The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZC 203; Wastewater Treatment Plant; Zone Change (ZC)~ · EPA,·S00/2-,78-051 March 1978 .. ·•, ' ·• ':. :.-~ ~.: " .. ' t '·, ' .: . -~ ..... '· ·. ·~ ·,· ~-·· -'.·· ~~ ~:;:( ;';_ .· .·.: . .-.·. -.<' ,.'~,. -.l~r~~>;, ;---·.·. Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA-600/2-78-051 March 1978 A COMPARISON OF OXIDATION DITCH PLANTS TO COMPETING PROCESSES FOR SECONDARY AND ADVANCED TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL WASTES by William F. Ettlich Culp/Wesner/Culp-clean Water Consultants · El Dorado Hills, California · 95630 · Contract No. 68-03-2186 Project Officer Francis L. Evans, III Wastewater Research. Division Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268 DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by ~~e Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publi- cation. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor. does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to present state-of-the-art information ~egarding oxidation ditch plant design, costs, operation, performance, and reliability. This information is used to compare oxidation ditch plants to other competing biological. processes. Design criteria and operational conditions necessary to maximize single stage nitrification and total nitrogen removals in oxidation ditch plants is also presented. Costs of competing nitrification and nitrogen removal processes are compared to those developed for oxidation ditch plants. DESIGN F~ATURES OF OXIDATION DITCH ~LANTS An oxidation ditch plant is typically an extended aeration type of activated sludge process that uses a continuously recirculating·closed loop channel or channels as an aeration basin. The aeration basin is no~ally ?ized for a 247hour hydra~lic retention time, put may. be designed for any other detention time. Mechanical aerators-are commonly ~sed· for mixing, oxygen supply, and for circulation of mixed liquor.· Generally, these_ are horizontal prush, cage, or disc":"tYPe.aerators designed speci- fically for oxidation ditch plants. Secondary clarifiers similar to those-used in other activated sludge processes are normally provided. Primary clarification is not usually included in oxidation ditch plant design. The typical oxidation ditch aeration basin is a single channel or multiple interconnected concentric channels. An oxidation ditch plant ·normally consists of one or more basins of either type operated in paral- lel depending on the flow and operation mode required. Channel geometry can vary to include many possible configurations, however, the oval configuration is the most common. The multiple concentric channel bas:tn can have any number of interconnected channels with three to five being typical and provides some process flexibility since it can be changed to other activated sludge modes with minor modification. Typically, the outer channel is used for aerobic digestion of the waste activated sludge. Shallow channels are typically four to six feet deep with 45 degree sloping sid~ walls. Deep channels have vertical side walls and are normally 10-12 feet deep. The channels are usually lined to prevent erosion and leakage. Ditch lining can be reinforced conGrete, gunite, asphalt, or thin membranes. Typically, shallow channels with sloped side walls are con- structed of concrete poured against earth backing with welded wire mesh reinforcing. Deep vertical wall channels require reinforced concrete walls • . iv Several manufacturers supply oxidation ditch brush or disc type mechanical aerators. These units may be either fixed or floating. The aerators normally span the channel width and may be installed in one or more locations around the ·channel. T'ne aerators must supply the required oxygen to the channel and impart a sufficient velocity in the channel (>1.0 FPS) to keep the channel contents in suspension. Oxygen transfer capabilities of an aerator will vary depending on the particular design, rotational speed and submergence. Most units operate in the range of 60 RPM to 110 RPM with a submergence of 2 to 12 inches and produce oxygen trans- fer rates of from 3 to 5 lbs of oxygen per hour. The number of aerators provided depends on the size, configuration and oxygen requirements of the plant. A minimum of two aerators should be installed so that at least partial aeration can be provided when problems occur. Generally, final clarifier design is consistent with other activated sludge processes. A surface overflow rate of 400 to 500 gpd/sq ft is recom- mended for average daily flows and 1000 to 1200 gpd/sq ft at peak flows. Hany plants are constructed with 8 foot deep clarifiers, but depths of 10 to 14 feet provide greater process reliability. COMPARATIVE PERFORMAJ.~CE & RELIABILITY Performance data for the 29 oxidation ditch plants studied are summarized as follows: · · ·sUMMARY PERFORMANCE OF 29 OXIDATION DITCH PLANTS Effluent, ~/1 Removal Average Avera~e Winter Summer annual Winter Summer annual BODs High plant 55 34 41 87 86 87 Average 15.2 1.2 12.3 92 94 93 IJ:Jw plant 1.9 1.0 1.5 99 99 99 Suspended solids High plant 26.6 19.4 22.4 81 82 82 Average 13.6 9.3 10.5 93 94 94 Low·plant 3.1 1.9 2.4 98 98 98 The performance of competing biological treatment processes was also evaluated and the data are summarized as follows: v PERFORMANCE -COMPETING BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES Effluent, m~/1 Removal, % TSS ~ TSS BODs Activated sludge (1. 0 mgd) 31 26 81 84 Activated sludge (Package Plants) 28 18 Trickling filters 26 42 82 79 Rotating biological contactor 23 25 79 78 Analysis of data from 12 operating oxidation ditch plants showed the reliability for meeting various BODs and TSS effluent standards as follows: RELIABILIT~ -OXIDATION DITCH PLANTS % of time effluent concentration (rng/1) less than Best plant Average all plants Worst plant 10 rng/1 20 mg/1 30 mg/1 TSS BODS TSS BODS TSS BODs 99% 99% 65% 65% :25% 20% 99% . 99% 85% 90% 55% 55% 99% 99% 94% 96% 80%· 72% ·Of the plants analyzed, th~ effluent BOJ?5 .~nd TSS seldPI'!l exceeded a maximum of 60 mg/1. ~-- The reliability of competing biological treatment processes was evaluated on the same basis and is summarized as follows: AVERAGE RELIABILITY -COMPETING BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES % of time effluent concentration (~/1) less than 10 m~/1 20 m~/1 30 m2:11 TSS ~ TSS BODs TSS BODS, Activated sludge (1.0 mgd) 40 25 75 70 90 85 Activated sludge {Package Plants) 15% 39% 35% 65% 50% 80% Trickling filters 2% 3% 15% Rotating biological contactor 22% 30% 45% 60% 70% 90% An oxidation ditch plant is capable of 95% to 99% nitrification with- out design modifications. This high degree of nitrification even at waste- water temperatures approaching 0°C is possible due to the 24-hour hydraulic retention time in the channel(s) and the capability of operating at a h~gn solids retention time (SRT) of 10 to greater than 50 days. Nitrogen removal by single-stage biological nitrification-denitrifica- ·tion has also been achieved at properly designed and well operated vi I ' oxidation ditch plants. Nitrogen removal is achieved by producing both aerobic and anoxic zones within the same channel. These zones are created by controlling the aerator oxygen transfer rate so that mixed liquor dis- solved oxygen is depleted within a portion of the aeration channel. The carbon source for the anoxic zone {denitrification) is provided by feeding the raw sewage into the channel upstream of the anoxic zone. With careful operation, 80% nitrogen removal has been achieved in a single channel oxidation ditch plant. OXIDATION DITCH PLANT OPERATION Oxidation ditch plants can be operated by average perso~nel to produce above average performance results. Assuming no mechanical malfunction, oxi- dation ditch plants are capable of performing well for several days at a time with minimal operator attention. Waste activated sludge handling requirements depend on the plant de- sign and operation. Plants operated with a 24-hour channel hydraulic retention time at 20 to 30 day SRT produce a biologically stable waste sludge th·a.t can be· handled witliout caus.ing sign.lficartt odor problems. Plants operated with 6 to 8 hour" channel hydraulic retention time and less than 10 day SRT require additional; sludge treatment, typically aerobic digestion. Some problems have been noted in dewatering activated sludge directly on sand beds from plants operated at a 24-hour hydraulic retention time. These sludges tenet ~0 dewater v~ry slow.Ly requi;ring significantly increased sludge drying bed area. In areas where wet and cold weather are c~nun6n·, sludge drying bed area should be even larger. Some plants are operated in- definitely without formal sludge wasting allowing solids to build up in the aeration channel. This type of operation is considered marginal because the plant is prone to periodic clarifier upsets resulting in high final effluent solids. Aerators· and drives have typically required major corrective mainten- ance every 2-5 years for the following type problems. 1. Bearing and seal failure due to improper selection, constant water splashing on the bearings and seals, and settlement of the aerator support structure causing misalignment. 2. Loss of aerator elements due to corrosion. 3. Aerator torque tube failure or excessive deflection of very long units. CO~~ARATIVE COSTS Costs associated with oxidation ditch plants were determined. Con- struction costs for 44 plants were escalated by EPA Treatment Plant Index 262.3 for the third quarter of 1976. These costs include all facilities except land, engineering, legal and financing during construction. Annual vii .. 0 & M costs include labor, utilities, chemicals, maintenance materials, and miscellaneous. These costs are as follows: OXIDATION DITCd PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND k~NUAL 0 & M COSTS $1000, 1976 Plant capacity, mgd 0.1 1.0 10.0 -Construction 195 600 3350 0 & M normal 22.1 62.4 446.6 0 & M nitrification 22.6 63.1 467.5 0 & M N-removal 28.1 67.4 453.7 There are generally no increased construction costs for nitrification or nitrogen removal. Construction and 0 & M costs were developed for competing aCtivated sludge processes. These costs were developed on the same basis as the oxidation ditch costs. The construction and annual 0 & M costs are as follows:. CONSTRUCTION COSTS -COMPETING ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESSES Capacity, mgd Extended aeration (package plants) .contact stabilization (package plants) Conventional activated sludge o.s 390 320 $1000, 1976 1.0 5.0 10.0 475 1045 _2645 4138 ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS -COl1PETING ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESSES Capacity, mgd Extended aeration (package plants) Contact stabilization (package plants) Conventional activated sludge 0.5 64.4 57.3 $1000, 1976 1.0 5.0 10.0 93.9 80.9 187.7 308.1 Construction and anriual 0 & M costs were developed for competing biological nitrification. These are summarized as follows for 20 mg/1 influent NH4-N. viii CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR COMPETING BIOLOGICAL NITRIFICATION PROCESSES $1000, 1976 Capacity, mgd 1 5 10 Activated sludge, 1 stage (20 mg/1 NH -N) 1;210 3,203 5,107 Activated slu~ge, 2 stage (20 mg/1 NH4-N) 1,448 3,830 6,031 ANNUAL 0 & H COSTS FOR COMPETING BIOLOGICAL NITRIFICATION PROCESSES $1000, 1976 Capacity, mgd 1 5 10 Activated sludge, 1 stage (20 mg/1 NH -N) 89.4 219.3 375.5 Activated slu~ge, 2 stage (20 mg/1 NH4-N) 102.9 245.4 416.9 Construction and annual 0 & M costs were developed for competing biological deni trifi_cation pr~cesse_s. These a;re summarized as follows for 20 mg/.1 influent NH4-N •. CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR Cot-1PETING BIOLOGICAL DENITRIFICATION PROCESSES •. $1000, 1976 Capacity, mgd 1 .5 ------Mixed reactor denitrification (20 mg/1 NH4 -N) . Fixed film denitrification (20 mg/1 NH4-N) 539 1,357 636 1,192 ..• 10 2,291 2,298 ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS FOR CO~WETING BIOLOGICAL DENITRIFICATION PROCESSES $1000, 1976 Capacity, mgd 1 Mixed reactor denitrification (20 mg/1 NH4-N) 54.1 Fixed film denitrification (20 mg/1 NH4-N) .51.3 Construction and annual 0 & r1 costs were physical-chemical nitrogen removal processes. follows for 20 mg/1 influent NH4-N. ix 5 10 140.6 244.6 115.3 195.0 .. also developed for selected These are summarized as ' . CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR COMPETING PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL NITROGEN REHOVAL PROCESSES $1000, 1976 Capacity, mgd 1 5 10 Breakpoint chlorination (20 mg/1 NH4-N) 114.8 377.1 696.7 Selective ion exchange ( 20 mg/1 NH 4 -N) 442.6 1,557.4 2,704.9 Ammonia stripping (20 mg/1 NH4-N) 245.9 1,065.6 1,967.2 ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS FOR CO~WETING PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL NITROGEN REMOVAL PROCESSES $1000, 1976 Capacity, mgd 1 5 10 Breakpoint chlorination (20 mg/1 NH 4-N) 100.0 280.0 380.0 Selectiye ion excl').ange . . (20 mg/1 NH 4-N). 47;o . 150.0 250.0 Ammonia stripping (2_0 mg/1 NH4-N) 18.0 57.0 170.0. Construction costs for competing extended aeration and contact stabil- . ization plants were less than for .. oxidation 'dit'Ch ·plants in the flow range · of 0.01 mgd to 2 mgd. Oxidation ditch plant construction costs w~re less than for conventional activated sludge plants within the range of 0.01 to 10 mgd. · Operation .arieL maintenance costs for oxidation ditch plants were . less than for the competing processes in 0.1 mgd to 2 mgd range and the total annual costs for oxidation ditch pl~~ts were less than for all other competing processes in the range of 0.1 to 10 mgd. Within.the flow range . of 0.01 to 0.1 mgd the total annual costs for extended aeration package plants was less than for oxidation ditch plants. The total annual costs for all competing denitrification processes were higher than for oxidation ditch plants. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study show that oxidation ditch plants are capable of consistently achieving high levels of BOD and TSS removals with minimum operation. High levels of nitrifica~ion (95%-99%) are possible with proper operation. Nitrogen removals as high as 80% can be achieved in a single channel plant with careful operation of the aeration equipment to produce aerobic and anoxic zones within the channel. Increased operator attention is required to produce the high levels of nitrogen removal. Cost data developed in this report show that oxidation ditch plants are competitive with o~~er biological processes. Total annual costs for oxidation ditch plants were less than for all competing biological X ·- ~ . . processes within the flow range of 0.1 to 10 mgd. Oxidation ditch plants were also shown to have lower total annual costs than competing biological and physical-chemical nitrogen removal processes. This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-2186 by Culp/Wesner/Culp -Clean Water Consultants under sponsorship of the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the period of July, 1976 to December, 1976, and work was completed as of August, 1977. xi ,~. \.,..,# ME£>10RANDUM DATE: July 13, 1979 TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director SUBJECT: REVISED CONDITIONS FOR LAKE CALAVERA HILLS PRECISE DEVELOPt1ENT PLAN. Subsequent to the City Council meeting of June 19, 1979, staff has reviewed not only those conditions which were identified as Council concerns (specifically #9, #14, #17), but other conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution #1525. As indicated at the City Council meeting, staf£ ~id have concerns about the three conditions specified. We have subsequently further analyzed and studied each condition. This report is to attempt to share our thought p=ocesses with the Council and to present, as objectively as possible, our findings and conclusions on particular conditions. We will address those·conditions of stated Council concern and additional amended conditions by staff in numerical order, which will include all conditions changed in any way from the Planning Commission resolution. . •. Condition #1. Staff has revised Exhibit G, now dated 6/22/79, as referenced in condition #1, now containing descriptions of the entire proposed development as conditioned in Resolution #1525. (Ron Beckman has prepared a cover sheet and his rewritten Exhibit G) Condition #5. Revised to specifically identify plans to be approved by the Planning Commission prior to any construction of the project. The plans are identified as those relating directly to the water reclamation system. Condition #7. Modified for clarity with no intent to change the neaning of the condition. The proposed users of the treatment plant must submit a plan guaranteeing the method of utilization of the reclaimed water. Condition #8. Modified for clarity to establish that the Planning Director clearly has the authority to review and approve plans as required by Condition #7. Condition #9. This condition has been split into two parts, (a) and (b). (a) Essentially reiterates the original intent of condition #9 by-clearly identifying the applicant's responsibility, as to -1- c the construction of a water reclamation system and appropriate appurtenances from the alternate recharge basins located in the Agua Hedionda drainage basin, including the acquisition of any land or easement necessary for the construction of a water reclamation system. This requirement is contingent on the City Council's determination that said recharge basins are preferrable to an effluent fail safe line to the Encina outfall as is refer- enced in Condition #11. This condition also addresses that the City Council may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the applicant so that those using any oversizing of the facility required by this condition, will pay for their fair share. It should be noted, however, that the condition does not establish as a City responsibility, any assistance to the applicant in the• carrying out of this con- dition if a privately negotiated agreement cannot be reached with the owners of the other involved properties. Therefore, the question before the City Council is two-fold. First, since new City Council policy is not to allow a satellite sewer treatment plant independent of reclamation system, the issue becomes one of whether or not the City wishes to modify that policy to allow a fail safe line for a po~tion of a satellite sewage facility, i.e. only 500,000 capacity per day can be handled in the recharge basin.under the control of the applicant in Lake Calavera Hills. Therefore there is a need for an additional 700,000 per day to either be placed in a recharge basin for even- tual reuse, or transported to Encina outfall for disposal. If it is Council's intent to build a plant of 1.2 mgd capacity, we are then faced with having to impliment a proposal for the remain- ing 700,000 gallons per day. To reiterate the situation as staff sees it, if the City wishes to go ahead with a policy of full reclamation as they have indicated by previous policy and in carrying out this policy, place a condition of the developer of this proposed project, the question remains that if the developer can't perform because of a refusal to negotiate on the part of a third party, what is the Council's intent in terms of City responsibility for carrying out of this condition. (b) Simply indicates that since such proposed reclamation facility within the Agua Hedionda basin has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission, that prior to commencement of any activity on the site, a Conditional Use Permit must be approved by the Planning Commission. Condition #10. Has been modified for clarity indicating that those appurtenances for reclamation that are not included for approval in the application, shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine if those appurtenances will have a sign- ificant adverse effect on surrounding property. If the Planning Commission decides that such appurtenances may have a significant effect, a CUP will be required and said CUP shall contain con- ditions to mitigate potential significant adverse effects. -2- Condition #11. ~s been broken down into t;Jparts. (a) Essentially establishes that the applicant is responsible for constructing a disposable effluent fail safe system and clarifying the identity of that system as \vell as indicating that the City Council may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the applicant to establish fair share contribution. (b) Establishes that the City Council shall determine whether a fail safe system as specified in Condition #9 shall be a recharge system or a fail safe line to the outfall line, at the earliest possible time. Condition #13. Expanded slightly for clarification, indicating that a reimbursement agreement must be completed and accepted by the City Council prior to any application for discretionary ap- provals may be submitted in the drainage basin. Condition #14. v'Ihile the staff fully understar.C..:; this condition and its importance to both the City and develope:-, v1e cannot agree that this applicaton should have conditions that cannot truly be complied with, without amending the City's Planning and Building Moratorium Ordinance. A Growth Management work program for the entire City has been requested by Council and will be before the Council in the near future. The implementation of an approved Growth Management Plan will be through the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Council has commenced the growth manage- ment process. It's reasonable to expect a sewer allocation system may be developed in the interim, pending the full develop- ment and adoption of a citywide growth management prograll!.· A citywide growth management plan could take anywhere from .. 6 months to a year to be developed and adopted by the City. There is a strong probability the Calavera Hills satellite plant will be completed and certified for operation in the interim. The question before the City Council, then, is not to develop an instant Growth Management Plan, but in the interim do you wish to forward any development in the Agua Hedionda basin to go forward? If it is the Council's desire to wait for a Growth Management Plan, then the City Council may wish that appropriate City resources should be freed from other activities to concentrate on that project. If that is Council's intent, consideration should be given to controlling all growth within the City until the Growth Nanagement Plan is adopted. Another Council opetion is to allow a specific number of projects to go forward at this time, but do not allow any processing of new projects until the Growth Management Plan is adopted. This would allow the following projects to proceed: Lake Calavera Palisade Quail Ridge Templin Heights CT 76-12 CT 76-15 CT 74-4 CT 74-14(A) -3- EDUs 167 135 234 100 ----------------~---------~-----~----------------------- '-' "-"' Condition #17. r.iodified by staff to essentially indicate that the developer shall be subject to all existing or future ordinances regarding sewer allocations, permit issuance, and acceptance of applications for discretionary approval. Staff is recommending these changes because after review of the condition, it is our position that it would be improper to establish a secondary mechanism to control building permit and discretionary approvals when existing interim ordinances already address this matter._ Council action, in staff's opinion, should be on a citywide basis, rather than for a specific basin or development proposal. The current ordinances have been adequate to this time. The staff, with Council knowledge, has exercised the existing interim ordinance to allow accepting plans for discretionary planning actions and applications for building permits within the Leucadia County Water District area on the basis of a letter of assurance from the Leucadia County Water District indicating when sewer will be available. If Council is satisfied with the ordinances being adequate for the City in general, no further action need be ~aken. If it is Council's desire to allow construction to commence at an earlier time than the development process as allowed by ordinance, then it would be appropriate for the Council to instr~ct staff to prepare appropriate a~endments to the ordinance to allow that to happen, i.e., if the City Council should conclude that once an agreement and contract for a satellite plant has been finalized that building permit applications may be accepted. This could be handled similar to the Leucadia reactivation. In orde-r to issue building permits prior to certification, it would be appropriate to ask staff to prepare an amendment to the ordinance to carry out the Council's intent. This may apply to only those previously approved tentative tracts. Condition #18. For clarity this condition has been changed to require the CC&Rs to be acceptable to the City. Condition #30. Revised per Councilman Anear's request. Condition #42. As a recommended additional condition tying approval of the Precise Development Plan to the effective date of Zone Change 203. -4- HEiYIORANDUM DATE: REVISED: Nay 30, 1979 June 1, 1979 TO: FROM: RE: Paul Bussey, City Manager James C. Hagaman, Planning Director ~~# CITY COUNCIL POLICIES ON CALAVERA HILLS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT The Carlsbad City Council has approved the following new City policies in their consideration of the Calavera Hills treatment plant. I have listed the policies in two groups, the first being those policies applying to the City generally· and-the second being those policies related directly to the pro?osed Calavera Hills was-tewater treatment plant. A) City Wide Policies: 1. It is the City Council policy and dete=mination that a satellite treatment facility is accep~able in the north- east drainage basin of the City. 2. The City Council has determined that no wastewater facility will be considered by this Council unless it is also designed to be used for water reclamation. 3. The City Council has determined that it-is necessary to develop a city wide reclamation policy including the principle uses of reclaimed water and has requested City staff to develop a work program for a reclamation policy. 4. City Council has requested City staff to prepare a work program for agricultural land preservation for the City. 5. City Council requested staff to prepare a work program providing for mitigation of growth inducing aspects considered in the Montgomery report as follows: a) Public facilities element and capital improvement program. b) Mandated General Plan review every three years. c) Urban land reserve program. d) Grm,7::h :noni taring program. e) Specific Plan for special treatment areas. f) Wo~·k plan which includes a City grmvth management program. • I ~emorandurn -Paul~ussey May 30, 1972 /Revised June 1, 1979 Page 2 B) Determinations directly related to Calavera Hills: 1. City Council indicated a preference for the alternate site 3-B identified in the Montgomery Report. 2. City Council indicated desire to review pump station sites along with the treatment facilities for environ- mental considerations. 3. City Council accepted the percolation beds contained in the Montgomery Report and indicated their desire to study and analyze potential recharge areas near Rancho Carlsbad l1obile Horne Park. 4. City Council determined that additional failsafe lines beyond the normal back-up systems to b~ built into the plant not be included for raw sewage a=d further deter- mined it would delay a decision on an e::fluent failsafe system until an overall Master Plan of satellite treatment plants has been adopted by the Council. ·. 5. City Council determined that a 1.2 rngd plant will be built initially at the Lake Calavera Hills site. 6. City Council determined that the financing for the plant will be provided by the developer and that the developer and staff shall enter into negotiations which will, hopefully, require a minimum of reimbursement and City involvement in the financial aspects of the project. When staff and developer complete their negotiations, they shall return to the City Council for their approval. 7. City Council determined that the City will maintain and operate the plant after completion. JCH: jd 6/1/79 LAKE CALAVERA HILLS PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVISED CONDITIONS GENERAL 1. Development of the site shall occur substantially as indicated in Exhibit "G", dated June 22, 1979, attached hereto, and as shown on Exhibits A-1, B, D and F-1, dated April 11, 1979, for the wastewater treatment plant; and Exhibit A-2, and E, dated April 11, 1979, for the percolation ponds; except for modifi- cations and necessary back-up systems not affecting the plant's operational efficiency that are approved by the Public 'VJorks Administrator. 2. In addition to the approval of the development indicated in the exhibits noted above, all other requirements and appur- tenances as listed in this approval shall be indicated on the final Precise Development Plan. TREATMENT PLANT 3. The proposed treatment plant shall be constructed in one phase as a 1.2 mgd capacity plant with percolation ponds, effluent lines to serve ponds, and all other appurtenances necessary to operate the treatment plant. 4. A reversible force main connecting the treatment facilities to the Encina line at El Camino Real shall be constructed as part of this project. RECLAMATION 5. All wells, pumps, check dams and other appurtenances necessary to reclaim water from the recharge basins, which basins are de- scribed in Exhibit E, shall be constructed as part of this project. Plans for the water reclamation system shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to commencement of any grading, construction, or the placing of any equipment for the project. 6. All effluent from the treatment plant shall be reclaimed and utilized for replacement of existing or planned potable water (Type I). The amount of sewer capacity allocated to future developments shall be limited to the amount of reclaimed water that can be guaranteed for use by the applicant for such development. 7. All proposed uses of the treatment plant shall prepare and provide a plan acceptable to the City establishing and guaran- teeing a method to utilize any reclaimed water prior to any approval of their project. The reclaimed water may be applied to native vegetation or areas where there are no existing or planned potable water uses. As a guide for determining the acreage of land necessary to utilize the reclaimed water, the ratio of gallons of water to acres of land should be as follows: 3,000 gallons to one acre of agricultural land, or 800 gallons to one acre of landscaped land. This ratio may be adjusted by the Planning Director to accommodate particular locations, soil types and plants. 8. Any plan required by Condition No. 7 shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. Approval of the plan by the Planning Director shall constitute acceptance of the plan by the City. In approving the plan, the Planning Director shall rive primary consideration to systems where the land using the reclaimed water is either near the recharge basin or served by gravity flow from the water reclamation system, in order to conserve energy required for pumping. 9(a) The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of a water reclamation system consisting of mains, wells, pumps, check dams and all other anpurtenances necessary to reclaim water from alternative recharge basins located in the Agua Hedionda drainage basin. The applicant shall also be respon- sible for the acauisition of any land or easements necessary for the construction of said water reclamation svstem. The applicant's responsibilities, pursuant to this section, shall be contingent upon the City Council determining that these recharge basins are preferrable in lieu of an effluent fail- safe line. Otherwise, the applicant shall provide an effluent fail-safe system as required by Condition No. 11 herein. The City Council may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the applicant so that those using any oversizing required by this condition will pay their fair share. 9(b) Plans for this facility shall be approved by the Planning Commission by a condition use permit prior to any grading, construction or placing of any equipment. 10. Any appurtenances necessary for reclamation, storage, or use of the plant effluent, but not included for approval in this application, shall be subject to Planninf Commission review and approval. At the time of review the Planning Commission shall determine if such appurtenances will have a significant adverse effect on surrounding property. If it is determined that the appurtenances may have a significant adverse effect a conditional use permit shall be required. Such conditional use permit shall contain conditions sufficient to mitigate any such potential significant adverse effect. ll(a) The applicant shall be responsible for construction of a disposable effluent fail-safe system. "Responsible for con- struction" shall include providing all necessarv easements and payment of all costs necessary for said fail-safe system. The City Council may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the applicant so that those using any oversizing required by this condition will pay their fair share. The applicant's responsibility under this condition shall be deemed fulfilled if the system specified in Condition 9 herein is built. ll(b) The City Council shall determine whether the system specified in Condition 9 shall be built in lieu of an effluent fail- safe line at the earliest reasonable time but no later than prior to the City's acceptance of any portion of the treat- ment facility. ADMINISTRATION 12. Upon completion of construction and prior to operation of the plant, the site and all structures and appurtenances for the treatment facilities, recharge basins as shown on approved exhibits, a 30' wide access way from Tamarack Boulevard to the treatment facility, a.nd any other appurtenances approved by and pursuant to this action, shall be dedicated to the City of Carlsbad free of liens and encumbrances. 13. The applicant shall be responsible for the funds to construct the facilities as approved. Before any application for dis- cretionary approval may be submitted or accepted on any project in the drainage basin, except projects already approved or in the process of acquiring discretionary approval, a reimbursement agreement(s) for cost of oversizing to serve projects outside Lake Calavera Hills must be completed and accepted by the City Council. Any expenditures by the applicant in advance of a final agreement with the City is at the risk of the applicant. 14. The City reserves the right to establish a system to allocate the capacity of the facility, including, but not limited to, the number of permits to be issued, the phasing of the issuance of the permits and a program to determine which projects shall receive allocation. 'Hithin a reasonable time the City shall adopt adequate measures to insure reasonable regulation of permit allocations and timing of other discretionary approvals in the drainage basin. 15. If the City agrees to accept the facility, access easements necessary for operation and maintenance of the percolation ponds, effluent line and necessary appurtenances shall be granted to the City of Carlsbad by Lake Calavera Hills Associates. 16. The applicant shall provide all necessary easements over the Lake Calavera Hills property to accommodate sewer service and reclamation for all other properties in the drainage basin. 17. The developer shall have no rights to utilize plant capacity except as provided herein or in any subsequent agreement approved by the City Council. Developer shall be subject to all existing or future ordinances regarding sewer allocation, permit issuance or acceptance of applications for discretionary approval. 18. The applicant shall submit master CC&Rs acceptable to the City for the Lake Calavera Hills development holding the City harmless for any adverse effects the treatment plant may cause. Such hold harmless agreement shall be recorded at the San Diego County Recorder's office. 19. A condition that prohibits the use of self-regenerating water softners shall be placed on all development permitted to use this wastewater treatment facility. The Lake Calavera Hills development shall contain such prohibition in the CC&Rs. 20. The applicant shall submit and process a parcel map creating separate lots for the treatment plant and recharge basins. 21. The Lake Calavera Hills Haster Plan (MP-150(A)) shall be amended as required by the approval of the Zone Change and Precise Development Plan. 22. The applicant shall secure easement rights for the City prohibiting the location of any habitable building within 100 yards from the outside edge of the service road or structure and equipment, whichever is nearer to habitable buildings as indicated on Exhibit A-1. Tentative Map 76-12 and PUD-4 shall be amended if necessary showing such easement prior to final map and final PUD. 23. To ensure that the project will be designed with adequate safety margins, a design study for the facility shall be submitted by Lake Calavera Hills Associates to the Public Horks Administrator or his designee and shall include the following special studies: foundation, seismic safety, expansive soil, soil stability, and special engineering require- ments. 24. Grading plans for all facilities shall be approved by the Public Works Administrator or his designee, prior to issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include provisions to limit grading, cut and fill and excavation to the minimum areas necessary to prepare construction pads and excavate for treatment, transport and disposal facilities. 25. Drainage facilities adjacent to the treatment plant and percolation ponds shall be designed to accommodate a 100 year flood and protect the treatment plant and percolation ponds. These facilities shall be constructed concurrently with grading activity. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3L~. 35. 36. Surfaces shall be graded to direct runoff toward designed drainage facilities and away from any cut and fill slopes. Land shall not be cleared of vegetation except immediately before grading, and grading should take place only during the dry season (April 16 to Octover 31). All graded slopes shall be stabilized for erosion control inrnediately following grading by the developer. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Director. The landscaping shall be designed to screen the treatment facilities recharge basins, from surrounding properties. Plans shall include fast growing, tall trees as v1ell as a combination of shrubs and ground cover. Plants shall be drought tolerant, fire retardant where necessary and easily maintained. The approved landscaping and irrigation shall be fully installed prior to the City accepting the facilities. Natural vegetation and existing eucalyptus trees shall be retained wherever possible. All pumps, generators and other noise producing mechanisms shall be placed underground and/or shielded in such a manner to reduce noise attributed to the facility to a maximum of 55 dba at property line of all facilities. The applicant shall submit an archaeological investigation for the approval of the Planning Director that indicates the location of any archaeological resources that could be affected by the construction of the treatment facility, recharge basins, effluent line and any accessory pumps, access roads, wells, etc. The final Precise Development Plans shall include means to mitigate any potential impacts noted in this investigation. The access way from the plant to Tamarack shall be improved with a minimum of 20' wide asphalt concrete driveway and shall be approved by the City Engineer and Fire Chief. Fire hydrants shall be installed at locations and with flow rates as approved by the Fire Chief or his designee. An asphalt concrete driveway shall be provided to the per- colation ponds. The location, dimension and construction of the driveway shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Planning Director. The equestrian trail through the treatment plant site as shown on Exhibit A-1, dated April 11, 1979, shall e constructed by the applicant and maintained by the Lake Calavera Hills Homeowner's Association. The portion of the equestrian trail located between the treatment plant and the recharge basins shall be placed within the effluent line easement, and shall be constructed by the applicant and maintained by the Lake Calavera Hills Homeowner·s Association. The CC&Rs for Lake Calavera Hills shall contain this condition. 37. Final plans for treatment facilities and recharge basins shall indicate appropriate lighting to provide adequate night time operations. Such lighting shall be designed in a manner so that nearby residences or public streets are not adversely affected. The lighting plan shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 38. The treatment facility, recharge basins and any other mcehanical appurtenances shall be totally enclosed by a fence a minimum of 8' in height and designed for security purposes, subject to the requirements of the State Water Quality Control Board. 39. The applicant shall provide a method approved by the Public Works Administrator for the disposal of sludge created by the treatment plant. 40. All equipment proposed to be placed on any roof shall be screened from public view and subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 41. After approval, the applicant shall submit a reproducible copy of the Precise Development Plan which incorporates all requirements of the approal to the City Manager for signature. Prior to signing the final Precise Development Plan, the City Manager shall determine that all applicable requirements have been incorporated into the plan and that all conditions of approval have been satisfactorily met or otherwise guaranteed. The final signed Precise Development Plan shall be the official site layout plan for the property and shall be attached to any application for a building permit on the subject property. 42. This Precise Development Plan shall be effective only when an ordinance approving Zone Change 203 becomes effective. • <· '( ... 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 4, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department •' CASE NO: Supplemental Report PDP-2 REQUEST: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 1.2 MGD OXIDATION DITCH WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY, INCLUDING EFFLUENT LINE AND PERCOLATION PONDS. APPLICANT: LAKE CALAVERA HILLS ASSOCIATES HISTORY The Planning Commission heard this item on AF=il 11, 1979, along with ZC-203, a request to rezone the site to P-U. The Planning Commission approved ZC-203, but continued PD?-2 until April 25, 1979. Prior to the April 25th meeting, the Ci~y Council decided to review the major policy issues contained i~ the project report and EIR of this case. The Planning Commission therefore continued the item to May 23, 1979, with a provision that it would be further continued if the City Council did not conclude their discussion by May 8. Since the City Council finished discussion on May 15, the Planning Commission continued the PDP-2 action to June 4, 1979. ISSUES To understand the issues involved staff prepared a list of issues and staff response (dated April 27, 1979). From this the City Council further defined areas they wished to discuss. From these two lists the City Council explored the many issues involved with the sewer plant as prepared and made policy decisions on the major issues. Most of these decisions have a direct bearing on hmv the Planning Commission will reviev-1 the application and establish conditions. First the City Council determined that a treatment facility in the northeast basin was desirable, but only with water reclamation. Therefore staff has recommended approval of the application and suggests conditions to insure water reclamation -see conditions 5 through 11. These conditions will require the applicant to construct full facilities to commence water reclamation upon activation of the plant. All users of the treatment plant shall have to guarantee a method to utilize the reclaimed water. Council also directed staff to prepare a work prograill for potential use of reclaimed water on agricultural land and other principle uses for the entire city. Since the City Council only directed a .. \ ' •• ~ • 1 )' work program and did not set up a completion time for the study, staff has not recommended a condition on the Precise Development Plan to require such study prior to development in Lake Calavera Hills. Site 3b as requested by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission by previoris action (ZC-203) was determined by the City Council as the proper location for the plant. The site as requested includes an effluent recharge into an aquifer in the Buena Vista drainage basin. This is included in the approval of the plans. The Montgomery Report also indicates an aquifer in the Agua Hedionda drainage basin that can be used as an alternative re~ charge basin. Since there is still unresolved issues concerning fail safe and storage capacity, staff suggests a condition to require such alternative recharge basin if it is later determined that such recharge is preferable to a fail safe line. See Conditions No. 9 and 11. The City Council then determined that a decision on the effluent fail line should be delayed until such time as the Master Plan on satellite treatment plants is completed. · :-:~is is to allow for a comprehensively planned fail safe system that would combine fail safes from other satellite plants. Also further study especially on recharge basins and agricultur€ water needs may modify the need for fail safe. (See Condition No. 11). The approved plant is to have 1.2 mgd capacity artd constructed by the applicant. This will provide capacity for growth anticipated through the year 2000 including existing development in the drainage basin. Condition No. 4 requires a force main to connect to the Encina line on El Camino Real. This will provide both a method to hook up existing residences and also a raw sewage fail safe in case of plant mal function, (even though mal function necessitating fail safe is not anticipated). To provide for proper allocation of this capacity in line with the anticipated full capacity date and to provide for all other public facilities at time of need, the City Council has directed staff to prepare a work plan for a growth management program. Staff has suggested a condition that will require the completion of this growth management program prior to accepting application for any project within this service area not already approved or in process. See Condition No. 14. This condition allows either the adoption of a sewer allocation system or a growth management program that would include all public facilities. The applicant shall fund the construction of all portions of the facilities he is responsible for. However, the City and the applicant shall enter into negotiations which will hopefully require a minimui af reimbursement and City involvement in the financial aspects of the project. This agreement must be to the satisfaction of the City Council. See Condition No. 13 . • 2 '•,. < <I ' v,. The City Attorney pointed out that if the applicant funds the construction he could claim that his investment in the plant gives him certain rights to impose limitations on "Council's" ability to deal with discretionary approvals on the subject development in the future. Further, any expenditure by the applicant in advance of a final agreement for construction would be at the risk of the applicant. Finally, the City Council determined that upon completion of the plant and prior to operation, it be transfered to the City, see Condition No. 12. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a rec- ommendation of approval of Precise Development Plan No. 2 to the City Council based on the following findir.gs and subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed Precise Development Plan insures compatibility of the development with the General Plan because: a) The General Plan Land Use Element designates a public utility in this area. b) Subsequent development in the area served by the treatment plant will be consistent with the General Plan because all zoning in the service area is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed Precise Development Plan insures. compatibility of the project with surrounding development because: a) Adequate measures are required as part of the approval to mitigate any adverse impacts the property may have. b) The location of the project in a valley will reduce adverse impacts to surrounding property. 3. It has been determined that the proposed Precise Development Plan will not result in any significant adverse impacts to the environment due to the following reasons: a) The conditions of approval, include mitigation measures outlined in EIR-528, that mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts . • 3 • • I ~ I • b) The project will be subject to further review and approval by affected State and Federal agencies. Said review constitutes additional environmental impact assessment, and ensures the project's compatibility with the contiguous natural and manmade environment. c) The Environmental Protection Agency has prepared a study on the proposed oxidation ditch process. The study found the process both reliable and highly competive with respect to other secondary and advanced waste water treatment systems. 4. The proposed Frecise Developreent Plan provides for public facilities as necessitated by development and/or approvals in the area: a) The proposed waste water treatment facility will serve as a complimentary use to the existing 3ncina sewage treatment plant by providing the City ~ith additional sewer capacity. b) The proposed reclamation facility will reduce the amount of potable water necessary to serve this area in the future. c) Said reclamation system could allow for the preservation and continuation of agricultural production. _. d) The proposed treatment facility will be financed by those utilizing the facility. e) All other public facilities will be available at time of development. CONDITIONS General 1. Development of the site shall occur substantially as indicated in Exhibit "G" dated 4/4/79 and as shown on Exhibit A, dated 4/3/79, and A-1, B, D and F-1 dated April 11, 1979, for the wastewater treatment plant and Exhibit A-2, and E dated April 11, 1979, for the percolation ponds; except for modifications affecting plant operational efficiency that are approved by . the Public Works Administrator. 2. J:n addition to the approval of the development indicated in the exhibits noted above, all other requirements and appur- tenances as listed in this approval shall be indicated on the ;final Precise [;,~-~-=loprnent Plan. Trea:tm:ent Plant 3. The proposed treatment plant shall be constructed in one phase as a 1.2 mgd capacity plant with percolation ponds, effluent lines to serve ponds, and all other necessary appurtenances to operate the treatment plant. t) I'" 4. A force main connecting the treatment facilities to the Encina line at El Camino Real shall be constructed as part of this project. Reclamation 5. All wells, pumps and other appurtenances necessary to reclaim water from the recharge basins shall be constructed as part of this project. 6. All effluent from the treatment plant shall be reclaimed and utilized for replacement of existing or planned potable water (Type I) . .The amount of sewer capacity allocated to future developments shall be equaled by the amount of reclaimed water that can be guaranteed for use by the applicant for such development. 7. All users of the treatment plant shall provide a guaranteed method to utilize the reclaimed water prior to any approval pursuant to their projects. The water may ~e applied to agricultural uses, and landscaped portions of parks, schools, or private areas. The land guaranteed by u~ilizing the reclaimed water shall be in a ratio of not :ess than 1 acre of agricultural land for each 3,000 gallons of reclaimed water from the treatment plant or 1 acre of landscaped area for each 800 gallons. Said reclaimed water shall not be applied to native vegetation or areas where there is no present or planned potable water uses. 8. The method of guranteeing utilization and schedule of use of reclaimed water shall be submitted to the Planning Director The Planning Director in approving the land to be used for reclaimed water shall give preference to lands near the percolation peds or served by gravity flow from the systems required per Condition No. 5, in order to conserve energy required for pumping. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of mains, wells, pumps, check dams, and all other appurtenances necessary to reclaim water from alternative percolation ponds located in the Agua Hedionda drainage basin if it is determined that these ponds are preferable in lieu of an effluent fail safe line. Such determination shall be made prior to the City accepting any portion of the treatment facilities. 10. Any appurtenances not part of this application necessary for reclamation, storage, or use of the plant effluent shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. 11. The applicant shall provide necessary easements on his property and pay his fair share of the costs for a disposable effluent fail safe line if such line is determined necessary. Such determination shall be made prior to the City accepting any portion of the treatment facilities . . 5 Administration 12. Upon completion of construction and prior to operation of the plant, the site and all structures and appurtenances for the treatment facilitiea, and percolatponds as shown on approved exhibits, a 30' access way from Tamarack Boulevard to the treatment facility, and any other appurtenances approved by this action shall be dedicC~.ted to the City of Carlsbad free of liens and encumbrances. 13. The applicant shall be responsible for the funds to construct the facilities as approved. Any financial agreements shall be to the satisfaction of the City prior to submittal of any application for project not already approved or in process by the City. Any expenditures by the applicant in advance of a final agreement with the City is at the risk of the applicant. 14. The City shall adopt <'' method to allocate sewer permits or growth management prosram for the area serviced by this facility prior to submittal of any application for projects not already approved or in process by the City. This allocation system or growth program may incl'J.de, but not limited to; limitation on how many permits w~uld be issued, the phasing of issuance of permits, a progra2 to determine who shall receive such allocation, and the extent of the service area. 15. Access easements if necessary for operation and maintenance of the percolation ponds, effluent line and necessary appurtenances shall be granted to the City of Carlsbad by Lake Calavera Hills Associates. 16. The applicant shall provide all necessary easements over the Lake Calavera Hills property to accommodate sewer service and reclamation for all other properties in the drainage basin. 17. No application for sewer permits, building permits on any discretionary action shall be issued by the City until a construction contract for the plant has been formally agreed upon and a completion date tentatively established, then such approvals may be granted and construction commenced, however, no dwelling units would be cleared for sale or would be allowed to be offered for sale until such time as the satellite treatment plan is operational and accepted by the City. Construction and Operation Details 18. The applicant shall submit master CC&R'S for the Lake Calavera Hills development holding the City harmless for any adverse effsc~s the treatment plant may cause and such hold .har~les~ agreement shall be recorded at.the San Diego CoLnty Recorder's Office. 19. The applicant shall submit and process a parcel map creating separate lots for the treatment plant and percolation pond sites. 20. The Lake Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP-l50(A) shall be amended as required by the approval of the Zone Change and c 21. The applicant shall secure easement rights for the City prohibiting the location of any habitable building within 100 yards from the outside edge of the service road of the treatment plant as indicated on Exhibit A-1. Tentative Map 76-12 and PUD-4 shall be amended if necessary showing such easement prior to final map and final PUD. 22. A design study for the facility to be submitted by Lake Calavera Hills Associates to the Public Works Administrator or his designee and shall include the following special studies: foundation, seismic safety, expansive soil, soil stability, and special engineering requirements, so that the project will be designed with adequate safety margins. 23. Grading plans for all facilities shall be approved by the Public Works Administrator or his designee, prior to issuance of building permits. Such plan shall include provisions to limit grading, cut and fill a~d excavation to the minimum areas necessary to prepare construction pads and excavate for treatment, transport 2~d disposal facilities. 24. Drainage facilities adjacent to the treatme~t plant and percolation ponds.shall be designed to accor.modate a 100 year flood and protect the treatment plant and percolation ponds. These facilities shall be constructed concurrently with grading activity. · 25. Surfaces shall be graded to direct runoff toward designed drainage facilities and away from any cut and fill slopes. 26. Land shall not be cleared of vegetation except immediately before grading, and grading should take place only during the dry season (April 16 to Ocotber 31) • 27. All graded slopes shall be stabilized for erosion control immediately following grading by the developer. 28. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Director. The landscaping shall be designed to screen the treatment facilities and percolation ponds from surrounding properties. Plans shall include fast growing tall trees as well as a combination of shrubs and ground cover. Plants shall be drought tolerant, fire · retardent where necessary and easily maintained. The approved landscaping and irrigation shall be fully installed prior to the City accepting the facilities. 29. Natural vegetation and existing eucalyptus trees shall be retained wherever possible. 30. All pumps, generators and other noise producing mechanisms shall be placed underground and/or shielded in such a manner to reduce noise to a maximum of 55 dba at property line of all facilities. .7 ' '. 31. The applicant shall submit an archaeological investigation for the approval of the Planning Director that indicates the location of any archaeological resources that could be affected by the construction of the treatment facility, percolation ponds, effluent line and any accessory pumps, access roads, wells, etc. The final Precise Development Plans shall include means to mitigate any potential impacts noted in this investigation. 32. The access way from the plant to Tamarack shall be improved with a.minimum of 20' wide asphalt concrete driveway and approved by the City Engineer and Fire Marshall. 33. A fire hydrant shall be placed on the site and approved by the Fire Marshall. 34. An asphalt concrete driveway shall be provided to the percolation ponds. The location, dimension and construction of the driveway shall be to the satisfactio~ of the City Engineer. 35. The equestrian trail through the treatment plant site as shown on Exhibit A-1 dated April 11, 1979, shall be constructed by the applicant and.maintained by the Lake Calavera Hills Homeowners's Association. The portion of the equest~ian trail located between the treatment plant and the percolation ponds shall be placed within the effluent line easement, and shall be constructed by the applicant and maintained by the Lake Calavera Hills Homeowner's Association. The CC&R'S for Lake Calavera Hills shall contain this condition. 36. Final plans for treatment facilities and percolation ponds shall indicate lighting to provide adequate night time operations. Such lighting shall be designed in a manner so that nearby residences or public streets are not adversely affected. The lighting plan shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 37. The treatment facility, percolation ponds and any other mechanical appurtenances shall be totally enclosed by a fence a minimum of 6' in height and designed for security purposes, subject to the requirements of the State Water Quality Control Board. 38. The applicant shall provide a method approved by the Public Works Administrator for the disposal of sludge created by the treatment plant. 39. All equipment praposed to be placed on any roof shall be screened from p~~lic and subject to the approval of the Planning Direcco~- • 8 J I 40. After approval, the applicant shall submit a reproducible copy of the Precise Development Plan which incorporates rill requirements of the approval to the City Manager for signature. Prior to signing the final Precise Development Plan, the City Manager shall determine that all.applicable requirements have been incorporated into the plan and that all conditions of approval have been. satisfactorily met or otherwise guaranteed. The final signed Precise Development Plan shall be the official site layout plan for the property and shall be attached to any application for a building permit on the subject property. Attachments Memo from James Hagaman regarding City Council Policies dated 6/l/79 City Council Minutes BM/ar 6/l/79 • 9 .. .. ·.( MEMORANDUM DATE: REVISED: May 30, 1979 June 1, 1979 TO: FROM: RE: .. ·Paul Bussey, City Manager ., James C. Hagaman, Planning Director ..1~11 CITY COUNCIL POLICIES ON CALAVERA HILLS .WASTEWATER · ·TREATMENT PLANT The Carlsbad City Council has approved the following new City policies in their consideration of the Calavera Hills treatment plant. I have ·listed the policies in two groups,. the first being those policies applying to the City generally c~d· the second being those policies related directly to the proposed Calavera Hills wastewater treatment plant. ~) City Wide Policies: 1. It is·the City C~uncil ·policy and determination that a satellite treatment facility ·i~ acceptable in the north-. east drainage basin of the City. 2. The City Council has determined that no wastewa~er ·facility will be considered by this Council unless it is also designed to be used for water reclamation~·. ~-The City Council has determined that it·is necessary to develop a city wide reclamation policy including the ·principle uses of reclaimed water and has requ~sted City staff to develop a work progr~ for a reclamation policy. 4. City Council has requested City staff to prepare a work program for agricultural land preservation for the City. 5. City Council requested staff to prepare a work.program providing for mitigation of growth inducing aspects considered in the r-iontgomery report as follows: . a) Public facilities element and capital improvement program. b) Mandated General Plan review every three years. c) Urban land reserve program. d) Growth monitoring program~ e) Specific Plan for special treatment areas. f) Work plan which includes a City growth management program. '. ·. ·Nemorandum .-Paul Bf(:,ey .May 30, 1972 /Revised June 1, 1979 }?age 2 B), ·Determinations directly related to Calavera Hills: 1. City Council indicated a preference for the alternate site 3-B identified in the Hontgomery Report. 2. City Council indicated desire to reyiew pump station sites along with the treatment facilities £or environ- mental considerations. 3. City Council accepted the percolation beds contained in the Montgomery Report and indicated their desire to study and analyze potential recharge areas near Rancho Carlsbad Mobile· Homa Park. 4~ City CQuncil determined that additional failsafe lines · beyond the normal back-up systems to be built into the plant not be included for raw sewage and further deter- .. : mined it l'muld delay a decision on an effluent failsafe system until an overall Master Pian .of satellite treatment plants has been adopted·by the Council. ·5. · City Council determined that a 1.2 mgd plant will be :built ·initially at the Lake Calavera Hills site. 6. City Council determined that -~he financing for the plant will be provided by the developer and that the deveioper and staff shall enter into negotiations which \vill, hopefully, require a minimum of reimbursement and City involvement in the financial aspects of the project. When. staff and developer complete thei'r negotiations, they shall return to the City Council for their approval. 7. City Council determined that the ·city will maintain and operate the plant after completion~ JCH:jd 6/1/7.9 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: ZC-203/PDP-2, SATELLITE SEWER TREATMENT PLANT - LAKE CALAVERA HILLS The City Council on April 17, 1979, discussed the problems of making planning decisions on the subject application without the City Council first determining certain policy positions. They, therefore, have asked the Planning Commission to table PDP-2 and forward your action on ZC-203 until after City Council gives policy direction. The City Council asked for a presentation by staff on these policies at th~ir May 1, 1979, hearing. They anticipated however, that they will continue their discussion to a workshop on May 8, 1979, with the possibility of final action on May 15, 1979. The Planning Commission may wish to attend these discussion, especially the May 8, 1979, workshop. It is anticipated that PDP-2 could be heard by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1979, if the City Council concludes their discussion by May 8, or June 13 if the City Council finishes on May 15. Earlier dates are not advisable because staff needs the time to develop appropriate recommended actions based on the City Council's policy directions. Staff suggests continuing PDP-2 until May 23, 1979. If the City Council does not conclude their policy discussion in time to submit a report for May 23, 1979, the Planning Commission would recontinue the matter to an appropriate date. The resolution approving the change of zone should not be acted upon pending City Council policy discussions. Staff will either renotice the change of zone hearing along with the precise development plan if necessary, or hold the resolution pending Planning Commission action on the precise development plan. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue your hearing on PDP-2 to May 23, 1979, and not forward your action on ZC-203 until PDP-2 is complete. Furthermore, it is recommended that ZC-203 be renoticed for hearing if City Council policy differs from previous Planning Commission action. BP/ar 4/19/79 .. P~ELI('11Nft/2./, ,..PLANT. ~tre-· : t·vAs~, :. \.vA-r£r2 Tl2.e'"AIMeAJI .. . (b~'fl·~", ''· 1 ~ '1 A--I r.., 1.1.c e Posf ~") Mctll'lb d :'l,S. 1-ct 'I b ON ..J.o p b.e tv-...1 ?o ''""' t 4 . c F Le; r :::0 J KA-IVc...ho AtjvC\ ~.eclioV'..dtA.... ~v-~AP No, ;:g l '3 : l.AJ -e..s~ e vvf v AJ 89. l. "Z.. 33 ,, W. l7q" /. Iii 1=-e-e_ f ; ; • > !;-/o 7r.(v€ Po1A:·~; () F f!JE61NNIN(i,. ! /h.~II1CC. J'co"+•••'v.Q. A./o~, 1 Scn·J. L,,.·~ (I) J(I9Cj 0 2'5 1/o 1'W 3oo F12-c.-+ : T'."1~V\C~ (_1.,) N 0° 3'f 'so'' c b'O Fee..1 ,jTk.e"' c ~ ( 3) s 91° z.. s-I /0 II e 3oo Flf!~T ! T~~ fA C. -e. 1: lJ4) 5 0°3Cf 1S"o 11 w ~,0 +o /lev€ PotAJT OF . 'J3 e9 I II\ •"' I ..(1' • Carlsbad Journal Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of Son Diego County 3088 PIO PI CO AVENUE e P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 e 729-2345 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and w hich newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PDP-2/ZClm NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planninll Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public heariDI at the City Council Chamben, 12100 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, AprU 11, 111'111, to consider approftl or a I'J'eclse Deftl· opment Plan ror a wastewater treat· ment facility and a Zone Chqe &om the present ex istillll PC zone to the PU Zone on property 1eneral ly located on the east and north side or El Camino Real and south ofHiJihw~ 78, and more particularly described as: CJ 8197: March 31. 1979 Beclnnlncata Fen~ Posttacmarked L$. 2940 oatop heiDI Polat 4 of Lot D. Rancho A&ua Hedloilda per Map No. 823: Westerly N 89'22'33" W I'IVUII'eet to TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence continue alone said line Cll N 89'25'10" w 300 reel; thence (2) N 0'34'50" E S60 reel; thence (3) S 88'25'10"E300 feet; thence 14180'34'50" West 880 feet to TRUE POINT OF BE· GINNING. Tboee pe~ wilbiDI!to speak on this propoeal are cordially Invited to at· lend the public beariDI. Uyou have any questions, please call '729-1181, exlen· sion 25. Applicant: Late Calavera Hills As· sodatel, a limited partDenhlp CITY OF CAIWIBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ---, I •) .. / •J""'.,, f art Of' \ ~ \ ' I I .... _____ _ one year next preceding t he date of publication of the notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: ... l':'l?r.~h . 3.1 ..................... 19 .79. ................................. 19 .... ................................. 19 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .... I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at CarlsbadJ County of San Diego, State of California on ..,..,,.;t~h~e~_.3wlw.S._t!<..._ _____ _ d~= 19 ;}/JL, Clerk of the Printer COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION Suite 524, Security Pacific Plaza 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, California 92101 (714) 236-5300 Mr. Paul Bussey City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Regional Qltdoor Recreation Plan and Program Jl!ar Mr. Bussey: At its May neeting, the CPO Board of Directors reviewed the reocmnendations of the draft ~ional Qlt.dx>r Recreation Plan and Program which was nailed to you in March. '!he Plan encourages implementation by listing actions necessacy for high priority regional parks. Each agency respcnsible for action is beiDJ asked to <XIlll\it itself to take the actions identified. '!he CPO staff wa1ld be glad to talk with yoor staff or council to further explain the rec:::amended actions. Each action reoomnended should, where possible, be under way within me year. '!he progress nade will be checked by cro staff aoo a re};X>rt nade to the CPO Board by next July, together with a new list of recannended actims. '!he Board requests that the City of Carlsbad ar;prove the list of parks identified as regional (see attached list) arXI indicate its willingness to carry out the actims :recoomended for the following high priority regional parks: Regional Park Lake Calavera Action Rec:x:xmended/Responsible Agency Revised Master Plan (County) Ao:Iuisitions (County and Carlsbad) As develo:prent continues in vicinity of I.ake Calavera, the City nay wish to a<XJuire park lam adjacent to its current ownership, as has been proposed in the Iake Calavera Hills develo:prent. A revised Master Plan waJld help the City and the County jointly to detennine the areas which should be a<XJuired. '!he Board \llOUld ar;p:reciate the City's :respcnse to (1) the list of parks identified by cro as mgional parks, and (2) the actions reCX>I11Ilended to be taken by the City for Lake Calavera Regional Park. 'lhe Board will review SAN DIEGO REGION'S COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Member Agencies: Cities of Carlsbad. Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City. Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, Vista, and County of San Diego/Ex-officio Member: California Department of Transportation/Honorary Member: Tijuana, B. CFA. Mr. Paul Bussey Jlme 14, 1979 --2- all ccmnents prior to ad:>ptioo of the Regional OutCbor Recreatioo Plan and Program, now planned for the August neeting. Subsequently, all A-95 reviews requesting federal funds and c~ reviews of p~posed development will reflect the CPO Board's ad:>pted actioos. '!he CPO project manager, Ruth Potter, will be oontacting you soon regarding this request. Sirx::erely, ~wO~~ RIO:IARD J. Executive Director RJH:RP:ce Attaclment cc: Parks and Recreation Director Plaming Director mBLE A-1 REGIONAL PARK CI.ASSIFICATIOO SYSTEM Callping Proposed 'lb date-No Action land Acquired Developed Oly Use Olly General Recreation Parks (15) Agua caliente Balboa Calavera lake <h:>llas Reservoir IDs Pioos El tt::>nte Fortuna Mountain Glajome Palanar Mountain State Park R>tr:ero San Clerrente San Dieguito san Elijo canyon Sweetwater Vallecito Water Recreaticn Pat.Xs (13) Agua Hedionda Lagoon Dixon Iake I.ake Henshaw lake Hodges/Kit Carson Lake Jennings I.ake Morena Lake Murray/COwles Mt. Iake Wohlford Miramar Reservoir Mission Bay Otay Reservoir San Vicente Reservoir Santa Margarita canyon Ecological Preserves ( 7) Batiquitos Lagoon Buena Vista Lagoon Heise Internatiooal Park/ Border Field IDs Penasquitos San Elijo Lagoon Torrey Pines State Park Special Puq>ose Pat.Xs (4) ()Jail San Pasqual Sycanor:e canyon Wilderness Gatdens X X X X X X X X X X X X X X* X* X X* X X X* X X X X X X X X *Lard In public ownership, rut not designated for camping. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X •NOIN •• RS 2465 Pio Pico Drive • P.O. Box 1095 • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (714) 729-1194 Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 March 27, 1979 RE: Zone Change in Lake Calavera Hills Wastewater Treatment Facility Carlsbad Municipal Water District Gentlemen: Responding to your request dated March 16, 1979 our Water District has the following comments regarding the subject proposal: 1) Our District operates and maintains a public water system serving 11 potable 11 water in the neighborhood of the property facilities. We are of the opinion that there is no conflict with the locating of a wastewater treatment facility in the area. 2) In the development of a wastewater treatment facility and its attendant treated water transportation system, there are rigorous standards of construction and operation to eliminate public health hazards to keep completely separate at all times 11 potable11 , 11 non-potable .. , and treated waste- water transporation systems. 3) Our District is currently developing standards of construction and implementation of this type of a program so that there will be an orderly and functional operation in the Master Planned Community. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding our comments. -~ V e Y\y t r u 1 y y o u r s;, ~ \ ' '~~~ . ~ Y. K bota · .. /l, },,; G~-, . . D1stric ngineer JYK:dlz In Orange County, Santa Ana CMWD 78-111 Received MAR 2 81979 CIJ_'l OE CARLSBAD 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA,LIFORNIA 92008 February 15, 1979 Lake Calavera Hills 3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 2 Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Roy Ward Re: Application for a zone cnange and a precise development plan for a satellite sewage treatment facility. Hr. Hard: TELEPHONE: (714) 729-1181 This letter constitutes official notice that the aforementioned applications have been officially accepted pursuant to AB 884. Hearing dates will not be set until the E.I.R. pertaining· to the project has been forwarded to the council with a recommenda- tion for certification. The intent is to have a certified E.I.R. on the project before the applications are reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. We will need additional copies of plans you have submitted for D.C.C. and Planning Commission review. This will be coordinated by ~1r. Abrams. He ~:Jill request the additional copies when needed. If you have questions regarding this matter please contact Mr. Abrams; - JlveLtr~ DON L. ROSE Associate Planner DLR: jd cc: James C. Hagaman Dave Abrams v I I i j ; ' I ! I • ~· t I i I CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 ELM AVENUE e CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 729-1181 DATE~7~~~/~J~~~_·_J7~/-' ____ __ -- Ale. NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT /) -/' f) I ·J ' t.J}r:'-~ / /"• ,_/) [-~.; I'-<"-"· .-1 // ;I ~/· )./.'. I' ,//.'hj / :JO :JO • '! .;'!il)~4'}J/ /l"' ';/./ // ;.J ~0 / . ..: '.' (;7-;A.j /(.i;;;l.F :Zi::.. I _J· // / / c/ {..·" < . ,, ' i-~""2??~ ~\~w· ~ f5~y~ Q:"O J.~ " Cl ~ .i5 ;:: r->1 <!on 0) (I) £ iii (:X) r:; • if -,'?: ~~r· u ~ ~-. ~~fE ... l ~ f cj !h:.-e -~ ~ t::tt~ 6'o ~~~'rJ~ TOTAL J/./ Od C/'--'t..,.,' 008028 .Recei No. ( .. ~ . . APPLICATION NO. ZONE CHANGE CITY OF CARLSBAD (Please Type or Print) Date: November 20, 1978 1. 2 . 3 . 4. REQUEST: Zone Change from the present e~isting P.C. ------ zone(s) to the P.U. for waste water treatment facility zone(s) LOCATION: East and North The subject property is generally located on the side 0 f El caminq Real . between ------- and South of Highway 78 ASSESSOR'S NUMBER: Book -~- Page __ _ Parcel --- Book Pag~ · Parcel (If more, ~lease list AP167-100-ll: AP168-040-12: on bottom of this page). AP167-100-17:. AP967-040-ll: AP208-10-08 and 03 PROPERTY m~ND_'_s SIGW~TIIRE ·.rv'idress City Zip Phone 3088 Pio Pico Carlsbad 92008 729-4912 5 . Roy J. Ward APPLICANTS SIGNATURE: I hereby declare that all information contained within this application is true. Name Address ---------~~~~--------~· City Zip Phone 92008 729-4912 Lake Calavera Hills Associates N UV 2 15 1978 ---------------------------------- _R e 1 a t i on ~ h i p to _P r o P.-=-e...:..r-=-t"'-y _O_w:.....' n_e_r_,(,_s..J..)_o_w_n_e_r __ __,C<.LITL-Y_.__..O.uf~Cu...A.u.R ...... L~S .... B ...... A .... DoL--- E.lannlng OeQartment 6.• Is this request consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans? _Y_e_s _________________________________ _ Please note: As per Section 21.52030 of the City Code, the Planning Director must find that this request is consistent with the General Plan or applicable Specific Plans, or the application shall not be accepted. This determination may be appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department would appreciate the oppor- tunity to work with the applicant throughout the Planning Stages of the proposed development. In an effort to aid the applicant, the Planning Department requests that it be given an opportunity to evaluate and discuss the application and plans prior to submittal. This request is not a requirement; however, it may avoid major re- drafting or revision of the plan which only serv~s to lengthen the processing time. ATTACH~1ENTS: Supplr.rnental Information Form -Planning 21 Preparation Check List -Planning 30 ProcE:'dures -Plnnning 36 FO Rt,1 ·-"'~l.~!~~~·!_I}J __ } ____ Da tf: of r 1 ann in 9 Comrrl'l s s ion Appro Vel 1 _______________ _ . .... • CHANGE OF ZONE 1) Gross Acres (or square footage if less than acre) 300' x 6oo·• 2) Present Zone ____ P_._c __ . ____________ Proposed Zone~ p.u. 3) General Plan Land Use Designation Open Space ----~---~--------------------- 4) Source of Water Supply __ ~C~M~~ID~------------------------------- 5) ·Method of Sewage Disposal is To be provided by the proposed facility. 6) Types of Protective Covenants to be Recorded Zoning and use only. Conditions considered appropriate by City Council. 7) Transportation Modes Ava·ilable to Service the. Development ___ __ Not Applicable. 8) School District Serving the Property c.u.s.o. Not Applicable. 9) Are School Facilities Capable of Serving this Project _______ __ Not Applicable. (Written confirmation of this requirement m~st be submitted prior to Planning Commission hearing). 10) This Application for a Change of Zone is supported by the Following Reasons: a) b) c) d} e) ' Such a Zone Change is warranted because the J. M, Montgomery report,"City of Carlsbad, Environmental Impact R§P-ort and__ Faciliites Plan for a Satellite Sewage Treatment Facility", supports th1s location and use. Such a Zone Change will be in the interest of furtherance of Public welfare because it will facilitate the development of needed public facilities to serve the city presently and in the future. The permitted uses in this proposed reclassification will not be detrimental .in any way to surrounding properties because_ the uses were previously permitted withjn the a s Zone, then amended by inclusion of the proposed area in a P.U. study zone (floating "U" designation) and is surrounded EY-0. S .. areas. The property in this application is more suitable for the ~roposed zone than the existing zone becauseJ~reasons set forth in the Montgomery study of the site. What were the original deed restriction, if any, concerning the type and class of permitted uses on the subject property? (Give expiration date of these restrictions). None ·-------·---·--···----- FO Rt1 _ ____11 a~ i n_g __ 2j_ Date of P 1 ann ·i ng Comm ·j s s ion f1p pro v a 1 ________________ _ • AMENDED ~' SU'"" .EMENTAL INFor~r1ATION FORM..., PRECISE PLAN / ZONE CHANGE 1) Gross Acres (or square footage if less than ac~e) ---------------- 2) Zone P.C. -~lanned Com~unity Zone --------------------------~~~~~~--------------------------------- 3) General Plan Land Use Designation Ooen Space --~----~----------------------- 4) The Present Use of the Subject Property Undevelooed 5) By law a Conditional Use Permit may be approved only if certain facts are found to exist. Please read these required facts carefully and explain how the proposed proiect meets each of these facts. Use additional sheets if necessary: a) Explain why the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existinq uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located: ~he ro o~ed use is a s~tellite waste water treat~ent nlant oro-propo e o se ve u ure es I en s o a e _a n.ve r a I s. _ e location and developme11t of this facility IS necessary because of recent studies by the City and subsequent morn.toriu~ due to the Inability of the Encina Plant to handle sewage flow. The development of a this plant serves n. two-fold purpose; Increasing sewage treatment facility capacity In the City and secondly, (over) b) Explain why the site for the intended use is adeouate in size and shape to accomoddte the use:Location of the prooosed use , is in a designated ooen s~ace area in the Lake Calavera Ilills P.C. plan. The siting of the Droposed use is approximately 2000 feet from the nearest residentinl unit. In a~iition, the ~acilitv is al~ost odorless. Preliminar'' landscaoinq clans Will also assist In sl11eldinq the facility frbm proposed re~Identin.l development. Because of the topography the p~oposed olant IS not visible trom(OVl c) Explain why you believe the proposed yards, setbacks, walls; fences, landscapino, etc., will be adequate to adjust the requested use t~ existin9 or permitted future uses in the neighborhood: This PP/ZC is to establish that the oroposed use is acceptable to the City. It is proposed that subject to acceotance of the waste water treatment olant as an appropriate use that detailed site plans of the facilitv would be subject to review and approval of the Citv St~ff. d) Explain why you believe the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic gener- ated by the proposed use:_N_o_t~A~~~p~l~I~·c~a~b~l~e~·------------------------ *~ If you need more snace to answer the above, please use reverse·side of this form or separate sheets and attach to this form. FORM Plilnnin'l 22 Date of Plilnnin(J Commission Aoproval _____ _ .. •, PREPARA'riON CHECK LIST GENEHAL PLJ'>.N AMENDMEN'l'/.ZOD CHANGE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOH SUBMITTl'">L: 1) Application with supplemental information sheet completed. 2) Environmental Impact Statement or Report with Fees (if required). 3) Photostatic copy of deed with complete legal descrip·tion of subject property or other form of description acceptable to the Planning Director. 4) Fee: $100.00 plus $5.00 per lot. ~). '300 Foot Radius Map - A map to scale not less than 1 "=200' showing each lot within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property, and each lot within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property shall be consecutively numbered to correspond with the property owner's list. 6) Property Owner's List-A typewritten list showing the number of each lot within 300', followed by the Owner's name and add~ess. This list must be accurate and taken from the latest equalized assessment roll on file in the office of.the Assessor of San Diego, 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 103, San Diego, California 236-3771. 7) Disclosure Statement . .. l"ORH L'.l;in.nin .JD. __ _ ,,; • "SPECil .: PLAN .i\) Documents Required for Submit.t:al: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. Application with supplemental information sheet completed. Standard Condition list. Photostatic copy of deed with complete legal description of subject property. Twenty-eight (28) ozalid·prints of. the plan. Environmental Impact Statement or Report with Fees (if required) Fee for Specific Plan: $100.00 + $2.00 per lof or dwelling unit (vlhichever is greater). Amendments: $100.00 + $1.00 per affected dwelling unit. 300 Foot Radius Map - A map to scal·e not less than 1 11 = 200' showing each lot within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. Each of these lots shall be consecutively numbered and correspond with the property owner's list. Property Owners' List-A typewritten list of the name and address of all property owners within 300 feet as noted on the property owner map. This list must be accurate and taken from the latest equalized assessment roll on file in the office of the Assessor of San Diego County, 1600 Pacific Highway Room 103, San Diego, California (phone (714) 236-3771). Disclosure Statement. B) Drafting of Specific Plan: 1. Sheets to be 24 11 x 36 11 with 1 11 border (Standard 11 D11 size) 2. Scale to be indicate: 1" = 80' is generally sufficient, however,· the scale is to be appropriate for sheet size; but in no case smaller than 1" = 100'. If project is too large for recommended scale, additional sheets will be necessary; and a reduced composit of the plan be submitted on a 29 11 x 36 11 reproducible. 3. North arrow oriented to top or left side of sheet. 4. Lettering must be legible. It is preferred that it be shown by mechanical means, in ink, and heavy upper case. 5. Location map showing the distance to the center line of the nearest intersection. 6. Title block with name and address of applicant and drafter and pertinent information such as number of lots, total acreage and date prepared. C). Information on Map: 1. Existing adjacent public rights-of-way, showing dimensions and distance from property line to center line. 2. Location of existing i~provements, pavement, curbs, sidewalks, etc. 3. Easements; type and location. 4. Location and dimension of all proposed publi6 rights-of-way. 5. Location and dimension of all public or private easements. 6. Location and description of existing utilities. 7. Proposed streets to be labeled by alphabetical letters. 8. Grades of all proposed streets. 9. Topographic contours at two-feet intervals, with indication of manufactured slopes. 10: Elevation of proposed building pads or sites. 11. Proposed use of the site in general land use terms. 12. Location of proposed structure is optional. 13. Delineation of development phasing . ._..:1/.L -t-L . ·~ l "\\S FORM Planning 31 Date of Planning Commission 1\pproval