HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-03; Planning Commission; ; EIR 03-05|PDP 00-02|SP 144H|DA 05-01|RP 05-12|CDP 04-41|SUP 05-04|HMPP 05-08 - PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANTThe City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING /COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 3, 2006
Item No. Q
Application complete date: February 24, 2005
Project Planner: Scott Donnell
Project Engineer: Bob Wojcik
SUBJECT: EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H}/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SUP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT -Request for: 1) a recommendation of certification of an Environmental Impact Report; 2) a recommendation of adoption of the Candidate Findings _of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 3) a recommendation of approval for a Precise Development Plan, Specific Plan Amendment, Development Agreement, and Redevelopment Permit; and 4) approval of a Coastal Development Permit, Special Use Permit (Floodplain), and a Habitat Management Plan Permit for Incidental Take consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan.
The requested actions are for: 1) a Precise Development Plan for the Encina Power Station and the proposed 50 million gallon per day Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant proposed at the Encina Power Station; 2) an amendment to the Encina Specific Plan to incorporate the Precise Development Plan into the Specific Plan; 3) a Redevelopment Permit for the desalination plant and pipelines within the boundaries of the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area; 5) a Development Agreement for the desalination plant; and 4) a Special Use Permit (floodplain), Coastal Development Permit, and Habitat Management Plan Permit for pipelines that would convey desalinated water from the desalination plant into various parts of the City of Carlsbad.
The project locations are: 1) the Encina Power Station at 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard and west of Interstate 5; 2) the 680-acre Encina Specific Plan, which encompasses the Power Station and all of Agua Hedionda Lagoon; and 3) miscellaneous---locations in Carlsbad, all north of Palomar Airport Road and generally in street rights of way, where desalinated water pipeline alignments are proposed. Additionally, desalination pipeline alignments are proposed in the cities of Oceanside and Vista, primarily in existing street rights of way, and are subject to the review and permitting requirements of those cities. Note that while the project's Environmental Impact Report analyzes all project features regardless of location, the recommended Planning Commission actions will not approve any project development in the adjacent cities.
I.RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission 1) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6087 RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 03-05 and RECOMMENDING
()
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Sl..Jt' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 2
ADOPTION of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overridtng Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring-and Reporting Program; 2) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6088, 6089, 6090 and 6091 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of PDP 00-02, SP 144(H), DA 05-01, RP 05-12; and 3) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6092, 6093, and 6094 APPROVING CDP 04-41, SUP 05-04 and HMPP 05-08 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II.INTRODUCTION
The Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant project is a joint submittal by Poseidon Resources (Channelside) LLC, applicant for the development of a 50 million gallon per day (mgd) Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant; and Cabrillo Power I LLC, owner and operator of the Encina Power Station. The Precise Development Plan serves as a necessary permit for both the proposed desalination plant and the existing power station.
The power station, originally completed in 1952, covers approximately 95 acres between Carlsbad Boulevard and Interstate 5 and is bordered on the north by Agua Hedionda Lagoon. While the proposed desalination plant is proposed on the power station grounds, the project also features several miles of pipelines that would carry desalinated water from the plant and into the distribution system of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District and other water districts. The pipelines would extend into parts of Carlsbad, as well as Vista and Oceanside. Most of these pipelines would be installed in existing or future road rights of way. Once the project is complete, the City of Carlsbad may elect to own these pipelines and other appurtenant facilities.
As stated above, staffs recommendation to the Planning Commission would result in approval or a recommendation of approval of the various City of Carlsbad permits and actions necessary for the desalination plant. These permits and actions would only be valid for project components in the City of Carlsbad. The applicant will need to seek separate permits for any project component proposed outside Carlsbad from other agencies. The project environmental impact report, however, analyzes the potential impacts of all project features, regardless of location. Accordingly it can also serve as the environmental document for the cities of Oceanside and Vista, which would issue permits for portions of the project within their boundaries, and for agencies such as the State L�ds Commission, which have jurisdiction or permit authority over , various project aspects.
One necessary project permit is a redevelopment permit. It is required because the desalination plant and a portion of the water conveyance pipelines are within the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area. The Planning Commission acts as the reviewing and recommending body on land use permits proposed within this redevelopment area. The Pkmning Commission's recommendation on the redevelopment permit will be considered by the Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission. All other recommendations will be considered by the City Council. Furthermore, actions taken by the City of Carlsbad are subject to the approval of the California Coastal Commission as the Encina Power Station (and, therefore, the proposed desalination plant) are located in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, a segment of the City's coastal zone where the Commission has retained coastal development permit jurisdiction.
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SuP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 3 This project was previously introduced to the Planning Commission at a December 21, 2005, public hearing. At that time, the Planning Commission received background information on the project from staff and the applicant (Poseidon Resources). Public testimony was taken and letters were received. Additional information about the comments received is contained at the end of this report. Because of the complexities of this project, staff has included two exhibits to help illustrate the relationship of the various permits involved, Local Coastal Program boundaries, and pipeline alignments in the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista. These attachments are included at the end of the report. Plans of the proposed desalination plant and appurtenant facilities at the Encina Power Station are contained in the proposed Precise Development Plan (PDP), a document which is attached. The PDP is also the source for detailed project plans of existing facilities at the Encina Power Station. For information and exhibits about the desalination process, overall pipeline network, and project impacts outside Carlsbad, please refer to the Final Environmental Impact Report, also attached. III.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
A.Detailed Project Description/Required PermitsThe project can be broken down into four primary features. These features, and the host of different permits and actions required from the City of Carlsbad and other local, state, and federal agencies, are highlighted below. Primary Project Features •Desalination Plant: On an approximately three-acre site within the Encina PowerStation, currently occupied by the southernmost of three large fuel oil storage tankswhich are all visible to Carlsbad Boulevard from across Agua Hedionda Lagoon,Poseidon Resources proposes to construct a plant that would turn approximately 100million gallons per day (mgd) of power plant cooling water into approximately 50 mgdof potable water. The source water would be pretreated and filtered through reverseosmosis membranes to produce drinking water. Approximately 50 mgd of concentratedseawater would be the byproduct of the desalination process; at twice the salinity of theincoming seawater, the concentrated seawater would be returned to the Power Station'sdischarge system and mixed with cooling water from the power generation processbefore release into the ocean. ,,The desalination facility would operate every day, 24 hours per day, and would producewater continuously and be staffed at all times. Facility access during construction andoperation would be through the main Power Station access on Carlsbad Boulevard. Theapplicant has in place a 60-year lease with Cabrillo Power that gives the applicantexclusive rights to locate a desalination facility at the current location of fuel oil storagetank and use the intake and outfall apparatus of the power plant.g
( ( EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SuJ' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e4 The fuel oil tank currently occupying the desalination plant site is no longer needed for Power Station. operations and would be demolished to accommodate the desalination facility. The facility would consist of an enclosed building, 33-feet high and 44,552 square feet. The facility would house thirteen "trains" of reverse osmosis membranes, water treatment chemicals, product water pumps, administrative offices, and other desalination equipment. The "reverse osmosis building" would have a larger footprint than the fuel oil storage tank it would replace, but would not be as high. Prior to entering the reverse osmosis building, seawater would pass through ground level pretreatment filters located in front and west of the reverse osmosis building. Besides these filters and the reverse osmosis building, the desalination plant project would also feature appurtenant facilities, such as pump stations, solids handling building, electrical transformer enclosures, and intake, discharge, and underground product water pipelines (discussed below), proposed both on and off-site of the Encina Power Station. However, due to the small size of the on-site appurtenant facilities and their location on the Encina Power Station grounds, the only desalination facility readily visible to Carlsbad Boulevard and the surrounding area would be the reverse osmosis building. Accordingly, this building has been designed to resemble an office or industrial building typical of one in the City's business parks. The architectural treatment and materials used on the ·exterior of the building include cast-in-place concrete, and extensive use of metal and translucent panels, glazing, and steel and metal accents. Existing landscaping above the lagoon and west of the proposed building will also complement the building's appearance, particularly when viewed from Carlsbad Boulevard, several hundred feet from the desalination plant site. The desalination plant proposal and the environmental analysis performed for this project assume continued operation and use of the power station and its coolant water discharge. Any changes to this assumption, such as a desalination plant operating independent of the power station, would be subject to entirely separate permitting and environmental review. •Encina Power Station: The project proposes no changes to the Encina Power Station,its operations, or permitted operating capacity other than modifications to accommodatethe proposed desalination plant. These modifications include demolition of a fuel oilstorage tank and installation of pipelines and accessory facilities on power stationproperty. Future improvements to the power station, if planned, would be processedaccording to the Precise Development Plan, if approved, and would require separatepemiits and approvals. Of the eight separate city actions and permits for this project,only two apply directly to the Encina Power Station: the Precise Development Plan,required by the Zoning Ordinance for any use in the Power Station's Public UtilitiesZone, and the amendment to Specific Plan 144, required to incorporate the PreciseDevelopment Plan into the Specific Plan.The Power Station uses seawater for cooling of its generators, which it draws from theAgua Hedionda Lagoon and discharges into the Pacific Ocean. The power plant ownerestimates the Power Station is capable of producing 965 Megawatts of electricity andproviding 25% of San Diego County's total energy requirements.
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Su.l' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 5 •Pipelines: From the desalination plant, new product water pipelines would extend intothe cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista. With the exception of a small pump stationproposed in Oceanside, all appurtenant facilities located offsite of the Encina PowerStation consist of underground pipelines. These pipelines would deliver desalinatedwater to Carlsbad and local water districts for use by homes and businesses. InCarlsbad, connections to existing water systems would be made at Maerkle Reservoirand along Palomar Airport Road east of El Camino Real, enabling the desalination plantto provide water to all portions of the City served by the Carlsbad Municipal WaterDistrict. Offsite pipe diameters would range from 48-inches in the upstream portions ofthe delivery system to 24-inches in the downstream portions.A number of alignment options have been identified to provide flexibility in alignmentselection and to ensure that all potential alignment segments are analyzed in theproject's Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Although the EIR includes project levelenvironmental analysis of several potential alignment options (Figure 3-5, Offsite WaterDelivery Facilities), only one of the potential alignment options will be constructed aspart of the project. This provides for a worst case analysis, in that not all of the segmentsof pipe that are analyzed for potential impacts will be built.To avoid impacts that could be involved with off-road alignments, most proposedpipelines would be built in existing or future roadways. Cannon Road, CollegeBoulevard, Faraday Avenue, and Melrose Drive are some of the roadways the differentproposed alignments follow; however, in the case of roads not yet constructed, such asCollege Boulevard between Cannon Road and El Camino Real, pipeline installationwould not precede roadway construction. In environmentally sensitive areas, freewaycrossings and busy intersections, and/or locations congested with utilities, pipelines areproposed to be tunneled under the area of concern rather than installed through typicaltrench construction. Where off-road alignments are proposed, service roads are notplanned; therefore, all pipeline impacts are temporary. The farthest pipeline reachextends to North Santa Fe A venue in Oceanside, where a connection to City ofOceanside water distribution facilities would be made. It is anticipated that the longestpipeline network would not exceed 16 miles in length.Pub,lic Dedications and Enhancements: Through the Precise Development Plan, CabrilloPower, the Power Station Owner, has offered several acres of dedications to the City forthe public's benefit and for marine research. Each dedication, in the form of aneasement, title transfer, or deed restriction, would further Coastal Act goals ofmaximizing public access and recreational opportunities along the ,coast. The dedicationsare described below and shown on Figure 5 of the Precise Development Plan document.•Fishing Beach -An easement for this site, along the shore of Agua HediondaLagoon and next to Carlsbad Boulevard, would be dedicated for publicrecreational and coastal access use, including public parking.•Bluff Area -The Bluff Area, located on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard andopposite the Power Station, is proposed to be dedicated in fee title to the City forrecreational and coastal access uses.g
( ( EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SUP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 6 •Hubbs Site -The Hubbs Site, along the lagoon north shore, consists of the landbetween the existing Hubbs Seaworld Research Institute and the railroad tracks.The site is proposed to be deed restricted to uses such as a fish hatchery, aquaticresearch, and trails.•South Power Plant Public Parking Area -An easement for this site, along the eastside of Carlsbad Boulevard and near the south entrance to the power plant, wouldbe dedicated for public parking.The City would be responsible for the development of these areas when and if it decides to do so. Development would be subject to separate permits and environmental review. Further, proposed conditions of the PDP recommendation of approval require the installation of landscaping and a decorative screening wall or fencing along the Power Station's Carlsbad Boulevard frontage and dedication of an easement for the Coastal Rail Trail in a location mutually agreeable to the City and Cabrillo Power. City of Carlsbad Permits and Actions •Precise Development Plan PDP 00-02: The Precise Development Plan (PDP) is aZoning Ordinance requirement for development in the Public Utilities (P-U) Zone, thezoning of the Encina Power Station. While it is the permit necessary for the desalinationplant, the PDP also would serve as the required permit and as a planning document forthe whole Power Station. Though the Encina Power Station began operation in the1950s, the requirement for a Precise Development Plan did not exist until the CityCouncil adopted an ordinance for the same in the early 1970s. Without a PreciseDevelopment Plan, no entitlements or permits may be issued for a project in the P-UZone, including the desalination plant or a Power Station improvement.The proposed PDP applies only to the Encina Power Station; pipelines and appurtenantfacilities located offsite of the Power Station are outside the scope of the PDP. The PDPalso does not apply to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon as it is zoned Open Space nor to theSDG&E maintenance and operations center adjacent to the Power Station.The PDP serves somewhat as a specific or master plan by providing planning areas, basic development standards, and review and amendment procedures for improvements, such as the desalination plant, proposed at the power station. Through text and exhibits, the PDP also provides a comprehensive description of existing power plant uses and facilities so that it provides an effective baseline of current power plant features and operations. ,, In addition, the PDP serves as the primary permit for proposed conditions that apply beyond the desalination plant (reverse osmosis building) site. •Redevelopment Permit RP 05-12: Sections 600 and 608 of the South Carlsbad CoastalRedevelopment Plan state a desalination plant, including its appurtenant facilities, maybe permitted in the Redevelopment Plan area only if the Housing and RedevelopmentCommission approves a finding that: 1) the desalination plant serves an extraordinary
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Su:l' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 7 public purpose; 2) a precise development plan which sets forth standards for development • of the desalination plant is first approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission; and 3) the Commission has issued a Redevelopment Permit for the project. The Redevelopment Permit serves as the primary permit for proposed conditions that apply specifically to the desalination plant. •Specific Plan Amendment SP 144(H): The Encina Power Station, Agua HediondaLagoon east and west of Interstate 5, and adjacent areas are located in the EncinaSpecific Plan. This Specific Plan includes 680 acres and spans a two-mile distance fromthe Pacific Ocean to just east of Cannon Road near its intersection with FaradayAvenue. An amendment to· this specific plan is necessary to incorporate the PDP intothe specific plan. The amendment also restates the specific plan so it contains, in asingle, comprehensive document, all requirements set forth by previously approvedspecific plan amendments and the contents required by state law. Currently, the specificplan consists of a number of individual ordinances adopted over a several year period.Other than the incorporation of the Precise Development Plan, there are no changesproposed to any Specific Plan requirements or to General Plan land use or zoningdesignations within its boundaries.•Development Agreement DA 05-01: A Development Agreement has been prepared aspart of the project review process to provide both the Poseidon Resources and the Citywith assurances concerning the conditions of development and public benefits related tothe desalination plant. This is the first development agreement to be considered by theCity since the LEGOLAND development agreement adopted in January, 1996. Many ofthe terms and conditions of the proposed agreement are intended to preserve for thebenefit of the City, Carlsbad Municipal Water District and Carlsbad RedevelopmentAgency the property tax revenues that will be paid by the Project. The Agreementestablishes a mitigation fee that will be paid by Poseidon Resources, or its successors ininterest, in the event that property taxes are not paid by the owners of the desalinationplant, because, for example, the plant is moved to another location or acquired by agovernment agency. The term of the Development Agreement is 40 years.•Coastal Development Permit CDP 04-41(City): The project is required to obtain acoastal development permit for portions of the proposed pipelines in the Mello IIsegment of the City's Coastal Zone. The coastal development permit required from theCalifornia Coastal Commission is discussed under Other Agency Actions below.•Special Use Permit SUP 05-04 (Floodplain): A segment of a proposed pipelinealignment along Cannon Road between Faraday and College Boulevard crosses the 100-year floodplain.•Habitat Management Plan Permit HMPP 05-08: Installation of proposed pipelines insome locations would result in temporary impacts to sensitive habitat, such as coastalsage scrub. These impacts vary in location from the Encina Power Station to MaerkleReservoir near the City of Vista border. Temporary habitat impacts are also proposed in
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SUP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 8 the City of Oceanside near Leisure Village Ocean Hills; however, HMPP 05-08 would apply only to impacts in the City of Carlsbad. •Environmental Impact Report EIR 03-05: The City has prepared an EIR for this project.While the primary land use approval for the project is the PDP, the primary focus of theEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) is the desalination plant and its related offsitefacilities, since they are the only elements of the project that require such an analysis.The EIR considers potential impacts associated with all project components, includingmarine biological impacts and those project components in the cities of Oceanside andVista. It can be used by other agencies in their analysis and permitting of the project.The EIR considers project alternatives, such as a project location alternative, reducedproject capacity alternative, and seawater intake alternatives. The City released the draftEIR in May 2005 and the final EIR in December 2005. The EIR includes an analysis ofpotential environmental impacts associated with the following issue areas:•Aesthetics•Biological Resources, marine and terrestrial•Cultural and Paleontological Resources•Geology and Soils•Hazards and Hazardous Materials•Hydrology and Water Quality•Land Use and Planning•Transportation and Traffic•Public Utilities and Service SystemsThe EIR concludes that the project will result in: •Unavoidable significant cumulative air quality and indirect growth inducingimpacts;•Significant aesthetic, biological, air quality, hydrology/water quality,geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, archeological and paleontologicalimpacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant impact level; and•Less than significant impactsSection V. Environmental Review, of this report provides a more detailed discussion of the EIR analysis. •Permits for Pipelines: Other than the coastal development permit and redevelopmentpermit required for some pipeline segments as identified above, construction of allpipelines would be subject to various city actions, such as right of way permits, haulroute permits, and improvement plan approvals. The applicant would also need to obtaineasements for pipelines that cross private land, such as the alignments proposed in thevicinity of Armada Drive. Subject to obtaining all necessary permits, the DevelopmentAgreement contains a provision in which the City agrees to not charge PoseidonResources for use of rights of way for pipeline installation. Proposed pipelines locatedoutside of the City's Coastal Zone and Redevelopment Plan boundaries are not subject toany of the discretionary permits and actions listed above (with the exception of the
( (-EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP l44(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/�uP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e9 Development Agreement). A condition of approval of the Precise Development Plan notes that these-pipelines are subject to the requirements of the City's Municipal Code. California Coastal Commission Action As mentioned earlier, a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission is needed. This permit is necessary because the Encina Power Station and portions of the offsite pipelines are located in the Agua Hedionda segment of the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program - a segment over which the City does not have permit authority, because jurisdiction has been retained by the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission's review of the project would occur after the Carlsbad City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission take action. Other Agency Actions • A lease for portions of the Project that are state-owned lands under jurisdiction of theCalifornia State Lands Commission;• A Domestic Water Supply Permit from the California Department of Health Services;• A separate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from theSan Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board for the desalination plant;•An Industrial Waste Permit from the Encina Wastewater Authority•Additional review may be provided by Federal, State and regional agencies including, butnot limited to: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, U.S. National MarineFisheries Service, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, CALTRANS, and CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game;•Land use and development permits from the cities of Oceanside and/or Vista;•Right-of-Way Permit(s) from the Cities of Vista and/or Oceanside;•Encroachment Permit(s) from the Cities of Vista and/or Oceanside;•Easements/Acquisition of Right-of-Way from the Cities of Vista and/or Oceanside; ,•Grading Permit(s) from the Cities of Vista and/or Oceanside;•Haul Route Permits from the Cities of Vista and/or Oceanside; and•Permits to connect to facilities of various local water districts.B.Desalination and CarlsbadThe City of Carlsbad has consistently strived to provide its citizens with a high quality of life by planning ahead for growth and change using growth management and economic development strategies that apply the principles of balance, sustainability, environmental protection, self reliance and economic vitality. Using these principles, strategic goals and a 5-year vision statement were put in place to guide staff in the development of projects and infrastructure
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP l44(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-4W.HJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 10 necessary to meet the City Council's vision. The City Council's strategic goal on water supply states: Ensure, in the most cost-effective manner, water quality and reliability to the maximum extent practical, to deliver high quality potable water and reclaimed water incorporating drought resistant community principals. To achieve the City Council's water supply goals the City has pursued a diversification of its water supply portfolio by undertaking significant water conservation efforts, maximizing the availability and use of recycled water, and the pursuit of new potable water supplies. The need for a diverse water portfolio was illustrated by the early 1990's drought, when the San Diego County Water Authority (CWA) reduced water supplies to member agencies, including Carlsbad, by 30% and was preparing plans for 50% reductions until the "Miracle March" rains provided enough water to meet demand. Water supply reductions at this level were projected to cause significant negative impacts on the quality of life of Carlsbad's citizens as well as cause economic hardship for area businesses. As the City of Carlsbad has grown in population and expanded its economic base, dramatic reductions in water supply today, like those seen in the early 1990' s drought, would again negatively impact quality of life for residents and hurt emerging industries that Carlsbad has worked hard to attract and retain, such as high tech manufacturing and bio-technology businesses. These businesses provide high wage, high skilled jobs to the region, but are very dependent on a reliable water supply for their processes and research. Similarly, visitor related industries rely on a consistent water supply to provide services to tourists. Major cutbacks could severely hurt these industries. Since the early 1990's drought, additional political, environmental, and legal constraints on water supply to the region have emerged. According to the CWA Regional Water Facilities Master Plan (RWFMP), the CWA currently imports nearly 600,000 acre feet (AF) per year from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), but is only legally entitled to approximately 300,000 AF per year. This makes the region's imported water supply highly vulnerable to water shortages and supply disruptions. The Colorado River is a major source of water supply for California, Nevada and Arizona. California has traditionally used more than its allocated 4.4 million acre feet (MAF) per year because Arizona and Nevada have not typically used their full allocations. Arizona and Nevada's increasing water needs have led to ,demands that California reduce its usage to its 4.4 MAF allocation. Potential threats to future deliveries of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta, such as a severe decline in fish populations, levee instability and a series of adverse court rulings, may also lead to reductions in the amount of water that can be delivered from Northern to Southern California through the State Water Project. These new water supply realities have led the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), through the 2005 California Water Plan, to encourage diversification of water supply options and the development of new water sources that includes a half-million acre feet per year of desalinated water. Although the CWA still provides almost 90% of the City's water supply, Carlsbad has been recognized as a leader in conservation and the use of recycled water. Carlsbad is currently the highest user of recycled water in San Diego County as a percentage of total water supply. Ten percent of the City's current water supply is recycled water and by 2010 more than 20 percent of
( ( EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP lq4(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/MJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 11 the City's water needs will be met with recycled water. Carlsbad has also pursued conservation efforts that have resulted in current savings of 6.7% of total water supply. It is projected that Carlsbad will maintain these conservation savings even as the population grows. Despite conservation and the aggressive use of recycled water, the bulk of the City's water supply is still provided by water purchased from the CW A, which is vulnerable to the factors mentioned above. The need to find a local, reliable water supply is therefore essential to the preservation of the quality of life and economic goals of the City. In 1998 the City began discussions with Poseidon Resources to determine the feasibility of siting a seawater desalination facility in Carlsbad to address the City's goal of creating a reliable, drought-resistant water supply. In July 2000 the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) approved Resolution 1093 authorizing the applicant to proceed with a desalination feasibility study. One year later the applicant submitted the completed feasibility study, which found that a seawater desalination facility producing up to 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of potable water could be constructed adjacent to the Encina Power Station. In May 2002 the CMWD, in conjunction with the CW A and City of Oceanside, completed an additional review of Poseidon Resources' proposal, which concluded that the proposed project was technically viable and the cost of water was reasonable. In January 2004, the CWA Board concluded that it would be in the region's best interest to allow Carlsbad and Poseidon to work on developing a local project rather than to continue direct negotiations with Poseidon and Carlsbad. In February 2004, CW A sent a letter to the City in support of Carlsbad's efforts to develop a local seawater desalination project. During this period, CMWD negotiated a Water Purchase Agreement (see below) with Poseidon Resources that the CMWD Board of Directors approved in September 2004. Meanwhile, on August 12, 2004, the CW A Board of Directors approved a staff recommendation to reopen discussions with Carlsbad and Poseidon, and simultaneously continue independent planning and environmental studies for a CW A-owned and operated regional seawater desalination facility at the Encina Power Station. On that same date, the CW A Board of Directors reaffirmed that successful development of a locally initiated seawater desalination plant at the Encina site would create a regional water reliability benefit, and would therefore continue to support the City's efforts in processing such a facility. Meanwhile, the CW A has continued work on its regional desalination facility proposal and released its. draft EIR on March 31, 2006. As a regional project, the CW A facility would connect directly via pipelines to the agency's Second Aqueduct in San Marcos, upon which it could then distribute desalinated water to the region. Poseidon has signed a lease and easement agreement with Cabrillo Power that gives Poseidon the exclusive right to operate a desalination facility on the Encina Power Station property. Therefore only one project can be built at the Encina Power Station. Any project by the CW A would require that the CW A obtain the exclusive rights now held by Poseidon. Moreover, the CW A does not have ownership or other form of control of the land upon which the facility is proposed and is not currently engaged in negotiations with the property owner (Cabrillo) to secure such ownership or control. Though the CW A retains the power of eminent domain to secure control over the site, the CWA Board of Directors authorized staff, as stated in its August 12, 2004, decision, to complete the EIR for the regional seawater desalination project "with the clear g
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP l44(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SLJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 12 understanding that nothing in this action is intended to authorize or suggest acquisition of Poseidon or Cabrillo' s -property interests by eminent domain." Therefore, while there may be two agencies processing two separate projects of the same nature in the same location simultaneously, circumstances dictate that only one project will be built. This leads the City of Carlsbad to the reasonable conclusion that successful development of a locally initiated project would not be duplicated by a CW A initiated project at the same location. Therefore this analysis assumes that a single seawater desalination plant would be built and operated, and would consist of the components, capacity, and specifications identified in this report. In October of 2004 the Carlsbad Municipal Water District completed and approved a water purchase agreement (WP A) with the applicant. The stated purpose of the agreement is to "Provide the City of Carlsbad with a certain quantity of high-quality drinking water that is delivered reliably over a 30-year period at a guaranteed price." The WP A will provide the City of Carlsbad with high quality drinking water that meets 100% of the City's potable water supply needs at a price no more than the cost of water from the CW A. Carlsbad would maintain its membership at the CW A, allowing it to purchase water from CW A to provide a backup water supply in the event Poseidon Resources were unable to provide the water necessary to meet demand. The WP A is included as Appendix B of the Final EIR. Approval of the land use permits necessary for the construction of the desalination plant will move Carlsbad closer to the implementation of the WPA and statement 10 of the City Council's 5-year vision statement:Carlsbad efficiently and effectively looks ahead and works to anticipate changes that are required now in order to make a better future for its citizens. The development of a seawater desalination facility would provide Carlsbad an entirely new, high quality, reliable and drought-resistant water supply. This supply would not be subject to the uncertainties that plague the City's existing water supplies, which have become the subject of intense statewide and inter-state competition. The approval of this project implements the strategic goals of the Council and the Council's 5-year vision statement by looking ahead to provide a reliable resource-·necessary for a healthy economic base that protects the social, economic and physical health of the citizens of Carlsbad, and provides a better future for its citizens. C.The Proposed Desalination ProcessSource water for the desalination plant will come from seawater currently used to cool steam turbines at the Encina Power Station. Up to 104 mgd of "once through" cooling water that has passed through the Encina power plant condensers will be diverted from the power plant discharge to the desalination plant. An intake structure consisting of a pump station and a wet well tied in to the power plant discharge channel will pump water through a 72-inch pipeline to be constructed from the power plant to the desalination plant. The 72-inch intake pipe will be constructed in parallel with a 48-inch seawater concentrate discharge pipe. The concentrate discharge pipeline will convey the brine discharge from the desalination plant as a by-product of
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP l44(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/�lJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 13 the reverse osmosis filtration process into the existing discharge channel from the power plant at a location that is approximately 850 feet downstream of the desalination intake structure to avoid intermixing of the concentrate discharge with the desalination plant source water. The source water will be pre-treated and filtered through reverse osmosis (RO) membranes to produce drinking water. Two types of pretreatment system technology are considered for implementation at the desalination plant: (1) granular media (sand) filtration; and (2) membrane filtration. Pumps then feed the pretreated seawater to the reverse osmosis membrane treatment trains. Among these pumps are the high pressure reverse osmosis feed pumps, the purpose of which is to deliver the feed water to the membranes at high-enough pressure (typically 800 to 900 psi) in order to complete the water/salt separation process. The reverse osmosis treatment system equipment, arranged in 13 discrete treatment trains, would have a total installed water production capacity of 54 mgd and an average capacity of 50 mgd with 12 trains in operation and one auxiliary train in standby. The product water from the reverse osmosis system would be disinfected with chlorine followed by an ammonia addition for chloramination. Control of biological growth in the transmission pipelines and in the receiving reservoirs in the distribution system will be accomplished by adding ammonia to the chlorinated water to form chloramines. The product water would be stored temporarily in on-site facilities prior to transmission to local and/or regional storage and distribution systems. The product water would also be conditioned using lime and carbon dioxide to provide corrosion control within the existing water delivery system. This is necessary because the RO process removes minerals from the water and creates a condition whereby the water molecules. will attract minerals contained in the water delivery facilities, potentially causing corrosion of the facilities. Concentrated seawater (concentrate) will be produced in the RO membrane separation process. Approximately one gallon of concentrate would be created for every gallon of potable drinking water produced; therefore, for the proposed 50-mgd desalination plant, approximately 50 mgd of concentrate would be generated. The salinity of the concentrate would be 57,000 parts per million (ppm), twice the concentration of the incoming seawater (33,500 ppm). The concentrate would be conveyed to the power plant cooling water discharge canal, using the desalination plant concentrate pipeline as previously described, and then blended with the power plant cooling water prior to discharge into the ocean via the power plant discharge canal. The existing 15-foot wide concrete discharge channel presently conveys the cooling water into an on-site discharge pond by gravity. From there, the cooling water travels through box culverts under Carlsbad Boulevard into a riprap-lined channel leading across the beach and into the Pacific Ocean. Besides the concentrate, the pretreatment and reverse osmosis systems pioduce waste from the desalination process and/or cleaning requirements that require proper disposal. Some of the material separated from the seawater during the pretreatment process would be returned to the power plant discharge. Settled solids from the pretreatment process would produce both solid and liquid sludge that would require disposal at a landfill or the Encina Wastewater Pollution Control facility via sanitary sewer, as appropriate. Cleaning of the membranes and filters will also produce sludge and chemicals that will require similar disposal methods as appropriate. Finally, a cartridge filter system, used for further removal of fine particles between the g
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP l44(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/�t.JP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 14 pretreatment and reverse osmosis steps, produces spent filters that must be disposed of at a landfill. A flow diagram of the desalination process is provided below. This diagram is also provided as Figure 3-7 in the Final EIR. l
--Since 2002, the applicant has operated a seawater desalination demonstration facility near the Power Station's discharge pond. This temporary plant, which draws and desalinates seawater from the discharge pond, has provided the applicant with important information such as water quality conditions in AguaHedionda Lagoon following major storms. This data was and continues to be used in the development of the proposed permanent desalination plant. IV.ANALYSISThe project is subject to the following regulations and requirements: A.Carlsbad General Plan;B.Encina Specific Plan (Specific Plan 144)C.Title 21 (Zoning) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;D.South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan;E.Development Agreement (Chapter 21.70 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);F.Coastal Development regulations for the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone,Mello II segment, and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Land Use Plan segment (Chapters
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SuJ' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 15
21.201 and 21.203 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan); G.Special Use Permit (Floodplain Management) regulations (Chapter 21.110 of theCarlsbad Municipal Code);H.Habitat Management Plan; andI.Growth Management (Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).The recommendations for approval of this project were developed by analyzing the project'sconsistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. The project's compliance witheach of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A.General Plan
The General Plan designates the Encina Power Station for Public Utility (U) uses. The General Plan Land Use Element describes this category of land use as applied to " ... areas, both existing and proposed, either being used or which may be considered for use for public or quasi-public functions." The Land Use Element also states that U designation's "primary functions include such things as the generation of electrical energy, treatment of waste water, public agency maintenance storage and operating facilities, or other primary utility functions designed to serve all or a substantial portion of the community." The existing Encina Power Station facilities and operations, as well as the proposed desalination plant, are consistent with this description, particularly in that both are designed to serve most or all of Carlsbad.
The various pipelines proposed throughout the City are located in several different land use designations. Installation of pipelines is considered to be consistent with the Land Use Element in that pipelines are allowed in all General Plan land use designations. Further, since they would be placed underground, would be generally located in street right of ways, and would cause only limited, temporary impacts to sensitive native habitats, the proposed pipelines are consistent with General Plan policies requiring development to protect and enhance the City's environment, character, and image.
In addition, staff finds the proposed Precise Development Plan and amendment to the Encina Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan as discussed below: a.The proposed documents provide development standards for the Encina PowerStation, i.nclutling the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant, which is consistentwith the Overall Land Use Pattern Goal A.2 that states, "A City which providesfor an oz:derly balance of both public and private land uses within convenient andcompatible locations throughout the community and ensures that all such uses,type, amount, design and arrangement serve to protect and enhance theenvironment, character and image of the City." ,,b.The establishment of the Precise Development Plan, its regulation of developmentand uses at the Encina Power Station, and the Owner's offers of publicdedications as conditioned therein, achieve compliance with Land Use ElementEnvironmental Policy C.6, which states, "Ensure the preservation andmaintenance of the unique environmental resources of the Agua HediondaLagoon while providing for a balance of public and private land uses throughimplementation of the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan."
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 16 c.The restatement of the Encina Specific Plan 144 provides all specific planstandards in a single, comprehensive document, which helps facilitate the GeneralPlan goal to provide an orderly balance of both public and private land uses.Further, the desalination plant (reverse osmosis building) has a modern office appearance and appropriate screening of equipment and chemical storage areas that complies with the sensitive design objective of Overall Land Use Pattern Policy C.6, which states, "Review the architecture of buildings with the focus on ensuring the quality and integrity of design and enhancement of the character of each neighborhood." Overall, the project is consistent with the General Plan in that it implements goals stated in the land use document's Vision section. The project will provide a high-quality, reliable water supply to the residents of Carlsbad thereby fulfilling the General Plan vision statement, "A City which provides adequate public facilities to preserve the quality of life of its residents." Additionally, a reliable drinking water supply is a major issue for all Southern California jurisdictions and by providing one hundred ·percent of Carlsbad's drinking water the Project helps to fulfill another General Plan vision statement, "A City which recognizes it role as a participant in the solution of regional issues." Further, the project also helps to fulfill the vision goal of "A City committed to economic growth of progressive commercial and industrial businesses to serve the employment, shopping, recreation, and service needs of its residents." The Project will create new jobs and new economic activity in Carlsbad and provide a reliable water supply that businesses can count on for sustainable economic activity. B.Encina Specific Plan 144Specific Plan 144 was originally adopted in City of Carlsbad Ordinance 9279 on August 3, 1971. The purpose of the Specific Plan was to provide rules and regulations for the orderly development of 680 acres of land located east of the Pacific Ocean and south of the north shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and north and east of what is now Cannon Road. Its purpose was also to provide design and development guidelines for the expansion of the power plant, then owned by San Diego Gas &J�lectric Company. As originally adopted, the Specific Plan placed 13 conditions of development on the subject property and provided for methods of enforcement. On December 4, 1973, the Carlsbad City Council passed Amendment A to Specific Plan 144 in Ordinance 9372 to allow for the construction of a 400-foot stack and remo,val of the four existing stacks at the Encina Power Station. This amendment became null and void one year later. On May 4, 1976, Specific Plan 144 was amended again (Amendment B) by the City Council's passage of Ordinance 9456 to permit the construction of a single 400-foot stack at the Encina Power Station to replace the four existing stacks. Amendment B provided a finding that "all conditions of City Council Ordinance 9279 have been complied with and this amendment is consistent with said ordinance and the provisions of the P-U zone." Amendment B to Specific Plan 144 added condition 14 which created design, development, and other requirements for the ,
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SUP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 17
construction of the 400-foot stack, the removal of the existing stacks, and operation of the power station. Amendment B also provided an exemption to the 400-foot stack and duct work and
related screening to the 35-foot height limit established by Condition Number 5 of Ordinance 9279.
Amendment C of Specific Plan 144 was adopted on May 3, 1977, by City Council Ordinance 9481 to allow for the construction of water treatment facilities and a maintenance building at the Encina Power Station. Amendment C added condition 15 regarding the development of the water treatment facilities and the maintenance building and amended the map of the specific plan area.
Between 1978 and 1993 three additional amendments to Specific Plan 144 were applied for and withdrawn by SDG&E for changes to the Encina Power Station. Amendment D was proposed to allow connection of unit 5 to the stack, but it was determined that the connection was already allowed and so the amendment was not necessary.' Amendment E proposed various improvements to the facility, and Amendment F proposed the addition of a green waste facility. Amendments D, E, and F were all withdrawn and were not incorporated into the Specific Plan 144.
On January 16, 1996, as part of its approval of the Carlsbad Ranch project, the Carlsbad City Council adopted Ordinance NS-345, amending Specific Plan 144 (Amendment G) to remove from the Encina Specific Plan 24.2 acres of land adjacent to the intersection of Armada Drive and Cannon Road. The map of the Specific Plan area was revised to reflect the removal of the acreage.
Generally, the conditions of Specific Plan 144 have regulated only the Encina Power Station and not other properties within the Specific Plan, save for a few conditions regarding the potential for a future power station east oflnterstate 5, leasing of park lands, and infrastructure improvements. In part to address the lack of standards for other specific plan properties, the City Council in 1998 passed Resolution 98-145, declaring its intent to consider land use designation changes at the power station and perform a land use study of the specific plan.
The following year, SDG&E sold a significant portion of its holdings within Specific Plan 144 to Cabrillo Power I LLC. Prop_�rty sold included the Encina Power Station and outer, middle, and inner basins of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. SDG&E retained ownership of much of the property within the Specific Plan, including land east of Interstate 5 along the lagoon's south and east shore, the SDG&E construction and operations center located south of the power station, and property along the lagoon's north shore west oflnterstate 5.
In 2002, the City Council, in Agenda Bill 16,790, directed that any applicant of a proposed project within the specific plan be required to prepare a comprehensive update of the specific plan. This direction was revised in 2003, when the City Council passed Resolution 2003-208, allowing the Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant project to be processed as an amendment to the Encina Specific Plan 144 rather than through a comprehensive update of the specific plan.
As part of the proposed amendment to incorporate the Precise Development Plan into the Encina Specific Plan 144, Poseidon Resources and Cabrillo Power have proposed to restate the specific
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Sl.JP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 18 plan so it contains the requirements of all ordinances adopted since 1971 and the contents required of specific plans by California Government Code 65451. This section of state law requires a specific plan to address through text and diagrams: 1) the distribution, location, and extent of land uses and infrastructure within its boundaries, 2) development and conservation standards, 3) implementation measures to carry out the provisions of the specific plan, and 4) the relationship of the specific plan with the general plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with state law and would provide the City with a single comprehensive document that contains the Encina Specific Plan's history, physical setting, conditions of approval, development standards, and general plan relationship. The proposed amendment also addresses infrastructure within the Specific Plan� describing existing facilities and noting that Local Facilities Management Plans for Zones 1, 3, and 13 are incorporated to address infrastructure needs and standards. In addition, the proposed amended Specific Plan contains implementation and general plan relationship sections. These sections discuss that the amended Specific Plan authorizes no new development except for that allowed by the proposed Precise Development Plan and that all land uses within the Specific Plan are the same as those designated by the General Plan. In doing so, the Specific Plan maintains consistency with and enables implementation of the goals of the Land Use and Open Space Elements of the Carlsbad General Plan. Finally, Encina Specific Plan 144(H) contains maps depicting Specific Plan boundaries, general plan designations, and zoning. Future development within the Encina Specific Plan, if located within the boundaries of the Precise Development Plan PDP 00-02, will not require an amendment to the Specific Plan unless it is considered a formal amendment as defined by the PDP. Since the Specific Plan contains no standards to address development outside of the PDP, any such development will require an amendment to the Specific Plan. In addition, the Specific Plan notes that its provisions shall not be required of, or applied to, uses regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The proposed desalination plant's compliance with applicable Specific Plan standards and requirements adopted over the years regarding architectural review, building height, exterior lighting, and rooftop mechanical equipment is discussed in detail under the Precise Development Plan analysis. C.Zoning Regulations (Carlsbad Municipal Code)Zoning regulations for this project apply primarily to the proposed Precise Development Plan and the desalination plant improvements planned at the Encina Power Station. Proposed water conveyance pipelines proposed offsite of the Power Station are permitted in any City zoning district; they are subject to Zoning Ordinance requirements only where they are proposed in the floodplain and in the Coastal Zone. Analysis of the project pipelines' consistency with the Zoning Ordinance Floodplain Management Regulations (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.110) and Coastal Development Permit procedures and standards (Chapters 21.201 and 21.203) are contained in the separate discussions below under the sections on Local Coastal Program and Special Use Permit (Floodplain). g
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 19 The Encina Power Station has a Public Utility (P-U) zoning and Public Utility (U) General Plan designation. The P-U Zone, Chapter 21.36 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, implements the corresponding General Plan U land use designation. Section 21.36.020 of the Public Utility Zone lists permitted uses and structures, including the generation and transmission of electrical energy, use and storage of fuel oils, and energy transmission facilities, all of which are existing uses at the Encina Power Station. The processing, use, and storage of domestic and agricultural water supplies are also identified as permitted uses in the P-U Zone. Accordingly, since it entails processing, use and storage of domestic water supplies, the proposed seawater desalination facility is a permitted use in the P-U Zone. Section 21.36.030 of the P-U Zone prevents the issuance of any building permits or entitlements "until a precise development plan has been approved for the property." Consistent with this requirement, PDP 00-02 is proposed. This document is prepared consistent with the requirements of the P-U Zone, and serves as the site's official Precise Development Plan, or PDP, and as the primary entitlement for the proposed desalination facility. A precise development plan is adopted and amended by ordinance. Section 21.36.010 states that the intent and purpose of the P-U zone is to provide for certain public utility and related uses subject to a precise development plan procedure in the following three ways: 1.Insure compatibility of the development with the General Plan and the surroundingdevelopments.The proposed PDP would satisfy this intent by providing·: •A baseline of existing conditions and description of surrounding uses•Guidance for building permit and entitlement issuance for allowed uses;•Establishment of planning areas, standards and provisions;•Amendment and implementation procedures, including provisions foradministrative approvals and formal amendments requiring City Councilapproval; and•Linkage to other related regulations, approvals, and documents, includingincorporatio11--of the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for theproject.The proposed content of the PDP, particularly its development standards, review procedures, and complete listing of applicable regulations, enables the PDP to assist applicants, the public, and the City in determining and ensuring neighborhood and General Plan compatibility. '2.Insure that due regard is given to environmental factors.This intent would be satisfied through the proposed certification of the project Environmental Impact Report, which is processed concurrent with the approvals for the desalination facility, as well as this Precise Development Plan. Certification of the project EIR and implementation of the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Sl.JP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 20 Reporting Program (MMRP) would satisfy the above regarding adequate environmental review. 3.Provide for public improvements and other conditions of approval necessitated by thedevelopment.This intent would be satisfied through proposed conditions of approval placed on the Precise Development Plan PDP 00-02 and Redevelopment Permit RP 05-12. The P-U Zone requirements provide little in the way of development standards for the zone or content requirements for a PDP. Basic standards are provided for minimum lot area, lot coverage, parking and loading area locations, and landscaping. While no building setbacks or height standards are established by the P-U Zone, Section 21.36.050 states the City Council may impose conditions as it determines necessary and consistent with the P-U Zone, General Plan, and the Encina Specific Plan. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, provisions for setbacks, landscaping, fences and walls, special height and bulk of building regulations, and parking. Accordingly, the proposed PDP includes requirements in addition to the basic standards already required by the P-U Zone. A detailed table below provides compliance information with all applicable standards for both the Power Station and proposed desalination plant. Consistent with this and other sections of the P-U Zone, the proposed PDP functions as a specific or master plan to regulate development at the Encina Power Station and contains six major sections: •Precise Development Plan purpose•Physical Setting, including existing uses and the proposed desalination facility•Incorporation of Applicable Regulations and Documents, including the General Plan,Encina Specific Plan, and Redevelopment Plan•Development Standards•Public Improvements•Procedures and AmendmentsIn addition to the text of the above sections, the PDP contains numerous detailed plans, including exhibits of existing power plant features, applicable General Plan and zoning designations, Local Coastal Program land use designations, and the proposed desalination plant. The document also establishes ·three planning areas for the Power Station, with a listing of uses found in each planning area and development standards and regulations applicable to each. The planning areas are: •Planning Area 1, which incorporates the most recognizable features of the plant, mainlythe large power generating facility, 400-foot tall emissions stack, and switch yard. Thisplanning area is 46 acres and includes cooling water discharge pond and aquaculturefacility in the northwest comer of the PDP and next to Carlsbad Boulevard. Most of theonsite desalination plant appurtenant facilities, including intake pump station, intake anddischarge pipelines, and 72-inch diameter product water pipeline, are proposed inPlanning Area 1.•Planning Area 2, which incorporates 34-acres between the railroad tracks and Interstate 5.This planning area is dominated by four large fuel oil storage tanks. The desalination
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 21 plant's sanitary sewer connection and an alternative onsite product water pipeline alignment are located in this planning area. •Planning Area 3, which incorporates the three fuel oil storage tanks closest to and visiblefrom Carlsbad Boulevard, is 14 acres in size. This planning area is also the site of theproposed desalination plant reverse osmosis building and pre-treatment filters.The planning areas are described and shown in PDP Section II, Physical Setting, and Exhibits 9, 10, and 11. Whether existing or proposed, development standards applicable to the Encina Power Station are generally intended to recognize the uniqueness of existing and potentially future Power Station uses and to ensure compatibility-of the visible Power Station components with their surroundings. Accordingly, existing and proposed PDP standards: •Recognize and accommodate existing Power Station improvements;•Provide basic parameters to guide the development and siting of minor improvements;significant changes to the Power Station would require a major amendment t� the PreciseDevelopment Plan;•Recognize that the majority of the Power Station is not readily visible to its surroundingsand that application of a development standard may be unnecessary if a project isproposed, for example, near the center of the property;•Acknowledge that because the Power Station contains unique uses that because ofgovernmental regulations or the function, nature, or location of the use, all developmentstandards may not apply or may allow modification, and;•Provide standards oriented toward development and landscaping that might or does occuralong the visible perimeters of the Power Station since these areas are most noticeable tothe public.The proposed development standards would apply as appropriate to future activity requiring entitlements or building permits. Furthermore, any request for building pe.rmit issuance or an entitlement. within the Precise Development Plan area would require review for consistency with the Precise Development Plan, the process for which is discussed below. The proposed Precise Development Plan also establishes amendment procedures. Examples of the types of projects or land uses that would require a formal Preci,.se Development Plan amendment (and also an amendment to the Encina Specific Plan) and City Council approval are listed below. The list is not all-inclusive; the intent is to provide examples of the scale and magnitude of development that would mandate formal amendment to the Precise Development Plan. •Construction of a new power generating station and demolition of the existing stationand stack.
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 22
•Any expansion of the desalination facility to accommodate more than 50 MGD.
•Any proposal for repowering or other technological restructuring of the Encina PowerStation or desalination facility.
•An amendment initiated by City Council action in order to promote public healthsafety and welfare relative to operations or uses within the Precise Development Planjurisdiction.
•Any addition, expansion, major modification or change of use to the Encina PowerStation or desalination facility, existing power generating station components, or oilstorage tanks, that woulcf exceed the amount of change permitted by administrativeapproval consistent with Carlsbad's Planning Department Policy No. 35 regardingsubstantial conformance review.
Formal amendments to the PDP would be processed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 21.52 and Section 21.36.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, which requires City Council approval.
Certain improvements, modifications, maintenance activities or other future proposals may be considered minor in nature and found to be consistent with the Precise Development Plan. In these circumstances, no discretionary permits from the City would be required, and building permits could be issued without formal amendment to the Precise Development Plan.
The process to determine consistency with the Precise Development Plan would be according to Planning Department Policy No. 35, Discretionary Permit Consistency Determination, as amended from time to time. This policy contains a substantial amount of criteria which a project must meet to be determined consistent with the Precise Development Plan, including that the project would not delete a feature considered to be essential tothe project's design, add a new land use not shown on the original permit, create a significant environmental impact, and would not be readily discernible to decision-makers as being substantially different from the project as originally approved.
Compliance of the Power Station and the proposed desalination plant with all applicable existing and proposed development standards is provided below.
Compliance of Power Station and Desalination Plant with Development Standards
EXISTING and SOURCE of Compliance?
PROPOSED STANDARD REQUIREMENT Power Desalination COMMENTS
Station Plant Permitted Uses Municipal Code Yes Yes •Existing and proposedSection 21.36,020; uses comply, asSCCRP Section 601; demonstrated in thisProposed PDP report.Section IV, which references Code and SCCRP and also requires PDP
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Sl..rl' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pae 23
j consistency.
I?
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Sl.J.t> 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pae 24
Compliance of Power Station and Desalination Plant with Development Standards Continued
EXISTING and SOURCE of Compliance?
PROPOSED STANDARD REQUIREMENT Power Desalination COMMENTS Station Plant
Conditional Uses Municipal Code Yes* N/A(noCUP •*Existing CUP uses withinSection 21.36.110; uses proposed) PDP, including cellularProposed PDP facilities and aquacultureSection IV, which farm, are presumed toreferences Code and have valid CUPs;requires PDP •Uses are subject toconsistency-a Municipal Code and PDPstandards per Section IV.
Minimum Lot Area Municipal Code Yes Yes •Planning Areas 1 and 3Existing Code Standard: Section 21.36.070; parcel is 60 acres;•7,500 square feet Proposed PDP •Planning Area 3 parcel isSection IV (PDP 34 acres;incorporates Code •Leasehold parcel forstandard). desalination plant (reverseosmosis building andpretreatment filters) is 3.2acres.
Lot Coverage Municipal Code Yes Yes •Lot coverage of entire 95-Existing Code Standard: Section 21.36.070; acre PDP area, with•All buildings and Proposed PDP proposed desalinationstructures shall cover no Section IV (PDP plant, is approximatelymore than 50% of the area incorporates this 15%;of the lot.standard). •Proposed 44,500 squarefoot reverse osmosisbuilding coversapproximately 32% ofleasehold parcel.
g
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Sl.J.t> 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pae 25
Compliance of Pawer Station and Desalination Plant with Development Standards Continued
EXISTING and SOURCE of Compliance?
Power Desalination COMMENTS PROPOSED STANDARD REQUIREMENT Station Plant Parking, Loading, and Municipal Code Yes Yes •There are no existing yardRefuse Collection Areas Section 21.36.080; standards;Existing Code Standard: Proposed PDP •Power Station meets•No parking or loading Section IV. . existing and proposedareas in a front, side or standards; rear yard adjoining a •Proposed reverse osmosisstreet; or within 10' of an building meets existinginterior side or rear and proposed standards;property line.•Proposed reverse osmosisProposed added PDP building's parking, refusestandards: collection and loading•Adds refuse collections areas are located onareas;building sides and are•Requires screening of all adequately screened byareas with existing existing vegetation andfencing and landscaping;uses;•Requires areas to be •PDP setback requirementsplaced at building rear of25 and 50-feet (seeand sides;below) may apply;•Except for parking, screen Planning Director mayareas up to a height of 10-modify to allowfeet as necessary.improvements such asparking areas to encroachinto these setbacks.
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJ.t' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pae 26
Compliance of Power Station and Desalination Plant with Development Standards Continued
EXISTING and SOURCE of Compliance?
PROPOSED STANDARD REQUIREMENT Power Desalination COMMENTS Station Plant Landscaping Municipal Code Yes, with Yes, with both •There are no existing yardExisting Code Standard: Section 21.36.090; existing standards, standards;•Except for approved ways Proposed PDP standard; although most •The proposed PDPof ingress and egress and Section IV.May not standards do establishes minimum yardparking and loading areas,meet all not apply requirements of 50-feetall required yards shall be proposed because the from property lines alongirrigated and permanently ··-standards. desalination Carlsbad Boulevard andlandscaped with at least plant is not on Agua Hedionda Lagoonone or a combination of t):te perimeter shoreline and 25-feet frommore than one of the of the Power Interstate 5. Thesefollowing: Lawn, shrubs,Station. proposed setbackstrees, and flowers;establish yards along the•No walls or fences over north, east, and west PDPfour feet in height may be boundaries.constructed in any area •Perimeter landscaping iswhere landscaping is well established along therequired.lagoon and Interstate 5;
( •Perimeter landscaping isProposed added PDP not continuous and isstandards: Jacking along Carlsbad•Landscaping shall comply Boulevard, althoughwith existing standards;existing improvements and•Where visible to the topography limit
public, plant sizes shall landscaping of some areas;meet minimums specified •A landscape plan forin City landscape manual;Carlsbad Boulevard is a•landscaping adjacent to recommended condition of
Carlsbad Boulevard and approval;
the NCTD railroad ·•Existing parking areas arecorridor shall be adequately screened;consistent with scenic •Landscaping along thecorridor guidelines to NCTD corridor isenhance the area's visual �-acceptable.character;•Parking visible fromCarlsbad Boulevard shall
be screened;•Removed, dying, ordiseased perimeter treesand shrubs shall bereplaced with equivalentmaterial.
g
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Sl.Jt' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e27
Compliance of Power Station and Desalination Plant with Development Standards Continued
EXISTING and SOURCE of Compliance? Power Desalination COMMENTS PROPOSED STANDARD REQUIREMENT Station Plant Grading Municipal Code NIA Yes •Compliance of existingExisting Code Standard: Section Power Station cannot be•None, except City may 21.36.050 (6); judged as no Power Stationimpose special grading Proposed PDP improvement is proposed;instructions per Code Section IV. •Desalination Plant gradingsection cited is primarily limited to theProposed PDP standards: inside of the existing•Grading in visible areas containment berm.should utilize naturalcontour grading topreserve and enhance thenatural appearance;•Grading shall complywith all City and CoastalCommissionrequirements.g
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SL 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e28
Compliance of Power Station and Desalination Plant with Development Standards
Continued
EXISTING and SOURCE of Compliance?
PROPOSED STANDARD REQUIREMENT Power Desalination COMMENTS Station Plant
Architecture and Building Municipal Code Yes*; Yes •* As a condition placed onMaterials Section NIA the Power Station, staffExisting Code Standard: 21.36.050; presumes that at least some•None, except City may Encina Specific Plan Power Station buildingsimpose special 144; meet the architecturalrequirements per Code Proposed PDP review requirement;section cited.Section IV: -•Compliance of Power
Existing Encina Specific Plan Station facilities with
Standard: proposed PDP standardscannot be determined as no•All buildings shall be new Power Stationsubject to architectural facilities are proposed;review to assure a •Reverse osmosis buildingmaximum amount of is visible to surroundingdesign compatibility with areas and incorporates athe neighborhood and design, materials, andexisting facilities.finish that is compatiblewith its surroundings.Proposed PDP standards: •Form and design of anynew buildings to belargely determined byvisibility from locationssurrounding the PowerPlant and applicablegovernment requirements;•Building materials andfinish should also reflectneighborhoodcompatibility.•Planning Director maydetermine_ compliancewith standards is --
unnecessary based onother agencyrequirements or function,nature, and location ofproject.
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SUr 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e29 Compliance of Power Station and Desalination Plant with Development Standards Continued
EXISTING and SOURCE of Compliance? Power Desalination COMMENTS PROPOSED STANDARD REQUIREMENT Station Plant Setbacks Municipal Code Yes Yes •Existing Power StationExisting Code Standard: Section structures and•None, except City may 21.36.050 (l); improvements complyimpose setbacks, yards,Proposed PDP with setback requirements.and open space per Code Section IV. •Desalination Plantsection cited comp lies with setbackProposed PDP standards: requirements; reverse•Minimum 50-foot setback osmosis building isfrom Carlsbad Boulevard approximately 300-350right of way;feet from Agua Hedionda..Minimum 50-foot setback Lagoon shoreline andfrom property line along about 950-feet from
Agua Hedionda Lagoon Carlsbad Boulevard.shoreline; if blujftop is •Desalination appurtenantgreater than 50-feetfrom facilities {pipelines, solidsproperty line, the top of handling building, supportthe bluff shall mark the structures) are locatedminimum lagoon setback;several hundred feet from•Minimum 25-foot setback subject property lines;
from Interstate 5 right of pipelines are not subject to
way;setbacks.•No setbacks establishedfrom the south PowerStation boundaries or frominterior property lines;•Planning Director maydetermine compliance withstandards is unnecessarybased on other agencyrequirements or function,nature, and location ofproject;•Setback requirements donot apply to potentialCoastal Rail Trailalignments; desalinationfacility pipelinealignments; or reasonablemodifications orexpansions of existingminor structures (e.g.,utility poles, guardstation) unless determinednecessary for publichealth, safety, and welfarepurposes by the PlanningDirector.
I
I
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SUt' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pae 30
Compliance of Power Station and Desalination Plant with Development Standards Continued EXISTING and SOURCE of Compliance? PROPOSED Power Desalination COMMENTS STANDARD REQUIREMENT Station Plant Parking Municipal Code Yes Yes •Based on a 2001 parkingExisting Code Standard: Section study of the Encina•None, except City may 21.36.050 (11); Power Station, maximumimpose parking Proposed PDP parking demand is 112requirements per Code Section IV. spaces and existingsection cited parking supply is 174Proposed PDP standards: spaces.•Because of unique uses •Based on desalinationat Power Station,plant employees, visitors,parking needs may and 'vendors, the reverserequire case-by-case osmosis building featuresanalysis based on a 13-space parking lot.number of employees,hours of operation, etc;•When applicable, ZoningOrdinance parkingstandards shall befollowed.
Building Height Municipal Code Yes* Yes •* Agua Hedionda LandExisting ,Code Standard: Section Use Plan height standard•None, except City may 21.36.050 (2); adopted in 1982, afterimpose height Encina Specific Plan completion of the Powerrequirements per Code 144; Plant generating building
section cited;Agua Hedionda Land and 400-foot tallExisting Encina Specific Plan Use Plan emissions stack.Standard: Specific Plan 144 states:••35-feet;The heights of futureExisting Agua Hedionda power generatingLand Use Plan Standard:buildings and•35-feet;transmission line towerProposed PDP standards:strnctures shall be of•None heights and of aco,nfiguration similar toexisting facilities. Allstorage tanks shall bescreened from view. No , other structure or building shall exceed thirty five (35') feet in height unless a specific plan is approved at a public hearing.
•The reverse osmosisbuilding is 33-feet high.·
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJ,. 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 31 Compliance of Pew er Station and Desalination Plant with Development Standards Continued
EXISTING and SOURCE of Compliance? Power Desalination COMMENTS PROPOSED STANDARD REQUIREMENT Station Plant Equipment and Storage Municipal Code Yes* Yes •The desalination plant isTank Screening Section conditioned to have allExisting Code Standard: 21.36.050; mechanical equipment•None, except City may Encina Specific Plan screened .impose screening 144; •* As a condition placed onrequirements per Code the Power Station, andsection cited;... based on limited siteExisting Encina Specific Plan observation, staff presumesStandard: the Power Station meets•Roof mounted equipmentshall be screened; oil this requirement.
storage tanks shall berecessed and screened.Proposed PDP standards: •None
Lighting Municipal Code Yes* Yes •Lighting Plan approvalExisting Code Standard: Section prior to building pennit•None, except City may 21.36.050; issuanceimpose lighting standards Encina Specific Plan •* As a condition placed onper Code section cited;144; the Power Station, andExisting Encina Specific Plan based on limited siteStandard: observation, staff presumes•Exterior lighting shall be the Power Station meetsoriented so that adjacent this requirement.properties shall bescreened from glare or adirect light source; allground lighting shall bearranged to reflect awayfrom adjoining propertiesand streets.Proposed PDP standards: -�-, •None
Note: "SCCRP" stands for South Carlsbad Coastdl Redevelopment Plan The table above notes an existing P-U Zone standard requiring all yards to be landscaped. While no yards requirements currently exist for the Power Station, adoption of the PDP will result in a 50-foot setback or yard requirement along Carlsbad Boulevard. Existing landscaping along thePower Station's Carlsbad Boulevard frontage is not continuous, partly because of topography (asteep slope descends from the street to the Power Station) and existing improvements. Staffbelieves, however, that opportunities exist to enhance this frontage, and has conditioned the PDPto require installation of plantings, where feasible, and a decorative replacement wall or fencealong the entire Power Station frontage.g
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SUt' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 32 In addition, while the table provides a comprehensive overview of applicable development standards to the PDP, -the remaining analysis below focuses on the design and location of the proposed desalination plant and appurtenant facilities. The reverse osmosis building, the largest and most visible feature of the proposed desalination facility, would take the place of the southernmost of the three fuel oil storage tanks nearest to but still several hundred feet from Carlsbad Boulevard. (Four other and larger fuel oil storage tanks are located farther east in PDP Planning Area 2 near Interstate 5.) The three tanks are located north of the main Power Station building and stack; only the tank proposed for removal is no longer needed for storage. Each of the three tanks has a diameter of 140-feet and a height of 38-feet as measured from the tops of the containment berms surrounding each tank. To the extent practical, the mature vegetation that currently provides partial screening of these tanks from Carlsbad Boulevard would be preserved in place. Further, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program requires replacement of any vegetation removed. To accommodate the reverse osmosis building, the existing southernmost tank and related piping would be demolished. The existing containment berm and berm top access road around the tank would remain in place, except for grading to compact the berm and remove its inner wall. This berm is approximately three to twenty feet above the surrounding topography to the west and south. As the reverse osmosis building and pretreatment filters would be located within the existing berm, very little visible grading or alteration of the berm is proposed. Besides the reverse osmosis building, the proposed facility also features several appurtenant features, such as an intake pump station, intake and discharge pipelines, electric duct banks, and pretreatment filters -all of which are proposed at or below grade. Small, above ground, appurtenant features are also proposed, including a solids handling building and three transformer enclosures. All of the appurtenant facilities are proposed south and west of the reverse osmosis building in the vicinity of the main Power Station generating building and emissions stack and in locations well away from or not visil;,le to Carlsbad Boulevard and surrounding properties. Details on all desalination facilities are contained in Precise Development Plan Appendix B. Access to all desalination facilities would be from the main power plant entrance on Carlsbad Boulevard. Existing access-roads to the reverse osmosis building are generally adequate in width, but the existing road that runs east of'the building site and parallel with the railroad tracks may need widening. This widening may necessitate the removal of mature eucalyptus trees along the road's east side. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program requires replacement of any removed trees. Access to the desalination facilities will also require installation of a turnaround (cul de sac) at the north end of the existing road and north of the reverse osmosis building site. 'The reverse osmosis building would be approximately 44,552 square-feet and designed to have a flat roof. The roof would reach a maximum of thirty-three (33) feet above existing grade at its center, excluding parapets. This maximum height is consistent with the 35-foot height maximum stated in the Encina Specific Plan and Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan. Neither plan establishes a limit on the number of stories. In comparison to the proposed 33-foot height, the height of the g
( EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SUt' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 33 tank proposed for removal, and the two adjacent tanks that would remain, is 38 feet above existing grade. Most of the building contains equipment related to the desalination process, including a laboratory and workshop space. The west end of the facility also features about 3,500 square feet of second floor office and meeting space. Furthermore, underlying portions of the building are various storage tanks, including a one million gallon product water storage tank. For purposes of height measurement for the existing tanks and proposed building, existing grade is determined to be the elevation of the existing road on top of the existing .berm that would surround the reverse osmosis building. As the building is located in the former tank area and within the berm, the actual lowest floor elevation of the building would be about six feet below the berm top road. Based on a review of the project grading plan in the PDP, the berm appears to have resulted from fill spread out from the east so that the' berm is higher thart land to the south and west but equal or lower in height when compared to topography to the north and east. Since the existing berm is approximately 300 feet from .the lagoon shoreline, the project would easily comply with the proposed Precise Development Plan lagoon setback requirement of SOfeet from the property line along the shoreline. No other setbacks exist or are proposed that would apply to the project. The architectural treatment and materials used on the exterior of the building include cast-inplace concrete, and extensive use of metal and translucent panels, glazing, and steel and metal accents. Exterior colors include grays and greens, and the translucent panels will be illuminated at night by the building's interior lighting. The use of materials and architectural details provides a degree of visual interest so the building is not solely utilitarian in character and instead has the appearance of a modem office or industrial building. The east side of the facility, facing the North County Transit District Railroad corridor would have exterior chemical storage tanks for use in the desalination process that would be enclosed by metal screen panels. Visual simulations of the proposed facility are provided in Figures 4.1-1 through 4.1-5 of EIR 03-05 and in the Precise Development Plan Because the two fuel oil storage tanks and adjacent vegetation to the north of the project site would remain, the reverse osmosis building would be partially obscured from residential areas alongl_he lagoon's north shore. , Besides the reverse osmosis building, the other above ground structures proposed as part of the desalination facility at the .Encina Power Station are a substation, three transformer enclosures, and a solids handling building (for sludge disposal). The transformer enclosures are essentially tall split-face block walls 15-feet high, 15-feet wide, and 30-feet long which serve to screen transformer equipment. The substation building, also proposed of, split-face block, has dimensions of 10-feet high, 30-feet long, and 24-feet wide. The proposed solids waste handling building is an approximately 2,500 square foot, split-face block structure with a maximum height of 19.5-feet. Due to their small size, other existing Power Station improvements and vegetation, and substantial distance from Carlsbad Boulevard, these appurtenant desalination facilities would likely not be readily visible, if at all, to residents or motorists. As proposed, the project is not considered to have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, or a substantially damaging effect on scenic resources, because the proposed structure would
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Sl.J.t' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 34 represent a visual enhancement over what is currently located on the site. The project EIR includes mitigation measures to ensure facility design and screening are implemented in a manner consistent with approved plans and acceptable to the City of Carlsbad. Project architecture is compliant with the quality design requirement of the Scenic Corridor Guidelines, both from Carlsbad Boulevard and the North County Transit District railroad tracks. Minimal lighting is proposed as part of the project, and most would be primarily for security purposes in and around the reverse osmosis building. The project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) contains a measure limiting exterior project lighting to purposes of operation, security and safety only and to a design that ensures it is shielded from surrounding areas; it also requires Poseidon Resources to submit a lighting plan for all proposed facilities prior to building permit issuance. Thus, the project lighting would be consistent with Encina Specific Plan 144 standards. The MMRP also contains a measure requiring screening of all exterior mechanical equipment, which also ensure compliance with Specific Plan standards. Parking for the proposed reverse osmosis building is provided in a thirteen space parking lot adjacent to the south side and main entrance to the building. Loading and interior equipment access areas are also proposed here and on the building's north side. As noted in the development standards table above, because of the unique uses at the Encina Power Station, including the proposed desalination plant, desalination plant parking needs have been determined based on an analysis of plant employees, visitors, and vendors. Furthermore, as the south side is the primary building entrance, staff has conditioned the Redevelopment Permit to require landscaping of the proposed fill area along the south border of the parking lot and pretreatment filters. D.South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment PlanThe South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan (SCCRP), adopted in 2000, establishes a 555-acre redevelopment area that includes the PDP area. The SCCRP is in effect through 2045. The stated goals that are applicable to the project include: •Eliminating blight and environmental deficiencies in the Redevelopment Project Area.•Facilitating the redevelopment of the Encina power generating facility to a smaller, moreefficient power generating plant.•Strengthening the economic base of the Project Area and the community by theinstallation of needed on-and off-site improvements to stimulate newcommercial/industrial expansion, employment and economic growth.•Developing new beach and coastal recreational opportunities.•Increasing parking and open space amenities.SCCRP Section 527 requires all property within the Redevelopment Plan boundaries to be developed, redeveloped, or rehabilitated in conformance with the goals and provisions of the Plan and the requirements and regulations of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and any other state or local requirements, such as guidelines and specific plans. Further, Section 601 indicates the permitted land uses within the Plan boundaries are those permitted by the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and all other state and local requirements.
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Sl.JP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 35 The SCCRP identifies the existing power plant as a blighting influence; consequently, including the Power Station within the Redevelopment Plan allows the Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission to assist the property owner in eliminating this condition. It also allows the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to assist with the possible future decommissioning of the existing power plant and construction of a smaller power generating plant as well as help with other public improvements and redevelopment of the site. Exhibit C of the SCCRP lists proposed projects and infrastructure improvements. Although this list does not include a new power generating station, it does identify "Commercial Rehabilitation and Economic Development Programs", such as the development of modern industrial, commercial, and utility facilities. An amendment to SCCRP Section:-601, passed and adopted in November 2005, states that specific uses, including a "desalination plant" and "generation and transmission of electrical energy" may be permitted in the Redevelopment Plan only if the Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds all of the following are satisfied: •The Commission approves a finding that the land use serves an extraordinary publicpurpose;•That the Commission approves a precise development plan or other appropriate planningpermit or regulatory document; and•That the Commission has issued a Redevelopment Permit.The project will achieve key goals of the redevelopment plan including, "developing new beach and coastal recreational opportunities" and "enhancing recreational functions in the Project [SCCRP] Area," through the public access and recreation dedications contemplated in the project and conditioned in the proposed Precise Development Plan. The project will also further the redevelopment plan goal of "strengthening the economic base of the Project Area and the community by installation of needed on-and off-site improvements to stimulate new commercial/industrial expansion, employment and economic growth." Securing a reliable water supply will ensure the economic health of the entire community while serving to attract new water dependent businesses from the high-tech and bio-technology industries. The desalination facility will not hinder the SCCRP goal of "facilitating the redevelopment of the Encina power generating facjJity to a smaller, more efficient power generating plant." Although any changes in the power plant configuration will require additional environmental review and approval, a siting study was conducted for the desalination plant where five sites within the power station property were reviewed to find a location for the desalination facility that was sensitive to the redevelopment plan goal and would not interfere with any future changes in the location of the power plant. The results of this study, which are summarized and illustrated on pages 4.8-16-4.8-18 of the Final EIR's Land Use/Planning Section, condudes that the proposed site of the desalination plant (reverse osmosis building) is off to the side of the existing power station in a portion of the Encina Power Station that is constrained by the location of the railroad, the lagoon and other oil storage tanks. As noted in the Final EIR, this location leaves the majority of the Encina Power Station open for potential redevelopment at some future date, and also creates no significant impacts to the relocation of the power plant to a site to the east of the railroad tracks or to the infrastructure needed to serve a power plant at this location. g
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJJ:> 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 36
Besides the need for a Redevelopment Permit and Precise Development Plan, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission must also make a finding that the proposed desalination plant use serves an extraordinary public purpose. To this end, the Planning Commission Resolution No. 6091, recommending approval of the Redevelopment Permit, contains an extensive evidence to support making this finding. A brief summary of this evidence is provided below.
a.Reliable Water Supply: A reliable water supply is important for quality of lifeand economic stability in the City of Carlsbad. The project provides the City ofCarlsbad with an extraordinary benefit of providing many of its citizens with areliable water supply that is not subject to the variations of drought or politicaland legal constraints on water supplies and that is able to supply the CarlsbadMunicipal Water District with 100% of its potable water needs. According to theWater Purchase Agreement, the desalination plant will provide a reliable watersupply for 30 years with two possible 30-year extensions
b.Redundant Water Supply: The project will provide water supply redundancyfor the City of Carlsbad, strengthening security and reliability of water supply forresidents and businesses. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District will maintain itsmembership in and right to purchase water at the CW A, while receiving 100% ofits potable water supply needs from the Project, thereby creating a redundantsupply of water available in the event of catastrophe or unforeseen circumstances.
c.Higher Quality Drinking Water: The Project will provide high quality drinkingwater that will compare favorably with the water supply that can be purchasedfrom the CW A. The project will deliver a drinking water supply to the City ofCarlsbad that meets all State and Federal health standards, as well as provide areduction in the total dissolved solids (TDS) compared to imported water from theColorado River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta provided by the CW A.
d.Economic Benefits: The project will achieve the South Carlsbad CoastalRedevelopment Plan goal to strengthen the economic base of the RedevelopmentPlan Area and the community. The project will provide the City with desalinatedwater at a predictable and reasonable price through the long-term Water PurchaseAgreement, which sets agreed-upon water rates. The stability created by thisreliable water source is an extraordinary benefit given the variations of drought orpolitical and legal constraints on water supplies.
The project will generate up to $2.4 million per year in increased property taxrevenue. Because the project site is located within, the South CarlsbadRedevelopment Project, an estimated $2.0 million per year of the tax revenue willbe allocated directly to the Redevelopment Agency. These funds can be used foradditional redevelopment activities within the City to benefit residents andvisitors. The project will also generate up to $2.9 million per year in increasedbusiness tax revenue.
e.Positive Economic Impact on Ability to Attract and Retain Business: Theproject will create a drought-resistant, reliable water supply for the City of
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 - _ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 37 Carlsbad that will provide the stability necessary to attract and retain high-tech and biotechnology businesses which are dependent on a reliable water supply for their research and manufacturing processes. These businesses provide high skill, high wage jobs in the City of Carlsbad that enhance the overall economy of the community. f.Acquisition of Land for Public Purpose: The project will advance the goals ofthe South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan and the California Coastal Act todevelop new beach and coastal recreational opportunities. The project isconsistent with and includes elements specifically intended to advance the goalsof the State of California and the City related to the protection, maintenance, andenhancement of the -overall quality of the coastal zone environment, whilemaximizing public recreational opportunities along the coast. The project willachieve the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan goals to enhancecommercial and recreational functions and increase parking and open spaceamenities in the project area.g.Restore and Enhance the Marine Environment: As a wholesale water supplierregulated by the California Department of Health Services, Poseidon Resourceswill be subject to the provisions of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act thatrequire restoration, protection and enhancement of watersheds upstream of asource of drinking water supply. As a result, Poseidon has been and will likelyremain actively involved in activities aimed at protecting, restoring and enhancingthe health and vitality of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, the surrounding 30 square milewatershed upstream of the Lagoon, and the near shore environment. Throughboard participation, financial contributions, and activity involvement, Poseidoncurrently supports non-profit organizations that protect the lagoon habitat,including the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation and Hubbs Sea World ResearchInstitute. Additionally, the project proposes to deed restrict approximately 2 acresof vacant land located on the north side of the lagoon between the HubbsSea World Research Institute and nearby railroad tracks for uses such as marineresearch and expansion of the Hubbs facility.h.Regional Leadership Role: Creation of a 50 million gallon a day (mgd)desalination facility will enhance the position of the City of Carlsbad as aStatewide and Regional leader in water supply by creating a new supply called forin the State Department of Water Resources 2005 California Water Plan and theCW A's Urban Water Management Plan.E.Development AgreementTo strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted the Development Agreement Act, California Government Code sections 65864 et seq. The Development Agreement Act authorizes any city to enter into binding development agreements establishing certain development rights in real property with persons having legal or equitable interests in such property. California courts have held that development agreements
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Sl.JJ' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e38 are lawful and legitimate exercises of legislative power that properly deal with complex and recurring land use issues. A development agreement is a contract that binds both the City and the developer, setting forth the applicable terms and conditions under which the project may proceed. So long as the developer is not in default, the City may not change the City's land use rules applicable to the project ( except as provided in the development agreement). In return, the developer is obligated to perform its obligations as set forth in the development agreement. Normally, rights for a project vest when a building permit is issued and substantial expenditures are made in reliance on the permit. With a development agreement, however, rights to develop the project for the length (term) of the agreement are vested when the project approvals are given (assuming these approvals include the approval of the proposed development agreement). Pursuant to the authority conferred in the Development Agreement Act, the City has adopted Chapter 21.70 of its Municipal Code, establishing procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements. In addition, the City Council has adopted Policy No. 56, establishing a policy regarding the requirements which must be met before the City Council will approve a development agreement. A development agreement has been prepared as part of the project review process to provide both Poseidon Resources and the City with assurances concerning the conditions of development and public benefits related to the project This is the first development agreement to be considered by the City since the LEGOLAND development agreement adopted in January, 1996. Prior to the LEGOLAND development agreement, the City had not entered into any development agreements that were not related to affordable housing projects. In this case, the proposed Development Agreement applies to only that portion of the project, as defined by a leasehold agreement between Cabrillo Power and Poseidon Resources, related to the construction of a desalination facility. The proposed desalination facility is a well-planned, comprehensive development involving more than one building, will require a substantial expenditure by Poseidon of time, predevelopment costs and "holding" costs prior to the approval of permits and other land use entitlements, and will require a substantial expenditure by Poseidon to design and construct product water conveyance and other infrastructure facilities that will benefit the .community. The proposed Development Agreement would give Poseidon Resources the "vested" right to develop a desalination facility in accordance with the Specific Plan, the Precise Development Plan covering the Cabrillo Power property, all related approvals and the conditions imposed on those approvals in return for certain commitments being made to the City as discussed later in this portion of the staff report. , The proposed Development Agreement was drafted and negotiated by a staff consisting of the City Attorney, outside legal counsel, Administrative Services Director, Public Works Director, Community Development Director and Planning Staff. The Development Agreement is attached to this report. However, the major features or elements of the Agreement are summarized below:
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SUP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 39 1.The term of the proposed Agreement is 40 years from the approval of the Agreement.The approval is deemed to have occurred at the later of (i) the date the DevelopmentAgreement ordinance becomes effective, (ii) the date the Agreement is fully executed bythe parties, (iii) the date the Coastal Commission approves the Agreement, or (iv) the dateCabrillo has consented to the Agreement.2.The Agreement may be assigned or transferred to any person or entity by PoseidonResources in a number of instances, with the prior written consent of the City.3.The City's rights to receive an economic benefit from the project are protected even inthe event of the purchase ( either through voluntary sale or condemnation) by agovernmental body.4.The use of the property encumbered by the Development Agreement is limited to thoseuses set forth in the development approvals for the site.5.The Agreement provides certain vested rights to Poseidon including protection from:a.Subsequent growth control measures;b.Changes in the applicable general or specific plans, zoning, subdivision orbuilding regulations adopted by the City which alter or amend the approvalsprovided under the EIR, Precise Development Plan, Encina Specific Plan, CoastalDevelopment Permit, Redevelopment Permit, and a number of other actions listedin greater detail in section 1.1.13 of the Development Agreement; andc.Any rules or regulations adopted by the City that are inconsistent with thedevelopment approvals related to the project, if those rules or regulations have theeffect of preventing or materially affecting the development, financing,construction or operation of a desalination facility that is otherwise in compliancewith the development approvals listed in (b) above.The City's emergency powers are not limited by this section. Any actions the City might take to respond to an unforeseeable emergency specifically are exceptions to Poseidon's vested rights. 6.A number of rights are reserved by the City. A complete list can be found in sections3.2.l, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 of the Agreement, including the right to:a.Apply processing fees that represent the actual cost of proces);es related to thedevelopment applications for the project;b.Apply procedural requirements;c.Apply construction standards; d.Impose non-discriminatory subsequent development extractions;e.Exercise all statutory police powers; andf.Impose emergency measures related to the health, safety, welfare of thecommunity arising from an emergency declared by the President of the UnitedStates, Governor of the State of California, or the Mayor of the City of Carlsbad.7.The Agreement establishes that, for the proposed desalination project, existing land useregulations shall govern the permitted uses, density and intensity, maximum height and
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SUP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -_ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e40 size of buildings, and construction standards. However, subsequent development applications shall be subject to the land use regulations and processes in place at the time of the application, provided that such subsequent land use regulations do not conflict with the Development Plan and do not have a material adverse effect on the development of the project. 8.Poseidon retains the right to develop the project at its own order, rate andtime; however,the Agreement does not modify the performance requirements found in the WaterPurchase Agreement (Appendix B to the Final EIR).9.If any provision of the Agreement conflicts with future state or federal law, theconflicting section of the Agreement shall be modified or suspended, as may benecessary, to comply with the applicable law.10.The Agreement requires Poseidon to operate and maintain the project in accordance withall applicable state and federal environmental laws, notwithstanding any exemption thatPoseidon may otherwise have under international trade rules.11.The Agreement does not limit the authority of other public agencies.12.In recognition of the substantial public benefit provided by the project, Poseidon and itssuccessors in interest agree to pay a mitigation fee to the City equal to the property taxesthat the City, Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), or Redevelopment Agency(RDA) would receive from the construction, ownership, use and occupancy of theproject. This fee shall be waived so long as Poseidon or its successors in interest shallpay property taxes (when due), or if any successor in interest has an agreement with theCity with respect to payment of the mitigation fee.13.The City agrees that it will not levy any discriminatory fee against the project.14.Poseidon's obligations under the Agreement shall be secured by a deed of trustencumbering the project.15.The City will cooperate with Poseidon in obtaining subsidies, grants or external fundingfor the project. However, the City has no obligation to use public financing for anyportion of the project.16.The City will provide, without charge, access to public rights of way for AppurtenantFacilities to deliver water to the CMWD. However, this requirement does not apply tothe City's municipal golf course property. The Agreement does not require the City toprovide public rights of way free of charge to purchasers other than the CMWD whoreceive Product Water that is transported through the Appurtenant Facilities.17.If the Plant Facilities are relocated to property not covered by this Agreement, Poseidonshall pay liquidated damages to the City of $15 million. This amount will be reduced by$1 million for each year that Poseidon pays the property taxes or mitigation fees referredto above (Section 4.2.1 of the Agreement).
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -_ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e41 The proposed Development Agreement is required to be in compliance with Section 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Chapter 21. 70 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. It also must be reviewed for consistency with City Council Policy No. 56. As required by Chapter 21.70, the Administrative Services Director (Finance Director), City Attorney, and Planning Director have reviewed the Development Agreement and find that it does conform to all of the applicable state laws, City ordinances and City policies. In addition, the City Attorney has reviewed the Agreement and has determined that it legally conforms to all applicable state laws, City ordinances and City policies. As required by State Law, Chapter 21.70, and Council Policy No. 56, which provide the procedures and standards for a development agreement, the proposed Development Agreement implements and legally references the other project approvals being considered. It does not permit anything that is inconsistent or does not conform to these other approvals. It does not change or modify the zoning, General Plan designations, the Specific Plan regulations or the Precise Development Plan being considered under the other project actions. It will not become effective unless the other project approvals are given. Therefore, it is consistent with the General Plan, the zoning, the applicable Specific Plan and the Precise Development Plan for the Property. It further is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land-use practices and will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Development Agreement incorporates other project approvals, which have been analyzed and found not to have a negative effect on the general public health, safety, and welfare. Furthermore, the Development Agreement does not prevent the City from imposing emergency measures related to the health, safety, welfare of the community, nor does the agreement limit the authority of other agencies. Finally, the Development Agreement requires the Developer to operate and maintain the project in accordance with all applicable state and federal environmental laws, notwithstanding any exemption the Developer may otherwise have under international trade rules. The Administrative Services Director's analysis of the project and the Development Agreement concluded that the development of the project will have significant impacts on City operations and rights of way, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, and the Redevelopment Agency. The Agreement defines for Posei�on Resources the development standards that will be applied for the project, while defining for the City, CMWD and RDA the economic benefits that will be received from the project. The project is expected to cost $250 million, or more, to construct. Assuming that the assessed value applied t0 the project reflects the cost of construction, the annual property tax payment will be approximately $2.5 million. Roughly 80% (about $2 million) of the tax revenue from the project will go to the RDA. This revenue will be used to fund projects within the RDA including road improvements, water distribution facilities, sewer facilities, and support of affordable housing programs. These projects are more specifically defined and identified in Exhibit C of the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, the proposed project is in the interests of the City. Many of the terms and conditions of the proposed Agreement are intended to preserve for the benefit of the City, CMWD, and RDA the property tax revenues that will be paid by the project. The Agreement establishes a mitigation fee that will be paid by Poseidon, or its successors in interest, in the event that property taxes are not paid by the owners of the project, such as in the
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 - _ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e42 event of the purchase of the plant ( either through voluntary sale or condemnation) by a governmental body. This mitigation fee is sufficient to fund all, or a significant portion, of the most beneficial of the Redevelopment Plan projects to be undertaken. The mitigation fee and property tax revenue have been secured for the City, CMWD and RDA through the proposed Development Agreement, the Water Purchase Agreement between the CMWD and Poseidon (September 2004), and the Agreement Memorializing Certain Understandings and Establishing a framework for Cooperation between the City, CMWD, RDA and San Diego County Water Authority (April 2005). Therefore, the proposed Development Agreement includes legally binding commitments by Poseidon to provide substantial public benefits over and above those which Poseidon otherwise would be obligated to provide as a condition of approval in the absence of the Development Agreement. For all these reasons, staff finds that the Development Agreement, which provides more certainty that the project will be built and which allows the applicant to proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations and Project conditions, is justified. It is unlikely the proposed project, including the public benefits to be derived therefrom, would occur when and as provided in the proposed Development Agreement in the absence of the vesting assurances incorporated in the proposed Development Agreement. F.Local Coastal ProgramThe project affects two parts of the City's Coastal Zone: the Mello II segment and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon segment. The latter segment encompasses the Encina Power Station, the lagoon, and property around the lagoon. The desalination plant and appurtenant facilities located onsite of the Power Station, as well as some water conveyance pipelines proposed in the vicinity of the lagoon and along Cannon Road, are located in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan segment. Pipelines proposed in the vicinity of the Flower Fields, near College Boulevard, and north of the developing municipal golf course are in the Mello II segment. Municipal Code Chapter 21.203, Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, is also applicable to the project since the Overlay applies to all Coastal Zone properties. A map showing the relationship of the project to Coastal Zone boundaries is attached to Resolution No. 6092. While the City has authority to issue the necessary coastal development permit for pipelines in the Mello II segment, the Coastal Commission has retained the authority to issue the coastal development permit for pipelines and the desalination facility in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan segment. Neverthelesst staffs analysis of the project's compliance with the Local Coastal Program includes review of this segment. Overall, staff finds the project is consistent with applicable Local Coastal Program policies as follows: •Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan Segment:
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 - _ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e43 o The Precise Development Plan regulates uses, including the proposed desalinationfacility,-that are consistent with those uses shown on the Agua Hedionda LandUse Plan's Land Use Map.o The dedication of a public access easement for the Fishing Beach is consistentwith Plan policies 6.5 and 6.7, which encourage the Encina fishing area on theOuter Lagoon to be maintained and present recreational uses of the lagoon to beexpanded where feasible.o The desalination plant reverse osmosis building complies with the Plan's buildingheight maximum of 35-feet.•Mello II SegmentoThe project complies-with Policy 2-6 -City Support of Efficient AgriculturalWater Usage, which states: "The City will take measures to reduce the reliance ofagricultural users on imported water." This project provides the city and regionwith an innovative and alternative source of water that does not rely on importedwater. While reclaimed water will also serve non-agricultural users, the fact thatanother source of water will· be available to the various water users in the city thatis not part of imported water supplies, makes this project consistent with thiscoastal policy.o The project complies with Policy 3-1 -Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan,which states: "The Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan is a comprehensive,citywide program to identify how the city, in cooperation with federal and stateagencies, can preserve the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive biologicalresources within the city and the Coastal zone". This project is in compliance withthe provisions of the HMP, as outlined in EIR 03-05 and also as reflected in thefindings for Planning Commission Resolution No. 6094 approving HMPP 05-08.•Coastal Resource Protection Overlay ZoneoThe project complies with Municipal Code Section 21.203.040 A. regardingpreservation of steep slopes with native vegetation as it does not impact any suchfeatures. Instead, pipelines are generally proposed in city rights-of-way, in gentlysloping areas without sensitive habitat or via trenchless drilling constructionmethods whi�j} do not disturb slopes or vegetation.o The project complies with Municipal Code Section 21.203.040 B. regardingdrainage and erosion as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programincludes mitigation measures to address drainage, erosion control, sedimentcontrol and stormwater quality, as set forth in the National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) permit and other required standards and permits.o The project complies with Municipal Code Section 21t203.040 E. regardingimprovements in the floodplain in that only the project's underground pipelinesare proposed for installation in Cannon Road where it crosses floodplainboundaries.•Coastal ActoThe proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies ofChapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that project pipelines will be installed
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e44 underground and therefore will not impact public access opportunities or recreational resources. o Public dedications in the vicinity of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the PacificOcean are consistent with Coastal Act Policies regarding public access tocoastline and recreational features.o The project is subject to the Mitigation and Monitoring Program for EIR 03-05,which provides mitigation to assure consistency with Local Coastal Programpolicies regarding environmentally sensitive habitats, geology, and water quality.Furthermore, the project has been conditioned to obtain a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission. G.Special Use Permit (Floodplain)Projects located within any area of special flood hazards must obtain approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) by the floodplain administrator (the City Planning Commission). The intent of these regulations is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions. Chapter 21.110 states that "Flood losses are caused by the cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special flood hazards which increase flood heights and velocities, and when inadequately anchored, damage uses in other areas." A pipeline alignment proposed in the right of way of Cannon Road between Faraday Avenue and College Boulevard is within the 100-year floodplain (an area of land that would be inundated by a flood having a one percent chance of occurring in any given year). A pipeline occurring within the floodplain, however, would not be expected to impede or redirect flows because it would be placed underground. The proposed project would not measurably alter the existing 100-year floodplain boundary and would not require any variance from the Floodplain Regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would be in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. Installation of the pipeline will require the temporary above ground placement of construction equipment, pipes, and excavated earth. Accordingly, a project mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) requires pipeline construction within any area the City of Carlsbad identifies as a 100-year flood hazard to occur only during dry months (May 1 -September 30). The measure allows the City to waive this restriction if Poseidon Resources satisfactorily demonstrates, as determined by the City, that construction would not impede or redirect flood flows and would not expose people or structures to flooding. Such demonstration would occur before the City issues grading or other permits to permit construction in the flood hazard area in the wet months and may require \he applicant to submit plans and details regarding the type, location, quantities and duration of construction equipment and materials as wen as any other information that the City may require. The MMRP is incorporated as a condition of the proposed resolution for the special use permit. H.Habitat Management Plan Permit
g
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 - _ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e45 In late 2004, the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act and California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. As a result, the City was granted authorization and issued a permit for the incidental take of species of concern covered by the HMP. These incidental takes of HMP species of concern are processed through an HMPP, the findings and conditions of which are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6094 attached. All project impacts to HMP covered species are associated with the project's proposed pipeline alignments. In the City of Carlsbad, impacts primarily affect isolated patches of coastal sage scrub and annual (non-native) grassland. Coastal Zone impacts on native habitat are limited to 0.90 acres of coastal sage scrub. Final EIR Figures 4.3-1 to 4.3-11 consist of aerial photographs overlaid with vegetation information that identifies all vegetation impacts, including those outside Carlsbad. As summarized in the EIR, the project's relationship to HMP standards and the project's habitat impacts in the City of Carlsbad are as follows: •All direct impacts to covered species are temporary and affect isolated patches or stripsof native and non-native habitat along roadways or in developed areas•Disturbed native habitat will be revegetated to its pre-construction condition. Mitigationratios for all impacts are also established in the MMRP and are consistent with the HMP;for mitigation ratios greater than 1: 1, the MMRP requires the purchase of mitigationbank credits or habitat acquisition in the project vicinity.•Because of the temporary nature of project impacts and absence of above ground projectfeatures that could preclude linkages or movements, no indirect impacts are anticipatedon habitat linkages or wildlife corridors.•HMP Hardline preserve areas are crossed by the proposed pipelines only through the useof trenchless drilling construction techniques or in existing or future roadways. Forpipeline alignments planned in future roadways, such as College Boulevard betweenCannon Road and El Camino Real, pipeline construction would not precede roadwayconstruction.•No HMP Special Resource Areas are impacted.•Project impacts to sensitive plants (San Diego County viguiera) are not consideredsignificant because the project would not result in a substantial reduction of the plant.•The project would�result in the temporary loss of suitable habitat for the coastalCalifornia gnatcatcher, a significant impact. Mitigation of the temporary impact tocoastal sage scrub requires replacement at a 2: 1 ratio and restriction of constructionduring the breeding season.•Mitigation requires best management practices to limit indirect temporary impacts due toconstruction ( e.g., construction impacts such as dust, noise, erosion).,, As identified above, the proposed project has avoided and minimized impacts to habitat. With mitigation measures inducted in the project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, all identified impacts can be shown to be consistent with the HMP and reduced to a level of insignificance. Further, the project is consistent with Municipal Code Chapter 21.210, Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements, and is conditioned consistent with the management, maintenance, and monitoring standards of Section 21.210.14. g
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 - _ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 46
I.Growth Management
Because the project proposes various pipeline alignments, it crosses several Local Facility Management Zones, including zones 3, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18. However, the proposed pipelines do not generate any facility plan improvement requirements or funding. Therefore, the project's consistency with the City's Growth Management Program need only be analyzed for the desalination facility itself. The desalination plant is located in Zone 1, as is the majority of the Encina Power Station. The northwest comer of the Power Station, in the vicinity of the cooling water discharge pond and aquaculture facility, is in Zone 3.
The zones identified above implement the Local Facilities and Improvements Plan/Local Facilities Management Plans (LFMP) for various geographic areas of Carlsbad. The LFMPs were adopted to ensure that growth occurred in concert with public facilities and service systems. The City's fire, schools, libraries and parks and recreation performance standards were developed assuming population growth occurs through the construction of additional dwelling units. The desalination facility will not directly result in the provision of additional residential units or substantial employment opportunities that could be directly tied to additional growth. Therefore, the project would not conflict with LFMP standards or thresholds for city administrative facilities, fire, schools, libraries and park and recreation facilities. Additionally, while the school performance standard is population based, the project will still pay school fees charged according to the square footage of the desalination plant.
Thresholds regarding sewer, wastewater treatment, drainage and water conveyance would be applicable to this project as it would require the use of these services and public facilities. Each of these performance standards state that adequate capacity in local public facilities must be demonstrated and/or provided concurrent with development. The project's impacts on the capacity (and/or planned capacity) of the sewer and wastewater treatment services are identified as significant; however mitigation is proposed to reduce these impacts to less than significant by proposing caps on the amount of combined waste discharge from the desalination facility and by taking steps to ensure desalinated water does not negatively impact total dissolved solids levels at local water recycling facilities.
With regards to drainage ag.9-water conveyance facilities, the LFMP for Zone 3 (the facilities zone in which the desalination plant is proposed) states that existing Zone-wide facilities are adequate and requires as mitigation the developer to construct necessary drainage improvements and pay appropriate water district fees, for which the project has been conditioned accordingly.
Furthermore, the LFMP performance standards for open space and circulation are also applicable to the project. As stated in the Zone 3 LFMP, the open space threshold :for Zone 3 has already been met. Regarding circulation, the relevant threshold requires a project's traffic impacts to not cause any road segment or intersection to exceed service level C during off-peak hours and service level D during peak hours. Project traffic impacts are short-term and will occur primarily during construction of the plant and off-site pipelines rather than plant operation. (During operation, the Final EIR calculates that the desalination plant will generate only 120 average daily trips.) These impacts are reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures that require Poseidon Resources throughout construction to comply with traffic control plans and demonstrate required levels of service will be maintained.
( EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 - _ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e47
In summary, implementation of the Precise Development Plan, including the desalination facility, is consistent with the Zone 1 and Zone 3 LFMPs and their performance standards; amendment of the Zone 1 and Zone 3 LFMPs is not necessary to implement the Precise Development Plan. Project compliance is summarized below.
LFMP Zone 1 and Zone 3-Performance Standards & Pro_iect Compliance
Performance Standard Proiect Compliance Administrative Facilities NI A. This standard does not apply to non-residential uses Library NIA. This standard does not apply to non-residential uses. Wastewater Treatment Effects on wastewater treatment are discussed and mitigated in the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. Parks NI A. This standard does not aooly to non-residential uses. Drainage Negligible Effect. The Encina,Power Station has a Storm Water Pollution Plan in place. The desalination facility will also implement a SWPP.
Circulation Negligible effect. The desalination facility will only add 120 Average Daily Trips to the traffic circulation of the area.
Fire NIA. This standard does not apply to non-residential uses. Open Space No effect on open space compliance.
Schools NIA. This standard does not apply to non-residential uses. Sewer Effects on sewer capacity are discussed and mitigated in the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. Water Beneficial effect anticipated. The desalination facility is anticipated to substantially improve the quantity and quality of the water supply available to the City, neighboring water agencies and the region. Desalinated water is required to meet all federal, state, regional and local standards.
V.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for any project that may have a potential to cause a significant impact to the environment. On January 20, 2004 the Carlsbad City Council directed the Planning Department to move forward with the preparation of an EIR for the proposed project and hired Dudek & Associates, Inc. to conduct the independent environmental review. Accordingly, an EIR has been prepared for the project as required by CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) of the Municipal Code. The EIR addresses the environmental . impacts associated with all applications for the project and analyzes all project components, including the water conveyance facilities located outside Carlsbad in the cities of Oceanside and Vista. The EIR requires review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and subsequent certification by the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
EIRs are informational documents "which will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project" (Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines). The purpose of this EIR is to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposal, specifically the proposed desalination plant and related water conveyance
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 48 facilities that would be located off site of the Encina Power Station. It is intended for use by both the decision makers and the public. The lead agency for the project is the City of Carlsbad. The environmental review process formally began in April 2004 with the release of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR followed by a 30-day public comment period and scoping meetings. The NOP was distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies, as well as other agencies and members of the public. The afternoon and evening scoping meetings were held on April 28, 2004, at the City's Faraday Center. Advance notice of the meetings was given in the NOP. At the scoping sessions, the public was invited to comment on the scope and content of the EIR. Oral and written comments were received at the scoping sessions. A copy of the NOP and the written comments received in response to the NOP and public scoping sessions are included in Appendix A to the Final EIR. After the environmental research was compiled, a Draft EIR was released for a 45-day public comment period that began May 16, 2005. A Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR was published in a local newspaper. The Notice included information on locations, including the City's website and libraries in Carlsbad, Oceanside, and Vista, where the Draft EIR would be available to the public. The public comment period was extended an additional 15 days in response to requests from members of the public. This comprehensive review process afforded by the public comment period produced input from 59 individuals and organizations. The City considered and responded to public comments on the Draft EIR. The City determined that recirculation of the Draft EIR was not required. Responses to comments received on the Draft EIR are included in Volume 2 of the Final EIR. The City released the Final EIR for public review on December 9, 2005. The Final EIR was distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies as well as all agencies and members of the public that submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. The City made public the release of the EIR through an announcement on its website and in a public hearing notice for a December 21, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. The public hearing notice, published in a local newspaper, provided information on locations, including the City's website and libraries in Carlsbad, Oceanside, and Vista, where the Final EIR would be available to the public. The public hearing notice also provided a description of the Project and the purpose of the Planning Commission meeting, which was to provide the Planning Commission with a Project introduction and overview and offer the public an opportunity to comment on the Project. The EIR includes an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the following issue areas: •Aesthetics•Biological Resources, marine and terrestrial•Cultural and Paleontological Resources•Geology and Soils•Hazards and Hazardous Materials•Hydrology and Water Quality•Land Use and Planning•Transportation and Traffic•Public Utilities and Service Systems
( EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 49 The EIR concludes that the project will result in: •Unavoidable significant cwnulative air quality and indirect growth inducing impacts;•Significant aesthetic, biological, air quality, hydrology/water quality, geology/soils,hazards/hazardous materials, archeological and paleontological impacts that can bemitigated to a less than significant impact level; and•Less than significant impactsAdditionally, the EIR includes other substantive sections required by CEQA, such as an executive summary, project description, cumulative effects, effects found not to be significant, growth inducing effects and alternatives. As noted above, the EIR identifies two unavoidable significant impacts: cwnulative air quality impacts and indirect growth inducing impacts. With regards to air quality, the EIR notes that because of their long-term nature, emissions from operations of the desalination plant (including all appurtenant facilities) for pollutants for which the San Diego air basin is not in attainment with state and federal standards are considered cwnulatively significant. The San Diego air basin is currently in non-attainment for PM10 and ozone, and NOx and reactive organic compounds (ROC) are ozone precursors. Long-term operational emissions will largely be caused indirectly through the desalination plant's use of electrical energy, the generation of which causes emissions of pollutants. Given that the electricity the desalination plant uses could come from a variety of sources (including, for example, geothermal or nuclear plants that emit little or no pollutants) and could ultimately be generated outside of the San Diego air basin, it is very difficult to quantify what contribution to a cumulative impact the project will have. However, it is likely that at least part of the mix of electricity that the desalination plant uses will come from pollutant-emitting sources located in the San Diego air basin. In that case, the desalination plant will contribute to a significant cwnulative impact to air quality regarding PM10and ozone. There are no feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented on a project-by-project basis that would reduce this cumulative impact to below a level of significance. Therefore, no measures are available to the project that could feasibly avoid or substantially lessen this effect. In addition, the Final EIR identified potentially significant and, unmitigable impacts regarding indirect growth inducement. A discussion on these impacts is found in Section 9.0 of the Final EIR and under the Growth Inducement Issue discussion below. Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant, unmitigated environmental effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15043 and 15093. While the primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public of the environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance, CEQA recognizes and authorizes the approval of projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lesseried or avoided. The Lead Agency must explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project through the Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the project's general· social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the Lead Agency's informed conclusion g
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Sl.Ji> 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 50 to approve the project. The CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are attached to the Planning Commission Resolution for the EIR. During the Draft EIR public comment period, the following issues generated the most interest. The following is a summary of those issues and an explanation of how they were dealt with and evaluated in the EIR. Issue: Impingement and Entrainment Impingement impacts upon marine organisms occur as a result of organisms being trapped against screens, filters or other mechanisms associated with a seawater intake system, resulting in organism damage or mortality-due to the pressure exerted from the flow of water. Entrainment effects occur when small planktonic organisms are drawn through the intake system, and suffer damage or mortality as a result of pressure changes, mechanical damage, temperature increases, or turbulence in the water flow. Will the desalination facility cause an increase in impingement and entrainment mortality of marine organisms? Discussion: The EIR (Biological Resources Section, pages 4.3-34 to 4.3-43) determined that the desalination facility will not cause any increase in impingement mortality and that entrainment mortality of planktonic organisms will not significantly increase above current conditions produced by Encina Power Station operations. The Power Station currently operates a seawater intake system that draws seawater into the facility to cool steam turbines. Water for the desalination plant is taken after the water has been used to cool the turbines and before it is discharged back to the ocean. The Carlsbad Desalination Plant will not have separate direct lagoon or ocean intake and screening facilities, and will only use cooling water that is already screened by the Encina Power Stadon intake. The EIR found that the desalination plant feedwater intake will not increase the volume, nor the velocity of the power station cooling water intake nor will it increase the number of organisms impinged by the Encina Power Station cooling water intake structure. With regards to entrainment, the EIR concluded that the small proportion of marine organisms lost to entrainment as a result of the desalination pl.ant would not have a substantial effect on the species' ability to sustain their populations because of their widespread distribution and high reproductive potential. The small proportion of organisms lost represents an incremental entrainment effect on larval fishes from the desalination plant operations on the order of between 0.01 and 0.28 percent (page 4.3-42). Therefore, the Carlsbad Desalination Plant will not cause any additional impingement losses or significant entrainment losses to ,the marine organisms impinged and entrained by the Encina Power Station. The conclusions in the EIR were reached by Tenera Environmental, recognized by the State Regional Water Quality Control Boards and California Energy Commission as experts in evaluation of entrainment and impingement studies. Issue: Power Plant Operation
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Sl.Jt' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 51 Three main concerns were raised in comments to the EIR related to Power Plant Operation: 1.What happens to the desalination facility if the Encina Power Station shuts down?2.Would the intake of seawater to the Encina Power Station change due to the co-locationof the desalination facility?3.How will regulatory constraints on power plants that use ocean water cooling,specifically new regulations related to Clean Water Act Section 316(b) permits, alter theseawater flow to the power plant and the desalination facility?Discussion: I.What happens if the Encina Power Station shuts down?There are no plans by the owner of Encina Power Station, Cabrillo Power, to initiate changes, reduce the power plant electricity output, or modify the current and historical power plant mode of operation or to discontinue or significantly reduce the use of seawater for cooling purposes. The California Independent System Operation (CALISO) has designated the Encina Power Station as a "reliability-must-run" (RMR) Facility. Therefore it is not reasonably foreseeable that the power plant would ever completely shut down. David Lloyd, Secretary of Cabrillo Power, and its local, in-house legal counsel, provided testimony before the Planning Commission at the December 21, 2005, public hearing. On this subject, Mr. Lloyd noted that Cabrillo Power has made a significant investment of over $60 million in air quality emissions equipment to the Encina Power Station. Mr. Lloyd characterized the power station as unique in that it is one of the few remaining dual-fuel burning power plants and is on a must-run status with the Independent System Operator. He noted that the Encina Power Station is at the end of a "cul-de-sac" with respect to national energy flow, which makes its operating status critical. In response to a Planning Commissioner question about the future operations of the power station, Mr. Lloyd noted the Power Station has at least 20 or 30 more years of useful life without requiring any modifications. The baseline used by the City as lead agency for measuring potential environmental impacts of a project under CEQA is the current physical environment (With Power Plant scenario), including current operating condition�However, the worst case scenario in the Final EIR analyzed the No Power Plant scenario in order to determine the level of significance in the "historical extreme." The Final EIR contains substantial evidence that shows that the potential impacts from a No Power Plant scenario are the same as the With Power Plant scenario for all of the impact areas. A more detailed discussion of these issues is included in the staff memorandum responding to the California Coastal Commission letter and supplemental comments, all of which are part of Attachment 13a. � The desalination plant is planned to operate in conjunction with the power plant and to use cooling water flow from the power plant discharge rather than to operate on its own and to take seawater directly from the ocean. The EIR has been prepared based on this assumption. In the event that the project were to require independent operation of the intake and outfall for any reason, the direct connection to the intake structure by the desalination plant would be treated as a separate project and would be subject to applicable CEQA and regulatory agency permit requirements, including the approval of the City of Carlsbad.
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJl' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 - _ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 52 2.Would the intake of seawater to the Encina Power Station change due to the co-locationof the desalination facility?The Encina Power Station currently operates a seawater intake system that draws seawater into the facility to condense the steam exiting the turbines. Water for the desalination plant is taken after the water has been used to condense the steam, and before it is discharged back to the ocean. The EIR found that the desalination plant feedwater intake will not increase the volume, nor the velocity of the water flowing in the Encina Power Station cooling water intake. Future power plant intake and discharge flows with the desalination facility in operation are not expected to be significantly different from the historic and current range of intake and discharge flows. In addition, the desalination facility will not increase any intake and discharge flows above permitted levels in the existing power plant National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 3.How will regulatory constraints on power plants that use ocean water cooling,specifically new regulations related to Clean Water Act Section 316(b) permits, alter theseawater flow to the power plant and the desalination facility?Section 3 l 6(b) of the Clean Water Act requires facilities that, as their primary activity, generate electric power and that employ a cooling water intake structure designed to withdraw 50 million gallons per day (MGD) or more of waters of the United States for cooling purposes, employ the "best technology available" to minimize impacts related to impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms. In September 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) published new Section 316(b) regulations that apply to existing cooling water intake structures (Phase II Existing Facilities). Phase II Existing Facilities (such as the Encina Power Station) must select and implement one or more alternatives for minimizing adverse environmental impacts at a facility. Facilities may choose to implement a closed-cycle re-circulating cooling system; reduce intake velocity; construct technologies, operational measures, and/or fishery restoration measures; or demonstrate that the cost of compliance outweighs the benefits of the facility. Cabrillo, as the owner and operator of the�Encina Power Station, is currently conducting impingement and entrainment studies pursuant to Phase II 316(b) requirements. Cabrillo intends to achieve full compliance with the requirements, but has not as of yet determined the specific measures, or combination ,0f measures that will be implemented to achieve compliance. However, it is reasonably foreseeable that compliance can be achieved without reduction of seawater intake below the threshold levels identified as the "worst case" (historical extreme) scenarios analyzed ��fuallliR Since the EIR shows that it is reasonably foreseeable that compliance with Section 3 l 6(b) can be achieved without reduction of seawater intake below the threshold levels identified as the "worst case" (historical extreme) scenarios analyzed in the EIR, compliance with Section 3 l 6(b) will have no significant impact on the operation of the desalination plant. ,,
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Sl.Jt' 05-04/HMPP 05-08 - _
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 53
Issue: Salinity Levels in Discharge
Several comments to the DEIR raised concerns about the effects of increased salinity in the power plant discharge due to the desalination process.
Will the increased salinity of water discharged from the desalination plant cause harm to the marine ecosystem?
Discussion:
The primary issues related to ocean water quality are associated with increased salinity in the discharge from the reverse osmosis process. Operation of the proposed plant would result in the intake of up to 106 mgd of seawater to produce up to 50 mgd of high quality potable drinking water and 50 mgd of discharge water that contains all the salt content of the intake seawater. After completion of the desalination process, the concentrated seawater is mixed with the power plant's cooling water and discharged in the power plant discharge pond at the mouth of the jetty extending under Carlsbad Boulevard to the Pacific Ocean.
Potential effects that the discharge of the concentrated seawater could have on the receiving waters is dependent on a number of variables. In order to determine how these variables interact with respect to dispersal of the discharge, a numerical hydrodynamic model was configured by scientists at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography (SIO) to estimate salinity levels under a variety of conditions. SIO scientists also evaluated the impacts of the discharge on the marine environment. In addition salinity tolerance studies were conducted on marine life using aquariums filled with the concentrated seawater from the demonstration plant, which found no significant impacts on the organisms studied.
As reported in the EIR (Biological Resources, Section 4.3), the models developed by the SIO scientists showed that by diluting the desalination plant discharge with power plant cooling water, discharge salinities are kept reasonably close to ambient levels. SIO researchers verified that salinity in this region of the ocean is relatively constant, with maximum variation over a 20.5-year period of approximately 10%. In Southern California, the average sea-surface salinity was 33.52 parts per thousand (ppt) and ranged from 31.26 to 34.44 ppt. SIO found that salinity levels in the immediate discfiarge area would increase to between 34-37 ppt due to desalination plant discharge and would affect a total area of 1.5 acres of soft bottom (sand) habitat. The level of salinity change to be experienced by the kelp beds and other habitats seaward of the discharge channel was found to be very small and would not affect the organisms living there. The EIR determined that elevated salinity levels within the 1.5 acre area affected could result in the replacement of some organisms by those that have a greater tolerance for s�linity.
Issue: Quality of Desalinated Water
Concerns have been expressed as to whether the water produced by desalination will be of high quality, and whether or not the use of seawater would allow for elevated levels of certain chemicals in the product water.
Discussion:
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SUP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -_ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 54
Water quality was one of the six principles established by the City Council for WPA negotiations. The WP A requires Poseidon to provide water that meets or exceeds all state and . federal drinking water standards. Water produced at the Poseidon demonstration plant, located onsite at the Encina Power Station, has total dissolved solids (TDS) level of 250-350 mg/L compared to imported water that has a TDS of 466-574 mg/L.
Concerns were raised that the boron concentration in desalinated water may be harmful to people and or certain types of ornamental plants. The facility will be designed to comply with all state and federal drinking water regulations, including the boron notification level established by the California Department of Health Services of I mg/L. Additionally, city staff, consultants and the applicant have been conducting studies aimed at establishing a boron standard ·to address the requirements of ornamental plants grown within the project service area. The desalination facility will be operated to meet the boron standard established for ornamental plants.
If applicable regulations change for this or any other constituent in drinking water, the desalination facility will be upgraded as necessary to meet future water quality standards.
Issue: Growth Inducement
Will the project result in additional growth beyond projected levels?
Discussion:
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 (d) requires that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a project (Final EIR, page. 9-1 ). This evaluation should address the ways in which the Project could encourage economic and population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly.
Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project is considered significant if it stimulates population growth or a population concentration above what is assumed in local and regional land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning authorities such as the San Diego Association of Govemmen�_ (SANDAG). Significant growth impacts could also occur if a project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth levels beyond those anticipated-by local or regional plans and policies. The key issue related to growth inducement for the Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant project is whether or to what extent water supplies provided by the Project would have indirect growth-inducing impacts. Existing water supply issues within the Project's service area must be considered along with water supply in the context of other growth-related constraints. Growth-limiting factor! in San Diego County are primarily related to availability of buildable land and adequate infrastructure to support growth in new areas. Therefore, there is no linear relationship between water availability and growth.
The Project is being implemented on a local level and represents local implementation of a planned regional water supply component. The CW A wholesales imported water to its member agencies, which in turn deliver the water to individual homes and businesses throughout the county. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Valley Center Municipal Water District, Rincon
( EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SlJP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -_ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 55 del Diablo Municipal Water District, and Olivenhain Municipal Water District, all of which are anticipated to be potential purchasers of desalinated seawater from the Project, are member agencies of the CWA. Implementation of the Project at a local level will have the same potential for growth inducement as the CWA's recently adopted Regional Water Facilities Master Plan (R WFMP), which noted that development of a local desalinated water supply may foster additional growth indirectly by removing barriers to growth. The Project contributes to the new supplies identified in the RWFMP and constitutes a portion of the new water supplies that have been considered and analyzed on a regional level. The Project is not anticipated to provide additional supplies over and above what is already contemplated for the San Diego region. Therefore, it is not anticipated that delivery of water from a different supplier other than the CW A will have any effect on planned growth within the service area of the Project. Further, it is not anticipated that the purchase of water from a different supplier by any of the affected water agencies would result in any changes to existing land use plans, growth projections or growth management policies of the local land use authorities within the respective service areas of the districts. Local water agencies purchase and deliver water to retail customers, and do not have direct authority over land use, and cannot approve or disapprove any changes in land use that would directly affect population projections. The agencies with local land use authority within the Project's service area are the cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and the County of San Diego. These communities are nearing or close to build out, and the availability of developable land is the primary factor in future growth potential. Desalinated seawater is already considered in regional growth analyses conducted by SANDAG, as contained in its 2004 Regional Comprehensive Plan, and in demand projections by the CWA as contained in its 2003 RWFMP. The Project will not supply water in excess of what is already anticipated to meet future projected needs. The Project will not cause significant direct growth-inducing impacts. However, City recognizes that replacement of imported water supplies with locally produced desalinated water supplies could have the effect of making the imported water supplies that are· displaced by the desalinated water supplies available for other use. Determination of the specific potential indirect growthinducing effects outside of tbe Project's service area would require speculation that is beyond the scope of the environmental analysis for the Project. Therefore, City considers the possibility of regional growth inducement a potentially significant effect and finds that there is no feasible mitigation for this potential impact. Issue: Plant Ownership and the Effect of International Treaties on Compliance with Environmental Laws Would the provisions of international trade agreements allow a private owner with international interests to avoid compliance with environmei:ital regulations? Discussion: Trade agreement prov1s1ons would not allow the applicant to circumvent environmental regulations. Even if circumstances would allow such avoidance of regulations, the applicant has
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP l44lH)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/Suf 05-04/HMPP 05-08 -_ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 56
agreed to waive any such rights under these agreements through the Water Purchase Agreement and Development Agreement with the City.
VI.December 21, 2005, Planning Commission Hearing/EIR Comments
In response to the December 21 hearing, the City received three letters which were provided to the· Planning Commission. These letters, attached, were received from California Coastal Commission staff, California Coastal Coalition, and Klinedinst, a law firm. The Planning Commission was also provided a summary of the California Coastal Commission report on seawater desalination, which summary was prepared by the City's Administrative Services Director. Each of these letters and the summary is provided for the Planning Commission's information as attachment 13 through 16.
In addition to the letters, the Planning Commission also received testimony from several people, including a Joe Geever, Southern California Regional Manager of the Surfrider Foundation. At the hearing, the Planning Commission asked staff to work with Mr. Geever and respond to his comments and to also address the comments contained in the letter from the California Coastal Commission staff, which was authored by Tom Luster. Following is a summary of meetings held with each individual as well as staffs response to the letter received from Klinedinst.
California Coastal Commission and Surfrider Foundation comments: As requested by the ·Planning Commission, and to gain better understanding of their concerns, staff scheduledseparate meetings with Mr. Luster and Mr. Geever. Both Mr. Geever and Mr. Luster alsoprovided correspondence to further clarify their comments. All correspondence and staffsdetailed responses to the points raised in the correspondence are contained in attachment 13.
Coastal Commission staffs general concern about the project, as expressed in their December 21, 2005, letter to the Planning Commission, was that the City had dismissed Coastal Commission comments submitted during the public review of the Precise Development Plan project's notice of preparation of an environmental impact report and its draft EIR. In his January 2006 meeting with_City staff, Mr. Luster conceded that many of his points dealt with Coastal Act issues that were not within the purview of the City of Carlsbad and were not CEQA issues. City staff also noted it disagreed with the statements in the correspondence received from Mr. Luster because in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR, including the technical studies performed for the EIR and the responses to public comments, the City made every effort to respond in detail to each and every issued raised by the Coastal Commission.
In February 2006, staff also met with Mr. Geever, who was accompanied by Connor Everts of the Southern California Watershed Alliance. At the December 21 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Geever raised concerns about the adequacy of the project EIR and also expressed reservations about the Encina Power Station's compliance with Clean Water Act Section 316(b) regulations. As expressed in the February meeting and documented in a subsequent e-mail, the concerns of Surfrider and the Watershed Alliance, staff believes, are more centered on policy issues than on specific issues related to the adequacy of the project EIR. Further, the focus of
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SuP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 - _ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 57 their concerns is the impingement and entrainment of marine organisms associated with power plant once-through cooling systems. Klinedinst letter: Staff disagrees with the author's comments. Staff's position on the issues raised in this letter is contained in the attachment 13a. response to the California Coastal Commission letters, the Final EIR, and in the Responses to Comments (Final EIR Volume II). Further, it is not the purpose of CEQA to address matters related to energy costs or the cost for production and sale of desalinated water. However, the Water Purchase Agreement (Final EIR Exhibit B) provides water cost information. In attachment 14, Staff has also provided, for the Planning Commission's information, a March 15, 2004, letter from Mike Chrisman, Secretary for the State of California Resources Agency, expressing the Resource Agency?s support of desalination·as a component of California's water supply. Other concerns of the Planning Commission as expressed at the December 21 hearing and staffs responses to each are provided below: 1.The effect on the desalination plant and ocean if the Encina Power Station were todiscontinue operation. Staff response: The effect of a No Power Plant scenario on thedesalination plant is discussed extensively in the response to Tom Luster of the CoastalCommission staff (Attachment 13a). Further, in the event that the power station were topermanently cease operations, and Poseidon Resources were to independently operate theexisting EPS seawater intake and outfall for the benefit of the project, such independentoperation would require CEQA compliance and permits to operate as required by thenapplicable rules and regulations of the City and other relevant agencies. PoseidonResources would not independently operate the EPS intake and/or outfall unless and untilCEQA compliance had been completed and any required permits had been issued.2.The routes of distribution pipelines in the community. Staff response: Attachment 9b.provides an overall graphic of the entire pipeline network proposed. Further, the FinalEIR provides text and map descriptions of the proposed pipeline routes. Please refer topage 3-16 for a textoescription and figures 3-5 and 4.3-1 through 4.3-11 fqr overall anddetailed exhibits of pipelines alignments.. 3.The effect of the County Water Authority desalination proposal on the PoseidonResources desalination project. Staff response: A complete discussion on this topic canbe found in the "Desalination and Carlsbad" discussion found in jtem B. of Section III,Project Description and Background, of this staff report.4.Water quality issues related to Boron and the potential for desalinated water to havecorrosive effects on distribution pipelines. Staff response: The water purchase agreementapproved by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District with Poseidon Resources containswater quality provisions that require completion of studies on the potential for corrosionof household plumbing and appliances as well as municipal distribution pipelines. TheCarlsbad Municipal· Water District required Poseidon to complete a pilot study tog
r· EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SUP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 - _ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 58 compare the potential corrosion impacts on distribution system and household materials from conditioned desalinated seawater versus imported water from the current potable water supply. That study confirmed that the desalinated water is comparable to the City's existing potable water supply and is not likely to trigger new corrosion problems in the Carlsbad distribution system. In addition, a study was conducted to determine if the boron and chloride content of the water produced by the desalination facility is adequate to maintain acceptable appearance of the ornamental plant species most widely used in Carlsbad. The conclusions of the study were that the proposed desalinated water quality (boron 0.8-1.0 mg/L and chloride 180-240 mg/L) is acceptable for irrigation of the majority of the most widely used speciesof ornamental plants in Carlsbad. Potential changes in the appearance of less tolerantspecies due to irrigation with water containing the proposed boron and chloride levelswould be comparable to that observed in the areas ·of Carlsbad where reclaimed water iscurrently used for irrigation.The City also received correspondence in response to the release of the Final EIR, and a late comment on the draft EIR. The draft EIR comment was received from the State Department of Toxic Substances Control and is attached. The final EIR comments were received from County of San Diego Hazardous Materials Division and the North County Transit District and are attached. Poseidon Resources has provided the attached email response to the County of San Diego Hazardous Materials Division regarding ammonia storage. With regards to the North County Transit District letter, staff maintains its position that based on the operational characteristics of the proposed project, it is not anticipated that the estimated 108 total daily employee/visitor trips associated with the facility would place demand on transit facilities that would warrant the suggested bus stop improvements. Further, an accessible path of travel for persons with disabilities would not be required from the desalination plant to an existing or future bus stop along a street bordering the Encina Power Station, such as Carlsbad Boulevard. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Planning Commission Resolution No. 6087 (EIR 03-05) "2.Planning Commission Resolution No. 6088 (PDP 00-02)3.Planning Commission Resolution No. 6089 (SP 144(H))4.Planning Commission Resolution No. 6090 (DA 05-01)5.Planning Commission Resolution No. 6091 (RP 05-12)6.Planning Commission Resolution No. 6092 (CDP 04-41)7.Planning Commission Resolution No. 6093 (SUP 05-04)8.Planning Commission Resolution No. 6094 (HMPP 05-08)9.Location Mapsa.Precise Development Plan & Desalination Plant Project -Land Use PlanRelationshipsb.Proposed Water Delivery Pipelines and Desalination Plant Map10.Background Data Sheet11.Local Facilities Impact Assessment Formg
EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/CDP 04-41/SUP 05-04/HMPP 05-08 - _ PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT May 3, 2006 Pa e 59 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Disclosure Statements Staff responses to California Coastal Commission and Surfrider letters and comments a)May 3, 2006, City staff memorandum on Coastal Commission staff letter ofDecember 21, 2005, and supplemental comments of January 10, 2006 (letter andcomments provided as attachments to memorandum)b)May 3, 2006, City staff memorandum to March 22, 2006, email from Surfrider,California Watershed Alliance, and the Desai Response Group (email provided asattachment to memorandum)March 15, 2004, letter from Mike Chrisman, Secretary for the state Resources Agency May 4, 2004, memorandum from Jim Elliott, Administrative Services Director, on the California Coastal Commission report on seawater desalination Letters received in response fo the December 21, 2005, Planning Commission hearing a.December 19, 2005, California Coastal Coalition letterb.December 20, 2005, letter from Carey Cooper, Klinedinst PCc.December 21, 2005, letter from California Coastal Commission (provided as partof attachment 13)Late comment received in response to the Draft EIR. a.October 14, 2005, letter from Greg Holmes, State Department of ToxicSubstances ControlCorrespondence received in response to the release of the Final EIR 03-05 a.January 25, 2006, letter from Kurt Luhrsen, North County Transit Districtb.December 16, 2005, email from Mark McCabe, County of San Diego HazardousMaterials Divisionc.February 20, 2006, email from Poseidon Resources in response to County of SanDiego emailLetter from Patricia Drake on the desalination plant, received April 25, 2006 Final Environmental Impact Report EIR 03-05, dated December 2005 Precise Development Plan PDP 00-02, dated May 3, 2006 Specific Plan 144(H), dated May 3, 2006
( BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: EIR 03-05/PDP 00-02/SP 144(H)ISUP 05-04/CDP 04-41/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/HMPP 05-08 CASE NAME: Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant APPLICANT: Poseidon Resources (Channelside) LLC. Cabrillo Power I LLC REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for: 1) certification of an Environmental Impact Report; 2) adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations. and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: 3) approval for a Precise Development Plan, Specific Plan Amendment, Development Agreement. and Redevelopment Permit; and 4) approval of a Special Use Permit (Floodplain). Coastal Development Permit. and a Habitat Management Plan Permit for Incidental Take consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan. The requested actions are for: 1) a Precise Development Plan for the Encina Power Station and the proposed 50 million gallon per day Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant proposed at the Encina Power Station; 2) an amendment to the Encina Specific Plan to incorporate the Precise Development Plan into the Specific Plan: 3) a Redevelopment Permit for the desalination plant and pipelines within the boundaries of the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area; 5) a Development Agreement for the desalination plant; and 4) a Special Use Permit (floodplain). Coastal Development Permit. and Habitat Management Plan Permit for pipelines that would convey desalinated water from the desalination plant into various parts of the City of Carlsbad. Proposed actions apply only to project components in the City of Carlsbad. The project locations are: 1) the Encina Power Station located at 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard and west of Interstate 5; 2) the 680-acre Encina Specific Plan. which encompasses the Power Station and all of Agua Hedionda Lagoon; and 3) miscellaneous locations in Carlsbad. all north of Palomar Airport Road and generally in street right of ways. where desalinated water pipeline alignments are proposed. Additional desalination pipeline alignments are proposed in the cities of Oceanside and Vista. primarily in existing street rights of way. and are subject to the review and permitting requirements of those cities. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Multiple properties and locations in the cities of Carlsbad. Vista. and Oceanside are involved. APN: Varies Acres: The Precbe Development Plan affects the Encina Power Station. which is approximately 95 acres. The Encina Specific Plan. which encompasses the Power Station. affects 680 acres. The acreages of the various pipeline alignments are not known .. Proposed No. of Lots/Units: _N_/ A�----------GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Existing Land Use Designation: Encina Power Station has a Public Utilities designation; other project components have other designations Proposed Land Use Designation: N::....;.a..:/A=-=----------------------Density Allowed: =-N"-'/ A=-=-------Density Proposed: N::....;.a..:/ A=-=------------Revised O 1/06
Existing Zone: Encina Power Station has a Public Utilities zoning; other project components _
have other zonings Proposed Zone: =--N"""'/ A=--=-------------
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use (Encina Power Station only):
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site P-U u Power' Station
North O-S OS Open Space (lagoon)
South P-U u Industrial
East P-U T-R Vacant
West O-S OS Open Space (beach)
LOCAL COAST AL PROGRAM (for portions of proiect in Carlsbad only)
Coastal Zone: IZJ Yes O No Land Use Plan Local Coastal Program Segment: Mello II. Agua Hedionda
Within Appeal Jurisdiction: IZ] Yes O No Coastal Development Permit: IZ] Yes O No
Local Coastal Program Amendment: 0 Yes IZ] No
Existing LCP Land Use Designation: U* Existing LCP Zone: P-U* Proposed LCP Land Use Designation:N =--"-"/ A-=---Proposed LCP Zone: N�/ A _____ _ (*Encina Power Station only)
PUBLIC FACILITIES (for portion of proiect in Carlsbad only)
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): �90 ____ 9�----------------
□ □
� □
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Categorical Exemption,. ______________________ _
Negative Declaration,issued ____________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Report, dated =D""""e""'"ce=m=b-=--e=r--=2"'""0-=-0-=-5 __________ _
Other, ____________________________ _ Revised 01/06
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant -EIR 03 -05/PDP 00-02ISP 144(H)ISUP 05-04ICDP 04-41/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/HMPP 05-08 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONES: 1, 3 -Encina Power Station only; project pipelines are also located in Zones 5. 7. 8. 13 . 14. 15, 16, and 18 GENERAL PLAN: Public Utilities (U ) -Encina Power Station only ZONING: Public Utilities (P -U) -Encina Power Station only DEVELOPER'S NAME: Poseidon Resources (Channelside) LLC and Cabrillo Power I LLC ADDRESS: Poseidon: 501 W. Broadway. Suite 840. San Diego. CA 92101; Cabrillo: 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard . Carlsbad. CA 92008 PHONE NO.: Poseidon: (619) 595-7802; Cabrillo: (760) 268-4000 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 210-010-41 and -43 (Encina Power Station only) QUANTITY OF LAND USE /DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): Desalination Plant site is approximately 3 acres and features a _44_,�5_52_sg ..... u_ar_e_fi_o_o_t b_u_i_ld_in ..... g....,_. __________ _ ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: �20�0�8 ______________ _ A. B. C. D. E. F. ,G. H. I. J. K. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =Library: Demand in Square Footage =Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)=Park: Demand in Acreage = Drainage: Demand in CFS =Identify Drainage Basin = (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT =(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =Open Space: Acreage Provided = Schools: (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demands in EDU Identify Sub Basin = (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = NIA
NIA 909EDU max. NIA 18 CFS B 120 1 NIA CUSD 909EDU max. 3A 10 246* *Project will produce approximately 50 million gallons per day of potable water; thus, no increased water demandresults from this project.
,
May 3, 2006
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT PROJECT RESPONSES TO COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF LETTER & COMMENTS
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff raised a number of issues in their comments on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR as well as on the Draft EIR itself. In the Final EIR, the City of Carlsbad (City) provided detailed responses to comments received on the Draft EIR. Just prior to the Planning Commission workshop on the Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant proposal on December 21, 2005, CCC staff transmitted an additional comment letter. The general concern that CCC staff stated in the December 21, 2005, comment letter was that they believe that the City had dismissed their earlier comments.
City staff does not agree with the statements in the CCC staff letter, because in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR, including the technical studies performed for the EIR and the responses to public comments, the City made every effort to respond in detail to each and every issue raised by the CCC, as well as all other commenting parties. The responses to the CCC comment letter alone included 36 pages of text in the Final EIR, with complete explanations for all of the issues raised. Both the letter and City staffs complete responses can be found in Final EIR Volume II, Comment No. 4.
Nevertheless, in an effort to more fully understand the nature of the CCC staffs concerns, City staff initiated a telephone conference with Tom Luster, the CCC staff member assigned to desalination projects, on January 13, 2006. Mr. Luster is the author of the December 21 letter and supplemental comments dated January 10, 2006, both of which are attached. The purpose of the telephone conference was to specifically pinpoint the CCC stated concerns about the City's application of CEQA to the proposal, and in particular the proposed Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Facility (Project).
The two primary issue areas that were discussed during the conference call are summarized below. Following the summary, staff has also provided details and responses to specific issues raised in the CCC staffs December 21 letter and January 10 supplemental comments.
First Conference Call Issue: Operation of the Desalination Plant as a stand alone facility -separate from the Encina Power Station
CCC's opinion of how a CEQA analysis should be conducted is inconsistent with the City's position on how baseline environmental conditions should be defined under CEQA
-
RESPONSES TO COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF LETTER & COMMENTS May 3, 2006 Page 2 for the Project. Specifically, as explained in detail in the Final EIR and Responses to Comments, the City believes that the continued operation of the Encina Power Station (EPS) within the parameters of historical operating conditions is reasonably foreseeable, and should therefore be the baseline condition. This approach is based on guidance provided in CEQA. Mr. Luster, on behalf of the CCC staff indicated that the City, as Lead Agency on the CEQA document, has the right to make the determination of baseline that is in the Final EIR. Mr. Luster pointed out that a different approach or standard may be applied by CCC staff in its review of the Project under the California Coastal Act. There still appears to be disagreement on what is "reasonable" relative to assumptions for the continued operation of the EPS. CCC staff appears to feel strongly that shut-down of the EPS is relatively certain withiri the foreseeable future, while the City believes it is reasonably foreseeable that EPS will continue to operate. It should also be noted that, as City staff explained to Mr. Luster, although the analysis of the Project in the Final EIR includes the assumption of continued operation of the EPS, the Final EIR provides information on the environmental effects of operating the desalination facility without EPS operating. So despite any disagreement over what is the baseline condition, the Final EIR in fact provides an analysis of the Project under the No Power Plant assumption. Further detail on the analysis is provided below. Closure on the issue of baseline assumptions was not fully reached, but City staff believes that the City and CCC agree that the Coastal Act has certain standards that are different than CEQA standards, and which may be applied during the Coastal Act review process. Second Conference Call Issue: Private vs. Public Ownership of the Desalination Plant The other major issue raised by the CCC staff on the Final EIR analysis centers on the issue of ownership of the desalination facility. The CCC staff comments that the form of ownership could influence the type and magnitude of environmental effects. Specifically, the CCC staff states that foreign ownership or possibly even a "foreign presence" by the company in question could allow the company to circumvent local, state and federal environmental protection laws, and result in unregulated business practices. In the responses to comments in the Final EIR, the City explains how its interpretation of applicable international trade agreements does not lead to the same conclusions as those reached by the CCC staff. The City's responses acknowledge that some people continue to believe that provisions in international trade agreements would allow such regulatory circumvention. International trade agreements are irrelevant to the Project because the Applicant (Poseidon Resources (Channelside) LLC) for this Project has specifically contracted in the Water Purchase Agreement and the Development Agreement to waive any rights it may have to circumvent environmental protection laws and agrees to obtain 2
RESPONSES TO COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF LETTER & COMMENTS May 3, 2006 Page 3 and maintain all permits, licenses, approvals, authorizations, consents and entitlements that are required on the local, state and federal level. The requirement to waive any rights may be found in-Section 2.8 of the Development Agreement, for example. The provisions of the contractual agreements entered into by the Applicant safeguard against any future attempt to circumvent regulation that could have the potential to cause environmental effects that are beyond those analyzed in the Final EIR. Upon further discussion on this issue, and based on the City's clarification of the contractual provisions applicable to the Project, Mr. Luster acknowledged that such provisions may be sufficient. The CCC staff will independently assess the issue during its review for Coastal Act consistency. 3
RESPONSES TO COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF LETTER & COMMENTS May 3, 2006 Page 4 CITY STAFF RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED IN THE DECEMBER 21, 2005, AND JANUARY 10, 2006, CCC STAFF CORRESPONDENCE
CCC Issue: The EIR should review impacts of the desalination plant assuming that the Encina Power Station is not operating
City Staff Response: The Lead Agency and the Applicant have analyzed the impacts of the Project with and without the operations of the Encina Power Station (EPS). This information is included in the Final EIR and Appendix E thereto. The resource areas potentially impacted under the _No Power Plant scenario are (1) Aesthetics; (2) Air Quality (3) Marine Biology -brine discharge; (4) Marine Biology -entrainment/impingement; and (5) Land Use. The ba5,eline used by the lead agency for measuring potential environmental impacts of a Project under CEQA is the current physical environment ("With Power Plant" scenario), including current operating conditions. However, the worst case scenario in the Final EIR analyzed the "No Power Plant" scenario to determine the level of significance in the "historical extreme." The Final EIR contains substantial evidence that shows that the impacts from a No Power Plant scenario to be the same as the With Power Plant scenario for all of the resource areas impacted, as discussed below. Aesthetics: The significance criteria (section 4.1.3) for Aesthetics in the Final EIR do not take into consideration the surrounding land uses when assessing visual impacts and thus the significance analysis will not change with or without the power plant in operation. Section 4.1.4 -Impacts -states that, "the project is not considered to have a substantial adverse effect· on a scenic vista, or a substantially damaging effect on scenic resources because the proposed structure would represent a visual enhancement over what is currently located on the site (Page 4.1-3)." This enhancement of the area would occur with or without the operation of the EPS. Mitigation measures are proposed so that the Project features are acceptable to the City of Carlsbad and conform to the City's long-term vision for the surrounding property, which includes relocation of the power plant to the back of the property and the transition of the front of the property to more public uses. , In June of 2002 the Carlsbad City Council, and in October of 2002 the Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Agency, adopted six principals to pursue negotiations for the purchase of water from Poseidon: 1.Improved water reliability and quality in both normal and' drought periods atCW A (County Water Authority) water rates.2.Maximize beach and lagoon access for the public.3.Maximize open space and recreational opportunities for the public.4.Redevelop Encina Power Plant to maximize its best public and private uses.5.Desalination facility protected from power market fluctuations.4
RESPONSES TO COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF LETTER & COMMENTS May 3, 2006 Page 5 6.Accrue a positive economic benefit from the increased industrial developmentof the coastal corridor.These principals were used to evaluate the project in addition to the Strategic Goals and 5-Year Vision Statements approved by the City Council. The project was found to be consistent with goal number 4 shown above (see pages 4.8-16 -4.8.18 of the Final EIR), and would therefore not interfere with any future change in operation at the EPS. Air Quality: The potential indirect air quality impacts due to emissions from power generation for the desalination facility are analyzed in the Final EIR with and without the EPS as the source of power. See page 4.2-18 of the Final EIR). The Final EIR notes that "the desalination plant will not contain any electrical power generation facilities, and will purchase this electrical power from the local electric utility, or a power generator, broker or seller. At this time no contract has been signed for power purchases from any supplier." Because no supplier of electricity has beeri designated, the Final EIR analyzed the indirect emission impacts from power generation for three different scenarios: (1) if power were purchased from EPS; (2) the local utility; (3) or another power provider. The second and third scenario analyzed the No Power Plant impacts studied in the Final EIR, and therefore there would be no change in the Final EIR significance findings if EPS were not operational. Marine Biology -Brine Discharge: The Final EIR for the desalination plant used the "historical extreme" operation and level of salinity to evaluate the impacts to the marine environment. The Final EIR notes that, "the EPS can run with an 'unheated discharge' (i.e., No Power Plant operation)." The Final ElR modeled impacts of unheated "historical extreme" for flow scenarios using a discharge of 254 million gallons per day, which would represent conditions under No Power Plant operation. Therefore the "historical extreme" conditions modeled account for impacts related to operation of the desalination facility without power plant operation and flow rates that would be generated by the desalination plant being operated independently. The Final EIR notes that in the "historical extreme" the "highest bottom salinities were noted with the "unheated" (No Power Plant operation) condition due to its reduced buoyancy." The Final EIR states that, "to determine worst-case conditions, the unheated conditions are examined." Therefore the No Power Plant operation is the worst case condition studied by the Final EIR. The Analysis of Significance -Elevated Salinity Exposure Effects section of the Final EIR (Page 4.3-50) indicates that significant impacts are found at an extended salinity exposure level of 40 ppt. The Final EIR concludes that under the "historical extreme" the end of pipe salinity of 40.1 ppt (parts per thousand) "is diluted across the ZID (zone of initial dilution) to about 38.2 ppt." The Final BIR concludes that "extended exposure to salinity levels above 40 ppt would be avoided under all 5
RESPONSES TO COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF LETTER & cOMMENTS May 3, 2006 Page 6 proposed operating conditions (emphasis added)." The Final EIR goes on to conclude that "since the 'historical extreme' scenarios under all operating conditions ( emphasis added) would not result in salinity levels exceeding this threshold for an extended period of time, impacts related to elevated salinities would not be significant." Therefore the "no power plant operation "or" unheated discharge" condition has been analyzed in the Final EIR and the impacts from brine discharge in this worstcase scenario were found to be less than significant. Marine Biology -Entrainment. Data presented in Appendix E of the Final EIR supports a finding of no significant impact for entrainment. The referenced study demonstrates that entrainment of marine organisms at the EPS is a function of the volume of water flowing through the intake. If the desalination facility were to operate at 106 million gallons per day (MGD) unaer the No Power Plant operation, there would be 100% mortality resulting from impingement of the larval fish caught on the screens and filters. As shown in Table 1, the entrainment loss would represent between 0.6% and 11.8% of the EPS source water supply of larvae, depending on the fish group modeled. Assuming an additional 200 MGD was allowed to flow through the intake to the discharge channel for dilution of the concentrated seawater discharge from the desalination facility, there could be additional entrainment losses. The level of impact to the organisms and associated mortality due to the diversion of the dilution water under the No Power Plant operation will be less than the impact had the water been pumped through the condensers as is modeled under the With Power Plant operation scenario. However, lacking data to document actual mortality under the No Power Plant mode of operation, the possible range is 0% to 100% mortality of the larval fish in the dilution water. Under these conditions the minimum larval fish entrainment loss for the desalination facility (106 MGD) and associated dilution water (200 MGD) would be 0.6% to 11.8% and the maximum would be 1.7% to 34.1 %, depending on the fish group modeled (Table 1 ). Fish Group
Table 1
Desalina!ion Facility's Estimated Entrainment Loss
. Under No Power Plant Operation
Desalinati
on Facility
Entrainm
ent Loss
Dilution
Water
Entrain me
nt Loss
6
Minimum
Combined "
Entrainment
Loss
Maximum
Combined
Entrainment
Loss
RESPONSES TO COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF LETTER & COMMENTS May 3, 2006 Page 7 CIQ gobies
Combtooth
blennies
Northern
anchovy
11.8%
5.7%
0.6%
0%-
22.3%
0%-
10.8%
0%-
1.1%
11.8% 34.1%
5.7% 16.5%
0.6% 1.7% The loss of larval fish entrained by the EPS cooling water flows, whether the EPS is operating or not, are a small fraction of marine organisms from the abundant and ubiquitous near-shore source water populations. Using standard fisheries models for adult fishes, the loss of larvae (99 percent of which are lost to natural mortality) due to the desalination facility entrainment at 306 MGD would have no effect on the species' ability to sustain their populations, including the gobies at 34.1 %. Gobies are not harvested and because of their widespread distribution and high reproductive potential due to spawning several times a year, are able to sustain conditional adult mortality rates of 34% and higher without a decline in population level. This absence of potential population level effects for adult gobies is especially true for the species' early larval stages. The sheer numbers of larvae that are produced by the adult gobies overwhelm population effects of both natural mortality and reasonably high levels of conditional mortality. The most frequently entrained species are very abundant in the area of EPS intake, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the Southern California Bight so that the actual ecological effects due to any additional entrainment from the Project at either level of plant operations are insignificant. Species of direct recreational and commercial value constitute a very small fraction (less than 1 percent) of the entrained organisms. Therefore, the operation of the desalination facility does not cause a significant ecological impact. California Department of Fish and Game (2002) in their Nearshore Fishery Management Plan provides for sustainable populations with harvests of up to 60 percent of unfished adult stocks. The incremental entrainment ("harvest") effect of larval fishes from the desalination facilities operations at 106 or 306 MG]) is approximately 1 to 34 percent (depending on the species); losses that would have no significant effect on the source water populations to sustain themselves. Additionally, entrainment mortality losses are not harvests in the common sense, because the larval fish are not removed from 1:he ocean, but are returned to supply the ocean's food webs -the natural fate of at least 99 percent of larvae whether entrained or not. Generally less than one percent of all fish larvae become reproductive adults. 7
RESPONSES TO COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF LETTER & COMMENTS May 3, 2006 Page 8 Marine Biology -Impingement: The Applicant has calculated the approach velocity of the water flowing through the EPS intake under the No Power Plant scenario and determined that the velocity would not exceed 0.5 feet per second. Under these operating conditions, the intake would meet impingement mortality performance standards established in the revised 316(b) permitting requirements. Land Use: The proposed Project causes no significant impacts to land use and is consistent with existing land use plans with or without the existence and operation of the EPS. The Project is consistent with the Public Utilities (U) land use designation in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is consistent regardless of power plant operations. In addition the Project is consistent with the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan for the area and would continue to be consistent regardless of the operation of the power plant. The Final EIR notes that, "The , site of the desalination plant was specifically selected so as not to conflict with two redevelopment plan goals. The first goal relates to facilitating the conversion and possible relocation of the existing power plant to a smaller more efficient facility. The second goal relates to the enhancement of commercial and recreational opportunities in the plan area." Although any changes in the power plant configuration will require additional environmental review and approval, a siting study was conducted for the desalination plant in which five sites within the EPS property were reviewed to find a location for the desalination facility that was sensitive to the redevelopment plan goal and would "create the least amount of constraints on any future conversion of the Encina Power Station." (See pages 4.8-16 -4.8.18 of the Final EIR for details.) Therefore any future changes to the EPS will not be affected by the siting of the desalination plant. CCC Issue: Age of the Generators at the Encina Power Station -The
generators will need to be replaced during the useful life of the desalination plant.
Staff Response: As noted in the Responses to Comments that are part of the Final EIR, , in the event that the Project were to require independent operation of the intake and outfall for any reason, the direct connection to the intake structure by the desalination ·plant would be treated as a separate project and would be subject to applicable CEQAand regulatory agency permit requirements, including the approval of the City ofCarlsbad.CCC Issue: New 316(b) regulations make it more likely than not that the power plant operations will change 8
RESPONSES TO COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF LETTER & COMMENTS May 3, 2006 Page 9
Staff Response: The Final EIR Responses to Comments provide an extensive discussion on how the Clean Water Act Section 316(b) requirements relative to the power plant seawater intake structure would not change any of the assumptions or analyses presented in the Final EIR.
CCC Issue: Reliance on "Reliability Must Run" (RMR) contracts for the
power plant is not reasonable
Staff Response: The analysis presented in the Final EIR discusses RMR status of the power plant to provide context for the baseline assumptions, not as the primary basis for conclusions.
CCC Issue: The EIR needs to assess how the proposed PDP and
desalination facility would affect the power plant's ability to
conform to the Coastal Act provision regarding allowable expansion of coastal-dependent facilities
Staff Response: The site of the desalination plant was specifically selected so as not to conflict with two South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan goals. The first goal relates to facilitating the conversion and possible relocation of the existing power plant to a smaller more efficient facility. The second goal relates to the enhancement of commercial and recreational opportunities in the Plan area.
CCC Issue: The EIR needs to assess the terms of the lease between the
applicant and Cabrillo
Staff Response: The terms of the lease agreement that have a potential to affect the physical environment were analyzed in the Final EIR and are included in Appendix B of the Final EIR.
CCC Issue: Entrainment. The 30 to 35 mega-watt (MW) power demand
would result in use of roughly 10 to 30 MGD of cooling water
Staff Response: As stated ·in the Final EIR, the power supply for the Desalination Facility will be the EPS or the regional grid. If the EPS is the source of the power, the desalination facility will be able to draw power from either Unit 4 -or Unit 5, the two newest and largest independent generating units on site. Under this mode of operation, the desalination facility will use approximately 10% of the generation capacity available from one of the two generating units. An additional 10% load on an individual generating unit does not represent enough demand to cause the EPS to put an additional generating unit on line, or increase the cooling water flow rate. Additionally, if EPS were
9
RESPONSES TO COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF LETTER & COMMENTS May 3, 2006 Page 10 to supply power to the Project, it is not certain that EPS would increase its overall power generation, rather than reduce its power sales to other buyers. The EPS manages its level of power sales and power generation to achieve an optimum state of operation, taking into account a variety of factors, including cost of fuel, maintenance requirements and the performance of its generating units. Typically, once a unit is brought on line, the cooling water system flow rate remains constant. Thus, the EPS would continue to pump the same amount of source seawater for cooling as it does today. The flow rate for Unit 4 and Unit 5 are 304 MGD and 350 MGD, respectively. The existing permit allows the EPS to divert up to 860 MGD. CCC Issue: The proposed desalination facility would likely need to take in
additional seawater to cool the power plant discharge to
optimum temperature
Staff Response: Under typical summertime operating conditions the EPS discharge/proposed desalination facility intake temperature is at or below 87 ° F, which is well within optimum operating range. Even if the Encina power plant were using up to its maximum permitted temperature increment of 20° F, defined in the plants' NPDES permit, during the warmest day of the last 20.5 years, the maximum possible water temperature of EGS discharge/proposed desalination facility intake would have been 77 °F + 20 ° F = 97 ° F, which is lower than the membrane manufacturer specified threshold of 113° F. Therefore, no seawater diversions will be required that might exceed the monthly average of 104 MGD to 106 MGD evaluated in the Final EIR. The reference to the Applicant's patent cited by the author is relevant to a project in Tampa, Florida where the power plant effluent exceeded 113 ° F in the summer months. Under the Florida normal weather conditions, additional cooling water was required during the summer. The conditions in Carlsbad do not warrant this practice as evidenced by the Applicant's three years of pilot plant operations running strictly on the power plant discharge. Therefore no additional seawater will be required to cool the feedwater beyond the 106 MGD analyzed in the Final EIR. CCC Issue: Alternatlve forms of ownership. A public agency must consider a wide range of issues in determining how much water to produce while a private entity does not.
Staff Response: The Final EIR assumed as the worst case scenario that the Project would be operating at full capacity year round. Under this scenario, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts were identified with the exception of cumulative air quality and indirect growth inducing impacts, which cannot be mitigated to less than significant by the alternative ownership suggested by the comment. Therefore the publicly owned reduced operation scenario suggested by the CCC would not provide mitigation or avoid impacts that cannot be otherwise mitigated. 10
RESPONSES TO COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF LETTER & COMMENTS May 3, 2006 Page 11 CCC Issue: The Coastal Commission is concerned because the applicant
is proposing to provide water to the public at costs well below
the "documented" costs of other similar projects.
Staff Response: In May of 2002 the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) in conjunction with the CW A and City of Oceanside, completed a rigorous due diligence review of the Applicant's proposal that concluded that the proposed Project was technically viable and the cost of water was reasonable. The Water Purchase Agreement provides that the City of Carlsbad will never pay more for the desalination product water than it would pay CW A for imported treated water. CCC Issue: Concerned that the applicant will enter into an agreement for lower electrical rates than are available to other users, to the detriment of other rate payers
Staff Response: As stated in the Final EIR, the power supply for the Desalination Facility would be from the EPS or the regional grid. In either case, the Applicant has stated that it expects to pay market rates for the electricity. There is no evidence to the contrary to support the evaluation requested by the commentor. CCC Issue: If water from the Project begins serving new or existing
development, and the Project proponent is not able to continue operating the facility, a public agency may be burdened with the responsibility of either producing what is
likely a high cost water supply or replacing it with other scarce
water resources
Staff Response: Under the Water Purchase Agreement (Appendix B of the Final EIR) Carlsbad has the right, but not the obligation, to assume operation of the Project if the Applicant is unable to continue operating the facility. Additionally, the City would maintain its membership, in the CW A, allowing it to purchase water from CW A in the event the Applicant were unable to provide the water required to meet demand. Under the second option, the Applicant is required to pay the incremental cost incurred by Carlsbad to acquire the replacement water. 11
ARNOI.D SCHWARZBNBOOlft, OpruNO•
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
4$ l'RBMOl'(T, SUITK zaaa SAN 1'11.A)ICJSC:O, CA HIO.S,:ns, YOICII AND TIIO (fUJ ,u. noa ,,.x (-+UJ ,o�-s4aa
December 21, 2005
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
VIA FACSIMILE {760) 602-8559
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your delibei-ations regarding the City's
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Precise Development Plan {PDP) and desalination
facility being proposed at the Encina power plant. We understand you will be holding an
infom1ati0nal briefing and public hearing later today, and we are providing this letter for you to
consider as pan of your decision-malting process.
Coastal Commission staff provided extensive comments on this proposed project during previous
stages of the City's EIR process, including a May 2004 comment letter about the City's-Notice of Preparation and a June 2005 lener on the Draft BIR, In those letters, we expressed concerns
about several key aspects of the proposed project and identified several studies and analyses that
would need to be included in the Em. to allow adequate project review LU1der both CEQA and the
Coastal Act. However. the City's Final EIR and Response to Comments (Response) issued
earlier this month essentially dismiss most of our comments without adequate exphmation or j ustifica1ion.
Because most of the studies and analyses we requested are needed to ensure compliance with both CEQA and the Coastal Act, the City's dismissal of our comments results in about eighteen
months oflost opportunity {from May 2004 to the present) during which these issues could have been properly addressed. Putting off these necessary analyses tmtil Coastal Act review or review
by other pennitting agencies will require additional time before these agencies can make any
permit decisions on this proposed project. Further, by choosing not to perfonn these necessary
studies and analyses, the City has imposed upon itself a significant risk that the eventual findings
of those studies will result in the need later to revise and recirculate the EIR (e.g., per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162)-The City's approach thus far with its CEQA review almost certainly guarantees inefficiencies and delays in completing review of the proposed project. We thfii'efore
reiterate our request that our comments be fully incorporated into the EIR analyses and that the document be recirculated. Although preparing a proper EIR for recirculation will itself.t�ce additional time, it will almost certainly talce less tune ovemll than puttiug offtlle necessary
studies to be done under the separate timelines of the agencies I.hat will need them and then revising the EDl later in this process. ,
It appears that many of the ElR's key inadequacies arise largely from it being based on an inappropriately narrow view of the proposed project and from a number of inadequately
supported contentions. As lead agency, the City is clearly able to exercise independent judgment
in how to implement its CEQA-related duties; however1 for this Elll, it appears that these decisions have resulted in an EIR tl1at does not adequately address the significant environmental
Comment letter re: Carlsbad "Response to Commems "for proposed desalination facility· December 21. 200S ·Page2of2
· and social impact associated with what would be the largest coastal desalination facility in theU.S. We recommended, for example, that the EIR include analyses consistent with tho�e described in two recent reports on desalination -the state Desalination Task Force Findings and Recommendations (October 2003) and the Coastal Commission report on Seawater Desalinationand the California Coastal Act (Mnrch 2004). These reports were developed by repres�ntatives of nearly all the state agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over desalination proposals, .and include specific conclusions about facilities such as this one, being proposed to be co-located with a coastal power plant. The Response document. however, states (at Response 4D). that while the Chy "considered extensively" these two reports, it doesn't necessarily agree withi whatis in them. Other than stating that the City exercised its independent judgment, it male$ no credible argument about why it chose not to use many of the key recommendations contained in these reports in evaluating the prop.osed desalination project. The result is an EIR that leaves outthe collective expertise of the agencies and stakeholders in Cali fomia most familiar wi�1 the environmental, economic, and regulatory issues associated. with seawater desalination.
This approach creates shortcomings in several key areas of the BIR analyses, including1its reviewof entrainment effects, discharge effectsJ alternatives analysis, and others, some of which are described below. Correcting this error in a recirculated BIR would likely address manY, of the cUlTent document's problems. Additionally, the Task Force and Coastal Commission r�orts cited above, which represent the most up-to-date and thorough evaluations of applying stateregulations to desalination facilities, detennined that environmental review of a desaliolltion facility proposing to co-locale with a coastal power plant needs to evaluate the effects qf the project both operating alone and operating in conjunction with the power plant. As noted above,the Response states that the recommendations in these reports were considered, but do� not provide any reasons they were rejected.
We again request our comments be fully incorporated into the Em. and the document b!:' r"circutated. Without significant revisions, the EIR. mischaracterizes the types and degree of potential adverse impacts that would be: caused by the proposed facility. It does not adyquately confomi to CEQA requirements, cannot be used as a basis of our upcoming Coastal Ac.t review, and could easily result in significant future delays by having its shortcomings addresse� in futureproceedings rather than the proceeding at hand. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding these issues. !
Sincerely, �L�
Tom Luster Energy and Ocean Resources Unit
/
California Coastal Commission Supplemental Comments from Commission Staff January JO, 2006
KEY CONCERNS WITH THE EIR AND CITY'S RESPONSE-TO COMMENTS General concern: An overall concern with the EIR and the Response to Comments (Response) is that it is inconsistent with regulatory agency requirements and guidance. hi our comment letter, we recommended that the BIR evaluate the proposed project in a manner consistent with the recommendations in two recent reports· on desalination -the state Desalination Task Force Findings and Recommendations (October 2003) and the Coastal Commission report, Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act (March 2004). These reports were developed by representatives of nearly all the state agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over desalination proposals, and include specific recommendations about facilities such as this one. Part of the underlying intent of these reports was to provide guidance for project proponents and reviewers to allow better understanding of the type of evaluation that would be necessary and to make the review process more efficient. The City's Response, however, states (at Response 4D) that while the City "considered extensively" these two reports, it doesn't necessarily agree with what is in them. Other than stating that the City exercised its independent judgment, it makes no credible argument about why it chose not to use many of the key recommendations contained in these reports in evaluating the proposed desalination project. The result is an EIR that leaves out the collective expertise of the agencies and stakeholders in California most familiar with the environmental, economic, and regulatory issues associated with seawater desalination, and one that unless revised and recirculated, will likely result in a much longer review process for the proposed facility. We again recommend that the City incorporate the findings and recommendations from these two documents in a revised EIR. Inadequate review for a proposed co-located facility: One of the main issues handled inadequately in the EIR is its lack of the necessary analysis for a proposed co-located desalination facility. As noted in both documents referenced above, review of such proposals should consider the adverse impacts that would be caused by the proposed desalination facility operating both when the power plant is operating and when it is not. By leaving out this review, the E[R falls short in its evaluation of several key areas and potential impacts, including entrainment effects, discharge effects, alternatives analyses, and others, some of which are described below. Recirculating the BIR with evaluations of the proposed facility operating on its own would likely correct several of the key problems with the current document and would bring the document more in line with the guidelines contained in the Task Force and Coastal Commission reports cited above. , The source of this error seems to be the EIR's assumption that the power plant will continue to operate during the life of the proposed desalination facility as it has operated in the past. This assumption is speculative and likely incorrect for several reasons: •Age of generators: the power plant's generators are from about 30 to SO years old and arehighly inefficient when compared to other power sources serving the region. They willalmost certainly need to be replaced at some point during the life of the proposeddesalination facility, not only due to their age, but because they will likely not be economicto operat_e.
Preliminary Comments to City of Carlsbad re: desalination ElRIResponse to Comments January 10, 2006 · Page2 o[.5
•Recent regulatory changes: The federa] rules governing cooling water intake structures were
changed recently 'to require in most cases substantial reductions in entrainment andimpingement impacts. The Response (at Response #4H) states the " ... Lead Agency believes
it is reasonably foreseeable that compliance [ with these new requirements] can be achieved
without reduction of seawater intake below the scenarios analyzed ... 11, but does not provideany basis for that belief.
Several unresolved issues -such as the upcoming study of the cooling system's effects onAgua Hedionda and a federal court case regarding the applicability of mitigation options to
such cooling systems -make it more likely than not that the power plant operations willchange. Additionally, a recent decision at the nearby South Bay power plant that will resultin it changing from once-through cooling to an alternative cooling system suggests that it is
not unlikely to assume the operation at Encina could undergo some level of change during
the life of the proposed desalination facility.
•Reliance on RMR contracts: The EIR bases part of its assumption on the power plant'sexisting "Reliability-Must Run" (RMR) contracts and states that those contracts make it not
reasonable to expect the power plant to shut down, presumably at any time during the life of
the proposed desalination facility. However, the EIR's reliance on any long-term certaintyprovided by these contracts is misplaced, as these are shorMenn (generally one-year)contracts only, and are more than likely to change or not be in place sometime during the
expected life of the desalination facility.
•Need to allow reasonable expansfon of existing coastal-dependent industrial facilities:Provisions of the Coastal Act allow for reasonable expansion of coastal-dependent indusk'ialfacilities such as the existing power plant. Due in part to the recent EPA rule change noted
above, future expansion of the power plant could easily require the use of cooling systemsother than the existing once-through system. This is a particularly important issue for thisproposal, since the City is not only reviewing the proposed desalination facility, but isconsidering changes to the Precise Development Plan (PDP) for the power plant. The EIR
therefore needs to assess how the proposed PDP and desalination facility would affect the
power plant's ability to conform to the Coastal Act provisions regarding allowable expansion
of existing coastal-dependent faciJities. As part of this evaluation, we recommend that theBIR assess the compliance options contained in the revised federal ru]e and whether the
proposed PDP or desalination facility would forestall any of those options or make theminfeasible.
•No analysis of the agreement between the power plant and the proposed desalination facility:The EIR needs to assess the terms of the agreement between the two entities and determinewhat effects these terms could have on the operations of both facilities and the environmentalimpacts that may result. Without knowing the ternis of the agreement, i(is unclear whether·there are conditions that would affect either facility's operations and whether those
conditions would create impacts different than those described in the EIR. We note that thisissue is apparently causing some of the delay for a similar proposed project in Huntington
Beach, as the City is not able to adequately determine the tenns imposed by the landoWner(the power plant) on the proposed desalination facility.
Preliminary Comments to City of Carlsbad re: desalination EIR/Response to Comments
January 10, 2006
·Page 3 o/5
Given these and other reasonably foreseeable and likely conditions and changes, it should be
expected that all or p·art of the power plant will shut down for short-or long�term periods during
the expected life of the proposed desalination facility-for maintenance, due to market
conditions, because of regulatory requirements, or for other reasons. Further, given the dynamic
history of California's energy market, the ''energy crisis" of the recent past and its associated
power plant shutdowns, it is far more reasonable to expect power plant operations to change than
it is to expect them to not change . .Even without knowing precisely what changes will occur, it is
more than reasonable for the EIR to evaluate the effects that would be caused by the desalination
facility operating on its own.
The EIR needs to describe and analyze the increased entrainment that would be caused by desalination operations: We commented that the power plant cooHng system wo\.lld likely need
to take in more seawater due to the presence of the desalination facility; however, the Response dismisses this concern. For at least two reasons, though, it is almost certain that the facility
would require additional cooling water, even with the power plant continuing to operate as it
does currently, and the EIR needs to address the resulting impacts.
•First, it is likely that the desalination facility will draw all or most of its power from the
power plant. This 30 to 35 megawatt power demand would result in roughly 10 to 30 mgd of
cooling water use by the power plant (based on a range of 15,000 to 40,000 gallons of water
needed to produce one megawatt of electricity). Should the demand by users for electricity
from Encina decline over the life of the proposed desalination facility-a reasonable
assumption, given the age and efficiency issues mentioned above, the likelihood of new
transmission lines into the San Diego market, etc. -it will be the desalination facility
creating this demand and the resulting impacts.
Even if the desalination facility ends up drawing its electricity from elsewhere, it is still a
reasonable for the EIR to evaluate as a feasible alternative the effects that would be caused
by the facility drawing its electricity from the Encina power plant. If we were certain that the
desalination facility had in place measures to prohibit use of electricity from the Encina
plant, there would be no need to assess this impact; however, those types of measures are
apparently not being conten1plated for this proposal.
•Second, the proposed desalination facility would likely need to take in additional seawater to
cool the power plant di-s'charge to an optimum temperature for the reverse osmosismembranes. Tfos would cause an unknown but possibly significant increase in entrainment
beyond what the power plant causes operating on its own. The Response (at Response #4K)
dismisses this concern by stating that the power plant discharge temperatures have alwaysbeen below the membrane maximum operating temperature.
This response does not adequately address the issue. First, the maximum operating
temperature is different from the _optimum operating temperature, as membranes generally
operate most efficiently at levels somewhat lower than their maximum allowable temperature
at a range based on temperature, salinity, types or levels of particulates in the water, and
other characteristics of the source water. We refer you to the project proponent's patent from
September 2005 that describes how to optimize membrane efficiency by bringing in
additional seawater to cool the desalination water supply and optimize the efficiency of the
Preliminary Comments to City of Carlsbad re: desalination EIR/Response to Comments January 10, 2006 ·Page4of5
desalination process.1 This method apparently results in increased energy efficiency ( andpreswnably lower costs), and will likely be incorporated into the design of the proposed
desalination facility. In fact, if it does result in increased energy efficiency, its need to be
evaluated as part of the BIR (pursuant to CEQA Section 15126.4), along with the additional effects it may cause. At the very least, the EIR needs to detennine how much additional
seawater would be used with this method and what effects this increased seawater use will
have on entrainment, impingement, and discharge characteristics.
Alternative forms of ownership: Our comment letter expressed concerns that environmental
impacts could likely be different depending on the proposed facility's form of ownership. The Response (at Response #4LL) states that it does not agree, and points out that the facility would
have to conform to applicable laws. -In at least two ways, the Response did not address our
concerns. about the impacts that could result from different forms of ownership of a facility
creating a water supply to be used by the public:
•First. the different range of issues considered in the decision-making process of a public or
private entity is likely to result in different types and levels of impacts. The EIR does not
include necessary discussions about the different consequences of decisions made by a public
entity compared to those made by a private entity. A public water board, for example, mustconsider a wide range of public values when deciding such things as how much water to
produce, how water production may affect other public resources, etc. It must also make
these decisions as part of a relatively transparent public process. A private entity, on the
other hand, has as the dominant concern in its decision-making whether or not a proposed
activity will be profitable. It is not required to consider the range of public benefits
considered by a public entity, and any non-profit related benefits may be only incidental to
the main decision. Further, private entity decisions are generally made in a non-public
forum, often by individuals far removed from the community affected by the decisions. This
is not to say one form of decision-making is better or more appropriate than the other, it is
only to point out that the different forms can result in different environmental and social
impacts that should be evaluated in this EIR. This is a particularly important issue, given that
the proposed project involves use of a publicly-owned resource subject to a number oflegal
and regulatory protections.
•Second. laws and re,gulations may apply differently to an entity depending on whether it is
public or private. The 1Jrovisions of several international trade agreements suggest that some' private entities with a multinational presence may not. be subject to California's state and local regulations if those regulations are found to somehow unreasonably restrain the
economic viability of these entities. To date, these provisions are largely untested; however,
their existence and their potential applicability to the proposed desalination facility make it
imperative for the EIR to address the issue. Therefore, stating in the Response that the proposal would meet all applicable laws is inadequate, since it does not i\ddress the
underlying question -"which laws would be applicable?"
1 The patent application can be found at this web link: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nphParser?Sect1=PT02&Sect2=IDTOFF&p=l&u=/netahtmVsearchboo1.html&r=l&f . =G&1'=50&co 1 =AND&d=ptxt&s I =Poseidon.ASNM. &OS=AN/Poseidon&RS=AN/Poseidon
Preliminary Comments to City of Carlsbad re: desalination EIR/Response to Comments January 10, 2006 ·Page 5 o/5We note that this issue is of sufficient concern here in California that the Legislature's Committee on International Trade Policy and State Legislation is expected to hold a hearing on these issues on January 23rd• We recommend that the City investigate the concerns noted ·by the Legislature, and we also would be happy to provide further documentation of theseconcerns for the City to incorporate into its review.When the two above concerns are combined and applied to this proposed facility, it could result in relatively unconstrained water production at the expense of other public resources and values, and vastly different environmental effects than those described in the EIR. By not assessing these issues, the BIR does not adequately address likely or potential impacts and does not conform to CEQA. Costs: The EIR does not address the concerns we raised about needing to know the expected costs to produce the water and the need for those costs to be included in CEQA's assessment of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives analyses. This is particularly important since this facility is proposing to provide water to the public at costs well below the documented costs of other similar proposed projects. The most recent credible costs provided by a seawater desalination proponent in California are those submitted as testimony by the California-American Water Company in its Public Utility Commission proceedings for a proposed desalination facility to be co-located with the Moss Landing power plant. Cal-Am's testimony provides cost estimates showing that produced water from that co•located facility is expected to cost from about $1600.to $1800 per acre-foot. Although the Cal-Am proposal is for a smaller facility (up to about 20 mgd), it is highly unlikely that the efficiencies of scale for the larger Poseidon proposal should be expected to result in the stated, but unsubstantiated, costs of about $860 per acre-foot. Additionally, without knowing the costs and the terms of the agreement between the desalination proponent and the power plant, the City may unknowingly be creating a subsidy for the proposed project-for example, if the desalination facility is expecting to benefit from lower electricity costs than are available to other users, those other ratepayers would need to pay higher costs. Further, if water from the project begins serving new or existing development, and the project proponent is not able to continue operating the facility, a public agency may be burdened with the responsibility of either producing what is likely a high-cost water supply or replacing it with other scarce water resources. All of these issues need to be evaluated in the EIR.
May 3, 2006 TO: FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT PROJECT -RESPONSE TO SURFRIDER COMMENTS The Surfrider Foundation (Surfrider) is one of the multiple authors of an extensive comment letter on the Draft EIR dated July 14, 2005. Comment No. 56 of Final EIR Volume II contains the letter and the City's complete responses to that letter. Subsequent to the issuance of the Final EIR, a representative from Surfrider attended the December 21, 2005, Planning Commission hearing on the , Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant project and expressed concerns about the project and the Final EIR. As it did in response to comments from California Coastal Commission staff received just before the December 21 hearing, City staff arranged a meeting with Joe Geever, the Surfrider representative who attended the hearing and who is also the organization's Southern California Regional Manager. The meeting's purpose was to enable staff to better understand Surfrider's issues. That meeting was held on February 13, 2006, and was attended by Mr. Geever, representing Surfrider, and Connor Everts, representing the Southern California Watershed Alliance, another author of Comment No. 56 The concerns expressed by Mr. Geever and Mr. Everts at the meeting were repeated in a March 22, 2006, e-mail, which is attached. As expressed at the meeting and documented in the e-mail, Surfrider's and the Watershed Alliance's concerns relate to policy issues more than to specific issues concerning the adequacy of the EIR. The major concern expressed is the impingement and entrainment of marine organisms associated with oncethrough cooling water systems. They indicated that Surfrider, along with other environmental organizations, has been leading an effort to eliminate once-through cooling water systems from power plants along the California coast. They are concerned that co-locating seawater desalination facilities with power plants that use once through cooling water technology (such as co-locating the proposed project with the Encina Power Station) may prolong the life span of-once-through cooling water operations. As noted in the March 22 e-mail, Surfrider and the Watershed Alliance believe that alternative water supply options, such as reclamation of stormwater and wastewater, should be explored. City staff believes that all effects on impingement and entrainment of marine organisms associated with the proposed project have been fully evaluated and disclosed in the Final EIR and its related technical studies. Surfrider argues that the continued operation of the EPS is uncertain and that the EIR does not evaluate the impacts that the desalination facility would have on marine and estuarine systems if EPS ceases or reduces its
PRECISE DEVELOPM�NT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT PROJECT -RESPONSE TO SURFRIDER COMMENTS Page2 operation of once through cooling water. In fact, the EIR provides information on the environmental effects of operating the desalination facility without EPS operating. See the Final EIR and Appendix E thereto for further information. The "worst case" scenario is · analyzed in the EIR based upon the "historical extreme". The Final EIR contains substantial evidence that shows that the impacts from the desalination facility operating without the EPS would be the same as impacts for the Proposed Project operating with the EPS. Surfrider's argument that the EIR does not adequately analyze water supply alternatives is unfounded. CEQA requires analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project. The Applicant is a private entity proposing a specific development. The EIR does analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. The City, through the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, has ·already carefully planned its water supply portfolio. Desalination is part of that portfolio, as is conservation and recycling/reclamation of water. Moreover, the San Diego County Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District have done studies on and adopted plans that include conservation, recycling, importation of water and desalination (see Response 56 D of the Final EIR). The proposed project is consistent with the findings and water supply plans of the Water Authority and MWD. Surfrider also comments that reliance on desalination is speculative and risky. City Staff disagrees because the Water Purchase Agreement (Exhibit B to the Final EIR) provides for compensation to the City in the event that the project cannot supply the amount of water that is required by the Agreement. Furthermore, the City will remain a member of . the San Diego County Water Authority and retain its right to purchase water from the Water Authority just as it does now. The attached email references the "Desai Response Group" as one of the email's senders. City staff has no knowledge of this group and is unaware if Mr. Everts and Mr. Geever are members of it.
Scott Donnell -Comments on Poseidon Desai Proposal
From: To: Date: Subject: "Joe Geever" <jgeever@surfrider.org> "Scott Donnell" <Sdonn@ci.carlsbad.ca. us> 03/22/2006 11 :56 AM Comments on Poseidon Desai Proposal TO: Scott Donnell, Associate Planner, City of Carlsbad Page I of 3 FROM: Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation and Conner Everts, Southern California Watershed Alliance and the Desai Response Group DATE: March 22, 2006 RE: Poseidon-Carlsbad Desalination Proposal Dear Mr Donnell: We are writing in regards to the upcoming decision-making process for the proposal to co-locate a massive desalination facility at the Encina Power Plant. First we want to thank you for arranging to meet with us and listen to our concerns. We think open discussions can lead to improved understanding -which in turn leads to more informed decisions. As we discussed at our meeting, we believe the current documentation of the environmental impacts is inadequate. Nonetheless, even assuming that the Environmental Impact Report meets the minimum standards of the California Environmental Quality Act, it still fails to give decision-makers important information that is critical to sound public policy. The decision to permit the desalination facility as it is currently planned can have far-reaching ramifications. This project relies on an out-dated and destructive cooling water intake structure at Encina Power Station, and the potential for compulsory changes to cooling technology is looming on the horizon. Therefore, reliance on this desalination facility, and future economic development that is contingent upon that water source, is speculative and risky at best. There are water supply alternatives to desalination, alternative means of collecting source water for an ocean desalination facility, and alternative cooling technologies for coastal generators. All of these variables need to be fully understood before the Planning Commission and the City Council c111 make a responsible and fully-informed decision. Furthermore, a thorough analysis of this project will be required for future permits from the Coastal Commission and other State agencies. Therefore, it is a prudent expenditure of time and resources to answer the difficult questions from the beginning. ,, We are highlighting a couple of issues of utmost concern to our organizations. However, there are numerous issues raised in our comment letter on the EIR that should be carefully considered by the City -regardless of the argument that the analysis may go beyond the bare minimum analysis required underCEQA.Water Supply Alternatives file ://C: \Documents and Settings\sdonn \Local Settings\ Temp\G W} 00001.HTM 04/05/2006
Page 2 of 3 Holistic planning requires a thorough understanding of the benefits and costs of program alternatives. The EIR fails to inform decision-makers of the variables that should be weighed wh1::n assessing the multiple alternatives for meeting future water demands. We believe very strongly that prioritizing conservation programs, stormwater retention and wastewater reclamation in your water supply portfolio will simultaneously improve water quality in your coastal watershed and nearshore marine waters. The City should very carefully analyze not only the direct cost savings of these alternatives to meeting future water demand, but also factor in the cost avoidance of Clean Water Act compliance programs. These considerations are not only relevant to the additional cost to rate payers for desalination product water -even if those costs are transferred by subsidies from Metropolitan Water District to ratepayers outside the San Diego County area. Maybe more importantly to local taxpayers and their elected representatives are the potential avoided costs of Clean Water Act compliance from environmentally superior water supply choices. A recent model developed for Southern California with RAND provides us an opportunity to show what is available from water conservation programs and to credit the City for the work they have accomplished with both efficiency and reclamation. This model was demonstrated at Metropolitan Water District last December. There are also studies available that demonstrate dramatic reductions in residential irrigation consumption, and dramatic improvements in runoff volume and pollutant loadings, from simple and readily available irrigation timing devices. These are just a couple examples of alternatives that should be fully documented and explored before first turning to ocean desalination projects that will arguably exacerbate current environmental concerns about coastal and ocean water quality, habitat, and aquatic life. Again, we would like to work with staff to identify tools for documenting these issues and for assisting in a fully-informed decision-making process. To be clear, we do not oppose the implementation of ocean desalination as a component of the total water supply portfolio. Nonetheless, the niche that ocean desalination fills, and the size and technology employed for filling that role, is unclear until the more cost effective and environmentally preferable alternatives are fully explored. Controversy and Current Status of "Once-Through Cooling" The desalination facility, as it is currently designed, is contingent upon the existence and operation of the cooling water intake at the Encina Power Station. These "co-located" designs for ocean desalination raise significant concerns for the environmental community and thrust the City of Carlsbad into a contentious issue that has been litigated and undergone regulatory scrutiny over the course of the last decade or more. The continued use of "once through cooling" at coastal generators creates dramatic impacts on already over-stressed marine ecosystems. These systems are now regulated by the recently promulgated US Environmental Protection Agency's "3 l 6(b) rules." These new regulations set "performance standards" to reduce impingement of aquatic organisms by up to 95% and reduce entrainment by up to 90%. The State::.o£C-alifomia-::iS::als.o�ently_-reYiewing these federakules in an:._effol'.tto�amend and strengthen ···the-rules to·meet~state standards and policies·for protecting-marine-life. There is-also litigation in thefederal courts challenging these "Phase 2" rules for existing facilities. The end result from implementingthese regulations could very likely be the elimination of once-through cooling, or possibly a dramatic reduction in cooling water intake volumes. Obviously, a dramatic reduction in intake volume, or elimination of the cooling water intake, is a critical consideration. As we have expressed numerous times, it is unclear how the Encina facility intends to comply with these current regulations. Furthermore, it is undocumented what· impacts the desalination facility would have on marine and estuarine ecological systems should the power generator cease to utilize their once-file://C:\Documents and Settings\sdonn\Local Settings\Temp\GW}0000l .HTM 04/05/2006
Page 3 of 3 through cooling system. These considerations are critical to making a fully informed decision about permitting the project. Maybe more importantly, the City should be fully informed about the predictable elimination of this cooling system and the foreseeable hurdle to get future permits to withdraw estuarine waters under the authority of the California Coastal Act. As mentioned above, this important consideration is consistent with the spirit of CEQA to fully inform the public and our elected representatives of the foreseeable environmental impacts prior to permitting projects. Even more seriously, it would be irresponsible, and arguably a dereliction of duty, to let other jurisdictions rely on this source of water when the future of the cooling water intake is speculative. The general public, numerous permitting agencies, and other local governments who will plan their economic development contingent upon this source of water are relying on a thorough analysis. This is an awesome duty for the City of Carlsbad and compels a heightened scrutiny on your part. Conclusion In conclusion, we want to once again emphasize that we believe there may well be a demand for ocean desalination in the future. However, we strongly believe that the fiscally prudent and environmentally preferable course of action is to maximize the implementation of other water supply alternatives before racing into the Poseidon proposal. Maximizing these alternatives in your supply portfolio first will help identify alternative ocean desalination technologies that minimize environmental degradation. We are willing to assist the City in documenting the issues raised by this proposal more thoroughly. However, should the City feel compelled to vote on the draft EIR in its current state, we strongly recommend denying certification. Again, thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joe Geever Surfrider Foundation Joe Geever Surfrider Foundation Southern California Regional Manager 8117 W. Manchester Ave #297 Playa del Rey, CA 90293 (310)410-2890 Conner Everts Southern California Watershed Alliance Please help restore and protect our coast and ocean by becoming a Surfrider Foundation member at:www.surfrider.org/joinfile://C:\Documents and Settings\sdonn\Local Settings\Temp\GW}0000l .HTM 04/05/2006
STATE OF CAllf Ok NIA
�. 1,.esoitrces
� AGENCY
California Coastal Commissioners 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Commissioners:
March 15, 2004
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Gov11raor MIKE CHRISMAN, S11t:r111.ry
Your Monterey meeting agenda includes a staff update on your draft Seawater Desalination Report of August 2003. In October 2003 the Department of Water Resources (DWR) produced a report, Water Desalination -Findings and Recommendations, as called for by Assembly Bill 2717. This latter report was prepared with significant input from a Task Force representing a broad set of constituencies and perspectives and was co-chaired by a Coastal Commission representative. The report finds, "although most estimate that desalination will contribute less than 10 percent of the total water supply needs in California, this still represents significant portion of the state's water supply portfolio."
I believe it is important for the State of California to send a clear message to the public, communities, water districts, and the desalination industry about the future of desalination. The staff report provides an overview of the Coastal Act issues that may be presented by the siting of desalination facilities along the California Coast. However, I'm concerned that your report, though well intended, may fail to educate and communicate three important points. First, California needs to pursue aggressively a combination of water conservation and water development options to assure our economic and environmental well-being. Our water portfolio will vary by region, as the update of the California Water Plan due this year will show. Desalination, will certainly be an important component of that portfolio for the Central and the South Coast.
Second, we shoutct not let the issue of ownership of desalination facilities, public,
private, or multinational, discourage us from obtaining the benefits that desalination can provide. Various types of ownership may present different issues, but it is nothing that California has not faced in other sectors. If ownership is shown in any way to reduce the level of cooperation with the State of California, or compliance with any environmental law or regulation, we would of course need to address that issue in the context of any future permit review process.The October Report includes three
recommendations on this subject:
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311, Sacramento, CA 95814 Ph. 916.653.5656 Fax 916.653.8102 http://resources.ca.gov
BaldNin Hills CXJnseNency• Galitcmia Bay Deta Aultoritf• Ca/ifomia Coastatcommlss/oo• Ga//fania CcnseNatlOO Corps• Ca/lania Taroe Conservancy Coache/a ValleyMoortains Co,se,vanGy•Co.brad:I River 8:JIIfdof Catilcmia•Oeta PrdeetiJn Comm/ssial• Depertmert r:t E}re(irg &Wc:l/erways-Depcr1ment r:I OJn.setvi,tion Depmment or Fidl & Game• Depertment of F<Yestry& Fre PrctectiJno()epartment of Pa!l<s & Recreatbn,()epanment of Water Resources Energy Resooroes, Coosel\lalicJJ & Oeve/opmenf Commissia'l• Natl\le American Hertage Commission-san Deg) Rl\lerconse-vancy � San Francisoo Bay CXJnseMitbn & Deve(q:)mert Commissbn-San Ga/Xie/ & Lower LDs Ar-gees Rivers & Mo.mtains Conservancy• San Joaquin Riller Cmservancy '6¢' Santa M:Jnica Mountains Ccr,servancy..State Coastal Commission• State Lards CommissiOn • Witllife Cooservation Boarri
Page 2 California Coastal Commissioners March 15, 2004
"(24) Each community should consider the appropriate role, if any, for private companies in a desalination project or proposal. Factors to consider include:
•The desired extent of public access and public control;•The extent to which the public is willing to finance the capital costs of the project andbear the risks of project development; •The extent to which a proposed contract between a public and private entity wouldaffect flexibility in operating the facility; •The relevant experience and capabilities of the public or private entity;•The impact of the various public-private configurations on ratepayers.
(25)Private desalination projects, and private developers and plant operators, shoufdbe required to fully disclose the same information as a publicly owned andoperated facility.
(26)To avoid potential international trade agreement violations, no legal standard orregulation should discriminate against an applicant based on ties to multi-nationalcorporations."
Third, nothing should be clearer to the public and any advocate for a desalinationfacility on the coast than California's continual insistence on any coastal facility meeting strict state environmental and other standards and being subject to the review of all applicable state and local agencies including the Coastal Commission.
I hope you will help convey the above messages as you deliberate this issue on March 18, 2004. California would be well served to soon have several full-scale desalination plants operating on our coast so we can monitor and learn about their environmental, engineering and economic consequences before they become more necessary a few decades hence.
Your role in desalination development is important. Please help California make it an important part of our water future.
Sincerely,
Mike Chrisman Secretary for Resources
..
Page 3 California Coastal Commissioners March 15, 2004
Dr. William A. Burke, Vice-Chair 11110 West Ohio Ave. Suite 100 Los Angeles 90025
Cynthia McClain-Hill McClain Hill Associates 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 1128 Los Angeles, CA 90014
Sara Wan 22350 Carbon Mesa Rd. Malibu, CA 90265
Mary Nichols Director, UCLA Institute of the Environment 435 South Irving Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90020
Pedro Nava P.O. Box 90459 Santa Barbara, CA 93190
Patrick Kruer The Monarch Group 7727 Herschel Ave. La Jolla, California 92037
John Woolley Supervisor Board of Supervisors 825 5th Street Eureka, CA 95501-1153
Mil<e Reilly, Chair Supervisor Cciunty of Sonoma 575 Administration Drive, Rm. 1 Q_..,__ _______ Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2887
Page 4 California Coastal Commissioners
March 15, 2004
Dave Potter Supervisor County of Monterey, District 5 1200 Aguajito Road, Suite 001 Monterey, CA 93940
Toni Iseman Mayor, Laguna Beach 2338 Glenneyre Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Scott H. Peters Councilmember City of San Diego 202 C Street, MS 10-A, San Diego, CA 92101
Steve Westly California State Controller 300 Capital Mall, Suite 1850 Sacramento, CA 95814
Sunne Wright McPeak Secretary
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency 980 9th Street, Suite 2450 Sacramento, CA 95814
Peter Douglas California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105
•
•
•
May 4, 2004
TO: CITY MANAGER
From: Administrative Services Director
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION REPORT ON SEAWATER DESALINATION
In March 2004 the California Coc1,stal Commission issued a report titled Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act. This lengthy report lays out the Commission's concerns related to the development of se�water desalination facilities along the California coastline, and provides a preview of the processing requirements that may be placed on either a public or private applicant.
Until recently, the City Council and staff have been focused on 1) preparing the EIR related to the application for a Precise Development Plan (PDP), and 2) negotiating the terms of agreements between the City and the San Diego County Water Authority and Poseidon Resources that will address the City's concerns related to land use, water and economic issues .
However, after reviewing the Commission's report in some detail, it appears that it may be prudent for the City Council to be aware of issues related to seawater desalination being raised by the Commission. The Commission's position is both broad and farreaching, and may have a significant effect on the future development of a desalination facility in Carlsbad, and on the terms Carlsbad may wish to• include in any agreement between itself and the SDCW A or Poseidon.
The purpose of this memo is to provide a summary of the Commission's position on seawater desalination, and to give the City Council some foreknowledge of the issues that are likely to shape the Commission's debate on the development of the desalination plant regardless of whether SDCW A or Poseidon is the ultimate developer of the project.
Summary
The report begins with an acknowledgement that the development of seawater as a source of potable water will occur at some time in the future. However, the Commission has concerns about a number of adverse effects that seawater desalination brings to the coastal zone, each of which deserves further investigation.
The Commission's concerns faU into the following categories: •The coastal act and public policies related to desalination
·~·
•
•
o The Commission has significant concerns about the private use of seawater, a public asset, for the production of profit. "TI1ere may be significant differences in determining whether public or private desalination facilities conform to coastal act policies." o Growth inducement -The Commission is concerned that the production ofdesalinated water in the coastal region may change the potential for bothcoastal and inland development. "If seawater desalination removes thelimits imposed on growth along the coast due to the current limited supplyof water, the degradation of coastal resources could increase beyondsustainable levels."•Coastal Act and environmental impacts related to desalinationoThe Commission is concerned that both the individual and cumulativeenvironmental impacts from seawater desalination facilities (includingthose collocated with power plants) are not we11 understood, and willrequire significant review. Of particular il)terest are impingement andentrainment of marine Jife, and discharge of brine and waste streams fromdesalination faciJities.
The report suggests that the Commission neither supports nor opposes seawater desalination. Projects will receive a case-by-case review based on the facts related to each specific site.
There are currently about a dozen desalination facilities along the California coast. The attached table (Table I) provides a list of these projects. These facilities range in size from two to 929 acre-feet per year and provide water for both industrial and municipal uses. In addition, the report lists 21 proposed desalination facilities (see Table 2) ranging in size from two to 55,000 acre feet per year (Carlsbad and Huntington Beach are listed as 55,000 acre feet per year plants) that are the cause for the Commission's concern, and the targets of this report.
Coasta1 Dependent Uses
Although seawater desalination might be considered a coastal dependent use by most observers, the Commission has determined that, although the intake and discharge pipelines may be coastal dependent uses, the desalination facility itself is not necessarily a coastal dependent use. The Commission•s position is an attempt to recognize that there is a limited amount of coastal land in the state, and that the use of this land should be prioritized to assure that the public interest is served.
Economic issues and the cost of desalination
The Commission is concerned about the economic issues surrounding seawater desa1ination projects. Their position is that the Coastal Act requires an evaluation of adverse environmental effects of any proposed project, and an evaluation of feasible alternatives that would be less environmentally damaging to the coastal region. For the purposes of this analysis, "feasibility" means that a project is "capable of being
2
I
•
•
I
accompJished in a successful manner within a reasonable time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." The cost of desalinated water is one element considered by the Commission in determining which alternatives and mitigation measures are to be included as part of a proposed project.
The Commission believes that two aspects of desalination -its relatively high capital and operating costs, and its potential to cause significant adverse environmental impacts -"could make extensive mitigation measures both necessary and feasible." The theory is that the high cost to construct desalination facilities allows for a larger total dollar amount to be directed into environmental mitigation measures, therefore more expensive mitigation measures may be economically feasible. (A $100 million water treatment plant might invest 5% of its total cost in environmental mitigation measures, or about $5 million. However, a $250 milliort desalination plant occupying the same space could inv·est the same 5% in mitigation measures (or about $12.5 million) and still be considered "feasible" by the Commission.
Public Trust Doctrine
The Commission views seawater as part of the public "commons". The report states that a fundamental of the coastal act is the principle "that many coastal resources are imbued with a public interest value that must be vigorously protected for the benefit of current and future generations." In the opinion of the Commission ocean water and its uses "constitute a public trust resource held in common for public use and enjoyment."
Although the ocean has been historically used for non-public non-consumptive uses, the Commission believes that "Using seawater as a source of potable water would represent a shift from it being subject to primarily non-consumptive uses to ... a consumptive use." This shift from a public to a private resource would be accompanied by significant shifts in how it is perceived and managed, and changes the basis of decision-making about the resource from being guided by non-market social rules to being directed primarily [by] market economic rules."
Although the report acknowledges that seawater is a very large resource, the Commission is concerned that a consumptive use of seawater and the industrial processes associated with those uses will result in significant direct or cumulative adverse environmental impacts at the local or reg!_onal level.
Public or Private Ownership of Water Services
The_rep__ort_raises_se\'eraLconcerns_related to private versus public ownership of seawater desalfoatioiiracilities. Although the same Coastal Act provisions apply to both types of projects, the Commission will apply different review standards to the two Jypes of projects. In the Commission's opinion, private ownership of desalination facilities may result in an inherent conflict between the interests of a community in having reliable, affordable water, and the private sector's desire to make a profit and lack of responsibility to the community's well-being.
3
•
•
I
The report suggests that water facilities owned and operated by a public entity are more likely to set prices at levels that are more affordable than private entities. They are more likely to operate in both wet and dry years when-the potential for profit are significantly different. (The assumption is that in a wet year less water would be consumed by the community, thereby reducing the amount of profit a private owner/operator might gain from the project.) In addition, a public owner/operator would continue the delivery of water regardless of profit potential when a private company might be forced into bankruptcy.
The Commission has identified a number of areas where the review of public and private projects might differ. These include discussions of the following issues: •WiJl the water produced by a private plant be provided outside of the existingcommunity service area (growth inducement)?•WilJ the water be used to support other development that is, or is not, considered acoastal priority (support of preferred coastal uses),?•Will the development of a private source of water conflict with a community'sability to assure that effective water conservation has been implemented in orderto protect coastal resources?•Will the expensive water produced by the project compromise the economicviability of a community that depends on the output of the plant? Or, does thepublic risk having to talce over the desalination facility if the private venture failsto provide a dependable source of water?•Should seawater be expropriated by private business for profit?•Is it in the public interest for community-serving water systems to be owned byfor-profit corporations?•Does decision-making by non-elected, non-appointed, and non-local interestscontradict the desire of communities to have a local and reliable water supply?•Are there different levels of security concerns related to the protection of publichealth?•Could international trade agreements be used to override or impair state and localregulation of desalination facilities? (See below for more information on thispoint.)
The Commission will be looking for different assurances from public and private projects in relation to these and many other questions.
Another concern raised by the Commission is that "if corporation·s are allowed to own, operate and profit from water services, pressure will inevitably be brought to bear on ways to increase profits through means such as expansion of service area,'rate increases and higher consumption, which are not necessarily in the public interest."
In general, the Commission has taken a dim view of private ownership of seawater desalination facilities, commodification of seawater, and the shifting of the responsibility for serving water to the community from the typical public agency model to a private ownership model. The result of this view will be different levels of review, or the application of different standards, to public or private projects.
4
,
•
•
•
In summary, the Coastal Commission believes that it has an important role in the determination of whether proposed desalination projects are consistent with the pubJic policies related to .coastal resource protection, as well as the well being of coastal communities that may become dependent on desalinated water as a resource ..
International Trade Agreements
Some of the more interesting concerns raised by the Commission's report are related to the effects of international trade agreements on water services located within the coastal zone. The concern is "that some existing and proposed agreements might limit the ability of the state and local agencies to review and regulate projects for the purpose of environmental protection in cases that involve private entities with multinational ties." In other words, international trade agreements may allow multinational companies to ignore state and local environmental laws (as well as other laws}, thereby voiding the Commission's control over the development of these desalination facilities. In the Commission's view, multinational companies could then run roughshod over coastal environmental concerns in pursuit of profit.
The trade agreements that are giving the Commission considerable concern include the following: •General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GA TT} -an agreement firstimplemented in 1947, and modified in 1994. This agreement, although Jackingmany enforcement mechanisms, provides the basis for many of the later tradeagreements.•World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements -This agreement took effect in1995. The 142 countries that are parties to the WTO agreements have enteredinto about 60 additional agreements based on the WTO document. The WTOagreement includes both enforcement and disciplinary powers.•North American Free Trade Agreement {NAFT A} -This agreement went intoeffect in 1994. The agreement seeks to eliminate all trade barriers betweenCanada, Mexico and the USA.•Free Trade Area of the Americas (FT AA) -This agreement is currently beingnegotiated between 34 of the 35 nations of North, Central and South America,and is being modeled on NAFT A.•General Agreement on Trade in Services (GA TS) -GA TS appears to apply thethinking ofNAFTA to trade in services rather than goods. The agreement iscurrently under negotiations, although significant progress has already been madeon general framework issues.
�e£,.ommis_sio�c_o..nc.em.e_djhat__a.glohal -push to includ.e...water__s_ervice as a covered . tradeunder these· agreements rilay"oe successful Tfiis,voura-mean that the global consolidation in the water industry would be extended to California, and more particularly to the California coastal zone. This would put the control of a significant public resource in the hands of a few companies that control more than 50% of the world's water market-Vivendi, Suez Lyonnaise and RWE .
5
•
•
•
The push by multinational companies to enter the California water industry is illustrated
by the following: •Vivendi, a-French firm, owns US Filter, a major proponent of desalination in.
California. It has also been involved in the purchase of 45,000 acres of farmland
in the Imperial Valley to secure access to water rights totaling 250,000 acre feet
per year.
•California-American Water currently owns several water utilities in the state
(Sacramento, Sonoma and Monterey counties, as well as a number of cities
(including Imperial Beach in San Diego County), Cal-Am Water is owned
(through a number of subsidiaries) by RWE, a Gennan firm.•OMI-Thames, owned by a subsidiary of RWE, operates a water utility in
Stockton.
The report states, "California should proceed cautiously in reviewing proposals to further
privatize water and water services, particularly those involving seawater desalination.
Such privatization coupled with uncertainty about the effects of international trade agreements may compromise the ability of state and local governments to effectively
protect the environmental quality and integrity of life in natural and human communities along the coast."
Other Commission Concerns
The report raises additional concerns regarding the effect of desalination facilities on
growth inducement, coastal zone priority uses, public access and recreation, marine
environments, co-location with existing power plants, and cumulative impacts.
•Growth Inducement -The Commission is concerned that development ofdesalination facilities may remove natural limitations on growth in the coastal
zone. This additional growth would have a negative effect on coastal resources.
The Commission intends to place a significant amount of effort into the review ofgrowth inducement (perhaps beyond the coastal zone), regional water master
plans (such as the SDCWA water master plan), distribution plans, effects of thefacility on coastal priority uses, and the projects intent to incorporate public
oversight of its operations.
•Coastal Priority U-ses -The Commission's mission includes a number of priorities
for the use of coastal resources. These include lower cost visitor and recreation
facilities, visitor serving commercial recreational facilities, aquaculture, upland
areas for coastal recreation, beating, fishing, protection of prime agricultural land,
and the development of coastal dependent uses. Any application for a
desalination facility would be evaluated to determine its effect on any of these
uses. In addition, the Commission would look for adverse effects eaused by
visual, noise, public access, or water quality changes in the coastal zone.
A further concern is that the cost of desalinated water will make priority uses less
viable. The report suggests that the Commission's position on whether
6
...
•
•
desalination supports or interferes with "priority uses could be affected bywhether the water is provided by a_public or private facility." The thinking is (atleast in part) that a private venture that caters to an exclusive clientele might beable to afford desalinated water, where a similar use that supports a moremoderate-income customer base might be precluded from development. If thedesalination facility were owned by a public entity there is a greater likelihoodthat the price for desalinated water would be more affordable, or could be morefavorable for the more moderate-income services.
•Public Access and Recreation -"Desalination facilities proposing to locate nearthe coast will likely require assessment of their effects on public access to theshore and their potential impacts on recreation." This concern is focusedprimarily on those facilities that will not be co-located with existing power plantsand will therefore be displacing other potential uses for coastal resources. Theirreview of these impacts will be less concerned wi.th co-location facilities.
•Marine Environments -There will be a significant amount of effort focused onthe effects of intakes and outfalls for desalination facilities, including those colocated with existing power plants. The Commission is concerned about theeffects of both the kill ratio of marine organisms, and the brine discharge fordesalination facilities. Co-location with a power plant will not necessarily makethe environmental review from the coastal staff any easier, nor will it provide anautomatic approval of intake and outfall plans .
•Co-location with Existing Power Plants -The commission is concerned thatdesalination facilities that co-locate with existing power plants may link providingwater supplies with existing out-of-date and environmentally harmful techniques.This will extend the life of these out-of-date power plants and their existingenvironmentally inefficient intake, outfall, and power generation units. Thereport acknowledges that there are some advantages to co-location, however thedisadvantages are significant, and will require extensive study.
•Cumulative Impacts -Although a single desalination facility will likely have fewsignificant environmental impacts on the coastal zone, the Commission isconcerned that the cumulative effect of a number of desalination facilities couldnegatively affect marine biology, ocean water quality, large-scale growthinducement, and create significant demand for power in an already weakenedpower infrastructure system.
Conclusion�----_ -�--· --------
Although the report states that the Coastal Commission does not support or oppose desalination of seawater, the weight of the issues raised by the Coastal staff suggest that there is a significant concern on the part of the Commission that wilt need to be addressed as applications for desalination facilities are prepared. This is particularly true for privately owned desalination facilities.
7
• .The depth of the studies required and the complexity of the issues raised (such as the
links to international trade agreements) suggest that the review process for any facility
will be lengthy and very detailed in nature.
•
A full copy of the Coastal Commission's seawater desalination report can be obtained
from the agency's web site (www.coastal.ca.gov) .
• 8
•
•
•
TABL.E 1: EXISTING DESALINATION FACILITIES ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COAST Operator/Locatlon/Purposo/ Publlc or Private: Chevron/ Gavlota
City of Morro Bay
City of Santa Barbara
Duke Energy! Morro Bay Power e1ant ...... . .. Duke Energy/ Moss u111dlng PowerAant Marina Coast Waler District
Monterey Bay Aquarium
PG6EI Dlablo Canyon
Sal\ta Catalina lsfantf
U.S, Navy,' Nicholas Island
Various offshore oil & gas . olalforms ·Total Production:
Purposol Public or Maximum Status; Private: Capacltv: -Industrial prooessfng 410,000 gpd/ Active -Private 460AF/Vr. . Munlclpa.1/domestlc 830,000 gpd/ Intermittent -Public 929AF/y_r. use . Munlclpalldomesllc NIA Inactive . Public -Industrial processing 430,000 gpd/ Nol knovm -Private 482 AF/vr. •--Industrial precessing 480,000 gpd/ AcUve -Private 537 AF/vr. -MunicipaUdomeslic 300,000 gpd/ Activo ·'-Public 335 AF/vr. -Aquarium visitor use 40,000 gpdJ Active -Non-orofit 45AF/vr. . Industrial processing 576,000 gpd/ Not known -Pr1•,ate 645 AF/vr. . Mun!cipaf/domestlc 132,000 gpd/ Not known . Private 148 AF/yr . -Munlclpal/domesUc 24.000gpd/ Not known -Government 27 AFtvr. . Platform U$eS 2,000-30,000 gpd/ Active -Private 2-33 AF/'/r.- 3 mlfllan aallans per day /3300 acre-feet cer year
Note: gpd = gallons per day, nnd AF/yr."" nc.re-f�t per year. There nrc approximately 326.000gallons in an ncre-foot, which represents the amount of wnter il tnkcs to cover un acre of fond one
fool deep. TypicaJly. a household wm use one ro two :icrc-fect per year.
9
•
•
•
•
TABLE 2: PROPOSED DESAUNATION FACILITIES ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COAST
Operator/ Location: Purpose, ond public or Maximum Status: r:,rlvato: Capacltv: Cambria Community Services -Munldpol/ domestic 500,000 gpdl Planning District . Public 560 AF/vr. Ocean View Plaza/ Monlerey -Now development 5,000 9p<f/ Planning -Private 6 AF/vr. Carmel Area Waslewaler Dlslrlct -Municipal/ domestic Not kno\\/'fl Not known . PublicCity of San Bu&n�ven!urA . Municipal/ dom'l!sUc Notfmc:rivn Not Jenni.VJ\ -PublicCity of Sand City -MunlcipaU domesUc 27,000 gpd/ Planning . Public 30 AF!vr. City of Santa CnJ:Z . Municipal/ domestic 2.5 rnllllon gpd/ Plannlng
... -Public 2800AFlvr. East-Wost Ranch/ Cambria -New development Nol known Withdrawn -PrivateMolina Coast Waler District/ -Municlpalf domestic 2.68 minion gpd/ Plannlng Fort Ord -Publlc 3000 AF/vr.
long Beach -Research 300,000 gpd/ Design phase -Public 335 AF/vr. Long Beach -Munlclpalf domestic 10 mil!lon gpd/ Planning . Public 11.000 A.Ftvr. Los Angal9S D-11pl of Water and . Municipal! domestic 1 O mllllon gpd/ Planning Power . Public 11.000AF/yr. Monterey Bay Shores -New development 20.000 gpd/ Not known . Private 22 AFfvr.
Monlerey Peninsula Water -Municlpal/d omesllc 7.5 mllllon gpd/ Planning MomL Dislnct I Sand CilY -Publlc 8.400 AF/vr. Cal-Am'Moss Landing Power -Munlcipal/domesllc 9 mlUlon gpd/ Planning Plant 10,000 AF/vr.
Municipal Waler District ot -Municipal/domestic 27 million gpdl Planning Oranae Countv I Dana Point -Publlc 30.000 AF/vr. Poseidon Resources I .Various 50 million gpd/ DraltEIR HunUngton Beach -Private 55 000 AF/vr. comolotod San Diego County Waler -MunlclpaUdomoslic TBD Plannlng Authority/ San Onofre Nuclear -PublicGenerntino Station
San Diego County Waler -Municipal/domestic 50 million gpd/ Planning Authority I South County -Public 55,000 AF/yr.
San Diego County Water -Municipal/domesllc 50 million gpdl Plannlng Authority & Poseidon Resources -PubBc/prlvafo bti,UOO AF/yt. /Carlsbad --=-�
U.S. Navy I San Diego . Municipal/domestic 700,000 gpdl Not known -Govemmenl 760AF1vr. \"'lost Basin Municipal Waler . Munlcipal!dome51fc 20 mllllon gpdl Planning District -Public 22,000 AF/vr. Total Prooa8ed Produr:tlon: -24() million gallons: per '1,!Y I isn ODD AFlvr.
10
___ D�ec 19 05 10:03a cat ast
•
•
•
IIOMOOFD� Ctlllr.PIINS.W-1'111:e ��-m.gDCCUly _c __ _ llqotPra TlmCllyo4c."-S
��� g;-:is:=:.:t re-,t='�=�g;r.,'==· llllaftaCcudll-.CilJa!llelUa M::t�sJ.::c..,,,, CcudM-!ll!ltt� CftW'llf$11aCNllRIIP-.--i
AMMO ll!ACON SQlo,,o . SCMi Cau,IJolLuNIQlllilt co,,,eyotOlllnp C--,Gl&a,lllofl> c....,.,_...,.
CIIUIIWIIIO-.°"""J�n0111. CilJd�
Cll,olea.,IO.,o1Capllol9 CIIJcdConwwn CllyatC.Wl'IMI CIWdDtlCllrolfn:lrilu Cllyoltlll-Bar c:a,ol-•"""" Q'1af�
C.,d...,...._ Qr"''-'"C-,ollMO-Clrol\.aa� c:a,ot111,111u CIJdM-loldl c.yllflll..--nl1 Clltllf-h, Clll'alN-1._. 0,91� O,d,_..0.Cit,oll'IIIWO>a.CllfDl""'1'-c:a,., R-lleadl Clt91Ran:htl'alol \loldo OC,olSanCIIClyvfSnlCIIJ 0.,qtliallllltto c:1yo1s,n,.._ Cbol_._.. C::.,"'.._CIUZ Cl)'dS...ClljoolSMIcn,o1-
C11YolVo ......
STEVEN AceTI, J.O. E.recutive Dira:tor
December 19, 2005
California Coastal Coalition
1133 Second Street Suite G Encinitas, CA 92024
VIA FAX: {760) 602-8559
Jeffrey Segall. Chairman Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Blvd. Carlsbad, CA 92008
760.944.35" Cel 760.944.7852 fas steveaceti@calcoast.org
RE: EIR 03--05 Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project.
Dear Segall:
I am writing today on behalf of the California Coastal Coalition. We are a nonprofit advocacy group committed to restoring California's coast through sand replenishment, increasing the flow of natural sediment, wetlands recovery andimproved water quality. Our membership is comprised of35 coastal cities(including Carlsbad), five counties, AMBAG. BEACON, SANDAG. SCAG, and numerous business associations and allied groups.
Our organization was especially concerned about potential impacts to the coastline during the construction and operation of the desalination plant and examined the section on water quality very thoroughly.
Of highest interest were the EIR's Ocean Plan objectives: •Marine communities, including vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant species
shall not be degraded.
•W�e management systems that discharge to the ocean must be designedand operated in a manner that will maintain .the indigenous marine life and a
healthy and diverse marine community.•Waste d�harged to the ocean must be essentially free of substances that
will accumulate to toxic levels in marine waters, sediments or biota.
·After reviewing the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed desalinationplant, we feel confident that a comprehensive review process has been conductedand that very few negative environmental impacts have been identified.Additionally, the project is required to demonstrate compliance with numerousCa/coast is an advocacy o,pnfzaffon comprised of coastal communities and Interest group$
I •
•
•
•
Dec 19 05 10:04a Ca'. Jast
agencies' regulations, including the U.S. EPA the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Water Resources Control Board, and must implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
The mitigation measures which will be enacted are more than adequate to address the minimal impacts this project will have on marine life and water quality in the most affected areas including the Pacific Ocean, Agua Hedionda Lagoon watershed, and Buena Vista Lagoon watershed.
After much review, the California Coastal Coalition is pleased to offer our full support of the desalination project. This project will enable Carlsbad and the San Diego region to have a safe, reliable and cost-effective water supply, which will greatly reduce our region's dependence on imported water.
Sincerely,
� Steve Aceti, JD Executive Director California Coastal Coalition
Ca/Coast is an advocacy Of98nlzatlan compdsed of coastal communJtles and interest groups
www.ealcoast.org
p.2
•
•
•
IKlinedinstl 501 West Broadway, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 239-8131 Ext. 2259(619) 238-8707 Faxccooper@klinedinstlaw.comATTORNEY? AT LAW Carey L. Cooper, Esq. - Shareholder Internet: www.klincdinstlaw.com December 20, 2005 Mr. Scott Donnell Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbadr CA 92008 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) #03-05 for the Proposed Precise
Development Plant for Proposed Desalination Facility (SCH #2004041081)
File No. 2724-1001 Dear Mr. Donnell: The Alliance for a Cleaner Tomorrow (ACT) submits the following comments for your consideration on the above-referenced document a,nd in preparation for your upcoming December 21, 2005 informational hearing: (1) (2) Los Angeles The DEIR fails to disclose the basis for which it chooses to disregard and/or disagree with certain of the potentially adverse impacts and recommendations identified in the California Coastal Commission's March 2004 report onSeawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act. Commentators on the DEIR demonstrate that a reasonably foreseeable potential exists for the use of direct seawater intake into the desalination plant. However, neither the DEIR nor the responses to comments tpereon 1;1cjequately address the issue or respond to these comments. The DEIR ·does not adequately assess or disclose what potentially adverse impacts would result from operation of the proposed facility in the event the power plant were to shut down, or in the event the proposeofacility would otherwise operate independent of!he power plant. To this effect, the DEIR, as well as the corresponding responses to comments, improperly defer consideration and potential mitigation in th� e?nt subsequent permitting is required. It is improper to defer con�jg�ratiQn Qf fn:ip�cts and mitigation to a pomt in time whiph would necessarily be after the project has been operational because the balance of equities at that time, particularly in considering the feasibility of alternatives, will weigh more heavily toward continuing the operation Orange County Sacramento San Diego
•
•
• Mr. Scott Donnell December 20, 2005 Page2 (3)The DEIR discloses the megawatts of electricity the proposed facility wouldrequire to operate under expected conditions, but does not adequately disclose orassess the following matters: the cost of such energy; whether the need for suchenergy would cause the supplier therefore to increase its power generation; theenvironmental impacts that would result in the event" the energy supplier does infact increase power generation as a result of the proposed project; the impact theenergy requirements of the proposed facility woul_d have upon the quantity ofcooling water being used by the energy supplier; alternatives and mitigationmeasures i.n light ofthe anticipated energy requirements and potential impactstherefrom. Disclosure and analysis of these factors is required by CEQA section15126.4.(4)
(5)
By utilizing currently-permitted power plant operations as the basis fordetermining base-line data, the DEIR does not adequately assess what impact, ifany, reasonably foreseeable changes in the power plant's operations would haveupon the operation of the desalination plant. In additional to potential permitchanges, the DEIR should also disclose the details of the contract terms betweenthe power plant and the desalinatio� pla:nt owners.The DEIR should disclose in detail the cost for the production and sale of theproduced water, as well as the proposed level of production so that projectalternatives may be adequately assessed.Thank you for your consideration, and the opportunity to comment on this proposed project Sincerely, KLINEDINST PC CAREY L. COOPER CLC:tap cc: Carlsboo-:-City-Council members 472186.1
'' I
_:� --
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D. Agency Secretary Cal/EPA
October 14, 2005
Mr.. Scott Donnell
City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008-7314
5796 Corporate Avenue �,._�1i18192o<,.., Cypress, California 90630 /. � �
.A. ���� ! '"')T ...:i If OCT 2005 't r� m 110 l'lANNING DEPARTMENT �; .-Cityot J:J
\ � Carlsbad N' Q7 \""'9 � $ 1'> f: ;: i -\% cfi.,
�'WJ
Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT PROJECT (EIR 03-05) (SCH# 2004041081)
Dear Mr. Donnell:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted
draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above-mentioned project. The following
project description is stated in your document: "The project is a proposal to (1) construct and operate a 50 million gallon per day seawater desalination plant and other
appurtenant and ancillary water and support facilities to produce potable water,
including an offsite water delivery pipeline system; and (2) establish a Precise
Development Plan (PDP) for the Encina Power Station (EPS). The desalination plant
would be located at the Encina Power Station in Carlsbad. The offsite pipeline system
would extend into the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, and Vista. The PDP would serve as the primary City of Carlsbad land use application for the desalination plant and as a
document to establish existing land uses at and development land use standards for the
EPS. The project does not propose to modify EPS operations or existing facilities, other
than discharge channel and electrical connections."
Based on the review of the submitted document, DTSC considers it to be complete. If you have any questions--regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Joseph Cully, Project
Manager, at (714) 484-5473 or email'at jcully@dtsc.ca.gov.
Sincerely, ��-Greg Holmes
Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch -Cypress Office
cc: See next page
@ Printed on Recycled Paper
r
. )
~/
Mr. Scott Donnell
October 14, 2005
Page2
r
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmerital Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806
CEQA # 1160
r
January 25, 2006
Mr. Scott Donnell
City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
.. ◄
N C T D
RE: Final EIR for the Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project {EIR 03-05-SCH# 2004041081)
Dear Mr. Donnell:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Final Environn:1ental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project, a 50 million gallon a day seawater desalination plant with pipelines to distribute the water, located approximately on the
northeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Cannon Road at the site of the existing Encinas Power Station.
I previously commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for this project in a letter dated June 27, 2005. In that letter, I stated that the desalination plant will be well served by public transit, with Route 101 providing service every 30 minutes up and down Carlsbad Boulevard and Route 321 providing service every 120 minutes along Cannon Road and Carlsbad Boulevard. Both of these',bus routes connect to other regional and local transit,
services at nearby Coaster Stations.
In that letter, I requested that the DEIR address the following:
1.Mention should be made in the "Transportation/Traffic" section of existing public transitservice and its role in serving the future trips generated by this proposed use. At thevery least, mention should be made of the Routes 101 and 321 mentioned above.
2.Pedestrian access and circulation from the desalination plant buildings to the nearestexisting and/or future bus stops, inc!uding fer those people who use wheeichciiis; and
3.Provision of new bu_§_,stops along Carlsbad Boulevard and Cannon Road which wouldserve the principal entrances and or exits of the facility. These new bus stops shouldinclude ADA accessible boardings pads, passenger waiting benches, trash cans, and;:;treet lighting should be considered.
T:be-FE+R-r-esseAse-te-my-req uest stated:
"Based on the operational characteristics of the proposed project, it is not anticipated that the estimated 108 total daily employee/visitor trips associated with the facility would place demand on transit facilities that would warrant the suggested improvements. An accessible path of travel for persons with disabilities would not be required from the desalination plant to an existing or future bus stop along a street bordering the Encina Power Station, such as Carlsbad Boulevard."
NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
810 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, CA 92054-2825
760-967-2828
..
NCTD respectfully disagrees with this determination, based on the principles laid out in Carlsbad's General Plan. In the Alternative Modes of Transportation section of the Carlsbad
General Plan Circulation Element, one of the Plan's objectives is:
"To provide infrastructure and facilities necessary to accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, and other non-automotive modes of transportation." (Objective B. 1)
Furthermore, under "Implementing Policies and Action Programs" in the Alternative Modes of Transportation Section, that Plan dictates that the City of Carlsbad:
"Provide for handicapped access to and along public sidewalks." (C.5)
Therefore, based on the principles laid out in the Carlsbad General Plan, the bus stop and accessible paths of travel improvements that I requested are indeed warranted, if not required, according to the City's own General Plan. So I respectfully ask again that the FEIR address my
comments.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me at (760)
966-6546 or by email at kluhrsen@nctd.org.
Sincerely,
Kurt Luhrsen Principal Planner
Desalinization Plant Final EIR-rScott Donnell -Desalinization Plant Final EIR
From: To: Date: Subject:
Hello Scott, "McCabe, Mark" <Mark.McCabe@sdcounty.ca.gov> <sdonn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 12/16/2005 10:33 AM Desalinization Plant Final EIR Page 1 of 1 I just read the executive summary to the Desalinization plant EIR. There have been some changes sine the version I commented on earlier this year. My main concern is that in the Executive Summary states that aqua ammonia below 20% concentration at below 20,000 gallons is below the regulatory threshold. This is true at the Federal Level for the Clean Air Act Section 112®, but not true for the California Code of Regulations, Title 19. The regulated amount of ammonia in California in 500 lbs with no concentration limits. A Risk Management Plan (RMP) will be required before the ammonia could be brought onto the site. 3,000 gallons of 10% ammonia is about 2300 lbs of ammonia which exceeds the 500 lbs threshold. Feel free to cantct me if you have any questions.
Mark G. McCabe, MPH, REHS
County of San Diego
Hazardous Materials Division
1225 Imperial Avenue
P.O. Box 129261
San Diego, CA 92112-9261
(619)338-2453
FAX (619) 338-2335
mark. mccabe@sdcounty.ca. gov
(\') /(\Q /')f\f\C.
··•---...:...~
Page 1 of 1
Scott Donnell-FW: EIR Comment
From: "Peter MacLaggan" <pmaclaggan@poseidonl.com> To: Date: "Joe Monaco" -:::=Jmonaco@dudek.com>, "'Scott Donnell"' <Sdonn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 02/20/2006 8:53:32 PM Subject: FW: EIR Comment
See Nikolay's response to the ammonia comment below.
Peter M. MacLaggan Senior Vice President Poseidon Resources 501 W. Broadway #840 San Diego, CA 9210 I Ph. 619-595-7802 Fax 619-595-7892
pmaclaggan@poseidon I .com
From: Nikolay Voutchkov [mailto:nvoutchkov@poseidonl.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 9:09 AM To: Peter Maclaggan Subject: EIR Comment
Hi Peter:
In response to EIR comment from Mr. Mark McCabe, Hazardous Materials Division on ammonia storage on site:
Comment acknowledged. We recognize that fact that the regulated amount of ammonia in California is 500 lbs and the amount of ammonia planned to be stored on site is above this limit. The applicant will complete Risk Management Plan before ammonia is brought in on site and plant operation is initiated.
Nikolay Voutchkov Senior Vice President -Technical Services Poseidon Resources 1055 Washington Boulevard Stamford, CT 06901
tel. 203-327-7740 fax. 203-327-5563 eel. 203-253-1312
01/11 /?()(\f.. fiJp•//r•\nnr.nmPnts ~mrl SP.ttinos\snonn\T.nr.~1 SP.ttinos\TP.mn\GW\00001 HTM