey County APCD has been able to successfully control their problem. One caution: the Moss Landing Plant is removed from residential areas, and consequently the problem may be more critical for the Encina Plant because of close proximity to residences. If you have any questions I can follow up with more phone calls. The people I have talked to at the various APCD's have been most helpful. Dana Hi eld ASSISTANT PLANNER DH/vb -2- r /"" \ ^^ ^^-"^ j)D?jr) SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P. G. 60X133! SAM DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 921)2 - January 28, 1976 <; J< o ( Co- v 15 F.LE NO. MUG 010 [ Mr. Paul Bussey City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue JAN 2 8 197:j Carlsbad, CA 92008 B , CITY OF CARLSBADJJear FaU1: Engineering Department Reference is made to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Specific Plan for the Encina Power Plantsas approved by Carlsbad City Council in 1971. One condition to'}Specific Plan approval in City Council Ordinance No. 9279., specifically 13(a) was improvements required for Carlsbad Blvd. The condition reads as follows: 1. "Construct street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lights and up to 20 feet of paving along each side where SDG&E property has frontage, excepting public beaches and property dedicated for public parks. Con- struction may be deferred until mutually agreeable to the City and the Company except that the safety of the driving and walking public will be considered. The improvements may be financed by assessment district". The Company has reached agreement with City repre- sentatives for payment of $230,000 for Carlsbad Blvd. street improvements. We agree to install high pressure sodium vapor street lights on 300 foot centers using SDG&E LS2 charge rate. Notice should be given 90 days prior to date of installation so SDG&E can plan the work. i We agree to the figure of $230,000 payable to the City of Carlsbad on July 1, 1976, or upon demand by. the City Public Works Director. If the City does not require the money until some later date, SDG&E has an option of paying on July 1, 1976 or paying later subject to an Qfo per-annum escalation rate. This agreement meets the condition described above, and absolves SDG&E from further commitment for any Carlsbad AN INVESTOR-OWNi'D CORPORATION AN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY Mr. Paul Bussey January 28, 1976 Page 2 Blvd. improvements. Should improvements not be installed or permitted within four years of this agreement, then SDG&E will be reimbursed the monies given under this agreement. Please . acknowledge your approval by signing below and returning to SDG&E. Sincerely, R. L." Ellis Manager Engineering Land Department APPROVED Paul Bussey RLE:lma LEAGUE OF WOMEN YOURS OF SAN DIEGUITO P.O. Box 72? Cardiff, Ca. 92007 January 28, 1976 STATEMENT TO THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING A REQUEST PROM SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A 400 FOOT STACK AT THE ENCINA POWER PLANT The League of Women Voters of San Dieguito, which has 24 members living in Carlsbad, is greatly concerned about the issuance of a permit to San Diego Gas and Electric Company to construct a 400 foot stack at the Encina Power Plant. This statement is based upon positions reached by the League of Women Voters of the United States following a two-year study of air quality. Our local League participated in that study and has maintained an interest in air quality issues since conclusion of the study in 1971. i The League of Women Voters believes control of air pollution is a responsibility of all levels of government. Our local League believes Carlsbad city government, in particular, must be vigilant in its efforts to promote the highest standards of air quality for its citizens. We believe that close attention must be paid to sources of pollution within Carlsbad and that all possible action should be taken by the City to reduce that pollution. The League of Women Voters believes that pollution control should be considered a cost of doing business but citizens as consumers and taxpayers must expect some costs to be passed on to them. We support regulation of stationary sources by controls and penalties, including inspection and monitoring, full disclosure of pollution data, and substantial fines. The apparent past inability of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District to conduct adequate independent inspection and monitoring at the Encina Power Plant site or in the near vicinity and surround- ing region concerns the League. We believe a decision by Carlsbad government to grant permission for the tall stack to be constructed should be based upon far better pollution data than exist at present. Such a decision should be postponed at least until all results of the study Initiated by the APCD in November 1975 and scheduled for completion February lg 1976 are known. A national League of Women Voters publication dated 1975 has this to say in a section on issues in air quality! To meet national air quality standardss several utilities have suggested using intermittent controls systems and tall stacks as opposed to permanent emissions controls (scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators). Intermittent ABATEMENT OF CENOSPHERES AT MOSS LANDING POWER PLANT MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA "™" --.._- -_r —•_.-.. ._•-• ----- «-—m-r -ir.jT.j-. ^ _ -W Prepared by Calrsbad Planning Department The January 28th Environmental Analysis on the SD6&E stack modi- fication application (SP-144B) refers to information provided by John Maloney, Air Pollution Control Officer for Monterey County. Mr. Maloney has been involved with the identification and miti- gation of a cenosphere problem emanating from the Moss Landing Power Plant. The degree to which the Moss Landing problem has been mitigated has not been measured. However, reports from boat owners who had been impacted by cenospheres indicate that fallout has been substantially reduced. Pacific Gas & Electric, which operates the Moss Landing Power Plant, has tak.en a number of measures to arrest the emission of cenospheres. Primarily, they have modified their operations and type of fuel used. PG&E has also assumed responsibility for clean- ing and repainting damaged boats. According to Maloney, installation of equipment to clean flue gasses prior to emission is prohibitively expensive -- perhaps as high as $6 million. SDK:mdp '; SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92112 (714) 232-4252 FILE NO. CNB 100 JACK E. THOMAS VICE PRESIDENT POWER PLANT ENGINEERING ft CONSTRUCTION MSLFCh 12 1976 Mr. Paul Bussey City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. Bussey: During the January 28 Planning Commission hearing on San Diego Gas & Electric Company's requested amendment to the Specific Plan for the Encina Power Plant, we said that SDG&E had retained Stanford Research Insti- tute (SRI) to conduct some studies related to the alleged fallout problem in the Terramar area. The test program, while not concluded, has thus far indicated that some of the reported corrosion damage in the Terramar area is probably started or caused by particles from the Encina Plant. Therefore, we plan to meet with the individual Terramar residents to resolve the damage claims which are our responsibility. Both the San Diego County APCD and this Company have determined that further studies will be required to isolate the specific plant operating conditions which are causing the fallout and identify the steps required for corrective action. We want you to know that we are working with the San Diego County APCD staff to (a) scope a study, and (b) design an agreement or affidavit that will assure the City and County that necessary corrective action will be taken by the Company. AN INVESTOR-OWNED CORPORATION SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY Mr. Paul Bussey March 12, 1976 Page Two However, we respectfully request everyone to keep clearly in focus that establishing a plan to correct this problem should in no way involve further delay in the City's re-confirmation of its amendment to the "Encina Specific Plan" to permit construction of the 400 foot stack. Tack E. Thomas 'Vice President-Power Plant Engineering and Construction JET:dm cc: Bob Prazee Mary Casler Bud Lewis Ron C. Packard Tony Skotnicki Stephen M. L'Heureux E. W. Dominguez J. C. Fikes E. L. Jose Eric Larson R. L. Watson JXon Agatep Vincent Biondo A. A. Sugg, District Manager Local Papers MEMORANDUM October 23, 1975 TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: DANA HIELD SUBJECT: CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR SD6&E ENCINA POWER PLANT SPECIFIC """ PLAN (SP-144) \ The sections of CEQA relevant to the recent application of SDG&E for re- \ newal of their Specific Plan Amendment (Stack Modification project) are: (1) Lead Agency definition, principle and criteria - Sections 15030, 15064 and 15065 (2) Subsequent EIR - Section 15057 (3) Multiple and phased projects - Section 15069 I (4) Ongoing project - Section 15070 (5) Public hearings - Section 15165(e) The following is an analysis of the implications of these sections on the SDG&E application. JLIAD_AGB[CY_CRITERIA The lead agency is defined as the agency which has the principal responsibility for preparing environmental documents and carrying out or approving a project (Sec. 15030). When a project is to be carried out or approved by more than one agency, it is to be carried out by the lead agency in consultation with all other affected agencies. All responsible agencies (that is, all other agencies which have discretionary control over the project) are then required to consider the lead agency's EIR prior to acting on the project (Sec. 15064). The criteria for determining which agency is lead agency are: (1) If the project is to be carried out by a public agency, that agency is the lead agency. (2) If the project is to be carried out by a private person or entity, the lead agency is the public agency which as the greatest responsibility for approving or supervising the project as a whole. The lead agency is generally the agency with general governmental powers, as opposed to a single or limited purpose agency; (3) Where more than one agency meets the above criteria, the lead agency shall be the agency to act first on the project. (Sec. 15065) The Offic^P>f Planning and Research arbid^es lead agency dis- putes in the event that two or more agencies have an equal claim to be lead agency (Sec. 15065.5). SUBSEQUENT EIR: When an EIR has been certified for a project, no new EIR is required unless:! (1) Substantial changes are proposed to the project; (2) Substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken have occurred. MULTIPLE AND PHASED PROJECTS: When individual projects or a phased project is to be undertaken, the Lead Agency must prepare a single EIR for the ultimate project. Where the individual project is a necessary precedent for a larger project or commits the Lead Agency to a larger project ti.e EIR must address itself to the scope of the larger project.(Sec. 15069) ONGOING PROJECT: A project where permit or other entitlement was issued priur to April 5, 1973 shall not require an EIR or negative declaration, sub- ject to the following provision: Where a project involving issuance of a permit or other entitlement has been granted discretionary governmental approval for a part of the project before April 5, 1973 and additional discretionary approval after that date, an EIR or negative declaration shall be required only if the subsequent approval(s) involve a greater degree of responsibility or control over the project as a whole. (Sec. 15070) PUBLIC HEARING: There is no requirement for a public hearing in connection with review of an EIR prepared by another agency. There are a number of policy questions which need to be answered in deter- mining EIR requirements for this project. First and foremost is the lead agency question: (1) The CPUC acted as lead agency for Encina Unit #5, and yet the City acted as lead agency for the stack modification. Should the City assume the role of "responsible agency" and consider only that EIR certified by the CPUC? (2) Was the City in error by not certifying an EIR for the total pro- ject in 1973 when the stack modification was approved? If so, would it be proper for the City to certify an EIR for the total project (according to the multiple/phased project criteria) with the present application? (3) Has the criterion of "ongoing project" been invalidated because of the stack modification proposal? '(Note: An EIR may be re- quired for a project approved prior to CEQA if a subsequent discretionary approval for portion of that project involves a greater degree of "responsibility or control" over the project.) -2- (4) Has the p^^'ect changed - either with respect to the project it self or to the circumstances under which it is to be executed - since the time that the Unit 5 and stack modification EIR's were certified by the CPUC and City? : (5) If it is determined that the City is "responsible agency" for1 the project, should the certified CPUC EIR be subject to draft EIR review and public hearings at the local level? "I see a lot of shades of grey in the determination which must be made. A conservative determination could be made to reconsider only the previously certified stack modification EIR. CEQA requires only that the public agency consider the EIR - draft EIR review and public hearings are not required. The problem ''with this determination is that it violates the principle of examining a project en toto. My professional inclination (and I think it is justifiable legally also) is that a new EIR considering the total project should be required. Section 15069 states that for a multi-faceted project, all aspects and implications of that project must be examined in the EIR. Neither of the two previous EIR's do this. The "ongoing project" argument (i.e., the contention that the original Specific;Plan is totally exempted by CEQA) can be countered in two ways. First, the stack modification approval does involve a greater degree of control over the project (see Sec 15070). Secondly, the new application constitutes reopening of the Specific Plan. Should the City Choose to clean up the original Specific Plan, changes in that approval could also involve a greater degree of control over the project. In summary, CEQA provides a general framework from which to determine EIR requirements, but the guidelines are not definitive in this instance. A policy decision is necessary to determine which CEQA criteria are most closely related to the present project and what course of action will most adequately serve the City's decision making needs. XQa. Dana Hi eld ASSISTANT PLANNER H/vb -3- (c) Where an ag^B^y "having jurisdiction bf^iav; .mist exercise discretionary authority over a project in order for the project- to proceed, it is also a responsible agency, see Section 15039, .1.3 or the Lead Agency, see Section 15030. I'jO'KO. i Lead Agency. Lead Ager.cy means the public agency which hnn ! The~pFi n c i pa1 responsibility for preparing environmental documents and for carrying out or approving a project which way have a signi f i cant effect on the. environment. .V.O/J . '.-oca 1 A ge11cy. Local agency means any public agency other Tr7a7r~a~st ate agency, board 'or commission. Local -agency ; riciu»Je-s but IE not 3irr.rt.ed to cities, counties, charter- cities and counties, «1-; r.i ricts, school districts, special •iistrict, redevelopment agencies and- any board, commission, •>.r. organizational r.uL-d.i v I sion of a local agency when so urs.lf.nated ::y order or resolution of the governing J^Fi siati ve body of the 1-cal agency. / Lead Agency Principle, Where a project is to be carried ' out"''br~approve3~by" more than one public agency only one public agency shall be responsible for preparation .of environmental documents and it will be the Lead Agency. Such environmental documents will be prepared by the Lead Agency in consultation with all other responsible agencies. The Lead Agency's environmental documents shall be the environmental documentation for all responsible agencies. Such responsible agencies shall consider the Lead°Agency's EIR or negative declaration prior to acting upon or approving the projects, and they shall certify that their decision-making bodies have reviewed and considered the information contained in them. Lead Agency Criteria. (a) If the project is to be carried out by a public agency, the Lead Agency shall be the public agency which proposes to carry out the project. (b) If the project Is to be carried out by a nongovernmental person, the Lead Agency shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or ( approving the project as a whole. The Lead Agency will generally be the agency with general governmental powers rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose which is involved by reason of the need to provide a public service or public utility to the project; in such cases, the single or limited purpose agency will, upon request, provide data concerning all aspects of its activities required to furnish service to the project to the agency drafting the EIR, and no separate EIR will be required in regard to such activities, . — t_j. j v-vjuo..i..i.>ymeet the criteria set forth in par/ -raph b above, J^-' agency which is to actjg^rst on the prc^Pct in question shall be ^e Lead Agency (following the principle that the environmental impact should be assessed as early as possible in governmental planning) (d) where the provisions of subsections (a) (b) and (c) leave two or more public agencies with an'equal claim to be the Lead Agency, the public agencies may by agreement desiqnate which agency will be the Lead Agency. 3'3067.Subsequent. EIR. Where an EIR has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless: (a) Substantial changes are proposed In the project which will require major revisions of the EIR, due to the Involvement of new environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR on the project; There are substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, such as a change in the proposed loca- " tion of.the project, which will require major revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of new environmental Impacts not covered in a previous EIR. . . . :15068. Use of a single EIR, The Lead .Agency may employ a. .-...i-,>,;.;^ single EIR to describe more than one project, if such projects are "•: essentially the same in terms of "environmental impact. Further the Lead Agency may use an earlier EIR prepared in connection with an earlier.project to apply to a later project, if the circumstances of the projects are essentially the same. Lead Agencies may elect to write EIR's in advance fpr entire programs or regulations, in order to be prepared for project applications to come. Whenever an agency chooses to utilize any of these alternatives, however, it must find that the environmental effects of the projects are similar .enough to warrant the same treatment in ah Elk and that 'the EIR will .adequately cover the impacts of any single project. If these tests- are not met, an agency should supplement the EIR it prepares for a program to apply it to an individual- project. 1S069.Multiple and Phased Projects. Where Individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency must prepare a single EIR for the ultimate project. Where an individual project is a necessary precedent for action on a larger project, or commits the Lead Agency to a larger project, with rj.ignlflcant environmental effect, an EIR must address Itself to the scope of the larger project. Where one project 1» one of several similar projects of a public agency, but IB not deemed a part of a larger undertaking or a larger project, the agency may prepare one EIR for all projects, or one for each project, but should in either r>r\t\(* r»nmrnF?nt nnnn the combined effect. 15070. . n ii in r i^| f (a) A project as p* .tried in'Section ~ these Guidelines, approved prior to November 23., 1970j shall require an Environmental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration if the project may have a significant effect on the environment, and either of the following conditions exists: (1) A substantial portion of public funds allocated for the project have not been spent and it ir, still feasible to modify the project to mitigate . • potentially adverse environmental effects, or to choose feasible alternatives to the project ••' including the alternative of "no project" or • halting the project; provided that this '' • Section (1) shall not apply to projects -which corns under the jurisdiction of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and which, through regulations promulgated under NEPA, were held to be too far. advanced at the time of •NEPA's effective date to require an EIS in com- ipliance with those regulations. (2) ; A. public agency proposes to modify the project in such a way that the project might have a new - j significant effect on the environment. 1 , (b) A project as defined in Section 15037 (a) (3) or in Section 15037 (a) (2) as it relates to contracts, wheire the permit or other entitlement was issued, or the contract approved, prior to April 5, 1973, shall not require an EIR or Negative Declaration^ sxibject to the following provisions: (1) CEQA expressly does not prohibit a public agency from considering environmental factors in connec- tion with the approval or disapproval of a project, or from imposing reasonable fees on the appropriate private person or entity for pre- paring an environmental report. Local agencies may require environmental reports for projects covered by this paragraph pursuant to local ordinances during this Interim period. (2) Where the issuance or approval occurred prior ' to December 5, 1972, and prior to said date"the project was legally challenged for noncompliance with CEQA, the project shall be bound by special rules set forth in Section 21170 of CEQA. (3) Where a project involving the losuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement to use has been granted a discretionary govern- mental approval for part of the project before 5> 1973, and another \^additional discre-. governmental £ipprovp after April 5, 19(3> the project shall require an EIR or Neg- ative Declaration only if the approval or approvals after April 5, 1973, Involve a greater degree of responsibility or -control over the project as a whole than did the approval or approvals prior to that date. » • • (c). Any EIR which has been completed or on which substantial work has been performed on or before February 1?>>197^; in compliance tJlth procedures of a public agency consistent with CEQA and these Guidelines as adopted on February 3, 1973, shall be / deemed to be in compliance vilth these Guidelines.: No further EIR shall be required except as provided in Subsections (a) and (b), fe) There is no requirement for a public agency tov ; conduct a public hearing- in connection with its review of an EIR prepared by another public agency. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92112 (714) 232-4252 October 20, 1975 F,UENO. SFH 010 Mr. Don Agatep Planning Director 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad,, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Agatep: Recently the Carlsbad Planning Commission passed a motion asking for a report on San Diego Gas & Electric Company's activities at Encina. Subsequently, and at a joint City Council and Planning Commission workshop you and the Manager gave a complete verbal brief of our Encina activities. We understand that Staff is satisfied that your presentation fulfilled the Commission and Council request. However, we would like to follow up that brief- ing by submitting a written report on San Diego Gas & Electric's Encina activities. In this regard, we respect- fully request time at the October 29, Planning Commission meeting to submit this written report and give a brief statement to the Commission. Would you set up an ap- propriate time for this brief presentation. Your continued cooperation is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, E. M. Gabrielson Supervisor Land Planning EMG:Ima Extension: 1885 OCT20 1975 :CIIYOF Planning AN INVESTOR-OWNED CORPORATION NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Date U\£Q.Q L3/V> -.. H L^S-IB^ ,.:. ..£<Source com-) Name M U\£Q.Q L3/V> -.. ^S-IB^ ,.:. ..<t/G/^/5 \. plained of: ) O iMnt or type, Address 2. Complainant: Name ,/ ....... .....:......^^.^......J...I^ ............. No. .'{prim or Type) _ ' How long 3. Home address ....... 3..A./.5. ........... JJ.&/&&.& ........ £>.£L. ....... &/L6 ....... - .................... . ......................... there ............ (Print or Type) . How long A- Business address ........................ s/C ........ /0..../1. ..... :.: ..................................... - ............................................................................... there ........... ' (Print or Type) . 5. Approximate distance from source ............. /....Q...Q....& ................ /~: 7^ . 6. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. N E S W 1. Dates and hours nuisance occurred .......... ^^ I <L. / r ................. /Q.//.. ........ ~£.£-J ..( 8. Nature of nuisance complained of, circle. (Smokfe, charred paper, dust,^ggpJB^fanjT;gj_cjirbgrL./acJj^ (nas.} ) (other ..... f:/k_tZ..A'.QlSJ£. ......................... " .............................. ) "\/ 1— C9. Have you observed the above-described emissions coming from the source complained of ...... y C:.^>. ................................... 10. Have you or any member of your household become ill from the nuisance? If "yes", who? ................... 11. Describe nature of illness C*- O. ./t'.5> _/"£"I GT/lSrfZ-s o/' uJ --5/777Q 12. How is your home address zoned ./f^.^-S//^tr^'.Rcs i(.1«nt t;il. CoiTimerc in I or M;m>ifnc tur i ny) 13. Has the property at this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? - £(J£T // < ~7f~S) . fief o A- -- "14. State any daniacje done to your property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. cJ/s/.-L LT /" 15. Will vou appear in court to testify? 16. Signature of complainant :::: iM.'irri'.-a woin.'jn :• 17. Complainant's remarks. ... (^ .£T~ . X?XL ^-=~. . . x^-K.5 --^P1 tx^" T~C^.'/^ M.'irri'.-d woin.'tn shotfi."! '.iSt: h^f ov.-n titsr n'irnfci Representative COUNTY OK SAN DIEGO Ch.'Mllrnent .,1 Pub';,.' Ht-nl'tll 1t;0t) P.'tr.ific Hwv ., ^an i'i'.c;o. G A f^iot SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 921i2 FILE NO SLD 410 December 8, 1970 Mr. George W. Brownley 4120 Skyline Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. Brownley: Mr. Al Sugg has forwarded your complaint to me, together with the sample of the material found in your swimming pool. I just, wanted you to know that we are checking into your problem immediately, so someone other than Mr. Sugg may be contacting you in the future. Yours truly, RDR:meh cc:Gordon Pearce R. Denis Richter Director-Public Relations INVESTOR-OWNED BY MORE THAN 25.000 STOCKHOLDERS -«_ «.NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Date Source com ) NameGt/O plained of ) j^— -X ^I O V £ I -Pf'nt Address j s At o Oct. Compla.nant. .. Name (QaeA)£l/0. A.Qo.£offe - •- ' l <L 2 3 rioiiie address. ^ Business address.. (Print oriType) - .•• .. Jj &££& ...... (Print or Type) rf\ _| I | L^A RiS DM. it i** s- _/io^ £>lar/GT i Phone * '"No 1 How long -jf ff -."• there How long * there *r-- Type) Apuroxim'ate distance from source .. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. Ddtes and hours nuisance occurred .G_pp...R.OX-«- tvE>G>O Ur /N~) E S W ... ....... .. N^...ljUu%^^', \l . , **• f, »JL » /i:;..• ' '. H - UXx II JEatborU^iCM. _ga 3 .9. ,/-/10. 11. 12. /^ 13. o ^Nature of nuisance complained of, circle. ($mo1<e), charred paper, dust, ^or^) (other ^>O.lS..<S_ .) Have you observed the above-described emissions coming from thesource complained of ..;.....; (_t' v . ••:•-. .. . > ; ,• . -.-. v.1 Have you or arty member of your household become^! 11 from the nuisance?. If "yes", who? ...,(jmk.&j/fa J^^ Describe nature of illness....V\XQLU oihr. J How is your home address zoned ... •(•-•....... .cr© <iW. ..~rrrOlji.*S: ....... _£ : :sKltsnlt.il, Conimercial or Mnnufactur ing) Has the property at this address (lei)reciated in value due to the nuisance? 14. State any damage done to our property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. ~~ \~ '•$ ..... • ;M,ir!i.-.J winnitn ^hfnl.l MM; her owft f;/-;t p;*DK' 15. Will you appear in court to ir-istify? 16. Signature of complainant 17. 'Complainant's rern.'irfcs Representative COl'NTV OF SAW PIEGO O(!i>.'''tii:Hiii n[ PL,bin: •!',• NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Date ......................... J.</ ..... ll...i.llir(.. Source com- ) Name ........... rify..'^+jf^: ..... L^^^'lS^r^^ ...... PQyy.*.r..A ! .ci.nl. • S>JL)6> fcr 1. plained of: ) lPrint or Tvps) Address ............ .^^^^^=^0^^^ ........... -. .............. C^kbacl ...... BiwL ....... Carkkpc! Cc _ _ _ , __ , Phone 2. Complainant: Name ....... >Mr..v.^r<^ ......... JL.oko ...... j.^.r.qlJ. ........ J&crxo.Kr ................................... No.(Print or Type) • . . How long 3. Home address ....... jj^./*/ ........ £J ...... Ai?b.CJ ......... JJ).0.., ......... CcVrUVlaflJ ..... G.V, .......... .^P.S.... there ................ // ..... y.i&a *•$...{Print or Type} • . ' ( . Zodu^riat g ^ -/ - /f'^J How long 4 7 Business address..N.ucui«s....\feMtes«*»* ........ .rC^cW.fe. ...... '..M^^T...:..fet ..... Oa.wm.c......r4c.i.L ............ there ........... ..JQ.. v-ea.b;* ^ (Print or'Type) ' 5. Approximate distance from source ........... 4?. ...... bfacjc... ................................................................................................................................................................... 6. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. tLy E S V/ 7. Dates and hours nuisance occurred OD.C1 SrS. F.toex w S:WMfe- Si^iy^ vV.^r foc^.c\vjf~ Otv'. . . . .o y 1 ' o 8, Nature of nuisance complained of, circle. /Smokgycharred paper, dust, soot, grime, carbon../acid odors^ .(other _^T ) . 9. Have you observed ths above-described emissions coining from the source complained of V.CT-.S-. 10. Have you or any member o_f^your household become ill from the nuisance? V.*';.S ' If "yes", who? M.fe.,....B?£>K£..)rr. 11. Describe nature of iIIness f£Sjpj.ra^apw •dLi.s.l.r^S.S........ ^ / / * " "• • ( .$12. How is your home address zoned .^S icfij^ vt qi...) r:.~?\ftQy'&, 3..Si.kvu../..y(Res identiSJ^ Commercial or Mant/acturing) 13. Has the property at this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? 14. State any damage done to your property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. . ^ body ra.si Vo < 15. Will you appear in court to testify? Yes ( 16. Signature of complainant "a^JWx, Jb^TVi.GU« ...(M<3>ried wq^ian should Xjse her own first name) 17. Complainant's remarks..;'OtL-. /)a..V:&* ^./«...fo]l.c.i.?.-*,.c.....:l^- J..*:?. >...«,../..a/r/ sD.go.rc. |..r» ., 3 H:.inr«:'..£, .v./.rM..u j^xc_- a..».»^....iw&^. p.arl.t.ca.I.a.r.lv/ .....».r.rj.lci..?T.»a. .a,-M.d' -...<nL..*.&.. Representative APCD 2 (11-70) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Department of Public Health 1600 Pacific Hws-.. San Diego, CA 921C! "ij.120 Skyline 3d, Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 January 21, 1971 . •Hr. Carl Helswender Carlsbad' City Planning Office Carlsbad, Calif., 92008 Jear- Mr. Neiswenderj I ara pleased to confirm the information I gave you by !phons today concerning oil polntion from the SDQ- and E Eneiiia pi ante My home, where we have measured the polutin is at i|lcO Skyline Rd», about a mile and a half northeast of the plant* fie i:'irat became aware of heavy polution in ou& pool about two yoiira ago, but did not connect it at first with tha pi tints Now, as the attached photostat will indicate, tber-a ft're at least 31 pools in the Carlsbad-Oceanside area I'itu this contamination, as reported to ua ty the 0-aylor fcer-vies wftru The samples accompanying this letter were talcen from the pool filter basket thBae^past two days and ere typical for at least 90$ of the time the year around* 3JGr and 5 had the audacity to say that their inicroacople teat of similar samples indicated the oily deposit was frcsn hurim bodies. This is. preposterous. No one has been in the pool since Demember 10th when we turned the heat off, Mrs, Brownley finds a similar black deposit on the clothes lines which must be wiped off each time they are used* Please do not hesitate to call me if you vrould like ; tc know mor'3 about this condition, I appreciate your interest in taking stopS tov;ard the abolishment of this Intolerable polutioru Needless to say this same black deposit falls everywhere and on everytMing in the area. Sincerely, George .V. Brownley NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Date Source com- ) Name '^f^./Y.. 'r^'/.(~^~f:?.. _...^L^.^. ^~. c. 1. plained of: ) • (Prim or Type) r-. x> . , - *9 ST ..- /*Address x7 y /"""-y * / Phone 2. Complainant: Name Cr.^.?.^....^ ^J..?.:^..^..l/^.^r^.. No. (Print or Type) T — /-, /^O How 3. Home address ••^•'./..s^?... £~.<~^::. sJ&\£?d.C,^.2^^.,(^.^/$.&S.£>&£>....\~?:$.. there (Print or Type) (Print or Type) b. Approximate distance from source / • * a. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. N ( E \ S W 7. Dates and hours nuisance occurred /.£./f2....^..../.?.'?..£>. (..£&£?7.!?.z-. 8. Nature of nuisance complained of, circle.C^SmokeJ charred papet?^ dus^ soot, / qrime.Ccarbory'' acid?) gas odors, (other ~~~~. .' ) ~~" ' 9. Have you observed the above-described emissions coming from the source complained of ^-\ 10. Have you or any member of your household become ill from the nuisance? _...... If "yes", who? 11. Describe nature of illness .X^^^-r^:. 12. How is your home address zoned (Residential, Commercial or Manufacturing) 13. Has the property at this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? 14. State any damage done to your property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. -/•••" ••}r // ••-' * ^—- ' /. 15. Will you appear in court to testify? \ Yes 'J */y 16. Signature of complainant __ J^ (Married woman should use h3r own first name) If 17. Complainant's remarks 'TiL^- , /,V L^-^- /'j...bfa&etet*!&c*f*tt. *Csts3.. -^fc^M............ I^C^Lff... :...T^^c-^i*r<c?. s&>.. 'fr3^ '&i&7rf ^^e^L^ Ssfj?/:^^ s, ZLcsL-^(. ..Representative . . COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Department of Public Health A"CD l'1 •'II 16°° Pacific Hwy-. San Dieeo. CA 92101 0 NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Date C 7) ' /° , /"/ •/'Source com- ) Name C^Q.M. /.2/.£...f}..&. ^..&S.....&7&...£./.d..£.£s. 1. plained of: ) ' (Print or Type) Address X<7 /~~ /• / / Phone 2. Complainant: Name J.fy..(.^..L...L..../....^..S?..f^... ^..^...^..^f.^... No. (Print or Type) /""" 3 / & s— - -) / / /"" / / x How Ion9 XT 3. Home address ..J2..&/....2... £Z./... /7/^.O.L. (^.&.tL&.x:?.*..*L... there /t/J (Print or Type) ' /2 ~. x~v, , How long 4: Business address / b4&..^.&&^L......&/.f^;. L^£...^&T./?..&</'.^?&. there /. {Print or Type) / / ' ^ Z/5. Approximate distance from source / ^./..^r^v ^AU'/7j" 6. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. N E ' 7. Dates and hours nuisance occurred $./^..L<~..{^.. L./J. /L/.. ti/.ttZ.??^''..%££. '*7f(?./''7'~y'-•/>'/ / /; *... nci. .f itc lej 8. Nature of nuisance complajned of, circle., /^nioke) charred paper, dust, sg^L_arjrn3^_caj:bgri^acid, gas, odors... (other .c.C^^.5V^W^./v-?^..&/:/./fcC~ir^ ) 9. Have you observed the above-described emissions coming from the source complained of .i./c'vS" 10. Have you or any member of your household become ill from the, nuisance? .±U If "yes", who? .....^.../;?4?.£/.f;L..£iL^^ „.'_. , , , - , - .„ Li-'^ fftxtfC' /-£•?<?- LL/rf?£/0cfs~ poet'?. 7 /?<s &tOC-7~&s~ ~/~c~>/£-('' /??<£ -/•^&-<l 11. Describe nature of illness j33.ec£(..CSi r7?./?. /??&£•{ ff.C. •'*?fi& &£<£'.. &.£..J?.£l/t.^u'£: .J 7 f 12. How is your home address zoned /\..~../ (Residential, Commercial cr Manufacturing) 13. Has the property at.this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? 14. State any damage dons to your property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. ^ r * CA^£^-^^ ^J^^^ 15. Will you appear in court to testify? - Yes ( <X) No ( ) &,T~ <z-/ &SSf 16. Signature of . . , ,.... (Married womnn should use her own first nnme) 17. Complainant's remarks...^.- /7.^-?...^...^'. C.'.&././.£.i£3?... /?././".../737fd£U.£....&.<:£.• 3.£.!/&{'.&..(. .<^/^", L.ef.-^.. &./22./..S...SY..Q.S2.5T.. £<? £&£?.£&£&.......<%.'.£.../J/G ft £?is76r/c's?<* /3/S& />y£tfa?<&''S. $'<•<?/&&€ -)Q? £&^'t<?(f f ™~~ COUNTY OF SAM DIEGO ' Department of Public Health 1600 Pacific Hwy., San Diego. CA 92101 NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Date December.16, 1975.. Source com-) Name S.3.n...Dic.go... Gas & Electric.. Company. 1. plained Of! ) (Print or Type) Address Highway ...l.Ql.j Carlsbad, Ca 9.2008 Phone 2. Complainant: Name ......... JIM...FINKEY, ...... INC., .................................................................................................. - No. .(.714.) ..... 434-1021 (Print or Type) How long 3. Home address .............................. ll/.A ................................................................ : ......... .' .................................................................. •. .......... there ................................................ (Print or Type)How long4r Business address... . 544.2.. P.^sep gel Norte, Carlsbad, Ca 92008 tnere 16 .mo. (Print or Type) 5. Approximate distance from source ................... iL 6. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. N E S (_VV/ West "CO East 7. Dates and hours nuisance occurred .............. Constant ................................................................... .................................................. 8. Mature of nuisance complained of, circle. Smoke, charred paper, (dusy^sool/. grime, carbon. IC jd/ gas, odors^ (other ) 9. Have you observed the above-described emissions coming from the source complained of 10. Have you or any member of your household become ill from the nuisance? ^.Q If "yes", who? 11. Describe nature of illness Business 12. How is your K3Ke address zoned Cpmm.ercial (Residential, Commercial or Manufacturing) 13. Has the property at this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? Yes ; 14. State any damage done to your property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. ..Fallout on bl.gck... .walls, m.et.al.....mndow...f rames.,. and...auto paint.... damage. 15. Will you appear in court to/testifw f^l ^es (X) No ( ) 16. Signature of complainant rried woman should use her own first name) 17. Complainant's remarks S^...Health....hasard...unlmQMl Representative APCD 2 (11-70) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Department cf Public Health 1600 Pacific Hwy., San Diego. CA 53101 NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Date ........... L/KT ....... /„£, ........... /., Source com- ) Name.....1 1. plainedof: ) C A R i_S g ft o &LVi) lPr"" or Tvpe> Address fei^^^^gS^^CS^^^^t^O (ZM..&L$.tf BQ C.A^f - Phone 2. Complainant: Name'TJ.ClftdX.tty. $ !.£?.£.££..£&.£..// .'. No. ^..£.£.~...<:/£5' (Print or Type) How long 3. Home address...>5o.J.5! .Tt./fc.ftjl/i D..&.L £>../?..!?. there .....I?.. (Print or Type) How long •IT Business address " •\..'~.T.l...D....S..l2 there (Prim or Type) \ 5. Approximate distance from source 6. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. MM (JEy (jy A/£iS [- n r1. Dates and hours nuisance 6ccurred \WO$gr.. £..a..f?..i-y. £.¥.'L fi/.lMer. *?. ....£) U..$..lty6- A/.f..6../£X... 8. Nature of nuisance complained of, circle.' Smoke, charred paper, dust, sootAgrime,^ carbon, acid, gas, odors. (other : ) 9. Have you observed the above-described emissions coming from the source complained of 10. Have you or any member of your household become ill from the-nuisance? '; If "yes", who? 11. Describe nature of illness 12. How is your home address zoned ^_ :. /^Residential, Commercial or Manufacturing) 13. Has the property at this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? '7i<«^..c3^t£A^^/?^.-:>/M?.</ (I.A s££^*} ^{jL-/lfUJ' :... 14. State any damage done to your property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. 15. Will you appear in court to testify' Yes ( )( ) No ( ) 16. Signature of complainant '' iM.lrriefl v.'Omnr! ^f"iou'^Tlse t'Ol ov.'n first ll;H f- '•' ' 1 17. Complainant's remarks. tA^.'^......^-^-. ~f.lCr:(... .^{J^O-:-i.^-^(^.^ti-V'^t^:.l.. ..$... '"•/ *"' "' '••l^"--^3 - • f Representative COUNTY OF SAM DIEGO CKuwKnvMH of Public Health 1600 P.icific HKVV-. San DiHoo. CA 'm.'M•-PCO ?. I11-70; ' ' - .--i.i NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Date <"/ Source com- ) Name 1. plained of: ) (Print or Type) Address £. l^ C ,J7. <2 ........ L,L&.to.£.- .......... C&..\c. / S 6 5? S/.j ..L..O?,. C / \ r\ Phone 2. Complainant: Name ,^).3 W.<^.$.. ..&.- ^.^&i^:n.^..^.'..^.^.f^-U I^^ No.(Prijtt or Type) ' How long 3. Home address.5.£3/...Z./..'e.^ there 5 (Print or Type) A How long ~_ ",7 Business address '~ ~~~JJ.''. there (Print or Type) 5. Approximate distance from source .......^Xy. /%../..-x£. .".. 6. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. <j^ E ) S W . ] 7. Dates and hours nuisance occurred .S ° ^ * f? <->!>(. ~f~ Q /L<2U~f ^>..^'.f^?^'.. £$....?— \f...iff 8. Nature of nuisance complained of, circle. Smoke, charred paper, _du§tI^s.Qg:t_L_flnrne_, pdors^ (other ) 9. Have you observed the above-described emissions coming from the source complained of 10. Have you or any member of your household become ill from the-nuisance? If "yes", who? :../!/<.> 11. Describe nature of illness 12. How is your home address zoned f\...~../.. (ResidHnti'if, Cornmerciaf or ManufrJCturinu) 13. Has the property at this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? 14. State any damage done to your property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. 15. Will you appear in court to testify? Yes ( i^f No _ ( )~ 16. Signature of complainant' /I <^'^^/^^^^^/^ {./ / I/?--'/ <h f'-^'""" ^'-w\'hauY — '—] ft 17. Coinplnirio'it'y <x:niarks . .. y ..Representative COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO OrlVii t<M':ni !if Public Hr.-aith 1600 P.'icitic Hwy.. c,,n C),.-i!Ki, C.A NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Source com- ) Name. 1. plained of: ) . <prmt or Ty|je> . Address C,/?/ZLS/3.rt^2? <^/2tL. .'/ Phone 2. Complainant: Name W//.X//77/?? 75/?^A'-l.W. : No. 229 -^ (Print or Type) _ How long 3. Home address....j?<2;?i.7^A"^ = there 3&=$* (Print or Typw) How long /!: Business address....; .there (Print or Type| 5. Approximate distance from, source ..^.^.(~ 7 B. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. N E S W .— 7. Dates and hours nuisance occurred ,..^..h.'^:....Jf?^.I?.....^'.^.. Q.y..^.!^..$.Z....k.£.^.^.7^.,..£-..£?5J. Z!(^?.....^!^?!?^5.^. ''/f/r- f?5 /sb.j2/.!:-/7.?.£Lt?.. /5%^..(/<rr. 8. Nature of nuisance complained of, circle. Smoke, charred paper, dust. (sooT? (^nrrje) carbon./acToT? gas, qdors^ (other v 9. Have you observed the above-described emissions coming from the source complained of &../&&&. 10. Have you or any member of your household become ill from the nuisance? If "yes", who? 11. Describe nature of illness 12. How is your home address zoned K. ^ •>.?'. l?*=*//.//f?^~ .' , (Resitlunlial. Commercial or Manufacturing) 13. Has the property at this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? ' •_ ^ ^ _^ __ __ __ ^ __ <.,,,£•,,#( c_ 14^ Statn any damage done_to_your property, furniture, automobile^ clothing, etc. ~- 1 ~A 15. Will you appear in court to testify? Yes ( >; ) 16. Signature of complainant ^-rz-^'-rTTr!::...^ i/ .-iM.irneti \voni;m ^,li>-)urrj usp her own first nnme 17. Complainant's Representative A?CO 2 (11-70, COUNT.' OF SAM DIEGO Dop.niumnr ot f-'uMic t-'->alth luOO Pacific Hws'., Son Dtiiuo, CA ;1J1 NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Source com- 1. plained Of: ) /!: Business address 5. Approximate distance from source .3i 6. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. 1 . Dates and hours nuisance occurred .^ 8. Nature of nuisance complained of, circle. Smoke, charred paper, dust.f sooty grime, carbon,_acjd, gas, odors. (other ) 9. Have you observed the above-described emissions coming from the source complained of ..— •* '^ U10. Have you or any member of your household become ill from the nuisance? #(.& ' If "yes", who? \ ; 11. Describe nature of iIIness , //v fc32LLX12. How is your home address zoned l/...\f.-4'^r^r....' (Residential, Commercial or Manufacturing} 13. Has the property at this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? 14. State any damage dpne to your property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. ""''/ 15. Will you appear in court to testify? Yes 16. Signature of 17. Complainant's mnuirks.. ..Representative COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Dup.'irunwnt of Public Hft.T Itinn P.ir- . t,f i_i...,, C ^ « r-. NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Date Nov. 1.2, 1975; '. Source com- ) Name ....... K^l^XMXSM*^..^ ..... Sa.n.....P.iego. ..Gas... .£ ..... Ele c t ri c ..... Co. ..... Enc Ina Plan t 1. plained of: ) lprim or TvPe) Address .^SSSMSl^MXSMXE^ Carlsbad Blv 'd., Carlsbad, Gal. . • • Phone 2. Complainant: Name .......... Ma.ry...J... ...... Sp.lye.y ........... .. ................................. ; ........................... .- .............................. No. ..,(. 71 4) 729 -2233 (Print or Type) How long3. Home address..;.. 502 9 Tiarra .....pel Oro, Carlsbad, Cal. there 18 yrs . (Print or Type) How long ']- Business address .......................................................................................................................................................................................... there ............................................... (Print or Type) 5. Approximate distance from source ........ li ............. oMl.3H^Zte:r_r._ile ....................................................................... ; ................................ .' ........... 6. '.Vina direction when nuisance occurred, circle. 1^0 (E} fSJ ( W ) 7. Dates and hours nuisance occurred ......... .P..P.*lLt;.i.nupU3. ....................................................... ! ............................................................................ ........ s( 8. Nature of nuisance complained of, circle. '''Smoke') charred paper, dust, /sop^ grime, carbon, acid, gas, ^ (other ....... no.i.S.e ............................................... "'. .................................. . ................. ) 9. Have you observed the above-described emissions coming from the source complained of ...... S.rioke 10. Have you or any member of your household become ill from the nuisance? not....yet... If "yes", who? 11. Describe nature of illness. 12. How .is your home address zoned Residential (Resident inl. Commercial or Manufacturing) 13. Has the property at this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? Do not knew 14. State any damage done to your property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. Rust spots on ....all concrete;....area s . Hlack spot on roo.f. Q.f....ho:u..s.e..., .ca.rs., plants, patio furniture. 15. Will you appear in court to testify? Yes (7- } No ( ) 16. Signature of complainant (Married woman should use her own first name) 17. Complainant's remarks... .Q;u'. .car.s... ar.e ..... kept... ln....a. .. .closed ..garage ..... ye t they • ai-e .......................... c.ovor.f::.d...wi th ...a. .bl.a.c.k.,..s.oQ.t.. \vith in... a day... af.teiv... being. ...washed... ....A..f.te.r....a ..... pai-n ano. after ..... tho ..... concrete oat .I-ps;.. are ....dry.,.;..!. ..can., .sv/e.^p. ...up ..the...X5lack....r.s.s.idiie Or. June 14, 1975, I sent a sample of this to Stan Zwlcker, Directcu-, T.S.L.P.A. Region'' 9, oan I'rancisco. Representative COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO D«|iaitmanl of Public Henlth APCO 2 ,n./0, ' 1600 Pacific H,vv.. San D,1)Ho. CA P2,01 NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM , Source com- ) 1. plained of: ) Address 2. Complainant: Name / 3. 1 .- Bus iness 5. Approximate distance from source ..... &.<~%?.... 6. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. 7. Dates and hours nuisance occurred iprint or Type| Phone No. (Print or Type) How long there (Print or Type) £«?...,.(Print or TV pel How long there ........ . N S W ^ 8. Nature of nuisance complained of, circle. fSmokeT7charred paper odors, (other ) 9. Have you observed the above-described emissions coming from the source complained of 10. Have you or any member of your household become ill from the nuisance?. ../Y&. If "yes", who? 11. Describe nature of illness 12. How is your home address zoned (Residential, Commercial or Manufacturing! 13. Has the property at this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? Y£2> '. 14. State any damage done to your property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. Trt'&'^k ~~ {$f?Q?*J/y.,. .r?'f!&.7^ ^ 15. Will you appear in court to testify? Yes 16. Signature of complainant ....^... _r_(M.irned woman should use her_ own first name} 17. Complainant's remarks t*/£ .. .h/pVL-.b... //A.&-... .<?<?M.f>4A.<!tf<£:S?. /5?%V? T?7 gas. APCO 2 (M-70I Representative COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Department of Public Health 1600 Pacific Hwy., San Disfivv, CA ?2Ult NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Source com-) Name....^^...^..^././^!§.<-? S^? £> 1. plained Of: ) / (Print or Type) Address ..^../I/S .<..$.. /3.A ../?../ f X7" I I / Phone 2. Complainant: ^arfre..-^^?.^..^..^..^ .4...- _/(£..£../>}.....7^/.../^/.£. No. (Print or Type) --•:— :^\ _ How long// 3. Home address •3...Q../...../.. //'..•££ £/:!.J^.<£~'.4,...^J....Q.Q! there /fe (Print or Type) . How long 4: Business address j!U...^...f^).....(^ : there (Print or Type) 5. Approximate distance from source 3^. 6. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. N E S W 1. Dates and hours nuisance occurred ^^..^)...L^r..Y dt..A?..&. S?..O../v:.S.yrr/?? A: /-•* ~~ ^ .— ^^\ s- -^ 8. Nature of nuisance complained of,, circle. (Smoke/ charred paper, dust. fsoofA farimg, carbon, (acid^ gas odors, (other S..FAC./Z.. A'0../..S.£._."1' .) ^—"^^ ' 9. (-lave you observed the above-described emissions coming from the source complained of . i 10. Have you or any member of your household become ill from the nuisance? /Z/..Q.... If "yes", who? 11. Describe nature of illness 12. How is your home address zoned (Residential, Commercial or Manufacturing) 13. Has the property at this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? 14. State any damage done to your property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. 15. Will you appear in court to testify?Yes ( <--f No ( ) 16. Signature of complainant 17. Complainant's remarks ::c7" . ................ (Married vvotnan shoukl use her own first name) APCO 2 (Tt-/0) ..Representativt COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Di-p.iriment of Public Health 160;') Pacific Hwv.. San Disoo. CA 921 NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Source corn- } Name.. 1. plained of: ) Address (Pr\n: or .(PrinLOir Type)(rumour tyi*') y*v . . - i*^^JLw*^jX2^«&!!ll?; •;• 3. Home 3ddress....7r......^..^...vs....L/^.r..*.."..."....".....T....! '....~. ;./...^-,.'..r..'.*..;..7..~....T....'.rr. .v..;j?...(Print or Type) . . ;•: •'.-... How long ; :'•/ 4i Business address .'. _ „ ; „.. there. (Print or Type) \ 5. Approximate distance from source 6. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. 1. Dates_and hours nuisance occurred W /—. ........ L J...L..J.... 11.. Describe nature of illness 12. How is your home address zoned " ..... //. ......(Residorui Jl. Commercial or Manufacturing) 13. Has the property at this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? ' . 03 g 8. Nature of nuisance complained of, circle. Smoke, charred paper, pustj/fsgotj grime, carbon, (agid^gas, odors, (other „ •. ) 9. Have you observed the above-described emissions coming from the source complained of /^....f-^s^ 10. Have you or any member of your household become ill from the nuisance? If "yes", who? ; 14. State any damage^done to your property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. /Y & " <vT . ' i 15. Will you appear in court to testify? 16. Signature of complainant your property, furniture, automobe, cothng, etc. " vT . i........ tMfi^..?^.,. l/ysYes (No ( | 17. Complaicront's remarks. Representative COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Dt.'paitment of Public ne.ilt^ 1600 Pacific Hwy., San Diegc, CA 9210) NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Date. Source com- ) Name 1. plained Of: ) ' - (Print or Type, Address 2. Complainant: Name... (Print or Type) 3. Home address / ^' (L> (^^n^\^(I^.J~^C^. L (Print or Type) . __ t ,. How long 4t Business address (? Ll2 l^).:./^.Al/~'f ^l^-...^^^..^..-^.^ 1^7...: '. there (Print or Type) 5. Approximate distance from source y/V ^ ./?• )s]/Ll L. G. Wind direction when nuisance occurred, circle. /N .//E) S W 7. Dates and hours nuisance occurred &l.bff { fM-E-...^.. 8. Mature of nuisance complained of, circle. Smoke, charred paper, j^jgry ^dotJLg^r5el._c-grboj), acid, gas S. Have you observed the above-described emissions coming from the source complained of ~ 10. Have you or any member of your household become ill from the nuisance? JLS..Q. If" "yes", who? (11. Describe nature of illness f\J 0 ^ , 12. How is your home address zoned ,(Residential, Commercial or Manufacturing) 13. Has the property^t this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? /! ^ 14. State any damage done to your property, furniture, automobile, clothing, etc. /^ fz/;^....1r£>o^ ..££A>U^ yvV-tCT..*').•^v 0/7 to 15. Will you appear in court to testify? Yes ( ) No ( ) J^6/u'T /^/U/'HJ 16. Signature of complainant // j../li,-L-L.c^~' /...'.. • t/L-r^^— |M*r(ied womnn shoulii USH frt'r own firsi n.'tmej 17. Complainant's remarks ^^^ U~lJ^ "'.""' _v •> 'j( ^ " /J 1" ^" " " ^^ Representative COUNTY OK SAN DIEGO Dt:jKirtin-:;nt of Public H*;tUh 1600 Pacific Hwv.. Siin U'ono, C* "'1017 Itl-VO) ' NUISANCE COMPLAINT FORM Source com- } 1. plained of: ) 2. Complainant: Address o- y 3. home address.... .3T A,-. Business address. 5. Approximate distance from source . Date (Print or Type) / _ (Print or Type) "" (Print or Type) 6. Wind direction wheryinuisance occurred, circle. ^^ No. How longthere How(ong there 7. Dates and hours nuisance occurred f- JUL I 4 ' J /? / (4j3^^^ 8. Nature of nuisance complained of, circle. QSmokjy charred paper, dust, soot, grime, carbon, acid. gas., odors, (other fyi^J ^SM^~tJ^ .-M^ J4£%5^/ ' 9. Have you observed the.above-describedjemissions.CDminq from the source complained of . i/-£AJ •«•• <S&44A£$~AJjL-1 _ A . . i . 4 /I -- /7 /T MKnd. /7 . . I /;! i* f **"**'• *" 10. Have you or any nfember of your household Become ill from the nuisance? ... If "yes", who? 11. ^Describe nature of illness 12. How is your home address zoned ntial. Commercial or Manufacturing) 13 Has the nropertiy at this address depreciated in value due to the nuisance? '' " "* Has the oroper^y at tnis aciqress ciepreciatea in >/ »«^ . a-td-f- +vtujruJ- 14. Sj£te any dainjjge done toyour property, furniture,Automobile, clothing, etc. L*f^ 15. Will you appear in court to 16. Signature of complainant 17. Complainant's remarks ^fc-ffl^-tf^'lUf^--U±lb ffi&b^e^^^***' Representative COUNTY OF SAN DIEGC Dfirartmfint ol Public Heaith 1f.iOO Pacific Hwv.. ScTn Dte^o. CA 92101 DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O flOX U>3I :./.;,: Olt.GO. CAUmMNIA ;ipr? 1,11) 2 3 ?-4 2 :'.;> June 30, 1975 CAB 500 Mr. Charles Fullerton, Director California Department of Fish & Game 1416 Ninth Street. - 12th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Mr. Fullerton: This letter will confirm our discussion of the past two weeks regarding a plan to determine the effect, if any, of the increased water discharge from Unit 5, at the Encina Gener- ating Station, on the existing kelp beds located immediately northerly and southerly of the across-the-beach discharge. During these talks, both with yourself and your area staff members at Long Beach, it was generally agreed the entire kelp management program along the San Diego County coast line could benefit by an in-depth State approved monitoring program conducted by your department or by an independent contractor. Additionally, we agreed that in the event the monitoring program demonstrates that the existing kelp beds are damaged, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) would make financial commitments to provide new plantings either at the present beds or elsewhere along the San Diego County coast line. In order to satisfy the Coastal Commission requirements, we must submit conditions on this and other areas for which they have voiced concern prior to their voting on the project. The vote is now scheduled for July 15. In order that the State Department of Fish & Game be protected in the arrangements we have mutually agreed to, we have prepared the attached conditions covering "Water Discharge " It is identical to that which we discussed on June 28. So that the State Coastal Commission members and their staff will know that these arrangements are satisfactory to your office, would you please direct a letter to the chairman of the State Coastal Commission, Melvin Lane, acknowledging your appr;val AN INVkSIOH-OWM.t) Mr. Charles Fullerton, Director California Department of Fish & Game June 30, 1975 Page two of the conditions in lieu of constructing the conduit as presently being considered by the State Commission staff. Also, if it is convenient, we would surely appreciate your attendance at the hearing on July 15. Obviously, your feeling about the benefits of such discharge to improved fishing conditions would be of i:iterest to the commissioners and extremely helpful to obtaining approval of this much needed expansion. We will immediately undertake meetings with whoever you direct to prepare the monitoring program referred to in the attached condition. If you feel a separate agreement covering the conditions agreed to by SDG&E is necessary, please let me know and I will have a draft prepared for your approval. Mr. Fullerton, your direct and quick response to this phase of the project is to be commended. Please be assured San Diego Gas & Electric Company will fulfill its part of the agreement .to your complete satisfaction. Ver^Truly yours,VeT^-Tr; L^\ ^&z-^•i.i"^ ~~. TT ...F. W. DeVore, Manager Enginering Land Department FWD:gl Attachment cc: J. E. Thomas, Vice President Power Plant Engineering & Construction be:- DWGilman CMLaffoon/JFDietz REMorris EMGabrielson/GABishop CEGibson RGLacy ,"). o Gas £ Electric SAN DIEGO, CAL-lFOFtNIA June 24, 1973 t'ir, Frank B:>.soy ahead California Coastal £0)13 Coii-^rvatlon Co-rimiOiJicn I'V'iO ferMiol: Street s"m Frcnclaco, California 5^1 CAB 500 D The attached infot'niutlon Is in rcapon^e to your questions concerning the retrofitting: of Eneina Unit 5 boilers i'o?.1 induction o.C air ewiafjionc, Ti.'la Info inflation wan prepo.rod by th« laoclviuical Engl.ncor:Ui^ Departuienc of S;in Diego Gaa & Electric Company, Should you have any additional questions corKen-itHg thia maCerial^ plca»s call R. 6. Lacy, at our offices, Sincerely, Land P. tanning Attachment GCJ Joe Ec-dovJ.kc bcc: PVJDeVore/GA3ishop- CEGibuon JEHardviay RGLacy JEThcrans w/o attach. " " with attach. .RESPONSE TO STATE COASTAL STAFF QUESTIONS CONCERNING EM GIN A UNIT 5 Question (l) Testimony of Mr. George Taylor,, Deputy Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board , CPUC Final EIR, P 5-17 made reference to retro- fitting Units 1-5 with improved emission controls according to the state-of-the-art. Explain the feasibility of boiler retrofit? The boiler for Encina Unit 5 has been provided with the most advanced techniques for the reduction of NOx emissions including two stage combustion, flue gas reclrcu.lation, a divided . furnace, and reduced heat release in the burner zone. To our i knowledge, this boiler has the lowest NOx emission guarantiee of any boiler in the country. Obviously, if future, presently unknown, techniques v;ere developed and if the APCD regulations were revised to re- quire lower emission values. Boiler 5 would be modified as neces- sary to comply with the law. Such boiler retrofitting has been accomplished by SDG&E in the past when the Company's Emission Task Force was formed, in 1972, to bring our existing boilers in compliance with new NOx regulations. In early 1972, it became evident that the existing organization would not be able to bring the 17 boilers operating under variances into compliance with the 12/31/7-1 NOx emission limits. It was also realized that much more additional effort would be required in order to meet the more stringent 12/31/73 limits On March 1, 1972, an Emissions Task Force was formed headed by a project manager with 26 years power plant operating experience. The Task Force consisted of 10 engineers and engine- ering assistants, five of'whose services were contracted for from Bechtel Power Corporation. In addition, consulting services viere obtained from KVB Engineering Corporation of Tustin, who is a nationally recognized expert in the field of emissions technology, SDG-&E authorized a budget of $7 million to bring the boilers into compliance with the current emission limits, plus another $750,000 to complete the selection and Installation of stack emission monitoring instruments. Prior to September 1, 1972, all boilers, with the ex- ception of Boiler 3 at the South Bay Plant, were brought into compliance with the former Rule 68 limits. Initial compliance • operation was done primarily with changes In operating procedures involving off-r,toichlometric combustion. This, in a nutshell, .Involves providing Insufficient air for combustion at the initial- stage of combustion, thus lowering- the flame temperature and the formation of NOx. This was accomplished by taking from one to three burners, usually on the upper level, out of service with respect to fuel supply. The remaining air req-ulred for complete combustion was supplied through the idle burners to extend the combustion process. The next goal was to meet the current NOx limits before January 1, 197"'. Where changes in operating procedure were not sufficient;, physical modifications to the boilers were required. This was accomplished primarily by changing mechanically atomized oil burners to steam atomizing oil burners'and the installation of over-fire air ports and ducting. Over-fire air ports are a refinement to the burners out-of-service concept for off- stolchiqmetric combustion and have proven to be effective. Boiler 3 at our South Bay Plant required the greatest expenditure of time and money to restore its complying capacity and cost nearly $2,6 million of the $7 million budget. Although these modifications were not all completed by the January 1., 197^ change in Rule 68, the boilers on which modi- fications were not completed were operated with a complying load limit or kept out of service until compliance limits could be met. There are fdtill some modifications to be made on one boiler at South Bay and to increase their condensate make-up capacity. Although not Included In the Task Force scope of work, another $2,667., 000 v;as spent modifying our 18 gas turbines to utilize water and steam injection for NOx control. The boiler generating capacity was reduced from the original 1658 Mw net capacity to l6l2 Mw, to comply with the 1972 rules. SDG&E would have had to further reduce complying capacity to 1213 Mv* to meet the 197^ rules., if no physical modifications "'"""had been made. As it is, SDG&E has had a net loss of 50 Mw boiler capacity/ SDG&E believes that by virtue of San Diego County being a year ahead of the rest of the counties In California,, and . California being a leader in the nation., that SDG&E expertise In this field makes the company one of the leaders In the nation with respect to practical results of emission control. It should be pointed-out, however, that the operating and physical modifications will cost an additional %,000 bbls of fuel oil (0.4$) in 1975 resulting from lowered efficiencies. Question (2) Since the efficiency of Unit 5 is higher than most of the other SDG&E generating units,, the system fuel consumption will be reduced by approximately 600,000 barrels of fuel oil with the addition of Unit 5- Explain the relationship of fuel savings and area pollution level variations during a typical year. i An analysis of the monthly system fuel savings with Eneina 5 shov/ed little monthly variation and no seasonal trend. The amount of the fuel savings is primarily a function of system reserve margin, with maximum fuel savings occurring during periods of minimum system reserve since the least efficient units would be providing more generation during such conditions. Since scheduled unit maintenance outages are peirforrned during seasonal periods of low electric demand, system reserves and fuel savings tend to rr*c* "^ • reraain constant during a typical year. Obviously, .unpredictable emergency conditions could produce variations in the average fuel savings. The San Diego County APCD has informed us that the higher pollution levels of oxidants occur in the spring and the fall. NC>2 is a problem throughout the year because of its contribution to oxidants, not because the NCU standard is ex- ceeded. NOg by Itself becomes a problem in the winter. Par- ticulate levels are high in the winter because of horn heating. -5- DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92112 (7M) 232-4252 > May 27, 1975 FH.ENO CAB 500 Melvln B. Lane, Chairman 99 Tallwood Court Atherton, California 9*1025 Dear Chairman Lane: On Tuesday, May 12, the State Coastal Commission held public hearing concerning our planned expansion at the Encina Power Plant. Project is referred to as Encina Unit 5. At the hearing Mr. Rimmon Paye asked questions con- cerning our dilution flow and the magnitude of such for Unit 5. Below we have attempted to more clearly describe our proposal. The addition of Unit 5 will cause the cooling water discharge flow to increase from the present 382,000 gallons per minute to 800,000 gpm. The magnitude of the flow increase, which was1 noted with concern in the Coastal Commissions Staff summary and the public hearings, is misleading since the normal flow in- crease with the addition of Unit 5 will be much less. Presently, the. total cooling water flow of up to 382,000 gpm. for the existing four units is taken from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon through a common intake channel. The warmer cooling water from each condenser is directed into a common discharge tunnel which flows into a small collecting basin. The water from this collecting basin passes through a riprap-lined channel across the beach to form a surface discharge into the ocean. The heat from the four units increases the water temperature less than 20°P at maximum plant load, with a proportionately lower temperature in- crease at lower plant loads. With the addition of Unit 5, a total cooling water flow of 550,000 gpm. will be taken from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon through the existing common intake channel to serve all five units. The warmer cooling water from each condenser will be directed to the ocean through the existing discharge tunnel, collecting basin, and across-the-beach channel. As with the existing four unit opera- tion, the heat from the five units will increase the water tempera- ture less than 20°F at maximum plant load, with a proportionately lower temperature Increase at lower plant loads. AN INVESTOH-OWNCD CORPOHATION SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY Chairman Melvin Lane May 27, 1975 Page 2 It has been observed that the Agua Hedionda Lagoon water temperature is generally warmer than the ambient ocean temperature, by either natural lagoon heating or recirculatlon of the warm dis- charge water with upcoast currents. An analysis of data taken be- tween 1962 and 1971 showed that the lagoon was warmer than the ocean an average of 80$ of the time with the most heating during the summer months. Lagoon cooling was observed an average of 50$ of the time during the winter months. Therefore, a plant thermal dilution system was planned with the addition of Unit 5 "to ensure that the total plant dis- charge temperature would be less than 20°F above ambient ocean temperature during periods of maximum plant load and maximum lagoon temperature elevation. This dilution system directs up to 250,000 gpm. from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon into the plant discharge collecting basin, thus cooling the warm water from the condensers. ' The dilution flow will be regulated to the minimum amount needed to keep the plant ocean discharge temperature less than 20°F above ambient ocean temperature. Therefore, the entire 800,000 gpm., consisting of 550,000 gpm. condenser cooling water and 250,000 gpm. dilution water, would only be required with maximum plant load operation and 7°F lagoon heating. With 80$ plant load and 7°F lagoon heating, only 94,000 gpm. of dilution flow would be required producing a total discharge flow of 644,000 gpm. Since continuous 100$ plant load operation with 7°F lagoon heating could be considered to be an infrequent condition, 800,000 gpm. discharge flow could also be considered to be an in- frequent operating condition. Considering typical plant loading and typical lagoon heating, it could be expected that no dilution flow would be required half of the time during a typical year. During the other half of the time, dilution flows far less than the maximum 250,000 gpm. should be required. Therefore, the five ru'nlt plant discharge should average much closer to the normal 550,000 gpm. flow than the maximum 800,000 gpm. with dilution. Hopefully this clarifies the information given by J. F. Dietz at the Tuesday evening meeting. We have given graphs w* SAN DIEGO GAS 8. ELECTRIC COMPANY Chairman Melvin Lane May 27, 1975 Page 3 to your Staff which shows typical flows for summer, winter and average year of loading. Sincerely, G. Manager Mechanical. Engineering RGLtlma Extension: 1683 cc: State Coastal Commissioners Joe Bodovltz Lew Britton Prank Broadhead Tom Granda11 Stan Eller - San Diego Coast Watch Joan Jackson - Community Cause Mark Nelson - Community Cause Mrs. Sharp - League of Women Voters bcc: PWDeVore JFDietz CEGibson RGLacy GLNesbitt 73-339 October 31, 1973 Mr. Donald Agatep Planning Director w 3. »*, y o A. \-* a r i. s o a d 1.200 Elm, Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for San Diego Gas and Electric Company Encina Plant Single Stack Modification Project Dear Mr. Agatep: Subject. Environmental Impact Report was completed by WESTEC Services, Inc. and delivered to the City of Carlsbad on October 5, 1973. Within, the same time frame the State of California Public Utilities Commission Draft Environmental Impact Report for the SDGcjE Encina Plant Unit 5 application was published. Aspects of this latter report deal with the impact of the proposed Encina Plant 400 foot single stack. We have reviewed the CPUC's Encina 5 report in detail to determine the cross correlation between the in- formation provided. With regard to the proposed 400 foot single stack, the following is a summary of the contents of the CPUC's report as compared with the draft report which we prepared: 1. The data provided are in substance compatible and in agreement. 2. The CPUC report did not provide drawings or schematics of the 400 foot stack nor a description of its per- tinent engineering characteristics. .The WESTEC Services report provided this. . : 3. With regard-to Aesthetics, WESTEC Services' report vns substantially more complete in dealing with the impacts. The CPUC report, while providing information concerning the aesthetic appearance, dealt only briefly with the impacts. JAN 16 1976 CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department Mr. Donald Acjatep October 31, 1973 Page 2 The air quality issues of the 'Ericina Plant were addressed in much greater detail in the CPUC report. The CPUC draft EIR included a report on the meteorological field work and a description of air pollutant simulation tech- niques used to predict the air quality impacts. These data were not included in our report but were referenced within the ambient air quality study provided, as Appendix B. More detailed geologic data and impact assessments are- provided in the CPUC report, although the essence of this information is summarized in WESTEC Services' report. 6. The WESTEC Services' report explored the alternative approaches to the 400 foot stack, The CPUC report addressed the same alternatives but provided additional information concerning methods of SO 2 control. 7. The CPUC report addressed alternative methods of power generation to meet the needs of SDGc;E!s customers. By contractual agreement these issues were not included as a part of our scope of work. The foregoing represents our best judgment with regard to a summary comparison of the two reports. Please contact me if you should have any additional questions. Very truly yours, David L. Parkinson President DLP:jlr MEMORANDUM October 7, 1975 TO: PLANNING STAFF FROM: BUD RE: COMMUNICATION TO SDG&E AND JAPATUL Communication between the City and SDG&E/Japatul seems to be less than adequate. Ed Gabrielson, of SDG&E, has suggested that all communications involving land use matters regarding SDG&E properties or interests be made directly to him. Therefore, no matter who at SDG&E we may be dis- cussing the land use matter, all correspondence goes to Ed Gabrielson, with carbon copy to others who are involved. For Japatul land use matter, the City is to correspond directly with Art Bishop, with carbon copy of the correspondence to Ed Gabrielson and any others that are also involed. Bud Plender cc: City Manager City Attorney City Engineer Public Works Director Building Director BP/vb SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92112 (714) 232-4252 F.LENO. CAB 500 February 28, 1978 7978 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Bud Plender Dear Bud: Confirming our earlier conversation, we request that City staff suspend additional work on Specific Plan Amendment Application #144-D concerning changes in Ordinance #9456 that would allow SDG&E to connect certain units of the Encina power plant to the stack. We should know within several weeks whether we intend to withdraw the application or request you to resume processing. In either event, you will be promptly notified. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. incerely, F. M. Dudley Land Planning Supervisor FMD:dr cc: Jim Hagaman AN INVESTOR-OWNED CORPORATION FEBRUARY 3, 1978 CITY LIBRARIAN City Manager SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC 400 .FOOT STACK The subject matter will be an agenda item at the City Council meeting on February 7, 1978. The attached material is being sent to you separately as additional material which is to be made available for public viewing. The two reports attached are to be retained on a temporary basis only as they are the only available copies. After a reasonable length of time, these reports are to be forwarded to the Planning Director and will become part of their permanent files. Report Titles York Research Corporation Report, "The Effect of a Magnesium Fuel Oil Additive on Particulate Emissions," dated December 9, 1977. SRI Report, "Particulate Sampling Program for the Encina Power Plant," revised January, 1978. PAUL TS. BUSSEY City Manager PDB:ldg Atts. cc: Planning Director i 1200 ELM AVENUE gg ^§£^ T\ ' TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 VkJfW r£l 3 (714)729-1181 dtp of Cartefmb November 1, 1978 F.M. Dudley Supervisor, Land Planning SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY Post Office Box 1831 San Diego, CA 92112 Re: Refund of Fees Dear Mr. Dudley: We hereby acknowledge receipt of your request of October 16, 1978 to refund fees paid by your company for application of Specific Plan Amendment No. 144. If you would kindly sign the enclosed "Request for Refund" form where indicated and return it to this office, we will forward the fees paid, as well as all appropriate materials previously submitted. Sincerely, BRIAN R. SMITH, Planning Department BRS : adm Enclosure 1200 ELM AVENUE || }\$*y ja TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Il^Uf/ r£ M§ (714) 729-118T €itp of Cartefrab April 18, 1978 San Diego Gas and Electric Co. P.O. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Attn: Mr. F. M. Dudley Land Planning Supervisor Subject: Application to amend Specific Plan No. 144 Dear Mr. Dudley: We are returning the subject application per your telephone request of April 18, 1978. Your fees will be returned upon your written request. We will not schedule your application for a hearing until you resubmit your application for pro- cessing. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Don Rose Associate Planner Enclosure DR:sb MEMORANDUM December 30, 1977 TO: Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director SUBJECT: San Diego Gas & Electric Company's Requested Amendment to SP144(D) ___ As you are aware, the San Diego Gas and Electric Co. has requested and filed application for an amendment to their Specific Plan regarding Encina Unit 5, which was approved in 1971 by the City of Carlsbad, and subsequently an amendment was approved on May 4, 1976 to the previously adopted Specific Plan, allowing a heighth variance to accommodate the installation of the tall stack. One of the conditions of the stack was the condition applied by the City Council of Carlsbad relative to elimination of fall-out prior to releasing the stack for use in the operations of the plant. It is this particular condition for which the company is now seeking relief. It would seem to me that we have several things which we must accomplish as soon as possible. First, we ought to immediately respond to the Company's request for a hearing at the January 25 meeting of the Planning Commission. Based on our current backlog of work and staffing problems, I anticipate a more likely hearing date will be February 8. Therefore, would you draft a letter for my signature indicating that we recognize the importance of this particular request of the company in terms of the plant and the City and we will process it as rapidly as we can; however, due to current situations, we have scheduled it for the February 8 meeting, rather than their proposed January 25 meeting. The following notes were taken at a meeting which I attended with Mr. Bussey and Mr. Biondo relative to this application: Based upon the cursory examination of the request, it appears that the only change in the actual operations that have occurred since the last City consideration, is the addition of additives to the fuel which apparently has had some positive effect in reducing the fall-out problem. This, of course, could occur with or without City action. In addition, we could identify no change from the original application and therefore would reach the preliminary conclusion that the request in terms of the CEQA would be that this amendment complies with CEQA through prior compliance. It would be a tentative conclusion that removing the condition of not using the s-ta-ff1 until the fall-out problem is corrected, does not change anything addressed in the environmental impact report. Infact, the change is a policy matter rather than a technical matter. It should also be noted that the company has tried to solve the problem, is still trying to solve the problem, and will continue to try as APCD is monitering their efforts. APCD, in addition, has indicated they see an advantage in using the stack in terms of the effect on the Carlsbad area, since any current problems will be reduced with the use of the stack. Mr. Biondo also gave us a draft ordinance for our use which can be incorporated into the staff report and also the Planning Commission Resolution, if applicable. He noted, whereas this could be added to the ordinance, addressing such items as why the public interest may be served by using the stack, etcetera, the body of the ordinance could make statements to the effect that pending Council clearance, that testing could proceed on the stack in order to lead toward a resolution of the problem. JCH:le *EJ SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O.BOX1831 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92112 (714) 232-4252 FILE NO CAB 500 December 22, 1977 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Jim Hagaman, Planning Director Gentlemen: Subject: Proposed Amendment to Encina Specific Plan (SP-144B) SDG&E does hereby make application for modifications to Ordinance Number 9456 in order to achieve the following desired results: 1. Use of the tall single stack to receive the exhaust gases from Encina Units 4, 3, 2 and 1, in that order, commencing in March, 1978. 2. Use of the tall single stack to receive the exhaust gases from Encina Unit 5, commencing in April, 1978, in order to test Unit 5. This request is supported by the following facts and circumstances. BACKGROUND Encina Unit 5 was approved by the City of Carlsbad in 1971 by Ordinance 9279 which adopted Specific Plan 144 to allow the installation of Unit 5. On May 4, 1976, the City of Carlsbad approved an amend- ment to the specific plan by the adoption of Ordinance 9456 to allow a height variance to accommodate the installation of the tall stack which would receive the exhaust gases from Encina Units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Concurrent with that proceeding the APCO for the County of San Diego brought an abatement action against SDG&E to bring about the control of an acid fallout condition which was being experienced in connection with the operation of Units 1-4. AN INVESTOR OWNED CORPORATION Jim Hagaman ^^ -2- ^^December 22, 1977 Because these separate events were occurring at the same time the City Council of Carlsbad responded to public input by imposing conditions upon the height variance process which related to the acid fallout condition. It is those conditions from which SDG&E seeks relief. The conditions do not relate directly to the subject matter which was before the Council for approval and it will be recalled that the city staff argued against the imposition of these conditions because of their doubtful enforceability. They were imposed in response to an expression of public concern. The Planning Commission in approving the SP Amendments had included in it's Resolution Number 1224 a provision which would have allowed the City Council to extend the time limit for compliance past the final building permit clearance for Unit 5 and the stack, but this was not incorporated into Ordinance 9456. OTHER OPTIONS These conditions are by no means the only remedies which were available to respond to that public concern. Additional remedies which were then and still are available include the following: Citizen Action At least four independent remedies were then and still are available to the citizens of Carlsbad who experience property damage resulting from the acid fallout. (a) Settlement of claims with SDG&E. (b) Lawsuit for the damage to property. (c) Lawsuit for inverse condemnation of citizens' property rights. (d) Lawsuit to abate a private nuisance. Carlsbad Action The City of Carlsbad, independent of the conditions in the Ordinance had and still has the option of bringing an action to abate a public nuisance. APCO Action The Air Pollution Control Officer had the option, which it exercised, to seek an abatement order pursuant to Rule 51. This abatement order can be backed up with an enforcement action by the County of San Diego for injunctive relief or civil penalties. -3- Based on this review of other options available to remedy the fallout problem we can place the conditions imposed by the City in their true perspective. It is apparent that even if the City Council had chosen not to impose any conditions on the use of the stack in Ordinance 9456, the citizens of Carlsbad, the City of Carlsbad, the APCD and the ARE all would have, and still do retain their independent remedies against SDG&E. SDG&E'S ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY COUNCILS INTENT On November 22, 1977, SDG&E requested the City Council to clarify the Council's intent with respect to the language contained in Ordinance 9456 and expressed our desire to use the stack (i) to receive the exhaust gases from Units 4, 3, 2 and 1, in that order; and (ii) to further use the stack to receive the exhaust gases from Unit 5 in order to test Unit 5 prior to the final building permit clearance of that Unit, currently scheduled to occur in October 1978. On November 29, 1977 the City Attorney rendered an opinion to the City Council that the clarification sought by SDG&E could only be achieved through public hearings and amendments to the Ordinance. A copy of that opinion is attached and incorporated herein by reference. The Council "filed" the request from SDG&E leaving SDG&E the flexibility to adopt whatever course of action it deemed appropriate. SDG&E'S OPTIONS Three separate courses of action appear to be available to SDG&E. 1. Seek a judicial interpretation of the enforceability of the conditions contained in Ordinance 9456; 2. Seek modifications to Ordinance 9456 which would, if approved, achieve the desired results; or 3. Initiate no action and wait for the APCO and the City Council to express that the fallout problem has been controlled to their satisfaction. The third alternative is the preferred alternative from SDG&E's point of view. However, pursuit of that alternative alone is not without risks which involve (i) our ability to deliver an adequate and reliable supply of energy to SDG&E's customers, (ii) substantial economic detriment to SDG&E's rate payers, and (iii) postponement of (postponing) the implementation of beneficial air quality measures. Should the preferred alternative, for any reason, not occur within the anticipated time frame (January 1978) then the time available to process modifications to Ordinance 9456 becomes critically short before SDG&E would encounter delays in the schedule for transferring the exhaust gases from the -4- existing stacks to the new tall stack. While the probability of these delays occurring may be small, the consequences, should they occur, are substantial and severe. Therefore, SDG&E has elected to commence the process of seeking the modifications in order to receive a timely decision on the requested modifications should the preferred alternative for any reason be delayed. CONSEQUENCES OF SCHEDULE DELAY At the public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council, SDG&E would propose to present evidence on the consequences of delays in the scheduled use of the single stack to receive the exhaust gases from Units 4, 3, 2, and 1 and to receive the exhaust gases from Unit 5 for testing purposes prior to its scheduled commercial operation in October of 1978. Energy Supply Encina 5 will be the largest most efficient generating unit on SDG&E's system. A delay in Unit 5 will place the burden of power generation on smaller, older, less efficient units. This sacrifice in efficiency will result in the burning of an additional 50,900 BBLs of fuel oil per month. Reserve margins necessary to supply adequate amounts of power will be jeopardized. Both the use of the tall stack and Encina 5 are scheduled ahead of peak generating periods. Any delay in the schedule will cause capacity shortages on SDG&E's system and require the purchase of costly off-system power. Operating and Maintenance Major overhauls are scheduled for equipment during the tall stack tie-in construction period. Other major over- hauls are scheduled following the commercial operation of Unit 5. Delays in these overhauls could effect system relia- bility as well as increase maintenance and overhaul expenses when the work is eventually performed. Air Quality The overall air quality in the Carlsbad area will be improved by the use of the tall stack. There is substantial testimony and documentation on record, to show that the use of the stack will improve air quality. The San Diego Air Pollution Control Officer, Mr. Bill Simmons has confirmed that dispersion transport of the single plume dischared at 400 ft. elevation by the tall stack will reduce ground level concentrations of both particulate matter and aerosols, he further strongly incourages the use of the tall stack as soon as possible. Overall San Diego basin air quality will be improved by utilizing Encina 5 as scheduled as the 50,900 BBLs per month fuel savings will result in a commensurate reduction of overall power plant emissions. Impact on Rate Payers Increased costs attributable to inadequate reserve margins, off system purchase power, delayed scheduling of maintenance and use of less efficient generating units all contribute to the electric rates paid by each ratepayer. The incremental cost of the 50,900 BBLs of fuel oil alone is estimated to be $942,000 per month based upon an average price of residual oil in 1979 of $18.50/BBL. Interest during construction, a continuing cost until the equipment is declared commercial, amounts to $52,000 per mo. for the stack, and $617.000 per mo. for Unit 5. These costs would ultimately be borne by the ratepayer. CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE CONTROL OF THE FALLOUT PROBLEM If this request goes to public hearing it will be because either the APCO or the City Council was unable to indicate that the fallout problem has been controlled to their satisfaction. It seems obvious under that assumption that prior to granting the relief requested that the City would desire to preserve a mechanism which maintains some leverage over SDG&E to control the fallout problem to the council's satisfaction. We believe that the leverage sought to be imposed through the conditions contained in Ordinance 9456 can be ratained by the City through the imposition of conditions relating exclusively to controlling the fallout problem prior to the commercial operation of Unit 5. Thus, the City can retain its control over the resolution of the fallout problem and at the same time avoid the enormous consequences assiciated with the conditions which were, in the opinion of the City Attorney, imposed on the use of the stack as well. To the extent that any of these conditions are legally enforceable, they could apply to Unit 5 rather than to the stack without jeopardizing the control measures sought to be imposed by the City. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS In addition to the many remedies cited in the background section above, the City could impose the additional condition of requiring SDG&E to continue to pay all valid property damage claims resulting from the fallout problem, should they occur, after the relief sought herein had been granted. The enforce- ment of this condition could easily be achieved by the City through it's ability to control the ultimate commercial operation of Encina 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SDG&E further requests a finding that there has been no change in circumstances requiring any additional environ- mental reviews over and above the environmental impact statement already approved and accepted in this proceeding. -6- WHEREFORE, SDG&E requests the following relief: 1. A finding that additional environmental reviews are not necessary; 2. That Ordinance 9456 be amended to allow SDG&E to use the tall stack to reveive the exhaust gases from Units 4, 3, 2 and 1, in that order, commencing in March of 1978; 3. That Ordinance 0456 be amended to allow SDG&E to use the tall stack to receive the exhausts gases from Unit 5, commencing in April of 1978 in order to test Unit 5; and 4. That Ordinance 9456 be amended to impose as a condition precedent to the commercial operation of E-5 that the fallout problem be controlled to the satisfaction of the APCO and the City Council. We submit this application in anticipation that it will be considered during the January 25, 1977 Planning Commission Regular Meeting. If we can answer any questions please do not hesitate to call Mr". Jay Shepard at 232-4252, extension 1504. Sincerely, M. Dudley d Planning Supervisor FMD:dr cc: Paul D. Bussey, City Manager City of Carlsbad MEMORANDUM DATE: November 29, 1977 TO: . Mayor and City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Report Re1 Ordinance No. 9456^ At the adjourned City Council meeting of November 22, 1977, San Diego Gas and Electric Company (hereinafter SDG&E) requested permission to use the new 400-foot stack to receive the exhaust gases from "Encina Units 1 through 4. The Council referred the request to the City Attorney for a report. The request by SDG&E is controlled by Ordinance No. 9456 which amended Specific Plan 144 to permit the construction of the stack subject to twelve .conditions. (A copy of Ordinance No.9456 is attached for your ready reference). Condition (H) of the ordinance is the only one directly involved with the request and, in particular, the third paragraph, which provides: "The particulate "fallout" problem shall be controlled to the satisfaction 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." The meaning of the term "final building permit clearance" has .been reviewed in detail with the Building Director. He reports that Encina 5 and the stack are being constructed pursuant to a single building permit. (A copy is attached). The stack is considered to be a part of the Encina 5 structure. The project was assigned to Occupancy Group G which expressly includes power plants. Section 306(a) of the Uniform Building Code (1973 Edition), adopted for use in the City of Carlsbad by Municipal Code Section 18.04.005, provides in part that: "No building 'or structure in Groups A to H inclusive, shall be used or occupied,...until the Building • Official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy therefor..." (emphasis added). Section 306 (c) provides that a Certificate of Occupancy, shall not be issued until after final inspection when it is found that the building or structure complies with all the provisions of the code. Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy is the final building permit clearance in the City of Carlsbad. In my opinion the terms of Condition (H) are -clear and unambiguous. The City Council and the Air Pollution Control Officer (hereinafter APCO) must be independently satisfied that the fallout problem has been "controlled" before Encina 5 and the stack can received final building permit clearance and under the Uniform Building Code the stack cannot be used until after such clearance. The question of whether or not to condition the use of the stack on solving the fallout problem is solely one of policy. In fact, the original conditions recommended by the Planning, Staff had no such requirement. A review of the record indicates that the condition grew out of ^concerns expressed at the public hearing and was added at the express direction of the City Council. The Planning Commission recommended adding a condition requiring the APCO to be satisfied that the problem was solved before the stack could be used. The City Council concurred and further modified the condition by adding the requirement that the City Council also be satisfied. The record of the hearing seems clear in regard to the Council's intent in adopting Condition (H). One member of the Council was of the view that the problem should be solved before the stack was even approved. One other member of the Council expressed the view that the condition of approval would prevent the company from using the single stack before it solved the particulate problem. The best indication of the Council's intent can•be found in the findings of Ordinance No. 9456. Section 8(C) of the findings in part provides: "Unless this ordinance is amended, the fallout problem will be solved prior to the use of^ Encina 5 and the stack". I find no ambiguity in Condition (H) but to the degree some might be deemed to exist,-it should be resolved by reference to the .Council's intent expressed in the findings. The quoted portion of which seems to me to speak for itself. While it was the Council's policy choice to impose the requirement in Condition (H), it was done by ordinance after public hearings. If the Council wishes to materially change that requirement, it should be done by the same process. • SDG&E has suggested to me in writing that it is unnecessary to proceed by way of amendment, in that Condition (H), of Ordinance No. 9456, can be changed by resolution. I find the authorities cited in support of that position .-to be without merit as a matter of law. 2. SDG&E has also suggested that a resolution is appropriate because the ordinance is ambiguous. They offer .that ambiguity may be found because Condition (H) does not mention Units 1 through 4 and does not distinguish between commercial use and use for testing purposes. These suggestions are also without merit. The record indicates that Condition (H) related directly to Units 1 through 4 since they were what was causing the problem the condition was intended to resolve. In addition, while Condition (H) may not mention Units I through 4, Ordinance No. 9456 certainly does. Condition (I) expressly provides that the four stacks on the exist- ing plant be removed, "...not later than.eight months after the Building Inspector signs the final inspection for the 400-foot stack..." This condition and the record indicate that it was contemplated that the four existing stacks would not be removed until after the 400-foot stack and Encina were complete. .If that was in error, or 'if construction plans have changed, the problem can be corrected by an amendment. SDG&E is correct in their observation that the ordinance does not differentiate between testing and. commercial use. The ordinance simply prohibits the "use" of the stack. I find no ambiguity in the word "use". In any case, SDG&E is not request- ing permission to test the 400-foot stack but to place it into full commercial use for Units 1 through 4. While there may be some doubt whether or not the prohibition against "use" of the stack prescribes testing, that question is not presented here where the request is for use. If the City Council is not satisfied the fallout problem has been controlled and wishes to enforce Condition (H), your action is a motion to deny SDG&E's request. If the City Council is not satisfied .the fallout problem has been controlled, but finds merit in SDG&E's position that they should be allowed to use the stack for Encina Units 1 through 4, the proper way to proceed is to initiate public hearings to consider an amendment to the Specific Plan . (SP-144) and Condition (H) to so provide. / The Council also has the option of finding that the fallout problem has been controlled. The determination as to what constitutes "control" of the fallout problem is, of course, one for the Council's discretion. Although SDG&E has not requested such a finding, and the APCO is apparently not prepared to make it at this time, there is, in my opinion, sufficient evidence in the record to support such a finding, if it is recognized that "controlled" is something less than "solved" or "eliminated". To make the finding the Council should satisfy itself that "controlled" is consistent with their intent in Ordinance No. 9456. 3. In reviewing the Uniform Building Code with the Building Director it appeared that one additional option may be available. Section 306(d) provides'that: "A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued by the Building Official for the use of'a portion or portions of a building or structure prior to the completion of the entire building or structure". As previously noted, the stack is considered/by the Building. Director to be a'part of Encina 5 for building inspection purposes The Building Director has indicated if it could be found that the- stack was complete, safe for use and in full compliance with the Code and if the Council concurred, a temporary certificate might be issued. Such .a certificate could' be limited to use for Units 1 through 4. • There are several problems with this option. The primary problem is whether or not the use proposed.by SDG&E can be considered temporary. The evidence presented to the Council indicates that the conversion from the four existing stacks to the 400-foot stack may be permanent and irreversible since .the small stacks will be removed. It is doubtful, in my opinion, that we could successfully revoke a temporary occupancy should that become necessary. Further, the Building Director indicates that in most cases where temporary occupancy is used the City allows occupancy pending clearance of minor technical problems where the City has the ability to pull utility meters and terminate the use if the building is not completed-in full compliance with the code. Such would not be the case with the stack. Finally, although issuance of a temporary certificate may be legally possible under the Building Code, the Council would have to be satisfied that such action was 'consistent with the intent of Ordinance No. 9456. CONCLUSION Condition (H) of Ordinance No. 9456 which precludes the u.'';o r> F the stack until the fallout problem is controlled to the satisfaction of the APCO and the City Council seems to me to be clear and unambiguous. The condition should either be enforced or changed and the proper way to change it is to amend the ordinance. SDG&E': contention that the condition is ambiguous and can therefore be "clarified" without the public hearings necessary to amend the ordinance is not well taken. If the Council determines to either deny the request or initiate public hearings to amend the ordinance, that action can'be taken by motion at your November 29, 1977 meeting. If the Council wishes to elect one of the other options discussed herein, I recommend referring the matter to the City Manager for a further report since they involve either the operation of one of his departments or that of another governmental agency and those aspects of the problem contain certain policy elements beyond the province of your attorney which may require additional consideration. VINCENT' F. BIONDO, JR. City Attorney VFB/mla Attachments 5. o en 8u> . c ?3, - S<: £•du..^|go^ig2; v_ lu —.5^32 0 0-* J ~Z- .r* ^~ o ii; 3 t "o 1 •z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 •*. "ii 13 14 15 16 17. 18 19 .20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 9456 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY" COUNCIL OF THE • CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, 'AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9279 BY THE.'AMENDMENT OF THE SPECIFIC-PLZNN ADOPTED THEREBY TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION, . SUBJECT TO 'CERTAIN CONDITIONS, OF A 400£FOOT SINGLE.STACK TO REPLACE FOUR EXISTING STACKS AT THE ENCINA POWER PLANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND SOUTH OF THE AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON (SP-144 (B) ) . APPLICANT: ' SAN DIEGO GAS ^ ELECTRIC COMPANY. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows': .' *' -, " .*••'' • • >, SECTION 1: That it does find.and declare as- follows: ;*•;., 1. A verified application for an amendment to SP-144- to per- mit the construction of a 400' foot single stack to replace the four existing stacks at the Encina Power Plant has been received for the following described, property.: ,-v;:-\ ... :.---" Those portions of Rancho Agua Hedionda, Map No-"823 in the #-£. City-T'-of Carlsbad, County-of San- Diego, together'_with that-. ' -§£r... portion of Block W Palisades Number Two, Map No."71803 in :.•'•.. HvH' the-City of Carlsbad,..County of San Diego. Also.'being •'•.;."'-.-.'"•.;'_" |j§^ Parcel 6, Page 0.7, Book. 206; Parcels 24, 25, 26rS& 27, /V--- i£&... -Page--:01, Book--210; Parcel 21," Page 21, Book 211:-and " ;V.v,;r -^{•'-'-•Parcel 14, Page 01, Book 212 o£ the Assessor's Map of ':%.y . '%--• San .Diego County. "'..' •. . . '-. — . : . - '^:'^^- ' .V:-—?••" 2. In accord with Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the matter was referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing. ' ' . 3. A duly noticed public--hearing was held before the Planning Commission at the time and in the place specified in said notice on January 28, 1976 and continued to March 24, 1976 at which time all interested persons were heard. 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 .'-10 "ia 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .,20 •' 21 22 2o 24 '25 26 27 28 4. The applicant has complied with the Public Facility" Element of the General Plan and has. provided the necessary . information which ensures-Public Facilities will be available concurrent with need. • •,.z.s' -» •• • 5. The subject application has complied with the require-' ; meats of the City of Carlsbad "Environmental Protection Ordinance x • of 1972" in that an Environmental Impact Report on the project was 'certified in 1973 and has been fully supplemented with additional current information which constitutes prior compliance. * " In addition, an EIR for the entire.related Encina 5 project as certified by the Public Utilities Commission acting as lead agency on the project has been considered. 6. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended the approval of the applicant's request. . 7. That a duly noticed public hearing was held before -the City Council on'April 20, 1976. •-, - -,.....' " , •.. .'."""••%•. -• . ' ~ " " 8.. At said public hearing, 'upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to be -heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the Specific Plan Amendment and made the following findings of fact: • . . ' (A) All conditions of City Council4 Ordinance 9279 have been complied with and this amendment is consistent with said ordinance and the provisions of the P-U zone ' (B) The 400-foot stack is necessary to provide an effectiv rnethod of dispersing the emissions of the Encina Power Plant as required by the State Air Resources , Board and because of its relationship with Encina 5, ; ' will improve the overall quality of air in this area. 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 '21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 (C) SDG&E has indicated that some of the corrosion damage, "fallout", in the vicinity of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Encina'Power Plant (more-specifically the Terrainar Area) is probably started or caused- by- particles from the Encina 'Plant. SDG&E has accepted responsibility 'for such damage and further stated that they will meet-with individual Terrainar residents to resolve the damage claims and that they are" also • ; ' working with the San Diego County APCD staff to develop a work program that will assure the City and County that necessary corrective action will be taken by the Company.. Unless this ordinance is amended, the "fallout" problem will be solved prior; to the use of Encina 5 and the stack. (D) .The approval .of this amendment, with conditions, will. • improve air quality in the immediate vicinity of the' plant. .•••'•• ' • . (E) • To the extent there are' adverse environmental effects . • •>;.; to the project, they will be mitigated by the con- -. ditions of approval. . ". - .. . ••_; T,. , • - • -• " ' * •.--.'_'•" ..;; (F) The identical project was approved in 1973 and the •::.;•; conditions surrounding that approval have not materi- ally changed and the applicant has relied on such . :;'' approval. • • . .._-•-•"-.'' -r'^.: (G) The construction -of the stack will be accompanied •'.".: by the removal of the four existing stacks, and a ;•••"••-'•:• "screening of all duct work _so' that the aesthetic effect Vvv . .: of the plant with the 400-foot stack will.be no worse i;l^I than the existing .four stacks. "::,.:>:':.-.. ,:\':^X.'- '•-.''•£•• (H) The project is a logical extension of an existing • '. : .V,;.(-::. ' , , use located in an area already committed to heavy ;_.' .".:: public utility operations. • - . • ' ' • " s (I) This amendment is consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan and all applicable specific plans. SECTION 2. That Ordinance No. 9279 is amended by the eimendment of Section 2 of said ordinance to .replace the Specific Plan Map attached thereto with a revised plan labeled SP-144B,-- Exhib.it A, dated October-10, 1975,-on file in the Planning' %*•• - Department and incorporated by 'reference herein, which is hereby adopted. • " • . " •3. 1 z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "10 "ll> 12 SECTION 3: That Ordinance Mo. 9279 is amerrdecl by the amend- ment of Section 2 of said ordinance to add Condition No. 14 to • • * read as follows: .";•'-. |:14. In addition to the above conditions, the revised por— -. .• tions of the specific plan v;hich permit the construction of the 400-foot stack and the removal of the four existing stacks shall.be accomplished in accord with the revised specific plan SP-144B and shall be subject to the following conditions: - ' : • • (ft) All applicable requirements of any lav?', -ordinance, or regulation of the 'State of California, City of-. Carlsbad, . and any other governmental entity' 1 , shall be complied with. . :: II 13 , 14 I , 15O '1 ,» \ 16 3 17 3 18 men '4 19 23 24 25 26; 27 20 (B) All ground lighting shall be arranged, to reflect away from adjoining properties and streets. (C) Any- mechanical and/or electrical equipment to" be located on the roof of the structure shall be screened in'a manner acceptable to the Planning • Director. Detailed plans for said screening shall be submitted, in triplicate, to the ", Planning Director for approval. • ". . • ..'?:-'"~; (D) Air pollution equipment capable of monitoring -~' •••••" ambient particulates, NO^. and S02 concentrations.' and other emissions from the Encina Plant as well as air quality in the Carlsbad area shall be -r ' placed in service not. later - than•six months fol- 'lowing the effective date of this ordinance. The number of stations, type of equipment and loca- •" tion of stations shall be to the satisfaction of the APCD Control Officer and the City of Carlsbad Should the Air Pollution Control Officer of the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District require additional air quality or emissions monitoring equipment and funds for air quality analysis in connection with their current study of emissions.from the Encina Power Plant, the applicant shall suppiy said equipment and funds as deemed necessary by the Air 'Pollution Control Officer. The cost of said equipment 4. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 •10 ii. 12 13 1 16 u. ' <: CJ 1 18 Ic; 1 Q <O 20 22 23 .'25 - 26 • 27 20 (E) (F) (G) (H) shall not exceed $150,000. The requested funds for.air quality analysis shall not exceed $50,000 per year. • . . • * •• .Any future measure required by .the San. Diego County Air Pollution Control District to lessen "or otherwise control emissions from the Encina Power Plant are hereby incorporated -'as a part of this Specific Plan, Amendment and SDG&E shall/' comply fully therewith. The costs of such measures shall be borne by SDG&E. . • SDG&E will obtain a report of compliance from the City staff regarding the conditions of this ordinance and from the San Diego County Air Pollution Control Officer regarding compliance with the applicable conditions of the ordinance' . and with air' quality standards, and-'forward, it to the City- Council, five years from the date of this ordinance or-as otherwise required by 'motion of the City Council, or the Planning Commission. "The Planning Commission and City Council shall review the, report with regard to '-• conformance to the conditions of this ordinance and to regulations required by other-"applicable regulatory agencies, including, but .not limited to, the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, Public Utilities Commission and State Coastal Commission.. The City reserves the'right to amend this specific plan SP-14.4B. as necessary to add conditions to ensure such compliance. ;•:-;.'•' After the initial report is filed the City Council may, by motion,'require additional reports as - they deem necessary. ; :- '.':•.," ' 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. The applicant may request an amendment to this specific plan to provide a reasonable extension of the period for such removal. The applicant shall make a formal commitment to conduct the •s.tudies' necessary to determine what operating practices and/or emissions control., devices are capable of eliminating the particulate "fallout" problem.' .A schedule for the completion of* the studies shall be ^established 'which is satisfactory to the San ^Diego County Air Pollution 5. .' 8™ ir c.-> •j' <ffj _i -1 2 4 6 7 8 9 "10 '"IJ, 12 13 14 15 . 16 _jrn< 3' 2 i 17 ri O . 18 19 20 22 25 24 26 27 28 Control District Officer, the Air Pollution Control District Hearing Board, or Court of Law. SDG&E shall fully 'comply with the abatement order entered in petition Mo.607. * The applicant shall further agree to pay claims - . for property damage resulting from the "fallout" problem until -compliance with the abatement order is achieved. . :<$ The particulate "'fallout'' problem shall be con- trolled to- the satistac'txon or. the City Council p'f the City of Carlsbad and of the Air Pollution Control Officer prior to the final building permit "clearance tor Enctna b ancl' the single stack. (I) Not later than eight- months after the Building '.' Inspector signs the final- inspection for the 400-foot stack, the four stacks on the existing . Encina Power Plant shall be completely removed..' (J) SDG&E shall file an annual report with the City .;; • , • Council regarding improvements in plant and operating procedures during the preceding year :•- • which reduce the emission of air pollutants .' : resulting from the-operation of Encina Units 1., : 2, 3 and 4. . . - / ,/' (K) SDG&E shall operate the plant in full compliance . '. with all air quality standards as .are or may-be./--' " established by the APCD.'" If the monitoring stations indicate1the standards are being exceeded at any time, SDG&E-shalfl .comply v/ithvail .directions, of. APCD to reduce, through any reasonable means,.- .' ' pollutants from the plant. (L) In the event SDG&E .files for-a variance or other form of administrative or legal relief from the requirements of APCD, they shall concurrently forward a copy of any such filing, or any sub- -. sequent communications in connection therewith, to the City of Carlsbad. SECTION 4. That the thirty-five foot.height limit establish- ed by Condition No. 5 of Section 2, of Ordinance No. 9279, sha.ll not apply to the 400-foot stack or the duct work and. screening to ^ §~~ °f Sj _., • , fLij- _:-• l?'^-So- « u. w £» oi § Q 5 S - . . (T ^ O 1 6 7 8 9 ,10 \ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 be constructed on top of the main generation building in conjunc- tion with the construction of the stack and the removal of the * four existing stacks.." . • - " . EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after, its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its adoption. ' ' an adjourned INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at / regular meeting of the - Apri 1 , 1976,Carlsbad City Council held on the271hday of and thereafter • . . -. - ••••-. •;=' PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 4th day of May . , 1976, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmen Packard ,'S'kotni ck.i and Councilwoman Ca'sler .. NOES: Councilman Lewis f.:; ABSENT r None . . " • ';.:•" ABSTAINED: Councilman Frazee ' 'V"'':-' •. • .' .. '""• • • •ATTEST: •-'-'':.. . :::^ ': '. ROBERT C. FRAZEE, Maxtor.. MARGARET; E. ADAMS, citty clerk V(SEAL) I •-*. •• - . V-City ^CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA \pplic3fi ( to complete numbered spaces only. « P'OHS / xiy~ J1 O I run Permit Mo. ^/-— >-^-ie/-^" • 'C7^ ^ O" ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER - MAIL AOD*£5» CO* T^AC TOM! O M STATE UIC. NO.CITY LIC. »O. ''P/ o. .'. /^/^RO^'-x,?) l"°"""5rA^ P-G /'-.//_/ O.R.:': P J ^M-S-I t ,'K . J?oo w. /A o. c" Cr* t ,, License NO. fv o6> :.:G COM?3 S.N S ATIOM INS. CARRIER c ,-s; -:r • < A T; ?4 C~> r i A >*• > . cl STAC.O. BORMS NO. BATHS !- Class of work: .<D ALTERATION D REPAIR D MOVE . D REMOVE Describe work:'-'.-- • .0''Changs of use from ' Chang* of lisa to^rjr^ I Valuation PLAN CHECK FEE S t <> // ~7 i;* -"^ >"/ ' 'PERMIT .Wv/^/S .PSCIAL CONDITIONS:Tyo* ot Const. Occupancy Group MICRO FILM Siie of Bldg. ." (Total) Sq. Ft.. No. o' Storiev Max. .'. —' Dec. Load pROvBo-POK'issyANC tOS-is:- Fira Zone Use Zone Firo Sorinklers 'Required NO. 0. , - Dwe.ling units OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES-.. No. . •Sq. Ft.: '-""'.' ODBn .-'..' -'"*..-•• '>- •••-.*--- ' --d^"-' NOTJCE:;, • •'••-^ . . . • SEPARATE PERMITS' ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL". PLUMa- ING. HSATING.. VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. .' THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IP WORK OR CONSTRUC- TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS.OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK ISSUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD 0-F 120- DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COM- Sp»?cvaV Approvals Required PLANNING OEPT. ' HEALTH DEPT.. FIRE DEPT. SOIL. REPORT OTHER (Specify) 1 HET*E3Y- CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL "P-fl'OVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HFREIN OH NOT, THF GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT ;>HF.5<JM=. TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE CfiOUIJJlOMS Or ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. DEPT. WATER DEPP. i i ' •/'••'.' •- -A 'JLi'™ Received.Not Renuire,d WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACE) THIS IS YC'JH PERMIT ..AN CHECK VALIDATION CK.M.O.CASH PERMIT VALIDATION CK.M.O.CASH TOTAL FEES S INSPECTOR