Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 1 of 3 - Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Plant C _ NO-7--- 1/0 Tcv ©� ,�1u� T - Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: g y ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied ZL— ' / City ler si ignatu�e Council Meeting Date: November 17, 2003 Department ID Number: PL03-29 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION z SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS zc� o SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City AdministratoraW ;=--<; ' CV C:) PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning r' SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTPT p DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATE-R DESALINATION PLANT) — FORWARDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) I I Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration are Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 that represent a request by Poseidon Resources Corporation f to permit a seawater desalination plant, which includes construction of a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures to produce 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of potable water. The project also includes the construction of water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system and perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. The Planning Commission voted to: 1) refer Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 to the City Council with no recommendation; 2) forward the conditions of approval reviewed and approved by straw votes (Alternative Action 1); and 3) forward the findings for denial that were considered (Alternative Action 2). Staff recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission and is recommending the City Council approve the request (Staff Recommendation) with modifications which include most of the Planning Commission's recommended changes to the conditions of approval because: ■ The project is compatible with surrounding uses and is buffered from residential and other sensitive uses by significant setbacks, perimeter landscaping, and fencing. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 ■ The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40- foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures. ■ The proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for the tanks to achieve a unified theme. This coupled with the 10-foot perimeter landscape planter and screen wall will enhance the overall appearance of the site compared to the existing condition. ■ All other impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are addressed to avoid detrimental impacts to the area. ■ The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of P (Public) for the site. ■ The project is consistent with General Plan and Coastal Element goals, policies, and objectives. ■ The project conforms to the requirements of the Coastal Zone Overlay and will not impede access to the coast or any public recreation opportunities in the area. The applicant concurs with the staff recommended conditions. The project's potential environmental impacts are analyzed and discussed in a separate staff report. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development No. 02-05, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 to permit the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant with staff recommended findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." 2. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 7)." 3. "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment No. 8)." PL03-29 -2- 10/31/2003 8:13 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 to permit the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant with Planning Commission straw vote findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 2)." 2. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with findings for denial. (Attachment No. 3)" 3. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 and direct staff accordingly." Planning Commission Actions: Planninq Commission Action on May 27, 2003: THE MOTION MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 TO JUNE 3, 2003 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, STANTON, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on June 3, 2003: THE MOTION MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 AND COMBINE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, STANTON, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, RAY NOES: DINGWALL ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED THE MOTION MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY KOKAL, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 TO JULY 8, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: STANTON, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, RAY PL03-29 -3- 10/31/2003 8:13 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 NOES: DAVIS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on July 8. 2003: THE MOTION MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 TO JULY 22, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, SCANDURA, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, RAY, LIVENGOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on July 22, 2003: THE MOTION MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2003, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, SCANDURA, STANTON, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on August 12, 2003: THE MOTION WAS MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO AUGUST 26, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: SCANDURA, STANTON, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL NOES: DAVIS, RAY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on August 26, 2003: PL03-29 -4- 10/31/2003 8:13 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 MOTION MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 TO SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: NONE ABSENT: SCANDURA, STANTON ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on September 9, 2003: MOTION MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY KOKAL, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 WITH FINDINGS: AYES: DAVIS, KOKAL, DINGWALL NOES: SCANDURA, SHOMAKER, RAY, LIVENGOOD ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION FAILED MOTION MADE BY KOKAL, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 TO SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: DAVIS, SCANDURA, LIVENGOOD ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on September 23, 2003: THE MOTION MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY RAY, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 WITH FINDINGS: AYES: DAVIS, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: SCANDURA, LIVENGOOD ABSENT: SHOMAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION FAILED THE MOTION MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO FORWARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH NO DECISION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: PL03-29 -5- 10/31/2003 8:13 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 AYES: SCANDURA, DAVIS, DINGWALL, RAY, LIVENGOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: SHOMAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED THE MOTION MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO FORWARD BY MINUTE ACTION THE STRAW VOTES ON THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND THE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONSIDERED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 TO THE CITY COUNCIL CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: SCANDURA, DAVIS, DINGWALL, RAY, LIVENGOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: SHOMAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 Location: 21730 Newland (East side of Newland, south of Edison Ave) Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 represent a request pursuant to Sections 214.06 and 245.06 and Chapter 221 of the HBZSO to construct the following: A. A seawater desalination plant that includes construction of a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and other miscellaneous accessory structures to produce 50 million gallons per day of potable water; B. Perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage along Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and C. Up to four miles of underground water transmission lines in the city, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone boundary, to connect to an existing regional water transmission system. PL03-29 -6- 10/31/2003 8:13 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 The desalination plant proposes to take seawater from the Pacific Ocean via the AES generating station intake line and purify it using reverse osmosis to produce drinking water. Reverse osmosis is the process of pushing seawater through synthetic membranes to remove salt and other solids. The AES plant currently circulates up to 507 MGD of cooling water. The applicant proposes to use approximately 100 MGD of the cooling water after it has passed through the AES cooling condensers and produce 50 MGD of drinking water for use in Orange County. The remaining 50 MGD of concentrated cooling water (brine byproduct) will be blended with up to 407 MGD of the AES cooling water and discharged via the existing AES outfall pipe extending approximately 1,500 feet offshore. Pipelines will be constructed on the existing AES power plant site to connect the proposed desalination plant to the existing AES ocean intake and outfall lines. No changes are proposed to the coastal/marine portion of the existing AES intake and outfall. An underground water transmission line will be constructed from the desalination plant to the closest regional distribution line located in Costa Mesa (see Attachment No. 4). The segment located within Huntington Beach will be approximately four miles long, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone boundary, and will be located entirely within the existing public right-of-way along Newland Street, Hamilton Avenue and potentially Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. Poseidon Resources Corporation proposes to lease two areas totaling 11 acres from a 19- acre AES generation station parcel on Newland Street to construct the desalination plant (see Attachment No. 4). The first lease area is approximately seven acres in size and is located along the east end of the property away from the Newland Street frontage. This area is presently developed with two 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and a concrete containment berm. Both tanks as well as the interior portions of the 10 to 12 foot high concrete berm are proposed to be demolished. This area is proposed to contain the administration building, reverse osmosis building, pretreatment filters, solids handling building, various storage tanks, and other accessory structures. Retaining walls will be constructed to provide access openings to these areas where the concrete berm will be demolished. The site will be remediated to address any contamination from the previous use. The second lease area is approximately 4 acres in size and is located near the intersection of Newland 'Street and Edison Avenue. This area is presently developed with another 40-foot high fuel storage tank and concrete containment berm. The tank and the interior portions of the concrete berm in this area are also proposed to be demolished. The applicant proposes to construct a new 30-foot high water storage tank, lime silos, a small ammonia tank, and a pump station in this area. The plant will operate 24 hours, seven days a week. The facilities will staff approximately 12 to 18 people with the largest shift at 6 to 8 staff during the day. The nighttime and weekend shifts will have 2 to 4 staff members on site. In addition to employee vehicular traffic, project operation will require approximately three truck trips per day. The applicant has indicated that the request is necessary to provide a new water supply source into the area that is reliable and drought proof (see Attachment No. 5). PL03-29 -7- 11/3/2003 10:42 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 The proposed plant includes the following structures: Building Name Area Height(ft) Type of Notes s ft Construction RO Building 38,090 25'—0" Type II — EFIS Houses RO Membrane Equipment and Pumps Pretreatment Filters 38,270 16'—0" Cast-in-Place Open-air structure that houses . Concrete gravity media filters similar to a conventional water treatment plant Administration Building 10,120 18'—0" Type II —EFIS Multi-function building that houses administrative offices, maintenance shot, electrical room, lockers, control room, and a water quality laboratory Solids Handling Building 7,590 21'—0" Type II —EFIS Houses bell filter presses and chemical feed equipment used to treat solids removed in the pretreatment process Electrical Building and 1,800 12'—0" Type II — EFIS Houses main plant transformer Sub-Station and switch gear Chemical Storage 4,368 23'—0" Type II — EFIS Houses bulk water treatment Canopy chemical tanks Lime Storage Area 4,560 26'—0" Welded Steel Open-air structure for lime silos Ammonia Tank 28 6'—0" High density 1,000 gallon ammonia storage polyethylene or tank fiberglass reinforced polyester Washwater Tank 1,590 19,—0" Welded Steel Process water storage tank Flush Tank 491 29'—0" Welded Steel Process water storage tank Influent Pump Station 1,880 Below Cast-In-Place Location of the influent pumps grade Concrete and wet well. The pumps, piping, and other mechanical equipment are above grade Product Water Pump 650 Below Cast-In-Place Location of the product water Station Grade Concrete pumps. The pumps, piping and other mechanical equipment are above grade Product Water Storage 36,305 30' above Cast-In-Place 10-MG water storage tank. Tank grade, Concrete 10' below grade PL03-29 -8- 11/3/2003 10:42 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 Proiect Phasin_g The total demolition, remediation, and construction process for the proposed project is anticipated to last approximately 24 months. This time frame includes time necessary to acquire all required agreements, permits, and approvals. Project phasing for the components affecting Huntington Beach would be divided into two separate categories, composed of the following: On-Site Desalination Facility Construction: This portion of the proposed project would last approximately 24 months, and would include such activities as on-site demolition, grading/excavation, construction of desalination facilities, landscaping, and facility startup/testing. Import and export of earthen materials would occur primarily during the first six months and last four months of this phase of the project. Off-Site Product Water Transmission Pipeline Construction: This portion of the project would last approximately 21 months (includes pipeline segment in Costa Mesa), and would start about three months after the beginning of on-site desalination facility construction. This phase would include such activities as pipeline installation, implementation of pipeline under waterways/major roadways, soil remediation, removal of pipeline, and facility startup/testing. Import and export of earthen materials would occur primarily during the middle 12 months of this phase. Required Approvals The proposed desalination plant not only requires approval from the City but also from many other public agencies prior to construction and operation. These agencies will be reviewing certain aspects of the project for compliance with local, State and Federal standards. The following is an overview of the required permitting processes by agency: ■ City of Huntington Beach — EIR certification, CUP, and CDP for the desalination facility and underground water lines; Franchise Agreement for use of City right-of-way/Public Improvement Plans; Building Permits for construction of structures and tanks on-site. ■ California Coastal Commission — CDP for utilizing the existing AES ocean intake and outfall lines for mining ocean water and discharging into the ocean. ■ Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board — NPDES permit to discharge the brine byproduct water through the existing AES ocean outfall line in the ocean. ■ Various Agencies — Encroachment Permits for work in public right-of-way areas ■ South Coast Air Quality Management District— Permit to operate. • State of California Department of Health Services — Drinking water permit to assure quality of potable water. A background on desalination and context for the proposed Poseidon project, along with a summary of RO plants in California, is provided in Attachment No. 9. PL03-29 -9- 11/3/200310:42 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: At the May 27, 2003 Planning Commission hearing staff and the applicant presented the project. Twenty-one people spoke regarding the project. The majority were opposed to the project citing concerns primarily about impacts to water quality, marine life, the neighborhood, the city's redevelopment efforts, growth inducement, the adjacent wetland, as well the lack of benefits to the city and the use of a public resource by a private party for profit. In addition to the applicant's development team, one other person spoke in favor. The applicant's consultants summarized the results of the hydrodynamic modeling and the analysis of the salinity impacts to the marine biology. The Planning Commission focused their discussion on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and continued the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to the June 3, 2003 meeting. At the June 3, 2003 hearing 12 people spoke, six of whom were opposed repeating the same concerns presented at the previous meeting. The applicant presented the project's benefits and the basis for selecting the project site. In addition to the applicant's development team, one other person spoke in favor. The Planning Commission focused their discussion on the EIR and continued the CUP and CDP to the July 8, 2003 meeting with the public hearing closed. At the July 8, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission focused their discussion on the EIR and continued the CUP and CDP to the July 22, 2003 meeting with the consensus that the Planning Commission would submit their recommended conditions of approval to staff for response. At the July 22, 2003 meeting staff responded to the proposed conditions received from some of the Planning Commissioners. A straw vote to accept a proposed condition indemnifying the City from all legal expenses passed unanimously. The Planning Commission began discussion of the proposed conditions then continued the CUP and CDP to the August 12, 2003 meeting. At the August 12, 2003 meeting staff continued to respond to the proposed conditions received from some of the Planning Commissioners. After focusing most of their time on the reconsideration of the EIR, the Planning Commission continued to review the conditions and directed staff to incorporate additional changes to be brought back for further review at the next meeting. The Planning Commission continued the CUP and CDP to the August 26, 2003 meeting. At the August 26, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission continued reviewing the conditions and directed staff to complete additional modifications, incorporate alternative wording, and provide additional information at the September 9, 2003 meeting. At the September 9, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission once again reviewed the first nine pages of recommended conditions in detail and took straw votes. They continued the CUP and CDP to the September 23, 2003 meeting. PL03-29 -10- 11/3/200310:42 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 At the September 23, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed the rest of the recommended conditions in detail and took straw votes. A motion to deny failed. The Planning Commission, considering the improbability of achieving four affirmative votes, voted to forward the CUP and CDP to the City Council without a recommendation and by minute action forward the straw votes on the recommended conditions of approval as well as the findings for denial that were considered. Attachment No. 2 includes the conditions approved by the Planning Commission with straw votes. These conditions are the same as the staff recommended conditions with the exception of eight items that staff does not believe are necessary or supported by the information presented. The eight items are shown in shaded text in Attachment No. 2 followed by staffs rationale. C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The primary issues with the proposed project include: land use compatibility, site layout, circulation, street dedication/improvement, water transmission line, other project impacts, aesthetics, and benefits/disadvantages to the city. Land Use Compatibility The proposed use is compatible and consistent with the industrially designated properties immediately surrounding the subject site. To the north are a variety of industrial uses extending to Hamilton Avenue, which provide a buffer to the residential area north of Hamilton. To the east is a 145-foot wide flood control channel, which provides adequate separation from potential residential use on the ASCON-NEST landfill. The closest residential uses are the manufactured home and RV Park across Newland to the west behind a vacant parcel. The next closest residential uses to the east are single-family residences across Magnolia Street. The wetlands to the southeast are separated by the existing concrete berm and a distance of 79 feet to the closest proposed desalination plant structure. To the south of the project is the remainder of the AES generating station which is compatible with the project. Site Layout The proposed layout of the plant will not be detrimental to the area because it is buffered by substantial distance (from approximately 200 to 1,400 feet) from residential and other sensitive uses. The 30-foot high water reservoir tank, which will be the most visible of the structures proposed near the street frontages, is setback approximately 180 feet from the property line along Newland and over 100 feet from the property line along Edison Avenue. The rest of the proposed structures are located towards the east end of the property away from any street frontage and are setback a minimum of 79 feet from the east property line. Furthermore, facility operations will not be visible from the perimeter because they are PL03-29 -11- 11/3/200310:53 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 directed towards the interior of the site and will be screened from view by the existing perimeter concrete berm and the proposed landscaping and wall. Circulation, Street Dedication and Improvement The applicant is proposing to access the site through the existing AES gated driveway off Newland. A 24-foot wide access easement across the AES property and leading to the proposed structures is shown on the site plan. A parking lot with 32 spaces is located adjacent to the administration building and will be adequate to accommodate the maximum eight staff members per shift and any guests. The parking layout has proper circulation and the proposed parking spaces and drive aisle widths meet code. The loading area is separated from the main access aisle and the parking lot and is of adequate size to accommodate all truck operations. To improve circulation in the area the applicant will be required to dedicate 10 feet of property along the lease area frontage on Newland Street and 12 feet of property along the lease area frontage on Edison Avenue for street widening. The widening of Newland Street will be completed by the City, but the applicant will be required to pay their fair share for the improvements based on their leasehold frontage. The applicant will be required to improve the 12 feet of dedicated property along Edison Avenue as a condition of approval on the project. The additional 12 feet of dedication along Edison Avenue will improve the access and circulation to the industrial uses along this frontage. Off-site Water Transmission Lines The project also includes the construction of a water transmission line from the desalination plant to the closest regional distribution line located in Costa Mesa. The segment located within Huntington Beach will be approximately four miles long and will be located entirely within the existing public right-of-way along Newland Street, Hamilton Avenue and potentially Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. To minimize any detrimental impacts to the community and to maintain access to the coast and public recreation areas during construction as required by the Coastal Act, the Public Works Department will require the applicant to prepare traffic control plans to mitigate impacts to city streets and facilitate circulation during construction. A franchise agreement will also be required for use of the city's right-of-way. Other Project Impacts The EIR notes that the stationary noise sources from the project include various water pumps and air conditioning system components. However, the majority of these noise sources is located indoors or is provided with enclosures to dampen noise. Additionally, intervening structures such as the concrete berm and proposed wall combined with significant setbacks will further reduce noise impacts. A mitigation measure has also been identified which requires the applicant to submit a noise analysis prepared by a qualified PL03-29 -12- 11/3/2003 10:42 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 acoustical consultant which identifies stationary noise sources from the project and necessary mitigation measures to assure compliance with the city's noise ordinance. The desalination plant will be using chemicals in its operations both to clean the reverse osmosis membranes and to treat the potable product water. The project will incorporate leak and containment measures to minimize any risk to employees and the surroundings. All chemicals will be stored in concrete containment structures with a 110 percent spill containment capacity. The transportation of chemicals to the desalination plant will be conducted by registered haulers and is required to comply with all Caltrans regulations. The plant is also required to develop hazardous waste management and safety plans pursuant to Occupational Health and Safety Association (OSHA) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements. The Fire Department will also require the applicant to submit for their approval a complete chemical inventory and a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a qualified professional. The applicant has indicated that the project will not create any noticeable odors. The applicant is required to obtain a permit to operate from the Air Quality Management District and will continue to be regulated by the agency to address this issue. Aesthetics The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures. The proposed structures vary in height from a maximum of 30 feet for the water tank to a minimum of six feet high for the ammonia tank. These structures are at minimum 10 feet lower than the existing 40-foot high tanks. Furthermore, the bottom portion of these structures will be hidden behind the existing concrete berm along the perimeter. As noted before, the proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for the tanks to achieve a unified theme. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the AES generating station property to the south for a cohesive appearance. A 10-foot planter along the lease area street frontage on Newland and Edison will further improve the appearance of the project. The design, colors, and materials of the project have been reviewed and are recommended for approval by the Design Review Board. PL03-29 -13- 11/3/2003 10:42 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 Benefits and Disadvantages To The City The project will benefit the city by: ■ Improving the aesthetics of the area through the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures; ■ Installing perimeter improvements including a 10-foot landscape planter and an eight foot high wall along the project's street frontage for an overall cohesive appearance with the AES facility along Newland Street; ■ Advancing the remediation of any contamination around the fuel storage tanks; ■ Improving the circulation in the area through the dedication and improvement of additional right-of-way along Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and ■ Providing a new source of property tax revenue and a new drought-proof potential source of water. The project has the following disadvantages to the city: ■ It will cause a temporary disruption to city streets during the construction process. The analysis of the project indicates that the proposed advantages to the city outweigh the disadvantages because the project will result in much needed improvements to the aesthetics of the area. Additionally, the proposed use conforms to the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations on the subject site which permits utilities like the desalination plant. D. SUMMARY Staff recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 subject to conditions based on the following: ■ The project is compatible with surrounding uses and is buffered from residential and other sensitive uses by significant setbacks, perimeter landscaping, and fencing. ■ The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40- foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures. ■ The proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for all the tanks for a unified theme. This coupled with the 10-foot perimeter landscape planter and screen wall will enhance the overall appearance of the site compared to the existing condition. ■ All other impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are addressed to avoid detrimental impacts to the area. PL03-29 -14- 11/3/2003 10:42 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 ■ The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of P (Public) for the site. • The project is consistent with General Plan and Coastal Element goals, policies, and objectives. ■ The project conforms to the requirements of the Coastal Zone Overlay and will not impede access to the coast or any public recreation opportunities in the area. Environmental Status: The project's potential environmental impacts are analyzed and discussed in a separate staff report. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development No. 02-05, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02. Staff and the Planning Commission, in its initial study of the project, recommend that Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 be certified as adequate and complete with mitigation measures, findings of fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Although the project results in adverse impacts to the environment in relation to short-term construction related emissions that cannot be fully mitigated or avoided, the City Council may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the social, economic, and ecosystem/biological resources benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impacts to air quality during the construction process. Some of the project benefits as outlined in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Attachment No. 7) include: ■ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will provide a reliable source of potable water to Orange County and the surrounding region that is sustainable independent of climatic conditions and the availability of imported water supplies and local groundwater supplies. The Project offers Orange County's water agencies up to 50 million gallons per day (MGD) or 56,000 acre-feet of water per year to include in their portfolio of available water resources. Water conservation efforts have resulted in successfully stretching the developed water supply, and more gains from conservation are projected for the future. Still, in the latest California Water Plan Update (Bulletin 160-98), the California Department of Water Resources predicts that the South Coast Region (and the entire State) will face significant water shortages by the year 2020. While the amount of water produced by the Project is only a small percentage of the current 650 MGD (710,000 acre-feet per year) Orange County water demand, it is an important drought-proof, renewable supply that will enhance the overall portfolio of water resources available to Orange County water agencies. PL03-29 -15- 11/3/2003 10:42 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 ■ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will provide product water that meets or exceeds the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the California Department of Health Services (DHS). ■ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will reduce the salt imbalance of current imported water supplies by providing a potable water source with lower salt loads for blending with existing supplies. ■ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will remediate the subject site of on-site contaminants resulting from approximately 35 years of use as a fuel oil storage facility thereby protecting the health and safety of those in the surrounding community. ■ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will create ecosystem and biological resources benefits that may accrue due to decreased pressures on existing water sources. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) has identified that the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin has been overdrafted by more than 400,000 acre feet due to drought conditions of the last three years. The Project could offset withdrawals from the groundwater basin during dry years, allowing the Groundwater Basin to recharge. The Project could also offset demands on imported supplies transported from the Colorado River and/or Northern California, allowing more water to remain available for use in environmentally sensitive areas in those locations. ■ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will minimize demands on the existing imported water system. Southern California could not exist without its extensive imported water supply system. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"), together with many local water agencies, operates numerous water facilities to transport, store and recycle water supplies to meet the needs of Orange County and the surrounding Southern California region. Given the announced cutbacks of water supply from the Colorado River and the continuing environmental water demands on the State Water Project in Northern California, the water produced by the Poseidon Project could be dedicated by Orange County water agencies to simply replace existing water supplies for current Orange County residents and future generations. As a point of reference, the unavoidable significant impact in regards to short-term construction related emissions is also found in the Environmental Impact Report for other city approved projects such as the McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan, The Strand (Blocks 104/105), Home Depot, and Walmart. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is the formal documentation required by CEQA to implement and monitor compliance with all mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program establishes which City departments are responsible for ensuring completion and compliance with all adopted mitigation measures. PL03-29 -16- 11/3/2003 10:42 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-29 Following approval of the conditional use permit and coastal development permit, the City Council must approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 7), and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment No. 8). Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1 Findings and Conditions of Approval (Staff Recommendation) 2 Findings and Conditions of Approval (Planning Commission Straw Vote) ■ issues Forwarded to the City Council By Minute Action 3 Findings for Denial Reviewed by the Planning Commission 4 Site Plan dated April 22, 2003; Floor Plans and Elevations dated April 7, 2003; Conceptual Landscaping Plan dated April 23, 2003, and Conceptual Pipeline Alignment dated August 2002 5 Project Narrative dated April 30, 2003 6 Urban Design Guidelines Checklist dated May 20, 2002 7 CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with Statement of Overriding Considerations—EIR No. 00-02 8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program—EIR No. 00-02 9 Desalination Background and Summary of Seawater Reverse Osmosis Plants in California Over the past 14 years 10 Aerial 11 Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 27, 2003— Revised Conditions of Approval dated July 22, 2003✓ ■ Planning Commission Proposed Revisions to the Conditions of Approval dated July 22, 2003 ■ Late Communication dated July 22, 2003Z ■ Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 12, 2003✓/ ■ Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 26, 2003 ■ Additional Information dated August 26, 2003✓ ■ Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 9, 2003 with Commissioner Recommended Conditions ■ Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 23, 2003✓ 12 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 27, June 3, July 8, July 22, August 12, August 26, and September 9, 2003 13 Letters in Opposition and in Support 14 PowerPoint Presentation RCA Author: Ramos/Broeren PL03-29 -17- 11/4/2003 7:22 AM 1 i i °*cr +�, �`� .C.: �z,s� ,,,�.J• k? � rNF.�«i�; tyax� 54'` +?«c, cz' �`?y��. '' a'� � N.�..':7.�Fi� E' "�5��`� ;Yt�t �` �s�-v+'�4� r�'��M � �"„• � `s�'.� #`n�i„��:, -r"� �- S`+z M1� "�' 'L' �.4 t� �y^ �'Ss"�*''`y�+5.�°" �,'`€. �,%��{"" ,'r�y�,y ' •u �Lif�t�iY'n.:�?`�c`��"ewh�ignS{F 9rZ �'h,'x,k�?t.'�",.�...��,k'?s �s�g . � + °,,�rc'kx.�r;�_w.�+'-^.,F+ :.v�::r`".'4c'#'s,:•Y�i;:nri�;.t`°+;� ,aw�:Hsa"'�^ '' .� ?4..� ,-�"���"SJ�`:�%.'.e���w "�,��i.���'S��'�,',' ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Staff Recommendation November 17, 2003 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day which includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures;perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks to be replaced with lower profile and modern structures with a more attractive design consistent with the city's adopted Design Guidelines. The project will further enhance the appearance of the area with the installation of 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high block wall along the Newland and Edison street frontages to provide additional screening and a consistent and upgraded appearance in contrast to the existing improvements. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as proposed and modified by the conditions imposed is compatible with the properties immediately surrounding it which are primarily industrial in nature. Additionally significant setbacks, including Newland Street to the west, Edison Avenue to the north, the flood control channel to the east, an existing concrete berm, 10 feet of landscaping and an eight foot high block wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages provide additional screening from surrounding uses. Impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are also addressed to make the project compatible. 3. The proposed seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project as proposed and modified by the conditions of approval meets or exceeds the minimum development standards and is allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit and coastal development permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(Public) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.1 a. LU 7.1.1 - Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. b. LU 12.1.5 - Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass; b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c. use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; d. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls; e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and f. mitigation of noise, odor, lighting, and other impacts. c. LU 13.1.8 Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. d. UD 2,1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. e. CE 7 - Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. The project will be an improvement to the area because it will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks. The new proposed structures are more compatible with the surroundings because they are lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. The project is required to provide a 10-foot landscape planter along the perimeter of the site to enhance the appearance of the area. These landscaping improvements are required to be consistent with the approved landscaping improvements for the rest of the AES property to the south for a cohesive appearance. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, as proposed and modified by conditions of approval, conforms to the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objective, and policies: a. C 1.2.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule Table C-1. (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.2 b. C 4.2.1 -Ensure that the following minimum standards are met by new development in the Coastal Zone as feasible and appropriate: a. preservation of public views to and from the bluffs, to the shoreline and ocean and to the wetlands; b. adequate landscaping and vegetation; c. evaluation of project design regarding visual impact and compatibility; and d. incorporate landscaping to mask oil operations and major utilities, such as the electrical power plant on Pacific Coast Highway. c. C 4.7 - Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. d. C 4.7.1 -Promote the use of landscaping material to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast along public rights-of-way and within public view. e. C 4.7.8 -Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. f. C 6.1.13 - Encourage research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalinization as an alternative source of potable water. Participate in regional studies and efforts where appropriate. The proposed use is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use designation for the site of P (Public). The project will help improve the appearance of the area by replacing the existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks with more attractive structures that have a lower profile and by installing 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages. The proposed desalination plant structures will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures will have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project meets or exceeds all minimum development standards including but not limited to setbacks, height, and parking. The project will comply with all Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety Department codes and requirements. The proposal conforms to the city's Design Guidelines and incorporates variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The project provides buffering from sensitive uses such as residential developments through landscaping, a block wall, and increased setbacks. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the AES generating station property to the south for a cohesive appearance. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project is an infill development and as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructure to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. This includes dedication and improvements to the project lease frontage along both Newland Street and Edison Avenue to improve circulation in the area. (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.3 4. The development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as they will not impede any public access to the coast and public recreation opportunities in the area. All public access to the coast and public recreation in the area will not be impeded during the long-term operation of the facility as well as during the construction process with the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. The site plan received and dated April 22, 2003,floor plans and elevations received and dated April 7, 2003, and landscaping plan received and dated April 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The landscape area on the east side of the project site (landscape area three) shall include the removal of all Myoporum, and shall be planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Southern California coastal community. b. The architectural treatment proposed on all the tanks shall be limited to the top portion that is visible above the surrounding concrete berm. (DRB) c. The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to approval by the Design Review Board per conditions set by the Planning Commission. (DRB) d. Perimeter landscaping for this project along Newland St. and Edison Ave. is required to be installed only along the lease area frontage. The lease area shall have a minimum of six percent landscaping of the entire 11-acre lease area. e. The landscaping and wall plan shall be consistent in design, colors, and materials with the landscaping and wall plan for AES for a cohesive appearance. f. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) g. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric. transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) h. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.4 building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) (MM-ALG 1) i. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. j. If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage"towards the sky and onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent wetlands, and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (MM-ALG 2) k. The landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages shall include the densest type and number of trees to provide the most effective screening possible and shall be maintained to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the_following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.5 h. For the demolition of the three (3) 200 foot diameter fuel oil tanks, a work plan must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of work. (FD) i. In order to minimize potential demolition and construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows and other threatened or endangered species adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre- demolition nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows or other threatened or endangered species be found, adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-demolition survey. j. In order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. (MM-CON 41) 3. Prior to acceptance of grading plans for review: a. Ten feet(10') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Newland Street frontage. (PW) b. Twelve feet(12') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Edison Avenue frontage. (PW) 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall submit written proof of final project approval by each applicable regulating agency including but not limited to the California Coastal Commission, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District and all applicable water agencies and cities. b. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls and walls) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification#431-92. (FD) d. From the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells. (FD) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.6 e. From the DOGGR, provide proof of a Site Plan Review application. (FD) f. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification #422-Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) g. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit/site plan. This approved plan must be presented to obtain the required Huntington Beach Fire Department Fire Code Permit Application to conduct installation and/or removal operations. (FD) h. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number,plus identify and detail all methane safety measures per City Specification#429-Methane District Building Permit Requirements. These details shall be on a separate sheet titled"Methane Plan."(FD) i. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall enter into a Franchise agreement with the City for the generation and transport of product water from the site, and through and across the city's streets, rights-of-way or properties. (PW) j. A corrected lease line exhibit for areas "1" and"2"and an accurate metes and bounds description of the project limits shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. A metes and bounds description and separate exhibit of all access routes shall also be provided with the submittal. (PW) k. Irrevocable vehicular access rights shall be established and recorded across the AES and Edison properties. The access width and turning radius criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. (PW) The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (Code Requirement) 1. The applicant shall demonstrate utilizing a truck turning template overlay that a WB-50 vehicle can maneuver on-site through the designated access route. (PW) in. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The recommendations of the accepted geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities. The Grading Plan shall depict, but not be limited to the following items: (PW) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.7 1) The parking layout shall be in conformance with the approved parking plan, and shall also conform to City Standards and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including Municipal Ordinance No. 10.40.050. No parking shall be permitted adjacent to emergency access areas in compliance with Fire Department Standard Specification Nos. 401 and 415. 2) Access for the handicapped shall be in conformance with Title 24. 3) Separate sewer lateral and sewer line to provide service to all onsite facilities. The plan shall provide horizontal location and vertical clearances and dimensional relationship with other utilities. 4) A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. 5) Fire sprinklers shall have a separate dedicated fire service with an appropriate backflow device. 6) Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, fire services and irrigation water services. The final location for all public waterline facilities shall be as approved by the Water Division. 7) Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree. Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. 8) Final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be submitted for review and approval to the Public Works Department. The report shall also include calculation of first flush flows to substantiate the adequacy and effectiveness of all water quality mitigation and structural best management practices. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall events (storm frequencies up to a 100-year frequency). Mitigation will include adequate detention storage area onsite if the project pump systems fail to operate. The final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetlands. 9) Areas for containment shall be provided to mitigate possible spillage of any materials affecting storm water quality that may be stored on-site, and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. 10)In accordance with NPDES requirements, a "Water Quality Management PIan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. "Best Management Practices" shall be identified and incorporated into the design. All structural BMPs shall be tested "state of the art' and sized to infiltrate, filter and treat the 85`h percentile, 24-hour storm event. The WQMP shall comply with the requirements of the Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP). (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.8 11)A Notice of Intent (NOI), Notice of Termination (NOT) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. n. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PW) 1) Curb, gutter, sidewalk and A.C. paving to the centerline of the street along the Newland Street lease frontage, within a 50-foot half-width street Right-of-Way per City Standard Plan Nos. 102 (84'/100'), 202 and 207. In lieu of constructing the Newland improvements, the applicant may pay the cost of their proportionate share of the Newland Street Widening Project. The total amount due the City for the proportionate share of Newland Street improvements shall be $186,269.33 based on current figures and the lease area frontage. This fee is subject to change depending on when the fee is paid. 2) Curb, gutter and A.C. paving to the new centerline of construction, plus an adequate feathered overlay section to provide a smooth pavement transition along the Edison Avenue lease frontage, within a 42-foot full-width street Right-of-Way per modified City Standard Plan Nos. 104 and 202 (including an 8-foot parking lane on the north side, 24-foot driving lane, a 6-foot parkway on the north and a 4-foot wide utility easement on the south). No parking shall be permitted on the south side of the street. 3) An ADA compliant access ramp at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan No. A88. The corner curb return radius shall be 35-feet. 4) New Edison-owned street lighting shall be provided for the frontage of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and shall be consistent with City standards. 5) At the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and at the Newland Street driveway located approximately 460-feet south of Edison Avenue, corner sight distance as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual must be provided. 6) All utilities (proposed and existing) shall be shown for reference purposes and shall be consistent with utility infrastructure plans. o. Improvement Plans for all offsite water transmission lines within the limits of the City of Huntington Beach shall be designed and prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer showing a plan and profile of the improvements. Said plans shall be submitted on mylar sheets to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Trenchless construction methods will be utilized to cross roadways sensitive to traffic disruption and drainage channels as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. (PW) p. Conflicts between the routing for all offsite water transmission lines and other existing or proposed utilities, facilities or public infrastructure shall be identified and mitigated on the water line improvement plans. (PW) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.9 q. Signing and Striping plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for Newland Street and Edison Way. (PW) r. Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for offsite pipeline construction or any other work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) s. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site; details on how no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and details on how wind barriers around remediation equipment shall be provided. (PW) t. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) u. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) v. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents and the surrounding area. The plan shall take into consideration any street improvement construction occurring in the vicinity. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 35) (PW) w. Should the project require off-site import/export of fill material during demolition, remediation, and construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably Newland Street to Pacific Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard to I-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. (MM-CON 11) x. In conjunction with the submittal of application for preliminary or precise grading permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. (MM-GEO 2) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.10 y. As the South Branch Fault(situated beneath the subject site) is classified as "Category C"by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, special studies and subsurface investigation (including a site specific seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit, to the approval of the City Engineer. The subsurface investigation shall include CPT and exploratory borings to determine the fault rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. (MM-GEO 8) z. Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, which ever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutant runoff and to protect the adjacent wetlands. This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Appendix which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long- term maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, and shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: (MM-HWQ 1) 1) Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and 2) BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person. 3) All fertilizers and pesticides used by the plant shall not pose any harmful effects upon plants, animals, and marine life in the adjacent wetland or to any surrounding properties. aa. Appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding, and to ensure protection of the adjacent wetlands. (MM-HWQ 2) bb. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first, an appropriate on-site drainage system shall be installed for the project that integrates permanent stormwater quality features. (MM-HWQ 3) cc. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the Applicant shall prepare an acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans, prepared under the supervision of a City-approved acoustical consultant, describing the stationary noise generation potential and noise mitigation measures (such as the installation of sound enclosures or placing noise-generating equipment indoors), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to meet the noise criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (MM-NO 1) dd. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. This plan will be (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.11 submitted to the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. (MM-PSU 6) ee. Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: (MM-CON 1) 1) Where necessary, temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15"'. 2) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. 3) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. 4) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. 5) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. 6) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. 7) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. 8) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. 9) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed by the City of Huntington Beach Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. ff. Construction of the project shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: (MM- CON 2) 1) Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/ equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line flushings. (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.12 2) During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. gg. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements, the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent(NOI) to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. (MM-CON 3) hh. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans, the City shall include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications, which shall include measures to meet the requirements of the City and SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: (MM-CON 9) During grading operations, the following shall be complied with: 1) Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts; 2) Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts; 3) All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas; 4) Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas; 5) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut; 6) Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 mile per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site; 7) Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods (more than 30 days)with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation; 8) Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites; 9) Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites; 10)Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fitting tarp; 11)Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; 12)Maintain construction equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; 13)Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.13 14)Use electric equipment whenever practicable; and 15)Shut off engines when not in use. ii. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall ensure evidence acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works that: (MM-CON 10) 1) All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; 2) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control); 3) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas and wetlands; and 4) Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. J. Unless underground utility locations are well documented, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. (MM-CON 13) kk. An archaeologist and paleontologist shall be selected by the applicant and the City to be available for archaeological and paleontological findings during grading and construction. A qualified representative of the Native American community shall be consulted upon for appropriate Native American findings. 5. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered. The recommendations of this report shall be reproduced on the plans. (BD) c. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue per conditions set by the Planning Commission. (DRB) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.14 e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) f. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). g. A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application for the proposed desalination plant. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering, water quality, and chemical/fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential and groundwater constraints. Appropriate recommendations shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. (MM-GEO 1) 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for the irrigation system. (PW) b. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36-inch box trees or palm equivalent(13-14 feet of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8-9 feet of brown trunk) and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW) (Code Requirement) c. A buffer shall be required between the wetland areas and the containment berm, designated as open space, and planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Southern California coastal community. d. The Consulting Arborist(approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.15 e. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. f. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification #426-Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) g. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification#401-Minimum Access for Fire Department Access. (FD) h. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. (FD) i. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) j. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow, tamper, and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) k. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are 6'8"wide by 4'Y deep with a 42-inch wide (min.) right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54-inch depth. (FD) 1. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) in. For classification within the City's Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program, a complete chemical inventory and a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a fire protection engineer, environmental hygienist, or the equivalent shall be submitted to the Fire Department. Included,but not limited to, shall be the ammonia storage tank, the lime silos and the chemical treatment facilities. These tanks and associated equipment shall be designed and installed in conformance with 2001 edition of the CFC. (FD) n. As native on-site soils are compressible upon placement of structural loads, project implementation shall implement complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures. (MM-GEO 5) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.16 o. Type V cement shall be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measures (coatings, etc.) to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. (MM-GEO 6) p. Due to the potential for ground shaking in a seismic event, the project shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). However, given the proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust Faults, more stringent measures may be warranted. (MM-GEO 7) q. Due to the potential for liquefaction within the project vicinity, the Applicant shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) for structures on-site to assure safety of the occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997) and "Recommended Procedures for implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California" (Dr. Geoffrey R. Martin et al, May 1999). (MM-GEO 9) r. The proposed project shall incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction. Typical methods include, but are not limited to: (MM-GEO 10) 1) Overexcavation and recompaction of soils; 2) in-situ soil densification (such as vibro-flotation or vibro-replacement); 3) injection grouting; and 4) deep soil mixing. s. The site specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed project shall analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. If deemed a possibility, adequate subsurface stabilization practices (similar to those utilized for liquefaction) shall be incorporated prior to the construction of on-site structures. (MM-GEO 11) t. All applicable school mitigation fees shall be paid pursuant to State law. (MM-PSU 1) u. The Applicant will be required to pay the prevailing sewer connection fee plus five percent of the OCSD connection fee. (MM-PSU 3) v. The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate fees for water service connections, installation, and meters. In addition, the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. (MM- PSU 4) w. The Applicant will coordinate with the City's recycling representative to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. (MM-PSU 5) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.17 7. The structures cannot be occupied, the final building permits cannot be approved, utilities cannot be released, the use cannot commence, and the Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following has been completed: a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. (FD) b. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. c. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Code. (FD) d. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. f. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. g. Secured entries shall utilize strobe-switch activated, automated gates and comply with City Specification #403-Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates. (FD) h. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and association(if any) hardware. (FD) i. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424-Portable Fire Extinguishers. (FD) j. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification#428-Premise Identification. Number sets may be required on front and rear of the structure. (FD) k. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415-Fire Lane Signs. Additionally, the site plan shall show all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the grading and improvement plans. (PW) m. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance with the City-approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.18 n. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and a CD(AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy"prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) o. The applicant shall demonstrate that final coverage under the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. (PW) p. The applicant shall demonstrate that all measures required by these conditions to protect the adjacent wetlands have been implemented. 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, at minimum in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible and maintained in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetland. (PW) e. All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Six foot high dust/wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the "Water Quality Management Plan" requirements. (PW) k. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.19 1. Use low sulfur(0.5%) diesel fuel by weight in all diesel equipment. m. Shut off engines when not in use. n. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. o. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. p. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. q. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries, associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) r. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately.and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) s. To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: (MM-CON 12) 1) Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and 2) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. t. During construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. The construction site shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. (MM-CON 14) u. Construction activities, to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas and wetlands. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines and wetlands. (MM-CON 15) v. Construction activities, to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines. (MM-CON 15) w. Prior to excavation of the contaminated and other areas for rough grading, the project site shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash, piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly(recycled if possible). (MM-CON 16) x. Proper excavation procedures shall be followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and Health Standards. If applicable, the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) Rule 1166 (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.20 permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. (MM- CON 17) y. The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. (MM-CON 18) z. If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures, the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. (MM-CON 19) aa. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, demolition, grading or construction, operations in that area shall cease immediately. The contractor shall immediately notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action to include notification to the public will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. bb. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible time, the contractor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 20) cc. All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off- site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. (MM-CON 21) dd. Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. (MM-CON 22) ee. The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size, wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (MM- CON 23) ff. Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). (MM-CON 24) gg. During remediation, if any soil is found to be hazardous due to contamination other than petroleum hydrocarbons, it will be segregated, stockpiled, and handled separately. (MM-CON 25) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.21 hh. Dust and volatile organic emissions from excavation activities shall be controlled through water spray or by employing other approved vapor suppressants including hydromulch spray in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirements and the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) permit conditions. (MM-CON 26) ii. Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials, the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. (MM-CON 31) jj. Construction related activities will be subject to, and comply with, standard street use requirements imposed by the City of Huntington Beach, County and other public agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist with haul truck ingress and egress of construction areas and limiting the large size vehicles to off-peak commute traffic periods. (MM-CON 32) kk. During periods of heavy equipment access or truck hauling, the Contractor will provide construction traffic signage and a construction traffic flagman to control construction and general project traffic at points of ingress and egress and along roadways that require a lane closure. (MM- CON 34) 11. If grading operations uncover paleontological/archeological resources, the applicant shall suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/archeological resources. The archeologist/paleontologist pre-approved by the City shall report such findings to the Planning Department and the pre- approved Native American representative, if applicable. If the paleontological/archeological resources are found to be significant, the City shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant and in consultation with the Native American representative, if applicable, for exploration and salvage. 9. Prior to the excavation process for pipeline construction, the contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. (MM-CON 27) 10. Methane migration features will be consistent with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Specification Number 429 and other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features shall be submitted for review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), Environmental Health Division. (MM-CON 28) 11. Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas (LFG) generation and migration will be completed prior to issuance of grading permits. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems below trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.22 Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. Approved periodic monitoring of the monitoring network will be performed. (MM-CON 29) 12. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be located where construction would affect roadways. The TMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures: (MM-CON 30) a. Limit construction to one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible; b. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; c. Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/routes are disrupted by construction activities, if any; d. Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible public agencies in order to minimize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; e. Where construction is proposed for two-lane roadways, confine construction to one-half of the pavement width. Establish one lane of traffic on the other half of the roadway using appropriate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer; f. The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. Per Caltrans requirements, the applicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans at the 90-percent design phase; g. Construction activities shall, to the extent feasible, be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and h. Provide for temporary parking, where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. 13. The Contractor shall obtain the necessary right-of-way encroachment permits and satisfy all permit requirements. Also, nighttime construction may be performed in congested areas. (MM-CON 33) 14. Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down (e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac-out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated. It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally, the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. (MM-CON 40) 15. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.23 proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 16. The applicant and applicant's representatives shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 17. The applicant shall completely remove the storage tanks from the site within 12 months from the date of approval of City building permits and agreements. 18. The applicant/property owner and each successor in interest to the property which is the subject of this project shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed or until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for Coastal Development Permit. Because the project is in the appealable area of the coastal zone, there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is November 17, 2004, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday— Saturday 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.24 6. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the Coun1y of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the City Council's action. 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 9. Park Land In-Lieu•Fees shall be paid at issuance of building permits. 10. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the City Council. 11. The development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 12. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying any building. 13. The Water Ordinance #14.52, the "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (PW) 14. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) 15. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at a rate of$124 per net new added daily trip at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This rate is subject to change pursuant to any subsequent action by the City Council. (PW) (MM-PSU 2) 16. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) 17. The applicant is hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code 66020. 18. The applicant or its successor shall comply with all directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the adjacent wetlands, whether in the existing degraded conditions or as a restored wetland relative to the desalination plant. (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.25 19. The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, the applicant shall supply Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD) and any other water agency with water of quality that does not cause the agency to violate the pertinent limits of the agency's reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed project is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to water agencies. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County(MWDOC) and its affected member agencies regarding the specific requirements of the quality of the desalinated water prior to beginning construction of the desalination plant. If agreement between the two parties is not reached by then, MWDOC has the right to reject the use of desalinated water. (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.26 -+n 3 ?`'�'�.. ,z.%#cr�"r�'�d� , �� r�'' >lv`�4k. "��ec�y�c1�'�-ewe,i 3 � l�'itt�14 �'�r;?��,� ��-,�'i� r �i �i 7a y °a�.,rx aa�&' r�. i �3 •r k%WNaT' �� ,=#t�' �:- "r e: 1 '�,a �.�+e NO � � F .z�I 4+ya ^`3' ��`' L. Sx �n'. " u'„ay 'y 'tlA� s„ Je SA'i ..�,<,, '."`°4* ��.-'a;d �^.''e x�'""`,� a'� c ``�t'a ��' }vs � -%_ ,�x �• ,rx A s � �9 � "S�' �+� ,h�'�,i,'W�"w.,_-;Tc '�.. '��` Via. ., ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Planning Commission Straw Vote Motions (Same as staff recommended conditions with the addition of conditions 1(1), 4(m)(12), 4M, 4(mm), 19, 20, and code requirements 18 and 20 November 17, 2003 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day which includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures;perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks to be replaced with lower profile and modern structures with a more attractive design consistent with the city's adopted Design Guidelines. The project will further enhance the appearance of the area with the installation of 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high block wall along the Newland and Edison street frontages to provide additional screening and a consistent and upgraded appearance in contrast to the existing improvements. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as proposed and modified by the conditions imposed is compatible with the properties immediately surrounding it which are primarily industrial in nature. Additionally significant setbacks, including Newland Street to the west, Edison Avenue to the north, the flood control channel to the east, an existing concrete berm, 10 feet of landscaping and an eight foot high block wall.along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages provide additional screening from surrounding uses. Impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are also addressed to make the project compatible. 3. The proposed seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project as proposed and modified by the conditions of approval meets or exceeds the minimum development standards and is allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit and coastal development permit. (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.1 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(Public) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. LU 7.1.1 - Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. b. LU 12.1.5 - Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass; b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c. use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; d. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls; e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and f. mitigation of noise, odor, lighting, and other impacts. c. LU 13.1.8 - Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. d. UD 2.1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. e. CE 7 - Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. The project will be an improvement to the area because it will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks. The new proposed structures are more compatible with the surroundings because they are lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. The project is required to provide a 10-foot landscape planter along the perimeter of the site to enhance the appearance of the area. These landscaping improvements are required to be consistent with the approved landscaping improvements for the rest of the AES property to the south for a cohesive appearance. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, as proposed and modified by conditions of approval, conforms to the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objective, and policies: a. C 1.2.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule Table C-1. (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.2 b. C 4.2.1 -Ensure that the following minimum standards are met by new development in the Coastal Zone as feasible and appropriate: a. preservation of public views to and from the bluffs, to the shoreline and ocean and to the wetlands; b. adequate landscaping and vegetation; c. evaluation of project design regarding visual impact and compatibility; and d. incorporate landscaping to mask oil operations and major utilities, such as the electrical power plant on Pacific Coast Highway. c. C 4.7 - Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. d. C 4.7.1 -Promote the use of landscaping material to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast along public rights-of-way and within public view. e. C 4.7.8 -Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. f. C 6.1.13 - Encourage research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalinization as an alternative source of potable water. Participate in regional studies and efforts where appropriate. The proposed use is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use designation for the site of P (Public). The project will help improve the appearance of the area by replacing the existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks with more attractive structures that have a lower profile and by installing 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages. The proposed desalination plant structures will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures will have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project meets or exceeds all minimum development standards including but not limited to setbacks, height, and parking. The project will comply with all Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety Department codes and requirements. The proposal conforms to the city's Design Guidelines and incorporates variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The project provides buffering from sensitive uses such as residential developments through landscaping, a block wall, and increased setbacks. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the AES generating station property to the south for a cohesive appearance. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project is an infill development and as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructure to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. This includes dedication and improvements to the project lease frontage along both Newland Street and Edison Avenue to improve circulation in the area. (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.3 4. The development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as they will not impede any public access to the coast and public recreation opportunities in the area. All public access to the coast and public recreation in the area will not be impeded during the long-term operation of the facility as well as during the construction process with the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL— CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. The site plan received and dated April 22, 2003,floor plans and elevations received and dated April 7, 2003, and landscaping plan received and dated April 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The landscape area on the east side of the proiect site (landscape area three) shall include the removal of all Myoporum, and shall be planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Southern California coastal community. (Straw vote 6-1, Dingwall NO) b. The architectural treatment proposed on all the tanks shall be limited to the top portion that is visible above the surrounding concrete berm. (DRB) c. The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to fiaa4 approval by the Design Review Board per conditions set by the Planning Commission. (DRB) (Straw vote 7-0) d. Perimeter landscaping for this project along Newland St. and Edison Ave. is required to be installed only along the lease area frontage. Ewh The lease area shall have a minimum of six percent landscaping of the entire 11-acre lease area. (Straw vote 7-0) e. The landscaping and wall plan shall be consistent in design, colors, and materials with the landscaping and wall plan for AES for a cohesive appearance. f. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) g. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) h. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.4 screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) (MM-ALG 1) i. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. j. If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage" towards the sky and onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent wetlands, and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (MM-ALG 2) k. The landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages shall include the densest type and number of trees to provide the gf22jkq most effective screening possible and shall be maintained to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. (Straw vote 7-0) 1. The applicant shall install a satisfactory mechanical device such that only 40 percent of the water diverted from AES can be used for desalination purposes. (Straw vote 4-3, Scandura, Livengood, Shomaker NO), (Staff does not support this condition because it addresses the potential impacts of a more concentrated discharge to the marine/coastal environment. However, the Environment Impact Report concludes a less than significant impact in this regard; therefore, no mitigation measures or conditions are necessary.) 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.5 c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. h. For the demolition of the three (3) 200 foot diameter fuel oil tanks, a work plan must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of work. (FD) i. In order to minimize potential demolition and construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows and other threatened or endangered species adiacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-demolition nesting survey will be Performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows or other threatened or endangered species be found, adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-demolition survey. (Straw vote 7-0) j. In order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. (MM-CON 41) (Straw vote 7-0) 3. Prior to acceptance of grading plans for review: a. Ten feet(10') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Newland Street frontage. (PW) b. Twelve feet(12') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Edison Avenue frontage. (PW) 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.6 a. ding P @miss A iQQ44The applicant shall submit written proof of final project approval by each applicable regulating agency including but not limited to the California Coastal Commission, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board,Rod South Coast Air Quality Management District and all applicable water agencies and cities. b. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls and walls) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification#431-92. (FD) d. From the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells. (FD) e. From the DOGGR, provide proof of a Site Plan Review application. (FD) f. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification #422-Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) g. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit/site plan. This approved plan must be presented to obtain the required Huntington Beach Fire Department Fire Code Permit Application to conduct installation and/or removal operations. (FD) h. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number, plus identify and detail all methane safety measures per City Specification#429-Methane District Building Permit Requirements. These details shall be on a separate sheet titled "Methane Plan."(FD) i. Prior to issuance of any permit , the applicant shall enter into a Franchise agreement with the City for the generation and transport of product water from the site, and through and across the city's streets, rights-of-way or properties. (PW ) j. A corrected lease line exhibit for areas "1"and"2" and an accurate metes and bounds description of the project limits shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. A metes and bounds description and separate exhibit of all access routes shall also be provided with the submittal. (PW ) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.7 k. Irrevocable vehicular access rights shall be established and recorded across the AES and Edison properties. The access width and turning radius criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. (PW) The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (Code Requirement) 1. The applicant shall demonstrate utilizing a truck turning template overlay that a WB-50 vehicle can maneuver on-site through the designated access route. (PW) m. A Grading Plan,prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The recommendations of the accepted geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities. The Grading Plan shall depict, but not be limited to the following items: (PW) 1) The parking layout shall be in conformance with the approved parking plan, and shall also conform to City Standards and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including Municipal Ordinance No. 10.40.050. No parking shall be permitted adjacent to emergency access areas in compliance with Fire Department Standard Specification Nos. 401 and 415. 2) Access for the handicapped shall be in conformance with Title 24. 3) Separate sewer lateral and sewer line to provide service to all onsite facilities. The plan shall provide horizontal location and vertical clearances and dimensional relationship with other utilities. 4) A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. 5) Fire sprinklers shall have a separate dedicated fire service with an appropriate backflow device. 6) Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, fire services and irrigation water services. The final location for all public waterline facilities shall be as approved by the Water Division. 7) Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36"box tree. ' Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.8 recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. (Straw vote 7-0) 8) Final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be submitted for review and approval to the Public Works Department. The report shall also include calculation of first flush flows to substantiate the adequacy and effectiveness of all water quality mitigation and structural best management practices. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall events (storm frequencies up to a 100-year frequency). Mitigation will include adequate detention storage area onsite if the project pump systems fail to operate. The final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetlands. 9) Areas for containment shall be provided to mitigate possible spillage of any materials affecting storm water quality that may be stored on-site, and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. 10)In accordance with NPDES requirements, a "Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. "Best Management Practices" shall be identified and incorporated into the design. All structural BMPs shall be tested "state of the art" and sized to infiltrate, filter and treat the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. The WQMP shall comply with the requirements of the ®range County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP). 11)A Notice of Intent (NOI), Notice of Termination (NOT) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 12) All materials used in cleaning and/or maintenance of the Poseidon Equipment, either initially or periodically, whether they be solids, solids in liquid or liquid will be delivered (either by truck or pipeline) to the Orange County Sanitation District via the nearest sewer line for processing. The cost of this activity is to be borne by the Applicant or its successors. All liquid run-off from equipment, yard, grounds, spills, landscaping or for any other reason will be handled the same as above. (Straw vote 4-1, Scandura NO) (Staff does not support this condition because what the project can discharge into the ocean is subject to review and approval by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board through the issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This permitting process allows for public input. Additionally, conditions 4(m)(8) through 4(m)(10) already address storm water through the submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan and implementation of Best Management Practices.) (Nov.17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.9 n. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PW) 1) Curb, gutter, sidewalk and A.C. paving to the centerline of the street along the Newland Street lease frontage, within a 50-foot half-width street Right-of-Way per City Standard Plan Nos. 102 (84'/100'), 202 and 207. In lieu of constructing the Newland improvements, the applicant may pay the cost of their proportionate share of the Newland Street Widening Project. The total amount due the City for the proportionate share of Newland Street improvements shall be $186,269.33 based on current figures and the lease area frontage. This fee is subject to change depending on when the fee is paid. 2) Curb, gutter and A.C. paving to the new centerline of construction, plus an adequate feathered overlay section to provide a smooth pavement transition along the Edison Avenue lease frontage, within a 42-foot full-width street Right-of-Way per modified City Standard Plan Nos. 104 and 202 (including an 8-foot parking lane on the north side, 24-foot driving lane, a 6-foot parkway on the north and a 4-foot wide utility easement on the south). No parking shall be permitted on the south side of the street. 3) An ADA compliant access ramp at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan No. A88. The corner curb return radius shall be 35-feet. 4) New Edison-owned street lighting shall be provided for the frontage of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and shall be consistent with City standards. 5) At the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and at the Newland Street driveway located approximately 460-feet south of Edison Avenue, corner sight distance as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual must be provided. 6) All utilities (proposed and existing) shall be shown for reference purposes and shall be consistent with utility infrastructure plans. o. Improvement Plans for all offsite water transmission lines within the limits of the City of Huntington Beach shall be designed and prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer showing a plan and profile of the improvements. Said plans shall be submitted on mylar sheets to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Trenchless construction methods will be utilized to cross roadways sensitive to traffic disruption and drainage channels as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. (PW) p. Conflicts between the routing for all offsite water transmission lines and other existing or proposed utilities, facilities or public infrastructure shall be identified and mitigated on the water line improvement plans. (PW) q. Signing and Striping plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for Newland Street and Edison Way. (PW) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.10 r. Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for offsite pipeline construction or any other work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) s. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site; details on how no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and details on how wind barriers around remediation equipment shall be provided. (PW) (Straw vote 5-0) t. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and"1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) u. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) v. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents and the surrounding area. The plan shall take into consideration any street improvement construction occurring in the vicinity. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 35) (PW) w. Should the project require off-site import/export of fill material during demolition, remediation, and construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably Newland Street to Pacific Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard to I-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. (MM-CON 11) x. In conjunction with the submittal of application for preliminary or precise grading permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. (MM-GEO 2) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.11 y. As the South Branch Fault(situated beneath the subject site) is classified as "Category C"by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, special studies and subsurface investigation (including a site specific seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit, to the approval of the City Engineer. The subsurface investigation shall include CPT and exploratory borings to determine the fault rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. (MM-GEO 8) z. Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, which ever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutant runoff and to protect the adjacent wetlands. This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Appendix which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, and shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: (MM-HWQ 1) 1) Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and 2) BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person. 3) All fertilizers and pesticides used by the plant shall not pose any harmful effects upon plants, animals, and marine life in the adjacent wetland or to any surrounding properties. aa. Appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding, and to ensure protection of the adjacent wetlands. (MM-HWQ 2) bb. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first, an appropriate on-site drainage system shall be installed for the project that integrates permanent stormwater quality features. (MM-HWQ 3) cc. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the Applicant shall prepare an acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans, prepared under the supervision of a City-approved acoustical consultant, describing the stationary noise generation potential and noise mitigation measures (such as the installation of sound enclosures or placing noise-generating equipment indoors), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to meet the noise criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (MM-NO 1) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.12 dd. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. This plan will be submitted to the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. (MM-PSU 6) ee. Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: (MM-CON 1) 1) Where necessary, temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15cn 2) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. 3) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. 4) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. 5) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. 6) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. 7) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. 8) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. 9) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed by the Gotmty w Gion, City of Huntington Beach Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. ff. Construction of the project shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: (MM- CON 2) 1) Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line flushings. (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.13 2) During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. gg. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements, the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent(NOI) to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. (MM-CON 3) hh. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans, the City shall include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications, which shall include measures to meet the requirements of the City and SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: (MM-CON 9) During grading operations, the following shall be complied with: 1) Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts; 2) Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts; 3) All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas; 4) Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas; 5) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut; 6) Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 mile per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site; 7) Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods (more than 30 days) with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation; 8) Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites; 9) Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites; 10)Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fitting tarp; 11)Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; 12)Maintain construction equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; 13)Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.14 14)Use electric equipment whenever practicable; and 15)Shut off engines when not in use. ii. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall ensure evidence acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works that: (MM-CON 10) 1) All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; 2) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control); 3) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas and wetlands; and 4) Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. J. Unless underground utility locations are well documented, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. (MM-CON 13) kk.An archaeololzist and paleontologist shall be selected by the applicant and the City to be available for archaeological and paleontological findings during 2radinI4 and construction. A qualified representative of the Native American community shall be consulted upon for appropriate Native American findings. 11. The applicant shall provide written confirmation by AES that-they are bound by condition t L which rectuires the installation of a satisfactor . mechanical device such that only d percent of the wa er diverted from AES can.be used ., for desalination gur uses and that AES will sop& logs, docuiiments, reports and records at the request of the City, reflecting the amounts, dates and times of water diverted to Poseidon. Additionally, .AES maX only release water to Poseidon when reasonably related to the production of electricity; (Straw vote 4- 3, Scandura, Livengood,Shomaker NO) (Staff does not support this condition for the same reason as 1(L) above. Additionally, if this condition is retained it should be reworded such that the condition is directed to Poseidon and not AES. The recommended wording is as follows: (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.15 The applicant shall provide written confirmation that they are bound by condition 1(L) which requires the installation of a satisfactory mechanical device such that only 40 percent of the water diverted from AES can be used for desalination purposes and that Poseidon will supply logs, documents, reports and records at the request of the City, reflecting the amounts, dates and times of water diverted to Poseidon. AdditionaNy, AES may Additionally, Poseidon may only draw water from AES when AES is pumping water reasonably related to the production of electricity.) n m. To address the risk of facility abandonment by the project owners, security ,will be posted to ensure the demolition of the plant and restoration of the site to its origin l undeveloped cond%t on. Prior to the issuance of;;radip ,permits a restoration bond or®ther security shall be posted with_tbe ><ty ><n the amount acceptable to the City and owner of the site to cover the cost of restoring the site to its original undeveloped condition. The restoration bond or other security shall be based on cost estimates from licensed demolition contractors. Such security shall remain,in effect for five ($) years after the plant is operational, Six (6) months prior to the 5tanniversary date and to each ,succeeding five_(5) year period thereafter, if applicable, the desalination plant owner,shall provide information to the City and the site owner sufficient to them,and the City,and the site owner shall determine if the risk of abandonment and/or baukruntcy is still a concern and if the security should be terminated or renewed for an additional five (5) year period. (Straw vote 5-0) (Staff does not support this condition because the risk of the developer investing in the construction of the project and then abandoning it is negligible.) 5. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered. The recommendations of this report shall be reproduced on the plans. (BD) c. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenues per conditions set by the Planning Commission. (DRB) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.16 e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) f. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). g. A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application for the proposed desalination plant. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering, water quality, and chemical/fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential and groundwater constraints. Appropriate recommendations shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. (MM-GEO 1) 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for the irrigation system. (PW) b. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36-inch box trees or palm equivalent(13-14 feet of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8-9 feet of brown trunk) and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PV ) (Code Requirement) A buffer shall be required between the wetland areas and the containment berm, designated as open space, and planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Southern California coastal community. (Straw vote 4-1, Dingwall NO) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.17 d. The Consulting Arborist(approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW) e. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. f. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification#426-Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) g. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification #401-Minimum Access for Fire Department Access. (FD) h. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. (FD) i. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) j. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow, tamper, and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) k. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are 6'8"wide by 4'Y deep with a 42-inch wide (min.) right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54-inch depth. (FD) 1. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) m. For classification within the City's Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program, a complete chemical inventory and a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a fire protection engineer, environmental hygienist, or the equivalent shall be submitted to the Fire Department. Included, but not limited to, shall be the ammonia storage tank, the lime silos and the chemical treatment (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.18 facilities. These tanks and associated equipment shall be designed and installed in conformance with 2001 edition of the CFC. (FD) n. As native on-site soils are compressible upon placement of structural loads, project implementation shall implement complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures. (MM-GEO 5) o. Type V cement shall be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measures (coatings, etc.) to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. (MM-GEO 6) p. Due to the potential for ground shaking in a seismic event, the project shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). However, given the proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust Faults, more stringent measures may be warranted. (MM-GEO 7) q. Due to the potential for liquefaction within the project vicinity, the Applicant shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) for structures on-site to assure safety of the occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997) and "Recommended Procedures for implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California" (Dr. Geoffrey R. Martin et al, May 1999). (MM-GEO 9) r. The proposed project shall incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction. Typical methods include, but are not limited to: (MM-GEO 10) 1) Overexcavation and recompaction of soils; 2) in-situ soil densification (such as vibro-flotation or vibro-replacement); 3) injection grouting; and 4) deep soil mixing. s. The site specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed project shall analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. If deemed a possibility, adequate subsurface stabilization practices (similar to those utilized for liquefaction) shall be incorporated prior to the construction of on-site structures. (MM-GEO 11) t. All applicable school mitigation fees shall be paid pursuant to State law. (MM-PSU 1) u. The Applicant will be required to pay the prevailing sewer connection fee plus five percent of the OCSD connection fee. (MM-PSU 3) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.19 v. The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate fees for water service connections, installation, and meters. In addition, the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. (MM- PSU 4) w. The Applicant will coordinate with the City's recycling representative to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. (MM-PSU 5) 7. The structures cannot be occupied, the final building permits cannot be approved, utilities cannot be released, the use cannot commence, and the Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following has been completed: a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. (FD) b. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. c. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Code. (FD) d. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. f. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. g. Secured entries shall utilize strobe-switch activated, automated gates and comply with City Specification #403-Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates. (FD) h. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and association (if any) hardware. (FD) i. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424-Portable Fire Extinguishers. (FD) j. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification #428-Premise Identification. Number sets may be required on front and rear of the structure. (FD) k. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification #415-Fire Lane Signs. Additionally, the site plan shall show all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.20 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the grading and improvement plans. (PW) in. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance with the City-approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) n. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and a CD(AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy"prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) o. The applicant shall demonstrate that final coverage under the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. (PW) p. The applicant shall demonstrate that all measures oeeessa" required by these conditions to protect the adiacent wetlands have been implemented. 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, at minimum in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) (Straw vote 5-0) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible and maintained in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adiacent wetland. (PW) e. All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.21 h. Six foot high dust/wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the "Water Quality Management Plan"requirements. (PW) k. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. 1. Use low sulfur(0.5%) diesel fuel by weight in all diesel equipment. (Straw vote 5-0) M. Shut off engines when not in use. n. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. o. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. p. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the.development and any construction/grading activity. q. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) r. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) s. To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: (MM-CON 12) 1) Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and 2) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. t. During construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. The construction site shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. (MM-CON 14) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.22 u. Construction activities, to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas and wetlands. Equipment storage,and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines and wetlands. (MM-CON 15) (Straw vote 5-0) v. Construction activities, to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines. (MM-CON 15) w. Prior to excavation of the contaminated and other areas for rough grading, the project site shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash, piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly(recycled if possible). (MM-CON 16) x. Proper excavation procedures shall be followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and Health Standards. If applicable, the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. (MM- CON 17) y. The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. (MM-CON 18) z. If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures, the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. (MM-CON 19) aa. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, demolition, trading or construction, operations in that area shall cease immediately. The contractor shall immediately notify , the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action to include notification to the public will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. (Straw vote 4-1, Dingwall NO) bb. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible time, the contractor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 20) cc. All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off- site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. (MM-CON 21) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.23 dd. Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. (MM-CON 22) ee. The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size, wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (MM- CON 23) ff. Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). (MM-CON 24) gg. During remediation, if any soil is found to be hazardous due to contamination other than petroleum hydrocarbons, it will be segregated, stockpiled, and handled separately. (MM-CON 25) hh. Dust and volatile organic emissions from excavation activities shall be controlled through water spray or by employing other approved vapor suppressants including hydromulch spray in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirements and the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)permit conditions. (MM-CON 26) ii. Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials, the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. (MM-CON 31) jj. Construction related activities will be subject to, and comply with, standard street use requirements imposed by the City of Huntington Beach, County and other public agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist with haul truck ingress and egress of construction areas and limiting the large size vehicles to off-peak commute traffic periods. (MM-CON 32) kk. During periods of heavy equipment access or truck hauling, the Contractor will provide construction traffic signage and a construction traffic flagman to control construction and general project traffic at points of ingress and egress and along roadways that require a lane closure. (MM- CON 34) 11. If grading operations uncover paleontolo2ical/archeolo0cal resources, the applicant shall suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/archeological resources. The archeologist/paleontologist pre- approved by the City shall report such findings to the Planning Department and the pre-approved Native American representative, if applicable. If the paleontological/archeological resources are found to be significant, the City shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant and in (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.24 consultation with the Native American representative, if applicable, for exploration and salvage. (Straw vote 4-1, Dingwall NO) 9. Prior to the excavation process for pipeline construction, the contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. (MM-CON 27) 10. Methane migration features will be consistent with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Specification Number 429 and other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features shall be submitted for review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), Environmental Health Division. (MM-CON 28) 11. Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas (LFG) generation and migration will be completed prior to issuance of grading permits. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and.passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems below trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. Approved periodic monitoring of the monitoring network will be performed. (MM-CON 29) (Straw vote 5-0) 12. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be located where construction would affect roadways. The TMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures: (MM-CON 30) a. Limit construction to one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible; b. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; c. Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/routes are disrupted by construction activities, if any; d. Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible public agencies in order to minimize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; e. Where construction is proposed for two-lane roadways, confine construction to one-half of the pavement width. Establish one lane of traffic on the other half of the roadway using appropriate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer; (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.25 f. The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. Per Caltrans requirements, the applicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans at the 90-percent design phase; g. Construction activities shall, to the extent feasible, be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and h. Provide for temporary parking, where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. 13. The Contractor shall obtain the necessary right-of-way encroachment permits and satisfy all permit requirements. Also, nighttime construction may be performed in congested areas. (MM-CON 33) 14. Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The.plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down (e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac-out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated. It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally,the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. (MM-CON 40) 15. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 16. The applicant and applicant's representatives shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 17.The applicant shall completely remove the storage tanks from the site within 12 months from the date of approval of City building permits and a reements. (Straw vote 3-2, Davis, Dingwall NO) 18.The applicant/property owner and each successor in interest to the property which is the subject of this project shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.26 any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. (Straw vote 7-0) 19.The applicant shall notify the City of Huntington. Beach and applicable public agr~ncies located within the service area of any agency that would receive any desalinated water,produced.trom the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Plant upon receipt of any instrument of intent to purchase or execution of any agreement Lor the sale Qf any.desalinated wate frog!,produced fro the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Plant, or at the time any purchaser of desalinated; water produced from.the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Plant commences review of the potential future environmental and growth inducing impacts that may result from such water purchase, whichever occurs earlier.. (Straw vote 4-1,Dingwall NO) (Staff does not support this condition because it does not address any legitimate concerns relating to the project.) 20.Upon conclusion of the entrainment study required by the California Energy Commission (CEC} for operation of the AES intake facility, the applicant shall fund a supplemental investigation which will: rely on the findings of the CEC entrainment study and the mitigation proposed herein to determine_whether the potential future entrainment of marine life,if any, relative to the use of seawater by the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Plant will occur and whether specific mitigation is required. The supplemental investigation shall be conducted by an independent'expert approved by both the City and the applicant. (Straw vote 4-1, Dingwall NO) (Staff does not support this condition because the project will rely on water already being circulated by AES; therefore, no additional entrainment will occur. If the project were to pump water independent of AES, additional environmental review and entitlements will be required. An entrainment study would be appropriate at that time.) INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed or until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for Coastal Development Permit. Because the project is in the appealable area of the coastal zone, there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is Mlay 2q, 20-4 (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.27 November 17, 2004, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 69:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Straw vote 5-0) 6. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the Coun1y of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the City Council's action. 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 9. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid at issuance of building permits. 10. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the City Council. 11. The development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 12. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying an building. (Straw vote 4-1, Livengood NO) 13. The Water Ordinance #14.52, the "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements"apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (PW) 14. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.28 15. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at a rate of$124 per net new added daily trip at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This rate is subject to change pursuant to any subsequent action by the City Council. (PW) (MM-PSU 2) 16. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) 17. The applicant is hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code 66020. 18.The applicant or its successor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach within" ten (10) days of being informed by AES Inc., or its successors, that electric power production shall cease permanently or for an eltended period of nine (9) months or longer. If the applicant or,its successor intends to remain operational after power production ceases, they shall apply for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit from the City and be subiect to an environmental review (equal to a Supplemental Envirogmentai Impact Report) on potential environmental impacts and mitigation requirements relative to the intake ofseawater for the desalination plant.(Straw vote 4-1, Dingwall NO) (The applicant is required by code and the CEQA guidelines to amend their entitlements and environmental documentation if the scope of the project changes.) 19.The applicant or its successor shall comply with all directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the adjacent wetlands, whether in the existing degraded conditions or as a restored wetland relative to the desalination plant. (Straw vote 5-0) 20.If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational after power , Prodactcn ceases permanently or for an extended per>tod of> ine (9) months or lon er the agipficaut or :its successor shall corn l' with all , directives 're uire�rnents .orders or other re Motor. re uirements inn 'osed b federal, state, and local re �ulatory agencies to mitigate?abate, or prevent conditions that cause the impingement or entrainment of marine life or otherwise harm of impact the ntarine environment relative to tie intake rtf seawater for the desalination facility. (Straw vote 5-0) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.29 (The applicant is required to comply with all requirements from federal, state, and local regulatory agencies.) 21. The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with A applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, the applicant shall supply Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) and any other water agency with water of quality that does not cause the agency to violate the pertinent limits of the agency's reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed proiect is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to water agencies. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and its affected member agencies regarding the specific requirements of the quality of the desalinated water prior to beginning construction of the desalination plant. If agreement between the two parties is not reached by then, MWDOC has the right to reiect the use of desalinated water. (Straw vote 4-1, Dingwall NO) (Nov. 17,2003 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No.2.30 On September 9, 2003 the Planning Commission voted to forward the following issues to the City Council by minute action. Proposed Conditions for the Poseidon CUP by Robert E. Dingwall,Planning Commissioner Revised September 3, 2003 TAXES Condition # 1 If for any reason the Poseidon Operation and/or it's successors are deemed exempt from the Huntington Beach Utility Tax, an"In-Lieu"fee must be paid in an amount equal to what said Utility Tax would have been. Said In-Lieu Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth( 15 ) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization or it's successors must cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later than the fifth(5 ) day of July, each calendar year. Condition # 2 If for any reason the Poseidon Operation and/or it's successors are deemed exempt from Real Property Tax, Business Tax (of any kind), Inventory Tax, Leasehold Tax, or any other tax normally paid by other businesses in Huntington Beach, an"In-Lieu" fee must be paid in an amount equal to what said Tax would have been to all agencies otherwise eligible for said Taxes. Said In-Lieu Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth( 15 ) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization(or it's successors)will cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to all eligible Agencies no later than the fifth ( 5 ) day of July, each calendar year. Condition # 3 For all products developed and/or sold by Poseidon(or it's successors) in Huntington Beach,the official Point of Sale must be Huntington Beach, California. Page 1i`�`�' '"�'�v`�f Right-of-way Fees: Conveyance Fee Condition # 6 A Conveyance Fee will be included into the Right-of-Way Agreement for the use of Huntington Beach City Property in an amount equal to three ( 3 %) percent of Poseidon(or it's successors) Gross Annual Income. Said Conveyance Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth ( 15 ) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization(or it's successors)must cooperate fully in this calculation. Said Conveyance Fee to have a"Cost of Living" escalator clause based on the Annual Cost of Living Increase for the Huntington Beach area. The formula to be used is: Last Years Fee+ Cost of Living Increase, or three (3% )percent of Gross Annual Income, whichever is greatest. Said Conveyance Fee will be paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later than the fifth( 5 )day of July, each calendar year. ' Paget ' 'I, , 3, "rF �e"X>-k� t� '� ATTACHMENT NO. 3 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 2003 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02- 04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day(MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches and potential sea life. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 —Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum,prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2—Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources rather than enhances them. i ��TT � #^� ��, ,ya Ax' z... ��+ ' t>s hzro��� POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT LRASE AWAS'I AND r PAVE •r auear m m.OwG mmloiz muwwa la7nmem 1 MAX AI.A r 1 RIM Or W MM SWELI O Or RMM%I Nn. x W�6[sM. sr ua14- M X179Q110:11"A"m Nnow. GN XOE70 Ym X1'Ma •F'r l`r 04FUN A RmUm ON at[I�e t- A t1a—n Iw1017NNi O(HON.A73nMt!1 IK OirCC 0(fK tDWR Mfg-C t IXmla.v sw mAar mD.®a IOIae, .rs..s rAmmlR E+ �`a� x.e mwaa P.t�.f mwaam v M IMR ar Imes w®or na.a pr MaaM o 1 # IY'LY. LINE PARCEL 4 SIM.M AS'N 0700W E D6al'Hs A PmsON Or THE VEPMY IN W . Yw- rm.f v zrD IN.Rt N.ma MOIL sM.IAR s f.Dam.I,—ILaI m w IVEw O INnOiY U A0`.of tm IAR Atueam.n I7-3 ———— 14 0 m we .sm� .I�icm A �'wi��Cowm a aamlm a.Na nallu amrt M 9mM OIEM11.9N►W m=Or nE wmw Xmn-K-av ls� nnrmv,v wma am.m.N x mis v na ww. - � — O`IK ORAISE OOI.IR HOOD m,,11L WIM IIINs.MIa nMMS Or sM MR"00=80)A OM/OM �— _•\l IIrNN c W A DEIC.RD M 1®,UK rm mf Iaocll na C7 V 9V0 Ofll[k A7EMOS SMO Ill!R6 A GIRL COrAC K.pM.m bIOMA nnd:Io..0 solm nlml r1o1 M=frV Mslea.MRMc..,wR v amm.m..Na.,t uR swacl v two.!Am rrD VM QKR A IOEMN a PAtaL!1.A M A v PALEASERCEL ,B•PAIiCEI! y I j I I w mw WA"S arl"T R IIEI6lMSIIO.r Mdr SIM SIM W ua.aMs,.aIG LY,Ia la.R nm w aMw.o[ M ,t7 meE No rAmwr m[v rim a.w NA�e�¢v EaY7 1MIORMG R mmD malale AREA "V 17a Tuao I A COMA M aK 6 9HUT;RE"m LrA sm ta,M,aa Y IlM smlMmlar Iw,wR w nlR taa,Iw II - IRS17far RG.4-Mr Lle.7%IrW■at..70 HIT ALMG mE C WW I—N A'f D{rir.taalr M A rOEnl Or m[ W 4.13 ACRES tAsmtr IW-W rnOL.m x IMNwooar I PARCEL! I I I - HCIDIGmO1 OF INY OmON COISig 9MN A"s 7fi700 V. to fM0 rlNm ➢fir a�p�.� 4 G71Y O NONIWGTW BEACH fmd rfRRM O M aWYOD. —Q s=D—.. MM��LOU N a717'1r!W=m M IICK EF �. 1 m AIAIC!IM RIOWDOM SOXXImtr(HE AID A LNImON f.atsc> s zrallr f s.I. $+ + LOT LNE ADELS7MENT I I 1 v w..csratr u..v sMD ra1QL.x wa.1e mWMEv H31;ION¢8 fsssor E aal.st H3T W r1E..aelil.x v A IK 1.7 .y�{j XO.Y12/ i U s W YW.MUI H71.N 9rI7Dr R sa FIET. E171m'DOE USA KEt ��tt'O,m�=L'�"I°n'0'N.,aol U �J�. = I XECOXOEO Iz/B/07 II I Iey,aT.nan rm w r mmlr[s,am Ita m M�_ WMIW LK W -r A��¢ a �H7�Y LINE PARCEL 1 IXST,NO 19970928a91.OR - s ara,IA.n - noun RI.Mo.cma7 tIR v—.,.A•r M FIL a 4I MIM I QM0W■IY.M.'s—rfir E Inn rgr I A6 aOl0A.6 III"D a sN Avmt imaz=LESS AIM s WmOr.YL73 HET;TWU a.B7rIr.7A.0 RD;IIU.E ." s,laNO ID mRMwa aMoaMd AI'aarrt9,1.m.om. i 75f�A4\.t"nEF 7 cE N#1S 7 vi IOU/fw:ne�IK I I'' 1 a._cl e•.v I i . .101e d W AIM WOW"W NmMq r W. .ao•n•.w_,a.EI ARMY.un�r r.A.f RII m x * _ '• - I ALL C f1.1•.M M OIMR tlaOND M{MDa MR M t1O am1N,A1 OTT Moll-6yM'IK A IRRNR SII.F.aT A¢Maw I ,IE(n•>Zti ® C• M wa ar E XOSILKL WX A MIT KAtr. OI SND LOT 116 UILISINIII. I.____ IR.A[ y CL-r'D' >r i x soOPRa ar sm sEn K m aE wal«cro so>Eurm m SYY LPIE PARCEL. nia C.aa•fib )r.Da-rn 1 .sap �. IDYMAa E M MWOEY IDK v INT HOLE ma®LOX Iaa-MAR Y b a0®r aoem Wa4 NIA K.I wSOO1GA[IU'.UO-Or NCRNE zrIW A a.aM nwmw ar A .v la—.lanls.aN—off r tar trs MtAlvNart. PAm= IE an v NummI=N KAX C Wr Or OVJM SDO[W OL WAccm tauawr.Mmmm w D¢IMtn ad m7 a pb10.fIII a 0�na>®laM.®cRMAIlOR \\ moat 1 1a7a 1 Or OHAK MMM O nE OHYL Or Ull m007 IDCC.la1 w.w aa®iWI q K li a,p,opa rs.Mta,..IINI.r . RSOM OF SIM a=".DDwOO A IOm.S NurN,AamL arR11c..r,Mwml,Nn:De,1.ws Ne+Acoian v nano.m nllllm I&Sgb=T gemom Ar nK s mjnff nRY F n IM OF ntM MmIM smucrW6 to A AAEIMIL mi.[III MC S ISOLOL'am Arnas m)tA®1 A stls M , r=a muH SMN.a ar nr.--.rml A M1MOl fI x =ea.m.or.N A—cr i v p.mc a.,Y•ae s m Iv tnR IaWMon, PARCEL] `Y sea Am LY.R ISOr LQi OM FIMI SOf 6 IK fO1wli O'CFYm RIO[R116 :oIAI u�I[i go I nY�+au smlO�lrQ>f[ a^r Ile staNl.mnv rmrus v I„e awl..taaa,A Row A-s aaar,rr y O LOT I1XF ADAAMENTT \\ a I . IMW M A PW=OI M SOI.IEWSALY 111[tY SW raMB lrrwluM MOMi SIM a \ \`...,-.•.._..: /01MI IM m IE MOR0617 lK K aLM 1Wffi a;nULR NOIO - Mll 97-] \ APvKw r—Im m.IAR—R—MAI ammlumv t.M.fr.rlr..Am m IR 7.R N M7Az a aar.r C R60f>DEO 1 8 7 \ a 10 ..f mm r6i Mawr w x fmNwnR OI a.+nm calm n E 41.79 I=mM¢2 t1"1'.ImSO ITO wTI¢ilM.5W.ISM I m M 9 22////9g PARCEL 'A' I s1MA ON go LOT UK Axgxu /r m s7-Sl IURE amp s.D un' wn-ar-.o tx>MLRNm amaMo tv D,R L17 OISi NO 191709f8(DI.17A. �\ I'+� LEASE I I X»sls.'E TO W II tK s I.ar.astA.fQt n.lri s¢rear.14.M x=QJM ar Dm VW k E le I40lOkm a.IN WEE m RmRIOE A nM \ I TO M ILEOIIfNO d A TAl1ONr OEM!mMOIIE SOm1ASIlEi ruzar InR ar Ir e..R.•r a aoD.®.�tarlvr mDamer.IM x \\ AREA "1" ( •''D MM AW •N W Oi(GSS rml MIQ L6<lY WM6aaW KY fW-W W lK Qf 111A0 SiS�A iM.N OI SNO IR UK I SMAI19tlr Alg1O SMD tux u AK OIOAI[E IF 1m.LN FEETS0UWA 4 6.83 ACRES .MnAal•maR..MIM[or er n L N.I.Y t--r..am MT m A pmm Or WE SORIDIIY IIIE OF 6'IO IM1�A:no" s�m V AIN. t QIULd1A RRSNiIOIOq II6LREt016 RwR 6 fm'Am DAZ1UnS ALONG 9AD>a1 IOU LK 9 OTA7Z E 11 W7 m VC"MIT OF IEmM r L III, E \ mrtroe r Atsa O aIa.aR IMNE W L AA7IR ai—..D a —.;ar I a R M,r. '•q� PA K= B Acem sway m CMIII1R mlmme.IOOIYMYS tLeanMlls S M IN THE Iwl lHU OM M HUM MID m m9 EAAsma" �� - _ NONs v as Mo Dmmss Dr Nm4.wr. wf� P; PARCEL•.� 11 \ r�"D R6mryY AMI A�IEM11rmI[,u Mea rlM M llq �Q� p81 I I \ ' •r $, I I• \ SIRS ImBK 7100Mf 6 G ♦ I t A w rI.FIEMr WI K IiR OR1YlO1.N,vmpR InSID11MK. A7IAMA ~a1(..,v.7. AFDAq 061M1Mdl IMOME ALIWiUI IEflO.AnON NM ¢ �•7!f��� IRNN MT ar Ym1 M Mt IC 18A1m SRIat1 5 M ! ". I.ACIIW AM m fWm VE CN L■mY.NtaW NO ttNlm A "it. •�slay II - Elv v LAM rm rm.x DKI A 1'WLM v IRIDBa a MO.a � � Y AL �-'•� I \ M tAr OC IMMaa.LZ lam Im-or as>a,r x "yR T 0-0"—V D DODInm m —ora m J OOfXM.M A llE 6'WIfRa1mV IH110W0 6IILO REM I I . a..Ie[Mow Af'.i7Mr,Y N IMIY wI=IVINPN m II. ACREAGE ary Q fammOra1 9EAGr1 I .+: fau.malMMr U R v aw I'av)s Moa•no Z. musmLVEX.r WK N a7NrIT E fsaa m nN IwE ran a pI...��.Att}t.A r..a lDi LINE AOAjsu NT YAi YY Y.aJa w EatlNtlO;MNCE f!1')rg[f6N fID;IIIpQ S!)1r7e E MIAI NO.97-] ? Q c,�f rm;Iwa f waver[»am I¢r A M toav tN.m tra PROAER LRCORDEO R/e/97 • / Y a y IM NITA•r A RS00®DY SOMWS 00OOUH. lMCA7XM NSI.NO 1997062Ef91.OJt. 8 PARCEL 1 \ tis� � RtwtOlf C MOAr IK f140Yrt1"MR a L�r Nf��i�m '+ 4 � �—— .Lamar tK wa rI.A•r A v�amm E MPIoaE a6AN _ OKIKIO. a<YLO r=IK .� R cmf"C o POSEIDON RESOURCES e fl e I n e a r s l i i ]ONMC CONFOfMANrE YA RIY r '�'"�� .,;...•. __ - - _`-EHEMICAL� RINADMINIG RA ?�P-_ ENO s••�-CDs f j 1 U tveuc sEw.YES �'L`— - ��''E4'--. FETED USE.YES vlmuClgY . _...._. ....._ ___.. STORAG 6L9i DOS . • r':�� - - _ _ _ / _ m:w.0 nmunomrt.�,�¢w n.o.mm'Y e 7 �.• -=- 'O'J'!'D'0 (_�QNTAlt�O milli 2 Ae 2 AC tr UN"f.ml Ym Im m :II'��•// i �'ss+' +t-�,. r+s:�nr'._"_"�---'-..�'"'+-'-�' k- --=,_-�s-°`==;s"- --,fr - !4/ Y•au. }�j' pCilRlyd 10 10 .10 91SF0 -w lip : „!� .c ___ -709Y- y i ,, +� 9oRn� Y/� MUK RO BUILDING _ :' r. �-ii ,�...u.,+ ,,•/;,.. ^v;: �'�! - I`+i 5, 1 - ,� - h \�Y l. RTAAOT.) WA 1VA INFTZNF,NT 11Y91W ]0•T4 - 'h' J,a•-, f J � !:I :�!I - . o _ PUMP STATION lrcmrt m ee' Yr it awcYwc "g f p�,• tT ``` l _ wau s LOADING -1 \. \'L"- 1. }iwo�°°°q u mx. sml 1�{ 'i% "�i? r i/ �i I i ZONE i_..sm t"_ _ \ •, `:ZC: '•\, snc ''[0Y-s' _ j fFl uo�.roo s •+mo _ iI L i.;L �I ♦\\. II i \� l Sf- fa _ j- \ tea'C 7�' FEED LINE. �\n:�.- ,"._-,_�- 1 - /U 1 •/ \ �. `\ C �� ,�':1` e> 1k15 6 r. aEyom > 10=1r AIS u!I .I�I'i'�c^t----":-,k r - - I i i' _ t i" 1of J -��i ♦ i� f ,', � i�_,.\sue ,aA-sYPRAM ¢r TRASH ♦> `:� \ i LWM omca I.z i E i €I _�t`I`^v`•-^. '�n ._.6 iY. a [ }Y +es ♦ �� 5 - 1 I\ \�.,.� _:_ s. Zt _ a a=W: _ •T:._�__d. (ij `i•:i° �`+\,`140, , <''£^~ 41� \` E •i �=\ Y N. All '- __,';•__.:I1,.�.1 1 .� / -i'>\ m.-,a..w- AryO c,a •YArRx ;�! ,GAPING' 'j,'/�- _-" -,.�,�;'A.(' CTRICPLt / t' L: ' t ; Ut�E75 -5:� 1 !) ` &r•_ �4 WATER E,I :e1/ . - -STATJON � :: ' ✓ !�i�'�' SOLIDS UM AND B10.DwC..__._.�_T.530 Ss. / AOUNSTPAII0N BIODR6._._.__.—.___74120 S.F. i -1i��� /t ♦ p.4 BlIRD914...—.__�..__.__..__...76.WO S.F. ,,L71VIA ;I-;a la 1 } , \ �Ir: ',hi n '� rr�i v; i��j/) \a J'\f_- \�•v suaaTAra1-_._.__.._.___.._+.1Yw ss i t i SfO�i,. TANK i.�}E� , - r�Y 1 .1 -�7 £ -3 CJiFl,/..€�' \ •f,:'� .:N jr' > .eti .,�SUff1VTK.twtnws._.__.__-_.__._sI 9 S� - 1 t .>Y: , f'I�- , tJ ` ' % _. 1 N- �3• •'' C .S i' 16 I1Y0 9TIUCRYi6 (C AWED)--_ . MEMArnENDIA WFLUENT T rt SR8Cr1Ae .-.dejp 9F. .;i I; ;N- PRODUCT WATER v o, gtEtocAL sroRA1�TwYcs_._.-.._-_�__azse sr. I 1. PROD T WATER } '�.�J 1 STORAGE TANK r C' `t;�. �. \T\ i c '` /✓( WASH WATER TAreL.r.---------15W SF. ' /J i FLUSH TMIX.._ —.491 Sr i dUM STATION ., 'it 215'm �- _�r /f,{ \ ";,2 a, �.r tAYc sun roues:_.' �.=�w�". ..Z zr. 1 �' gip- \` -�• t } •.•'l �� .'•►��t� PFOOIRT WATER sTORACE Ti11fC._- ifi.T05 Sr i i aeP-PRODI)CT 4 T i0 C) G _ \\ �,, , - ,f✓ yam\ 'i i MOURN S10RACE TANK....._....__.__---20 S.F. v /' d - J r - K- //- F ,+ PRODUCT W R PtWP ST fION._.._._._._._ so SF. } }!! tl I 98 \J'� :` i\ X:�r�` y -/�'•t\;��" ' -iC1�... �� SUOTOT TA7116 AMO SltilCilF6__..�_9B.W2 5 _ E j I� N - G ss i7 - L..�a .''a4s� o, 4• ,..a ,: f' -"'� :S _ - 2 r r� n slmmns+us AND srwcnR+[s_...—.t�sw2 sF. +4 S v���\� ,y1• o _ y, .. /' \ i, Y-;\.'ar.. ,�-,i� �.".'•. wma[mr w.rmc li+ G N_UNK S �'i'i a C$NTaNm P �� � .ro AEs cORPaRA1taN � / ?S`• 2m0 NERAND STREET 1 ) In w a •\♦ F/ J' 7t1 _/ - /. 1�3r 1 i' RINFIMM MAW.CRNORN11192646 �! /h i _ -�♦. ♦!' ."7L _ a>• L a V ! Y' (714)374-7491 "t® i CY }' K�i.: /F, 't APPLICANT,P06EIDON RESOURSES CORPORATION I }- R.. ew of p - •R T�\ J NO 0t Sy, 1 i. .v /,�r,^y'.'" Y r f ]7f0 NLIOOT NIVORf NAT.SIOR 260 / LONGJJ BEACH.CALIFORIIM 90600 490-7003 r $ 1 y ® � \♦` �B"f°mUUC,TO S.` ( sisC AND STRUCTURAL BL ADHERE CODES. DRAWINGS PREPA BY: DRA\NTNGS PREPARED\FOR:\�\ \ PROJECT: .r.. Poseidon GENERAL :S C�roL LO P O S E I D O N RESOURCES Seawater Desalination Project..�a a �. .�..,� 1 SITE PLAN v:ltiel.r��w v.:r H-Wg=BC]di.C2liE9 i j ' ^ � . � `". ~' ^ ~^/ �.` .' ' `.' '-� ^ -�� ' ��.. - -' V- i KEY NOTES E SCALE:P Bo (- ~s F AQ4,"�TT&TI)N^ PIP�61Gff l �DDCH I DuIAOSIN �c r�v[mir • BUILDING . r ✓ Da aNcacte sl�c a¢mEcrox lv y„d.'"`.,--mow „...-.. - ="-. -gip '�-_ r :..•'' >-' <'Tf- "N:.•Y.- A 4a>CATCH ate+ _ — CHEkICAL w r a .,.:l •'.�" _ -"'_-�IIA�_ _ ''�.. 2 e � ( ; O. lama suanr rnor ao alomcr r fix: Y..�. •-•t t ,tee a - — 1 ``r �TOT!uNSUISS x wmS F Q TOEnstwc ss LINE Mir Q STOW MUTER MAY RE PW WEo uo us ac vrcmu,Mur sseM as - •,!I Y .' j F it - — - 1 ``S� walk!� {�,;`7 1 i; � DE!PrATEo SYs-m+PRIOR TO OCEAN s:' L STORMWATER avinu \-PUMP STATION O xr:uomc Mau_ /! - ••'ls13 I''+ i .�17:,-��'a.� / Yam. ,._K,.,4. -`j/ ; •.a + •.?``. =) TOTAL Na J rs TECH :'`.:✓x',• !! � /�i;�g H{ti �/ 'v -1( _ a'� � �= � rl7f� s?='r Fl�NT`,PUMP STATION -�� /.!1 1�;1 •r• ,y, ^i a1 Faun am ��fj.' .,,)� Y:' '•9t(1�; '�[ iY°I�! tS1 um t_� �> /�Ry .s- F7 `!`! t-' +•� r 1 /T, Ti�l t�t 'f' r. ;.-- 50 ; ;'_ r�`r. \\? ty;�=\ ®SS um Fm,PiPm PIPES nw eEirED1 ! €� I •C�i'+��''T'�y r�I�jl l�+.`�,, � f\ �F�q s - --_.�1:...__:t_...,..� ,�.L, ':,.��y" �.... `:. -.\ i wTln:NAw IReR q' HEP uNe, --�_--^'7 TRASki •.` i i I -. 4;i r .s,.V"�%--s5—� '�_- �= ENC RED ,'fx`��•� % '' fWASHWATER FLU NKI9N ).1.( A1 Z, Hi ii�; sae -i-s-''- r� --��CCr - ''' + 'l, "'"'.4 '^-`i 'j1;.`V rr� ^\ rr;� STDftMWATER -ia ' �'r .r';. .`.4r♦ n\ •�:_ '1_. m .. i��. t•�. _` i/�/pf�MzP�rS,TrAT10N TORbON�'zr.' ATER �' ELEC1TtICPI ° r \ N ' r VMP 3TATIIJ ? SUB-STATION.. .. -------T> - 1 y,\ ;7`—�� •� I ° -^ ELE.CTRI iROOM�•C,V �i'�':'/ - �,,,�,� �, r AMMONIA .7T, 'f ,'t�J.y .- . './ Sf0 TANK ;-�" �� �{ j , i `\ ?V�� 'lei, %''�' p 4 (j 3 I PR IDDIJ WATER I W{,' ' I PRODUCT WATER I :•a` PUM STATION ' pr STORAGE TANK � - aii Q i 48'ii • ii ,_r.:. .y', I1'` � - . i:•\- \ �a �.� f� '+f;; 'Jj/�, '\ ,z.h 3,PL,/lri'S'••..> ; ,' S SD 1 '� 4i \� F {,yx i .__-• \ ``\\�!r< - ). .r+/ 'F a B I I I' k /, \ I I H NC "y TtUtAt SILOS 0) \ } / j/'� r' i._ cam` r/�L �avERrc coAEs CATION i li!; �— - --_�- a`>tr r ^\ !// `•S' d r- ry 1*5='fir (r�./ 21730 NEVJM SWET J rt'� r CA""9764 -! (I i� .� T Er 'r 9 p1/JSIm{T7{9 6 L ' IPPUCMif:3750 KIL TY AMP ITT WAY.CORPOOTION2 UM BEACK CALFOF MAY. M ZFW (EONn 420-2�,60R7tlA ROE00 .`9^ �__--� __d;^ max•-= -�s.�__-- 1 - L �?�t ,;� .. _ _ �'J��� �` :) - �� DRAWINGS PREPARED BY:---Y- DRAWINGS PREPARED FOR: PROJECT: Poseidon SITE IJJn��„w # CQrm..Lo P O S E I D O N RESOURCES e n s R n e e r e Seawater Desalination Project GRADING PLAN ....,,�n...e.e�...... c 7�t =.,e....,.�..�n.......o.du. Huncngmn Bcxh,Uitomia .. .S ' s.._ at ! FWWA s . KEY NOTES •�� - Q f¢JOYE uwc AM O MUM FIFEIRIE BEAR)OMOWM AND EcXCAVATEAMPO �E=nn�c�su mxG ,:I�iY,`� !'`/" �"- ^Y -_ > / I _ ♦•,;.�- -_T` ♦. /r / O BEl Tr VmEla25 m xeY COxQRfE i c` .• f• - - !' 71ffiiCN FW GRAGE- rr'Y vwma uw. _ r. MEnGes `i�' ;, �. '!}*".�' +.r`�a-• �' J �q r \.: ' t sO AmRE7APLNC xALL •L� /,:J/�! �i: /�. __:'�,�.'.. :� A ,� O EXCAVATE 10 GRADE AT 6EN4 TOE . i •V �r('^ l�I -f '�'`� (\v �,{f 1'z j O SWK WAVAT D BASE ff: L'�:�L f- 77 ff".. �` \�i ;� i d !1 \�l �; _ __-_h._..:e"�Y�.;_.: r ,s � 4� '`/' •'�. i __ . '`�• - - _ \ . S .i ;; f y/ Y>, /'/ 7`� j' '% v" •i + -, \ t r� ���.• ' P_ ' a,_ '.J — ``mot `yP\� -11 .t -�'! S ii Oil t� -^ _� z"�.'�a.� � >�%.' i �, ,, ,^1<�s�l�� � /� �\., -�tz/�•J` i a�lY I�I' III --._._ _ -'.k.l ' `�� a ,� , J//�' '✓rr�'j/ .�:'.\ (' P/ '��'PL�v, 1`J � it roll -v- 19 rj !i ; Is:,; t(Rn ,�` .i•, '�� ..r ,i" / �\ _ y',i' J `''� l,?7 f• °y�..: �, , -t ttF t� ` l e- 1•�`. �\. /u �A�� \ 7G/��)\\ /f, �_ i J<\i t K%,�' zi/• ..r. � �• � y� �,:/w ��. y� '�!�' t � .` f5 n (__ f'- .f_..__ r i��-. +yy �1 s`• __.. ! .• � �7 \r\� i� f / �J:F\/ - ! �g �•Y �•£�li� �_� L�.�`'���.t3-y t C --- f{,;. 4x1'_4L. �,,..�.�. f =L ,'{1=. �,J !,° ` � ,;y<r:N' j °>; `��..,''r� 5;:; ' �.t/ •��/. ;� g �+I .1 I l. ,1•.l;ti-�s��_.....;- /.fi.��3 _ "� ' '/ \o,' i, r k,� i ' �"�m �' �I % ' 1 i c �i' I iP, i I� G ;__ f J� �.`"_.��'*.��_..r�x .ia."�.`;r'{� i-���...r � t'/,� '"���_ /._ F Jr>iL✓T� � 4;t' _�� ��fj; � '� = DRAWINGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGS PREPARED FOR: PROJECT: =y "" C�r'O�a.LO P O S E I D O N RESOURCES Poseidon GENERAL J- M' ::... e n a�n e e r• „���,,,,,, _ Seawater Desalination Project SITE DEMO PLAN ••�.........�:.. >�.. I-Imm non Beach.Gli(oava E I 7 r 1 3 ' II c.->- 1• P�a r;jf' •s'r��:"S y I � JuEn AhddAC1ad�rawilre.2,0\@C4W4�M4 Raw laa Nlwamb)\oa a/el/w_MN CYN 2=M-11aA11M p+aaab M EMAT,FP-CMWLW FRIIIUT-nnR-%W PK_CI1l::XiC-fa1'0.KYN:OIOI-U.m.i&W—, ri J p / iJ i• n m' On if I AA, "1 011 co iF I oil H \ '�— � .�_ //i ��• '' -.. ICI '� .1 ,•'`+" "`'•i S� `�:�'/k,; .:y;'`'g \ n r) �:::e._.....n' �:��. '�L..:.il I I I Ilia ii� x s 4 � P r•! \ % /Y v'� .'%//. .`"'l\� ����/ t'j:�\` o �� �II�r :-j � ilk v it l C; \li'` •pry, ) o:': „ � ��✓�/, �" .l )I I; I.......` rit.i� �a' i jl �i) i?' !f \ r•.r. /i�� i,f� 4• l ,4 l ��_-' - i fib` i y` coc},., .,�1', is>� .��/. , !•-,r .t::., i'F::^:...__, I`E_.. y�'; I::i{�jl i „ ,� , N: �• S i 11 Y )� Cx 1•;r - '� �%��'1iT, .•'/ ,�'� j( ,�� Y rF � ''t ��,_'-,c' }II II �r 7-5 : ' ,� � �� �'"�/.,<<.S I``Zv,`"�.ti: � � �j�r..-•••Trr..._r:., .�.. �..., -f .,i141►' -.wa.. j r� :dt1[R� I r Y fi f7 a rA� fd e...I __ e .. ..... - -_•r...'- rnt �i, J/ �t� V1 y-� :�l.:... U::c• _::.:�:.... �A:. 'Jf. 4 .CfLP 4 1 r 1 0-4 - _ I n "r�r �f l:.�jll r,,: `•,I � ICI I �ti. r' �'�^� `•�.,,,,:' :.Fry.`: . `( �+J � ' Q 9 � II S 6 .TN. 3 KEYN S T R E ET OTES — i. E315TAtG COMAFTEiVOYC IOW/I�tNfI5RM1YX . ff31 CTM1 f.T/IOMp9 2 k]fIS�MD CMMUffiBrA e., a rcwcx SPurfcEmolTauwlerrmol m fTry STUi-fACEACCEMf0A55619 ml e � /.-—` II a a 8f30eD C0eCMEM301 y� / e 1/NDSCKEiEA INa)?1iE011Nwf.5 h urz ssnn Wels� .:.- t ASPIi�LIPN - eSMP aATION 3 SlAMA.ADAVerNF.W. TANK 3iN I � fTGs11CS Td[7K ' A. SRUEO LD.iIYD IIAE 0 ` � I 16 DEL'D9ATIVE CDMIRIEYYUWMY �_� 11.TNE65CA®I$IgWI0l44D100 < /�^\'` ,A 3( { _ m I o 0 a—Fa I `a aucnc anw aomm3mTc. .rw- � ava.rrnnoN /+ ,\ FWSHTANK 11 FA O@WULSTOAAGB Rim— LEGEND CDAWEIE / IN, WASEWATER\ -. AD3MM7RARCN ♦swulrn.em caxcaere� _ - \Y10<TBEATe�7T EIISEE/9A000A-e BVeDWOOA TMtS11NGA0S ITN �••� Ifim WE � - SOIID HANDIRIGAunnulG —.•— PMCEtWO! nffLLMn W.STJMMW STtmC" �c ---'k• N _ B 50' 100 700 - .� SCALE-P-WO - DRAWL NGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGS PREPARED FOR: PROJEM. Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project MASTER SITE PLAN ,,,, J,# CQ QL„LQ POSEIDONRESOURCES uo n m e n n s r s ._..1.r.W mo.+�. Hur&r mn Badti Ci hmis .N I -� xErnarEs ,. PIARRIR SIAU P8i9R:q.M ' 1 ,-n•�al�nclP wxonlww191 - l IrWWCUR9MU WBOSM T i E88 ClIBI - 19 -9 fi sroR6Ruxr HOOONST.RBI - yS ' 3 i. 111E(Y CApP1l®8•IE{SMYRI M9� - .. ., ' S TYP. T 1 TYP. i_________ _ ---- -------------- - LNQ.QRRC //� I'__ ________1___________ 1 _ 1TTP. - I- CO WFATID - I 1 arr� ma arlc orrrl T I >•ortR BREAKRm11 - S TYP. S M. r � I 1 I 1 OTRN - 1 1 I I 1 1' 1 ' �. RtlCIRICALR0m1 �. 1 axta i s I woke 1 1. ILMEM Al STYP- 8 T 0�-I& ig o SCALE-1/8"-P-W _dam DRAWINGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGS PREPARED FOR PROJECT: j# C:CWXKJ,r'. P O S E I D O N RESOURCES Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • .,.. ...n.e�� .n o i n..r s pI� RR. Ht=BeRa1, FLOOR PLAN .N KEYNarES 7. 91pAHNOMf vM1 ROWS SM ] raaPau,uaomn .z ... 1_- `" Q� ._.--y_ � y :- -:-:-.P _::; ♦- :_i- li:.:_ e s .1 a 60 .31-0 a era unoaoa s \ \ -./' .,�`♦.ti. : i -\ i ,-�4 .mar MEL a ruw ^•rwlMT�lauloMilwl. .'�_ - -� _ "-' NORTH ELEVATION p 6INISf•ES F.- OPP - Qi &EIONG.C[FMC0.tl1:0UW EOMrtIM �, 1 / • 1 9rttaM1E®'OE]Ip � -` ��\�1( ��yy 6 __-.) •t -,.-` � - •31a LJc .EfRACCFlff COlpR pYq®MP109 : \^\ Y--'. ..-X �--:X - .ffi-P cEne �. m..wu:Pao •3s:y © YIunM:aria la®viwlu. 3 r SOUTH ELEVATION � e 5- s • 6 - :r f e 6 ac ° ;V\` f %:-..- .. \17 0 . 1 .3 T.IYP. .1 M 3 WEST ELEVATION c a . 1 .3 3.T'P. .I .] . I EAST ELEVATION N SCALE-1/r-ra DRAWINGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGS PREPARED POP- PROJECT: A' P O S E I D O N RE s o U It C E S Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1tM r I� .� �u'� �.r.,�. H»=,o] ,8 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS .,�..�.,w n=��. i s '9 i t ..Y A Sr1�. .Ira .17a FF. 17a FF.' NORTH ELEVATION EASTELEVATION y $ 9 e S• B.TP. 7 f e B- B,TIR• 7 s 1 J.' _ 1 Thy „- __.. lkt - r _ 1, 174FF- - :•I7a FF. m, 1B�ETaOJ Br SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION KEYNOTES ❑FINISHES rua 1. CWCR iBcrNrN1BB3 VJ" Q IETaP caa1:m EDMBs ,rrP. '91BS9cBrsa+s6 z 1rv4BcuKe,mucelrmemSr•I, p. Amarwlr °»Aims 3 lI1K°'l..fE PLWTf9if911I.m91'J1E 'NNirw®'m3ma7m - BWOMm9.ram1.QEANIPBI ©BB$cBilAwmlat9419Y®wm9 I. RAT NEfAL PYIBb miN TB(M®/9d1 'YOG®'PE11A i STEa Cmwm - TANK TANK TANK TANK TANK TANG a .EfAI M•IL PNIBL9CFi¢ T. N°9QBNiAL BiEMcMAi{9NE191 S e B. SMFRAINIBATBIBwB 9. 9�UW°PYATOBlO m iAN( TANG TANK TANK TANK TANK TANK 1,rm PLAN DRAWINGS PREPAREDBY: DRAWINGS PREPAREDFM- PROJECT: 4onainamrs Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project CHEMICAL STORAGE -= - �pLA.0POSEIDONRESOURCESFLOOR PLAN& =.. = . N W Hunti V—Bnd%CAfia EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ,>o � G KEYNOM - 1. FOM[RETFTMIl1P. 19TP I a=1 t N 'a B v W 332 yr'p SCALE-1/lW—r-0' 2 DRAWINGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGS PREPARED FOR PROJECT: P O S E I D O N RESOURCES Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project PRETREATMENT FILTER �� i' r I fl G 1 f1 ■O -�rrreir.Poaw tonmme H B..4Qifo¢ua STRUCTURE FLOOR PLAN I� KEYNams p�TFA1:�11CFElEV/Y1 � �: .-- l fl/1]YETK UYYLWI� - '• - 1 eET.L NML W�I�PNFN. -. .$-r - ...,.:...... -: .- -... --::;,:ter - -.::_. •IPA• •1]:11' , 1 s + .] NORTH ELEVATION 7-3 z F-P :ta ....- _ _-...:..: •IBA' CJspim FINIsr�s K O COLOi:ttua EDw/p0.41Y�� - IY.P - p rccfnrcaon:owam.wos 1 s e, •] SOUTH ELEVATION oc]� ©.ctt3ir191pR111pNIDYWAS-]wt:ev o]tne •a1=P •IPA' --zr— ].t]a. .. .1 •] EAST ELEVATION �$d -1141 -?- - IT-P ,1 .] WEST ELEVATION - N 0�� SCALE-1/16'—V4P V DRAWINGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGS PREPAREDFOR- PROJECT: R PRETREATMENT FILTER ---- POSEIDON RESOURCES Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STRUCTURE J# Cfra"o a n o i n n u r s HunwVmBud;Ca;r°Isa] EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS i i 7 \_ 4 l 7. KEYNOTES 1 IEId[InaVFA s+l�wru -- -' -� - 3 mrx I...El ww [. dEbL NpaoOa _ s IEraaouuvaooa .Ira 6 RLWC c. 1. .[ 1. [• c. Noah Elevation j. TATAM 37 z r FINISEiES - .Ir.P ,.-�.�-s.- •IxP O• eu�nrolmn[olnx m.w®w+ma - - swa cdui�9® Q. auonw:.c[e,Pcaw:maw m.•are i. [ FSSt Elevation West Elevation - p .asK.cearrcmnaoua+mralms .a.P � - - j. Ft aIP 1YP 1. 8. .[ 1• '[ 1ajj • 6• South Elevation ila:V N 8 4 8 16 j a SCAIF-1/8a a 1-W Plan DRAWINGSPREPAREDBY: DRAWINGSPREPAREDFOS PROJECT' SOLIDS HANDLING �- P O S E I D O N RESOURCES Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 14# C�WOLLO BUILDING PLAN & u x r n o 1 n s s r s • Hw'°`W B"�``'"fi°°" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS i E KEYNMES 1. 2M3a z Iniaaau� �a �roaEcM.a� - AIO�fAaOlflmtAA�1 — AME3iFAON00/®! f I ' I aaeaamc 1 I.M 3TA. 371n T. O r le�Y SCALE-1/16--V-W z DRAWINGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGS PREPARtD FOR PROJECr. 1 E P O S E I D o N R S o u R C E S Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project R.O. BUILDING n i. .C n�. m r a ....e.�a...a� Hundngma RelckC iramm FLOOR PLAN ii KEYNOTES27 - - - MT j i 61E8 CROW •]Rd a RWFM — �, ti I. e¢rGrwe Roo.,,rr,oll�lww� _- 1 1 NORTH ELEVATION ❑FINISF-IFS p enn.s Rsn coloRouol maFms� LW conee ep® 900NOICLFYf COIRI:OUw EOWNI69 Y< � - - © IQIL,LCBR COLOR 0INM®W.1O9 +. C - - G.T1� 1• $ } _ ��- ti 4. , .rrP ,, 5ffJ SOUTH ELEVATION SO •]Pd URd •i7d FF. 1 � �� •17dfF. EAST ELEVATION s „ , ,, ] WEST ELEVATION N '* } 0 6' 16 9Y SCALE-1/16'-1'a DRAWINGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGS PREPAREDFOIC PROJECT: �'Q�Q P O S E I D O N RESOURCES Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project R.O. BUILDING ELI o i n..r. , tlTmcl,gmn5aef4e2lEoau] EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1y 3 r: IcmcrTES - i MINBITRO 8Uw10 •Ird •ITd FF. '• ' WEST ELEVATION p F[NmEs =£ y �- swn.wRencaaRw.ol�oumsiw� .iw. p wwwaCEWCOMDUME1 1 .tcdy Fz O YQKA6Brc COIDR pUW®WID6'LYIGFD r,a: . mile •ITd FF q - - gull r nm '° '• EAST ELEVATION t c w+y k {fi PLAN +,., i i n •ITd FF. NORTH ELEVATION e f ~ F Cbmw r N IZJ —� Ira_- .y 0 4' B' 1B �, ..� Fn] SCALE-1/B'-1'-0' SOUTH ELEVATION G DRAWINGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGS PREPAREDFUL PROJECT: `_ I. Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project ELEC. RM. & SUB-STATION z.` .` I� aF, p POSEIDO�N RSOuacEs men 1 FLOOR PLAN & —w W>o�-�`��- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS iN i � l ; ° •i t o •7 c 3,lYP. �,7rP. c S,TTP. •QW / SCREEN T 8-- 1 •fTd 3 4 f a , •rd L————————————————— , ENLARGED ELEVATION ° KEYNOTES ❑FIMSFM f. 715Y°MI4TEN,adxl°xQPGN99E Q s®.rrwfmlalcw°ffnwmaamulx®m71® mnar ffrdmawmoq�rwr �. It'laa»xrzewm:fxan mwams�earam® z Tw,a:ra vrTo;ewrx taffa®wef . ©^fFHLRfYffdlORafllY®xf4m9YGGfaaE7le 1 °7�C4<UM a cEra KNI.vAt82r6¢ s x°aimxTKsrE[xcTsuleefelal PLAN 6 '7EafxIYWaNdF]ON r. snyl:NI mopuaw a �TYUE �zta.°aauaevymox t E 4FE, fa went nvw — �fx -.y - 4 .�0 Ivd 0 y ut -.f f_ Nrd -----�— —J ra U 10 20 40 OVERALL ELEVATION ?E DRAW[NGS PREPARED BY. DRAWINGS PREPAREDFOR. PROJECT: PRODUCT WATER STORAGE -�-- &W P O S E I D O N RESOURCES Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project TANK PLANS& n•J=.��i.+m...� I� •n a°n m m r s �qr.f�W�r Fiuntingmn Body GISo®a EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS i � KM TITS asn 00 2 ,EIAL P,M@G69@ a CONCpE,E,1tl ]OO f`V l�'4 PI IFO ap a PFN VMa ORMQ FINISF-IES �. rva wwa cnon:uuwecxinm•rcam• - oea,n a0 PLAN PLAN Sf '1 EAST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION y a o a' s 19 PRODUCT WATER PUMP STATION INFLUENT WATER PUMP STATION 1 SCALE—1/8•-1'4P DRAWINGS PREPARED BY. DRAWINGS PREPAREDFOR: PROJECT: P O S E I D O N RESOURCES Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project PUMP STATION PLANS AND I M .4 J,# CMr0LL0 n o n r s x„„tanBw4C41ifw. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ❑F[DnsHEs KEYNOTES �. 1ETK PgaFOLtA OWw®M'/aa9 L M)1E)K PMl6l M(fM10f11i®1N81 a xcu.)aac '9M99caR�9tq i SI�[aL1IN a IlO'M)N.f Q KCBR WIOR aI]al� ] IlTK YrIal PIY611E 6/L to 4^PaN TNi[ '9RfOM11®'YE]a] ©SIESCUl1aN W1aR OYIM®WVIW l t10R110M)A151i8 CM.Gf9AE16i .. '1.fS®'pELA [ 3f�fRN410ROtH1a 6 SnALACMVMi 1. f'CVNt 5AT 1 e , T r - —tom {--- .r � 6t 1 e !< !< c PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN �A- 6 � r r� -v:a'•L.� is �_- •714'' c AMMONIASTORAGE TANK 'i_:?. •O'dFF' NY�P FF. - - � � t�'� �'� { L,'}q �^.jl OFF_ l �`] ]e i e 1. ■r i s ]. t o ]a S c S C P c ]t l a 7 e S r ]c i. ]. N FLUSHTANK LIMESUDS WASH WATERTANK o i SCALE-I'-Z?-& DRAWINGS PREPAREDBY. DRAWINGS PREPAREDFUR PROJECT': POSEIDoN RESOURCES Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project TANK PLANS & . � HmibngmBe24Cilif== EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I 7 a { t ! PLANT PALETTE I1�r— — ��� _ � —•� ..---- ,—,�.—,y= — ---- ��y tEr,..:a.. .mow w..a�..em�...n.. A 7~' j ( �I lil j 1 ) msma:nmHsivEn I I,G I- I;l i•I ; I u awrACCEYISREEYlXM Ifu4.�e.oy.a6.-u - Yuen/m Pam f � p I; ;i h•r I r n�alEa�.l rv� . � �• (� ! i-� �� ! I�� r-- Clann,w�l[I...Qtd SJ I'd.m.R.a�oe------u,m •�� I ��� � J �� I Q N.detlf eaib AciaE A..a FEA URELECEM> _ --•-- -_ ,i�—� 1 � I � + _!_.ICE_.- —� 1' Ir LS�� I abh..ao.M� . • _ '+� roec�w.w.er..wwnaw. i i � wrexr ta♦.Ia.t • II' � a..wrtvo --- ---- I ------ - - --_- I OJ p i-.�• Ltd:.. LE j aQ oe.Me o-m•w.a S SECi10N A-A''FDlSON SFittE" . . . t.a�t..rw rla oiifPya•.0 t,r ��, :.'� � mnl..afs.. � raua°nolwo nwac O ! I � vrAa oyi.wane.gf•Id.wet'.... LANDSCAPE AREA SM54ARY: 1 \�\ II. I• JGt.4a°t1. aK•t.gYtt. • ' e•I tCtY••>rV. N 1 SEC.ZIOV 8 B'?IEWIA!\O STREET • .. CDWEMIALL.MDXAM ASMPIAK \ wn•�� L°N9fUsE POSEIDON SEA WATER DESALtNAT[ON PROJECT �Ij �'. HUNMG70HBEACH.CAUUORn'1A Ere .ry—•w:rc O i i t,V 7iX g At ­ - , - R7 .. JA Jv PkT 10 t­w . h -i E L ' - DO _ ItyM01r �-Ki ­ J11 AT. N, 4 -N'z: .4-4 -A M w Vat R �2 A i" �4. f.-J�W ........... w4­ _ - . . . + w kT_R .4; F ILI-all j�" 4245- Rw-1 S'M E i�" T: D A F1 '-A R"I A- Of-�­"�"iFA' R M.�-.4 F sm cwkm'j -V C_s� c 1:7� I z' _3 CO Nbf 1�1RGANANDS' -STATE H ik' A rg;,,,TcwA,L C A�H N Ft. T % J 4 _7 rr Tv -li4. qq 4,-4 t .4, 4 k J. 4 t A:c R BE • X.------ '00�_ P; . 7' 7 7M J. 4. T7. .71 rro42-41 -T -W "J; ;. 1:-i-;Ff�i7' cPd L VLJ�� [_4 Gv� p.GMETER tv k .0 D rw It vrz A- J. 0.L 4 6�4 q A.: 4. 4 41 -saL a I A Ron 0ZY 74 0,h./M r; ...... we 0.6 k&M'. M­ 1� AM iz.=_ v N VA F. A7, �. v AMW !_41 POSEIDON RESOURCES CORP n�i Vl'.c F'_ f W 1 7.1:: A PLANT SEA WATER DESALINATIONqw Qwz' X'�'YO 1. Q 7 AES H 8 71 UNTINGTON BEACH rX, �r n 4'_ Source:Carolto Engineers,August 2002. POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT Conceptual Pipeline Alignments Exhibit 4 Alns,', 'vrr :� )VV fi r v w'i 5*�, ' I �� R �� ,p�, � �y��y .�� �,� � ria�� y_y,, 3 r� ��f"x'i,� -{�� r,f - z v �.�;.a•yrt.� x ,v-',.'�+a t�_ PROPOSED , � P O S E I D O N APR 3 0 2003 SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT at Huntington Beach r The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach consists of the construction and operation of a 50-million gallons per day (MGD) seawater desalination plant. The desalination plant will take seawater from the Pacific Ocean and produce high-quality potable drinking water using a reverse osmosis desalination process. Source water for the plant will be taken from the existing condenser cooling water circulation system at the AES Huntington Beach Power Plant. The power plant circulates up to about 500 MGD for the power generation units steam condensers. The desalination plant will intake approximately 100 MGD '.l of the cooling water after it has passed through the condensers and produce 50 MGD of high- quality potable drinking water for the use by residents and businesses in Orange County. The } remaining 50 MGD of the desalination plant's seawater intake becomes concentrated seawater, which will be discharged back into the condenser cooling water system, downstream of the. intake point, for dilution and discharge back into the ocean. A process schematic of the proposed desalination plant is provided in Figure 1. F Project The desalination plant will utilize approximately 11 acres. The facilities will i Facilities be primarily single-story, Type-II light industrial steel buildings with decorative EFIS finish and a 10 MGD water storage tank The building will house the various equipment and processes of the desalination plant. The f tank will store drinking water produced at the facility. The project will also include some cast-in-place concrete construction and welded metal storage tanks. A list of the facilities to be constructed along with the size and type of construction for each is presented in Table 1. The proposed project layout and building elevations are shown in the preliminary site plans. Two pipelines will be constructed to connect the desalination plant with the { AES Power Plant condenser cooling water system. A 72-inch diameter pipeline will be constructed for the seawater intake, and a 48-inch diameter pipeline will be constructed for the seawater concentrate discharge. Both pipelines will be constructed entirely within the limits of the AES Power Plant site. The project also includes a water distribution infrastructure and two F underground pump stations constructed off-site. Seven miles of 48-inch diameter potable water transmission main will be constructed from the project site to a point of connection with the existing OC-44 potable pipeline. The pipeline will be aligned along existing public streets rights-of-way f through the cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. A booster pump ' station will be constructed near the existing Irvine Cross-Feeder located near the intersection of San Miguel Drive and Ford Road in Newport Beach. F The second underground booster station will be constructed near the Coastal Junction located near the intersection of Alton Parkway and Creek i Proposed Poseidon Seawater Desatination-Project at Huntington Beach Page 2 Road in Irvine. The proposed-alignment of the pipeline and the location of the underground booster pump stations are discussed in the EIR that is being prepared for this project. t ; Other infrastructure construction will include small diameter pipelines for s potable water service and sanitary sewer service to the plant. These pipelines will be routed through the project site and connected to local city services the closest practical location. Hours of The plan will operate 24-hours per day, 7 days a weep and will have a total t Operation and plant staff of 12 to 18 people. The number of staff on site will vary with the Staffing time of day and day of the week Between 7:00 am and S:00 pm Monday through Friday, 6 to 8 people will be on-site. During nights and weekends, 2 to 4 people staff will be on site. i Population The proposed desalination plant will provide enough potable water for the Served consumptive use of approximately 100,000 families. Potable water from the plant may be - distributed throughout Orange County including the f Huntington Beach area. r Surrounding Project site is located in an industrial area. The desalination plant will be Land Uses constructed on a portion of the existing AES Huntington Beach Power Plant site. Three 40 ft by 200-ft diameter fuel oil tanks currently occupy the site. $ The tanks will be demolished and the new desalination plant and storage tank will be constructed in their place. The project site and layout of the proposed plant is shown in the attached preliminary site plans. The land use north of the project site is industrial and commercial. 4 Immediately north of the project is an abandoned fuel oil storage tank, which is part of the AES Power Plant site. Commercial businesses, including the new Huntington Beach Maintenance Yard are located further north of the AES Power Plant site. Northeast of the project site is the ASCON-NESI landfill site. Due east of the project site is the existing Edison Pipeline and Terminal Company (EPTC) tankfarm. South and southeast of the project site is the Talbert Marsh Wetlands area. Immediately west of the project is the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) transformer and switchyard and the AES Huntington Beach Power Plant. Further west of the power plant site and west of Newland Street is a residential area, which includes a mobile home park and a RV park Hazardous Pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and based on the ` Waste information that we received from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Substances Department, we certify that the project site is not located within a Hazardous Waste and Substance site. oseidon Resources Corp. r Poseidon Desalination Plant At Huntington Beach El LEGEND _Sodium 8isulfite: � Lime Chlorine Ammonia Flow Stream Description Cartridge Filters I 1 Seawater Intake a 2 RO FeedwaterPotable 3 Product W ater COY • rcy.f--—� Water 4 Concentrated Seawater Media Filtration RO Feed Cleaning: Product Water 5 Filter Backwash Water Pretreatment Pumps Reverse ;Solution Storage Tank Osmosis 6 Desalination Plant Effluent Outfall � •; 7 Wmbrane Cleaning Solution Sulfuric Acid C1 Continuous Feed of Chemicals Energy Membrane)�] Recovery Intermittent Feed of Chemicals Cleaning ; n7 System O Intake Outfall Pumps Pumps ...;,,---------.. Power Generating Station Chlorine;—;o 6 n Power Plant Cooking i Condenser Cooling Water Discharge Combined Power Plant& ; Intake Steam Desalination Plant Outfall Water Circulation Condensers Screens Pumps I i = Power Plant Cooling j Water Intake i r;. u t Proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach Table 1 — Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant in Huntington Beach Facilities Description Building Name s r ft Height(ft) Type of Construction Notes Rd Building 38,090 25'—0" Type II—EFIS Houses RO Membrane Equipment and Pumps Pretreatment Filters 38,270 16'—0" Cast-in-Place Concrete Open-air structure that houses gravity media filters similar to a conventional water treatment plant Administration Building 10,120 18'—0" Type II—EFIS Multi-function building that houses administrative offices, maintenance shot, electrical room, lockers, control room, and a water quality laboratory Solids Handling Building 7,590 21'—0" Type 11—EFIS Houses bell filter presses and chemical feed " equipment used to treat solids removed in the pretreatment process Electrical Building and Sub- 1,800 12'—0" Type II—EFIS Houses main plant transformer and switch gear Station Chemical Storage 4,368 23'—0" Type II—EFIS Canopy Houses bulk water treatment chemical tanks Lime Storage Area 4,560 26'—0" Welded Steel Open-air structure for lime silos Ammonia Tank 28 6'—0" High density polyethylene or 1,000 gallon ammonia storage tank fiberglass reinforced polyester Washwater Tank 1,590 19'—0" Welded Steel Process water storage tank Flush Tank. 491 29'—0" Welded Steel Process water storage tank Influent Pump Station 1,880 Below grade Cast-In-Place Concrete Location of the influent pumps and wet well. The . :a pumps, piping, and other mechanical equipment are 1A above grade Product Water Pump Station 650 Below Grade Cast-In-Place Concrete Location of the product water pumps. The pumps, piping and other mechanical equipment are above grade- Product Water Storage Tank 36,305 30'above grade, Cast-In-Place Concrete 10-MG water storage tank. ..-�. _ 10' below grade aL Poseidon Seawater Desalination Proiect at Huntington Beach PROJECT OVERVIEW Poseidon Resources Corporation is seeking the approval from the City of Huntington Beach for its proposed Seawater Desalination Project to be located in the City, adjacent to and behind the Huntington Beach Generating Station. At this time,the City's approval is required for: ✓ Certification of the Environmental Impact Report(EIR) ✓ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ✓ Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Poseidon has been working closely with the City and its staff for more than 18 months to reach this point. The proposed facility will produce 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of potable drinking water from seawater. The water treatment process will be reverse osmosis, the same technology used by the Orange County Water District Factory 21 treatment plant, operating since 1976. The potable water will be sold (wholesale) under long term agreements to local Orange County Water Agencies for resale to retail customers. The water produced by the facility will meet all Department of Heath Services regulations for the drinking water quality standards. The water will be transported into the regional water system through a new 7-mile, 48- inch, pipeline under the City streets of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. Franchise agreements and encroachment permits will be needed from both cities for the selected route. Additional permits from the state and federal government are also required before returning to the City for the issuance of grading and building permits. WHO IS INVOL VED? The Seawater Desalination Project is being developed, financed and constructed by Poseidon Resources Corporation (Poseidon), a private water company (wholesale water services only) and a leader in the field of water resources development. As a private development, there is no cost to the City of Huntington Beach or to any other public agency. Poseidon recently completed development and construction of the nation's largest seawater desalination (25 MGD) project in Tampa Bay, Florida using the same business model and obtaining similar local and state approvals. When the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach is ready to produce potable drinking water, the water will be sold by Poseidon to local public water agencies under long-term agreements for their use. It will be up to those water agencies to determine how the water will be allocated through the existing regional water system. This approach allows local water agencies to benefit from the capital and project development expertise provided by Poseidon without taking on development, financial and performance risks. Instead, the agencies can concentrate on their specialty - in this case, delivering drinking water to its customers. This approach shifts all of the risk of development and the obligation for obtaining necessary permits to Poseidon. As would be expected, there many permits required to be issued from several regulatory agencies before the Project can begin to produce desalinated seawater. Due to the location of the Project, two land use permits are also required from the City of Huntington Beach, namely a conditional use permit and a local coastal development permit. The City must also certify the Environmental Impact Report. WHY HUNTINGTON BEA CH FOR THIS DESALINATION FACILITY? Site selection for a desalination facility balances a number of considerations: ocean access, proper zoning, high quality seawater, available land, buffering from surrounding neighborhoods, environmental issues and access to the regional water system. The existing Huntington Beach Generating Station intake and outfall facilities in the Pacific Ocean and an open ocean environment combined with the properly zoned land clearly points to Huntington Beach. Poseidon's need for clean seawater is consistent with Huntington Beach's objective for reestablishing and maintaining a healthy beach and ocean. WATER SUPPLYNEED AND THE ROLE OF SEAWATER DESALINATION Southern California currently has several drinking water sources, but none of them are as reliable or as high quality as seawater desalination. Currently, Southern California relies on local water sources including: ✓ Local ground water ✓ Recycled water ✓ Water conservation To supplement local supplies, Southern California relies on imported water from three main sources: ✓ The Los Angeles Aqueduct (operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power) ✓ The State Water Project(operated by the Department of Water Resources) ✓ The Colorado River Aqueduct(operated by the Metropolitan Water District) The U.S. Department of the Interior has ordered California to reduce its take of Colorado River water by almost one-fifth, which means that while Southern California's population continues to rise,the availability of imported water will be reduced. While water conservation efforts have resulted in successfully stretching the existing water supplies and more gains from conservation are projected for the future, the California Department of Water Resources predicts the Southern California region will face significant water shortages by the year 2020 unless something is done. In Orange County, the local ground water aquifer is currently overdrawn by over 133 billion gallons and needs to be replenished. The Orange County Water District, which manages the aquifer, recently presented its view of the water situation to the City Council and expressed concern about the reliability of future supply to meet local needs. Poseidon's Seawater Desalination Facility has been designed to be an insurance policy against drought conditions, like we've seen over the past four years. Additionally, the seawater desalination facility will give Orange County a high quality, reliable source of clean drinking water that can supplement both its ground water supply and its imported water. The Project's annual production is approximately equal to the normal annual natural recharge rate for the Orange County Ground Water Basin or one-half the annual overdraft of the Orange County Ground Water Basin in a dry year. The desalination facility will increase operational flexibility and make Orange County more self reliant with a local drought-proof water supply. Most importantly, seawater desalination diversifies Orange County's water resources portfolio. The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is encouraging the development of local water projects so the region has more flexibility in its water supply choices. MWD has identified desalination as a technology that is part of its Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP). The IRP predicts, "about 200,000 acre-feet per year (of desalinated ocean water) could be developed by 2010" (p. 3-12). The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project represents an opportunity to purify approximately 56,000 acre-feet per year, or approximately one-fourth of the need quantified in MWD's IRP. Southern California water planners have often looked to the Pacific Ocean as a potential new source of supply to meet projected demands but have not constructed desalination facilities because the cost has been too high. However, recent improvements have made desalination projects much more affordable. For example, technological advances in the membranes used to filter out salts and solids have significantly reduced the amount of energy needed, while the cost for providing and installing reverse osmosis membranes has also come down. Another dramatic cost saving is from co-locating the seawater desalination facility at existing coastal plant sites, thereby avoiding the construction of new intake and outfall facilities. The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach takes advantage of these and other available cost saving improvements to offer Orange County water agencies up to 50 million gallons per day (MGD)or 56,000 acre-feet of water per year. While this amount is only a small (7%) percentage of the current 650 MGD (710,000 acre-feet per year) Orange County water demand, it is an important drought-proof, renewable supply that will enhance the overall portfolio of water resources available to Orange County water agencies. The production of potable water using desalinated seawater is just one part of the solution to meet existing and future water needs in Orange County and the surrounding Southern California region. Other water supplies such as imported water, groundwater replenishment, water reuse, and more aggressive forms of conservation must also be considered as part of the solution. WHERE WILL IT BE B UIL T? The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project is to be located on 11 acres adjacent to the Huntington Beach Generating Station at Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Avenue. The buildings and storage tanks that comprise the facility will not exceed 30 ft. high and will replace three 40 ft high, 200-foot diameter fuel oil tanks that currently exist on the site. Other features of the Project include water transmission pipelines, pump stations and related facilities. The Project includes approximately seven miles of 48-inch diameter water transmission pipeline that will be aligned along existing. streets and right-of-way through the cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa to deliver the drinking water from the desalination facility to the closest existing regional pipeline (the OC-44 Pipeline). To continue to move the water through the existing regional water transmission system operated by MWD, two underground pump stations will be constructed along one of MWD's existing large water transmission pipelines (the East Orange County Feeder#2) in Irvine. HOW WILL IT WORK? The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, and will have a total staff of 18 people. The Project will take seawater from the Pacific Ocean and produce high-quality, potable drinking water using reverse osmosis (pushing seawater through synthetic membranes to remove the salt and other solids). The salinity of the seawater off of the coast at Huntington Beach consistently ranges from 33.0 to 34.0 parts per thousand(ppt), which means that the seawater is about 3.5% salt. The existing intake facility for the Huntington Beach Generating Station currently draws in and circulates.up to 506 MGD of this seawater to cool its turbines. The Poseidon Project will divert about 100 MGD of this existing flow after it is used by the power plant for cooling, and process that seawater through the desalination facility by screening out the salt molecules. The reverse osmosis membrane is like a microscopic strainer that essentially allows only the water molecules to pass through. About half of the 100 MGD of seawater (50 MGD) will be desalinated and transported into the regional drinking water system for the use by residents and businesses in Orange County. The remaining 50 MGD of. the-desalination-facility's.seawater intake becomes concentrated seawater, y ws.c which will be discharged back into the condenser cooling water system, downstream of the intake point, for dilution with the remaining power plant flow and discharge back into the ocean. Ocean currents will readily mix the water returning it to normal salinity levels within a short period of time as it moves to the open ocean away from Huntington Beach. The project will not increase the velocity rate nor will it increase the quantity of water currently withdrawn by the power plant. The water flows in and out of the power plant will not change, the desalination facility will simply use about 20% of the current water discharged by the power plant. Prior to delivering product water into the transmission system, the water will be treated using many of the same chemicals used by other water treatment plants (in lower concentrations because the seawater is very clean compared to typical surface water sources), in order to make the water compatible with the other drinking water in the regional transmission system and to meet DHS water quality regulations. WHAT IMPACT WILL IT HAVE ON THE OCEAN AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT? The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that the City of Huntington Beach first consider the potential environmental impacts of the Project before it can issue the land use permits. Accordingly, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared. The EIR examines potential noise and construction impacts as well as potential ocean water quality and marine life impacts. Except for short-term air quality impacts during construction of the desalination facility, the EIR concludes that there are no unavoidable significant environmental impacts that result from the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. The City noise requirements significantly mitigate noise on site and construction regulations will be properly enforced. Other mitigation measures will be required to address potential Project impacts. Because the EIR will be reviewed by several regulatory agencies, it included a thorough examination of potential impacts to ocean water quality and marine life. Based on extensive dispersion modeling performed by scientists from the Scripps Institute, these impacts were found to be less than significant. Under normal power plant operations, at the.mouth of the outfall pipe the seawater will have a salinity of about 38.5 ppt, which is the same salinity level that exists naturally in the ocean waters off of Baja California. Within 500 feet of the mouth of the outfall pipe, the salinity level will drop to about 36.85 ppt. This 10% increase in the average salinity of the ocean water is within the natural variability of seawater and would be tolerated by most organisms. Given the above modeling results, the City of Huntington Beach's marine biology consultant concluded that fish species will generally move away from the higher saline environment at the outfall while the benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms,that live near the base of the outfall power will migrate over time to a more estuarine environment. There are no endangered species or plant life in the marine area. Given the capability of the Pacific Ocean to accommodate this slight rise in localized salinity and the diversity of the marine resources, studies show that no significant impact will occur. .�A. a 2V- �I.m�V ,� S The power plant outfall is 1500 ft off-shore and the EIR studies by scientists from the Scripps Institute show that the ocean currents will not return the discharge to the shoreline. WHEN WILL ALL OF THIS TAKE PLACE? Over the last 18 months, Poseidon has been working closely with the City of Huntington Beach, regulatory agencies and representatives of local community and environmental groups to develop this Project. In August of 2002, the Department of Health Services granted conceptual approval to the Project for future receipt of an operating permit. The next step is to complete the public hearing process for the City of Huntington Beach land use permits. A hearing is scheduled before the City Planning Commission no earlier than May 27, 2003. The Project must also receive approvals and permits from the California Coastal Commission, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and several other regulatory agencies. Assuming that all necessary permits are obtained, facility construction could potentially start in mid-2004 with startup of the desalination facility occurring in mid-2006. Final approval from the Department of Health Services must be obtained (review of construction drawings) and commercial arrangements with public water agencies must be completed before the Poseidon Project water can be delivered into the existing regional water system. The current schedule calls for the facility to be up and running by June 2006. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH? • A healthy beach and a clean ocean provides perfect alignment of interests with the City. As source water for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Facility, it is vitally important for Poseidon to monitor the ocean and support programs to keep the ocean & beach clean; • Opportunity to improved local fire protection in southeast area; • Water quality benefits to the City as the City water system will physically receive 5 MGD into its pipes as a function of system hydraulics; • Site-restoration—tank removal, etc.; • Lower profile and more esthetically pleasing facilities on site; • Newland Street improvements; • Direct economic benefits during the two year construction period; • New tax revenue source with no significant demands upon City services; • Opportunity for the City to purchase local, drought proof, high quality water; and • Opportunity for the City to share water storage facilities. 4/29/03 y.,nar*a��tGF p x-4 sn � '�L:..�°�s'��.p�s , .�*�E>f x�"Si.,r i�S ��`TaC' "�.�. ,� tA"r ✓�ry�; E �§a", i# �, �� 'F•..,. .� s'' �.7 "� 3 r e !x ��P 35.: ��1 4�u�S t �q"7,3�'v u z �;? 1 + �' ,err e ` �, +�� � rY 4a $ i }e .�r 7+, '�,dA,�, .��� r �a'.'�7 x�§• �x�y�r� s�.�"A'.-"+"�^" �t k ��iSc.� { �a 4 �w ,��. ��. ;:.�a �` �+ e•,3 ��-,' 9 ��` ,'�• �" .�1,�.i � � � r,� �`& fi rc+y 4REYIE�WtCHECKIIST� x ;• 6 * r { : � t r Ple ndustrialr General Design Objectives The design of each industrial project in Huntington Beach should: • Contribute towards reinforcing or establishing a distinct architectural and environmental image for the district within which the project site is located • Consider the scale,proportion and character of development in the surrounding area • Establish attractive, inviting, imaginative and functional site arrangement of buildings and parking areas,and a high quality architectural and landscape design which provides an efficient and pleasant work environment ■ Facilitate and encourage on-site pedestrian activity and mitigate existing adverse automobile oriented planning patterns ■ Minimize excessive or incompatible impacts of noise, light,traffic and visual character Preserve and incorporate natural amenities unique to the site such as ocean views,mature trees,etc. into the project development proposal ■ Preserve and incorporate structures-which are distinctive because of their age,cultural significance, or unique architectural style into the project development proposal Site Planning 1 1. Gradm X j w = ` f s` �� ,: F z r 3 Not ' , :,>A llcagt x - .i•, r :Staff z :>i,Y f t -crs c s �:�� ,.. ...._,.,� _�:••�___ .,.;�,•k:.,,:.,.,,�. :fit' � �. .;�s�.�-.: ..�. .._.......... _._. .�<.,,��� _. "t' _. . ,.<----- •_ ,.:APP .-.�:,�_ .:,.!4PPlic a. Industrial developments should be sensitive to their natural To 1^y#eL6AE1Vr— +I-L' surroundings. Grading should be minimized by following the O'rV natural contours as much as possible. Graded slopes should X be rounded and contoured to blend with the existing terrain. l V y '94 e TD 1 ' I. Grad in (CON ;� r Not _ tlPplicant ,,Staff U emar HEW IILAPOI� bli b. Grading should emphasize and accentuate scenic vistas and natural landforms. c. Large manufactured slopes should be avoided in favor of several smaller slopes integrated throughout the project. Smaller slopes are less obtrusive, more easily vegetated and can be used to add visual interest,preserve views and provide visual buffers where necessary d. Significant natural vegetation should be retained and incorporated into the project. 2. Compatibility A"Not' Staff ka P ible I" le 4erfiarks. .. Remarks'' a. 77he arrangement of structures, parking and circulation areas P/WIVZr wn,&_ and open spaces should recognize the particular Mc /Tr-A, r! .characteristics of the site and should relate to the or surrounding built environment in pattern, function, scale, —fH-*-r 14-r Av-�--J character and materials. In developed areas, new projects 4 r, f-I)l M.- VY should meet or exceed the standards of quality which have been set by surrounding development. b. Structures which are distinctive due to their age, cultural significance, or unique architectural style should be preserved and incorporated in the project development proposal. c. Residential uses should be buffered from incompatible c industrial development. Intensified landscaping, increased k setbacks and appropriate building orientation should be ur­r-,!`ri- v" "d v. utilized as a means of providing adequate separation between such land uses. d. Linkages(e.g walkways,common landscape areas,building orientation)between compatible commercial and residential yi uses are encouraged where appropriate. 2 3 Site Entry Des>tgn �� ca rr - `5'.!d.�:�F ry�S .:�-"��: li ..,,J i- .'+-L..,ti" n� c; ? -r�s^_-'" - �=�> :S�` .�'e�- ,a -'-� ' x•'?,Y.,.t,�a � .f..'- --�s a 3'_ ;c N - ,r- N,� ,;� _ r livable ' A�plicable .{ :Remarks �: R marks_ ; -Y-y-'� ..�•s,..•.-.`��a!,,?.- ....lf ...4.:rV���Ye-.L ..- _,:•_.. ...C�S....�+....+xt _ -'?'. �APP _ : . e a. Entry areas to industrial developments should be enhanced by ornamental landscaping, low profile monument signage and decorative paving. x 4. Building Siting =.., >.. id Not ARpIicant Staff bl r F s z APPlica fe S Applicable }'° Remarks =[ Remarks -': �t.1F• t`b-mot-.ems: - _ F.,s4"'- ,T;:�fi: �.gF '",7•-�^f'� _ -ti a. Structure siting should take into consideration the context of navy- of .rriv- the industrial area, the location of incompatible uses, the ;y t; location of major traffic generators as well as the site's ea M pA-n s L(7- w1Tr/ 71,.Y characteristics. F}�1G Low b. The placement and design of structures should foster , yet pedestrian access and circulation. X c. Industrial site design should provide: Pov 'n Pt/ r_l� F/j-/L/T/ CTi^C+-cJ Sect aLcC�� (141 ■ controlled site access(1) �r ��G�r�ivr �21s service areas located at the sides and rear of buildings(2) 3—) C-0 n 6-"i�sv,f }tLc3� of �, r°rrJ�; ■ convenient public access and visitor parking(3) Lo C _T" By ■ screening of storage,work areas, and mechanical equipment ieY!L& ., c" -Al storage and service area screen walls, as required by the ' 02 Zoning Ordinance(5) J Sm2Av-� i ✓{ c X emphasis on the main building entry-and landscaping(6) =icy 1J,4"Lrn 11 3 4.. Bufldin Staff ... ......... RemarksRemarks d Site buildings along industrial frontages, to the greatest extent possible. Provide variable building setbacks in order to avoid long monotonous building facades and create an interesting streetscene. e. Increased building setbacks should be provided for buildings 30-ft.high or greater. e. Whenever possible new structures should be clustered to create plazas and courtyards. S.,Vehicular*Access/-CircOlatioii/-.Parkin'g":��'iej'�il.;�"f' r:4;'gg,,-��.,�'� :Applicant- 'ii Staff - -.%—P 31,5 ��A pUabl6 --AOplieable7 R pmirkW�. war a. Site access and internal circulation should promote safety, efficiency,and convenience. Conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians should be avoided. Continuous circulation should be provided throughout the site to the greatest extend possible. Dead-end driveways should be minimized. Adequate areas for maneuvering, stacking,.truck staging, M 11V CA-1Ve4&J4J6- .5 7ft4L,;^t, loading and emergency vehicle access should be r, I perl_f accommodated on site. b. The number of site access points should be minimized and 77*r- elkb located as far as possible from street intersections. The use of common or shared driveways is encouraged and in some )I-A W "I'loo �Ir(;Vg case may be required. Designs which encourage the use of streets for"internal circulation"should be avoided. c. Driveway entry locations should be coordinated with 12A 141-e-VV;j� kr� 0 r 4- existing or planned median openings and driveways on the opposite side of the roadway. d. Loading and service areas should be provided with separate r r. 0 511 access and circulation whenever possible. pvjr Aw,bl,­D Fort 6F 6 , 2' e. Parking should not dominate street frontages. Parking areas —1 should be screened by buildings and landscaping. 4 5i,Vehicular,Access/-Circulation/Parking,(CON. A staff. g Remarks e pp li e f. Parking lots which accommodate a significant number of vehicles hicles should be divided into a series of connected smaller lots. g. Parking lots should be separated from buildings by a raised walkway (minimum 4 feet wide) and landscape strip (minimum 7 feet wide). Pedestrian Circulation f ;7A., 0t N 6. C Remarks` e*ar :Applicable ppj ica a. Placement of primary vehicle access points to the project site r in close proximity to major building entries should be X avoided in order to minimize pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. .b. Clearly defined pedestrian paths should be provided from parking areas to primary building entrances and sidewalks along the site's perimeter. c. Design parking areas so that pedestrians walk parallel to moving cars. Minimize the need for pedestrians to cross parking aisles and landscape islands to reach building entries. d. Pedestrian walkways should be accessible, safe, visually attractive, and well defined by decorative pavement, landscaping,low walls,and low-level lighting. e. Safe and convenient pedestrian walkways should be provided between buildings and parking areas. f. Pedestrian access should be provided between transit stops and building entrances. .7.Plazas and Co urtyaM-ifid, Recreational onAA Not A-9- P Ic" A AC : Staff Ri ljeabl kPle 1 O _Remarks ai a. Building placement that creates opportunities for plazas, courtyards, patios, or outdoor dinning is strongly encouraged. 7.Plazas/Courtyards and Recreational Areas(CONS „}ice _ �� t Not ; . ,AppLcant Staff a r '` ' pphcable AppLcable Remarks Remarks b. Recreational facilities such as jogging trails and bicycle paths are encouraged. c. Shade trees or architectural elements which provide shelter and relief from direct sunlight should be provided within plazas and �( courtyards. d. Landscaping,water features, and public art should be incorporated into plaza and courtyard design. x 8 Loading&DeLyery s :, r ary z L,_= Not ' = Applicant c 'Staff ' Applicable 'Applicable Remarks Remarks a. Loading and delivery service areas should be located and designed to minimize their visibility, circulation conflicts X and adverse noise impacts to the maximum feasible extent. b. Loading and delivery service areas should be screened with portions of the building, architectural wing walls, freestanding X walls and landscape planting. c. Loading and delivery areas should not be located in required setback areas. d. Loading and unloading should be accommodated entirely on Y site. 9:Utility and Mechanical Equipment Not Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable --Remarks ;!': Remarks a. Utility and mechanical equipment (e.g. electric and gas ALL V71 L I F'.1 3y, meters, electrical panels, transformers and junction boxes) 1a should be screened from view. All screening devices should be compatible with the architecture, materials and colors of adjacent structures. b. Transformers should not dominate the streetscape. When ��dv rout �wc ,;x,� .► transformers are required to be installed adjacent to the871 X ' street,they should be undergrounded. ``�`' 6 10,Refuse�4md NO A 0 yM NA �V.R 5 a. Trash storage must be enclosed within or adjacent.to the -rt--2X- f main structure or located within separate freestanding enclosures. b. Trash enclosures should be unobtrusive and conveniently accessible for trash collection but should not impede circulation during loading operations. c. Trash enclosures should be located away from residential uses to minimize nuisance to adjacent properties. d. Trash and storage enclosures should be architecturally compatible with the project design. Landscaping shall be incorporated into the design of trash enclosures to screen them and deter graffiti. t p,icaM oils pi a. Wall/ fence design should complement the project's architecture. Landscaping should be used to soften the appearance of wall surfaces. b. Walls and fences within front and exterior side yards of commercial sites should be avoided. c. Unless walls are required for screening or security purposes they should be avoided. d. Security fencing should incorporate solid pilasters, or short solid wall segments and view fencing. e. Long expanses of fence or wall surfaces should be offset and C7 architecturally designed to prevent, monotony. Landscape pockets (12-feet wide by Meet deep) should be provided at 70-foot minimum intervals along the wall. :21f yl U..",.W. alls and. Fences'(C Alp ff'IS �4 Remarlrs• .......... f Walls and fences should be designed in such a manner as to create an attractive appearance to the street and to X complement the architecture of the industrial park. g. Gates should be provided in walls or fences where necessary to allow emergency access. h. High perimeter walls and walls topped with barbed wire, razor wire,or broken glass are strongly discouraged. i. Chain Link fences should not be visible from streets. 12...Paving 7 Not Applicant Staff:: P-Olicabi Applicable:.J' Remarks _ Remarks a. Decorative paving should be incorporated into parking lot design, driveway entries, pedestrian walkways and X crosswalks. b. Paving materials should complement the architectural design. The use of stamped concrete, stone, brick, pavers, exposed X aggregate,or colored concrete is encouraged. 13.Lighting ing No t t g1li, . ;Applicant t pp Applicable I" bI Remarks":�:z­ Me ppi fiea a. The type and location of parking area and building lighting should preclude direct glare onto adjoining property, streets, .or skyward. Lighting systems should be designed for two operating levels; a higher intensity lighting level for business operating hours and a reduced intensity level for non- operating hours. b. The design of the light fixtures and their structural support should be architecturally compatible with the theme of the development. c. Pedestrian scale/decorative light fixtures are encouraged within plazas and courtyards. X Architectural Guidelines 1...Ar6itectural.Imagery :Not =' Appiicant Staff Applicable Applicable r.Remarks: Remarks a. No particular architectural ,style, is required for industrial development. High quality, innovative and imaginative architecture is encouraged. b. The selected architectural style/ design should consider compatibility with surrounding character, including _harmonious building style, form, size, color, materials and roofline. In developed areas infill projects should meet or X exceed the standards of quality which have been set by surrounding development. c. The designer is expected to employ variations in form, F f,,2 6 c4:, oOe-, 5 building details and siting in order to create visual interest. In all cases the selected architectural style should be Y employed on all building elevations. d. A unified, identifiable image should be projected by individual buildings within industrial/ business parks through the use of similar and/ or complementary colors, materials, roof forms, signage, decorative pavement and architectural style. � = � ,w i,V 1J% 2 .Building Facade and:Roof Articulation tf Applicant;,,_ „3 y Staff 2r y`, narks ;:Remarks k1 < ..: ._ ~Applicable wApplicable Re a. Buildings should be divided in distinct massing elements. Building facades should be articulated with architectural elements and details. Vertical and horizontal offsets should be provided to minimize building bulk. '3 b. Variable building facades along linear street frontages are Y encouraged. x a ''r c. Building entries should be readily identifiable. Use recesses projections, columns and distinctive materials and colors to articulate entrances. E 9 i� 9 1 t 2. Building Facade and Roof Articulation(CONT� r x. Not': Applicant Staff Appl2cable 'APPlicable i Remarks , `f Remarks d. Employ various building forms to create visual character and interest. x e. Long (over 100') unarticulated building facades. Are not acceptable. Varied front setbacks are encouraged. Y f f. All wall surfaces visible to the public should be architecturally enhanced. Front and side wall elevations should provide building offsets and architectural details. g. Varying building heights/massing and setbacks to define different functions such as offices and warehousing is encouraged. X s�� C h. Nearly vertical,mansard or pitched roofs should be avoided. X i. Vertical architectural elements such as towers should be used as focal points. j. Stairways should be designed as an integral part of the building architecture. k. Roof design should be an integral component of the overall sv� ��—v �•�a building architecture. Long continuous rooflines are not x acceptable.Multiple roof planes and offsets are encouraged. 1. Outters and downspouts should be concealed, unless X e o•.l�c-t designed as a decorative architectural feature. m. All mechanical equipment should be screened from view of �,� & public streets, neighboring properties, and nearby higher aN buildings. ' 3. Fenestrahoa Not..: `Applicant Stan 3 N = 4 APPhcable APPlicable Remarks Remarks a. The size and location of doors and windows should relate to the scale and proportions of the building elevation on which x �" they are located. 10 4 Building Materials and Colors Not . Applicant Staff Applicable Applicable Y Remarks Remarks a. Materials and colors should be used to create visual interest. Pr��►,�.vc g �ti� r�� When buildings are located within an industrial/ business park, utilize colors and materials which are complementary to the design theme and consistent with the colors/materials palette for the industrial/business park development. b. Exposed gutters should be colored to match fascia or wall materials. Exposed downspouts should be colored to match the surface to which they are attached. c. Use various types of building cladding to produce different X texture,shade and shadow effects. d. High maintenance building materials such as stained wood, clapboard,or shingles should be avoided. �( e. Landscaping should be provided adjacent to walls to X discourage graffiti. f. Materials should be chosen to withstand abuse by vandals or accidental damage by machinery. False facades and other Y simulated materials and ornamentation are discouraged. g. Brightly-colored buildings are discouraged. Landscaping Guidelines I. Standard Guidelines _ Staff, of A pli0fi ff Applicable' Applicabie Remarks Y... Remarks a. Landscaping should be used to define entrances to buildings wi� c,a�.•Pc..� -r: and parking lots, buffer incompatible uses, and screen X outdoor storage, loading and equipment areas. b. Landscaping should be in scale with adjacent buildings and =' of an appropriate size at maturity to accomplish its intended e purpose. �( M� t tandird Gu 1. S idelines(C-0 S. 40#�, K mar Remarks m ks c Buildings should be located on 'turf-islands'. A minimum Moot or larger landscape strip,.including a 6" curb and 12" concrete strip,should be provided between parking areas and the front portion of the building. e. Utilize grade differential and/or berming in conjunction with landscaping to reduce the appearance of building mass and height along street frontages. e. When industrial uses are located adjacent to less intense uses, additional setbacks, walls, screening and/or landscaping should be provided to mitigate potential adverse effects to neighboring properties. f. Landscaped areas should generally incorporate planting utilizing a three tiered system: 1)grasses and ground covers, 2)shrubs and vines, and 3)trees. All areas not covered by Pc-Y, structures, service yards, walkways, driveways, and parking x spaces should be landscaped, in accordance with the City Ordinance requirements 12 1 Standard.Gmdehnes.(CON7� Applicant;M;_:: Staff ' r` "ter r AppLcable APpLca�le ,fir ��R �arks� �� marks � a 1 e Re: g. The following design concepts should be utilized in all project design: ■ Specimen trees(36-inch box or more)in informal groupings or rows at major focal points ■ Use of flowering vines both on walls and arbors or trellises ■ Use of planting to create shadow and patterns against walls ■ Use of planting to soften building lines and emphasize the positive features of the site ■ Trees to create canopy and shade,especially in parking areas and passive open space areas ■ Berms,plantings,and walls to screen parking lots,trash enclosures,storage areas,utility boxes,etc. h. Trees generally should be placed as follows: ■ A minimum of 8 ft. between center of trees and edge of driveway,6 ft.from water meter or gas meter and sewer laterals ■ A minimum of 25-ft.between center of trees and point of intersection of the edge of driveways and streets or Z�s walkways E • A minimum of 15-ft.between center of trees or large shrubs t� W to utility poles/street lights A minimum of 8-ft.between center of trees or large shrubs and fire hydrants,fire department sprinklers,standpipe -� connections 13 Staff :--p;l. ..'Standard Giidiji& 11!cAnt s. _pp - N ---------- 2Remar Remarks:.. i. Trees or large shrubs should not be planted under overhead lines or over underground utilities if their growth will interfere with the installation or maintenance of these utilities. j. Landscaping materials should be spaced so that they do not interfere with the lighting of the premises or restrict access to emergency apparatus. k. Existing healthy mature trees should be preserved and X incorporated into the overall landscaping plan. 1. Gravel, or astroturf, is not allowed as a substitute for plant X materials. m. Use of vines and climbing plants on buildings, trellises, and privately owned perimeter walls is encouraged. n. Landscaping' should be protected from vehicular and M pedestrian encroachment by raised planting surfaces. o Concrete step-off areas should be provided in landscape planters adjacent to parking spaces. fi Staff `Applicant" 2.,'Parkina-lot lip)i6l6ie' pplicable' Remarks a. Parking lot landscaping should accent driveways, frame the major circulation aisles,and highlight pedestrian pathways. UJI 1I b. Parking areas for more than 250 parking spaces should U provide continuous landscape planting strips between every row of parking and should be planted with shade trees low shrubs and groundcover at a minimum distance of 35-ft on center. These landscaping areas should provide a minimum of 7-ft. clear plantable width and shall be protected by a 6- inch high curb and a 12-inch wide concrete or comparable bardscape material strip on both sides. 14 2.Parking lot,landscaping(CONI') Applicant Staff Oe ' l f Applicable Applicablex Remarks< = ,r Remarks , c. Parking areas for more than 250 parking spaces should provide landscaping islands with minimum 500 sq. ft. of plantable area and 7-ft.wide clear plantable width at the end \, of parking rows. These landscaping areas should be planted with shade trees, low shrubs and groundcover and should be protected by a 6-inch.high curb on all sides and a 12-inch wide concrete step-off area adjacent to parking spaces. d. Parking areas for more than 250 parking spaces should provide interior planting islands with minimum 135 sq. ft. of plantable area every 10 parking spaces. These landscaping v - areas should be planted with shade trees, low shrubs and ^ groundcover and should be protected by a 6-inch high curb on all sides and a 12-inch wide concrete step-off area adjacent to parking spaces. e. All parking lot street frontages for lots with more than 250 parking spaces should be screened by landscaping. Screening materials should provide a clear line of sight between 32 inches and 5 ft.above grade.Parking lot _ landscape screening should be implemented by utilizing one or a combination of the following: ■ a maximum 32-inch high evergreen hedge,to create a solid hedge • a maximum 32-inch high earth berm with a slope no greater than 3.5:1 ' non-deciduous(evergreen)trees planted at a distance of 35 ft.on center. Trees should be a minimum 36-inch box container size,or as recommended by conditions of approval 15 1 3.Slop6Reyegetation and Erosion:Control F �'� :a 's Not " z AppLcant :Staff _ s :Applicable Applicable Remarks Remarks. s a. All slopes to be constructed at a gradient steeper than 6:1 horizontal to vertical and with a vertical.height of three feet X or greater,shall be revegetated within 30 days of completion of grading. b. All slopes should be covered with herbaceous or prostrate X shrubby ground covers. c. All plant materials should be appropriate to the site X conditions, water conserving and appropriately spaced to control soil erosion. d. Trees, shrubs, and ground covers should be planted in undulating massings and groupings to reduce the constricted }( character of manufactured slopes. e. Revegetation on permanent slopes should include permanent irrigation systems. A 4.:Plant Maintenance and Irrigation - Not < Applicant - Staff a J u plicable Applicable= = Remarks sY Remar p ks -A � . . ,.... a. All young trees should be securely staked with double staking and/or guy-wires. Root barriers shall be required for any tree placed in paved or other locations where roots could damage adjacent paving/curb surfaces. b. Automatic sprinkler controllers shall be installed to ensure that landscaped areas will be watered properly. Backflow " preventors and anti-siphon valves shall be provided in T accordance with current codes. c. Sprinkler heads and risers should be protected from car bumpers. "Pop-up" heads should be used near curbs and �( ' sidewalks. N= d.The landscape irrigation system should be designed to prevent run-off and overspray. e.All irrigation systems should be designed to reduce vandalism by placing controls in appropriate enclosures. Public Safety Through Design Public Safety.Through Design - :' = Not , Applicant Staff cable Applicable = is t Remarks arks-:. a. Electronic surveillance and security hardware should be as invisible and unobtrusive as possible. If security grilles are necessary, they should be architecturally integrated within the overall building design theme.The use of scissor grilles is strongly discouraged. b. Lighting should be designed to satisfy functional and decorative needs. Security lighting should be designed as �vrra`: "" s `�''•-P''r Tart of an overall lighting plan rather than as single stand X alone elements. c. Safety behind buildings should be ensured through: 1) adequate.security lighting for parking areas and pedestrian ways; 2) limited access (walls, fences, gates, shrubs); 3) signage; 4) introduction of activities(e.g.,rear entrances for commercial activities) that increase surveillance; 5) �( surveillance through windows or with cameras; and 6) ongoing maintenance of storage areas and alleys. d. Building lighting should complement the architectural style of the building while providing illumination of building facades and entrances. 17 Pubtic.Safe ;Throu h Desi n, GOg ...... . ..... B � OEM, IMr Ez e. Lighting should be sufficient for sidewalk and street illumination. %( f. Building address numbers should be visible from the public right-of-way. X �rf •..,•tt ca- �•Y g. Landscaping should be planted and maintained to allow visibility and eliminate areas of potential criminal activity. X Applicant Signature: _ Date: 18 f 14. Edison &Sanitation plicant: Staff Applicable Remarks Rcr�iarks a. Intensified landscaping should be provided to screen industrial facilities b. Entry gates should be landscaped c. Use of natural stone such as river rock is encouraged in perimeter wall design �( E S'1 Fi r. 14 x .'}�,' izte . "Or -,, $W:�� xt-,3" �� �a i7�a Tc r�' r .�S� � A' ��+•,� ` " f�4.vo.�� k"��2�_ J� P,� �ayT,�: POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT SCH# 2001051092 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that: "[N]o public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." The City of Huntington Beach certifies the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and approves the following project components: construction and operation of a seawater desalination plant, an aboveground product water storage tank, and pipelines to deliver drinking water into the regional water distribution system, a conditional use permit ("CUP") and a Coastal Development Permit ("CDP"). Due to the potential impacts to the environment and because the proposed action constitutes a project under CEQA and the State CEQA.Guidelines, the City of Huntington Beach has prepared a Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001051092). The Draft EIR identified certain potentially significant effects that may occur as a result of implementation of the project, unless mitigation measures, project design features and/or standard conditions are adopted for the project. The mitigation measures, project design features, and standard conditions identified in the Draft EIR are proposed to be adopted for the project. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for a 45-day period (September 19, 2002 to November 4, 2002) as specified in the State CEQA_Guidelines. Public comments were City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 1 Poseidon Seawater-Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 received by the City and have been responded to by the City in accordance with CEQA requirements. The City of Huntington Beach determines that the Final EIR, comprised of the Draft EIR, a list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, comments received from the public and interested agencies, the Responses to Comments prepared by the City, and all attachments and documents incorporated by reference is complete and adequate, and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR identified certain significant effects on the environment that may occur if the project is approved or carried out. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA, the City of Huntington Beach adopts this Statement of Facts and Findings and makes one or more of the three Section 21081 findings for each significant impact identified. For all but one of the significant effects identified in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. In addition, for certain significant effects that may occur, the Final EIR has identified changes or alterations that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies. Those changes or alterations have been, or can and should be, adopted by those other agencies. The Final EIR also identified one unavoidable significant effect on the environment that may occur as a result of the project, even with the implementation of mitigation (see Section 5.0 of this Statement of Facts and Findings). Where the decision of a public agency allows the occurrence of a significant effect which is identified in the Final EIR but is not avoided, the agency must state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and other information in the record. Such a statement is called a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In accordance with CEQA, therefore, the City of Huntington Beach adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations included as Section 7.0 of this Statement of Facts and Findings. This Statement of Facts and Findings, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations, is adopted by the City of Huntington Beach as part of its action to certify the Final EIR and approve the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing approximately 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water. The facility will intake cooling water (raw seawater) after it has passed through the existing AES Huntington Beach Generating Station's power generation units steam condensers, purify it utilizing reverse osmosis technology, and discharge concentrated seawater back into the condenser cooling water system, downstream of the intake point, for dilution and discharge back into the ocean. The product drinking water will be delivered to the existing regional water distribution system to meet the needs of the Southern California Region and particularly Orange County. A more detailed project description is provided in Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION of the Final EIR. The Draft EIR presented two basic options for on-site storage of potable water produced by the seawater desalination plant: an underground product water storage tank, an aboveground product water storage tank. Based on the Final EIR and this Statement of Findings and Facts, the City approves an aboveground product water storage tank. Off-site components necessary to effectuate delivery of the potable product water into the existing regional water distribution City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 2 Poseidon Seawater-Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR"No.00-02 system include a water transmission pipeline alignment extending into the City of Costa Mesa and two booster pump stations (one within an unincorporated portion of Orange County and another within the City of Irvine). The Draft EIR provided general location information for the required pump station component of the project. During the public review of the Draft EIR there were several comments regarding the most appropriate location for the pump stations. The Responses to Comments prepared by the City provide additional information regarding specific pump station locations. That information is included in the Final EIR and the City's approval of the project. 3.0 FINDINGS CONCERNING IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT In evaluating the potential impacts associated with the project, the Final EIR identified potential impacts that would not be significant. This section of the Statement of Facts and Findings identifies those impacts that may occur with project implementation but were found to be below the threshold of significant. CEQA does not require findings for impacts that are found to be less than significant, and therefore do not require mitigation. Nevertheless, the following information is provided in order to summarize the bases for determinations of non-significance for the potential impacts as presented in the Section 4.0, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, in the Final EIR. (Note that Section 7.0, EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT, provides an examination of potential project impacts that were found not to be significant in the Initial Study. That information is not repeated herein, but is incorporated by reference as if set forth in full in this Statement of Facts and Findings.) In some cases, the impacts addressed in this Statement of Facts and Findings are found not to be significant due to their nature. In other cases, the determinations take into account certain design features of the project. Although impacts determined to be not significant do not themselves require mitigation, in some cases mitigation measures that have been required to address other impacts found to be potentially significant and in need of mitigation will also further reduce the non-significant impacts. In these cases, the mitigation measures are noted, although the impacts would be less than significant even without such measures. Mitigation measures are referenced in this Statement of Facts and Findings using the same numbering system employed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Final EIR. Refer to Attachment B, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM for a complete listing of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. A. IMPACTS RELATED TO LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING Section 4.1 of the Final EIR addresses the potential impacts related to land use/relevant planning. Both topics (land use and relevant planning) are addressed in this Section of the Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Potential Land Use Impacts The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not create any significant impacts to surrounding land uses. Less than significant impact. In addition, mitigation measures NOI-1, ALG-1, ALG-2, and CON-1 through CON-45, inclusive, further reduce these less than significant impacts. City of Huntington-Beach- May 13, 2003 3 Poseidon-Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR-No. 00-02 Facts in Support of Finding Based on the analysis presented in Section 4.1 of the Final EIR, land use impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Potential land use impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features identified in the Final EIR. Moreover, mitigation measures NOI-1, ALG-1, ALG-2, and CON-1 through CON-45, inclusive, further reduce these less than significant impacts. Finding for Potential Relevant Planning Impacts The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not conflict with applicable relevant planning programs. No impact. Facts in Support of Finding Based on the analysis presented in Section 4.1 of the Final EIR, relevant planning impacts are not significant. The project as described in Section 2.0 of this Statement of Facts and Findings will be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and with the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. There is no need to change any General Plan or Zoning designations. During the "design development" stage, the Applicant will be submitting more detailed plans reflecting code and policy compliance with specific issues. The design will be required to comply with all applicable standard development conditions. B. IMPACTS RELATED TO GEOLOGY, SOILS, &SEISMICITY Section 4.2 of the Final EIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to geology, soils and seismicity. The Final EIR addresses six topics, two of which (topography and off-site pipelines and underground pump stations) are addressed in this Section. The remaining four topics are addressed in Section 4.0-A of this Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Topography The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will have no significant impact on the natural topography of the project area. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding Based on the analysis presented in Section 4.2 of the Final EIR, topography impacts are less than significant without mitigation. No significant landform impacts will result because the project area is relatively flat. The proposed desalination plant site consists of three fuel storage tanks on a flat surface, surrounded by containment berms of 10 to 15 feet in height. The western and southern berms would be removed prior to construction of the desalination plant, while the eastern and northern berms (the northern berm exists outside of the project boundaries) will not be removed. The site does not contain any unique physical or topographical features. Finding for Off-Site Pipelines and Underground Pump Stations The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project off-site pipelines and underground pump stations will not subject to significant hazards related to geology, soils and seismicity. Less than City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 4 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 significant impact. In addition, applicable mitigation measures contained within Section 4.9 of the Final EIR, inclusive, further reduce these less than significant impacts. Facts in Support of Finding Based on the analysis presented in Section 4.2 of the Final EIR, impacts related to geology, soils and seismicity for the project's off-site pipelines and pump stations are less than significant. No significant impacts will result because the majority of the pipeline alignment will occur within existing street right-of-way and various utility lines currently exist along the alignment. The pump station locations are also located in close proximity to existing pipelines. Standard conditions similar to those to be implemented for the on-site desalination facilities will apply to minimize impacts and design level geotechnical investigations will be performed. Moreover, applicable mitigation measures contained within Section 4.9 of the Final EIR, inclusive, further reduce these less than significant impacts. C. IMPACTS RELATED TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Section 4.3 of the Final EIR addresses the project's potential long-term impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The Final EIR addresses six topics, five of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topic is addressed in Section 4.0-B of this Statement of Facts and Findings. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant are: • Fertilizer and Pesticides • Impacts on Source Water Quality • Water Quality Impacts to Marine Biological Resources • Water Quality Impacts to Nearby Coastal Wetlands from Off-site Ocean Discharge • Water Quality Impacts to Nearby Coastal Wetlands from On-site Spillage Finding for Fertilizer and Pesticides The use of fertilizers and pesticides on landscaping at the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not have a significant impact on water quality. Less than significant impact. In addition, mitigation measure HWQ-1 further reduces this less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The project will incorporate both native and non-native landscaping on site. Non-native vegetation may require periodic fertilization and pest control. The landscaping will be maintained in accordance with City of Huntington Beach standards. Based on the size of the landscaped areas, small amounts of fertilizers and pesticides will be needed. Use of these chemicals on project landscaping will not result in a significant impact to groundwater, adjacent Ocean waters, or surrounding uses. Moreover, mitigation measure HWQ-1 further reduces this less than significant impact. Finding for Potential Impacts from Source Water Quality Impacts on the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project from source water will not be significant. Less than significant impact. In addition, the California Department of Health Services has the responsibility to review and approve the quality of the drinking water produced by the project. City of Huntington Beach: - May 13, 2003 5 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR'No.00-02 Facts in Support of Finding Oceanographers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography conducted modeling studies using a computer model to simulate "worst case" ocean conditions near the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station intake facility. The model calculates the degree of mixing of various potential contaminant sources for the Pacific Ocean that could potentially impact the quality of the project's source water in the vicinity of the intake facility. The Santa Ana River, Talbert Marsh, Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) wastewater discharge outfall, and the proposed desalination plant discharge (the AES outfall) were all investigated. Based on the analysis presented in Section 4.3 of the Final EIR, impacts on source water quality are less than significant without mitigation. In addition, mitigation measure HWQ-4 will further reduce these nonsignificant impacts. ❖ Impacts on Source Water from the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh The Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh receive runoff from highly urbanized areas and discharge into the Pacific Ocean 8,300 feet and 7,000 feet southeast, respectively, from the AES intake. Under typical conditions the discharges from the Santa Ana River and the Talbert Marsh flow away from the AES intake. However, there are times when the currents flow towards the AES intake. During a worst case, extreme storm event, the water drawn into the intake would still consist of 99.999 percent seawater and 0.001 water from the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh. In more typical conditions there would be even greater amounts of dilution. ❖ Impacts on Source Water from Dry Weather Urban Runoff from the Talbert Marsh Urban runoff and seawater can be trapped in the Talbert Marsh during the dry season and the build up can then be released in a single tidal flush. Even in a worst case condition, however, the Marsh water will be diluted with seawater 10 billion to 1 and essentially does not reach the AES intake. This is due to the fact that the Marsh water is released into the surf zone and the onshore waves keep the Marsh water in the shallow near shore water. The AES intake is located 2,292 feet offshore in 34 feet of water. ❖ Impacts on Source Water from the OCSD Outfall The OCSD discharges up to 480 million gallons per day of wastewater that has received primary treatment and some secondary treatment at an outfall that is located five miles offshore at a depth of 195 feet. As indicated in the OCSD's comments on the Draft EIR, OCSD has committed to provide secondary treatment for 100 percent of all effluent it receives (development of necessary facilities could take up to 11 years to complete). As of August 12, 2002, OCSD implemented a new disinfection process. The model (which did not account for OCSD's proposed secondary treatment or its new disinfection process) showed that under worst case, extreme conditions, the OCSD discharge would be diluted with seawater 10 million to 1 at the AES intake and would not affect water quality at the intake. This dilution would be further increased in consideration of OCSD's proposed secondary treatment and its new disinfection process. S m 9 0 kav'e City of Huntington-Beach- May 13, 2003 6 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 ❖ Impacts on Source Water from the AES Outfall The AES outfall is located 1,500 feet offshore and 792 feet from the AES intake. The discharge consists of primarily cooling water, but a small amount of power plant process wastewater and storm water can be mixed with the cooling water. In addition, the concentrated seawater from the project will be mixed with the cooling water. Under the worst case model conditions, the dilution of power plant/project discharge with seawater at the intake would be 1,000 to 1. This means that only 0.01 percent of the power plant/project discharge would be recirculated to the intake. Finding for Potential Water Quality Impacts to Marine Biological Resources The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will have no significant impact on marine biological resources. Less than significant impact. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board working through the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Ana Region has the responsibility and jurisdiction to issue a NPDES permit for the project discharge through the AES outfall into the Pacific Ocean. Furthermore, the California Coastal Commission has the responsibility to review changes in the AES outfall salinity resulting from the project as part of the Coastal Development Permit process. Facts in Support of Finding Based on the extensive studies included in the Draft EIR Appendix and the clarifying information included in the Final EIR as response to comments, the project's impact on marine biological resources is less than significant. In fact, the project is specifically designed to minimize potential impacts on marine biological resources. Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, of the Final EIR explains how the concentrated seawater resulting from the project's desalination process will be mixed with the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station's cooling water before it is discharged into the Pacific Ocean through the AES.outfall. The outfall structure produces a vertical discharge stream that forces the combined discharge to mix rapidly with the seawater as it broaches the surface. The denser, combined discharge water subsequently sinks to the bottom and spreads outward from the base of the outfall tower, further mixing with the surrounding seawater. The salinity of the concentrated seawater/cooling water that is discharged into the ocean will depend on the level of operation of the AES facility. As more generating units are operated, more cooling water is added to the mix. This results in a decrease in the salinity of the combined discharge and a smaller area of the surrounding marine environment will be exposed to elevated salinities. Section 4.3 of the Final EIR examined the worst case scenario for salinity increases in the area around the AES outfall (limited amounts of cooling water mixed with the concentrated seawater discharge and limited natural ocean mixing) even though that scenario would result less than one percent of the time. Under the worst case scenario, the discharge results in only a 15 percent increase above the background seawater salinity 100 feet away from the outfall tower and a 10 percent increase 1,000 to 1,200 feet away. A maximum of 15.6 acres of ocean floor (benthic area) and 18.3 acres of the water (pelagic area) around the outfall tower are expected to be exposed to water with a salinity over 10 percent higher than the ambient seawater during the worst case scenario. In average conditions, the distances drop and a maximum of 6.5 acres of ocean floor (benthic area) and 8.3 acres of the water (pelagic area) around the outfall tower are expected to be exposed to water with a salinity over 10 percent higher than the ambient seawater. A 10 percent anomaly is within the normal variability for seawater salinity and would be tolerated by fish species, planktonic organisms and benthic species common offshore of City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 7 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02- Huntington Beach. Mobile species will simply avoid the areas they cannot tolerate, while the benthic species at the base of the outfall tower will probably be replaced by species, which are more tolerant of high salinities. Section 4.3 of the Final EIR also examined potential impacts to the local marine environment due to the discharge of reverse osmosis membrane cleaning solution through the AES outfall. During the "first flush," approximately 200,000 to 300,000 gallons of treated waste cleaning solution would be mixed with the concentrated seawater/cooling water in the outfall. In a worst case scenario, the cleaning solution would be diluted at a ratio of 260 to 1 before it would be discharged into the ocean. Since the majority of the chemicals in the cleaning solution would be either below detection levels or regulatory limits even before this dilution took place, impacts to the local marine environment would be less than significant. Second and all subsequent flushes would only contain trace amounts of cleaning compounds. Finding for Potential Water Quality Impacts to Nearby Coastal Wetlands from Off-Site Ocean Discharge Ocean discharges from the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will have no impact on nearby coastal wetlands. No impact. Facts in Support of Finding Three nearby coastal wetlands in the vicinity of the AES outfall were examined in Section 4.3 of the Final EIR. A protected California least tern nesting area is located approximately two kilometers southeast of the AES outfall on Huntington State Beach between the Talbert Marsh and the mouth of the Santa Ana River. This area is well outside of the modeled area of increased salinities and will not be impacted by project discharges. Likewise, the mouth of the Talbert Marsh is outside of the area of increased salinities and will not be impacted by project discharges. A privately owned open space/wetlands area abuts the edge of the southwest corner of the desalination plant site. This area does not have tidal access and, therefore, is not impacted by discharges from the AES outfall. Finding for Potential Water Quality Impacts to Nearby Coastal Wetlands from On-Site Spillage Potential on-site spillage from the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will have no significant impact on nearby coastal wetlands. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.8 of the Final EIR, the project design incorporates appropriate leak/spill containment features that minimize the likelihood for hazardous materials being stored, used or transported on-site from impacting adjacent uses. Moreover, nearby coastal wetlands, including the privately owned open space/wetlands area that abuts the edge of the southwest corner of the desalination plant site, are physically separated from the desalination facility by existing berms (that will remain in place). 1 a City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 8 Poseidon Seawater•Desalination Project_, STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR-No. 00=02.' D. IMPACTS RELATED TO AIR QUALITY Section 4.4 of the Final EIR addresses the potential impacts related to air quality. Three topics (long-term emissions, consistency with regional plans and sensitive receptors) are addressed in this Section of the Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Long-Term Emissions The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not result in significant impacts in regards to long-term area source, mobile, or off-site energy related air emissions. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The analysis in Section 4.4 of the Final EIR shows that the desalination plant would generate nominal amounts of on-site area source and off-site mobile source emissions. In addition, off- site energy emissions associated with the proposed plant's electricity consumption have been previously accounted for within local and regional planning documents as well as environmental documentation prepared for SCAQMD's Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) and New Source Review programs. Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. Finding for Consistency with Regional Plans The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not conflict with local and regional air quality planning documents. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.1 of the Final EIR, the proposed project does not involve a General Plan amendment, zone change, or other change in land use, and is consistent with the County of Orange and City of Huntington Beach land use assumptions. The regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is based on the City and County's General Plan assumptions, and the project is consistent with these assumptions. Consequently, as explained in Section 4.4 of the Final EIR, the project would be considered consistent with the AQMP. Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. Finding for Sensitive Receptors The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not have significant air quality impacts on sensitive receptors. Less than significant impact. In addition, mitigation measure CON-9 further reduces these less than significant impacts. Facts in Support of Finding Sensitive receptors are located within the vicinity of the desalination plant site, along the pipeline route and near the underground pump stations. As explained in Section 4.4 of the Final EIR, however, the project is consistent with the plans and policies set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern California Association of Governments. Consequently, impacts in this regard are less than significant. Moreover, mitigation measure CON-9 further reduces these less than significant impacts. City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 9 Poseidon Seawater-Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR Noy 00-02 E. IMPACTS RELATED TO NOISE Section 4.5 of the Final EIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to noise. The Final EIR addresses two topics (mobile noise sources and stationary noise sources). Mobile noise sources are addressed in this Section. Stationary noise sources are addressed in Section 4.0-C of this Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Mobile Noise Sources The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not generate a significant amount of noise resulting from mobile noise sources. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.5 of the Final EIR, the project would generate a nominal amount of noise resulting from mobile sources as a result of employee trips and truck-generated traffic. The proposed desalination plant would employ a total of approximately 18 people, with an average of five to seven people on-site per shift on weekdays. In addition, facility operation would require approximately three truck trips per day for solid waste disposal and chemical delivery.. Noise generated by mobile sources as a result of the proposed desalination plant is so nominal that impacts in this regard will be less than significant. F. IMPACTS RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Section 4.6 of the Final EIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to public services and utilities. The Final EIR addresses fourteen topics, eight of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topics are addressed in Section 4.0-D of this Statement of Facts and Findings. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant are: • Fire Service • Police Service • Libraries • Parks and Recreation • Reclaimed Water • Electricity • Gas • Telephone and Cable Finding for Fire Service The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not have a significant impact on the demand for fire service within the City of Huntington Beach. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding N, It is not anticipated that project implementation would result in the need for additional Fire Department facilities. The project is not of the scope or nature to create a significant increase in demand for services requiring physical additions to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, impacts are less than significant. NV City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 10 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 Finding for Police Service The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not have a significant impact on the demand for police service within the City of Huntington Beach. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the project will not create a significant increase in service calls to the project area nor is it expected to result in the need for additional police facilities within the City of Huntington Beach. As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Libraries The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not have a significant impact on the City of Huntington Beach library system. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The proposed desalination project is not anticipated to have significant impacts on the City of Huntington Beach library system. Although the nearest library facility to the project site (the Banning Branch Library) is small in size, the project is anticipated to have a negligible impact on the branch. The applicant will be required to pay standard library enrichment fees concurrent with building permit issuance. As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Parks and Recreation The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not have a significant impact on the demand for parks and recreational facilities within the City of Huntington Beach. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The desalination plant will employ approximately 18 people, with five to seven people on duty during regular working hours Monday through Friday, and a minimum of two people on duty during swing shifts, graveyard shifts, and weekends. Consequently, the project is anticipated to have a negligible impact on parks and recreation facilities within the City of Huntington Beach. As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Reclaimed Water The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not have a significant impact on the availability of the City's reclaimed water facilities. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The proposed project will not require the use of reclaimed water or installation of reclaimed water facilities, as the project itself will be a new water reclamation source. As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, impacts are less than significant. City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 11 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No.-00-02. Finding for Electricity The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not have a significant impact on the electrical facilities providing service to the project vicinity. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The project would consume approximately 720 to 840 megawatt hours per day. The facility may utilize off-peak power to the maximum extent practicable. Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the state, and the project's electrical demand would be met by dozens of power plants connected to a regional power supply source, with many of those plants located outside of Southern California. SCE is prepared to install electrical distribution facilities to the project site. As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Gas The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not have a significant impact on local natural gas facilities. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The Southern California Gas Company can provide gas service to the proposed project via numerous gas mains surrounding the subject site. As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Telephone and Cable The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not have a significant impact on telephone or cable service facilities within the vicinity of the project area. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding Both Verizon (telephone) and Time Warner (cable) will be available to provide service to the subject site from existing facilities surrounding the subject site. As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, impacts are less than significant. G. IMPACTS RELATED TO AESTHETICS/ LIGHT AND GLARE Section 4.7 of the Final EIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to aesthetics/light and glare. The Final EIR addresses three topics, one of which (off-site light and glare) is addressed in this Section. The remaining two topics are addressed in Section 4.0-E of this Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Off-Site Light and Glare The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not have a significant off-site light and glare impact. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.7 of the Final EIR, off-site light and glare impacts are less than significant. Project implementation may result in an insignificant increase in the amount of light City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 12 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 and glare off-site from vehicles utilizing the facility. However, additional lighting or glare- inducing surfaces will not occur as a result of the water transmission pipeline or underground pump stations because those facilities will be underground. H. IMPACTS RELATED TO HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Section 4.8 of the Final EIR addresses the potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Finding for Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not result in significant impacts in regards to hazards or hazardous materials. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding While potential future uses may require the storage, use, transportation, and/or handling of hazardous materials, as explained in Section 4.8 of the Final EIR, any such hazards would be minimized by adherence to Federal, State, and City regulations. These requirements include monitoring devices, spill control, emergency response plans, appropriate on-site safety equipment, and the proper design of all facilities. With the implementation of standard conditions and required design features, impacts in this regard will be less than significant. I. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Finding for Potential Cumulative Impacts The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding Section 5.3 of the Final EIR addressed the cumulative impacts associated with the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. The cumulative impact analysis was based primarily on build- out of the City's General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and General Plan EIR. The analysis also identified, listed and considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from the currently known probable projects at the time of Draft EIR publication. Section 5.3 of the Final EIR specifically analyzed potential cumulative impacts in the areas of land use/relevant planning, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, air quality, noise, public services and utilities, aesthetics/light and glare, hazards and hazardous materials, and construction related impacts. No significant cumulative impacts were identified. The Final EIR noted that additional seawater desalination plants were being considered by various cities and agencies along the Southern California coast. Because those projects were in various stages of conceptual consideration, and construction has not begun, the Final EIR did not attempt to quantify or evaluate potential cumulative impacts of those projects. Such an analysis would be speculative at best, and is not required under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130[b]. The Final EIR noted that the project, together with other proposed desalination projects may facilitate new development in south Orange County or elsewhere. However, because the project's water has not been, and may not be, allocated to any specific development project, and because other desalination projects are still in the conceptual stage, City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 13 Poseidon Seawater Desalination-Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR-No. 00-02 the Final EIR did not identify any potential growth-inducing impacts on a cumulative basis. (The potential growth-inducing impacts of the project are discussed in Section 3.0-J of this Statement of Facts and Findings.) J. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Finding for Potential Growth-Inducing Impacts The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will not result in significant growth-inducing impacts. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As required under CEQA, Section 5.2 of the Final EIR included a discussion of the ways in which the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project could be growth-inducing. Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Significant growth impacts could also occur if the project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. it must first be noted that the project will sell water on a wholesale basis to water agencies who in turn will sell the water to customers at retail prices. The project does not propose to sell water at a retail level. On page 3-20, the Final EIR explains in some detail how the water produced by the proposed seawater desalination facility will be delivered into the regional distribution system operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"). The regional system operated by MWD serves Orange County and most of the South Coast Hydrologic Region. It will be up to the water agencies served by that system to determine how best to allocate the water produced by the project. The project may have the potential to indirectly induce growth because additional or supplemental water supplies will be made available to the South Coast Hydrologic Region of California and particularly to County of Orange as a result of the project's implementation. However, while the provision of additional/supplemental water realized by the desalination plant may be characterized as reducing one of the barriers to growth, implementation of the project will not necessarily induce growth because the new water supply made available by the project may be required to simply replace anticipated reductions in available imported water supplies. Growth in Southern California will occur with or without the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. Implementation of the project will provide greater flexibility for Southern California water agencies to meet existing water supply needs during times of drought, but it is only one part of the solution to meet existing and future water needs in Orange County and the surrounding Southern California region. Other water supplies such as imported water, groundwater replenishment, water reuse, and more aggressive forms of conservation must also be considered as part of the solution because the project would only result in the addition of less than eight percent (8%) of the existing supplies used in Orange County. With a projected population growth of approximately two percent (2%) per year, the project's water supply would soon fail to keep up with existing growth projections for Orange County. Consequently, the project will not result in significant growth-inducing impacts. City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 14 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 4.0 FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The following issues were determined to be "less than significant with mitigation" as set forth in the EIR. The City of Huntington Beach finds that these potentially significant adverse impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of the existing City development review requirements, standards, codes, and the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation measures are referenced in this Statement of Facts and Findings using the same numbering system employed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Final EIR. Refer to Attachment B, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM for a complete listing of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. A. IMPACTS RELATED TO GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY Section 4.2 of the Final EIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to geology, soils and seismicity. The Final EIR addresses six topics, four of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topics were addressed in Section 3.0-B of this Statement of Facts and Findings. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant after implementation of mitigation are: • Wind/Water Erosion • Geology/Soils • Seismicity/Faulting • Liquefaction Potential Finding for Wind/Water Erosion The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may create significant impacts in regards to wind and water erosion during grading activities. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including standard erosion control practices as typically required by the City of Huntington Beach and mitigation measure HWQ-1. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.2 of the Final EIR, the potential impacts related to wind and water erosion have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design considerations, standard conditions and mitigation measure HWQ-1, all of which have been incorporated into the project. The proposed project will require a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize wind and water erosion impacts. Finding for Geology/Soils The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may be subject to significant impacts resulting from unstable soils and shallow groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the project area. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EiR, including adherence to standard UBC conditions and incorporation of mitigation measures GEO-1, GEO-2, GEO-5 and GEO-6. Less than significant-impact with mitigation. WN City of Huntington-Beach May 13, 2003 15 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No.:00-02 Facts in Support of Findings As noted in Section 4.2 of the Final EIR, impacts associated with excavation for the underground storage tank are avoided (and the need for incorporation of mitigation measures GEO-3 and GEO-4 is also avoided) by adoption of an abroveground storage tank project feature. Substantially less excavation (and thus, dewatering) occurs with an abroveground storage tank option. A detailed geotechnical survey will still be prepared to minimize other impacts in regards to geology and soils, the recommendations of which shall be incorporated into the site grading plan. To mitigate for compressible soils known to exist on-site, such soils shall either be removed and recompacted or structural improvements (such as piles or grade beams) shall be incorporated into project design. Finding for Seismicity/Faulting The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may be subject to significant hazards from seismicity and faulting. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including adherence to standard UBC conditions and incorporation of mitigation measures GEO-7 and GEO-8. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.2 of the Final EIR, adequate measures shall be taken to protect building foundations and on-site pipelines from the effects of seismicity, including compliance with all UBC standards and California Division of Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Special Publication 117. Additionally, special studies and a subsurface investigation (as a part of the detailed geotechnical survey) will be performed to examine potential impacts from the South Branch Fault. Finding for Liquefaction Potential The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may be subject to significant hazards due to high liquefaction potential in the vicinity of the project site. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including adherence to standard UBC conditions and incorporation of mitigation measures GEO-9, GEO-10 and GEO-11. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.2 of the Final EIR, adequate measures shall also be taken to protect against liquefaction, including compliance with all UBC standards and California Division of Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Special Publication 117. Additionally, the detailed geotechnical survey will analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. Methods such as overexcavation, recompaction, in-situ soil densification, injection grouting, and deep soil mixing will be performed to stabilize structures from liquefiable soils. City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 16 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 B. IMPACTS RELATED TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Section 4.3 of the Final EIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The Final EIR addresses six topics, one of which is addressed in this Section. The remaining topics were addressed in Section 3.0-C of this Statement of Facts and Findings Finding for Flooding and Storm Water Runoff The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may have significant long-term water quality impacts related to flooding and storm water runoff. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-3, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board working through the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Ana Region has the responsibility and jurisdiction to issue a NPDES permit. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.3 of the Final EIR, potential impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features and mitigation measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-3, inclusive which have been incorporated into the project. The proposed project will require a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) which identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) and implementation measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). In addition, appropriate site specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first.. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding. An on-site drainage system will also be installed integrating permanent storm water quality features. It should be noted that an aboveground tank would increase the total impervious area of the project site, thereby increasing the amount of storm water runoff. In order to contain storm water on-site, an on-site storm water system will direct storm water to the desalination facility's storm water system, ultimately discharging into the Pacific Ocean via the AES outfall. In addition, containment berms surrounding the northern and eastern side of the tank site would be left in place further containing storm water on-site. C. IMPACTS RELATED TO NOISE Section 4.5 of the Final EIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to noise. The Final EIR addresses two topics (mobile noise sources and stationary noise sources). Stationary noise sources are addressed in this Section. Mobile noise sources are addressed in Section 3.0-E of this Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Stationary Noise Sources The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may create significant impacts to sensitive receptors adjacent to the desalination plant site from long-term stationary noise sources associated with project operation. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measureWOI-1. Less than significant impact with.mitigation. 11 ;•. _y era>^.,7,-..� 'f.i�i�:'1 Y H j � 1� City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 17 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR Noc.0042 Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.5 of the Final EIR, potential noise impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of' less than significant by virtue of project design features incorporated into the project and through incorporation of mitigation measure NOI-1. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits,_an acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans shall be prepared. This documentation will describe the stationary noise generation potential and noise mitigation measures (such as the installation of sound enclosures or placing noise-generating equipment indoors), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. Operation of an aboveground tank is not expected to be a significant noise generator. Should a pump station be placed adjacent to the tank, noise attenuation features similar to those utilized for the rest of the desalination plant would be employed to minimize noise levels to less than significant levels. All stationary equipment shall be designed to meet the noise criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. D. IMPACTS RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Section 4.6 of the Final EIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to public services and utilities. The Final EIR addresses fourteen topics, six of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topics are addressed in Section 3.0-D of this Statement of Facts and Findings. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant after implementation of mitigation are: • Schools • Roadway Maintenance • Wastewater • Storm Water Drainage • Water • Solid Waste Finding for Schools The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may place additional demand on schools located within the project vicinity. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-1. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, the project does not include housing or other student-generating uses. In response to the questionnaire sent by the City of Huntington Beach to local school districts, the Huntington Beach Union High School District provided a project student generation rate of .0000356882. The Huntington Beach City School District response letter dated October 24, 2001, indicated that no students would be generated by the project, and informed the City that "no assessment fees or other school mitigation measures are required." Any potential additional,demand on schools located in the project vicinity has been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the-incorporation of mitigation measure-PSU-1. To 5:18 City-.of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 18 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 properly mitigate impacts to schools, fees will be paid by the project applicant in accordance with State law. Finding for Roadway Maintenance The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may create an increased demand on streets nearby the project site and an increased need for roadway maintenance services. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including conditions of approval and incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-2. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding To properly mitigate any increased demand on streets nearby the project site and any increased need for roadway maintenance services, adequate traffic impact fees will be paid by the project applicant to provide for additional facilities, if necessary. As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, the project applicant will be required to provide certain street improvements as a condition of approval. Any potential increased demand on streets nearby the project site or increased need for roadway maintenance service has been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-2 and the conditions of approval. Finding for Wastewater The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may create an increased demand on the local wastewater system. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-3. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding To properly mitigate any increased demand on the local wastewater system, adequate sewer connection fees will be paid by the project applicant to provide for additional facilities, if necessary. As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, the project would produce nominal amounts of domestic wastewater, as the plant would employ approximately 18 people. The Orange County Sanitation District has indicated that it has capacity to accommodate any waste cleaning solution that may be discharged into the local sanitary sewer by the project. Any potential increased demand on the local wastewater system has been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features and the incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-3. Finding for Storm Water Drainage The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may create increased storm water drainage. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures HWQ-1, HWQ-2 and HWQ-3. Less than significant impact with mitigation. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board working through the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the City of Huntington Beach - May 13, 2003 19 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 Santa Ana Region has the responsibility and jurisdiction to issue a NPDES permit for the project discharge through the AES outfall into the Pacific Ocean. Facts in Support of Finding The Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Huntington Beach operate the storm water drainage system within the City. The system removes water runoff from streets and transports the runoff to the Ocean. As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, the addition of impervious surfaces at the project site will increase the potential amount of surface runoff. However, an on-site local storm water drainage system will be included as one of the project design features. Storm water will be collected on site and treated (using a clarification process) before it is transported to the Ocean via the AES outfall. The inclusion of project design features and the incorporation of mitigation measures HWQ-1, HWQ-2 and HWQ-3 will mitigate any increased storm water drainage impacts to less than significant levels. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board working through the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Ana Region has the responsibility and jurisdiction to issue a NPDES permit for the project discharge through the AES outfall into the Pacific Ocean. Finding for Water The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may create an increased demand for City water service and may create impacts in regards to water compatibility, water quality and hydraulics. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated. into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures PSU-4 and HWQ-4. Less than significant impact with mitigation. In addition, the California Department of Health Services has the responsibility to review and approve the quality of the drinking water produced by the project. Moreover, the owners and operators of regional water systems that will deliver project water must approve and accept the blending of the project water in their system. Facts in Support of Finding To properly mitigate any increased demand for City water service, adequate water connection fees will be paid by the project applicant to provide for additional facilities, if necessary. As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, it is anticipated that the normal domestic demand created by the approximately 18 employees at the plant can be provided with desalinated water generated on-site. Adequate backflow prevention devices will be required as a condition of receiving any water service from the City. Any potential increased demand for City water service has been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of conditions of approval and the incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-4. The product water created by the desalination plant will be blended with the imported water delivered by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"). It is anticipated that the water produced by the desalination plant will be comparable in physical characteristics to the MWD water. However, prior to project operation, coordination, testing and monitoring with involved water agencies will be required as a condition of approval. The owners and operators of regional water systems that will deliver project water must approve and accept the blending of the project water in their system. Moreover, all Department of Health Services water quality requirements must be met before the blended supply can be delivered to water customers by the applicable retail water agencies or City water departments. Any potential impacts in regards to water compatibility or water quality have been lessened to a level of less.than significant by virtue of conditions of City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 20 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No..-00-02 approval and the incorporation of mitigation measure HWQ-4. Final project design features will reflect coordination with the owners and operators of the regional water systems that will deliver project water and address any hydraulic and surge control issues to insure that no significant impacts to regional pipelines will result from project operation. Finding for Solid Waste The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may create an increased demand on solid waste disposal facilities. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures PSU-5 and PSU-6. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.6 of the Final EIR, the project applicant must coordinate with the City of Huntington Beach recycling representative to ensure compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program, and will be required to prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. The inclusion of project design features and the incorporation of mitigation measures PSU-5 and PSU-6 will mitigate any increased demand on solid waste disposal facilities to less than significant levels. E. IMPACTS RELATED TO AESTHETICS/LIGHT& GLARE Section 4.7 of the Final EIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to aesthetics/light and glare. The Final EIR addresses three topics, two of which (aesthetics and on-site light and glare) are addressed in this Section. The remaining topic is addressed in Section 3.0-G of this Statement of Facts and Findings. Finding for Aesthetics The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may create significant aesthetic impacts. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure ALG-1. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.7 of the Final EIR, potential aesthetic impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features incorporated into the project and through incorporation of mitigation measure ALG-1. Mitigation measure ALG-1 requires that exterior mechanical equipment be screened and setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. All such screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building. In addition, the existing berms on the perimeter of the property will partially screen the project from view. The existing project site can be described as low to non-existent in aesthetic value. As designed and with mitigation, the project will improve the aesthetic character of the site. City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 21 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EiR No..00-02 - Finding for On-Site Light and Glare The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may generate light and glare through on-site nighttime security lighting and additional automobile traffic. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure ALG-2. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.7 of the Final EIR, on-site light and glare impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features and through the incorporation of mitigation measure ALG-2. To mitigate impacts from light and glare, light intensity shall be limited to only that necessary for adequate security and safety, and light "spillage" onto adjacent properties shall be controlled by directional or shielded lighting fixtures. F. IMPACTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION Section 4.9 of the Final EIR addresses the project's potential short-term construction related impacts. The Final EIR addresses nine topics, eight of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topic is addressed in Section 5.0 of this Statement of Facts and Findings. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant after implementation of mitigation are: • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise • Public Services and Utilities • Aesthetics/Light and Glare • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Traffic • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources Finding for Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may have adverse shop`-term construction related impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality. . However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-1 through CON-8, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.9 of the Final EIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-1- through CON-8, inclusive. Short-term impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality will-be:mitigated through-adherence to NPDES and Santa Ana City of Huntington-Beach May 13, 2003 22 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations, preparation of a City-approved Erosion Control Plan, and the acquisition of appropriate permits/approvals for dewatering activities. Overall short-term construction impacts related to hydrology and water quality will be reduced because an aboveground storage tank will involve substantially less grading and excavation than an underground tank. Finding for Noise The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to noise. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-10 through CON-12, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.9 of the Final EIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to noise have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-10 through CON-12, inclusive. The project will be in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and construction activities will adhere to various standards in regards to construction equipment, staging areas, and hours of construction operations. Overall short-term construction impacts related to noise will be reduced because an aboveground storage tank will involve substantially less grading and excavation than an underground tank. Finding for Public Services and Utilities The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to public services and utilities. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including standard conditions and incorporation of mitigation measure CON-13. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.9 of the Final EIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to public services and utilities have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by standard conditions and through incorporation of mitigation measure CON-13. In order to mitigate impacts to public services and utilities, the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. Finding for Aesthetics/Light and Glare The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to aestheticsllight and glare. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 23 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-14 and CON-15. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.9 of the Final EIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to aesthetics/ light and glare have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-14 and CON-15. Aesthetic impacts will be minimized by installation aesthetic screening around the construction site, and by concentrating construction activities and staging areas away from adjacent sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. Finding for Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to hazards and hazardous materials. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-16 through CON-29, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.9 of the Final EIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to hazards and hazardous materials have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by standard conditions, appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-16 through CON-29, inclusive. Numerous measures will be implemented to mitigate impacts in regards to hazards and hazardous materials, including, but not limited to, adherence to standards as administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, South Coast Air Quality Management District, State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Regional Water Quality Control Board, County Integrated Waste Management, Orange County Health Care Agency, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, and City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Finding for Traffic The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to traffic. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-30 through CON-35, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.9 of the Final EIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to traffic have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by standard conditions, appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-30 through CON-35, inclusive. Overall short-term construction a.7 N °? � City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 24 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 impacts related to traffic will be reduced because an aboveground storage tank will involve substantially less grading and excavation than an underground tank. Finding for Biological Resources The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to biological resources. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-36 through CON-43, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.9 of the Final EIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to biological resources have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by standard conditions, appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-36 through CON-43, inclusive. Focused surveys will be performed as necessary to determine the potential for endangered species. Finding for Cultural Resources The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to cultural resources. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-44 and CON- 45. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 4.9 of the Final EIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to cultural resources have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-44 and CON-45. In order to mitigate potential impacts in regards to cultural resources at the booster pump station site, a paleontological resource recovery program shall be implemented, and all construction activities will be halted should historical or archaeological resources be discovered during excavation until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION IMPACTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION —AIR QUALITY Section 4.9 of the Final EIR addresses the project's potential short-term construction related impacts. The Final EIR addresses nine topics, one of which (air quality) is addressed in this Section. The remaining topics are addressed in Section 4.0-F of this Statement of Facts and Findings. NT City-of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 25 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project .STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 Finding for Short-Term Air Quality The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure CON-9. In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and California Air Resources Board have jurisdiction over stationary and mobile emission sources, respectively. Even after incorporation of mitigation measure CON-9, the Project will result in an unavoidable significant impact in regards to short-term construction related reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOJ, and carbon monoxide (CO). Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible additional mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report. The City of Huntington Beach is adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section 7.0 of this Statement of Findings and Facts to address this impact of the Project. Facts in Support of Finding Construction related air quality impacts will be mitigated through preparation of a dust control plan and adherence to City standards and South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 402 and 403. As detailed within Section 4.9 of the Final EIR, and despite the implementation of standard conditions, project design features and mitigation measure CON-9, significant and unavoidable short-term air quality impacts remain. The proposed project is anticipated to exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds in regards to short- term air emissions (remediation, demolition, construction). Mitigation measures will be implemented, but these measures are unable to reduce ROG, NO,,, and CO emissions to a less than significant level according to SCAQMD thresholds. Thus, air quality impacts in this regard are considered an unavoidable significant impact of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 7.0 of this Statement of Facts and Findings). There are no feasible alternatives that could avoid this significant impact. Moreover, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and California Air Resources Board have jurisdiction over stationary and mobile emission sources, respectively. 6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21002 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, an EIR must assess a reasonable range of alternatives to the project action or location. (a) Section 15126.6 places emphasis on focusing the discussion on alternatives which provide opportunities for eliminating any significant adverse environmental impacts, or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternative would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. In this regard, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. (b) As with cumulative impacts, the discussion of alternatives is governed .by the "rule of reason". yT`Y City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 26 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project - STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR-No. 00-02 (c) The EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained, or does not contribute to an informed decision-making and public participation process. The range of alternatives is defined by those alternatives, which could feasibly attain the objectives of the project. Accordingly, Section 6.0 of the Final EIR analyzes various alternatives to the proposed project in evaluating the opportunity for avoiding or substantially lessening environmental impacts. Section 6.0 of the Final EIR provides descriptions and analysis of each alternative in adequate detail to allow the decision-maker(s) to evaluate the proposed project in comparison to identified alternatives. As directed in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c), an EIR shall include alternatives to the project that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project. A specific objective of the project was to provide a reliable local source of drinking water. While water conservation efforts have resulted in successfully stretching the existing water supply, and more gains from conservation are projected for the future, conservation in and of itself is not a "source of drinking water." It must also be emphasized that although an objective of the project is to provide a reliable local source of drinking water, most of the project objectives emphasize development of a drinking water source that is "independent of," "decreases pressures on" and "minimizes demands on" existing drinking water supplies (i.e., imported water supplies and local groundwater supplies). (See the list of project objectives on page 6-1 of the Final EIR.) Desalinated seawater is unique because it does not fall into the categories of either "imported water" or"local groundwater." In contrast, water reuse projects are dependent on existing water supplies because, by their very nature, they "recycle" existing imported or local groundwater supplies. In addition, water reuse projects do not produce direct use potable/drinking water. DHS will not allow recycled water to be used as a direct use potable water source. Because there are no feasible alternative water sources to evaluate that meet the objectives of the project, an alternative water source "alternative" was not included in the Final EIR. As directed in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c), an EIR shall include alternatives to the project that could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The Final EIR notes (at page 6-1) that with the exception of short-term air quality emissions associated with construction activities, "all potentially significant impacts" (which includes potential impacts to marine organisms and water quality) can be "mitigated to less than significant levels." Therefore, it is not anticipated that increased conservation efforts or any alternative water source (assuming there is one) will avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts when compared to the project. Section 6.0 of the Final EIR evaluates four alternatives, including a "No Project/No Development" alternative, "Alternative Site" alternative, "Aboveground Product Water Storage Tank" alternative, and "Alternative Project Design" alternative. The "No Proiect/No Development" alternative conflicts with the primary purpose of the proposed project, and is not being considered by the City for the following reasons: The "No Project/No Development" alternative would: 0 not meet basic project objectives; • not remediate petroleum hydrocarbon contamination known to exist on-site; • leave the existing degraded,abandoned fuel.oil storage tanks in place; and not preclude-site development of•a.similar or worse nature: City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 27 Poseidon Seawater-Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 Table 1 ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS Alternative Impact Summary Matrix Alternative Impact Meets (compared to the proposed project) Feasible Objectives No Project/No Development Less Yes No Alternative Site Equal/Greater Potentially Yes Aboveground Product Water Less Yes Yes Stora a Tank' Alternative Project Design Equal No Yes 'Environmentally superior to the Applicant's proposal The "Alternative Site" alternative would potentially result in impacts greater than or equal to those of the proposed project situated in Huntington Beach (depending on site-specific conditions). This alternative would implement the project on either a site adjacent to the proposed subject site (identified in the Initial Study/NOP for this project) or within the City of San Clemente, City of Dana Point, or in San Onofre. This alternative is not being considered by the City for the following reasons: The "Alternative Site" alternative would: • not substantially reduce identified impacts associated with the proposed project; • not avoid the unavoidable significant impact for short-term air quality; and • result in potentially greater impacts for those alternative sites requiring a new ocean intake/outfall. The "Aboveground Product Water Storage Tank" alternative would generally have a reduced environmental impact than the proposed project and is considered the environmentally superior alternative. Based on the Final EIR and this Statement of Facts and Findings, the City of Huntington Beach finds an Aboveground Product Water Storage Tank alternative to be the environmentally superior alternative and, therefore, approves an aboveground product water storage tank. The "Aboveground Product Water Storage Tank" alternative would: • require substantially less grading and excavation, as this alternative involves an aboveground product water tank versus an underground tank, thereby reducing construction related impacts and impacts in regards to geology, soils, and seismicity; • result in slightly greater aesthetic impacts, as the proposed aboveground tank would be a maximum of 30 feet in height (although those impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level by required landscape and screening as explained in Section 4.0-E of this Statement of Facts and Findings); and • Result in slightly greater impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality, as this alternative- would increase -the total amount of _impervious area, thus City,of Huntington.Beach May 13, 2003 28 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 0042: increasing surface runoff (those impacts are also mitigated to a less than significant level as explained in Section 4.0-B of this Statement of Facts and Findings). The "Alternative Project Design" alternative would either reduce the output of the proposed desalination project or utilize an alternative method of desalination (such as thermal distillation). Impacts associated with a reduced output alternative would not be substantially lessened in comparison to the proposed project. The utilization of an alternative method of desalination would not be feasible. The "Alternative Project Design" alternative would: • Not substantially reduce impacts in comparison to the proposed project; and • Be either technically or financially infeasible to implement. 7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, decision-makers are required to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. In the event the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable". The CEQA Guidelines require that, when a public agency allows for the occurrence of significant effects which are identified within the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall seek in writing the specific reasons the action was supported. Any statement of overriding considerations should be included in the record of project approval and. should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination. To the extent the significant effects of a project are not avoided or substantially lessened to a level of insignificance, the City of Huntington Beach, having reviewed and considered the information contained within the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, and having reviewed and considered the information contained within the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds that such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in consideration of the following overriding considerations discussion. The City finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to a less than significant level where feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the project are either infeasible because they have greater environmental impacts, do not provide the benefits of the project, do not eliminate the project's unavoidable significant air quality impact, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible. The environmental analysis undertaken for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project indicates that, while mitigation measures would be effective in reducing the level of certain short-term air quality impacts, the project may still result in significant adverse impacts in regards to short-term air quality. It should be noted that the project's unavoidable adverse impacts would occur under current General Plan designations. The City of Huntington Beach, as lead agency and decision-maker for the. project, has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prepared for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project and the public record. The City finds that the benefits of the Project_include the following: v^' City of Huntington Beach May 13,2003 29 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIRR No. 00-02 ❖ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will provide a reliable source of potable water to Orange County and the surrounding region that is sustainable independent of climatic conditions and the availability of imported water supplies and local groundwater supplies. The Project offers Orange County's water agencies up to 50 million gallons per day (MGD) or 56,000 acre-feet of water per year to include in their portfolio of available water resources. Water conservation efforts have resulted in successfully stretching the developed water supply, and more gains from conservation are projected for the future. Still, in the latest California Water Plan Update (Bulletin 160-98), the California Department of Water Resources predicts that the South Coast Region (and the entire State) will face significant water shortages by the year 2020. While the amount of water produced by the Project is only a small percentage of the current 650 MGD (710,000 acre-feet per year) Orange County water demand, it is an important drought-proof, renewable supply that will enhance the overall portfolio of water resources available to Orange County water agencies. ❖ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will provide product water that - meets or exceeds the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the California Department of Health Services (DHS). ❖ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will reduce the salt imbalance of current imported water supplies by providing a potable water source with lower salt loads for blending with existing supplies. ❖ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will remediate the subject site of on-site contaminants resulting from approximately 35 years of use as a fuel oil storage facility thereby protecting the health and safety of those in the surrounding community. ❖ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will create ecosystem and biological resources benefits that may accrue due to decreased pressures on existing water sources. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) has identified that Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin has been overdrafted by more than 400,000 acre feet due to drought conditions of the last three years. The Project could offset withdrawals from the groundwater basin during dry years, allowing the Groundwater Basin to recharge. The Project could also offset demands on imported supplies transported from the Colorado River and/or Northern California, allowing more water to remain available for use in environmentally sensitive areas in those locations.. ❖ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will minimize demands on the existing imported water system. Southern California could not exist without its extensive imported water supply system. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"), together with many local water agencies, operates numerous water facilities to transport, store and recycle water supplies to meet the needs of Orange County and the surrounding Southern California region. Given the announced cutbacks of water supply from the Colorado River and the continuing environmental water demands on the State Water Project in Northern California, the water produced by the Poseidon Project could be dedicated by Orange County water agencies to simply replacing existing water supplies for current Orange County residents and future generations. City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 30 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project- STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS EIR No. 00-02 Based on this Statement of Facts and Findings and on all of the evidence presented, the City of Huntington Beach finds that the benefits of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project (as described above) outweigh the adverse short-term air quality impacts associated with the construction of Project (as described in Section 5.0 of this Statement of Facts and Findings). City of Huntington Beach May 13, 2003 31 g. >G'C�na'.r'1`°M,IUD x c 'r�w#��`k+. ��- �;``+��a hex. >3"ihA4 + s :4 ac ' 'f" r• �.'2& t°"a'' `3 Iv$" �Fn� POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT SCH# 2001051092 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the attached MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST has been prepared for Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that all applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project file. This Mitigation Monitoring Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the project, but also allows the City of Huntington Beach flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps: • The City of Huntington Beach distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance. • Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the EIR, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures. • Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to City of Huntington Beach as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. • Responsible parties provide the City of Huntington Beach with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. City of Huntington Beach March 26, 2003 1 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING EIR-No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST • The City of Huntington Beach or Applicant prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts. • Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals. Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring Program, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City of Huntington Beach. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, program redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. City of Huntington Beach _ _ March 26, 2003 2 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY 4.1 LAND USEIRELEVANT PLANNING None required. 4.2 GEOLOGY,SOILS&SEISMICITY GEO-1 A detailed geotechnical Project Soils Engineer Concurrent with City of Huntington City of report shall be prepared Building Permit Beach Department Huntington and submitted with the Application of Public Works/ Beach Planning building permit application Department of Department (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) for the proposed desalina- Building and Safety tion plant. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) testing of materials to pro- vide detailed recommenda- tions regarding grading, (Title of Monitoring Report) po) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, remedial work, overexcavation / re- compaction, dewatering, (Tole of Monitoring Report) (Signatum(Date of Monitoring Agency) water quality, and chemi- calffill properties of under- ground items including bur- ied pipe and concrete and (tale of Monitoring Report) (S gnelwe/Date of Monitoring Agency) protection thereof. The re- ports shall specifically ad- dress lateral spreading, (tale of Monitoring Report) po) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction poten- tial and groundwater con- straints. Appropriate rec- (Tole of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMale of Monitoring Agency) ommendations shall be pro- vided to mitigate potentially -s adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignalureJDate of Monitoring Agency) also be submitted to the c`.. Department of Public Works for review and approval in (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) conjunction with the grading plan. (Title of Monitoring Report) (SlgnalureMate of Monitoring Agency) GEO-2 In conjunction with the Project Engineer Concurrent with City of Huntington City of submittal of application for Preliminary/ Beach Department Huntington preliminary or.precise grad- Precise Grading of Public Works/ Beach Planning (role of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) ing permits, the Applicant Permits Building and Safety Department j! - 1 City of Huntington Beach 3 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY shall demonstrate to the (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) satisfaction of the City En- gineer that the preliminary (Tile of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) geotechnical report recom- mendations have been in- corporated into the grading (file of Monitoring Report) (Stgnature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) plan unless otherwise specified in the final geo- (TiaeofMonitoring Report) po) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) technical report and/or by the City Engineer. (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (Tide of Monitoring Report) (SignaturerDate of Monitoring Agency) (rile of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rite of MonHoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) GEO-3 Excavation for the proposed Construction During City of Huntington City of underground product water Contractor Construction Beach Department Huntington storage tank shall imple- of Public Works Beach Planning (rlue of Monitoring Report) (SignatumMate of Monitoring Agency) ment dewatering activities Department in compliance with NPDES regulations. Pumped (rare of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) groundwater shall be sam- pled,tested,and(if deemed necessary) treated prior to (TGIe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) discharge. (rite of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) i (file of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (T0e of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) i k ` City of Huntington Beach 4 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) GEO-4 In order to prevent the un- Project Engineer Plan Review City of Huntington City of derground product water Beach Department Huntington storage tank from 'gloating" of Public Works/ Beach Planning (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) when water levels in the Department of Department tank are lowered, the tank Building and Safety shall be either "anchored" (rite of Monitoring Report) (Sg re natu /Da(e of Monitoring Agency) utilizing piles, weighted, and/or have adequate soil placed across the top of the (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) tank to hold the tank in place within shallow (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) groundwater known to exist within subject site bounda- ries. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rate of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (TIDe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tore of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) GEO-5 As native on-site soils are Project Engineer Plan Review City of Huntington City of compressible upon place- Beach Department Huntington ment of structural loads, of Public Works/ Beach Planning (role of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) project implementation shall Department of Department implement complete re- Building and Safety moval and recompaction of (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support On-site structures. (Me of Monitoring Report) (Slgnalure0ate of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (SgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) i„ ry (rille of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelOate of Monitoring Agency) O March 26, 2003 City of Huntington Beach 5 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature(Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SignatumMate of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) GEO-6 Type V cement shall be Construction During. City of Huntington City of used for concrete and bur- Contractor Construction Beach Department Huntington ied metal pipes shall utilize of Public Works Beach Planning (rdu of Monitoring Report) (SignatumNale of Monitoring Agency) special measures(coatings, Department etc.) to protect against the a effects of corrosive soils. x a le Monitoring Report) (S gnalureJDale of Monitoring g Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signatura/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Trite of Monitoring Report) (Signalure/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdte of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Data of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureCate of Monitoring Agency) (r(de of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SignatuncOate of Monitoring Agency) GEO-7 Due to the potential for Project Engineer Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of :j ground shaking in a seismic of Building Permit Beach Department Huntington event, the project shall of Public Works/ Beach Planning (Title WMoniteHng Report) (signature/DaleaMerdtedrtp Agency) comply with the standards Department of Department set forth in the UBC (most Building and Safety (Tille of Monitoring Report) (SlgnalurelDate of Monitoring Agency) recent edition) to assure ; ., seismic safety to the satis- faction of the Department of (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) yJ Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building per (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) mit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special aye of Monitoring Report) (SlgnelurelDate of Mon togng Agency) -) Publication 117 (Guidelines Lam- C..�I....a:..� ..J •A:1: 4 i City of Huntington Beach 6 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY for Evaluating and Mitigat- (rme of Monitoring Report) (SignatumMate of Monitoring Agency) ing Seismic Hazards in Cali- fornia, adopted March 13, (rime of Monitoring Report) (Stgneture/Date of Monitoring Agency) 1997). However, given the proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood and (rme of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Compton Blind Thrust Faults, more stringent (Me of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) measures may be war- ranted. (rme of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) GEO-8 As the South Branch Fault Project Soils Engineer Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of (situated beneath the sub- of Grading Permit Beach Department Huntington ject site) is classified as of Public Works/ Beach Planning (Time of Monitoring Report) (Signaluremate of Monitoring Agency) "Category C" by the City of Department of Department Huntington Beach General Building and Safety (rifleofMonitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency)Plan, special studies and subsurface investigation (including a site specific (rdle of Mortaring Report) (SignatunuDafe of Montlomg Agency) seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit, to the (rme of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) approval of the City Engi- neer. The subsurface in- vestigation shall include (rate of Monitoring Report) (S gnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) CPT and exploratory bor- ings to determine the fault (rme of Monitoring Report) (SlgnalurefDate of Monitoring Agency) rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. cane of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (ritte of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) _ (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring g Agenc_ -a GEO-9 Due to the potential for Project Engineer Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of liquefaction within the pro- of Building Permit Beach Department Huntington jest vicinity, the Applicant of Public Works/ Beach Planning (raeofMarutar;ngRepa,) (SigrraarernazeefMoniloringAgency) shall comply with the stan- Department of Department N dards set forth in the UBC Building and Safety (most recent edition) for (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) t structures on-site to assure safety of the occupants to the satisfaction of the De- (rme of Monitoring Report) (SignalurelDate of Monitoring Agency) partment of Building and Safaty nrinr to icctfanr.P of a `; City of Huntington Beach 7 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY Safety prior to issuance of a (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) building permit. These standards include compli- ance with California Division (Tale or Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDale of Monitoring Agency) of Mines and Geology Spe- cial Publication 117 (Guide- lines for Evaluating and (rme of Monitoring Report) (SlgrnalarelDate of Monitoring Agency) Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,adopted March (rdte of Monitoring Report) (Slgnatut-Wate of Monitoring Agency) 13, 1997) and 'Recom- mended Procedures for im- plementation of CDMG (rd)e of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature(Date of MonitoMg Agency) in California" (Dr. Geoffrey R.Martin et al,May 1999). (tale of Monitoring Report) (SignatweMate of Monitoring Agency) GEO-10 The proposed project shall Project Engineer Plan Review City of Huntington City of incorporate adequate Beach Department Huntington measures to stabilize strut- of Public Works/ Beach Planning (rifle of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) tures from on-site soils Department of Department known to be prone to lique- Building and Safety faction. Typical methods (rdte of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) include, but are not limited to: (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnalureMate of Monitoring Agency) :• Overexcavation and re- compaction of soils; in-situ soil densification (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureMate of Mondatng Agency) (such as vibro-flotation or vibro-replacement); . (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDate o1 Monitoring Agency) ❖ injection grouting;and deep soil mixing. (rite of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) ?� (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignatweMale of Monitoring Agency) R; ale of Monitoring Report (SignaturrJDate of Monitoring Agency) (rdre of Monitoring Report) (StgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 8 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature(Date of Monitoring Agency) GEO-11 The site specific Project Soils Engineer Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of geotechnical investigation of Grading Permit Beach Department Huntington for the proposed project of Public Works/ Beach Planning (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) shall analyze the potential Department of Department for lateral spread on-site. If Building and Safety deemed a possibility, (idle or Monitoring Report) (S gnalurate or Monitoring Agency) adequate subsurface stabilization practices (similar to those utilized for (rNe of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDaze of Monitoring Agency) liquefaction) shall be incorporated prior to the (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Slgnaturellate of Monitoring Agency) construction of on-site structures. (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (Idle of Monitoring Report) (SignalumMate of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdie of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) 4.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HWQ-1 Prior to issuance of precise Applicant Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of grading or building permits, of Grading/ Beach Department Huntington which ever comes first, the Building Permit of Public Works Beach Planning "y applicant shall submit and Department obtain approval from the (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Manage- ment Plan(WQMP)specifi- t_" tally identifying Best Man- agement Practices (BMPs) (Idle of Monitoring Report) (Slgnalure(Date of Monitoring Agency) 7 that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutant T_ runoff. This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureR)ale of Monitoring Agency) routine, structural and non- structural measures speci- fied in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area City of Huntington Beach 9 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY Management Plan (DAMP) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) Appendix which details im- plementation of the BMPs whenever they are applica- ble to a project, the as- signment of long-term (Me of Monitoring Report) (SipnatwelDate of Man hailing Agency) maintenance responsibili- ties to the applicant, and shall reference the loca- tion(s) of structural BMPs. (role of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) The applicable BMPs in- clude: Plant materials that re- quire fertilization and pest control shall be (idle of Monitoring Report) (SlgnalurelDale of Monitoring Agency) maintained in accor- dance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SlgrlaturrJDrne of Monitoring Agency) Fertilizers and Pesti- cides;and BMP structures and fa- cilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Mordtodrq Agency) scheduled basis by a Facility Operator ap- pointed person. (Ttle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) HWQ-2 Appropriate site specific Project Hydrologist Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of hydrology and hydraulic of Grading/ Beach Public Works Huntington analysis will be performed Building Permit Beach Planning (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) for the project prior to the Department issuance of grading or 1 building permits,which ever (rdle of Monitorring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) comes first. The analysis 1 shall include mitigation (Trite of Monitoring Report) (Signatum/Date of Monitoring Agency) measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding. (rime of Monitoring Report) (signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) `=•"�"8 (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Slgnalure/Date of Monitoring Agency) S Q City of Huntington Beach 10 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY (Tine of Monitoring Report) (Signet ate of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Manearing Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) - (idle of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) - (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) HWQ-3 Prior to the issuance of Project Engineer Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of grading or building permits, of Grading/ Beach Department Huntington which ever comes first, an Building Permit of Public Works Beach Planning (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) appropriate on-site drainage Department system shall be installed for the project that integrates (idle of Martiaring Report) (SignalwefDate of Monitoring Agency) permanent stormwater qual- ity features. (rille of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Momtorirg Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rile of Monitoring Report) (Slgnalun s/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) HWQ-4 Product water quality will be Applicant Continuous California City of permitted by the California Monitoring Department of Huntington Department of Heath Health Services Beach Planning (Tdla m Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Services to ensure safe, Department reliable water quality to the consumer. (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) -c, 6 City of Huntington Beach 11 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (TWe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (TWe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (TWe of MaNlonM Report) (SignafureA)afe of Monitoring Agency) (Me of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (Tlfe of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (TWe of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelOate of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoft Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) 4.4 AIR QUALITY None required. 4.5 NOISE (TWe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) NOI-1 Prior to the issuance of any Acoustical Consultant Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of building or grading permits, of Grading/ Beach Planning Huntington the Applicant shall prepare Building Permit Department Beach Planning (Ttlle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) an acoustical analysis report Department and appropriate plans, prepared under the (Tile of Monitoring Report) (SignaturafDate of Monitoring Agency) = supervision of a City- 4 approved acoustical consultant, describing the (TWe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) stationary noise generation =7 potential and noise mitigation measures (such (TWe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) as the installation of sound a enclosures or placing noise- generating equipment (rWe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of MONtarirnp Agency) " 3 indoors), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) . the project. All stationary equipment shall be �a City of Huntington Beach 12 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY designed to meet the noise (Time of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agent criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter (TAle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) 8.40 (Noise Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of (rate of Monitoring Repots) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Huntington Beach. 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) PSU-1 Prior to the issuance of Applicant Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of building permits, the of Building Permit Beach Planning Huntington applicant will be required to Department/ Beach Planning (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) pay applicable school Affected School Department mitigation fees pursuant to District State law. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Slgnatum(Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignatumfDate of Monitoring Agency) (ripe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agent (Ti la of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agent (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureMate of Monitoring Agency) PSU-2 The Applicant will be Applicant Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of required to pay appropriate of Building Permit Beach Department Huntington traffic impact fees as of Building and Beach Planning (rate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) determined by the City of Safety/Department Department Huntington Beach of Public Works Department of Public (idle at Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Works. City of Huntington Beach 13 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY (Tdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tole of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelOale of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SignalurelDate of Monitoring Agency) (Tine of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturrJDate of Monitoring Agency) (Tole of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Sgnature/Date of Monitoring Agency) PSU-3 The Applicant will be Applicant Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of required to pay the of Building Permit Beach Department Huntington prevailing sewer connection of Public Works/ Beach Planning (M of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Datr of Monitoring Agency) fee plus five percent of the OCSD Department OCSD connection fee. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tine of Monitoring Report) (Signal—Mate of Monitoring Agency) .: �--_y (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signatum/Date of Monitoring Agency) - ' OVe of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) r. r�A $ e (ripe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) zJ rA3 (Tide of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) hD V T ' City of Huntington Beach 14 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant - MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (rife of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rile of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatumJDate of Monitoring Agency) PSU-4 The Applicant will be Applicant Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of required to pay appropriate of Building Permit Beach Department Huntington fees for water service of Public Works Beach Planning (rite of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) connections, installation, Department and meters. In addition,-the City requires payment of a (Tile of Monitoring Report) (Signaturet[We of Monitoring Agenco service fee for industrial customers. (Tole of Monitoring Ripon) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tide of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tole of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatumJDate of Monitoring Agency) (TIUe of Monitoring Report) (SignaiureMme of Monitoring Agency) (rile of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (role of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rile of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) PSU-5 The Applicant will coordinate Applicant Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of with the City's recycling of Building Permit Beach Department Huntington representative to ensure of Public Works Beach Planning (role of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) that the proposed project is Department in compliance with the City's (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) waste reduction and recycling program. (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) - .sue (Tile of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) lA C - (Me of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelOate of Monitoring Agency) ..cam F�.., (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) � 1 City of Huntington Beach 15 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY (We of Monitoring Report) (Stpnature/Date dMonitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (file of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) PSU-6 Prior to the issuance of a Applicant Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of grading permit, the of Grading Permit Beach Department Huntington Applicant will prepare a of Public Works Beach Planning (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) waste reduction plan for the Department generation of construction and operational waste from (role of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) the proposed project. This plan will be submitted to the recycling coordinator from (T le of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaorelDate ofMonitoring Agency) the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are (TWe of Monitoring Raport) (S gnalure/Date of Monitoring Agency) properly addressed. (TWe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (TWe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (r le of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ....,�,_ (TWe of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatumJDate of Monitoring Agency) t 4.7 AESTHETICS/LIGHT&GLARE T- - (fWe O1 Monitoring Report) (SlgneturelDale of Monitoring Agency) x; ALGA For areas visible by Project Architect Plan Review City of Huntington City of adjacent existing or Beach Planning Huntington proposed residential areas, Department Beach Planning (rWe of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturafDato of Monitoring Agency) 1Z exterior mechanical Department = equipment shall be screened from view on all (TWe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) r^" sides, and rooftop mechanical equipment shall City of Huntington Beach 16 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY be set back 15 feet from the cram of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is (rate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, (rude or Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) duct-work and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible (rNe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) spec ically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing (rite of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) screening must be submitted for review and approval with the (rite of Monitoring Report) (Sgnanrre/Dale of Monitoring agency) application for building permit(s). (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Moldering Agency i ALG-2 If outdoor lighting is Project Architect Plan Review City of Huntington City of included, light intensity shall Beach Department Huntington be limited to that necessary of Building and Beach Planning (Title of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) for adequate security and Safety/Planning Department safety. All outside lighting Department shall be directed to prevent (role of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) "spillage' onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and (Time of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) elevations. i + - (tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatunelDate of Monitoring Agent x (rate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoringe Agency) •� (reef of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) ,�s•� 2 fr�� (rNe of Monitoring Report) (Signahre/Date of MonitmLg Agency) g k (rdte of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 17 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (Me of Monitoring Report) (SlpnatuterData of Monitoring Agency) 4.8 HAZARDS&HAZARDOUS MATERIALS None required. 4.9 CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS CON-1 Concurrent with the submit- Project Engineer Concurrent with City of Huntington City of tal of the Grading Plan, the Submittal of Beach Department Huntington Applicant shall submit an Grading Plan of Public Works Beach Planning Erosion Control Plan to the Department City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the follow- ing measures: a) Where necessary, temporary and/or per- (We of Mendoring Report) (SlgnatutelData of Monitoring Agency manent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed fo control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 1 e. (Tate of Monitoring Report) (SignaturatDate of Monitoring Agency) b) Equipment and work- ers for emergency work shall be made available at all times pduring the rainy sea- son. Necessary mate- rials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations :a City of Huntington Beach 18 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY to facilitate the rapid (rme of Monitoring Report) (Signewe0ate of Monitoring Agent construction of tempo- rary devices when rain is imminent. c) Erosion control de- vices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. (rile or Monionng Report) (S)gnatureMale of Monitoring Agency) d) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability fore- cast exceeds 40%. e) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be (fineMMonitoring Report) (signaturalDale of MoritoingAger removed.from streets, check berms and ba- sins. f) Graded areas on the permitted area perime- ter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclu- sion of each working (file of Monitoring Report) (Signature0ate of Monlorng Agency) day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilt- r-- ing facilities. c 'a g) The permittee and contractor shall be re- sponsible and shall take necessary pre- cautions to prevent City of Huntington Beach 19 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY public trespass onto (Tile of Monitoring Report) (Sgnature/Dete of Monitoring Agency) areas where im- pounded water creates a hazardous condition. h) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accor- dance with the ap- (rme of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) proved plans. i) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading opera- tions or as otherwise directed by the County of Orange Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emis- (rite of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) sions). A grading op- erations plan may be required including wa- tering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grad- ing equipment. (Title of Monitoring Report) (SgnatureMate of Monitoring Agency) CON-2 Construction of the project Project Engineer Plan Review City of Huntington City of shall include Best Manage- Beach Department Huntington - ment Practices (BMPs) as of Public Works Beach Planning stated in the Drainage Area Department Management Plan (DAMP) (roe of Monitoring Report) (SgnaturwDate of Monitoring Agency) -, by the Orange County Stormwater Management :"y Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the <y; following: (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ' Potential pollutants in- clude but are not lim- ited to: solid or liquid 1 chemical spills:wastes . c City of Huntington Beach 20 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY chemical spills;wastes (rate of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitorig Agenc" from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents;asbestos (rrlle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fu- els, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertil- (Title of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) izers, vehi- cle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) flushings. ee During construction, disposal of such mate- rials should occur in a - (rme of Monitoring Report) (SlgnalurelDele of Monitoring Agency) specked and con- trolled temporary area on-site, physically separated from poten- tial stormwater run-off, (idle of Monitoring Report) (SignatunlDate of Monitoring Agency) with ultimate disposal in-accordance with lo- cal, state, and federal requirements. (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date 01 Monitoring Agency) CON-3 As part of its compliance Applicant Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of with the NPDES require- of Grading Permit Beach Department Huntington merits, the Applicant shall of Public Works/ Beach Planning (Title of M.M ring Repon) (S)gnatura/Dale of Monitoring Agency) = � prepare a Notice of Intent SARWQCB Department (NOI)to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water (Me of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Quality Control Board pro- viding notification and intent (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature/Dateof Monitoring Agency) to comply with the State of pv-F California general permit. N City of Huntington Beach 21 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY Prior to construction, com- (rule of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) pletion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (rime of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (SWPPP) will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the (rme of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all (Title of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) times. (rule of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) cane of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rme of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-4 Prior to any dewatering Applicant Prior to City of Huntington City of activities,the Applicant shall Dewatering Beach Department Huntington obtain and comply with a Activities of Public Works/ Beach Planning (rule of Monitoring Report) (Slgnalure/Date of Monitoring Agency) general dewatering NPDES SARWQCB Department permit from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality cane of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Control Board. (rme of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tore of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rlte of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) .� (Title of Monitorirg Report) (SlgnatureJDate W Monitoring Agency) (Tme of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Aperk7/) r_N (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) "22! (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) eF. (rdle of Mortaring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-5 The Applicant shall submit a Project Engineer/ Plan City of Huntington City of dewatering plan for review Construction Review/During Beach Department Huntington and approval by the City of Contractor Construction of Public Works Beach Planning (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Ageruy) Huntington Beach Depart- Department N ment of Public Works. The City of Huntington Beach 22 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY ment of Public Works. The (Title of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDate or Monitoring Agency) Applicant will comply with the approved dewatering (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) plan. (role of Monitoring Report) (SlgnalurelDate of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) - (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (,rile of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rele of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-6 The Applicant shall inform Applicant/ Prior to Orange County City of the Orange County Water Construction Dewatering Water District Huntington District(OCWD)of its plans Contractor Operations/During Beach Planning (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) for on-site dewatering, and, Construction Department if necessary, will acquire necessary permits and ap- (rme of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) provals from the OCWD to ensure that no adverse im- (Ttite of Monitoring Repots) (SignaturdDafe of Monitoring Agency) pacts on the groundwater basin or seawater intrusion barrier occur as a result of (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Slgnatureroate of Monitoring Agency) - the proposed project. The Applicant will comply with any approved dewatering - (role or Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) permits or plans. (Tille of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) •le:? mayw (role of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (role of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature/Date of Monitorirq Agency) \N� W City of Huntington Beach 23 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (Tole of Monitoring Report) (Signature(Date of Monitoring Agency) (role of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) CON-7 During dewatering opera- Survey Crew During Dewatering City of Huntington City of tions, a survey program Operations Beach Department Huntington shall be conducted on sur- of Public Works Beach Planning (Tole of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) rounding properties and Department structures to ensure .that movement or settlement (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) from on-site dewatering op- erations does not occur. This survey program will be (Tine of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature02te of Monitoring Agency) subject to approval by the City Engineer. (Tole of Monitoring Report) (SlpnaturelDNe of Monitoring Agency) (Tole of Monitoring Report) (Slgnatum/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tine of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatumJDate of Monitoring Agency) (Tole of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) (mole of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignaaurelDate N Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monuoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-8 Should on-site dewatering Applicant Prior to City of Huntington City of operations require dis- Dewatering Beach Department Huntington charge into the sanitary Operations of Public Works/ Beach Planning sewer system,the Applicant Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) OCSD Department ( shall obtain applicable per- mits and approvals for the (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturwDate of Monitoring Agency) Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) and City of (rdle or Monitoringtur/O Report) (Signaeate of Montorinp Agency) Huntington Beach Depart- r ment of Public Works. Should the dewatering dis- (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) charge be directed to exist- ing AES stonndraln facil(- (Me of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatumJDate of Monitoring Agency) ties, the Applicant shall en- :) sure that dewaterinq is ad- City j � N t of Huntington Beach 24 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE ' PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY sure that dewatering IS ad- (role of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) dressed in the Applicant's SARWQCB NPDES permit. (rate or Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureMate of Monitoring Agency) (role of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature(Date of Monitoring Agency) (rGle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (role of Monitoring Report) (SignetureMate of Monitoring Agency) CON-9 Prior to the issuance of City of Huntington Prior to the City of Huntington City of grading permits or approval Beach Department of Issuance of Beach Department Huntington of grading plans, the City Public Works Grading Permit or of Public Works/ Beach Planning shall include a dust control Approval of SCAQMD Department plan as part of the construc- Grading Plans tion contract standard specifications, which shall include measures to meet the requirements of the City and SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures (rdle of Monson g Report) (SlgnatureMWe of Monitoring Agency) may include, but are not limited to,the following: During grading operations, the following shall be com- plied with: Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) alerts; ..A -y Discontinue operation .f during second-stage smog alerts; yy.7 All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leav- �;' ing the site to prevent dust from impacting �1J City of Huntington Beach 25 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY the surrounding areas; (rifle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) 44- Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to sur- rounding areas; ev Moisten soil each day, prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut; (Tdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring g Agency) Water exposed sur- faces at least twice a day under calm condi- tions and as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 mile per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface - (rile of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) - crust and prevent the release of visible emis- sions from the construction site; Treat any area that will be exposed for ex- tended periods with a soil conditioner to sta- bilize soil or temporar- ily plant with vegeta- (ri'°of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring agency) w� tion; r` Wash mud-covered tires and under car- riages of trucks leaving construction sites; . Provide for street uy, sweeping, as needed, on adiacent roadways (f City of Huntington Beach 26 March 26,2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY on adjacent roadways (rive of Monitoring Reporp (Signal—Male of Monitoring Agency) to remove dirt dropped by construction vehi- cles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites; Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fit- ting tarp; (Tide or Monitoring Repoli) (SignaturelDale or Monitoring Agency) Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; Maintain construction equipment in peak op- erating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; (tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Vale of Monitoring Agency) Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; Use electric equipment whenever practicable; and Shut off engines when _ not in use. (role of Monitoring RepoM (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-10 Prior to the issuance of any Construction During City of Huntington City of grading permits, the Appli- Contractor/Project Construction/Plan Beach Department Huntington cant shall ensure evidence Engineer Review of Planning/ Beach Planning 3 acceptable to the City of Department of Department (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Huntington Beach Depart- Public Works ments of Planning and Pub- ;I lic Works that: (Tide of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of MoNlort A All construction vehi- cles or equipment, fixed or mobile, oper- •Iw City of Huntington Beach 27 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY ated within 1,000 feet (ride of Monitoring Report) (SignatureiDate of Monitoring Agency) of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and main- tainedmufflers. (Me of Monitoring Reps) (SignataefDate of MnnnorNg Agmq) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Mu- nicipal Code Chapter (Title or Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) 8.40(Noise Control); Stockpiling and/or ve- hicle staging areas (title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas;and Notations in the above (role of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureMate of Monitoring Agency) format, appropriately numbered and in- cluded with other nota- tions on the front sheet (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureMate of Monitoring Agency) of grading plans, will be considered as ade- quate evidence of compliance with this (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) condition. (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-11 Should the project require Construction During City of Huntington City of off-site import/export of fill Contractor Construction Beach Department Huntington material during demolition, of Public Works/ Beach Planning (role of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) remediation, and construc- Caltrans Department ' - tion, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) to sensitive receptors, pref- erabl Newland Street to Jra, y (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature)Dale of Monitoring Agency) Pack Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard to 1406. �.' Construction trucks shall be (role of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Cale of Monitoring Agency) prohibited from operating on -_ Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. (T'itle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rMaWMonitoringep cy)Report) (SignafureVata of fdonllorNg Agen N D� City of Huntington Beach 28 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (idle of Monitoring Report) (SignatteelDate of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rifle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dato of Monitoring Agency) CON-12 To reduce project-related Construction During City of Huntington City of construction noise impacts. Contractor Construction Beach Department Huntington generated by the proposed of Public Works Beach Planning (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) project, the following condi- Department tions shall be implemented: (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignaturrJDate of Monitoring Agency) Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the (idle ofMonitoringReport) (stgnalorrJDate of Monitoring Agency) City Noise Ordinance; and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) s• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion (rime of Monitoring Report) (S gnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) engines shall be pro- hibited. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signatum[Date of Monitoring Agency) (rifle of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatunvUate of MoNtoAng Agency) (rite of Monitoring Report) (Signature)Date of Monitoring Agency) ((ale of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) v ; CON-13 Unless underground utility Project Engineer Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of locations are well docu- of Grading Permit Beach Department Huntington mented, as determined by of Public Works Beach Planning (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) the City of Huntington Department Beach Public Works De- �, - partment, the project engi- (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature(Date of Monitoring Agency) neer shall perform geo- physical surveys to identify (rime ofWanting Report) (SignatumiDate of Monitoring Agency) subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SignalurwDate of Monitoring Agency) into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be S City of Huntington Beach 29 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY or conduits which may be (Tile of Montloring Report) (Signeturr./Date of MondaMp Agency) encountered within the ex- cavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or (rate of Morutorirg Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) be cut and plugged accord- ing to the applicable code (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) requirements. (Tole of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-14_ During construction,a secu- Construction During City of Huntington City of rity fence, the height of Contractor Construction Beach Department Huntington which shall be determined of Public Works Beach Planning (rdle of Mundaring Report) (Signature/Dateof Monitoring Agency) by the City of Huntington Department Beach Department of Build- ing and Safety, shall be in- (rifle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) stalled around the perimeter of the site. The construc- tion site shall be kept clear (rate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) of all trash,weeds,etc. • (Tate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Moniloring Agency) (rate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) _5 (rate of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) �-.f•: (rate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ?. s e'T-) (Tale at Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dade of Monitoring Agency) _j CON-15 Construction activities, to Construction During City of Huntington City of the extent feasible, shall be Contractor Construction Beach Department Huntington concentrated away from ad- of Public Works Beach Planning (rdleof Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDataof Monitoring Agency) ;y jacent residential areas. Department Eouipment storage and soil City of Huntington Beach 30 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY Equipment storage and soil fraje of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date a Monitoring Agency) stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adja- cent residential property (Taje of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date or Monitoring Agency) lines. (n de of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureJDate of Monitoring Agency) (rate of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate at Monitoring Agency) (raje of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (raja of Monitoring Report) (Slgnatu-JDate of Monitoring Agency) (Taj8 of Monitoring Report) (SignatumiDate of Monitoring Agency) (rile of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (THte of Mongoft Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) CON-16 Prior to excavation of the Remediation Prior to Grading City of Huntington City of contaminated and other ar- Contractor Beach Department Huntington eas for rough grading, the of Public Works Beach Planning (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) project site shall be cleared Department of all excess vegetation, surface trash, piping, debris (raja of Monitoring Report) (slgnatnrNDate of Monitoring Agency) and other deleterious mate- rials. These materials shall (raja of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) be removed and disposed of properly (recycled if pos- e sible). (raje of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tide of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) j (raja of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date at Monitoring Agency) (Tate of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureiVale of Monitoring Agency) (raja of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) t i City of Huntington Beach 31 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY (idle of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureJDate of Monitoring Agency) _ (f iffe of Monitoring Report) (SignalurerDate of Monitoring Agency) CON-17 Proper excavation proce- Remediation During City of Huntington City of dures shaft be followed to Contractor Remediation Beach Department Huntington comply with OSHA's Safety of Public Works/ Beach Planning (Tale or Monitoring Report) (Signalure/Date of Monitoring Agency) and Health Standards. If Department of Department applicable,the South Coast Building and Safety/ (rme or Monitoring Report) (SlgnaWrMonitoringate of Monitoring Agency)Quality Management OSHA/SCAQMD District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be ob tained prior to the com- Monitoring of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monilog Agency) mencement of excavation and remedial activities. (TNe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date or Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (SignaturafDate of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) _ (idle of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaluretDate of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturerDate of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (SignaturerDate or Monitoring Agency) (Me of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-18 The contractor shall follow Remediation During City of Huntington City of all recommendations con- Contractor Remediation Beach Department Huntington tained within the adopted of Public Works/ Beach Planning (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature(Date of Monitoring Agency) Remedial Action Plan for OCHCA Department the project site. . (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) 7r .3 (role or Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) LyV }t� (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitor ing Agency) w� C N 32 City of Huntington Beach March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignalumMate of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date o/Monitoring Agency) (rille of Monitoring Report) (Signalure/Dato of Monitoring Agency) CON-19 If asbestos or lead-based Remediation During City of Huntington City of paints are identified in any Contractor Remediation Beach Department Huntington ( on-site structures, the con- of Public Works/ Beach Planning rlueofMongortngRepon) (SlgnalurelDaleolMonaoringAgenry) tractor shall obtain a quali- Planning Department fled contractor to survey the Department/Depart (Tnae of Monitoring Report) (SignafureVale of Monitoring Agency) project site and assess the ment of Building and potential hazard. The con- Safety/SCAQMD (rlue of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) tractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach (flue of Monitoring Report) (Slgnalure/Date or Monitoring Agency) Depart- ments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of monitoring Agency) asbestos/lead paint re- moval. (IMa of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tole of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDate of Moratoft Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMale of Monitoring Agency) (Tlue of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-20 If any hazardous materials Remediation During City of Huntington City of not previously addressed in Contractor Remediation Beach Fire Huntington the mitigation measures Department Beach Planning (Tme of MonaoAng Report) (SignalureNale of Monitoring Agency) contained herein are identi- Department fied and/or released to the environment at any point (flue of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) during the site cleanup process, operations in that area shall cease immedi (flue of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date or Monitoring Agency) ately. At the earliest possi- ble time,the contractor shall (Signature/Date of notify the City of Huntington (flue or ManXorirg Repoli) Monitoring Agerney) Beach Fire Department of i F 1 f tl ` City of Huntington Beach 33 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY any such findings. Upon (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) notification of the appropri- ate agencies, a course of action will be determined (Title ofMonitoring Report) (Signature/Date ofMontoring Agency) subject to the approval of the by the City of Hunting- (rule of Monitoring Report) p ) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) ton Beach Department of Public Works. (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agenm CON-21 All structures must be Remediation During City of Huntington City of cleaned of hazardous mate- Contractor Remediation Beach Department Huntington (Title rials prior to off-site trans- of Public Works/Fire Beach Planni (Titlea Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ng portation, or hauled off-site Department Department as a waste in accordance (rule of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) with applicable regulations. (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (Tile of Monitoring Report) (Signature(Date of Monitoring Agency) (fine of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (SignalwelDate of Monitoring Agency) (fdle of MonitoMp Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) .tea (fine of Monitoring Reporq (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) CON-22 Structure removal opera- Remediation Prior to City of Huntington City of tions shall comply with all Contractor Remediation Beach Department Huntington n•: regulations and standards of Public Works/ Beach Planning (Title ofMondoringReport) (SlgnalurlDalealMoNtoringAgenty) of the SCAQMD. SCAQMD Department .r..- (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature(Date of Monitoring Agency) r.;•a City of Huntington Beach 34 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dato of Monitoring Agency) (relit of Mon@odni;Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature0ate of Monitoring Agency) CON-23 The contractor shall post Remediation Prior to City of Huntington City of signs prior to commencing Contractor Remediation Beach Planning Huntington remediation, alerting the Department/Depart Beach Planning (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signaturemate of Monitoring Agency) public to the site cleanup ment of Public Department operations in progress. The Works size, wording and place- (rNe of Mon /D itor nit Report) (Slgnatureate of Monitoring Agency) ment of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Trine of Monitoring Report) (s gr atareJDat°of Monitoring Agency) Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (rigs of Monitoring Report) (slgrwturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (THIe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Pale of Monitoring Report) (Slgnalure/Date of Monitoring Agency (rb�� y\ i 35 March 26, 2003 City of Huntington Beach Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (rdie of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureMate of Monitoring Agency) CON-24 Any unrecorded or unknown Construction During City of Huntington City of wells uncovered during the Contractor Remediation/ Beach Fire Huntington excavation or grading proc- Construction Department) Beach Planning (Trite of Monitoring Report) (Signature(Date of Monitoring Agency) ess shall be immediately DOGGR Department reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington (rdle or Monitoring Report) (Signature/Data of MONtoring Agency) Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (rate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Mon taring Agency) (DOGGR). (Title of Monitoring Report) (Sgnatum/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rite of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of monitoring Agency) (role of Mandating Report) (SgnaturaMate of Monitoring Agency) (rite of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rile of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) CON-25 During remediation, if any Remediation During City of Huntington City of soil is found to be hazard- Contractor Remediation Beach Department Huntington ous due to contamination of Public Works/Fire Beach Planning (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) other than petroleum.hydro- Department Department ., carbons, it will be segre- gated, stockpiled, and han- cane or Monitoring Report) (sgnaturelDatemMonitoring Agency)dled separately. (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) `tZ Z' (Tate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) y x, (tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) .s (idle of Monilorug Report) (Sgnatufel0ate of Mandating Agency) V_ City of Huntington Beach 36 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater.Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (rule of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rule of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rule of Monitoring Report) (SignaWrelDate of Monitoring Agency) CON-26 Dust and volatile organic Construction During City of Huntington City of emissions from excavation Contractor Construction Beach Department Huntington activities shall be controlled of Public Works/ Beach Planning (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) through water spray or by RWQCB/SCAQMD Department employing other approved vapor suppressants includ- (TNe or Monitoring a g Report) (SignatuDate Monitoring Age ing hydromulch spray in ac- cordance with Regional Wa- _ (rate of Moaaoriig Report) (SignNmamate of Mowonng Agency) ter Quality Control Board (RWQCB)Waste Discharge Requirements and the mite of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permit condi (rue dMonilor nit Report) (SlgnalumJDate of Monitoring Agency) tions. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signa(ure0ate of Monitoring Agency) (rille of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (Tula of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDale of Monitoring Agency) �j. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-27 Prior to the excavation Construction Prior to Pipeline County of Orange City of process for pipeline con- Contractor Construction Integrated Waste Huntington struction, the contractor Management Beach Planning (rile of Monuoring Report) (SlgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) shall coordinate with the Department Department County of Orange's Inte- grated Waste Management (rule of Monitoring Rapert) (signatere0ale or Monitoring Agency) Department in order to en- sure that proposed pipeline (rule of Monitoring Report) (slgnalureJDate of Monitoring Agency) construction does not Im- pact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignatureJDate of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 37 March 26, 2003. Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (ritfe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (I'me of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (M of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatunJDate of Monitoring Agency) (role of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rriie of Monitoring Report) (SignatumfDate of Monitoring Agency) (rule of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) CON-28 Methane migration features Project Engineer Plan Review City of Huntington City of will be consistent with the Beach Department Huntington requirements of the City of of Public Works/ Beach Planning (role of Monitoring Report) (SgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) Huntington Beach Specifi- Orange County Department cation Number 429 and Health Care Agency (rate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features (rate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) shall be submitted for re- view and approval to the Orange County Health Care (TNe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Agency (OCHCA), Envk ronmental Health Division. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rule of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (rule of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monaartng Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) q (rWe of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDale of Monitoring Agency) <' CON-29 Studies to evaluate the Landfill Gas Prior to Pipeline City of Huntington City of a' potential for landfill gas Consultant Construction Beach Department Huntington a (LFG) generation and mi- of Public Works/Fire Beach Planning gration will be completed Department/ Department (rtk Monitoring Monitog Report) (Slpnalu elDate of Monitoring Agency) prior to implementation of SCAQMD/OCHCA/ ?` the proposed water delivery RWQCB City of Huntington Beach 38 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY component of the project. RWQCB (Me of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaluraiDate of Monitoring Agency) Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordi- nated with the South Coast (Tale of Montoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, Re- ( gional Water Quality Control TNe of Monitoring Report) (signaturelDate of""°""°"'g"gertc) Board,and the City of Hunt- ington Beach Fire Depart- ment. Mitigation measures (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMale of Monitoring Agency) could entail active or pas- sive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and passive bar- (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dafe of Monitoring Age" riers with vent layers and alarm systems below trenches and within 1,000 (Me of Monitoring Report) ftnalure)Date of Monitoring Agency) feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established (idle of Monitoring Report) (Stgnelun(Date of Monitoring Agency) along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. Pe- riodic monitoring of the (Tdte of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) monitoring network will be performed. (Trite of Monitoring Report) (SignalurefDate of Monitoring Agency) CON-30 A Traffic Management Plan Applicant/Construction Two Weeks Prior City of Huntington City of (TMP) shall be prepared Contractor to Pipeline Beach Department Huntington and implemented to the sat- Construction/ of Public Works/ Beach Planning isfaction of the affected ju- During Affected Jurisdiction Department risdiction within which the Construction facilities are to be con- structed when the facilities are to be located where (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignaturrJData of Monitoring Agency construction would, affect roadways. The TMP shall include, but not be limited rk: to,the following measures: _1 �yJ City of Huntington Beach 39 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY . Limit construction to (Tine of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureMate of Monitoring Agency) one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible; Provision of continued access to commercial and residential proper- ties adjacent to con- (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) struction sites; Provide alternate bicy- cle routes and pedes- trian paths where ex- isting paths/routes are disrupted by construc- tion activities,if any; (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) . Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible pub- lic agencies in order to minimize impacts from (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agenc y) truck traffic during ma- terial delivery and dis- posal; . Where construction is proposed for two-lane roadways,confine con- struction to one-half of (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoft Agency) the pavement width. Establish one lane of traffic on the other half of the roadway using appropriate construction signage f _ and flagmen,or submit a detour_plan for ap- (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) proval by the City Traf- fic Engineer; The Traffic Manage- ment Plan shall be ap- proved by affected a agencies at least two at_y I � r a City of Huntington Beach 40 March 26,2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY agencies at least two (rdle or Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) weeks prior to con- struction. Per Caltrans requirements, the ap- plicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans at the 90-percent design (rdle of Monitoring Report) )m) (SlgnatureJDate of MonitaLtg Agency) phase; C• Construction activities shall,to the extent fea- sible, be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and Provide for temporary parking, where neces- sary,during installation of pipelines within the AES site. (idle of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDafe of Monitoring Agency) CON-31 Prior to initiating the re- Construction Prior to Removal City of Huntington City of moval of structures and Contractor of Structures and Beach Department Huntington contaminated materials, the Materials of Public Works Beach Planning (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) contractor must provide Department evidence that the removal of materials will be subject (True of Monitoring Report) (SlgnalurelDate at Monitoring Agency) to a traffic control plan, for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington (rue ofMonitoring Report) (S gnatureJDate of Monitoring Agency) Beach Department of Public Works. The intent of this (rile of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monit oring Agency) ^= measure is to minimize the time period and disruption .. of heavy duty trucks. (Tine of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rate of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDare o/Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rWe of Monitoring Report) (Signaturemate of Monitoring Agency) `5. City of Huntington Beach 41 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rille of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-32 Construction related activi- Construction During City of Huntington City of ties will be subject to, and Contractor Construction Beach Department Huntington comply with,standard street of Public Works/ Beach Planning (Me of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) use requirements imposed County of Orange Department by the City of Huntington Planning and Rao of Monitoring Report) (signatunr/Dale of Monitoring Agency) Beach, County and other Development public agencies, including Services the use of flagmen to assist Department/ (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) egress of construction ar- eas and limiting the large (We of Monitoring Report) (SignaturciDate of Monitoring Agency) size vehicles to off-peak. commute traffic periods. (fie of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rate of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (rie of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rie of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) (rie of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signalum0ate of Monitoring Agency CON-33 The Contractor shall obtain Construction Prior to Pipeline City of Huntington City of the necessary right-of-way Contractor Construction Beach Department Huntington _ encroachment permits and of Public Works/ Beach Planning satisfy all permit require- Affected Jurisdiction Department (Tide of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureMate of Monitoring Agency) ments. Also, nighttime con- struction may be performed In Congested areas. (rWe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tie of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) T� v (fie N Monitoring Report) (Signature/Die of Monitoring Agency) . t a� (Tide of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) City of Huntington Beach 42 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (Title of Monitoring ReporQ (SlgnalurefDale of Monitoring Agency) (role of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (ripe of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rule of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-34 During periods of heavy Construction During City of Huntington City of equipment access or truck Contractor Construction Beach Department Huntington hauling, the Contractor will of Public Works/ Beach Planning (Tore of Monitoring Report) (SlgnalurefDate of Monitoring Agency) provide construction traffic Affected Jurisdiction Department signage and a construction traffic flagman to control (Title of MonitoringReport) (SlgnatorelDate or Monitoring Agency) construction and general project traffic at points of in- gress and egress and along (I'Me of Monitoring Report) (SlgnalureJDate of Monitoring Agency) roadways that require a lane closure. (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnalureMale of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Slgnatune/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) .,i...; (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureMate of Monitoring Agency) =,. CON-35 The developer shall coordi- Applicant Prior to Issuance City of Huntington City of nate with the Department of of Grading/ Beach Department Huntington 9 Public Works, Traffic Engi- Building Permit of Public Works Beach Planning (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency neering Division in develop- Department ( ing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This (Tore of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature/Dale or Monitoring Agency) 3 plan shall include the ap- proximate number of truck k I City of Huntington Beach 43 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY trips and the proposed truck (rtue of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport R activities can occur and of Monitoring Report) (s gnetureale of Monitoring d Age methods to mitigate con- struction related impacts to adjacent residents and the (Tito of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) surrounding area. The plan shall take into consideration any street improvement (roe of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) construction occurring in the vicinity. These plans must be submitted for approval to (True of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature(Daze of Monitoring Agency) the Department of Public Works. (Tge of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signatum/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rule of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureMate of Monitoring Agency) CON-36 Prior to construction on the Project Biologist Prior to Pump County of Orange City of proposed booster pump sta- Station Planning and Huntington lion site, three focused Construction Development Beach Planning (Tale of Monaoring Report) (Signatureoate of Monitoring Agency) coastal California gnat- Services Department catcher surveys shall be Department/ (Tme or Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) performed in accordance USFWS with USFWS protocols, preferably during the gnat- (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignalureMate of Monitoring Agent catcher breeding season. Should the species be ob- served on or adjacent to the (Tale of Monaarirtg Report) (ftnature/Date of Monitoring Agency) site, consultation and per- mitting through the USFWS would be required. (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) 5i (rate of Monitoring Report) (Slgnawle/Date of Mortitaft Agency) (Tate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) (rate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) i q i iS 44 City of Huntington Beach March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY (rifle of Monrioring Report) (SignatumMate of Monitoring Agency) CON-37 Prior to construction on the Project Biologist Prior to Pump County of Orange City of proposed booster pump sta- Station Planning and . Huntington tion site,eight focused least Construction Development Beach Planning (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignalurelDate of Monitoring Agency) Bell's vireo surveys shall be Services Department performed for the off-site Department/ underground booster pump USFWS (rile of Monitoring Report) (StgnatureJDate of Mordtodng Agency) station (at least 10 days apart during the vireo nest- ing season of April and (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) July) in accordance with USFWS protocols. Should the species be observed on (tale or Monitoring Report) (S gnawrelDate of Monitoring Agency) or adjacent to the site, con- sultation and permitting (T"rile of Monit oring Report) (Signature/Data of Monitoring Agency) through the USFWS would be required. This measure may not be necessary If (fade of Monitoring Report) (Slgnstureroate of Monitoring Agency) construction phasing can avoid the vireo nesting sea- son. (idle of Monitoring Report) (SlgmturdDate of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDale of Monitoring Agency) CON-38 Prior to construction on the Project Biologist Prior to Pump County of Orange City of proposed booster pump sta- Station Planning and Huntington tion site,a qualified biologist Construction Development Beach Planning (fine of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) shall perform a habitat as- Services Department sessment for the south- Department/CDFG —A western pond turtle. If habi- (rma of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) tat for this species is ob- served, a trapping program .� will be implemented to (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature of Monitoring Agency) de- termine the presence or ab- sence of these species. If present, pond turtles must (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) be trapped and relocated prior to the start of construo- tion. - (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureJDate of Monitoring Agency) - (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) I by. ( City of Huntington Beach 45 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rd a of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (rile of Monitoring Report) (SignatumJDate of Monitoring Agency) (Tile of Monitoring Report) (SVtature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-39 A survey for active raptor Project Biologist 30 Days Prior to County of Orange City of nests shall be performed by Pump Station Planning and Huntington a qualified biologist 30 days Construction Development Beach Planning (rife or Montormt;Report) (Signature/Date or Monitoring Agency) prior to the commencement Services Department of construction activities on Department(CDFG (idle of Monitoring Report) (S pnaturerpate of Monitoring g Age the proposed booster pump station site. Any occupied nests discovered during cane of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) survey efforts shall be mapped on construction plans for the site. If rec- (Tile or Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ommended by the biologist, restrictions on construction (idle of Monitoring Report) (Slgnelure/Date of MonitoringAgency) activities may be required in the vicinity of the nest until the nest is no longer active. (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rile of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Mondorng Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-40 Prior to the commencement Applicant Prior to City of Huntington City of of any directional boring for Commencement Beach Department Huntington water conveyance pipeline of Directional of Public Works Beach Planning (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date or Mortliairg Agency) implementation, the appli- Boring Department cant shall prepare a Frao- ' Out Contingency Plan. The (r plan shall establish criteria me of Monitoring Report) (S gnaturelDale of Monitoring Agency) : under which a bore would be shut down (e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain (Me of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date at Monitoft Agency) amount of returns) and the number of times a single l :lam l City of Huntington Beach 46 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY bore should be allowed to cane of Monitoring Report) (slgnaturvDate of°sa""e"'g Agency) frac-out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated. It will also dearly state what (rate of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monita6g Agency) bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subse- (Tore of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) quent frac-outs. Addition- ally, the site-speck Frac- Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed (Titre of Monitoring Report) (S gnalurrJDate ofMonitadrg Agency) by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agen- (tale of Monitoring Report) (signatum/Date of Monitoring Agency) cies prior to each major bore. (Tale of Mondorhg Report) (SignaturWate of Ma ntlaft Agency) CON-41 In order to minimize poten- Project Biologist Prior to City of Huntington City of tial construction impacts to Desalination Beach Planning Huntington nesting savannah sparrows Facility Department/CDFG Beach Planning (rage of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) adjacent to the proposed Construction Department desalination facility, a pre- construction nesting survey (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDale of Monitoring Agency) will be performed by a quali- fied biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory ((Title of Monitoring Report) (signaturrlDate of Monitoring Agency) agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation (Title of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate or Monitoring Agency) (such as relocation, con- struction noise abatement r5 measures, etc.) will be im- (Tole or Monitoring Repot (slgnaturelDale of Monitories Agency) plemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. (role of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Mandating Agency) ,rW (Title of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturefDate of Monito ring Agency) (Idle of Monitoring Report) (SignaturerDate of Monitoring Agency) _T City of Huntington Beach 47 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY (idle of Monitoring Repon) (SMnature0ate of Munttortng Agency) CON-42 All focused surveys for Project Biologist Prior to Pump County of Orange City of sensitive biological re- Station/ Planning and Huntington sources performed prior to Desalination Development Beach Planning (rile of Mondoring Report) (SignatweiDate of Monitoring Agency) proposed project implemen- Facility Services Department tation shall include a review Construction Department/CDFG of data within the California (idle of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) to obtain current information on any previ- (Trite of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaWreXlole of Monitoring Agency) ously reported sensitive species/habitat, including Significant Natural Areas (Tile of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature0ate at Monitoring Agency) identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code. _ (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SignaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (rdte of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoning Agency) (idle of Monitoring Report) (SignaturefDate of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SlgnaturelDate of Monitoring Agency) (1`117e of Mondorfrrg Report) (Stgnature/Dare of Monitoring Agency) • (rd a of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) CON-43 Prior to implementation of Regulatory Specialist Prior to Pump County of Orange City of the proposed off-site Station Planning and Huntington booster pump station adja- Construction Development Beach Planning (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) cent to the NCCP/HCP Services Department boundary, a jurisdictional Department/ delineation of the proposed CDFG/USACOE (r&of Monitoring Report) (SignatureCate a(Monitoring Agency) pump station site shall be performed to determine the extent of jurisdictional area, (rile of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) if any, as part of the regula- tory permitting process. (rite of Monitoring Report) (Slgnature(Date of Monitoring Agency) J (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) 2 r City of Huntington Beach 48 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No. 00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SigneWreDate of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Repan) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Repon) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rate of Monitoring Report) (Slgnalure/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureMate of Monitoring Agency) CON-44 Should buried histori- Project Archaeologist During Excavation County of Orange City of cal/archaeological re- for Pump Station Planning and Huntington sources be discovered dur- Development Beach Planning (Tme of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) ing excavation on the pro- Services Department posed booster pump station Department site, all construction work in (Tale of Monitoring Report) (SignatureJDate of Monitoring Agency) that area shall be halted or diverted until a qualified ar- chaeologist can evaluate (rdle of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) the nature and significance of the"finds. (rile of Mongering Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (role of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) (rdle of Monitoring RepoM (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) (Tate of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Dale of Monitoring Agency) ~s (Tale of Monitoring Report) (Signelu e/Date of Monitoring Agency) CON-45 During excavation of five Project Paleontologist During Excavation City of Huntington City of feet below ground surface for Pump Station Beach Planning Huntington or lower on the proposed (Five Feet Below Department Beach Planning booster pump station site, a Ground Surface or Department paleontological resource re- Lower) covery program for Miocene invertebrate fossils shall be r� S City of Huntington Beach 49 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY implemented. This program (rekof Monitoring Report) (Signatuue0ateofMon oftAgency) shall include,but will not be limited to,the following: Monitoring of excava- tion in areas identified as likely to contain pa- leontologic resources by a qualified paleon- (rote of Mondoft Report) (Slgnature(Date of Monitoring Agency) tologic monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are un- earthed to avoid con- struction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are (Title of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agency) likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and ver- tebrates. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or di- vert equipment to allow removal of abundant or (rote of Monitoring Report) (SlgnatureMate of Monito ring Agency) large specimens. Monitoring may be re- duced if the potentially fossiliferous units de- scribed herein are not encountered, or upon exposure are deter- mined following ex- (T)Ue of Monitoring Report) (SignatumfDate of Monitoring Agency) amination by qualified paleontologic person- nel to have low poten- tial to contain fossil re- sources; Preparation of recov- ered specimens to a Y� point of identification (rule of Monitoring Report) (Signature/Date of Monitoring Agerc7) and permanent pres- ervation, including washing of sediments to recover small Inver- tebrates and verte- brates; d City of Huntington Beach 50 March 26, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant MITIGATION MONITORING Program EIR No.00-02 AND REPORTING CHECKLIST RESPONSIBLE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT MONITORING MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION OF COMPLIANCE PARTY PERIOD AGENCY AGENCY Identification and cura- crm`of M-ttwi g Report) (SlgneturefDate of Monitoring Agency) tion of specimens into a museum repository with permanent re- trievable storage. The paleontologist should have a written reposi-. tory agreement in hand prior to the initiation of (rdle of Monitoring Report) (SignatureMate of Monitoring Agency) mitigation activities; and 4- Preparation of a report of findings with ap- pended itemized inventory of specimens. The report (rate of Mana`nnp Report) (S aturVDate of Mom"ng Agency) and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleon- r � ax fi _:R• �fyp tc� City of Huntington Beach 51 March 26, 2003 FN Background on Desalination Currently, Southern California relies on local and imported water sources including local ground water, recycled water, water conservation,the Los Angeles Aqueduct (operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power),the State Water Project(operated by the Department of Water Resources), and the Colorado River Aqueduct (operated by the Metropolitan Water District). The U.S. Department of the Interior has ordered California to reduce its take of Colorado River water by almost one-fifth, which means that while Southern California's population continues to rise, the availability of imported water will be reduced. While water conservation efforts have resulted in successfully stretching the existing water supplies and more gains from conservation are projected for the future, the California Department of Water Resources predicts the Southern California region will face significant water shortages by the year 2020 unless alternative methods are explored. In Orange County, the local ground water aquifer is currently overdrawn by over 133 billion gallons and needs to be replenished. The Orange County Water District, which manages the aquifer, recently presented its view of the water situation to the City and expressed concern about the reliability of future supply to meet local needs. Desalination serves as an alternative water source solution against drought conditions like Southern California has seen over the past four years. The Metropolitan Water District (MAD) is encouraging the development of local water projects so the region has more flexibility in its water supply choices. MWD has identified desalination as a technology that is part of its Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP). Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project represents an opportunity to purify approximately 56,000 acre- feet per year, or approximately one-fourth of the need quantified in MWD's IRP. Desalination has not been readily used in the United States because the cost has been too high. However, recent improvements have made desalination projects much more affordable. For example, technological advances in the membranes used to filter out salts and solids have significantly reduced the amount of energy needed, while the cost for providing and installing reverse osmosis membranes has also been reduced. Another cost.saving is the co-locating of seawater desalination facilities at existing coastal plant sites,thereby avoiding the construction of new intake and outfall facilities. Since 1989, 14 seawater reverse osmosis plants have been built or proposed in California. Desalination plants have also come online in several places including Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties treating brackish water. An example of a coastal desalination plant is that of the City of Santa Barbara which built and operated a plant in the early 1990s. However, the plant was shut down after a few months due to cost. The nation's largest desalination plant was recently completed in Tampa Bay and has a capacity of 25 MGD. This facility became necessary because much of the region's groundwater was being consumed by the population that fragile ecosystems were being dramatically altered. �'11'� 12,✓1 0F ,r ,aS �1�I �► - Seawater Reverse Osmosis Membrane Plants in California Name Size Start-up Treatment Comments (MGD) Year Catalina Island/Edison 0.17 1989 Beach wells with single Re-permitting with stage RO with beach DHS for drought rock outfall supply to Avalon City of Morro Bay 0.60 1991 Beach Wells at 20,000 Reconditioning TDS. Ocean Disposal facility for immediate o s. Marina Coast Water 0.30 1997 Beach wells for intake Operational. District and disposal Showcase at ACWA City of Santa Barbara 6.8 1994 Ocean intake,pressure Limited operations. filters, Cartridge filters, Facility on standby. RO. Ocean outfall City of Port Hueneme 0.77 1999 Ground water wells Nano Filtration and under seawater RO. Sewer brine influence disposal San Simeon/Hearst Castle 0.05 1990 Seabed intake with Not operational due nominal screening to design problems San Nicolas Naval Base 0.02 1992 Ocean well intake to Potable water Channel Islands RO units with gravel production it discharge Diablo Canyon/PG&E 0.64 1992 UltraFiltration, Ultra pure water ElectroDialysis supply for power Reversal, and RO plant operations Projects in Development Huntington Beach 50 2005/6 Co-location at power In permitting and Poseidon plant, sand filtration, development. RO Existing 5 mgd RO discharge permit Carlsbad/Encina 50 2006 Co-location at power In permitting and Poseidon plant, sand filtration, development. RO Long Beach/Alamitos 40 2006 Co-location at power In permitting and Poseidon plant, sand filtration, development RO Existing 5 mgd RO discharge permit 7. Dana Point 10 2006 New intake/outfall, RO In development MWDOC El Segundo Power Plant 10 2006 Co-location at power In permitting and Central/West Basin WD plant, MP, RO development Long Beach Water Dept. 10 2006 Co-location at power In development plant, Nanofiltration * 'S s? *, 'a'�y^yr. .g. UM 11 - 4-.;t.x3 ,xt ��'+�x�:,< a �`�'�� � �,,Y.::t" rg� i;k �3�1�s��a g `� � .a ('r'�: K �4` '�r'"s'�'r�•%§;� .k4 e ,fir. " �.tr�tt � ri ,..t 'a "� a "U6 vi.3.'.. Yt'> I r;.A TGti,Wwgg".�9C�'y,p ! - 3qr '",•n-tt rGa 12 e:_Y'I A•'rl-� T �•'9 ff IM WUIMI nrzl�,�. kTy.. r .` �T.�' EI'f � R7�av,i r r�, :T;.w Ct�4 tt1'ar.�', Snm "' v <<3 < 1 •�1�',w'€'$ t �' s ,' i ` 7` I l �' fy "r.; y'r � RP i� ,r i. x ,frf i. f •t. l 7 c s �w .;' 3 N 11a x c� .s 7� 'R1 �w`E T3 L�J � ca `i4ii i +7d 1j'c' r �l•°C rFi1Rs �" �rG efl i��� I�3s 'r�2 r �� .� �-•w�•a,--•c:-�'-'--ate- —a; - ��'` ��T.�-�"'- f' �2 - r q � r �rtp, -U4-y rf r F;TA, t� � R.�N _ ,�. t T y y I�` "'�� }5 r --.A' • �.��0� �✓..'��t t•�z { � "ts"S,a`K �� a', J.F�'•�s'c! �{.q� '" �x� '� �� ,-'t��` �=�. �.`�-c ,��d$5i r� __ . �S. 7 G�"" �� <.9 r Z' a �4�.P.it.( %l: y� ��:r•:�,• t yti�r .�. �,.r'�'.}"' �„i' ( �'r. ,•.: f'•q f; � Yi ri �: ri 1�' h _ Y� fir/ 'c igl f c 1 �f r �' •L !a r� f #�. at ��+ T� }r" P5r � }Y �'" `+�f °���w x t�ri �. .,S S ��J g,•l 5 t ,, t.: ,w f � ;F - � �.�� `'� k�} - ift f'� '..:.5 y��_ky� tiyl.ah ��4Z 1'.� rC -o �`• v ����, .` ", (!�� 5 f l t "{ioi.rtx'z.or: Y �fis.� a r .( � r �r '.... •�Y y � , a� � t :� a _ '^ir;e• '"� r -_ o..� r��� r.. � �f'v 's'Pf�- � NMI �Y, "n'� Mu '�'h v'(�`�fyE I � � �R�a�Y.ra t =i-! Z '� I�.y ♦ �'Y y��/ y��e+ 6Ry� s •r`pl f U 1 Yy,�...1`. r N s � 4 �P !J y,w�3� ��' sc a� �� � r, I a .� r�, � �r � .v- �S`4,�- •r 'ay etc � �N 1TCn $.�- !�A � p`� •3 ... ,.... M .,��.. 3 V'",�`��aN�.S' ��r' r �it �J'y f�:�St,q,,,�;»=6 :. E .a � w:3 fir"' �6�.''b �-� •�,Q�" t k''"rr' �`t 1 {�,"" 'y• y ' "f l - t.J /"rr^f"'7 3 `' '`4,g _ �.�rtean` s.� � „3�, r O L F1l�nfrf�,il�.111 @ 819�FJ�� Y`.. � � t v'- t.`.� �' t'';�>•-.. � � ,'�' �E 9r1WW��,''�tr9�' 'J"il iit}aa -_+ 7-?`��,� •,� ,r tl r i' �y^�� t :C�+ � .y cJ�l�lolQl!��8e1 'Q elBx�, 599'� ° '� su a. t`�l •'" `_' r �yt��'y yl r f Ln�I i�°d� � � -L}•,� r i �r�� y'u .� �-6 s r � - , Pill z an � :. ,Q�.����6�EIi�91A�1't a��lE������c < �� �.�' �/i,• ,' �,.rr' J ��c ),'� � r ,�S�I�PE. _. l 1 LL ��Bc �Y` ,, 1\���` � 3� a w•: �F�'�r � h '"s 9$ Ull:'1�1'`Pam^- �����1d��` �Q���•� ,�, �' f�`�5' ..i Sn �� 4 ''�,s+* �1., k-,r •fir{�- I .�t ki- .'� � F�� ��I���F�I+.Of� .�/+ ��a�. '�+'���y� �y f.,�,� "-u -: r�r �. z ��),�n~" � -. �•;tr ;� �� � ��,_�Ib�a���•�����'� ���.t"�y+'�'Eb -���.fid`�,b'�:� ,,�r t ����_� rs?•���'�u�;'�"�d" ^�s"�e. - �f " .a�:;.fa SldFis�ai�R:Sa4i�.y4�<\� -�°t.. =���-.r.',✓_.t�::t` �. .',�, z- n .,i g r",r .'x I ' r:o rh"' ,�h r J q'H'x `w- ,. .'h s�?•e. I '.. gg ,c� -,s ,k try' 4T 3.+ry �xt", bx5�s'' ''x:�._ w•^^r';�r } ;a u.� ' ,�#��;�` ,���� aa�� �gg,, '���,,� ,a,. 'R'�aYri sG� i*,3-s $�{,,x }�,,4 � ��.��,`,,�(J2 r�,. �'# 6�y r'u✓� .�`=a �,,� �5�,zaa�''� � ����S� �iY' �,"k„�r �� + $�"jE �+,�,iy�',,,a ,��� '`'"`5y �w � � F�' #�� �dY E���b' 3 w'�¢.`vf �,.�,� �^�� j•. } .G� �r s �{l � z � � ,��_ �"t ,ie ,� �+N.+��vte ,�,y,� c��5��„����•��'"" y I�i�:R � �. v ,�ti �. +'R B,o-�'ka. rr.>�`:4: c:.'i.., :r'<.aa"%.�'',nl. � z�`,...rx.:L.3r.�e..,:6, ."'dS.,L�rr o-. ��rfn't� tr.'<ka.:v,a.�'.t-.,,5�-.,1,�..whs.,iYa1Y°.«K'�n*.; � .ta,,.?:+4�Sa ++:""s��§ia�..��.��`,.��s�e.?�a.�'',.�• J. City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT NUNi1NGMN BEACH - - - - - - - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos,Associate Planner-P�-4- DATE: May 27, 2003 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) APPLICANT: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 Contact Person: Josie McKinley PROPERTY OWNER: AES Huntington Beach, LLC, 21730 Newland Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LOCATION: 21730 Newland Street(East side of Newland, south of Edison Ave) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 request: - To permit a seawater desalination plant which includes construction of a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures to produce_50 million gallons per day(MGD) of potable water. - Improvements also include water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system and perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. • Staffs Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 based upon the following: - The project is compatible with surrounding uses and is buffered from residential and other sensitive uses by significant setbacks, perimeter landscaping, and fencing. - The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures. - The proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for all the tanks for a unified theme. This coupled with the 10-foot perimeter landscape planter and screen wall will enhance the overall appearance of the site compared to the existing condition. - All other impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are addressed to avoid detrimental impacts to the area. s • 5/13/2003 12:28:53 PM i —N N.—or.-- 1 ' j a ynao.o..-._..._.. I C da LJ^ �•� .� r_.. R.y.e.Or. 'amp c Ll LIoUULIUnJoL1gJ 0i��r�-^, "--_'" __ _ ♦�._._--__.__—"___-_.__-- .—__.—__._.__.__ ` Nlp�wl. 000 Q Qo c�.�-=ctE c Q. o0 oa d �1 c - - �O dG�G nn a oc�o Q i L1 QP 00000��'q C� rcp Q 0 0 I tq i i o - .._._ a CUP No. 02-04/CDP No. 02-05/EIR No. 00=02 . (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) N W � E S City of Huntington Beach ° :.. Scale: 1^= 600' Location Map - The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of P (Public) for the site. - The project is consistent with General Plan and Coastal Element goals, policies, and objectives. - The project conforms to the requirements of the Coastal Zone Overlay and will not impede access to the coast or any public recreation opportunities in the area. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with staff recommended findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." B. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 5)." C. "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment No. 6)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 pursuant to Section 214.06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 pursuant to Chapter 221 and Section 245.06 of the HBZSO represent a request to construct the following: ■ A seawater desalination plant which includes construction of a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and other miscellaneous accessory structures to produce 50 million gallons per day of potable water; ■ Perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage along Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and ■ Up to four miles of underground water transmission lines in the city, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone boundary,to connect to an existing regional water transmission system. The desalination plant proposes to take raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the AES generating station intake line and purify it using reverse osmosis(reverse osmosis is the process of pushing seawater through synthetic membranes to remove salt and other solids)to produce drinking water. The power plant circulates up to 507 MGD of cooling water. The applicant proposes to take approximately 100 MGD of PC Staff Report—5/27/03 2 (03 SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) the cooling water after it has passed through the AES cooling condensers and produce 50 MGD of drinking water for use in Orange County. The remaining 50 MGD of concentrated cooling water(brine byproduct)will be discharged and blended with about 407 MGD of the AES cooling water via the existing AES outfall pipe extending approximately 1,500 feet offshore. Pipelines will be constructed on the existing AES power plant site to connect the proposed desalination plant to the existing AES ocean intake and outfall lines. No changes are proposed to the coastal/marine portion of the existing AES intake and outfall. An underground water transmission line will be constructed from the desalination plant to the closest regional distribution line located in Costa Mesa(see Attachment No. 2). The segment located within Huntington Beach will be approximately four miles long, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone boundary, and will be located entirely within the existing public right-of-way along Newland Street,Hamilton Avenue and potentially Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. Poseidon Resources Corporation proposes to lease two areas totaling 11 acres from a 19-acre AES generation station parcel on Newland Street to construct the desalination plant(see Attachment No. 2). The first lease area is approximately seven acres in size and is located along the east end of the property away from the Newland Street frontage. This area is presently developed with two 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and a concrete containment berm. Both tanks as well as the interior portions of the 10 to 12 foot high concrete berm are proposed to be demolished. This area is proposed to contain the administration building, reverse osmosis building,pretreatment filters, solids handling building, various storage tanks, and other accessory.structures. Retaining walls will be constructed to provide access openings to these areas where the concrete berm will be demolished. The site will be remediated to address any contamination from the previous use. The second lease area is approximately 4 acres in size and is located near the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue. This area is presently developed with another 40-foot high fuel storage tank and concrete containment berm. The tank and the interior portions of the concrete berm in this area are also proposed to be demolished. The applicant proposes to construct a new 30-foot high water storage tank, lime silos, a small ammonia tank, and a pump station in this area. The plant will operate 24 hours, seven days a week. The facilities will staff approximately 12 to 18 people with the largest shift at 6 to 8 staff during the day. The nighttime and weekend shifts will have 2 to 4 staff members on site. In addition to employee vehicular traffic,project operation will require approximately three truck trips per day. The applicant has indicated that the request is necessary to provide a new water supply source into the area that is reliable and drought proof(see Attachment No. 3 -Narrative). PC Staff Report—5/27/03 - 3 (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) The proposed plant includes the following structures: Building Name s rft Height(ft) Type of Construction Notes RO Building 38,090 25'—0" Type II—EFIS Houses RO Membrane Equipment and Pumps Pretreatment Filters 38,270 16'—0" Cast-in-Place Concrete Open-air structure that houses gravity media filters similar to a conventional water treatment plant Administration Building 10,120 18'—0" Type II—EFIS Multi-function building that houses administrative offices,maintenance shot,electrical room,lockers,control room,and a water quality laboratory Solids Handling Building 7,590 21'—0" Type II—EFIS Houses bell filter presses and chemical feed equipment used to treat solids removed in the pretreatment process Electrical Building and 1,800 12'—0" Type II—EFIS Houses main plant transformer and Sub-Station switch gear Chemical Storage 4,368 23'—0" Type II—EFIS Canopy Houses bulk water treatment chemical . tanks Lime Storage Area 4,560 26'—0" Welded Steel Open-air structure for lime silos Ammonia Tank 28 6'—0" High density 1,000 gallon ammonia storage tank polyethylene or fiberglass reinforced polyester Washwater Tank 1,590 19'—0" Welded Steel Process water storage tank Flush Tank 491 29'—0" Welded Steel Process water storage tank Influent Pump Station 1,880 Below grade Cast-In-Place Concrete Location of the influent pumps and wet well.The pumps,piping,and other mechanical equipment are above grade Product Water Pump 650 Below Grade Cast-In-Place Concrete Location of the product water pumps. Station The pumps,piping and other mechanical equipment are above grade Product Water Storage 36,305 30' above Cast-In-Place Concrete 10-MG water storage tank. Tank grade, 10' below grade PC Staff Report-5/27/03: 4 (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Proiect Phasing The total demolition, remediation, and construction process of the proposed project is anticipated to last approximately 24 months. This time frame includes time necessary to acquire all required agreements, permits, and approvals. Project phasing for the components affecting Huntington Beach would be divided into two separate categories, composed of the following: On-Site Desalination Facility Construction: This portion of the proposed project would last approximately 24 months, and would include such activities as on-site demolition, grading/excavation, construction of desalination facilities, landscaping, and facility startup/testing. Import and export of earthen materials would occur primarily during the first six months and last four months of this phase of the project. Off-Site Product Water Transmission Pipeline Construction: This portion of the project would last approximately 21 months (includes pipeline segment in Costa Mesa), and would start about three months after the beginning of on-site desalination facility construction. This phase would include such activities as pipeline installation, implementation of pipeline under waterways/major roadways, soil remediation, removal of pipeline, and facility startup/testing. Import and export of earthen materials would occur primarily during the middle 12 months of this phase. Required Annrovals The proposed desalination plant requires many approvals prior to construction and operation. Some of these approvals are from other agencies that will be reviewing certain aspects of the project for compliance with local, State and Federal standards. The following is an overview of the required permitting processes: ■ City of Huntington Beach—EIR certification, CUP, and CDP for the desalination facility and underground water lines. ■ California Coastal Commission-CDP for utilizing the existing AES ocean intake and outfall lines for mining ocean water and discharging into the ocean. ■ Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board—NPDES permit to discharge the brine byproduct water through the existing AES ocean outfall line in the ocean. ■ City of Huntington Beach—Franchise Agreement for use of City right-of-way/Public Improvement Plans ■ City of Huntington Beach—Building Permits for construction of structures and tanks on-site. ■ Various Agencies—Encroachment Permits for work in public right-of-way areas ■ South Coast Air Quality Management District—Permit to operate. ■ State of California Department of Health Services—Drinking water permit to assure quality of potable water. For more information,please see Attachment No. 4 (Page 168 of the EIR Errata dated May 12, 2003) of the Planning Commission Staff Report for the Poseidon EIR No. 00-02. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 5 (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Background on Desalination Currently, Southern California relies on local and imported water sources including local ground water, recycled water, water conservation, the Los Angeles Aqueduct(operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power), the State Water Project(operated by the Department of Water Resources), and the Colorado River Aqueduct (operated by the Metropolitan Water District). The U.S. Department of the Interior has ordered California to reduce its take of Colorado River water by almost one-fifth, which means that while Southern California's population continues to rise,the availability of imported water will be reduced. While water conservation efforts have resulted in successfully stretching the existing water supplies and more gains from conservation are projected for the future, the California Department of Water Resources predicts the Southern California region will face significant water shortages by the year 2020 unless alternative methods are explored. In Orange County, the local ground water aquifer is currently overdrawn by over 133 billion gallons and needs to be replenished. The Orange County Water District, which manages the aquifer, recently presented its view of the water situation to the City and expressed concern about the reliability of future supply to meet local needs. Desalination serves as an alternative water source solution against drought conditions like Southern California has seen over the past four years. The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is encouraging the development of local water projects so the region has more flexibility in its water supply choices. MWD has identified desalination as a technology that is part of its Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP). Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project represents an opportunity to purify approximately 56,000 acre- feet per year, or approximately one-fourth of the need quantified in MWD's IRP. Desalination has not been readily used in the United States because the cost has been too high. However, recent improvements have made desalination projects much more affordable. For example, technological advances in the membranes used to filter out salts and solids have significantly reduced the amount of energy needed, while the cost for providing and installing reverse osmosis membranes has also been reduced. Another cost saving is the co-locating of seawater desalination facilities at existing coastal plant sites,thereby avoiding the construction of new intake and outfall facilities. Since 1989, 14 seawater reverse osmosis plants have been built or proposed in California(see Attachment No.7). Desalination plants have also come online in several places including Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties treating brackish water. An example of a coastal desalination plant is that of the City of Santa Barbara which built and operated a plant in the early 1990s. However, the plant was shut down after a few months due to cost. The nation's largest desalination plant was recently completed in Tampa Bay and has a capacity of 25 MGD. This facility became necessary because much of the region's groundwater was being consumed by the population that fragile ecosystems were being dramatically altered. The production of potable water using desalinated seawater is just one part of the solution to meet existing and future water needs in Orange County and the surrounding Southern California region. Other water supplies such as imported water, groundwater replenishment, water reuse, and more aggressive forms of conservation must also be considered as part of the solution. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 6 (03 SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) ISSUES: Subject Property And Surrounding Land Use,Zoning And General Plan Designations: LOCATION . GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property and P (Public) PS-O-CZ-FP2 (Public- AES Generating South of Subject Semipublic—Oil Production Station Property Overlay—Coastal Zone Overlay—Floodplain Overlay) North of Subject I-F2-d(Industrial) IG-0-CZ-FP2 (General Animal Hospital, Property Industrial) Industrial, Beach (across from Edison Maintenance Facility Ave East of Subject RM-15-sp (Residential SP-10 (Magnolia Pacific Flood control channel, Property Medium Density), P Specific Plan), PS-O-CZ- ASCON-NESI landfill, (Public) FP2 Tank Farm, Wetland West of Subject RM-15 IL-O-CZ-FP2 (Limited Vacant, Mobile Home Property(across Industrial), RMP-CZ-FP2 Park, RV Park from Newland St) (Manufactured Home Park) General Plan Conformance: The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use designation and the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element LU 2 -Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure,utility infrastructure,and public services. LU 4.1.1 -Require adherence to or consideration of the policies prescribed for Design and Development in this Plan, as appropriate. LU 4.1.2 - Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review. LU 4.2.1 -Require that.all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re-used,and renovated buildings. LU 4.2.4-Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access,parking, supporting functions,open space,and other pertinent elements. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 7 (03 SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) LU 7.1.1 - Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. LU 12.1.4-Require that new and recycled industrial projects be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality,distinctive character, and be compatible with existing uses. LU 12.1.5 -Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize.the visual sense of bulk and mass; b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c. use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots,including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; d. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls;e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and f.mitigation of noise, odor,lighting, and other impacts. LU 12.1.7 -Control the development of industrial uses that use, store,produce, or transport toxins, generate unacceptable levels of noise or air pollution, or result in other impacts that may adversely impact Huntington Beach. LU 13.1.8 -Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale,mass,character,and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is P (Public) which permits a variety of public and institutional uses such as governmental facilities and utilities. The proposed desalination plant is consistent with this designation. The proposed structures are compatible with the surroundings because they are lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. The new structures include multiple building masses with architectural treatment that is carried throughout all the structures, including the architectural screen for the various tanks. This treatment provides for a cohesive appearance consistent with policies LU 12.1.4 and LU 12.1.5. The project will include adequate parking and landscaping pursuant to the zoning ordinance including at 10- foot landscape planter with an eight-foot high wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages to help screen the site. The new structures will be built according to the City's building and other pertinent codes and will include all necessary utility infrastructure needed to support the use. Pursuant to policies LU 12.1.5 and LU 12.1.7, impacts relating to noise, odor, lighting, and use of hazardous materials are addressed by code requirements,mitigation measures, and recommended conditions of approval. B. Urban Design Element UD 2.1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. UD 2.1.1: Require that new development be designed to consider coastal views in its massing, height, and site.orientation. PC Staff.Report—5/27/03 8 (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) The proposed desalination plant structures will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures will have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. C. Circulation Element CE 2.3 -Ensure that the location, intensity and timing of new development is consistent with the provision of adequate transportation infrastructure and standards as defined in the Land Use Element. CE 2.3.1 -Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. CE 2.3.2 -Limit driveway access points and require adequate driveway widths onto arterial roadways and require driveways be located to ensure the smooth and efficient flow of vehicles,bicycles and pedestrians. CE 2.3.3 -Require,where appropriate,an irrevocable offer of mutual access across adjacent non-residential properties fronting arterial roadways and require use of shared driveway access. CE 2.3.4-Require that new development mitigate its impact on City streets, including but not limited to, pedestrian,bicycle,and vehicular conflicts,to maintain adequate levels of service. CE 7-Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. To improve circulation in the area,the property owner will be required to dedicate property along the project's frontage on Newland (10 foot dedication)and Edison (12 foot dedication)for street widening. In addition,the applicant will be required to improve the area to be dedicated on Edison as well as pay their fair share of the cost of widening Newland Street. The applicant will also be required to pay traffic impact fees to be used for improvements to the city's circulation system. Consistent with policy CE 2.3.3, the applicant is proposing to access the site through the existing AES entrance off Newland Street to limit driveway access points onto arterials. Pursuant to Goal CE 7,the project is required to provide a 10-foot landscape planter along the perimeter of the site to enhance the appearance of the area. This landscaping improvement is required to be consistent with the approved landscaping improvements for the AES property for a cohesive appearance. D. Air Quality Element AQ 1.8.1 - Continue to enforce construction site guidelines that require truck operators to minimize particulate emission. AQ 1.8.2 -Require installation of temporary construction facilities (such as wheel washers)and implementation of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto public roadways. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 9 (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) The project will not be detrimental to the area because recommended conditions and mitigation measures will require the contractor to maintain equipment in peak operating condition, use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment, shut off engines when not in use, and discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. Furthermore, other measures will be required such as washing tires and undercarriages and covering all trucks leaving the construction site, and providing for street sweeping as needed. E. Environmental Hazards Element EH 1.2.1 -Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new structures to withstand groundshaking and liquefaction such as stated in the Uniform Building Code(UBC). The Building and Safety Department will require the applicant to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Also, recommended conditions and mitigation measures will require the applicant to submit a geotechnical report addressing a variety of issues including liquefaction and perform specials studies and investigation to address fault rupture potential. F. Noise Element N 1.2.2 -Require new industrial and new commercial land uses or the major expansion of existing land uses to demonstrate that the new or expanded use would not be directly responsible for causing ambient noise levels to exceed an exterior Ldn of 65 dB(A)on areas containing"noise sensitive" land uses as depicted on Figure N-1. N 1.6 -Minimize the impacts of construction noise on adjacent uses. N 1.6.1 -Ensure that construction activities be regulated to establish hours of operation, to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excessive or adverse noise impacts through the implementation of the existing Noise Ordinance and/or any future revisions to the Noise Ordinance. From a land use perspective, the project will be compatible with the area because the applicant will be required to submit a noise analysis indicating compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance states that exterior noise standards in all residential properties shall not exceed 55 dbA from 7 am to 10 pm and 50 dbA from 10 pm to 7 am. Additionally, construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7 am to 8 pm, Monday through Saturday. Recommended mitigation measures will also require that equipment operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling be muffled, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas be located as far as possible from residential areas, and unnecessary idling of engines be prohibited. G. Hazardous Materials Element HM 1.1.4-Implement federal, state and local regulations for the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. HM 1.2.2 -Ensure that hazardous waste transportation activities are conducted in a manner that will minimize risks to sensitive uses. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 10 (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) HM 1.4.4 -Require that the owners of contaminated sites develop a remediation plan with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency(EMA). The desalination plant will be using chemicals in its operations both to clean the reverse osmosis membranes and to treat the potable product water. The project will comply with all federal, state and local regulations for the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. The transportation of chemicals to the desalination plant will be conducted by registered haulers and is required to comply with all Caltrans regulations. The plant is also required to develop hazardous waste management and safety plans pursuant to Occupational Health and Safety Association(OSHA) and US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) requirements. The Fire Department will also require the applicant to submit for their approval a complete chemical inventory and use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a qualified professional. The project will incorporate leak and containment measures to minimize any risk to employees and the surroundings. All chemicals will be stored in concrete containment structures with a 110 percent spill containment capacity. Based on this,the project will be compatible with the area. Zoning Compliance: This project is located in the PS-0-CZ-FP2 (Public-Semipublic—Oil Production Overlay—Coastal Zone Overlay—Floodplain Overlay) zoning district and complies with the requirements of that zone. The following is a zoning conformance matrix which compares the proposed project with the development standards of PS zoning district: SECTION ISSUE CODE PROVISION = PROPOSED , 214.08 Lot Area Min.2 acres 11 acres (Poseidon lease area) Lot Width Min. 100 ft. 930 ft. (Newland Street Setbacks Front(Newland) Min. 10 ft. Min. 86 ft. Side(South P.L.) Min. 0 Min. 19 ft. Street Side(Edison) Min. 10 ft. Min. 98 ft. Rear East P.L.) Min. 0 Min. 79 ft. Building Height Max. 50 ft. Max. 30 ft. from finished floor Floor Area Ratio Zoning Max. 1.5 (718,000 sq. ft.) 57,540 sq. ft. of building General Plan None NA Site Landscaping Min. 6 %(28,646 sq.ft.) 8.8 %(42,293 sq. ft.) Lease Area 1 -6.83 acres(17,851 sq.ft.) Lease Area 1 (31,498 sq. ft.) Lease Area 2 -4.13 acres(10,795 sq.ft.) Lease Area 2 (10,795 sq. ft. Building Design Requires building offset along Water storage tank and front and street side; Alternative architectural screen design standards may be allowed for approved by the Design Review unique structures subject to Design Board Review PC Staff Report—5/27/03 11 (03 SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) SECTION ;.ISSUE CODE PROVISION Y, ._, PROPOSED 231.04.B Off-Street Parking- No min.—Based upon project 32 spaces(based on maximum Number eight employees per shift) Other Min. 9 ft. by 19 ft. with 26 ft. aisle Complies Loading Area Three loading areas min. 20 ft. by Complies 14 ft. 230.78 Refuse Storage Required One 14 ft. x 8 ft. enclosure 230.84 Dedication& Dedicate 10 ft. along Newland St. Complies Improvements frontage and 12 ft. along Edison Ave. frontage 230.88 Fences& Walls Screen wall required 8 ft. high wall with 8.5 ft high accent pilasters consistent with approved AES wall plan Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the Urban Design Guidelines, Chapter 7 (Industrial) and Chapter I I (District-Specific Guidelines for the Generating Station). The applicant has completed the Urban Design Checklist for the proposed project and indicates compliance (Attachment No 4). The proposed project includes variations in form,building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The proposed buildings include roofline and fagade articulation to create an interesting building form. Steel canopies and storefront windows are also incorporated into the building facades. A color scheme comprised of three complimentary pastel colors further adds to the aesthetics of the project. Additionally,the proposed structures will have a lower profile than the existing tanks to be demolished. The project provides buffering from sensitive uses such as residential developments through landscaping, a block wall, and increased setbacks. Landscape planters are provided between parking areas and in front of the building. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the AES generating station property to the south for a cohesive appearance. Environmental Status: The project's potential environmental impacts are analyzed and discussed in a separate staff report. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development No. 02-05, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 be certified as adequate and complete with mitigation measures, findings of fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Although the project results in adverse impacts to the environment in relation to short-term construction related emissions that cannot be mitigated or avoided, the Planning Commission may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this PC Staff Report-5/27/03. 12 (03 SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) particular case, staff believes the social, economic, and ecosystem/biological resources benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impacts to air quality during the construction process. Some of the project benefits as outlined in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Attachment No. 5) include: a ■ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will provide a reliable source of potable water to Orange County and the surrounding region that is sustainable independent of climatic conditions and the availability of imported water supplies and local groundwater supplies. The Project offers Orange County's water agencies up to 50 million gallons per day(MGD)or 56,000 acre-feet of water per year to include in their portfolio of available water resources. Water conservation efforts have resulted in successfully stretching the developed water supply, and more gains from conservation are projected for the future. Still, in the latest California Water Plan Update (Bulletin 160-98),the California Department of Water Resources predicts that the South Coast Region(and the entire State) will face significant water shortages by the year 2020. While the amount of water produced by the Project is only a small percentage of the current 650 MGD (710,000 acre-feet per year) Orange County water demand, it is an important drought-proof,renewable supply that will enhance the overall portfolio of water resources available to Orange County water agencies. ■ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will provide product water that meets or exceeds the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) and the California Department of Health Services(DHS). ■ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will reduce the salt imbalance of current imported water supplies by providing a potable water source with lower salt loads for blending with existing supplies. ■ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will remediate the subject site of on-site contaminants resulting from approximately 35 years of use as a fuel oil storage facility thereby protecting the health and safety of those in the surrounding community. ■ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will create ecosystem and biological resources benefits that may accrue due to decreased pressures on existing water sources. The Orange County Water District(OCWD) has identified that Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin has been overdrafted by more than 400,000 acre feet due to drought conditions of the last three years. The Project could offset withdrawals from the groundwater basin during dry years, allowing the Groundwater Basin to recharge. The Project could also offset demands on imported supplies transported from the Colorado River and/or Northern California, allowing more water to remain available for use in environmentally sensitive areas in those locations. ■ The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will minimize demands on the existing imported water system. Southern California could not exist without its extensive imported water supply system. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California("MWD"), together with many local water agencies, operates numerous water facilities to transport, store and recycle water supplies to meet the needs-of Orange County and the surrounding Southern California region. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 13 (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Given the announced cutbacks of water supply from the Colorado River and the continuing environmental water demands on the State Water Project in Northern California, the water produced by the Poseidon Project could be dedicated by Orange County water agencies to simply replacing existing water supplies for current Orange County residents and future generations. As a point of reference,the unavoidable significant impact in regards to short-term construction related emissions is also found in the Environmental Impact Report for other city approved projects such as the McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan,The Strand(Blocks 104/105), Home Depot, and Walmart. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is the formal documentation required by CEQA to implement and monitor compliance with all mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program establishes which City departments are responsible for ensuring completion and compliance with all adopted mitigation measures Following approval of the conditional use permit and coastal development permit, the Planning Commission must approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 5), and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(Attachment No. 6). Coastal Status The proposed project is within the appealable portion of the Coastal Zone. The City has jurisdiction over the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit for a project in the Coastal Zone that is located inland of the mean high tide line. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the construction of the desalination plant and an approximately one mile portion of the water transmission line within the Coastal Zone boundary is being processed concurrently with Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 pursuant to Chapter 245 of the ZSO. A project that is located seaward of the mean high tide line falls under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. After the City's action on the project the California Coastal Commission will require the applicant to submit a separate Coastal Development Permit application for mining ocean water and discharging into the ocean. The City's Coastal Development Permit is also appealable to the Coastal Commission. The proposed project complies with the zoning code and Coastal Zone requirements, and will implement the following policies of the Coastal Element of the General Plan: C 1.1.1 - With the exception of hazardous industrial development,new development shall be encouraged to be located within, contiguous or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. C 1.2.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule Table C-1. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 14 (03 SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) C 1.2.3 - Prior to the issuance of a development entitlement, the City shall make the finding that adequate services (i.e., water, sewer,roads, etc.) can be provided to serve the proposed development, consistent with policies contained in the Coastal Element, at the time of occupancy. C 4.2.1 - Ensure that the following minimum standards are met by new development in the Coastal Zone as feasible and appropriate: a. preservation of public views to and from the bluffs,to the shoreline and ocean and to the wetlands; b. adequate landscaping and vegetation; c. evaluation of project design regarding visual impact and compatibility; and d. incorporate landscaping to mask oil operations and major utilities, such as the electrical power plant on Pacific Coast Highway. C 4.7 - Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. C 4.7.1 -Promote the use of landscaping material to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast along public rights-of-way and within public view. C 4.7.5 - Require the review of new and/or expansions of existing industrial and utility facilities to ensure that such facilities will not visually impair the City's coastal corridors and entry nodes. C 4.7.8 - Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. C 6.1.1 - Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and,at a minimum, prevent the degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. C 6.1.13 -Encourage research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalinization as an alternative source of potable water. Participate in regional studies and efforts where appropriate. C 7.1.3 -Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. C 7.1.4 -Require that new development contiguous to wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas include buffer zones. Buffer zones shall be a minimum of one hundred feet setback from the landward edge of the wetland,with the exception of the following: A lesser buffer may be permitted if existing development or site configuration precludes a 100 foot buffer, or conversely, a greater buffer zone may be required if substantial development or significantly increased human impacts are anticipated. In either case, the following factors shall be considered when determining whether a lesser or wider buffer zone is warranted. Reduced buffer zone areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Fish and Game prior to implementation. a) Biological significance of adjacent lands: The buffer should be sufficiently wide to protect the functional relationship between wetland and.adjacent upland. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 15 (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) b) Sensitivity of species to disturbance: The buffer should be sufficiently wide to ensure that the most sensitive species will not be disturbed significantly by permitted development, based on habitat requirements of both resident and migratory species and the short and long term adaptability of various species to human disturbance. c) Susceptibility of parcel to erosion: The buffer should be sufficiently wide to allow for interception of any additional material eroded as a result of the proposed development based on soil and vegetative characteristics, slope and runoff characteristics, and impervious surface coverage. d) Use existing cultural features to locate buffer zones: The buffer zone should be contiguous with the environmentally sensitive habitat area and make use of existing features such as roads, dikes, irrigation canals, and flood control channels where feasible. The proposed use is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use designation for the site of P (Public). Adequate services can be provided to serve the project pursuant to policy C 1.2.3 because the project is an infill development and all services already exist in the surrounding vicinity, The project will help improve the appearance of the area by replacing the existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks with more attractive structures that have a lower profile and by installing 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages in conformance to policies C 4.2.1 and C 4.7.8, as well as objective C 4.7. The proposed structures are located behind an existing concrete berm away from any wetland or sensitive habitat areas in compliance with policies C 7.1.3 and C 7.1.4. A wetland is located to the southeast of the project site. However,the proposed desalination plant structures are a minimum 79 feet away from the east property line of the project site. Additionally, an approximately 10 foot high concrete berm exists and will remain along the perimeter of the site to further separate the project from the wetland. Redevelopment Status: The project is located in the Huntington Beach Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Project area. The Economic Development Department has reviewed the request and does not have any objections or recommended conditions. The project will further the following Redevelopment plan goals: ■ To assist with screening, design, or environmental improvements to mitigate impacts on adjoining neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive areas associated with modernization and reconstruction of the AES power generating plant; • To advance the cleanup of environmentally contaminated properties; ■ Undertake public improvements in, and of benefit to,the project area, such as streets, flood control facilities, and other public facilities; and ■ Eliminating blight and environmental deficiencies in the Project Area. The project will further these goals by: ■ Improving the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile,modern, and more attractive structures; ■ Installing 10 feet of landscaping and an eight foot high block wall along the project's perimeter; • Advancing the remediation of contamination at the project site from the fuel storage tanks; PC Staff Report—5/27/03 16 (03 SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) ■ Widening Edison Ave. an additional 12 feet along the project frontage; and ■ Dedicating an additional 10 feet along the project frontage and paying their fair share of the cost to widen Newland Street. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board reviewed the project on April 10, 2003. The Board reviewed the design, colors, and materials for the proposed structures including the wall and conceptual landscaping plan. The Board recommended approval of the conceptual plans with the following recommended conditions which staff concurs with: ■ The site plan dated April 10, 2003 and floor plans, elevations, and landscaping plan dated April 7, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: The landscape area on the east side of the project site (landscape area three) shall include additional Myoporum as needed to fill in the gaps to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. The architectural treatment proposed on all the tanks shall be limited to the top portion that is visible above the surrounding concrete berm. ■ The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to final approval by the Design Review Board after action by the Planning Commission. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works,Fire, Building and Safety, Community Services, Economic Development, and Police have reviewed the project and their recommended conditions are incorporated into the conditions of approval. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on May 15, 2003, and notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within an expanded radius of 2,000 ft. from the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, and interested parties. Since this report was completed prior to the notices being sent and the legal notice being published, no written communication supporting or opposing the request was received prior to the completion of this report. Any such written communication received subsequently will be forwarded to the Planning Commission under separate cover. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 - 17 (03 SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Application Processing Dates: DATE OF APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): CUP/CDP: Jan. 22,2002 - Application Submitted Within 180 days of EIR certification April 29, 2003 -Application Complete ANALYSIS: The primary issues with the proposed project include: land use compatibility, site layout, circulation, street dedication/improvement, water transmission line, other project impacts, aesthetics, and benefits/disadvantages to the city. Land Use Compatibility The proposed use is compatible and consistent with the industrially designated properties immediately surrounding the subject site because they are primarily industrial in nature. To the north are Edison Avenue and a variety of industrial uses extending to Hamilton Avenue, which provide a buffer to the residential area north of Hamilton. To the east is a 145-foot wide flood control channel which provides adequate separation from potential residential use on the ASCON-NESI landfill. The closest residential uses are the manufactured home and RV Park across Newland to the west behind a vacant parcel. The next closest residential uses to the east are single family residences across Magnolia Street. The wetlands to the southeast are separated by the existing concrete berm and a distance of 79 feet to the closest proposed desalination plant structure. To the south of the project is the remainder of the AES generating station which is compatible to the project. Site Layout The proposed layout of the plant will not be detrimental to the area because it is buffered by substantial distance (from approximately 200 to 1,400 feet)from residential and other sensitive uses. The 30-foot high water reservoir tank, which will be the most visible of the structures proposed near the street frontages, is setback approximately 180 feet from the property line along Newland and over 100 feet from the property line along Edison Avenue. The rest of the proposed structures are located towards the east end of the property away from any street frontage and are setback a minimum of 79 feet from the east property line. Furthermore, facility operations will not be visible from the perimeter because they are directed towards the interior of the site and will be screened from view by the existing perimeter concrete berm and the proposed landscaping and wall. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 18 (03 SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Circulation, Street Dedication and Improvement The applicant is proposing to access their project through the existing AES gated driveway off Newland. A 24-foot wide access easement across the AES property and leading to the proposed structures is shown on the site plan. Prior to issuing any permits for the actual development of the site the applicant will be required to submit proof of access rights onto the AES property and to demonstrate that adequate turning movements to accommodate fire and emergency apparatus is provided. A parking lot with 32 spaces is located adjacent to the administration building and will be adequate to accommodate the maximum eight staff members per shift and any guests. The parking layout has proper circulation and the proposed parking spaces and drive aisle widths meet code. The loading area is separated from the main access aisle and the parking lot and is of adequate size to accommodate all truck operations. To improve circulation in the area-the applicant will be required to dedicate 10 feet of property along the lease area frontage on Newland Street and 12 feet of property along the lease area frontage on Edison Avenue for street widening. The widening of Newland Street will be completed by the city,but the applicant will be required to pay their fair share for the improvements based on their leasehold frontage. The applicant will be required to improve the 12 feet of dedicated property along Edison Avenue as a condition of approval on the project. The additional 12 feet of dedication along Edison Avenue will improve the access and circulation to the industrial uses along this frontage. Off-site Water Transmission Lines The project also includes the construction of a water transmission line from the desalination plant to the closest regional distribution line located in Costa Mesa. The segment located within Huntington Beach will be approximately four miles long, one mile of which will be in the Coastal zone, and will be located entirely within the existing public right-of-way along Newland Street, Hamilton Avenue and potentially Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. To minimize any detrimental impacts to the community and to maintain access to the coast and public recreation areas during construction,the Public Works Department will require the applicant to prepare traffic control plans to mitigate impacts to city streets and facilitate circulation during construction. A franchise agreement will also be required for use of the city's right-of- way. Other Project Impacts Impacts pertaining to noise, odors, and use of chemicals are addressed to make the project compatible. The EIR notes that the stationary noise sources from the project include various water pumps and air conditioning system components. However,the majority.of these noise sources is located indoors or is provided with enclosures to dampen noise. Additionally, intervening structures such as the concrete berm and proposed wall combined with significant setbacks will further reduce noise impacts. A mitigation measure has also been identified which requires the applicant to submit a noise analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant which identifies stationary noise sources from the project and necessary mitigation measures to assure compliance with the city's noise ordinance. The desalination plant will be using chemicals in its operations both to clean the reverse osmosis membranes and to treat the potable product water. The project will incorporate leak and containment PC Staff Report—5/27/03 19 (03 SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) measures to minimize any risk to employees and the surroundings. All chemicals will be stored in concrete containment structures with a 110 percent spill containment capacity. The transportation of chemicals to the desalination plant will be conducted by registered haulers and is required to comply with all Caltrans regulations. The plant is also required to develop hazardous waste management and safety plans pursuant to Occupational Health and Safety Association (OSHA) and US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)requirements. The Fire Department will also require the applicant to submit for their approval a complete chemical inventory and a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a qualified professional. The applicant has indicated that the project will not create any noticeable odors. The applicant is required to obtain a permit to operate from the Air Quality Management District and will continue to be regulated by the agency to address this issue. Aesthetics The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile,modern, and more attractive structures. The proposed structures vary in height from a maximum of 30 feet for the water tank to a minimum of six feet high for the ammonia tank. These structures are at minimum 10 feet lower than the existing 40-foot high tanks. Furthermore, the bottom portion of these structures will be hidden behind the existing concrete berm along the perimeter. As noted before,the proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form,building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for all the tanks for a unified theme. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the AES generating station property to the south for a cohesive appearance. A 10-foot planter along the lease area street frontage on Newland and Edison will further improve the appearance of the project. The design, colors, and materials of the project have been reviewed and are recommended for approval by the Design Review Board. Benefits and Disadvantages To The City The project will benefit the city by: ■ Improving the aesthetics of the area through the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile,modern, and more attractive structures; ■ Installing perimeter improvements including a 10-foot landscape planter and an eight foot high wall along the project's street frontage for an overall cohesive appearance with the AES facility along Newland Street; ■ Advancing the remediation of any contamination around the fuel storage tanks; ■ Improving the circulation in the area through the dedication and improvement of additional right- of-way along Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and ■ Providing a new source of property tax revenue and a new drought-proof potential source of water. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 20 (03 SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) The project has the following disadvantages to the city: ■ The project will prolong industrial uses on the subject site; ■ The project will not create a significant number of job opportunities; and ■ It-will cause a temporary disruption to city streets during the construction process. The analysis of the project indicates that the proposed advantages to the city outweigh the disadvantages because the project will result in much needed improvements to the aesthetics of the area. Additionally, the proposed use conforms to the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations on the subject site which permits utilities like the desalination plant. SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 subject to conditions based on the following: ■ The project is compatible with surrounding uses and is buffered from residential and other sensitive uses by significant setbacks,perimeter landscaping, and fencing. ■ The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures. ■ The proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for all the tanks for a unified theme. This coupled with the 10-foot perimeter landscape planter and screen wall will enhance the overall appearance of the site compared to the existing condition. ■ All other impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are addressed to avoid detrimental impacts to the area. ■ The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of P (Public) for the site. ■ The project is consistent with General Plan and Coastal Element goals,policies, and objectives. ■ The project conforms to the requirements of the Coastal Zone Overlay and will not impede access to the coast or any public recreation opportunities in the area. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval 2. 2 3. 3 4. 2 5. vaings RMT Factw -02 6. —Ea No. 2 7. ary oi Seawatermosis i years 8. A4fia HZ:SH:HF:RR:rl _ PC Staff Report—5/27/03 21 (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day which includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks to be replaced with lower profile and modern structures with a more attractive design consistent with the city's adopted Design Guidelines. The project will further enhance the appearance of the area with the installation of 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high block wall along the Newland and Edison street frontages to provide additional screening and a consistent and upgraded appearance in contrast to the existing improvements. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as proposed and modified by the conditions imposed is compatible with the properties immediately surrounding it which are primarily industrial in nature. Additionally significant setbacks, including Newland Street to the west, Edison Avenue to the north, the flood control channel to the east, an existing concrete berm, 10 feet of landscaping and an eight foot high block wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages provide additional screening from surrounding uses. Impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are also addressed to make the project compatible. 3. The proposed seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures;perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project as proposed and modified by the conditions of approval meets or exceeds the minimum development standards and is allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit and coastal development permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(Public) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals,and policies of the General Plan: (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP.02-05) Attachment No. 1.1 a. LU 7.1.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. b. LU 12.1.5 -Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass;b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c. use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; d. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls; e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and f. mitigation of noise, odor, lighting, and other impacts. c. LU 13.1.8 -Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. d. UD 2.1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. e. CE 7 -Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. The project will be an improvement to the area because it will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks. The new proposed structures are more compatible with the surroundings because they are lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. The project is required to provide a 10-foot landscape planter along the perimeter of the site to enhance the appearance of the area. These landscaping improvements are required to be consistent with the approved landscaping improvements for the rest of the AES property to the south for a cohesive appearance. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, as proposed and modified by conditions of approval, conforms to the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objective, and policies: a. C 1.2.1 - Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule Table C-1. b. C 4.2.1 - Ensure that the following minimum standards are met by new development in the Coastal Zone as feasible and appropriate: a. preservation of public views to and from the bluffs, to the shoreline and ocean and to the wetlands;_b. adequate:landscaping and vegetation; c. evaluation of (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.2 project design regarding visual impact and compatibility; and d. incorporate landscaping to mask oil operations and major utilities, such as the electrical power plant on Pacific Coast Highway. c. C 4.7 -Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. d. C 4.7.1 -Promote the use of landscaping material to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast along public rights-of-way and within public view. e. C 4.7.8 - Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. f. C 6.1.13 - Encourage research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalinization as an alternative source of potable water. Participate in regional studies and efforts where appropriate. The proposed use is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use designation for the site of P (Public). The project will help improve the appearance of the area by replacing the existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks with more attractive structures that have a lower profile and by installing 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages. The proposed desalination plant structures will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures will have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District,the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project meets or exceeds all minimum development standards including but not limited to setbacks, height, and parking. The project will comply with all Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety Department codes and requirements. The proposal conforms to the city's Design Guidelines and incorporates variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The project provides buffering from sensitive uses such as residential developments through landscaping, a block wall, and increased setbacks. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the AES generating station property to the south for a cohesive appearance. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project is an infill development and as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructure to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. This includes dedication and improvements to the project lease frontage along both Newland Street and Edison Avenue to improve circulation in the area. 4. The development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as they will not impede any public access to the coast and public recreation opportunities in the-area. All public access:to the coast and public recreation in the area will not be (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.3 impeded during the long-term operation of the facility as well as during the construction process with the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. The site plan received and dated April 22, 2003, floor plans and elevations received and dated April 7,2003, and landscaping plan received and dated April 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The landscape area on the east side of the project site (landscape area three) shall include additional Myoporum as needed to fill in the gaps to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. (DRB) b. The architectural treatment proposed on all the tanks shall be limited to the top portion that is visible above the surrounding concrete berm. (DRB) c. The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to final approval by the Design Review Board after action by the Planning Commission. (DRB) d. Perimeter landscaping for this project along Newland St. and Edison Ave. is required to be installed only along the lease area frontage. Each lease area shall have a minimum of six percent landscaping. e. The landscaping and wall plan shall be consistent in design, colors, and materials with the landscaping and wall plan for AES for a cohesive appearance. f. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) g. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers. on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) h. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes,but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) (MM-ALG 1) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.4 i. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building,they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. j. If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage"onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (MM-ALG 2) 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the. removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures,,use and treatment of water,proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. h. For the demolition of the three (3)200 foot diameter fuel oil tanks, a work plan must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of work. (FD) 3. Prior to acceptance of grading plans for review: a. Ten feet(10') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Newland Street frontage. (PV ) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.5 b. Twelve feet (12') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Edison Avenue frontage. (PNV) 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the following shall be completed: a. No building permits shall be issued until the applicant submits written proof of final project approval by each applicable regulating agency including but not limited to the California Coastal Commission, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and South Coast Air Quality Management District. b. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls and walls) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan (RAP)based on requirements found in the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification#431-92. (FD) d. From the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR),provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells. (FD) e. From the DOGGR,provide proof of a Site Plan Review application. (FD) f. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification#422-Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) g. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit/site plan. This approved plan must be presented to obtain the required Huntington Beach Fire Department Fire Code Permit Application to conduct installation and/or removal operations. (IFD) h. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number, plus identify and detail all methane safety measures per City Specification#429-Methane District Building Permit Requirements. These details shall be on a separate sheet titled"Methane Plan." (FD) i. Prior to issuance of any permit or the transfer or sale of this entitlement, the applicant shall enter into a Franchise agreement with the City for the generation and transport of product water from the site, and through and across the city's streets, rights-of-way or properties. (PW ) j. A corrected lease line exhibit for areas "1" and"2" and an accurate metes and bounds description of the project limits shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. A (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.6 metes and bounds description and separate exhibit of all access routes shall also be provided with the submittal. (PW) k. Irrevocable vehicular access rights shall be established and recorded across the AES and Edison properties. The access width and turning radius criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. (PW) The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and,when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (Code Requirement) 1. The applicant shall demonstrate utilizing a truck turning template overlay that a WB-50 vehicle can maneuver on-site through the designated access route. (PW) m. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The recommendations of the accepted geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities. The Grading Plan shall depict,but not be limited to the following items: (PW) 1) The parking layout shall be in conformance with the approved parking plan, and shall also conform to City Standards and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including Municipal Ordinance No. 10.40.050. No parking shall be permitted adjacent to emergency access areas in compliance with Fire Department Standard Specification Nos. 401 and 415. 2) Access for the handicapped shall be in conformance with Title 24. 3) Separate sewer lateral and sewer line to provide service to all onsite facilities. The plan shall provide horizontal location and vertical clearances and dimensional relationship with other utilities. 4) A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. 5) Fire sprinklers shall have a separate dedicated fire service with an appropriate backflow device. 6) Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, fire services and irrigation water services. The final location for all public waterline facilities shall be as approved by the Water Division. 7) Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36"box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.7 Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. 8) Final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be submitted for review and approval to the Public Works Department. The report shall also include calculation of first flush flows to substantiate the adequacy and effectiveness of all water quality mitigation and structural best management practices. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall events (storm frequencies up to a 100-year frequency). Mitigation may include adequate detention storage area onsite if the project pump systems fail to operate. 9) Areas for containment shall be provided to mitigate possible spillage of any materials affecting storm water quality that may be stored on-site. 10)In accordance with NPDES requirements, a "Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. "Best Management Practices" shall be identified and incorporated into the design. All structural BMP's shall be tested "state of the art" and sized to infiltrate, filter and treat the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. The WQMP shall comply with the requirements of the Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP). 11)A Notice of Intent (NOI), Notice of Termination (NOT) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Board. n. A Street Improvement Plan,prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PW) 1) Curb, gutter, sidewalk and A.C. paving to the centerline of the street along the Newland Street lease frontage, within a 50-foot half-width street Right-of-Way per City Standard Plan Nos. 102 (84'/l00'), 202 and 207. In lieu of constructing the Newland improvements, the applicant may pay the cost of their proportionate share of the Newland Street Widening Project. The total amount due the City for the proportionate share of Newland Street improvements shall be $186,269.33 based on the lease area frontage. 2) Curb, gutter and A.C. paving to the new centerline of construction, plus an adequate feathered overlay section to provide a smooth pavement transition along the Edison Avenue lease frontage, within a 42-foot full-width street Right-of-Way per modified City Standard Plan Nos. 104 and 202 (including an 8-foot parking lane on the north side, 24-foot driving lane, a 6-foot parkway on the north and a 4-foot wide utility easement on the south). No parking shall be permitted on the south side of the street. 3) An ADA compliant access ramp at the southeast comer of Newland Street and Edison Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan No. A88. The corner curb return radius shall be 35-feet. 4) New Edison-owned street lighting shall be provided for the frontage of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and shall be consistent with City standards. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.8 5) At the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and at the Newland Street driveway located approximately 460-feet south of Edison Avenue, corner sight distance as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual must be provided. 6) All utilities (proposed and existing) shall be shown for reference purposes and shall be consistent with utility infrastructure plans. o. Improvement Plans for all offsite water transmission lines within the limits of the City of Huntington Beach shall be designed and prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer showing a plan and profile of the improvements. Said plans shall be submitted on mylar sheets to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Trenchless construction methods will be utilized to cross roadways sensitive to traffic disruption and drainage channels as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. (PW) p. Conflicts between the routing for all offsite water transmission lines and other existing or proposed utilities, facilities or public infrastructure shall be identified and mitigated on the water line improvement plans. (PW) q. Signing and Striping plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for Newland Street and Edison Way. (PW) r. Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for offsite pipeline construction or any other work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) s. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site; details on how no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and details on how wind barriers around remediation equipment shall be provided. (PW) t. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours,noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and"1-800-CUTSMOG"in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) u. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.9 v. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents and the surrounding area. The plan shall take into consideration any street improvement construction occurring in the vicinity. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 35) (PW) w. Should the project require off-site import/export of fill material during demolition,remediation, and construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably Newland Street to Pacific Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard to I-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. (MM-CON 11) x. In conjunction with the submittal of application for preliminary or precise grading permits,the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. (MM-GEO 2) y. As the South Branch Fault(situated beneath the subject site) is classified as"Category C" by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, special studies and subsurface investigation(including a site specific seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit,to the approval of the City Engineer. The subsurface investigation shall include CPT and exploratory borings to determine the fault rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. (NM-GEO 8) z. Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, which ever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs)that will be used on- site to control predictable pollutant runoff. This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum,the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP) Appendix which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, and shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: (MM-HWQ 1) 1) Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and 2) BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person. aa. Appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits,which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding. (MM-HWQ 2) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.10 bb. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first, an appropriate on-site drainage system shall be installed for the project that integrates permanent stormwater quality features. (MM-HWQ 3) cc. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the Applicant shall prepare an acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans,prepared under the supervision of a City-approved acoustical consultant, describing the stationary noise generation potential and noise mitigation measures (such as the installation of sound enclosures or placing noise-generating equipment indoors), if needed,which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to meet the noise criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (MM-NO 1) dd. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. This plan will be submitted to the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. (MM-PSU 6) ee. Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: (MM-CON 1) 1) Where necessary, temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15`h. 2) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. 3) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. 4) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. 5) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. 6) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. 7) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. 8) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.11 9) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed by the County of Orange Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. ff. Construction of the project shall include Best Management Practices(BMPs) as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: (NM- CON 2) 1) Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/ equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line flushings. 2) During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. gg. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements, the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent(NOI)to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. (MM-CON 3) hh. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans, the City shall include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications, which shall include measures to meet the requirements of the City and SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures may include,but are not limited to, the following: (MM-CON 9) During grading operations,the following shall be complied with: 1) Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts; 2) Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts; 3) All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas; 4) Comply with AQMD Rule 403,particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding . areas; 5) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut; 6) Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 mile per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site; (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.12 7) Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation; 8) Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites; 9) Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites; 10)Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fitting tarp; 11)Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; 12)Maintain construction equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; 13)Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; 14)Use electric equipment whenever practicable; and 15)Shut off engines when not in use. ii. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall ensure evidence acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works that: (MM-CON 10) 1) All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile,operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; 2) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control); 3) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas; and 4) Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. jj. Unless underground utility locations are well documented, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. (MM-CON 13) 5. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02=05) Attachment No. 1.13 electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered. The recommendations of this report shall be reproduced on the plans. (BD) c. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue after action by the Planning Commission. (DRB) e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) f. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). g. A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application for the proposed desalination plant. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations,retaining walls, streets, utilities, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering, water quality, and chemical/fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential and groundwater constraints. Appropriate recommendations shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. (MM-GEO 1) 6. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed: a. A separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for the irrigation system. (M b. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location,type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1)with minimum 36 inch box trees or palm equivalent(13-14 feet of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8-9 feet of brown trunk) and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape-plan. (PW) (Code Requirement) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.14 c. The Consulting Arborist(approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW) d. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. e. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification#426-Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) f. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification 4401-Minimum Access for Fire Department Access. (FD) g. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. (FD) h. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) i. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow,tamper, and trouble alarms,manual pull stations,interior and exterior horns and strobes,voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) j. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are 6'8"wide by 4'3" deep with a 42-inch wide (min.)right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54-inch depth. (FD) k. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) 1. For classification within the City's Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program, a complete chemical inventory and a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a fire protection engineer, environmental,hygienist, or the equivalent shall be submitted to the Fire Department. Included,but (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.15 not limited to, shall be the ammonia storage tank, the lime silos and the chemical treatment facilities. These tanks and associated equipment shall be designed and installed in conformance with 2001 edition of the CFC. (FD) m. As native on-site soils are compressible upon placement of structural loads,project implementation shall implement complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures. (MM-GEO 5) n. Type V cement shall be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measures (coatings, etc.)to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. (MM-GEO 6) o. Due to the potential for ground shaking in a seismic event, the project shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). However, given the proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust Faults,more stringent measures may be warranted. (NM-GEO 7) p. Due to the potential for liquefaction within the project vicinity,the Applicant shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) for structures on-site to assure safety of the occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997) and"Recommended Procedures for implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California"(Dr. Geoffrey R. Martin et al, May 1999). (MM-GEO 9) q. The proposed project shall incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction. Typical methods include,but are not limited to: (N M-GEO 10) 1) Overexcavation and recompaction of soils; 2) in-situ soil densification(such as vibro-flotation or vibro-replacement); 3) injection grouting; and 4) deep soil mixing. r. The site specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed project shall analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. If deemed a possibility, adequate subsurface stabilization practices(similar to those utilized for liquefaction) shall be incorporated prior to the construction of on-site structures. (MM-GEO 11) s. All applicable school mitigation fees shall be paid pursuant to State law. (MM-PSU 1) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.16 t. The Applicant will be required to pay the prevailing sewer connection fee plus five percent of the OCSD connection fee. (NM-PSU 3) u. The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate fees for water service connections, installation, and meters. In addition, the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. (MM- PSU 4) v. The Applicant will coordinate with the City's recycling representative to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. (MM-PSU 5) w. In order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation(such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. (MM- CON 41) 7. The structures cannot be occupied, the final building permits cannot be approved,utilities cannot be released, the use cannot commence, and the Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following has been completed: a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. (FD) b. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. c. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Code. (FD) d. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. f. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire,pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. g. Secured entries shall utilize strobe-switch activated, automated gates and comply with City Specification#403-Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates. (FD) h. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and association(if any)hardware. (FD) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.17 i. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424-Portable Fire Extinguishers. (FD) j. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification#428-Premise Identification. Number sets may be required on front and rear of the structure. (FD) k. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415-Fire Lane Signs. Additionally, the site plan shall show all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the grading and improvement plans. (PW) m. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance with the City-approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) n. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and a CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy"prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) o. The applicant shall demonstrate that final coverage under the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification(WDID) Number. (PW) 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (PW) e. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.18 f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PN;) g. Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) . h. Six foot high dust/wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PN ) i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the"Water Quality Management Plan"requirements. (PW) k. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. 1. Use low sulfur(0.5%) fuel by weight for construction equipment. m. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes. n. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. o. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. p. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. q. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading,remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) r. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc.,must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) s. To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: (MM-CON 12) 1) Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and 2) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. t. During construction, a security fence,the height of which shall be determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. The construction site shall be kept clear of all trash,weeds, etc. (MM-CON 14) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.19 u. Construction activities, to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines. (MM-CON 15) v. Prior to excavation of the contaminated and other areas for rough grading, the project site shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash,piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly(recycled if possible). (MM-CON 16) w. Proper excavation procedures shall be followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and Health Standards. If applicable, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)Rule 1166 permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. (NM- CON 17) x. The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. (NM-CON 18) y. If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures, the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. (MM-CON 19) z. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible time, the contractor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. (NM-CON 20) aa. All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off- site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. (NM-CON 21) bb. Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. (MM-CON 22) cc. The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size,wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (MM- CON 23) dd. Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). (NM-CON 24) ee. During remediation, if any soil is found to be hazardous due to contamination other than petroleum hydrocarbons, it will be segregated, stockpiled, and handled separately. (NM-CON 25) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.20 ff. Dust and volatile organic emissions from excavation activities shall be controlled through water spray or by employing other approved vapor suppressants including hydromulch spray in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirements and the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)permit conditions. (MM-CON 26 gg. Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials, the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. (NM-CON 31) hh. Construction related activities will be subject to, and comply with, standard street use requirements imposed by the City of Huntington Beach, County and other public agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist with haul truck ingress and egress of construction areas and limiting the large size vehicles to off-peak commute traffic periods. (MM-CON 32) ii. During periods of heavy equipment access or truck hauling, the Contractor will provide construction traffic signage and a construction traffic flagman to control construction and general project traffic at points of ingress and egress and along roadways that require a lane closure. (NM- CON 34) 9. Prior to the excavation process for pipeline.construction, the contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. (MM-CON 27) 10. Methane migration features will be consistent with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Specification Number 429 and other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features shall be submitted for review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), Environmental Health Division. (MM-CON 28) 11. Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas (LFG) generation and migration will be completed prior to implementation of the proposed water delivery component of the project. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency,Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems below trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. Periodic monitoring of the monitoring network will be performed. (NM-CON 29) 12. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be located where construction would affect roadways. The TMP shall include,but not be limited to,the following measures: (MM-CON 30) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.21 a. Limit construction to one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible; b. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; c. Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/routes are disrupted by construction activities, if any; d. Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible public agencies in order to minimize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; e. Where construction is proposed for two-lane roadways, confine construction to one-half of the pavement width. Establish one lane of traffic on the other half of the roadway using appropriate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer; f. The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. Per Caltrans requirements, the applicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans at the 90-percent design phase; g. Construction activities shall,to the extent feasible,be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and h. Provide for temporary parking,where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. 13. The Contractor shall obtain the necessary right-of-way encroachment permits and satisfy all permit requirements. Also, nighttime construction may be performed in congested areas. (NM-CON 33) 14. Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down(e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns)and the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac-out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated. It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally,the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. (MM-CON 40) 15. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 16. The applicant and applicant's representatives shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval-. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.22 INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed or until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for Coastal Development Permit. Because the project is in the appealable area of the coastal zone, there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is May 27, 2004, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05,pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday— Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 6. All applicable fees from the Building,Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the Col=of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2)days of the Planning Commission's action. 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 9. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid at issuance of building permits. 10. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.23 11. The development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 12. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. 13. The Water Ordinance#14.52, the"Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (PW) 14. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) 15. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at a rate of$124 per net new added daily trip at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This rate is subject to change pursuant to any subsequent action by the City Council. (PW) (MM-PSU 2) 16. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) 17. The applicant is hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code 66020. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.24 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Plannerl;?� DATE: July 22, 2003 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) —REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL At the July 8, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission continued the entitlements referenced above to the July 22, 2003 meeting due to the lateness of the hour. The Planning Commission voted to individually submit any proposed revisions to the recommended conditions of approval. Staff received proposed revisions from Commissioners Scandura,Davis, Kokal, and Dingwall. Attachment No. 1 contains the recommended conditions of approval, which incorporate many of the individual commissioners proposed revisions as well as two items that were discussed at the July 8 meeting (i.e. cultural resources and Irvine Ranch Water District issue). Due to time constraints staff was not able to incorporate proposed revisions from Commissioners Kokal and Dingwall in this staff report. However, staff will be prepared to respond at the July 22, 2003 hearing. All comments received from the Commissioners are provided under a separate cover memo. Several of the items suggested by the individual commissioners are not recommended for inclusion in the Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit conditions. These items are presented below. Commissioner Scandura: 1. Revise Condition 6(s)—"All applicable school mitigation and park fees shall be paid pursuant to state law." (This revision is not necessary because it is already covered under code requirement no. 9 on Attachment no. 1.24) 2. Add Condition 7(q)—"All exterior lighting of the facility will be directed away from the wetlands, which should be shield from illumination." (Staff recommends revised Condition 10) on Attachment no. 1.5 in lieu of this condition) GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0703rr3.doc -1 - Commissioner Davis: 1. Add a condition that should the City be sued, Poseidon will indemnify for all legal expenses incurred by the city or its agents or employees. (City Attorney supports the addition of this condition. Suggested wording is as follows: The applicant/property owner and each successor in interest to the property which is the subject of this project shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees,to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof.) 2. Add a condition that the Conditional Use Permit shall expire on April 1, 2011. (This condition is not recommended based on response from City Attorney that the vast majority of legal cases dealing with the duration of conditional use permits (CUP) provide that a valid CUP, for which the use has been commenced, runs with the land and does not expire automatically.) 3. Add a condition that the applicant shall install a satisfactory mechanical device such that only 20 percent of the water diverted from AES can be used for desalination purposes. (This condition addresses the potential impacts of a more concentrated discharge to the marine/coastal environment. However, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the Planning Commission on July 8, 2003 concludes a less than significant impact in this regard; therefore, no mitigation measures or conditions are necessary.) 4. Add a condition requiring written confirmation by AES that they are bound by condition no. 3 above and that they will supply logs, documents, reports and records at the request of the City,reflecting the amounts, dates and times of water diverted to Poseidon. Further, AES may only release water to Poseidon when they are actually making electricity. (See explanation under condition no. 3 above. Additionally, even when AES is not generating electricity they are still pumping 126 MGD). 5. Add a condition that in the interim between granting this CUP and 2011, Poseidon shall be subject to all restrictions imposed on AES relative to their operations by any other agency. This is not a grant of authority to exceed the restrictions imposed by this permitting process,but that the conduct or conditions imposed by another agency in the interim may further restrict, rather than enlarge,the ability of Poseidon to operate. GAAdmLtAAdm1tr03\0703rr3.doc -2- (This condition is not recommended because the City cannot usurp the authority of other agencies to regulate a use. Poseidon is expected to seek its own separate permits which may have different limitations.) 6. Add a condition that the applicant treat a gross amount of urban run-off equal to 5% of their daily drinking water output, and dispose of the concentrate of the run-off in an approved, non-ocean dump site, and that the potable water produced be returned to the ground water replenishment system. (This was not identified as a significant impact in the EIR; therefore, no mitigation measures or conditions are necessary. Furthermore, urban runoff is a local issue governed by individual NPDES permits and Best Management Practices.) HZ:SH:MBB:RR G:AdmLtr\Admltr03\0703rr3.dcc -3- REVISED - July 22, 2003 (Items shown as bold and underlined are new. Staff recommended chanizes to the new items are shown in italics) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day which includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks to be replaced with lower profile and modern structures with a more attractive design consistent with the city's adopted Design Guidelines. The project will further enhance the appearance of the area with the installation of 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high block wall along the Newland and Edison street frontages to provide additional screening and a consistent and upgraded appearance in contrast to the existing improvements. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as proposed and modified by the conditions imposed is compatible with the properties immediately surrounding it which are primarily industrial in nature. Additionally significant setbacks, including Newland Street to the west, Edison Avenue to the north, the flood control channel to the east, an existing concrete berm, 10 feet of landscaping and an eight foot high block wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages provide additional screening from surrounding uses. Impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are also addressed to make the project compatible. 3. The proposed seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project as proposed and modified by the conditions of approval meets or exceeds the minimum development standards and is allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit and coastal development permit. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.1 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(Public) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. LU 7.1.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. b. LU 12.1.5 - Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass; b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c. use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; d. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls; e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and f. mitigation of noise, odor, lighting, and other impacts. c. LU 13.1.8 - Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. d. UD 2.1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. e. CE 7 -Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. The project will be an improvement to the area because it will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks. The new proposed structures are more compatible with the surroundings because they are lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. The project is required to provide a 10-foot landscape planter along the perimeter of the site to enhance the appearance of the area. These landscaping improvements are required to be consistent with the approved landscaping improvements for the rest of the AES property to the south for a cohesive appearance. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, as proposed and modified by conditions of approval, conforms to the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objective, and policies: a. C 1.2.1 - Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule Table C-1. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.2 b. C 4.2.1 -Ensure that the following minimum standards are met by new development in the Coastal Zone as feasible and appropriate: a. preservation of public views to and from the bluffs, to the shoreline and ocean and to the wetlands; b. adequate landscaping and vegetation; c. evaluation of project design regarding visual impact and compatibility; and d. incorporate landscaping to mask oil operations and major utilities, such as the electrical power plant on Pacific Coast Highway. c. C 4.7 - Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. d. C 4.7.1 -Promote the use of landscaping material to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast along public rights-of-way and within public view. e. C 4.7.8 - Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. f. C 6.1.13 - Encourage research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalinization as an alternative source of potable water. Participate in regional studies and efforts where appropriate. The proposed use is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use designation for the site of P (Public). The project will help improve the appearance of the area by replacing the existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks with more attractive structures that have a lower profile and by installing 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages. The proposed desalination plant structures will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures will have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District,the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project meets or exceeds all minimum development standards including but not limited to setbacks,height, and parking. The project will comply with all Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety Department codes and requirements. The proposal conforms to the city's Design Guidelines and incorporates variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The project provides buffering from sensitive uses such as residential developments through landscaping, a block wall, and increased setbacks. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the AES generating station property to the south for a cohesive appearance. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project is an infill development and as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructure to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. This includes dedication and improvements to the project lease frontage along both Newland Street and Edison Avenue to improve circulation in the area. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.3 4. The development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as they will not impede any public access to the coast and public recreation opportunities in the area. All public access to the coast and public recreation in the area will not be impeded during the long-term operation of the facility as well as during the construction process with the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. The site plan received and dated April 22, 2003, floor plans and elevations received and dated April 7,2003, and landscaping plan received and dated April 23,2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The landscape area on the east side of the project site (landscape area three) shall include additional Myoporum as needed to fill in the gaps to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. (DR13) b. The architectural treatment proposed on all the tanks shall be limited to the top portion that is visible above the surrounding concrete berm. (DRB) c. The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to final approval by the Design Review Board after action by the Planning Commission. (DRB) d. Perimeter landscaping for this project along Newland St. and Edison Ave. is required to be installed only along the lease area frontage. Each lease area shall have a minimum of six percent landscaping. e. The landscaping and wall plan shall be consistent in design, colors, and materials with the landscaping and wall plan for AES for a cohesive appearance. f. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) g. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) h. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes,but is not limited to,heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the (03 SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.4 building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) (MM-ALG 1) i. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building,they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. j. If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage" onto adjacent properties, including the adiacent wetlands, and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (MM-ALG 2) 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management.District(SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water,proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. h. For the demolition of the three (3) 200 foot diameter fuel oil tanks, a work plan must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of work. (FD) 3. Prior to acceptance of grading plans for review: (03 SR04 CUP._02-04/.CDP-02-05) Attachment No. 1.5 a. Ten feet(10') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Newland Street frontage. (PW ) b. Twelve feet (12') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Edison Avenue frontage. (PW 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the following shall be completed: a. No building permits shall be issued until the applicant submits written proof of final project approval by each applicable regulating agency including but not limited to the California Coastal Commission, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and South Coast Air Quality Management District. b. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls and walls)consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan(RAP) based on requirements found in the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification#431-92. (FD) d. From the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells. (FD) e. From the DOGGR, provide proof of a Site Plan Review application. (FD) f. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification#422-Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) g. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit/site plan. This approved plan must be presented to obtain the required Huntington Beach Fire Department Fire Code Permit Application to conduct installation and/or removal operations. (FD) h. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number,plus identify and detail all methane safety measures per City Specification#429-Methane District Building Permit Requirements. These details shall be on a separate sheet titled"Methane Plan." (FD) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.6 i. Prior to issuance of any permit or the transfer or sale of this entitlement, the applicant shall enter into a Franchise agreement with the City for the generation and transport of product water from the site, and through and across the city's streets, rights-of-way or properties. (PW) j. A corrected lease line exhibit for areas "1" and"2" and an accurate metes and bounds description of the project limits shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. A metes and bounds description and separate exhibit of all access routes shall also be provided with the submittal. (PW) k. Irrevocable vehicular access rights shall be established and recorded across the AES and Edison properties. The access width and turning radius criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. (PW) The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (Code Requirement) 1. The applicant shall demonstrate utilizing a truck turning template overlay that a WB-50 vehicle can maneuver on-site through the designated_access route. (PW) in. A Grading Plan,prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The recommendations of the accepted geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities. The Grading Plan shall depict, but not be limited to the following items: (PW) 1) The parking layout shall be in conformance with the approved parking plan, and shall also conform to City Standards and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including Municipal Ordinance No. 10.40.050. No parking shall be permitted adjacent to emergency access areas in compliance with Fire Department Standard Specification Nos. 401 and 415. 2) Access for the handicapped shall be in conformance with Title 24. 3) Separate sewer lateral and sewer line to provide service to all onsite facilities. The plan shall provide horizontal location and vertical clearances and dimensional relationship with other utilities. 4) A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. 5) Fire sprinklers shall have a separate dedicated fire service with an appropriate backflow device. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05). Attachment No. 1.7 6) Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, fire services and irrigation water services. The final location for all public waterline facilities shall be as approved by the Water Division. 7) Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. 8) Final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be submitted for review and approval to the Public Works Department. The report shall also include calculation of first flush flows to substantiate the adequacy and effectiveness of all water quality mitigation and structural best management practices. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall events (storm frequencies up to a 100-year frequency). Mitigation may include adequate detention storage area onsite if the project pump systems fail to operate. The final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adiacent wetlands. 9) Areas for containment shall be provided to mitigate possible spillage of any materials affecting. storm water quality that may be stored on-site, and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. 10)In accordance with NPDES requirements, a "Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. "Best Management Practices" shall be identified and incorporated into the design. All structural BMP's shall be tested "state of the art" and sized to infiltrate, filter and treat the 85`h percentile, 24-hour storm event. The WQMP shall comply with the requirements of the Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP). 11)A Notice of Intent (NOI), Notice of Termination (NOT) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(S WPPP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Board. n. A Street Improvement Plan,prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PV ) 1) Curb, gutter, sidewalk and A.C. paving to the centerline of the street along the Newland Street lease frontage, within a 50-foot half-width street Right-of-Way per City Standard Plan Nos. 102 (84'/100'), 202 and 207. In lieu of constructing the Newland improvements, the applicant may pay the cost of their proportionate share of the Newland Street Widening Project. The total amount due the City for the proportionate share of Newland Street improvements shall be $186,269.33 based on the lease area frontage. 2) Curb, gutter and A.C. paving to the new centerline of construction, plus an adequate feathered overlay section to provide a smooth pavement transition along the Edison Avenue lease frontage, within a 42-foot full-width street Right-of-Way per modified City Standard Plan Nos. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.8 104 and 202 (including an 8-foot parking lane on the north side, 24-foot driving lane, a 6-foot parkway on the north and a 4-foot wide utility easement on the south). No parking shall be permitted on the south side of the street. 3) An ADA compliant access ramp at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan No. A88. The corner curb return radius shall be 35-feet. 4) New Edison-owned street lighting shall be provided for the frontage of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and shall be consistent with City standards. 5) At the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and at the Newland Street driveway located approximately 460-feet south of Edison Avenue, corner sight distance as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual must be provided. 6) All utilities (proposed and existing) shall be shown for reference purposes and shall be consistent with utility infrastructure plans. o. Improvement Plans for all offsite water transmission lines within the limits of the City of Huntington Beach shall be designed and prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer showing a plan and profile of the improvements. Said plans shall be submitted on mylar sheets to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Trenchless construction methods will be utilized to cross roadways sensitive to traffic disruption and drainage channels as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. (PW) p. Conflicts between the routing for all offsite water transmission lines and other existing or proposed utilities, facilities or public infrastructure shall be identified and mitigated on the water line improvement plans. (PW) q. Signing and Striping plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for Newland Street and Edison Way. (PW) r. Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for offsite pipeline construction or any other work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) s. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site; details on how no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and details on how wind barriers around remediation equipment shall be provided. (PW) t. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.9 compliance with the conditions herein, specifically,grading activities, truck routes, construction hours,noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and"1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) u. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least.30 days prior to such grading. (PW) v. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents and the surrounding area. The plan shall take into consideration any street improvement construction occurring in the vicinity. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 35) (PW) w. Should the project require off-site import/export of fill material during demolition, remediation, and construction,trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably Newland Street to Pacific Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard to I-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. (MM-CON 11) x. In conjunction with the submittal of application for preliminary or precise grading permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. (MM-GEO 2) y. As the South Branch Fault(situated beneath the subject site) is classified as "Category C" by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, special studies and subsurface investigation(including a site specific seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit,to the approval of the City Engineer. The subsurface investigation shall include CPT and exploratory borings to determine the fault rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. (NM-GEO 8) z. Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, which ever comes first,the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs)that will be used on- site to control predictable pollutant runoff and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP)Appendix which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project,the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, and shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: (NM-HWQ 1) (03SR04 CUP-02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.10 1) Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and 2) BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person. 3) All fertilizers and pesticides used by the plant shall not pose any harmful effects upon plants, animals, and marine life in the adjacent wetland. aa. Appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding, and to ensure protection of the adjacent wetlands. (MM-HWQ 2) bb. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first, an appropriate on-site drainage system shall be installed for the project that integrates permanent stormwater quality features. (MM-HWQ 3) cc. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the Applicant shall prepare an acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans,prepared under the supervision of a City-approved acoustical consultant, describing the stationary noise generation potential and noise mitigation measures (such as the installation of sound enclosures or placing noise-generating equipment indoors), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to meet the noise criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (NM-NO 1) dd. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. This plan will be submitted to the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. (N M-PSU 6) ee. Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading Plan,the Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: (NM-CON 1) 1) Where necessary, temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15t'. 2) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. 3) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05)` Attachment No. 1.11 4) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. 5) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. 6) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. 7) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. 8) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. 9) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed by the County of Orange Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. ff. Construction of the project shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP)by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: (NM- CON 2) 1) Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains,-sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/ equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line flushings. 2) During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. gg. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements,the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent(NOI)to be submitted to the Santa.Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. (MM-CON 3) hh. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans, the City shall include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications, which shall include measures to meet the requirements of the City and SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: (MM-CON 9) During grading operations, the following shall be complied with: 1) Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts; (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.12 2) Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts; 3) All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas; 4) Comply with AQMD Rule 403,particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas; 5) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut; 6) Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 mile per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site; 7) Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation; 8) Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites; 9) Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites; 10)Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fitting tarp; 11)Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; 12)Maintain construction equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; 13)Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; 14)Use electric equipment whenever practicable; and 15)Shut off engines when not in use. ii. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits,the Applicant shall ensure evidence acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works that: (MM-CON 10) 1) All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; 2) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control); 3) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas; and 4) Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.13 jj. Unless underground utility locations are well documented, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. (MM-CON 13) kk. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for the purpose of identifying and assuring payment of a fee to the City of Huntington Beach on an annual basis in lieu of the City's prior share of property taxes paid by the Poseidon facility in case the proiect is sold to a tax exempt entity. 5. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered. The recommendations of this report shall be reproduced on the plans. (BD) c. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue after action by the Planning Commission. (DRB) e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) f. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). g. A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application for the proposed desalination plant. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets,utilities,remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering, water quality, and chemical/fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential and groundwater constraints. Appropriate recommendations shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. (MM-GEO 1) 6. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed: (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.14 a. A separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for the irrigation system. (PW) b. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location,type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36 inch box trees or palm equivalent(13-14 feet of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8-9 feet of brown trunk) and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW) (Code Requirement) c. The Consulting Arborist(approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW) d. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. e. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification#426-Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) f. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification#401-Minimum Access for Fire Department Access. (FD) g. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. (FD) (03 SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.15 h. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) i. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow, tamper, and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) j. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are 6'8" wide by 4'3" deep with a 42-inch wide (min.) right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54-inch depth. (FD) k. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) 1. For classification within the City's Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program, a complete chemical inventory and a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a fire protection engineer, environmental hygienist, or the equivalent shall be submitted to the Fire Department. Included,but not limited to, shall be the ammonia storage tank, the lime silos and the chemical treatment facilities. These tanks and associated equipment shall.be designed and installed in conformance with 2001 edition of the CFC. (FD) m. As native on-site soils are compressible upon placement of structural loads, project implementation shall implement complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures. (MM-GEO 5) n. Type V cement shall be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measures (coatings, etc.)to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. (NM-GEO 6) o. Due to the potential for ground shaking in a seismic event, the project shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). However, given the proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust Faults, more stringent measures may be warranted. (MM-GEO 7) p. Due to the potential for liquefaction within the project vicinity,the Applicant shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) for structures on-site to assure safety of the . occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997) and"Recommended Procedures for implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117 -Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California" (Dr. Geoffrey R. Martin et al, May 1999). (NM-GEO 9) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.16 q. The proposed project shall incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction. Typical methods include, but are not limited to: (MM-GEO 10) 1) Overexcavation and recompaction of soils; 2) in-situ soil densification (such as vibro-flotation or vibro-replacement); 3) injection grouting; and 4) deep soil mixing. r. The site specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed project shall analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. If deemed a possibility, adequate subsurface stabilization practices (similar to those utilized for liquefaction) shall be incorporated prior to the construction of on-site structures. (NM-GEO 11) s. All applicable school mitigation fees shall be paid pursuant to State law. (MM-PSU 1) t. The Applicant will be required to pay the prevailing sewer connection fee plus five percent of the OCSD connection fee. (MM-PSU 3) u. The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate fees for water service connections, installation, and meters. In addition, the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. (MM- PSU 4) v. The Applicant will coordinate with the City's recycling representative to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. (MM-PSU 5) w. In order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation(such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. (MM- CON 41) 7. The structures cannot be occupied, the final building permits cannot be approved, utilities cannot be released, the use cannot commence, and the Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following has been completed: a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. (FD) b. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. c. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Code. (FD) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.17 d. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. f. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. g. Secured entries shall utilize strobe-switch activated, automated gates and comply with City Specification#403-Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates. (FD) h. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and association(if any) hardware. (FD) i. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424-Portable Fire Extinguishers. (FD) j. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification 4428-Premise Identification. Number sets may be required on front and rear of the structure. (FD) k. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted,marked, and maintained per City Specification#415-Fire Lane Signs. Additionally,the site plan shall show all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required,the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the grading and improvement plans. (PW ) m. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance with the City-approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) n. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and a CD (AutoCAD only). copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped"Permanent File Copy"prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW ) o. The applicant shall demonstrate that final coverage under the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification(WDID) Number. (PW ) p. The applicant shall demonstrate that all measures neeesoarw fE required by these conditions to protect the adjacent wetlands have been implemented. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.18 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible and maintained in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adiacent wetland. (PW) e. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. Comply with AQMD Rule 403,particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Six foot high dust/wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the "Water Quality Management Plan"requirements. (PW) k. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. 1. Use low sulfur (0.5%) fuel by weight for construction equipment. m. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes. n. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. o. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. p. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.19 q. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) r. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc.,must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) s. To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: (NM-CON 12) 1) Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and 2) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. t. During construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. The construction site shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. (MM-CON 14) u. Construction activities, to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines and wetlands. (MM-CON 15) v. Prior to excavation of the contaminated and other areas for rough grading, the project site shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash, piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly(recycled if possible). (MM-CON 16) w. Proper excavation procedures shall be followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and Health Standards. If applicable,the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. (NM- CON 17) x. The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. (MM-CON 18) y. If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures, the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. (NM-CON 19) z. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible time, the contractor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of (03SR04.CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.20 the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 20) aa. All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off- site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. (MM-CON 21) bb. Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. (MM-CON 22) cc. The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size, wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (MM- CON 23) dd. Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). (MM-CON 24) ee. During remediation, if any soil is found to be hazardous due to contamination other than petroleum hydrocarbons, it will be segregated, stockpiled, and handled separately. (MM-CON 25) ff. Dust and volatile organic emissions from excavation activities shall be controlled through water spray or by employing other approved vapor suppressants including hydromulch spray in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirements and the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) permit conditions. (MM-CON 26) gg. Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials, the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. (MM-CON 31) hh. Construction related activities will be subject to, and comply with, standard street use requirements imposed by the City of Huntington Beach, County and other public agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist with haul truck ingress and egress of construction areas and limiting the large size vehicles to off-peak commute traffic periods. (MM-CON 32) I During periods of heavy equipment access or truck hauling, the Contractor will provide construction traffic signage and a construction traffic flagman to control construction and general project traffic at points of ingress and egress and along roadways that require a lane closure. (MM- CON 34) J. If grading operations uncover paleontological/archeological resources, the applicant shall suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the siiinificance of the (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.21 paleontological/archeological resources. An archeologist shall report such findings to the Planning Department. If the paleontological/archeological resources are found to be significant, the City shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and salvage. 9. Prior to the excavation process for pipeline construction,the contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. (NM-CON 27) 10. Methane migration features will be consistent with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Specification Number 429 and other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features shall be submitted for review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), Environmental Health Division. (MM-CON 28) 11. Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas (LFG) generation and migration will be completed prior to implementation of the proposed water delivery component of the project. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems below trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. Periodic monitoring of the monitoring network will be performed. (MM-CON 29) 12. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be located where construction would affect roadways. The TMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures: (MM-CON 30) a. Limit construction to one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible; b. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; c. Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/routes are disrupted by construction activities, if any; d. Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible public agencies in order to minimize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; e. Where construction is proposed for two-lane roadways, confine construction to one-half of the pavement width. Establish one lane of traffic on the other half of the roadway using appropriate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer; (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.22 f. The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. Per Caltrans requirements,the applicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans at the 90-percent design phase; g. Construction activities shall, to the extent feasible, be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and h. Provide for temporary parking, where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. 13. The Contractor shall obtain the necessary right-of-way encroachment permits and satisfy all permit requirements. Also, nighttime construction may be performed in congested areas. (MM-CON 33) 14. Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down(e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac-out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated. It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally,the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. (MM-CON 40) 15. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan,elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 16. The applicant and applicant's representatives shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 17. The applicant shall completely remove the storage tanks from the site within 18 months from the date of approval of City building permits and agreements. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed or until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for Coastal Development Permit. Because the project is in the appealable area of the coastal zone, there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. (03SR04 CUP_02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.23 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is 2994 July 22, 2004, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05,pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 6. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 9. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid at issuance of building permits. 10. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 11. The development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 12. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. 13. The Water Ordinance #14.52, the"Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (PV ) 14. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PV ) (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.24 15. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at a rate of$124 per net new added daily trip at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This rate is subject to change pursuant to any subsequent action by the City Council. (PW) (MM-PSU 2) 16. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) 17. The applicant is hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code 66020. 18.The applicant or its successor shall notify the Citv of Huntington Beach within 10 days of being informed by AES Inc., or its successors, that electric power production shall cease permanently. If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational after power production ceases permanently, they shall apply apply for an amendment to the now Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit from the City relative to the intake of seawater. 19.The applicant or its successor shall comply with all legally enforceable directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the adjacent wetlands, whether in the existing degraded conditions or as a restored wetland relative to the desalination plant. 20.If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational after power production ceases permanently, the applicant or its successor shall comply with all lezally enforceable directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements imposed by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies to mitigate, abate, or prevent conditions that cause the impingement or entrainment of marine life wk4i*relative to the intake of seawater for the desalination facility. 21.The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, the applicant shall supply Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) with water of quality that does not cause the IRWD to violate the pertinent limits of the IRWD reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed proiect is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to the IRWD. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.25 its affected member agencies regarding the specific requirements of the quality of the desalinated water prior to beginning construction of the desalination plant. If agreement between the two parties is not reached by then, MWDOC has the right to reiect the use of desalinated water. (03SR04 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.26 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 13 Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner DATE: July 22, 2003 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) —PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Attached are comments received from Commissioners Scandura, Davis, Kokal, and Dingwall regarding the recommended conditions of approval. HZ:SH:MBB:RR G:W dmLtr\Adml tr03\0703 rr4.doc Pagel of 2 Ramos, Ricky Subject: FW: Proposed Conditions to the Poseidon CUP/CDP From Commissioner ]ohn Scandura Ricky, As requested in the last Planning Commission Meeting, below are my proposed changes to the suggested findings and conditions of approval for CUP No. 02-04/CDP 02-05. These findings and conditions are in Attachment 1 of the Staff Report dated May 27, 2003 and entitled "Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant)." The changes are: Page 1.8 -Add a final sentence to condition No. 8 that states "The final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be in such manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetlands." Page 1.8 - Revise condition No. 9 to say "Areas for containment shall be provided to mitigate possible spillage of any materials affecting storm water quality that may be stored on site, and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible." Pa eg 1.10 - Under item (z), add the following to the end of the first sentence "and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible." Please also add a subcondition No. (3) to this item that says "All fertilizers and pesticides used by the plant shall not pose any harmful effects upon plants, animals, and marine life in the adjacent wetland." Page 1.10 - At the bottom of this page under item (aa), revise the last sentence to say "The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding, and to ensure protection of the adjacent wetlands." Page 1.16 - Revise condition (s) to say "All applicable school mitigation and park fees shall be paid pursuant to state law." Page 1.18 - Add condition (p) that would state "The applicant shall demonstrate that all measures necessary to protect the adjacent wetlands have been implemented." Page 1.18 - Add condition (q) that would state "All exterior lighting of the facility will be directed away from the wetlands, which should be shielded from all illumination." Page 1.18 - Revise condition (d) near the bottom of the page to say "The construction disturbance area will be kept as small as possible and shall not adversely impact the adjacent wetland." Page 1.20 - Revise the last sentence in condition (u) at the top of the page to say "Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property areas and wetlands." Page 1.23 - Revise the date in item (2) to say July 22, 2003. 7/17/2003 Page 2 of 2 Page 1.24 -Add an item 18 that states "The applicant or its successor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach within 10 days of being informed by AES, Inc, or its successor, that electric power production shall cease permanently. If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational, they shall apply for a new Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit from the City." Page 1.24 -Add an item 19 that says "The applicant or its successor shall comply with all directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the adjacent wetlands, whether in the existing degraded conditions or as a restored wetland." Page 1.24 -Add an item 20 that says "The applicant or its successor shall comply with all directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements imposed by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies to mitigate, abate, or prevent conditions that cause the impingement or entrainment of marine life within the desalination facility." Page 1.24 - Add an item 21 that is the staffs recommendation found on the bottom of pages 12 and 13 in the response to Commissioner Dingwall's concern about the impact of Poseidon's operation upon the Irvine Ranch Water District's facilities and distribution system. Please feel free to e-mail me, or to call me at work or home if you have any questions or need additional information. Re: Proposed Conditions to the Poseidon CUP/CDP Page 1 of 2 Ramos, Ricky Subject: FW: Proposed Conditions to the Poseidon CUP/CDP From Commissioner Ron Davis Since I am a laggard on proposing my conditions, I'll give them to you in brief form. I had intended to include the rationale for each, but time will not permit at this point. 1. Should the city be sued on the EIR, Poseidon will indemnify for all legal expenses incurred by the city.or its agents or employees. (Poseidon assert the document was legal) 2. Any Conditional Use Permit granted to Poseidon, shall ex iLre, on April 1, 2011. (A "review" has a different legal meaning, and I have chosen "expire" deliberately. The application is for dependent receipt of ocean water, it being conceded that the EIR is inadequate as a matter of law to justify independent pumping. Thus, Poseidon can get not more than AES has -not what it might get - and based on the CEC certification,their permit expires in 2011. Further, I am not inclined to allow AES, which is a non-conforming use,to argue in 2011 to bend the environmental standards because, not only are they providing much needed juice for the county, but now the water to mix it in. This serves only to prolong a configuration of a plant which is technologically outdated and outmoded.) There is some issue with respect to the legality of such a sunset provision. I have researched the subject and am confident we can impose such a condition up front. See Goat Hill and Metropolitan Advertising. I have asked for a discussion with the City Attorney's office on this subject, asking them to produce cases and reasoning. So far no cases and reasoning that deals with imposition of a sunset clause after the applicant has begun their use. I recognize the this condition may make Poseidon unfinanciable,but they elected their course of action. They could have applied for the ability to independently pump the water, which required entrainment, impingement and bacterial studies. But,they chose to tie themselves to AES, and in my mind they are tied. 3. The applicant must install a satisfactory mechanical device such that only 1/5th or 20% of the water diverted from AES can be used for desalination purposes. This means that if 500 mgd are pumped by AES,Poseidon can receive 100 mgd out of which they can produce 50 mgd of drinking water, and 50 mgd of doubly concentrated sea water. This in turn is mixed with the remaining 400 mgd retained by AES such that the level of concentration at time of discharge in the ocean is approximately 12%. If AES only pumps 250 mgd, then Poseidon can only receive 50 mgd total, out of which they can make 25 mgd of drinking water. I recognize that this may make it difficult for Poseidon to operate, but the PC is not designed to figure out how companies can stay in business, but to protect the community. (I am not satisfied that the evidence supports the discharge of higher concentrations.) 4. The diversion of water from AES to Poseidon is conditioned upon(1) written confirmation by AES that they are bound by this condition and(2) that they will supply logs, documents,reports and records at the request of HB, reflecting the amounts, dates and times of water diverted to Poseidon. Further, they may only release water to Poseidon whey they are actually making electricity. In the case of#1, the may only transfer 126 mgd once they are generating 20 mw or better. The same is for#2. In the case of#, 126 when they are generating 90 mw or better, and the same for#4. (This provision is designed to insure that AES only pumps water and hence diverts water to Poseidon in connection with the actual production of electricity. Without this provision,we allow AES to turn on the pumps to "^`�"=�:? Re: Proposed Conditions to the Poseidon CUP/CDP Page 2 of 2 supply water to their tenant, who can only make rent payments if they receive the water.) 5. Substantial compliance in furtherance of the conditional use is often times troubling. CUP's expire if the applicant hasn't done some thing in furtherance of the CUP. But, what is in furtherance is often debated and even not apparent, such as looking for financing. I am not disposed to keeping this city and neighborhood on tenderhooks forever debating the subject. Thus, I want an objective standard of substantial compliance. And that is, if a cup is approved by the City Council and finally approved by the Coastal Commission, the applicant has 1.5 years from the date of approval by the Coastal Commission to completely remove the storage tanks from the site. If they do not do so,their CUP is history. 6. In the interim between granting this CUP and 2011, Poseidon shall be subject to all restrictions imposed on AES relative to their operations by any other agency. This is not a grant of authority to exceed the restrictions imposed by this permitting process, but that the conduct or conditions imposed by another agency in the interim may further restrict,rather than enlarge, the ability of Poseidon to operate. 7. This CUP shall expire upon the failure of the applicant or any successor in interest to pay an amount equal to the property taxes that would have been payable, but for the fact that the successor is a tax exempt entity. I intend that they pay not only the amount HB would have received, but the schools,the county, the state, any water district, etc. 8. That the applicant treat a gross amount of urban run-off equal to 5% of their daily drinking water output, and dispose of the concentrate of the run-off in an approved, non-ocean dump site, and that the potable water produced be returned to the ground water replenishment system. (This use creates a product that produces urban run-off and it is only fair that they deal with their impacts.) I'm sure I'll have a couple of more conditions between now and the hearing. 7/17/2003 --- Potential Conditions (From Chairperson Randy Kokal): 1. First flush of storm water, all cleaning solutions and byproducts and any water from holding ponds get processed through the Orange County Sanitation District 2. Taxes: In the event that Poseidon is sold to an entity that doesn't pay taxes what can be done to insure that: A) The sales tax will continue to go HB? B) The tax increment will also go to HB C) Property taxes will continue to be paid? 4. Can we condition a periodic right of refusal (perhaps every 5 years)to allow HB to purchase the water in case the water situation becomes critical at some point in the future? 5. In order to install the piping to the booster pumps, etc, Poseidon must comply with any trench cut ordinance that is on the books or is pending. 6. The water produced at the Poseidon will not cause another agency to go out of compliance with their discharge permit. 7. Since Poseidon causes an incremental increase in entrainment, can we condition that groundbreaking not begin until after entrainment studies are complete and appropriate mitigation measures determined? 8. A year or so ago when we examined cellular phone towers we were concerned about companies that would go bankrupt and leave outdated and nonfunctioning equipment for the city to take down. The Commission arrived at a solution that meant that the city would not be on the hook for costs if the companies went belly up. Since: 1)This is the largest desalination plant of its kind. 2) There currently are no customers for the water. 3. The water is many times more expensive than the market price for water. 4) There are numerous technical as well as legislative hurdles that have yet to be decided, I wonder is appropriate to require a cleanup bond in case the company does go bankrupt.? Otherwise, who would be responsible for cleaning up the concrete, debris, storage tanks, chemicals and buildings on the site? 9. Since we don't have actual data on entrainment, don't have actual data on entrenchment, since we don't know the actual bacteria counts coming out of the outflow pipe, since we don't know the actual bacteria counts in the discharge pipe, since we don't know the source of pollution on our beaches but a leading theory is that it is connected to the AES plant and that adding Poseidon could exacerbate the problem... And we know that Poseidon will cause incremental changes in water flow, electricity consumption. What I would like to do is condition the Poseidon inflow pipe to take its water from discharge vault of AES. Poseidon is required to take their water from the cleanest source available. This condition will not change the source of their intake water(it will still be from AES, after it has been heated and is part of the discharge stream). The source of Poseidon's water will still be exactly the same,just a few feet further down the pipeline. This places the burden of water quality issue squarely in the lap of AES. This way AES and the applicant will have to come to an agreement on water quality. If the AES outflow does pose a problem for Poseidon's intake, then AES has to take whatever steps it deems as necessary in order to keep its tenant happy. 1 Proposed Conditions for the Poseidon CUP by Robert E. Dingwall, Planning Commissioner TAXES Utility Taxes: If for any reason the Poseidon Operation and/or it's successors are deemed exempt from the Huntington Beach Utility Tax, an"In-Lieu" fee must be paid in an amount equal to what said Utility Tax would have been. Said In-Lieu Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth( 15 ) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization or it's successors must cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later than the fifth ( 5 )day of July, each calendar year. Real Property and / or Right, Title, Lease and/or Interest Tax If for any reason the Poseidon Operation and/or it's successors are deemed exempt from Real Property Tax, Business Tax (of any kind), Inventory Tax, Leasehold Tax, or any other tax normally paid by other businesses in Huntington Beach, an"In-Lieu" fee must be paid in an amount equal to what said Tax would have been to.all agencies otherwise eligible for said Taxes. Said In-Lieu Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth( 15 ) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization(or it's successors) will cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to all eligible Agencies no later than the fifth ( 5 ) day of July, each calendar year. Sales Tax For all products developed and/or sold by Poseidon(or it's successors) in Huntington Beach, the official Point of Sale must be Huntington Beach, California. Environmental Concerns Visual Blight A perimeter of natural trees must be planted and maintained, of sufficient height and density(at 75%maturity)to completely block off any view of the Poseidon.Project on all sides except the Pacific Coast Highway side. Page 1 � � ,�"� R �' The views from the sides outlined above and the views from present or future home sites, are to be blocked so that the Poseidon Project will look like a dense stand of trees. Ocean Contamination All materials used in cleaning and/or maintenance of the Poseidon Equipment, either initially or periodically, whether they be solids, solids in liquid or liquid will be delivered (either by truck or pipeline) to the Orange County Sanitation District for further processing prior to being returned to the sea or landfill. The cost of this activity to be borne by the Applicant or its successors. All liquid run-off from equipment, yard, grounds, spills, landscaping or for any other reason will be handled the same as above. Right-of-way Fees Conveyance Fee A Conveyance Fee will be included into the Right-of-Way Agreement for the use of Huntington Beach City Property in an amount equal to three ( 3 %)percent of Poseidon(or it's successors) Gross Annual Income. Said Conveyance Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth ( 15 ) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization(or it's successors) must cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee to have a "Cost of Living"escalator clause based.on the Annual Cost of Living Increase for the Huntington Beach area. The formula to be used is: Last Years Fee+ Cost of Living Increase, or three ( 3% )percent of Gross Annual Income, whichever is greatest. Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later than the fifth( 5 ) day of July, each calendar year. Operational Procedures Return Water System The water being returned to the ocean by Poseidon by way of the AES Outfall Pipe may not in any circumstance what-so-ever, exceed 12.5 % (twelve and one half percent) of the amount of water already flowing in the Outfall Pipe,thereby insuring a mix of 8:1 in the Outfall Pipe before it reaches the ocean. 500 MGD— 100 MGD =400 MGD. Poseidon would return 50 MGD = 12.5 % of 400 MGD or 8:1. Paget sz � ��� r� a,a° �.,� 1•'I The Applicant must install and maintain a system that will constantly monitor the temperature of the incoming water at the AES Intake Pipe and the temperature of the water at the point water is taken from the AES Cooling System. Said monitoring system shall have an automatic shut-down feature that will shut-down the desalination process at any time the water taken from the AES cooling system rises above the temperature of the AES intake water by 30 deg F or the exit temperature for the AES cooling system as specified by other controlling agencies (not counting any effect that the Desalination Process may have on that water temperature), whichever is less. Deferred Studies, Tests, and/or Approvals. This is the Public's Business that we do, the Brown Act and the CEQUA Regulations require that it be done in public with public participation. Any time a Study, Test or Approval is deferred to a future unknown time, by yet to be named persons, at an unknown location, and would grant the Applicant permission to proceed to the next step; that process is not meeting the Laws and/or Regulations of CEQUA or the Brown Act. It is understood that many of these Studies,Tests and/or Approvals cannot feasibly be done in advance and must wait until prerequisite steps have been taken. I have identified at least 16 of these events in the EIR and there are several more in the CUP. I propose the following: All Studies, Reviews, Tests, Approvals be conducted as outlined in the EIR, CUP and/or CDP; except that, all reports be brought before the Huntington Beach Planning Commission for review and approval in an open session with full advance notification(at least 14 days), in Public View and with Public Participation. Planning Commission Approval must be obtained before the Applicant can proceed to the next step of the process. Page 3 °�� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 Y Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner DATE: July 22, 2003 SUBJECT: LATE COMMUNICATION Attached are additional comment letters received since Thursday July 17, 2003 regarding the Poseidon seawater desalination plant. Attachment: 1. Ed Kerins, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, Ietters dated July 14, 2003 and May 21, 2003 (previously submitted) 2. Ed DeMeulle, SEHBNA, letter dated July 21, 2003 GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0703 rr5.doc HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW P. 0. BOX 865,HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 "Making a difference today for Huntington Beach tomorrow" Phone: (714) 840-4015 E-Mail: info@hbtomorrow.org July 14, 2003 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Subj. Poseidon Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Our Board of Directors has reviewed the results of the Planning Commission's certification of the Poseidon environmental impact report (EIR) . We believe the Planning Commission should incorporate two CUP conditions of approval in addition to those described in our May 21, 2003 letter. We recommend a conditional of approval be incorporated which states all EIR mitigation measures shall be CUP conditions of approval. The other condition of approval should state that public oversight shall be provided over EIR mitigation measure reports, studies and the permitting process. The oversight capability should include a timeline showing when reports, studies and permits are submitted to the various approval agencies and when they are scheduled for approval. The oversight capability shall also reflect the timeline for any applicable appeal process. Ed Kerins President Huntington Beach Tomorrow r HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW P. 0. BOX 865, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 "Nfaking a difference today for Huntington Beach tomorrow" Phone: (714) 840-4015 E-Mail: info@hbtomorrow.org May 21, 2003 Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St . Huntington Beach CA 92648 Subject: Poseidon Desalination Plant CUP/EIR Comments HB Tomorrow has reviewed the EIR, EIR responses and CUP/EIR staff reports. Our findings are as follows The discharge of reverse osmosis train first flush effluent to the ocean outfall -in lieu of the OCSD sewer line has not been adequately assessed. Disposal of first flush effluent to the ocean should be denied as an acceptable alternative to disposal through the OCSD system. The noise control conditions have insufficient remedial action if exceeded. Continuous monitoring and recording of noise levels by the applicant should be required for the life of the facility to ensure required noise levels are not ''"•; exceeded. Loss of tax revenue if this plant is sold or taken over by a governmental or other non-taxable entity is unacceptable. The loss of tax revenue is especially crucial since the facility is in a redevelopment area that was formed to tax advantage of property tax increments to finance local area improvements . A condition of approval is needed requiring the applicant to agree to a binding contractual commitment or covenant which requires this and any future property owner to pay property taxes or equivalent tax in-lieu payments. The financial and health impacts of the construction and use of the proposed pipe line to Costa Mesa on the citizens of this city has not been assessed and mitigation measures delineated. The elements of a franchise agreement that adequately compensates the city and its citizens for use of public property should be known and agreed upon prior to project approval. Recommendation: Continue action on the EIR and conditional use permit until conditions of approval are developed that satisfactorily address the above concerns . Edward Kerins President, Huntington Beach Tomorrow SEHBNA Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association "Neighbors taking Responsibility for their Neighborhood" 9441 Alii Circle,Huntington Beach,CA 92646-8309 Email:sehbna(a sehbna.or4•Website:sehbna.org Phone:(714)962-7661 •Fax:(714)963-9452 July 21, 2003 Hon. Randy Kokal,Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . Chairman Kokal and Commissioners, The Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association is very concerned about the proposed Poseidon desalination plant. As you know,SEHBNA has been opposed to the project since March of this year and continues to be so. However, in view of the fact that the Planning Commission is moving on to the Conditional Use Permit process, we propose that the following conditions be incorporated into the CUP. 1. We are concerned that an agreement by AES to supply power to Poseidon at a reduced rate via the grid will artificially increase the output of AES and thus the air pollution generated by the plant,impacting the local neighborhood in order to provide Poseidon with inexpensive power. This should be prevented. 2. Poseidon should be required to route the "first flush" (EIR 4.3-19)of cleaning chemicals used to clean the filter membranes out through the Orange County Sanitation District and*not* allowed to use the stated alternative of discharge out to the ocean. 3. Noise from the plant should not only be limited to 70dbA(HBMC 8.40.050 Zone 4) but should also be limited at the residential levels (HBMC 8.40.050 Zone 1)on the property perimeters adjacent to residential property. 4. Regular monitoring of the long term effects of increased salinity on sealife near the AES Outfall should be required. 5. There should be no loss of tax revenue if the plant is sold to a governmental or other non-taxable entity through In-Lieu Fee's. 6. We understand that there is the potential for the leaching of toxins, such as lead, from pipes due to the ultra-purity of the water output from the plant. This should controlled by adjusting the chemical content of the water output. (Con't) , , Z 7. Poseidon should be required to utilize no more than a fixed proportion of the AES flow in order to maintain "best case" dilution of the concentrated seawater output of the plant. The EIR showed 100MGD out of 500MGD AES flow which would result in 50MGD returned to the ocean. Thus,Poseidon output would be limited to 10%of the current infall/outfall flow through the AES plant. 8. There should be a condition that states that Poseidon should not be allowed to artificially influence the rate of seawater pumped in and out of the AES plant above that which the power plant requires for normal operation. Sincerely, Edward DeMeulle Chairperson City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT NUNTINLTON BEACH- - - - - � � - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planneri? DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (Continued From July 22,2003 With Public Hearing Closed)(Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) APPLICANT: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 (Contact Person: Josie McKinley) PROPERTY OWNER: AES Huntington Beach,LLC, 21730 Newland Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LOCATION: 21730 Newland Street(East side of Newland, south of Edison Ave) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 request: - To permit a seawater desalination plant which includes construction of a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures to produce 50 million gallons per day(MGD) of potable water. - Improvements also include water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system and perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. • Continued Item - Planning Commission meeting July 22, 2003 —Planning Commission continued this item due to the lateness of the hour. • Staff s Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 based upon the following: - The project is compatible with surrounding uses and is buffered from residential and other sensitive uses by significant setbacks, perimeter landscaping, and fencing. - The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile,modern, and more attractive structures. - The proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for all the tanks for a unified theme. This coupled with the 10-foot perimeter landscape planter and screen wall will enhance the overall appearance of the site compared to the existing condition. - All other impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are addressed to avoid detrimental impacts to the area. - The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of P (Public) for the site. - The project is consistent with General Plan and Coastal Element goals, policies, and objectives. - The project conforms to the requirements of the Coastal Zone Overlay and will not impede access to the coast or any public recreation opportunities in the area. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with staff recommended findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." B. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 5 to the May 27, 2003 Staff Report)." C. "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment No. 6 to the May 27, 2003 Staff Report)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 pursuant to Section 214.06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 pursuant to Chapter 221 and Section 245.06 of the HBZSO represent a request to construct the following: ■ A seawater desalination plant which includes construction of a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and other miscellaneous accessory structures to produce 50 million gallons per day of potable water; ■ Perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage along Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and PC Staff Report=8/-12/03 2 (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) ■ Up to four miles of underground water transmission lines in the city, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone boundary,to connect to an existing regional water transmission system. ANALYSIS: At the July 8, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission voted to individually submit any proposed revisions to the recommended conditions of approval. At the July 22, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission began review of the revised conditions but continued the item due to the lateness of the hour. Attachment No. 1 to this staff report contains the most current recommended conditions of approval, which incorporate many of the individual commissioner's proposed revisions as well as two items that were discussed at the July 8 meeting(i.e. cultural resources and Irvine Ranch Water District issue). Proposed revisions from Commissioners Scandura and Davis which are not recommended for inclusion in the Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit conditions were presented previously in the July 22, 2003 staff report. The following are staff s responses to revisions suggested by Chairperson Kokal and Commissioner Dingwall: Chairperson Kokal: 1. First flush of storm water, all cleaning solutions and byproducts and any water from holding ponds get processed through the Orange County Sanitation District. Response: Conditions 4(m)(8) through 4(m)(l0) already address storm water through the submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan and implementation of Best Management Practices. The following wording is recommended: The first flush membrane cleaning solution shall be discharged to the Orange County Sanitation District. (See condition 4(m)(12)). 2. Taxes: In the event that Poseidon is sold to an entity that doesn't pay taxes what can be done to insure that: A) The sales tax will continue to go HB? B) The tax increment will also go to HB? C) Property taxes will continue to be paid? Response: Staff originally recommended the inclusion of condition 4(kk) which read as follows: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for the purpose of identifying and assuring payment of a fee to the City of Huntington Beach on an annual basis in lieu of the City's prior share of property taxes paid by the Poseidon facility in case the project is sold to a tax exempt entity. However, upon consultation with the City Attorney, a determination was made that such a condition does not have a nexus to the land use approvals being granted and is therefore unenforceable and no longer recommended. 3. Can we condition a periodic right of refusal(perhaps every 5 years)to allow HB to purchase the water in case the water situation becomes critical at some point in the future? PC Staff Report—8/12/03 3 (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Response: Staff does not recommend this condition because there is no nexus to the land use approvals being granted. 4. In order to install the piping to the booster pumps, etc, Poseidon must comply with any trench cut ordinance that is on the books or is pending. Response: This condition is not necessary because the applicant is required to comply with all applicable ordinances in place at the time the project is constructed. See also condition 4(o) which relates to this issue. 5. The water produced at the Poseidon plant will not cause another agency to go out of compliance with their discharge permit. Response: Code requirement 21 addresses this issue. 6. Since Poseidon causes an incremental increase in entrainment, can we condition that groundbreaking not begin until after entrainment studies are complete and appropriate mitigation measures determined? Response: This was not identified as a significant impact in the EIR. Since the project operates within the existing intake parameters,uses only the wastewater of the plant and makes no incremental demands on the power plant,the project does not cause an incremental increase in entrainment; therefore there is no significant impact. Additionally,the CEC will require that the forthcoming eritrainment/impingement study for the AES Generation Station assume a 100 percent mortality rate for all marine organisms entrained through the AES intake. 7. Is it appropriate to require a cleanup bond in case the company does go bankrupt? Otherwise, who would be responsible for cleaning up the concrete, debris, storage tanks, chemicals and buildings on the site? Response: The following wording is recommended: To address the risk of facility abandonment by the project owners, security will be posted to ensure the demolition of the plant and restoration of the site to its original condition. No later than six (6) months after the start of construction of the desalination facility, a restoration bond or other security shall be posted with the City in the amount acceptable to the City and owner of the site to cover the cost of restoring the site to its original condition. The restoration bond or other security shall be based on cost estimates from licensed demolition contractors. Such security shall remain in effect for five (5) years after the plant is operational. Six(6)months prior to the 5 h anniversary date,the City and the plant owner shall determine if the risk of bankruptcy is still a concern and if the security should be terminated or renewed. (See condition 18). 8. What I would like to do is condition the Poseidon inflow pipe to take its water from discharge vault of AES. Poseidon is required to take their water from the cleanest source available. This condition will not change the source of their intake water(it will still be from AES, after it has PC Staff Report-8/12/03 4 (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) been heated and is part of the discharge stream). The source of Poseidon's water will still be exactly the same,just a few feet further down the pipeline. This places the burden of water quality issue squarely in the lap of AES. This way AES and the applicant will have to come to an agreement on water quality. If the AES outflow does pose a problem for Poseidon's intake, then AES has to take whatever steps it deems as necessary in order to keep its tenant happy. Response: The applicant has indicated that the Department of Health Services will require that the cleanest source of water be used; therefore, this condition is not recommended. Commissioner Dingwall: 1. Utility Taxes: If for any reason the Poseidon Operation and/or it's successors are deemed exempt from the Huntington Beach Utility Tax, an "In-Lieu" fee must be paid in an amount equal to what said Utility Tax would have been. Said In-Lieu Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth(15) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization or its successors must cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later than the fifth(5) day of July, each calendar year. Response: See response to Chairperson Kokal's item no. 2 above. 2. Real Property and/or Right, Title, Lease and/or Interest Tax: If for any reason the Poseidon Operation and/or its successors are deemed exempt from Real Property Tax, Business Tax (of any kind), Inventory Tax, Leasehold Tax, or any other tax normally paid by other businesses in Huntington Beach, an"In-Lieu" fee must be paid in an amount equal to what said Tax would have been to all agencies otherwise eligible for said Taxes. Said In-Lieu Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth(15) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization(or its successors) will cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to all eligible Agencies no later than the fifth(5) day of July, each calendar year. Response: See response to Chairperson Kokal's item no. 2 above. 3. Sales Tax: For all products developed and/or sold by Poseidon(or it's successors) in Huntington Beach, the official Point of Sale must be Huntington Beach, California. Response: See response to Chairperson Kokal's item no. 2 above. 4. Visual Blight: A perimeter of natural trees must be planted and maintained, of sufficient height and density(at 75%maturity)to completely block off any view of the Poseidon Project on all sides except the Pacific Coast Highway side. The views from the sides outlined above and the views from present or future home sites, are to be blocked so that the Poseidon Project will look like a dense stand of trees. PC Staff Report=8/12/03 5 (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Response: The Design Review Board reviewed the aesthetics of the project and recommended approval subject to conditions 1(a)through 1(c). As shown in the photo simulations provided by the applicant (which will be on display again at the next meeting), the view of the project from Magnolia is not a significant issue because the new proposed structures are lower and more attractive than the existing structures to be demolished. Additionally,the California Department of Fish and Game has a restriction on the type and height of landscaping along the east side of the project due to concerns about creating Raptor perches close to the wetlands. Along Newland and Edison the conceptual landscaping plan already includes intensified landscaping with one evergreen street tree for every 25 feet of street frontage along the project lease area where the code only requires one tree for every 45 feet of street frontage. Additionally, palm trees are also proposed in between the evergreen street trees along Newland. The following wording is recommended: The landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages shall include the densest type and number of trees to provide the greatest screening possible to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. (See condition 1(k)). 5. Ocean Contamination: All materials used in cleaning and/or maintenance of the Poseidon Equipment, either initially or periodically, whether they be solids, solids in liquid or liquid will be delivered (either by truck or pipeline)to the Orange County Sanitation District for further processing prior to being returned to the sea or landfill. The cost of this activity to be borne by the Applicant or its successors. All liquid run-off from equipment,yard, grounds, spills, landscaping or for any other reason will be handled the same as above. Response: See response to Chairperson Kokal's item no. 1 above. 6. Conveyance Fee: A Conveyance Fee will be included into the Right-of-Way Agreement for the use of Huntington Beach City Property in an amount equal to three ( 3 %)percent of Poseidon(or its successors) Gross Annual Income. Said Conveyance Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth( 15 ) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization(or its successors)must cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee to have a"Cost of Living"escalator clause based on the Annual Cost of Living Increase for the Huntington Beach area. The formula to be used is: Last Years Fee + Cost of Living Increase, or three (3%) percent of Gross Annual Income, whichever is greatest. Said In- Lieu Fee will be paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later than the fifth ( 5 ) day of July, each calendar year. Response: The applicant will be required to enter into a Franchise Agreement with the City pursuant to condition 4(i) subject to terms approved by the City Council. Therefore, staff recommends that this recommendation be forwarded to the City Council by minute action. 7. Return Water System: The water being returned to the ocean by Poseidon by way of the AES Outfall Pipe may not in any circumstance what-so-ever, exceed 12.5 % (twelve and one half percent) of the amount of water already flowing in the Outfall Pipe, thereby insuring a mix of 8:1 in the Outfall Pipe before it reaches the ocean. 500 MGD— 100 MGD =400 MGD. Poseidon would return 50 MGD = 12.5 %of 400 MGD or 8:1. The Applicant must install and maintain a PC Staff Report—8/12/03 6 (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) system that will constantly monitor the temperature of the incoming water at the AES Intake Pipe and the temperature of the water at the point water is taken from the AES Cooling System. Said monitoring system shall have an automatic shut-down feature that will shut-down the desalination process at any time the water taken from the AES cooling system rises above the temperature of the AES intake water by 30 deg F or the exit temperature for the AES cooling system as specified by other controlling agencies (not counting any effect that the Desalination Process may have on that water temperature), whichever is less. Response: Similar to Commissioner Davis' Item No. 3 in the July 22, 2003 staff report, this condition addresses the potential impacts of the discharge to the marine/coastal environment. However, the Environmental Impact Report concludes a less than significant impact in this regard; therefore, no mitigation measures or conditions are necessary. Additionally, the quality of the discharge is under the purview of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 8. Deferred Studies, Tests, and/or Approvals: All Studies, Reviews, Tests, Approvals be conducted as outlined in the EIR, CUP and/or CDP; except that, all reports be brought before the Huntington Beach Planning Commission for review and approval in an open session with full advance notification(at least 14 days), in Public View and with Public Participation. Planning Commission Approval must be obtained before the Applicant can proceed to the next step of the process. Response: The future approvals that will be required include review by numerous State agencies that have their own public review process (e.g. Coastal Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc.). Staff will keep the Planning Commission apprised of the meeting dates of these agencies with regard to the Poseidon project. In terms of specific City required technical studies (e.g. geotechnical, acoustical analysis, etc.), it is typically the role of staff to review and ensure compliance with code and industry practice. In lieu of Commissioner Dingwall's request staff recommends a quarterly progress report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the status of the project and associated approvals. This approach was taken for the Sports Complex at the request of the Environmental Board and was an effective means of keeping the Planning Commission and City Council informed of other agency review and overall project progress. SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 subject to conditions based on the following: ■ The project is compatible with surrounding uses and is buffered from residential and other sensitive uses by significant setbacks, perimeter landscaping, and fencing. ■ The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures. ■ The proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is PC Staff Report—8/12/03 7 (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for all the tanks for a unified theme. This coupled with the 10-foot perimeter landscape planter and screen wall will enhance the overall appearance of the site compared to the existing condition. ■ All other impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are addressed to avoid detrimental impacts to the area. ■ The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of P (Public) for the site. ■ The project is consistent with General Plan and Coastal Element goals,policies, and objectives. ■ The project conforms to the requirements of the Coastal Zone Overlay and will not impede access to the coast or any public recreation opportunities in the area. ATTACHMENTS: (Attachment Nos. 2-10 were previously provided and not attached.) 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval 2. May 27, 2003 CUP/CDP Staff Report 3. May 22, 2003 Staff Report Updates 4. May 27, 2003 Late Communication 5. June 3, 2003 Late Communication 6. July 8, 2003 Late Communication 7. July 8, 2003 Late Communication(Coastkeeper letter) 8. July 22, 2003 CUP/CDP Staff Report With Revised Conditions of Approval 9. July 22, 2003 Planning Commission Proposed Revisions To the Conditions of Approval 10. July 22, 2003 Late Communication HZ:SH:MBB:RR:rl PC Staff Report—8/12/03 8 (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) I REVISED - Aug. 123 2003 (Conditions shown as bold and underlined are new. Staff recommended changes to the new conditions are shown in italics.) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day which includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks to be replaced with lower profile and modern structures with a more attractive design consistent with the city's adopted Design Guidelines. The project will further enhance the appearance of the area with the installation of 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high block wall along the Newland and Edison street frontages to provide additional screening and a consistent and upgraded appearance in contrast to the existing improvements. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as proposed and modified by the conditions imposed is compatible with the properties immediately surrounding it which are primarily industrial in nature. Additionally significant setbacks, including Newland Street to the west,Edison Avenue to the north, the flood control channel to the east, an existing concrete berm, 10 feet of landscaping and an eight foot high block wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages provide additional screening from surrounding uses. Impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare,odors, and use of chemicals are also addressed to make the project compatible. 3. The proposed seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project as proposed and modified by the conditions of approval meets or exceeds the minimum development standards and is allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit and coastal development permit. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05). Attachment No. 1.1 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(Public) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. LU 7.1.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. b. LU 12.1.5 - Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass; b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c. use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; d. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls; e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and f. mitigation of noise,odor,lighting, and other impacts. c. LU 13.1.8 - Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. d. UD 2.1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. e. CE 7 -Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. The project will be an improvement to the area because it will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks. The new proposed structures are more compatible with the surroundings because they are lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. The project is required to provide a 10-foot landscape planter along the perimeter of the site to enhance the appearance of the area. These landscaping improvements are required to be consistent with the approved landscaping improvements for the rest of the AES property to the south for a cohesive appearance. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, as proposed and modified by conditions of approval, conforms to the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objective, and policies: a. C 1.2.1 - Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule Table C-1. (03SR04B CUP 02=04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.2 b. C 4.2.1 - Ensure that the following minimum standards are met by new development in the Coastal Zone as feasible and appropriate: a. preservation of public views to and from the bluffs, to the shoreline and ocean and to the wetlands; b. adequate landscaping and vegetation; c. evaluation of project design regarding visual impact and compatibility; and d. incorporate landscaping to mask oil operations and major utilities, such as the electrical power plant on Pacific Coast Highway. c. C 4.7 - Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. d. C 4.7.1 - Promote the use of landscaping material to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast along public rights-of-way and within public view. e. C 4.7.8 - Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. f. C 6.1.13 - Encourage research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalinization as an alternative source of potable water. Participate in regional studies and efforts where appropriate. The proposed use is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use designation for the site of P (Public). The project will help improve the appearance of the area by replacing the existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks with more attractive structures that have a lower profile and by installing 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages. The proposed desalination plant structures will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures will have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District,the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project meets or exceeds all minimum development standards including but not limited to setbacks, height, and parking. The project will comply with all Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety Department codes and requirements. The proposal conforms to the city's Design Guidelines and incorporates variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The project provides buffering from sensitive uses such as residential developments through landscaping, a block wall, and increased setbacks. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the AES generating station property to the south for a cohesive appearance. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project is an infill development and as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructure to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. This includes dedication and improvements to the project lease frontage along both Newland Street and Edison Avenue to improve circulation in the area. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.3 4. The development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as they will not impede any public access to the coast and public recreation opportunities in the area. All public access to the coast and public recreation in the area will not be impeded during the long-term operation of the facility as well as during the construction process.with the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. The site plan received and dated April 22,2003,floor plans and elevations received and dated April 7,2003, and landscaping plan received and dated April 23,2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The landscape area on the east side of the project site (landscape area three) shall include additional Myoporum as needed to fill in the gaps to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. (DRB) b. The architectural treatment proposed on all the tanks shall be limited to the top portion that is visible above the surrounding concrete berm. (DRB) c. The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to final approval by the Design Review Board after action by the Planning Commission. (DRB) d. Perimeter landscaping for this project along Newland St. and Edison Ave. is required to be installed only along the lease area frontage. Each lease area shall have a minimum of six percent landscaping. e. The landscaping and wall plan shall be consistent in design, colors, and materials with the landscaping and wall plan for AES for a cohesive appearance. f. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) g. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) h. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to,heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.4 building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) (MM-ALG 1) i. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. j. If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage" onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent wetlands, and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (NM-ALG 2) k. The landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages shall include the densest type and number of trees to provide the greatest screening possible to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits,the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition Ion the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.5 h. For the demolition of the three (3) 200 foot diameter fuel oil tanks, a work plan must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of work. (FD) 3. Prior to acceptance of grading plans for review: a. Ten feet(10') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Newland Street frontage. (PV ) b. Twelve feet(12') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Edison Avenue frontage. (PW) 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. No building permits shall be issued until the applicant submits written proof of final project approval by each applicable regulating agency including but not limited to the California Coastal Commission, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and South Coast Air Quality Management District. b. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls and walls) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan(RAP) based on requirements found in the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification #431-92. (FD) d. From the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells. (FD) e. From the DOGGR, provide proof of a Site Plan Review application. (FD) f. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification#422-Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) g. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit/site plan. This approved plan must be presented to obtain the required Huntington Beach Fire Department Fire Code Permit Application to conduct installation and/or removal operations. (FD) h. For Fire Department approval,applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number,plus identify and detail all (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.6 methane safety measures per City Specification 4429-Methane District Building Permit Requirements. These details shall be on a separate sheet titled"Methane Plan." (FD) i. Prior to issuance of any permit r_the u-s----`- o',- -�1:L:Q a--`;`'a-16-`, the applicant shall enter into a Franchise agreement with the City for the generation and transport of product water from the site, and through and across the city's streets,rights-of-way or properties. (PW) j. A corrected lease line exhibit for areas 4L1" and "2"and an accurate metes and bounds description of the project limits shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. A metes and bounds description and separate exhibit of all access routes shall also be provided with the submittal. (PW) k. Irrevocable vehicular access rights shall be established and recorded across the AES and Edison properties. The access width and turning radius criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. (PW) The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and,when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (Code Requirement) 1. The applicant shall demonstrate utilizing a truck turning template overlay that a WB-50 vehicle can maneuver on-site through the designated access route. (PW) m. A Grading Plan,prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The recommendations of the accepted geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities. The Grading Plan shall depict, but not be limited to the following items: (PW) 1) The parking layout shall be in conformance with the approved parking plan, and shall also conform to City Standards and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including Municipal Ordinance No. 10.40.050. No parking shall be permitted adjacent to emergency access areas in compliance with Fire Department Standard Specification Nos. 401 and 415. 2) Access for the handicapped shall be in conformance with Title 24. 3) Separate sewer lateral and sewer line to provide service to all onsite facilities. The plan shall provide horizontal location and vertical clearances and dimensional relationship with other utilities. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP-02-05) Attachment No. 1.7 4) A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. 5) Fire sprinklers shall have a separate dedicated fire service with an appropriate backflow device. 6) Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, fire services and irrigation water services. The final location for all public waterline facilities shall be as approved by the Water Division. 7) Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36"box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. 8) Final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be submitted for review and approval to the Public Works Department. The report shall also include calculation of first flush flows to substantiate the adequacy and effectiveness of all water quality mitigation and structural best management practices. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall events (storm frequencies up to a'100-year frequency). Mitigation may include adequate detention storage area onsite if the project pump systems fail to operate. The final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetlands. 9) Areas for containment shall be provided to mitigate possible spillage of any materials affecting storm water quality that may be stored.on-site, and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. 10)In accordance with NPDES requirements, a "Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. "Best Management Practices" shall be identified and incorporated into the design. All structural BMPs shall be tested "state of the art"and sized to infiltrate, filter and treat the 85 h percentile,24-hour storm event. The WQMP shall comply with the requirements of the Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP). 11)A Notice of Intent(NOI),Notice of Termination(NOT) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Board. 12)The first flush membrane cleaning solution shall be discharged to the Orange County Sanitation District. n. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PV ) (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.8 1) Curb, gutter, sidewalk and A.C. paving to the centerline of the street along the Newland Street lease frontage, within a 50-foot half-width street Right-of-Way per City Standard Plan Nos. 102 (84'/100'), 202 and 207. In lieu of constructing the Newland improvements, the applicant may pay the cost of their proportionate share of the Newland Street Widening Project. The total amount due the City for the proportionate share of Newland Street improvements shall be $186,269.33 based on current figures and the lease area frontage. This fee is subiect to change depending on when the fee is paid. 2) Curb, gutter and A.C. paving to the new centerline of construction, plus an adequate feathered overlay section to provide a smooth pavement transition along the Edison Avenue lease frontage, within a 42-foot full-width street Right-of-Way per modified City Standard Plan Nos. 104 and 202 (including an 8-foot parking lane on the north side, 24-foot driving lane, a 6-foot parkway on the north and a 4-foot wide utility easement on the south). No parking shall be permitted on the south side of the street. 3) An ADA compliant access ramp at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan No. A88. The corner curb return radius shall be 35-feet. 4) New Edison-owned street lighting shall be provided for the frontage of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and shall be consistent with City standards. 5) At the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and at the Newland Street driveway located approximately 460-feet south of Edison Avenue, corner sight distance as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual must be provided. 6) All utilities (proposed and existing) shall be shown for reference purposes and shall be consistent with utility infrastructure plans. o. Improvement Plans for all offsite water transmission lines within the limits of the City of Huntington Beach shall be designed and prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer showing a plan and profile of the improvements. Said plans shall be submitted on mylar sheets to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Trenchless construction methods will be utilized to cross roadways sensitive to traffic disruption and drainage channels as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. (PW ) p. Conflicts between the routing for all offsite water transmission lines and other existing or proposed utilities, facilities or public infrastructure shall be identified and mitigated on the water line improvement plans. (PW ) q. Signing and Striping plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for Newland Street and Edison Way. (PW) r. Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for offsite pipeline construction or any other work within the City's right-of-way. (PW1) (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) . - Attachment No. 1.9 s. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site; details on how no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and details on how wind barriers around remediation equipment shall be provided. (PW) t. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and"1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) u. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) v. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents and the surrounding area. The plan shall take into consideration any street improvement construction occurring in the vicinity. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 35) (PW) w. Should the project require off-site import/export of fill material during demolition, remediation, and construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably Newland Street to Pacific Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard to I-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. (NM-CON 11) x. In conjunction with the submittal of application for preliminary or precise grading permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. (MM-GEO 2) y. As the South Branch Fault(situated beneath the subject site) is classified as "Category C"by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, special studies and subsurface investigation (including a site specific seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit,to the approval of the City Engineer. The subsurface investigation shall include CPT and exploratory (03SR04B-CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.10 borings to determine the fault rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. (MM-GEO 8) z. Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, which ever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs)that will be used on- site to control predictable pollutant runoff and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Appendix which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project,the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, and shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: (MM-HWQ 1) 1) Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and 2) BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person. 3) All fertilizers and pesticides used by the plant shall not pose any harmful effects upon plants, animals, and marine life in the adjacent wetland. aa. Appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding, and to ensure protection of the adiacent wetlands. (MM-HWQ 2) bb. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first, an appropriate on-site drainage system shall be installed for the project that integrates permanent stormwater quality features. (MM-HWQ 3) cc. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits,the Applicant shall prepare an acoustical . analysis report and appropriate plans, prepared under the supervision of a City-approved acoustical consultant, describing the stationary noise generation potential and noise mitigation measures (such as the installation of sound enclosures or placing noise-generating equipment indoors), if needed,which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to meet the noise criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (NM-NO 1) dd. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. This plan will be submitted to the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. (MM-PSU 6) (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.11 ee. Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: (MM-CON 1) 1) Where necessary, temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15`h 2) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. 3) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. 4) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. 5) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. 6) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. 7) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. 8) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. 9) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed by the County of Orange Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. ff. Construction of the project shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs)as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP)by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: (MM- CON 2) 1) Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line flushings. 2) During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP.02-05) Attachment No. 1.12 gg. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements, the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent(NOI)to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. (MM-CON 3) hh. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans,the City shall include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications, which shall include measures to meet the requirements of the City and SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures may include, but are not limited to,the following: (MM-CON 9) During grading operations,the following shall be complied with: 1) Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts; 2) Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts; 3) All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas; 4) Comply with AQMD Rule 403,particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas; 5) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut; 6) Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 mile per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site; 7) Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation; 8) Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites; 9) Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites; 10)Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fitting tarp; 11)Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; 12)Maintain construction equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; 13)Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; 14)Use electric equipment whenever practicable; and 15)Shut off engines when not in use. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.13 ii. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall ensure evidence acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works that: (MM-CON 10) 1) All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; 2) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control); 3) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas; and- 4) Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans,will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. jj. Unless underground utility locations are well documented, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures,the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. (MM-CON 13) 5. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical,mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered. The recommendations of this report shall be reproduced on the plans. (BD) c. Submit three (3)copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue after action by the Planning Commission. (DRB) e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) f. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). g. A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application for the proposed desalination plant. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.14 and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering, water quality, and chemical/fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential and groundwater constraints. Appropriate recommendations shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. (MM-GEO 1) 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for the irrigation system. (PW) b. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location,type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1)with minimum 36-inch box trees or palm equivalent (13-14 feet of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8-9 feet of brown trunk) and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW) (Code Requirement) c. The Consulting Arborist(approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PV) d. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. e. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification#426-Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP_02-05) Attachment No. 1.15 f. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification#401-Minimum Access for Fire Department Access. (FD) g. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. (FD) h. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) i. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow, tamper, and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) j. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are 6'8"wide by 4'3"deep with a 42-inch wide (min.)right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54-inch depth. (FD) k. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) 1. For classification within the City's Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program, a complete chemical inventory and a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a fire protection engineer, environmental hygienist, or the equivalent shall be submitted to the Fire Department. Included, but not limited to, shall be the ammonia storage tank,the lime silos and the chemical treatment facilities. These tanks and associated equipment shall be designed and installed in conformance with 2001 edition of the CFC. (FD) m. As native orb-site soils are compressible upon placement of structural loads, project implementation shall implement complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures. (NM-GEO 5) n. Type V cement shall be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measures (coatings, etc.)to protect against the effects of corrosive soils.(MM-GEO 6) o. Due to the potential for ground shaking in a seismic event, the project shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition)to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). However, given the proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust Faults, more stringent measures may be warranted. (MM-GEO 7) (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.16 p. Due to the potential for liquefaction within the project vicinity, the Applicant shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) for structures on-site to assure safety of the occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997) and"Recommended Procedures for implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California" (Dr. Geoffrey R. Martin et al, May 1999). (NM-GEO 9) q. The proposed project shall incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction. Typical methods include, but are not limited to: (MM-GEO 10) 1) Overexcavation and recompaction of soils; 2) in-situ soil densification(such as vibro-flotation or vibro-replacement); 3) injection grouting; and 4) deep soil mixing. r. The site specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed project shall analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. If deemed a possibility, adequate subsurface stabilization practices (similar to those utilized for liquefaction) shall be incorporated prior to the construction of on-site structures. (MM-GEO 11) s. All applicable school mitigation fees shall be paid pursuant to State law. (MM-PSU 1) t. The Applicant will be required to pay the prevailing sewer connection fee plus five percent of the OCSD connection fee. (NM-PSU 3) u. The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate fees for water service connections, installation, and meters. In addition,,the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. (MM- PSU 4) v. The Applicant will coordinate with the City's recycling representative to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. (MM-PSU 5) w. In order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation(such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. (MM- CON 41) 7. The structures cannot be occupied, the final building permits cannot be approved, utilities cannot be released,the use cannot commence, and the Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following has been completed: (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.17 a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. (FD) b. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. c. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Code. (FD) d. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. f. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. g. Secured entries shall utilize strobe-switch activated, automated gates and comply with City Specification#403-Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates. (FD) h. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and association(if any) hardware.. (FD) i. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424-Portable Fire Extinguishers. (FD) j. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification#428-Premise Identification. Number sets may be required on front and rear of the structure. (FD) k. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted,marked, and maintained per City Specification#415-Fire Lane Signs. Additionally,the site plan shall show all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required,the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the grading and improvement plans. (PW ) in. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance with the City-approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW ) n. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and a CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy"prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW ) (03SR0413 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.18 o. The applicant shall demonstrate that final coverage under the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. (PW) p. The applicant shall demonstrate that all measures geoesomw required by these conditions to protect the adiacent wetlands have been implemented. 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PVV) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible and maintained in such a manner that there will he the least possible impact to the adiacent wetland. (PW) e. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Six foot high dust/wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the "Water Quality Management Plan"requirements. (PW) k. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. 1. Use low sulfur(0.5%) fuel by weight for construction equipment. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.19 in. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes. n. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. o. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. p. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. q. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and.Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) r. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) s. To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: (MM-CON 12) 1) Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and 2) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. t. During construction, a security fence,the height of which shall be determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. The construction site shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. (MM-CON 14) u. Construction activities, to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines and wetlands. (MM-CON 15) v. Prior to excavation of the contaminated and other areas for rough grading,the project site shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash,piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly(recycled if possible). (NM-CON 16) w. Proper excavation procedures shall be followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and Health Standards. If applicable, the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. (MM- CON 17) x. The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. (MM-CON 18) (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05)- Attachment No. 1.20 y. If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures,the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. (MM-CON 19) z. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible time, the contractor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 20) aa. All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off- site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. (MM-CON 21) bb. Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. (MM-CON 22) cc. The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size, wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (MM- CON 23) dd. Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). (NM-CON 24) ee. During remediation, if any soil is found to be hazardous due to contamination other than petroleum hydrocarbons, it will be segregated, stockpiled, and handled separately. (MM-CON 25) ff. Dust and volatile organic emissions from excavation activities shall be controlled through water spray or by employing other approved vapor suppressants including hydromulch spray in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirements and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)permit conditions. (MM-CON 26) gg. Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials, the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. (MM-CON 31) hh. Construction related activities will be subject to, and comply with, standard street use requirements imposed by the City of Huntington Beach, County and other public agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist with haul truck ingress and egress of construction areas and limiting the large size vehicles to off-peak commute traffic periods. (MM-CON 32) (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.21 ii. During periods of heavy equipment access or truck hauling,the Contractor will provide construction traffic signage and a construction traffic flagman to control construction and general project traffic at points of ingress and egress and along roadways that require a lane closure. (AM- CON 34) J. If grading operations uncover paleontological/archeological resources, the applicant shall suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/archeological resources. An archeologist shall report such findings to the Planning Department. If the paleontological/archeological resources are found to be significant, the City shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and salvage. 9. Prior to the excavation process for pipeline construction,the contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. (MM-CON 27) 10. Methane migration features will be consistent with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Specification Number 429 and other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features shall be submitted for review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), Environmental Health Division. (NM-CON 28) 11. Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas (LFG) generation and migration will be completed prior to implementation of the proposed water delivery component of the project. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency,Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems below trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. Periodic monitoring of the monitoring network will be performed. (NM-CON 29) 12.A Traffic Management Plan(TMP) shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be located where construction would affect roadways. The TMP shall include,but not be limited to,the following measures: (MM-CON 30) a. Limit construction to one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible; b. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; c. Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/routes are disrupted by construction activities, if any; (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.22 d. Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible public agencies in order to minimize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; e. Where construction is proposed for two-lane roadways, confine construction to one-half of the pavement width. Establish one lane of traffic on the other half of the roadway using appropriate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer; f. The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. Per Caltrans requirements, the applicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans at the 90-percent design phase; g. Construction activities shall,to the extent feasible, be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and h. Provide for temporary parking, where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. 13. The Contractor shall obtain the necessary right-of-way encroachment permits and satisfy all permit requirements. Also, nighttime construction may be performed in congested areas. (MM-CON 33) 14. Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down (e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac-out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated. It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally, the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. (MM-CON 40) 15. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 16. The applicant and applicant's representatives shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 17.The applicant shall completely remove the storage tanks from the site within 18 months from the date of approval of City buildinm permits and agreements. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.23 18.To address the risk of facility abandonment by the proiect owners, security will be posted to ensure the demolition of the plant and restoration of the site to its original condition. No later than six (6) months after the start of construction of the desalination facility, a restoration bond or other security shall be posted with the City in the amount acceptable to the City and owner of the site to cover the cost of restoring the site to its original condition. The restoration bond or other security shall be based on cost estimates from licensed demolition contractors. Such security shall remain in effect for five (5) years after the plant is operational. Six (6) months prior to the 5th anniversary date, the City and the plant owner shall determine if the risk of bankruptcy is still a concern and if the security should be terminated or renewed. 19.The applicant/property owner and each successor in interest to the property which is the subject of this proiect shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this proiect. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REOUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed or until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for Coastal Development Permit. Because the project is in the appealable area of the coastal zone,there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is , 2904 August 12, 2004, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05,pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02=05) Attachment No. 1.24 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday— Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 6. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 9. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid at issuance of building permits. 10. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 11. The development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 12. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. 13. The Water Ordinance #14.52, the"Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (PW) 14. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) 15. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at a rate of$124 per net new added daily trip at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This rate is subject to change pursuant to any subsequent action by the City Council. (PW) (MM-PSU 2) 16. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) 17. The applicant is hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05), Attachment No. 1.25 Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code 66020. 1S.The applicant or its successor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach within 10 days of being informed by AES Inc., or its successors, that electric power production shall cease permanently. If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational after power production ceases permanently, they shall apply for an amendment to the now Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit from the City relative to the intake of seawater. 19.The applicant or its successor shall comply with all legally enforceable directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies having Jurisdiction over the adjacent wetlands, whether in the existing degraded conditions or as a restored wetland relative to the desalination plant. 20.If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational after power production ceases permanently, the applicant or its successor shall comply with all legally enforceable directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements imposed by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies to mitigate, abate, or prevent conditions that cause the impingement or entrainment of marine life wk4i* relative to the intake of seawater for the desalination facility. 21.The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, the applicant shall supply Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) with water of quality that does not cause the IRWD to violate the pertinent limits of the IRWD reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed project is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to the IRWD. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and its affected member agencies regarding the specific requirements of the quality of the desalinated water prior to beginning construction of the desalination plant. If agreement between the two parties is not reached by then, MWDOC has the right to reiect the use of desalinated water. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.26 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT ' MINaON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner DATE: August 26,2003 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (Continued From August 12,2003 With Public Hearing.Closed) (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) APPLICANT: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way,#260,Long Beach, CA 90806 (Contact Person: Josie McKinley) PROPERTY OWNER: AES Huntington Beach, LLC,21730 Newland Street,Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LOCATION: 21730 Newland Street(East side of Newland, south of Edison Ave) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 request: - To permit a seawater desalination plant which includes construction of a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures to produce 50 million gallons per day(MGD)of potable water. - Improvements also include water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system and perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. • Continued Item - Planning Commission meeting August 12, 2003 —Planning Commission continued this item due to the lateness of the hour. • Staff s Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 based upon the following: - The project is compatible with surrounding uses and is buffered from residential and other sensitive uses by significant setbacks,perimeter landscaping, and fencing. - The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile,modem, and more attractive structures. - The proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is carried through all the structures,including the architectural screen for 0 the tanks for a unified theme. This coupled with the 10-foot perimeter landscape planter and screen wall will enhance the overall appearance of the site compared to the existing condition. - All other impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are addressed to avoid detrimental impacts to the area. - The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of P (Public)for the site. - The project is consistent with General Plan and Coastal Element goals,policies, and objectives. - The project conforms to the requirements of the Coastal Zone Overlay and will not impede access to the coast or any public recreation opportunities in the area. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with staff recommended findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." B. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 5 to the May 27, 2003 Staff Report)." C. "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(Attachment No. 6 to the May 27, 2003 Staff Report)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 pursuant to Section 214.06 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 pursuant to Chapter 221 and Section 245.06 of the HBZSO represent a request to construct the following: ■ A seawater desalination plant which includes construction of a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and other miscellaneous accessory structures to produce 50 million gallons per day of potable water; ■ Perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage along Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and ■ Up to four miles of underground water transmission lines in the city, one mile of which will be . within the Coastal Zone boundary,to connect to an existing regional water transmission system. PC Staff-Report—8/26/03 2 (03 SR04C CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) ANALYSIS: This item was continued from the August 12,2003 meeting due to the lateness of the hour. At the July 8, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission voted to individually submit any proposed revisions to the recommended conditions of approval. Attachment No. 1 to this staff report contains the most current recommended conditions of approval, which incorporate many of the individual commissioner's proposed revisions as well as two items that were discussed at the July 8 meeting(i.e. cultural resources and Irvine Ranch Water District issue). Proposed revisions from Chairperson Kokal and Commissioners Scandura, Davis, and Dingwall,which are not recommended for inclusion in the Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit conditions, were presented in previous staff reports which are attached. SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 subject to conditions based on the following: ■ The project is compatible with surrounding uses and is buffered from residential and other sensitive uses by significant setbacks,perimeter landscaping,and fencing. ■ The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile,modern, and more attractive structures. ■ The proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form,building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for all the tanks for a unified theme. This coupled with the 10-foot perimeter landscape planter and screen wall will enhance the overall appearance of the site compared to the existing condition. ■ All other impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare,odors, and use of chemicals are addressed to avoid detrimental impacts to the area. ■ The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of P(Public)for the site. ■ The project is consistent with General Plan and Coastal Element goals,policies, and objectives. ■ The project conforms to the requirements of the Coastal Zone Overlay and will not impede access to the coast or any public recreation opportunities in the area. ATTACHMIENTS: (Attachment Nos. 4-10 were previously provided and not attached.) 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval avis 3. d T 4. May 27, 2003 CUP/CDP Staff Report 5. May 22, 2003 Staff Report Updates 6. May 27, 2003 Late Communication 7. June 3, 2003 Late Communication 8. July 8,2003 Late Communication 9. July 22, 2003 Late Communication 10. July 22,2003 Planning Commission Proposed Revisions To the Conditions of Approval HZ:SH:MBB:RR:rl PC Staff Report—8/26/03 3 (03 SR04C CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) REVISED - Aug. 12, 2003 (Conditions shown as bold and underlined are new. Staff recommended changes to the new conditions are shown in italics.) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 for the establishment,maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day which includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks to be replaced with lower profile and modern structures with a more attractive design consistent with the city's adopted Design Guidelines. The project will further enhance the appearance of the area with the installation of 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high block wall along the Newland and Edison street frontages to provide additional screening and a consistent and upgraded appearance in contrast to the existing improvements. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as proposed and modified by the conditions imposed is compatible with the properties immediately surrounding it which are primarily industrial in nature. Additionally significant setbacks, including Newland Street to the west,Edison Avenue to the north, the flood control channel to the east, an existing concrete berm, 10 feet of landscaping and an eight foot high block wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages provide additional screening from surrounding uses. Impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are also addressed to make the project compatible. 3. The proposed seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project_as proposed and modified by the conditions of approval meets or exceeds the minimum development standards and is allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit and coastal development permit. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP.:02-05) Attachment No. 1.1 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(Public) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. LU 7.1.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. b. LU 12.1.5 - Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass; b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c. use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; d. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls;e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and f. mitigation of noise,odor; lighting, and other impacts. c. LU 13.1.8 - Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale,mass, character, and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. d. UD 2.1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. e. CE 7-Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. The project will be an improvement to the area because it will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks. The new proposed structures are more compatible with the surroundings because they are lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However,views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. The project is required to provide a 10-foot landscape planter along the perimeter of the site to enhance the appearance of the area. These landscaping improvements are required to be consistent with the approved landscaping improvements for the rest of the AES property to the south for a cohesive appearance. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERT IIT NO. 02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, as proposed and modified by conditions of approval, conforms to the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objective, and policies: a. C 1.2.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule Table C-1. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. t.2 b. C 4.2.1 - Ensure that the following minimum standards are met by new development in the Coastal Zone as feasible and appropriate: a. preservation of public views to and from the bluffs, to the shoreline and ocean and to the wetlands; b. adequate landscaping and vegetation; c. evaluation of project design regarding visual impact and compatibility; and d. incorporate landscaping to mask oil operations and major utilities, such as the electrical power plant on Pacific Coast Highway. c. C 4.7 - Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. d. C 4.7.1 - Promote the use of landscaping material to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast along public rights-of-way and within public view. e. C 4.7.8 - Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. f. C 6.1.13 -Encourage research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalinization as an alternative source of potable water. Participate in regional studies and efforts where appropriate. The proposed use is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use designation for the site of P (Public). The project will help improve the appearance of the area by replacing the existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks with more attractive structures that have a lower profile and by installing 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages. The proposed desalination plant structures will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However,views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures will have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as Well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project meets or exceeds all minimum development standards including but not limited to setbacks, height, and parking. The project will comply with all Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety Department codes and requirements. The proposal conforms to the city's Design Guidelines and incorporates variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The project provides buffering from sensitive uses such as residential developments through landscaping, a block wall, and increased setbacks. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the AES generating station property to the south for a cohesive appearance. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project is an infill development and as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructure to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. This includes dedication and improvements to the project lease frontage along both Newland Street and Edison Avenue to improve circulation in the area. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.3 4. The development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as they will not impede any public access to the coast and public recreation opportunities in the area. All public access to the coast and public recreation in the area will not be impeded during the long-term operation of the facility as well as during the construction process with the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. The site plan received and dated April 22,2003, floor plans and elevations received and dated April 7, 2003,and landscaping plan received and dated April 23,2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The landscape area on the east side of the project site (landscape area three) shall include additional Myoporum as needed to fill in the gaps to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. (DRB) b. The architectural treatment proposed on all the tanks shall be limited to the top portion that is visible above the surrounding concrete berm. (DRB) c. The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to final approval by the Design Review Board after action by the Planning Commission. (DRB) d. Perimeter landscaping for this project along Newland St. and Edison Ave. is required to be installed only along the lease area frontage. Each lease area shall have a minimum of six percent landscaping. e. The landscaping and wall plan shall be consistent in design, colors, and materials with the landscaping and wall plan for AES for a cohesive appearance. f. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) g. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) h. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating,.air conditioning,refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building.in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.4 building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) (NM-ALG 1) i. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building,they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive,not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. j. If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage" onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent wetlands,and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (MM-ALG 2) k. The landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages shall include the densest type and number of trees to provide the greatest screening possible to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits,the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey,identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.5 h. For the demolition of the three (3) 200 foot diameter fuel oil tanks, a work plan must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of work. (FD) 3. Prior to acceptance of grading plans for review: a. Ten feet(10') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Newland Street frontage. (PW) . b. Twelve feet(12') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Edison Avenue frontage. (PW ) 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the following shall be completed: a. No building permits shall be issued until the applicant submits written proof of final project approval by each applicable regulating agency including but not limited to the California Coastal Commission, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and South Coast Air Quality Management District. b. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls and walls) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan(RAP) based on requirements found in the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification#431-92. (FD) d. From the Division of Oil, Gas &Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells. (FD) e. From the DOGGR, provide proof of a Site Plan Review application. (FD) f. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification#422-Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) g. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit/site plan. This approved plan must be presented to obtain the required Huntington Beach Fire Department Fire Code Permit Application to conduct installation and/or removal operations. (FD) h. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number,plus identify and detail all (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) _ Attachment No. 1.6 methane safety measures per City Specification#429-Methane District Building Permit Requirements. These details shall be on a separate sheet titled "Methane Plan." (FD) i. Prior to issuance of any permit or 06-, `-o---sF- a'-P 0f*'- maqi+'a-~� the applicant shall enter into a Franchise agreement with the City for the generation and transport of product water from the site, and through and across the city's streets, rights-of-way or properties. (PW ) j. A corrected lease line exhibit for areas "l" and "2" and an accurate metes and bounds description of the project limits shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. A metes and bounds description and separate exhibit of all access routes shall also be provided with the submittal. (PW) k. Irrevocable vehicular access rights shall be established and recorded across the AES and Edison properties. The access width and turning radius criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. (PW ) The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and,when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (Code Requirement) 1. The applicant shall demonstrate utilizing a truck turning template overlay that a WB-50 vehicle can maneuver on-site through the designated access route. (PW ) m. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The recommendations of the accepted geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities. The Grading Plan shall depict,but not be limited to the following items: (PWV 1) The parking layout shall be in conformance with the approved parking plan, and shall also conform to City Standards and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including Municipal Ordinance No. 10.40.050. No parking shall be permitted adjacent to emergency access areas in compliance with Fire Department Standard Specification Nos. 401 and 415. 2) Access for the handicapped shall be in conformance with Title 24. 3) Separate sewer lateral and sewer line to provide service to all onsite facilities. The plan shall provide horizontal location and vertical clearances and dimensional relationship with other utilities. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.7 4) A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. 5) Fire sprinklers shall have a separate dedicated fire service with an appropriate backflow device. 6) Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, fire services and irrigation water services. The final location for all public waterline facilities shall be as approved by the Water Division. 7) Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. 8) Final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be submitted for review and approval to the Public Works Department. The report shall also include calculation of first flush flows to substantiate the adequacy and effectiveness of all water quality mitigation and structural best management practices. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall events (storm frequencies up to a 100-year frequency). Mitigation may include adequate detention storage area onsite if the project pump systems fail to operate. The final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adiacent wetlands. 9) Areas for containment shall be provided to mitigate possible spillage of any materials affecting storm water quality that may be stored on-site,and to protect the adiacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. 10)In accordance with NPDES requirements, a "Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. "Best Management Practices" shall be identified and incorporated into the design. All structural BMPs shall be tested "state of the art" and sized to infiltrate, filter and treat the 85t' percentile, 24-hour storm event. The WQMP shall comply with the requirements of the Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP). 11)A Notice of Intent (NOI),Notice of Termination(NOT) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Board. 12)The first flush membrane cleaning solution shall be discharged to the Orange County Sanitation District. n. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PW) (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) - Attachment No. 1.8 1) Curb, gutter, sidewalk and A.C. paving to the centerline of the street along the Newland Street lease frontage, within a 50-foot half-width street Right-of-Way per City Standard Plan Nos. 102 (84'/100-), 202 and 207. In lieu of constructing the Newland improvements, the applicant may pay the cost of their proportionate share of the Newland Street Widening Project. The total amount due the City for the proportionate share of Newland Street improvements shall be $186,269.33 based on current figures and the lease area frontage. This fee is subject to change depending on when the fee is paid. 2) Curb, gutter and A.C. paving to the new centerline of construction, plus an adequate feathered overlay section to provide a smooth pavement transition along the Edison Avenue lease frontage, within a 42-foot full-width street Right-of-Way per modified City Standard Plan Nos. 104 and 202 (including an 8-foot parking lane on the north side, 24-foot driving lane, a 6-foot parkway on the north and a 4-foot wide utility easement on the south). No parking shall be permitted on the south side of the street. 3) An ADA compliant access ramp at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan No. A88. The corner curb return radius shall be 35-feet. 4) New Edison-owned street lighting shall be provided for the frontage of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and shall be consistent with City standards. 5) At the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and at the Newland Street driveway located approximately 460-feet south of Edison Avenue, corner sight distance as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual must be provided. 6) All utilities (proposed and existing) shall be shown for reference purposes and shall be consistent with utility infrastructure plans. o. Improvement Plans for all offsite water transmission lines within the limits of the City of Huntington Beach shall be designed and prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer showing a plan and profile of the improvements. Said plans shall be submitted on mylar sheets to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Trenchless construction methods will be utilized to cross roadways sensitive to traffic disruption and drainage channels as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. (PW) p. Conflicts between the routing for all offsite water transmission lines and other existing or proposed utilities, facilities or public infrastructure shall be identified and mitigated on the water line improvement plans. (PW) q. Signing and Striping plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for Newland Street and Edison Way. (PW) r. Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for offsite pipeline construction or any other work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05)_- _ Attachment No. 1.9 s. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site; details on how no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and details on how wind barriers around remediation equipment shall be provided. (PW) t. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and"1-800-CUTSMOG"in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) u. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) v. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents and the surrounding area. The plan shall take into consideration any street improvement construction occurring in the vicinity. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 35) (PW) w. Should the project require off-site import/export of fill material during demolition, remediation, and construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably Newland Street to Pacific Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard to I-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. (NM-CON 11) x. In conjunction with the submittal of application for preliminary or precise grading permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. (NM-GEO 2) y. As the South Branch Fault(situated beneath the subject site) is classified as "Category C" by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, special studies and subsurface investigation(including a site specific seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit,to the approval of the City Engineer. The subsurface investigation shall include CPT and exploratory (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05j Attachment No. 1.10 borings to determine the fault rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. (MNI-GEO 8) z. Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, which ever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on- site to control predictable pollutant runoff and to protect the adiacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP) Appendix which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, and shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: (MM-HWQ 1) 1) Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and 2) BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person. 3) All fertilizers and pesticides used by the plant shall not pose any harmful effects upon plants, animals, and marine life in the adiacent wetland. aa. Appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding, and to ensure protection of the adjacent wetlands. (MM-HWQ 2) bb. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first, an appropriate on-site drainage system shall be installed for the project that integrates permanent stormwater quality features. (IMM-HWQ 3) cc. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits,the Applicant shall prepare an acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans,prepared under the supervision of a City-approved acoustical consultant, describing the stationary noise generation potential and noise mitigation measures (such as the installation of sound enclosures or placing noise-generating equipment indoors), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to meet the noise criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (MM-NO 1) dd. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. This plan will be submitted to the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. (MM-PSIT 6) (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.11 ee. Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: (MM-CON 1) 1) Where necessary, temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15th 2) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. 3) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. 4) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. 5) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. 6) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. 7) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to 7. prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. 8) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. 9) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed by the County of Orange Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. ff. Construction of the project shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP)by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: (MM- CON 2) 1) Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, " or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/ equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line flushings. 2) During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. (03SR04B CUP 02.04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.12 gg. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements, the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent(NOI)to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and 'intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. (INIM-CON 3) hh. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans, the City shall include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications, which shall include measures to meet the requirements of the City and SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures may include, but are not limited to,the following: (MM-CON 9) During grading operations,the following shall be complied with: 1) Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts; 2) Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts; 3) All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas; 4) Comply with AQMD Rule 403,particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas; 5) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut; 6) Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 mile per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site; 7) Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation; 8) Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites; 9) Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites; 10)Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fitting tarp; 11)Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; 12)Maintain construction equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; 13)Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; 14)Use electric equipment whenever practicable; and 15)Shut off engines when not in use. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP-02-05) Attachment No. 1.13 ii. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall ensure evidence acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works that: (IMM-CON 10) 1) All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; 2) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control); 3) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas; and 4) Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. J. Unless underground utility locations are well documented, as determined by the City of . Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. (MM-CON 13) 5. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered. The recommendations of this report shall be reproduced on the plans. (BD) c. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue after action by the Planning Commission. (DRB) e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) f. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). g. A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit . application for the proposed desalination plant. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.14 and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations,retaining walls, streets,utilities, remedial work, overexcavation/ recompaction, dewatering, water quality, and chemical/fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential and groundwater constraints. Appropriate recommendations shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. (MM-GEO 1) 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for the irrigation system. (PW) b. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location,type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan;a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232`of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1)with minimum 36-inch box trees or palm equivalent(13-14 feet of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8-9 feet of brown trunk) and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW) (Code Requirement) c. The Consulting Arborist(approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW) d. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. e. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification#426-Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.15 f. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification#401-Minimum Access for Fire Department Access. (FD) g. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. (FD) h. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) i. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow, tamper, and trouble alarms,manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) j. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are 6'8"wide by 4'3" deep with a 42-inch wide (min.)right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54-inch depth. (FD) k. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) 1. For classification within the City's Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program, a complete chemical inventory and a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a fire protection engineer, environmental hygienist, or the equivalent shall be submitted to the Fire Department. Included,but not limited to, shall be the ammonia storage tank,the lime silos and the chemical treatment facilities. These tanks and associated equipment shall be designed and installed in conformance with 2001 edition of the CFC. (FD) m. As native orb-site soils are compressible upon placement of structural loads,project implementation shall implement complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures. (NM-GEO 5) n. Type V cement shall be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measures (coatings, etc.) to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. (MM-GEO 6) o. Due to the potential for ground shaking in a seismic event,the project shall comply with the standards set forth'in the UBC (most recent edition)to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California;adopted March 13, 1997). However, given the proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust Faults, more stringent measures may be warranted. (MM-GEO 7) (03SR04B CUP'.02-04/CDP 02=05) Attachment No. 1.16 p. Due to the potential for liquefaction within the project vicinity,the Applicant shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) for structures on-site to assure safety of the occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997)and"Recommended Procedures for implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California" (Dr. Geoffrey R. Martinet al, May 1999). (NM-GEO 9) q. The proposed project shall incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction. Typical methods include, but are not limited to: (MM-GEO 10) 1) Overexcavation and recompaction of soils; 2) in-situ soil densification(such as vibro-flotation or vibro-replacement); 3) injection grouting; and 4) deep soil mixing. r. The site specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed project shall analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. If deemed a possibility, adequate subsurface stabilization practices (similar to those utilized for liquefaction) shall be incorporated prior to the construction of on-site structures. (MM-GEO 11) s. All applicable school mitigation fees shall be paid pursuant to State law. (NM-PSU 1) t. The Applicant will be required to pay the prevailing sewer connection fee plus five percent of the OCSD connection fee. (NM-PSU 3) u. The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate fees for water service connections, installation, and meters. In addition,the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. (NM- PSU 4) v. The Applicant will coordinate with the City's recycling representative to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. (NM-PSU 5) w. In order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation(such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. (MM- CON 41) 7. The structures cannot be occupied,the final building permits cannot be approved, utilities cannot be released, the use cannot commence, and the Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following has been completed: (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.17 a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. (FD) b. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. c. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Code. (FD) d. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. f. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber,wire,pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. g. Secured entries shall utilize strobe-switch activated,automated gates and comply with City Specification#403-Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates. (FD) h. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and association (if any) hardware. (FD) i. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424-Portable Fire Extinguishers. (FD) j. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification#428-Premise Identification. Number sets may be required on front and rear of the structure. (FD) k. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted,marked, and maintained per City Specification#415-Fire Lane Signs. Additionally,the site plan shall show all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the grading and improvement plans. (PVV) m. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance with the City-approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PV) n. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and a CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped"Permanent File Copy"prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record..(PW (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.18 o. The applicant shall demonstrate that final coverage under the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. (PW) p. The applicant shall demonstrate that all measures regitired by these conditions to protect the adiacent wetlands have been implemented. S. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction,the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m.- or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible and maintained in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adiacent wetland. (PW) e. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Six foot high dust/wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the"Water Quality Management Plan" requirements. (PW) k. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. 1. Use low sulfur(0.5%) fuel by weight for construction equipment. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.19 m. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes. n. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. o. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. p. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. q. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling,or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) r. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc.,must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) s. To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: (AM-CON 12) 1) Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and 2) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prolbited. t. During construction, a security fence,the height of which shall be determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. The construction site shall be kept clear of all trash,weeds, etc. (MM-CON 14) u. Construction activities, to the extent feasible,shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines and wetlands. (AM-CON 15) v. Prior to excavation of the contaminated and other areas for rough grading, the project site shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash,piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly(recycled if possible). (MM-CON 16) w. Proper excavation procedures shall be followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and Health Standards. If applicable, the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)Rule 1166 permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. (AM- CON 17) x. The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. (MM-CON 18) (03SR04B CUP 02=04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.20 y. If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures, the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. (TMM-CON 19) z. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible time, the contractor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 20) aa. All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off- site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. (MM-CON 21) bb. Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. (MM-CON 22) cc. The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size, wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (MM- CON 23) dd. Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas; and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). (NM-CON 24) ee. During remediation, if any soil is found to be hazardous due to contamination other than petroleum hydrocarbons, it will be segregated, stockpiled, and handled separately. (NM-CON 25) ff. Dust and volatile organic emissions from excavation activities shall be controlled through water spray or by employing other approved vapor suppressants including hydromulch spray in accordance=with Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)Waste Discharge Requirements and the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)permit conditions. (MM-CON 26) ga. Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials,.the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. (NM-CON 31) hh. Construction related activities will be subject to, and comply with, standard street use requirements imposed by the City of Huntington Beach, County and other public agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist with haul truck ingress and egress of construction areas and limiting,the large,size vehicles to off-peak commute traffic periods. (NM-CON 32) (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.21 ii. During periods of heavy equipment access or truck hauling,the Contractor will provide construction traffic signage and a construction traffic flagman to control construction and general project traffic at points of ingress and egress and along roadways that require a lane closure. (NM- CON 34) jj. If grading operations uncover paleontological/archeological resources, the applicant shall suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/archeological resources. An archeologist shall report such findings to the Planning Department. If the paleontological/archeological resources are found to be significant, the City shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and salvage. 9. Prior to the excavation process for pipeline construction,the contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. (MM-CON 27) 10. Methane migration features will be consistent with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Specification Number 429 and other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features shall be submitted for review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), Environmental Health Division. (NM-CON 28) 11. Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas (LFG) generation and migration will be completed prior to implementation of the proposed water delivery component of the project. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency,Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems.below trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. Periodic monitoring of the monitoring network will be performed. (MM-CON 29) 12. A Traffic Management Plan(TMP) shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be located where construction would affect roadways. The TMP shall include,but not be limited to, the following measures: (MM-CON 30) a. Limit construction to one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible; b. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; c. Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/routes are disrupted by construction activities;if any; (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP-02-05) Attachment No. 1.22 d. Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible public agencies in order to minimize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; e. Where construction is proposed for two-lane roadways, confine construction to one-half of the pavement width. Establish one lane of traffic on the other half of the roadway using appropriate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer; f. The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. Per Caltrans requirements,the applicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans at the 90-percent design phase; g. Construction activities shall,to the extent feasible, be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and h. Provide for temporary parking, where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. 13. The Contractor shall obtain the necessary right-of-way encroachment permits and satisfy all permit requirements. Also, nighttime construction may be performed in congested areas. (MM-CON 33) 14. Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down(e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of:returns)and the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac-out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated. It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally, the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. (NM-CON 40) 15. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 16. The applicant and applicant's representatives shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 17.The applicant shall completely remove the storage tanks from the site within 18 months from the date of approval by Che of City building permits and agreements. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.23 1S.To address the risk of facility abandonment by the project owners, security will be posted to ensure the demolition of the plant and restoration of the site to its original condition. No later than six (6) months after the start of construction of the desalination facility, a restoration bond or other security shall be posted with the City in the amount acceptable to the City and owner of the site to cover the cost of restoring the site to its original condition. The restoration bond or other security shall be based on cost estimates from licensed demolition contractors. Such security shall remain in effect for five (5) years after the plant is operational. Six (6) months prior to the 5th anniversary date, the City and the plant owner shall determine if the risk of bankruptcy is still a concern and if the security should be terminated or renewed. 19.The applicant/property owner and each successor in interest to the property which is the subiect of this proiect shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorneys fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed or until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for Coastal Development Permit. Because the project is in the appealable area of the coastal zone, there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is , August 26, 2004, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05,pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.24 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code,Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 6. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 9. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid at issuance of building permits. 10. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 11. The development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 12. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. 13. The Water Ordinance#14.52, the "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (PW) 14. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) 15. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at a rate of$124 per net new added daily trip at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This rate is subject to change pursuant to any subsequent action by the City Council. (PW) (MM-PSU 2) 16. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of--way. (PW) 17. The applicant is hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this (03SR04B CUP 02=04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.25 Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code 66020. 18.The applicant or its successor shall notify the City of Huntiniton Beach within 10 days of being informed by AES Inc., or its successors, that electric power production shall cease permanently. If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational after power production ceases permanently, they shall apply for an amendment to the oew Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit from the City relative to the intake of seawater. 19.The applicant or its successor shall comply with aII leRally enforceable directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the adjacent wetlands, whether in the existing degraded conditions or as a restored wetland relative to the desalination plant. 20.If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational after power production ceases permanently, the applicant or its successor shall comply with all legally enforceable directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements imposed by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies to mitigate, abate, or prevent conditions that cause the impingement or entrainment of marine life within relative to the intake of seawater for the desalination facility. 21.The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, the applicant shall supply Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) with water of quality that does not cause the IRWD to violate the pertinent limits of the IRWD reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed project is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to the IRWD. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (M`1VDOC) and its affected member agencies regarding the specific requirements of the quality of the desalinated water prior to beginning construction of the desalination plant. If agreement between the two parties is not reached by then, MWDOC has the right to reiect the use of desalinated water. (03SR04B CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.26 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner-� z DATE: August 26, 2003 SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED FOR THE POSEIDON DESALINATION PLANT The attached items are being provided for the Planning Commission's information and will not be made available to the general public. Attachment: 1. General Application Form Submitted By Poseidon Resources 2. Letter from Billy Owens, Poseidon Resources, dated August 19, 2003 GAAdmLtr\Adm1 tr0310803rr4.doc s �I • FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYJ ? HUNTINGTON BEACH CrCnerai PIanDestgnation I City of Huntington Beach uNtlu emu N7 lo r en ,Permit $rrc cnsl t Planning Department " Cuast<dDeVe utt: �'��f�_-CDf��'-�� 2000 Main Street nil�bn�l Use Permit i IJP0 Huntington Beadi, CA 92648 llesi nReview ( �t� D}td2 (714) 536-5271 0� EnhtlemeutPlanneiidment i EPA v"1� (ieiieral Plari'Amdndment f Local C'oastal fi4iam Atnend:i' LC I'A - Planned StgnPro@ram; � � PSP _ _ GENERAL APPLICATION: qU Ulf('ode Lxcephon:-. SC[ / t 7 em ora CISe Pennif 'I i �` -:`I[1P W Planning Commission �� Variance p er Y I] Zoning Administr:'or ziiitutK Maii:Atncnrlritent 4 7MA ❑ Staff Review ZontnText Amendment ' t ,G I A - ❑ Design Review Lrivrronplental ReV1ew P1pod„Lune- ;f� Applicant or Authorized Agent (Contact Person) C ttetnpt_ Erthc�uake(cult"Lobe Sec. Class oil!bistrict 3 (op fGl( {2p�( AI�pORT WAy� 260 _ �A..sssseiwn.cutRe't �Meth1n eDistnct , Mailing Address LONG BEACH Ctl 9080to C o�stal Ari Yc,,V•No Noise/CNE ot� In t Categorical I xcttislol) Se snuc.l laiard lunc V� City State Zip Appepl.:^tqotls App Scenic Corridor 49 -`2 or)3 #'�g t a 9"� Exempt See Telephone Number - - - 562 -490 -2q-o3 O ntlship Vefiticattbp PursuanEto, 2 C' Fax Number pplican!Aukhorizatton _ tj ifit I1,t� j - AE�: yuNTIN&-Foo P�Efk=H L.L_C 1'N IuLieuoc Maus Property Owner Iotification.Req. 1]tte Received' �Z 2I$3o NEV1(l atJr� ST• ! native Keccipt i11n28 - L 25 IL Mailing Address totographs/Sbrlas lietetved by'_ , ___ G -► tJN t lK(rT�N �EAGf} cA 926�}6 � *'tt b Plo)eck`I lanncr I' Lif�ap�ejrttl �i�/� -:1]Istnbuted by ' -_2�, l�'Q City State Zip t �onipute(I ob• t's� 3 �L upcurren[Cases -374A444 _ r?I1Iap}3ook Log 'felephoue Number Flans Da}e Stamped "Previous C.1ses' -374-�4 ad-31 _c Fax Number — 12LQU[S'P(Ilse additional page if necessary): �f�C'f_ X ,� --- _A 2\ EXISTING USE: p4V1/ER PLANT LOCA'PION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: • Sheet Address: ,,1247- - • Nearest Major Intersection:__PRAFKG C0AMI— 6ftW&Y PIJRTIONS OF 27 A� • Assessor's Parcel Number._jts�._��'JL-$2 c���-�`��-_Lot Area: 7.0 __— mac• • Tract' ----N — — Block:_V/A� _ Lot:--- �A---------- 1,111rint Propeny owners name) FD $LA_KFo KJD ,am the property owner of the subject property.md have read and understand all statements hicluding the filuig requirements on the reverse side of this application. 1 hereby authorize PriatAgenes name} Cry'. ,;iQ. to act as ury representative and to bind me ill all matters concerning this application. I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements, facts and attachments are true and correct. l understand that this application for entitlement or variance may be denied,modified or approved Mill conditions and tha h c diti on r lt�lydi -at* s r 'st he satisfied�rior to issuance of building permits. r / Signature of !C t � lr�� /I t�f �. L `Property Ow D• e ?Authorized Agent Date �`, 7 P, Y _T" ® S IE I D ® N E S ® U R C E S Via Overnight Delivery August 19, 2003 Ricky Ramos Planning Staff - City of Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Copy of Poseidon Site Lease for Desalination Project Dear Ricky, This letter responds to the Planning Commission's request for a copy of the Site Lease for the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. Poseidon considers the Site Lease to be a confidential document that it will not release for public review. Poseidon is also unclear as to how this agreement has a bearing on the decisions before the Commission since all appropriate documents have been provided by Poseidon and AES for the planned use of the site. Previous inquiries have been made by both City Planning Staff and Public Works staff directly to AES to confirm that certain facts in Poseidon's project documents are in conformance with AES' understanding of the proposed use. Poseidon will gladly respond to specific questions as it relates to our use of the site and compliance with City ordinances. Commercial arrangements are confidential. Very Truly Yours, Billy Owe Sr. Vice Pr sident Poseidon Resources Corporation 3760 Kilroy Airport Way,Suite 260.Lang Beach,CA 90806,USA 562-490-2003 Fax:562-490-2403 Executive Office: 1055 Washington Boulevard,Stamford.CT 06901 = J� City-sof Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner t4Z. DATE: September 9, 2003 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (Continued From August 26,2003 With Public Hearing Closed) (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) APPLICANT: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 (Contact Person: Josie McKinley) PROPERTY OWNER: AES Huntington Beach, LLC,21730 Newland Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LOCATION: 21730 Newland Street(East side of Newland, south of Edison Ave) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 request: - To permit a seawater desalination plant which includes construction of a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures to produce 50 million gallons per day(MGD) of potable water. Improvements also include water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system and perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. • Continued Item - Planning Commission meeting August 26, 2003 —Planning Commission reviewed the conditions and directed staff to make additional revisions. Attachment No. 1 to this staff report contains the most current recommended conditions of approval reflecting additional revisions and alternative wording suggested by the Planning Commission: • Staff s Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 based upon the following: - The project is compatible with surrounding uses and is buffered from residential and other sensitive uses by significant setbacks,perimeter landscaping, and fencing. - The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile,modern, and more attractive structures. - The proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for all the tanks for a unif theme. This coupled with the 10-foot perimeter landscape planter and screen wall will enhance the overall appearance of the site compared to the existing condition. - All other impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are addressed to avoid detrimental impacts to the area. - The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of P (Public) for the site. - The project is consistent with General Plan and Coastal Element goals, policies, and objectives. - The project conforms to the requirements of the Coastal Zone Overlay and will not impede access to the coast or any public recreation opportunities in the area. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with staff recommended findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." B. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 5 to the May 27, 2003 Staff Report)." C. "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment No. 6 to the May 27, 2003 Staff Report)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 and direct staff accordingly." ATTACHMENTS: (Attachment Nos. 6-13 were previously provided and not attached.) 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval 2. Ju vis 3, oner 4. September 4, 2003 Letter from Poseidon Resources 5. September 2, 2003 Letter from the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy 6. May 27, 2003 CUP/CDP Staff Report 7. May 22, 2003 Staff Report Updates 8. May 27, 2003 Late Communication 9. June 3, 2003 Late Communication 10. July 8, 2003 Late Communication 11. July 22, 2003 Late Communication 12. July 22, 2003 Planning Commission Proposed Revisions To the Conditions of Approval 13. August 26, 2003 CUP/CDP Staff Report HZ:SH:MBB:RR:rl PC Staff Report—9/9/03 2 (03 SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) REVISED — September 9, 2003 (Conditions shown as bold and underlined are new. Staff recommended changes to the new conditions are shown in italics. New changes recommended by the Planning Commission are highlighted.) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day which includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks to be replaced with lower profile and modern structures with a more attractive design consistent with the city's adopted Design Guidelines. The project will further enhance the appearance of the area with the installation of 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high block wall along the Newland and Edison street frontages to provide additional screening and a consistent and upgraded appearance in contrast to the existing improvements. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as proposed and modified by the conditions imposed is compatible with the properties immediately surrounding it which are primarily industrial in nature. Additionally significant setbacks, including Newland Street to the west,Edison Avenue to the north,the flood control channel to the east, an existing concrete berm, 10 feet of landscaping and an eight foot high block wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages provide additional screening from surrounding uses. Impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are also addressed to make the project compatible. 3. The proposed seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 3 6,3 05 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project as proposed and modified by the conditions of approval meets or exceeds the minimum development standards and is allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit and coastal development permit. (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. LI 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(Public) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. LU 7.1.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. b. LU 12.1.5 - Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass;b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c. use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; d. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls;e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and f, mitigation of noise, odor, lighting, and other impacts. c. LU 13.1.8 - Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. d. UD 2.1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. e. CE 7-Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. The project will be an improvement to the area because it will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks. The new proposed structures are more compatible with the surroundings because they are lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. The project is required to provide a 10-foot landscape planter along the perimeter of the site to enhance the appearance of the area. These landscaping improvements are required to be consistent with the approved landscaping improvements for the rest of the AES property to the south for a cohesive appearance. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, as proposed and modified by conditions of approval, conforms to the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objective, and policies: (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.2 a. C 1.2.1 - Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule Table C-1. b. C 4.2.1 - Ensure that the following minimum standards are met by new development in the Coastal Zone as feasible and appropriate: a. preservation of public views to and from the bluffs, to the shoreline and ocean and to the wetlands; b. adequate landscaping and vegetation; c. evaluation of project design regarding visual impact and compatibility; and d. incorporate landscaping to mask oil operations and major utilities, such as the electrical power plant on Pacific Coast Highway. c. C 4.7 - Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. d. C 4.7.1 -Promote the use of landscaping material to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast along public rights-of-way and within public view. e. C 4.7.8 - Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. f. C 6.1.13 - Encourage research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalinization as an alternative source of potable water. Participate in regional studies and efforts where appropriate. The proposed use is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use designation for the site of P (Public). The project will help improve the appearance of the area by replacing the existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks with more attractive structures that have a lower profile and by installing 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages. The proposed desalination plant structures will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However,views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures will have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project meets or exceeds all minimum_ development standards including but not limited to setbacks,height, and parking. The project will comply with all Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety Department codes and requirements. The proposal conforms to the city's Design Guidelines and incorporates variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The project provides buffering from sensitive uses such as residential developments through landscaping, a block wall, and increased setbacks. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the AES generating station property to the south for a cohesive appearance. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project is an infill development and as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructure to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. This includes (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.3 dedication and improvements to the project lease frontage along both Newland Street and Edison Avenue to improve circulation in the area. 4. The development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as they will not impede any public access to the coast and public recreation opportunities in the area. All public access to the coast and public recreation in the area will not be impeded during the long-term operation of the facility as well as during the construction process with the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. The site plan received and dated April 22,2003, floor plans and elevations received and dated April 7, 2003, and landscaping plan received and dated April 23,2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The landscape area on the east side of the project site (landscape area three) shall include additional 1:5 La' l`ori Myoporum as needed to fill in the gaps to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. (DRB) b. The architectural treatment proposed on all the tanks shall be limited to the top portion that is visible above the surrounding concrete berm. (DRB) c. The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to final approval by '+ f Liifi ji�1,, A}�r3 �e the Design Review Board + pel" COridtl,OriS.S�� by the Planning Commission. (DRB) d. Perimeter landscaping for this project along Newland St. and Edison Ave. is required to be installed only along the lease area frontage. Each lease area shall have a minimum of six percent landscaping. e. The landscaping and wall plan shall be consistent in design, colors, and materials with the landscaping and wall plan for AES for a cohesive appearance. f. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) g. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.4 h. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exteriorledges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) (MM-ALG 1) i. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building,they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. j. If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage" tCi sward the. k and onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent wetlands, and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (MM-ALG 2) k. The landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages shall include the densest type and number of trees to provide the greatest screening possible to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. Alternative Condition: i3 t 1 3 J 71 31 y W bh 3 } 1 t A`peritneterdf very lead i(evergreet�l nauraltrees ri�ust?be pl'alntdand ma_�'(i�ntal:�;ed';£of1s,�uffi+c�en:t�zher li�t�'atd�densi . �, =at,'37,5°la,�,maturx- ... _�to,com `letele. A 1,t� �# r 9 �� �",y��r} �d k3+nffkan �� eofith f!osetda��n P� +��ect,on}allsx+ es,+ xeeptthe,PaflV� bas .p y �t ,.' � �,I 3 �vvievs fj`oin'tlieide o�itlied=abo�e,and'�thevews}iron' �WR��W71�Vf�2 � } i �'� 5,4� a�, 5 ,� , $�,� � i�� � t � , 7 n �'P `fit, present a> > 4"0' home ��tes;areato.be bjo�k�d�so that„t1�e,Piasejdi�b,1'ro,�.eetwd looylikej a derisestand o tr,.ee`s (Note that the Department of Fish and Game has restrictions on the type of landscaping that can be planted adjacent to the wetlands due to concerns about creating a potential raptor perch.) 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.5 containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies.71 b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. h. For the demolition of the three (3) 200 foot diameter fuel oil tanks, a work plan must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of work. (FD) 3. Prior to acceptance of grading plans for review: a. Ten feet (10') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Newland Street frontage. (PW) b. Twelve feet (12') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Edison Avenue frontage. (PW) 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant Steal submit written proof of final project approval by each applicable regulating agency including but not limited to the California Coastal Commission, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, a444 South Coast Air Quality Management Distract and al�`app-,neab 0 wate'r'a envies andt,'citaes. b. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls and walls) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.6 walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan(RAP) based on requirements found in the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification#431-92. (FD) d. From the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells. (FD) e. From the DOGGR, provide proof of a Site Plan Review application. (FD) f. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification 4422-Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) g. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit/site plan. This approved plan must be presented to obtain the required Huntington Beach Fire Department Fire Code Permit Application to conduct installation and/or removal operations. (FD) h. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number,plus identify and detail all methane safety measures per City Specification#429-Methane District Building Permit Requirements. These details shall be on a separate sheet titled"Methane Plan." (FD) i. Prior to issuance of any permit , the applicant shall enter into a Franchise agreement with the City for the generation and transport of product water from the site, and through and across the city's streets,rights-of-way or properties. (PW) j. A corrected lease line exhibit for areas "1" and"2" and an accurate metes and bounds description of the project limits shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. A metes and bounds description and separate exhibit of all access routes shall also be provided with the submittal. (PV ) k. Irrevocable vehicular access rights shall be established and recorded across the AES and Edison properties. The access width and turning radius criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. (PV ) The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.7 or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (Code Requirement) 1. The applicant shall demonstrate utilizing a truck turning template overlay that a WB-50 vehicle can maneuver on-site through the designated access route. (PW) in. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The recommendations of the accepted geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities. The Grading Plan shall depict, but not be limited to the following items: (PW) 1) The parking layout shall be in conformance with the approved parking plan, and shall also conform to City Standards and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including Municipal Ordinance No. 10.40.050. No parking shall be permitted adjacent to emergency access areas in compliance with Fire Department Standard Specification Nos. 401 and 415. 2) Access for the handicapped shall be in conformance with Title 24. 3) Separate sewer lateral and sewer line to provide service to all onsite facilities. The plan shall provide horizontal location and vertical clearances and dimensional relationship with other utilities. 4) A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. 5) Fire sprinklers shall have a separate dedicated fire service with an appropriate backflow device. 6) Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, fire services and irrigation water services. The final location for all public waterline facilities shall be as approved by the Water Division. 7) Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. 8) Final site design storm Hydrology and hydraulics shall be submitted for review and approval to the Public Works Department. The report shall also include calculation of first flush flows to substantiate the adequacy and effectiveness of all water quality mitigation and structural best management practices. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall events (storm frequencies up to a 100-year frequency). Mitigation III include adequate detention storage area onsite if the project pump systems fail to operate. The final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be in such i (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.8 a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetlands. 9) Areas for containment shall be provided to mitigate possible spillage of any materials affecting storm water quality that may be stored on-site, and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. 10)In accordance with NPDES requirements, a "Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. "Best Management Practices" shall be identified and incorporated into the design. All structural BMPs shall be tested "state of the art" and sized to infiltrate, filter and treat the 85"'percentile, 24-hour storm event. The WQMP shall comply with the requirements of the Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP). l l)A Notice of Intent (NOI), Notice of Termination (NOT) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Santa9 rtA><ra R ;>lonal iWter C)ualityg.> trail Board. 12)The first flush membrane cleaning solution shall be "p><ped to the Orange County Sanitation District. Alternative Condition: i j .w rt' n i e'ii 'r«*' y.. x , j ,. ate: i f 9 16 i e,n'+ f t r '�� . ,. xi C m A !i a v pet All maf P' 'pus d'i,� �leanrti i�a>d�d/ar maYri enance3of thea�ose>�du� . in"' "` .` 1,3'3 "or, eriodicall'' A 'whethe> :ithei .besolds 'solids°'''" u� , .�o A. i �� '�b'. • ., 3 ���•0 'i Av ♦„ r i X . t i qi y� a ra�Na� o 3t iPa x%„�k� 7 ,e tied i ,h i 5 i ai ' >< id,orr. � su�d3w�ll,be, delxered erther,b . t<ruck o>�, erne }fo,.. ih,ezO,ran` t r '«, « A�lf9i fk 3 � ���i,4 of iM�'f'3�i jii� �i�,•t 3I �3r d�'�'33���I�tNlY'1 N-,i YI�++ �fP"i C i- Fi � 1I'.iY 3 3 - � !- 3 fiNt < � lrorne�b� �pl�c�h�3c�r��>>�sysu+ecessor��;All liqu><d4;run offa from�qu>��m�nt ✓`.x ?�zt°, 9 i., l 1Ky 3 €,e 'w.r; hw c h '}lrz4,i,i: 31v Z55 Y};, i is H3 • pY i ,,•.r �,;,' yard, ground , sp><lls,4Elan;dscautn or.f�fr,,anyf.bther reasoa:wr11,= e,handled the,sam. assab� :e n. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PW) 1) Curb, gutter, sidewalk and A.C. paving to the centerline of the street along the Newland Street lease frontage, within a 50-foot half-width street Right-of-Way per City Standard Plan Nos. 102 (84'/100'), 202 and 207. In lieu of constructing the Newland improvements, the applicant may pay the cost of their proportionate share of the Newland Street Widening Project. The total amount due the City for the proportionate share of Newland Street improvements shall be $186,269.33 based on current figures and the lease area frontage. This fee is subject to change depending on when the fee is paid. (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.9 2) Curb, gutter and A.C. paving to the new centerline of construction, plus an adequate feathered overlay section to provide a smooth pavement transition along the Edison Avenue lease frontage, within a 42-foot full-width street Right-of-Way per modified City Standard Plan Nos. 104 and 202 (including an 8-foot parking lane on the north side, 24-foot driving lane, a 6-foot parkway on the north and a 4-foot wide utility easement on the south). No parking shall be permitted on the south side of the street. 3) An ADA compliant access ramp at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan No. A88. The corner curb return radius shall be 35-feet. 4) New Edison-owned street lighting shall be provided for the frontage of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and shall be consistent with City standards. 5) At the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and at the Newland Street driveway located approximately 460-feet south of Edison Avenue, corner sight distance as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual must be provided. 6) All utilities (proposed and existing) shall be shown for reference purposes and shall be consistent with utility infrastructure plans. o. Improvement Plans for all offsite water transmission lines.within the limits of the City of Huntington Beach shall be designed and prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer showing a plan and profile of the improvements. Said plans shall be submitted on mylar sheets to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Trenchless construction methods will be utilized to cross roadways sensitive to traffic disruption and drainage channels as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. (PW) p. Conflicts between the routing for all offsite water transmission lines and other existing or proposed utilities, facilities or public infrastructure shall be identified and mitigated on the water line improvement plans. (PW) q. Signing and Striping plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for Newland Street and Edison Way. (PW). r. Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for offsite pipeline construction or any other work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) s. If soil.remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. Any and 4111harmfuZ§Mfl, Ont'amiil a`Slaa1l be r moved'from tl1'e,C The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site; details on how no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and details on how wind barriers around remediation equipment shall be provided. (PW) (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.10 t. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and"1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) u. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) v. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents and the surrounding area. The plan shall take into consideration any street improvement construction occurring in the vicinity. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 35) (PW) w. Should the project require off-site import/export of fill material during demolition, remediation, and construction, trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably Newland Street to Pacific Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard to I-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. (MM-CON 11) x. In conjunction with the submittal of application for preliminary or precise grading permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. (MM-GEO 2) y. As the South Branch Fault (situated beneath the subject site) is classified as "Category C" by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, special studies and subsurface investigation(including a site specific seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit,to the approval of the City Engineer. The subsurface investigation shall include CPT and exploratory borings to determine the fault rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. (MM-GEO 8) z. Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, which ever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on- site to control predictable pollutant runoff and to protect the adjacent wetlands. (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.11 This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP) Appendix which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, and shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: (MM-HWQ 1) 1) Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and 2) BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person. 3) All fertilizers and pesticides used by the plant shall not pose any harmful effects upon plants, animals, and marine life in the adjacent wetland U'iit0a r,nx,*pC '7!� Pia j PkVORC pier rh� surrbudln 16rop;e�e7les. aa. Appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding, and to ensure protection of the adjacent wetlands. (MM-HWQ 2) bb. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first, an appropriate on-site drainage system shall be installed for the project that integrates permanent stormwater quality features. (MM-HWQ 3) cc. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits,the Applicant shall prepare an acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans,prepared under the supervision of a City-approved acoustical consultant, describing the stationary noise generation potential and noise mitigation measures (such as the installation of sound enclosures or placing noise-generating equipment indoors), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to meet the noise criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (MM-NO 1) dd. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. This plan will be submitted to the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. (MM-PSU 6) ee. Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: (MM-CON 1) 1) Where necessary, temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15th (03 SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.12 f 2) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be mailable on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. 3) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. 4) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. 5) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. 6) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. 7) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. 8) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. 9) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed by the ity of. Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures'to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. ff. Construction of the project shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: (MM- CON 2) 1) Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line flushings. 2) During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. gg. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements,the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. (MM-CON 3) (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.13 hh. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans, the City shall include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications, which shall include measures to meet the requirements of the City and SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures may include, but are not limited to,the following: (MM-CON 9) During grading operations, the following shall be complied with: 1) Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts; 2) Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts; 3) All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas; 4) Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas; 5) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut; 6) Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 mile per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site; 7) Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods t it o.Te E ha.i�a 3�.d�l"Ywith a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation; 8) Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of tricks leaving construction sites; 9) Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites; 10)Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fitting tarp; 11)Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; 12)Maintain construction equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; 13)Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; 14)Use electric equipment whenever practicable; and 15)Shut off engines when not in use. j ii. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall ensure evidence acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works that: (MM-CON 10) 1) All constriction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.14 2) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control); 3) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas and we. and and 4) Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. jj. Unless underground utility locations are well documented, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated. into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. (MM-CON 13) ij��1".1 t:� ,�3r �. y� � ,� � 3 kk.An, 'rc ` `eo "�s.Cand "`ateoiitolo' st shallbY3selected;bV"Vthe,a ' l 'art:and.-tlxe .n`.' k' a ........ c rr4i y m " x " a s is 4 +��t�ta�h� avaxlab�le���r�arch�eolo�ica��a�d�pale�r�talugi�al�find�u�s`dur�n� r�din `` t`nc cotistruct�rc n: A` un is 'c`=>re`li�ese�ntat ve of Chef atiy e'? me ICAO, ,A .;�i��` 91 {� j r� i3'....� co.hi4trtu> ;ty<<,stia l be;,coriSulted upon`3,for apprb.priateNatA neriGa> kfM, it,a2s 5. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered. The recommendations of this report shall be reproduced on the plans. (BD) c. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the final fencing and landscaping plan along r. r; 3 rr m �. Edison Avenue- et'""I", tit nS,as� by the Planning Commission. (DRB) e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) f. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). g. A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application for the proposed desalination plant. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.15 and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering, water quality, and chemical/fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential and groundwater constraints. Appropriate recommendations shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. (MM-GEO 1) 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for the irrigation system. (PW) b. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Plamling. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36-inch box trees or palm equivalent(13-14 feet of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8-9 feet of brown trunk) and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW) (Code Requirement) n}3 c �Atbuffe>r�sh�ll�be`Y�eri�u><rec �betweenttbe�`wetlands;�tid�starm��yntelr�cbrita><nrr�e>n berm andplanted, lt�h aal�tte�of plants tnd>< enaus tocoastaag com:mut>�iiti�s��an'cl ` .roil- >ry ='`ubli�yac'ess v><aza;4.�'`' tliywa ' al'cin`P tie'` ei`meter;b'orderi " th' xetla°ndbutscreened,from it.�soas not°,to'.dlstuirl b.>I' yet,;affbrdin l`31' �vss�'3and..r�rsta's0tof..* djWfi Wd rwetlands,for.>res>tdents d. The Consulting Arborist(approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW) e. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.16 not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. f. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification#426-Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) g. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification#401-Minimum Access for Fire Department Access. (FD) h. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. (FD) i. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) j. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow, tamper, and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) k. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are 6'8" wide by 4'3"deep with a 42-inch wide(min.) right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54-inch depth. (FD) 1. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) in. For classification within the City's Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program, a complete chemical. inventory and a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a fire protection engineer, environmental hygienist, or the equivalent shall be submitted to the Fire Department. Included, but not limited to, shall be the ammonia storage tank,the lime silos and the chemical treatment facilities. These tanks and associated equipment shall be designed and installed in conformance with 2001 edition of the CFC. (FD) n. As native on-site soils are compressible upon placement of structural loads, project implementation shall implement complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures. (MM-GEO 5) o. Type V cement shall be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measures (coatings, etc.) to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. (MM-GEO 6) (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.17 p. Due to the potential for ground shaking in a seismic event, the project shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition)to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). However, given the proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust Faults, more stringent measures may be warranted. (MM-GEO 7) q. Due to the potential for liquefaction within the project vicinity,the Applicant shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) for structures on-site to assure safety of the occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997) and"Recommended Procedures for implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California" (Dr. Geoffrey R. Martin et al, May 1999). (MM-GEO 9) r. The proposed project shall incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction. Typical methods include, but are not limited to: (NM-GEO 10) 1) Overexcavation and recompaction of soils; 2) in-situ soil densification(such as vibro-flotation or vibro-replacement); 3) injection grouting; and 4) deep soil mixing. s. The site specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed project shall analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. If deemed a possibility, adequate subsurface stabilization practices (similar to those utilized for liquefaction)shall be incorporated prior to the construction of on-site structures. (MM-GEO 11) t. All applicable school mitigation fees shall be paid pursuant to State law. (MM-PSU 1) u. The Applicant will be required to pay the prevailing sewer connection fee plus five percent of the OCSD connection fee. (MM-PSU 3) v. The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate fees for water service connections, installation, and meters. In addition, the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. (MM- PSU 4) w. The Applicant will coordinate with the City's recycling representative to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. (MM-PSU 5) x. In order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.18 biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation(such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. (MM- CON 41) 7. The structures cannot be occupied,the final building permits cannot be approved, utilities cannot be released,the use cannot commence, and the Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following has been completed: a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. (FD) b. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. c. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Code. (FD) d. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. f. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. g. Secured entries shall utilize strobe-switch activated, automated gates and comply with City Specification#403-Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates. (FD) h. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and association(if any)hardware. (FD) i. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424-Portable Fire Extinguishers. (FD) j. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification#428-Premise Identification. Number sets may be required on front and rear of the structure. (FD) k. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415-Fire Lane Signs. Additionally, the site plan shall show all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required,the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the grading and improvement plans. (PW ) (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.19 in. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance with the City-approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) n. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and a CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped"Permanent File Copy"prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) o. The applicant shall demonstrate that final coverage under the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. (PW) p. The applicant shall demonstrate that all measures necessavy required by these conditions to protect the adjacent wetlands have been implemented. 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible and maintained in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetland. (PW) e. All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW)) f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Six foot high dust/wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) II (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.20 I r i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the "Water Quality Management Plan" requirements. (PW) k. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. 1. Use low sulfur(0.5%) diesel fuel by weight equipment. m Shut off eri -Wes.when x.,.., no.t.r><n3,use n. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. o. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. p. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/ grading activity. q. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) i r. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) s. To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: (MM-CON 12) 1) Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and 2) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. t. During construction, a security fence,the height of which shall be determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. The construction site shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. (MM-CON 14) u. Construction activities, to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines and wetlands. (MM-CON 15) (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.21 v. Prior to excavation of the contaminated and other areas for rough grading, the project site shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash, piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly(recycled if possible). (MM-CON 16) w. Proper excavation procedures shall be followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and Health Standards. If applicable, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. (MM- CON 17) x. The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. (MM-CON 18) y. If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures, the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. (MM-CON 19) z. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible time, the contractor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 20) aa. All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off- site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. (MM-CON 21) bb. Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. (MM-CON 22) cc. The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size, wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (MM- CON 23) dd. Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). (MM-CON 24) ee. During remediation, if any soil is found to be hazardous due to contamination other than petroleum hydrocarbons, it will be segregated, stockpiled, and handled separately. (MM-CON 25) ff. Dust and volatile organic emissions from excavation activities shall be controlled through water spray or by employing other approved vapor suppressants including hydromulch spray in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) Waste Discharge (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.22- Requirements and the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) permit conditions. (MM-CON 26) gg. Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials, the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. (MM-CON 31) hh. Construction related activities will be subject to, and comply with, standard street use requirements imposed by the City of Huntington Beach, County and other public agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist with haul truck ingress and egress of construction areas and limiting the large size vehicles to off-peak commute traffic periods. (MM-CON 32) ii. During periods of heavy equipment access or truck hauling,the Contractor will provide construction traffic signage and a construction traffic flagman to control construction and general project traffic at points of ingress and egress and along roadways that require a lane closure. (MM- CON 34) jj. If grading operations uncover paleontological/archeological resources, the applicant shall suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/archeological resources. An archeologist shall report such findings to the Planning Department. If the paleontological/archeological resources are found to be significant, the City shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and salvage. 9. Prior to the excavation process for pipeline construction, the contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. (MM-CON 27) 10. Methane migration features will be consistent with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Specification Number 429 and other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features shall be submitted for review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA),Environmental Health Division. (MM-CON 28) 11. Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas(LFG) generation and migration will be completed prior to implementation of the proposed water delivery component of the project. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems below trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. Periodic monitoring of the monitoring network will be performed. (NM-CON 29) (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.23 12. A Traffic Management Plan(TMP) shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be located where construction would affect roadways. The TMP shall include, but not be limited to,the following measures: (MM-CON 30) a. Limit construction to one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible; b. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; c. Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/routes are disrupted by construction activities, if any; d. Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible public agencies in order to minimize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; e. Where construction is proposed for two-lane roadways, confine construction to one-half of the pavement width. Establish one lane of traffic on the other half of the roadway using appropriate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer; f. The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. Per Caltrans requirements,the applicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans at the 90-percent design phase; g. Construction activities shall, to the extent feasible, be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and h. Provide for temporary parking,where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. 13. The Contractor shall obtain the necessary right-of-way encroachment permits and satisfy all permit requirements. Also, nighttime construction may be performed in congested areas. (MM-CON 33) 14. Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down (e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac-out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated. It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally,the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. (MM-CON 40) 15. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.24 Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 16. The applicant and applicant's representatives shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 1.7.The applicant shall completely remove the storage tanks from the site within 18 months from the date of approval of City buildin� permits and afreements. 18.To address the risk of facility abandonment by the proiect owners, security will be posted to ensure the demolition of the plant and restoration of the site to its original condition. No later than six (6) months after the start of construction of the desalination facility, a restoration bond or other security shall be posted with the City in the amount acceptable to the City and owner of the site to cover the cost of restoring the site to its original condition. The restoration bond or other security shall be based on cost estimates from licensed demolition contractors. Such security shall remain in effect for five (5) years after the plant is operational. Six (6) months prior to the Sth anniversary date, the City and the plant owner shall determine if the risk of bankruptcy is still a concern and if the security should be terminated or renewed. 19.The applicant/property owner and each successor in interest to the property which is the subiect of this proiect shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this proiect. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof_ INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: - 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed or until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for Coastal Development Permit. Because the project is in the appealable area of the coastal zone,there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.25 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is May 2 , September 9, 2004, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. 'Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 6. All applicable fees from the Building,Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of O_ ranize and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 9. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid at issuance of building permits. 10. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 11. The development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 12. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. 13. The Water Ordinance#14.52, the "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (PV ) (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.26 14. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) 15. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at a rate of$124 per net new added daily trip at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This rate is subject to change pursuant to any subsequent action by the City Council. (PW) (MM-PSU 2) 16. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) 17. The applicant is hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code 66020. 18.The applicant or its successor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach within 10 days of being informed by AES Inc., or its successors, that electric power production shall cease permanently. If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational after power production ceases permanently, they shall apply for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit from the City relative to the intake of seawater. 19.The applicant or its successor shall comply with all legally enforceable directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the adjacent wetlands, whether in the existing degraded conditions or as a restored wetland relative to the desalination plant. 20.If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational after power production ceases Permanently, the applicant or its successor shall comply with all legally enforceable directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements imposed by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies to mitigate, abate, or prevent conditions that cause the impingement or entrainment of marine life wMtia relative to the intake of seawater for the desalination facility. 21.The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, the applicant shall supply Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) with water of quality that does not cause the IRWD to violate the pertinent limits of the IRWD reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed project is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to the IRWD. The applicant shall reach an (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.27 agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and its affected member agencies regarding the specific requirements of the quality of the desalinated water prior to beginning construction of the desalination plant. If agreement between the two parties is not reached by then, MWDOC has the right to reiect the use of desalinated water. (03SR04D CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.28 SC>7 0 4 "(103 . September 4, 2003 Chairman Kokal and Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Proiect CUP/CDP Review - Environmental and Economic Benefits Dear Chairman Kokal and Planning Commissioners: As Poseidon has previously stated during presentations to the Planning Commission, at the six meetings, including several public hearings held on the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and Conditional Use Permit ("CUP")/Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") to date, Poseidon has appreciated the time and effort the Commission, City staff and public have spent in reviewing various components of our proposed Seawater Desalination Project("Project"). Now that the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEW) for the Project has been certified by the Planning Commission and the CUP/CDP is under consideration, it appears fairly critical that the Commission consider the environmental and economic benefits that would be realized by the City of Huntington Beach and Orange County from the proposed Project. The Commission's consideration of these benefits is appropriate from both a legal and policy perspective because: ■ Approval of the CUP/CDP requires a finding of consistency between the CUP/CDP and all elements of the City's General Plan, including the Economic Development Element of the General Plan. ■ CEQA requires a decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, and technological or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project(Statement of Overriding Considerations). ■ The City of Huntington Beach, upon implementation of the Poseidon Project, stands to gain significant environmental and economic benefits Poseidon Resources Corporation 3-,60 Kilroy Airport May.Suite 260.Long Beach.CA 90206.USA 562-490-2003 Fax 562410-2403 Desal benefits letter PC final 9-4-03 AT I H EN 4 Executive Office: 1055 bVashington Boulevard.Stamford.CT 06901 --- Chairman Kokal and Planning Commissioners September 4, 2003 Page 2 from the Project, as outlined in the attached summary of such benefits prepared by Poseidon. Poseidon hopes this information is helpful as the Commission prepares for its September 9th meeting and agendized review of the Poseidon Project CUP/CDP. Poseidon representatives will be available at the Commission meeting to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Billy Qw ns ti Sr. Vice President Enclosure cc: Ray Silver, City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Robert Beardsley, Director of Public Works Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Ricky Ramos, Assistant Planner Paul D'Alessandro, Esq.,Deputy City Attorney Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Huntington Beach Environmental Benefits for Huntington Beach • Significant improvement in the appearance of the area after the removal of the abandoned oil storage tanks; Edison Way street improvements. • Water quality benefits as a result of 5 MGD of desalinated product water hydraulically flowing in City pipes (higher quality (softer, lower TDS) water than the MWD water purchased by the City to supplement the seasonal availability of groundwater— whether or not the City-purchases water from the desalination plant]. • Opportunity for City to diversify water supply portfolio - purchase of Water supply and / or water backup for City (if desired); local water source for drought insurance and improved supply reliability and service interruptions from MWD. • City booster facility energy use (and costs) will be significantly reduced by using Poseidon's high-pressure discharge to the City's MWD pipeline (OC-44). Economic Benefits for Huntington Beach • Annual franchise payments for using City streets for pipeline installation and operation, plus the share of the interconnection and operation and maintenance costs of OC-44. • Direct and indirect economic benefits during construction and operation. • Opportunity for City to share water storage that will save capital and operating costs for new storage. • The introduction of the desalination product water could reduce the City water CIP needs and operation and maintenance costs. • New tax revenue with little demand upon City services. PoseidonR=_sources Corporation i` '-� ,%�'i-`';yaz=`'�'~k' `3 ~ 5750 Kiiroy.Airport Way.Suite 260.Long Beach.CA 90006.USA 56 -M-2003 raX.552-490-2-103 August 2003 Executive Office: 1055 Washington Boulevard.Stamlo+d.CT 06901 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Huntington Beach Economic Benefits Real Estate Tax Base: $186,500,000 Annual Real Estate Taxes: $ 1,883,650 SE RDA: $ 1,130,190 (net to RDA) Table 1. Summary of Economic Impacts from 2-Year Construction of Huntington Beach Desalination Plant Outside Total Regional Impacts Orange Count Orange County Project Impacts Total employment gob-years) 1,900 1,500 3,400 Labor income $100 million $70 million $170 million Other income $18 million $19 million $37 million Indirect business tax receipts $5 million $7 million $12 million Sales Tax during construction—$1.5 million, Orange County 675 Jobs per year- Direct 275 iobs per year- Indirect Estimated average earnings per job are$54,000, about 29% higher than average earnings per job for Orange County. Table 2. Summary of Annual Impacts from Plant Operation Regional Impacts Orange Count Annual employment(jobs) 350 Labor income $18.0 million Other income $7.0 million Indirect business tax receipts $3.0 million 18 full-time jobs 322 jobs per year- Indirect (Source:"Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Proposed Huntington Beach Desalination Project', June 2003—M.Cubed) August 2003 r R. ;r VI SE .�����Q�ED HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. Box 5903 WETLANDS CONSERVANCY Huntington Beach, CA 92615 A Nonprofit Corporation (714) 963-2123 September 2, 2003 City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Commissioners; The Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy(HBWC) owns and manages most of the wetland property located between the AES Generating Station and the Santa Ana River. Our property borders the proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant for a distance of approximately 300 feet on the east side. (Exhibit"A") Immediately north of our property is an additional 0.7244 acres(31,533 square feet)of additional wetlands, known as the"North Wetlands" (Exhibit`B"). This property is owned by AES but lies outside the power plant fence. In December 2001,HBWC prepared a Lot Line Adjustment for this property that would allow AES to transfer ownership to HBWC. Shortly after this, the City of Huntington Beach began negotiations with AES to acquire a portion of the adjacent tank farm for use as water reservoir. Apparently this effort was abandoned as the property will now be leased to Poseidon. HBWC has reviewed Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 and the Conceptual Landscape Master Plan. On the Landscape Plan, Area Three includes approximately 1,130 feet bordering wetlands. The suggested conditions of approval seem to suggest that wetlands can be used as a landscape planter. Specifically; La. "The landscape area on the east side of the property site(landscape area three) shall include additional Myoporum as needed to fill in the gaps to the approval of the City Landscape Architect(DBB)" HBWC has spent considerable resources removing Myoporum and palm trees from our property, including the property adjoining the proposed project and oppose planting any additional plants. Our reasoning for removing these plants are: a. Myoporum and Mexican Fan Palms are not native plants and do not belong in or near coastal wetlands, b. These plants are difficult and expensive to maintain, and, c. Myoporum provides a habitat for transients. The 4.7244 acre North Wetlands is a functioning wetland whose character is maintained by a culvert through the flood channel levee. Several wetland vegetation species including Pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and Salt Grass(Distichlis spicata) are located on this property. Modifying these wetlands and adding non-native plants would require permits from the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish& Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and would be opposed by HBWC. 7) "Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent 13%14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report an all existing trees.............." This condition does not specify where these trees are to be located. HBWC is opposed to any palm, or tall trees being planted along the east property line. HBWC's goal is to restore all of these wetlands and provide nesting habitat for several bird species. A tall tree provides a platform from which birds of prey can attack and destroy nests. The Department of Fish& Game has opposed tall plants along the east border of the AES plant,and we believe they will oppose tall plants in Area Three of the proposed project. In asddition,HBWC recommends that the project be conditioned to protect the North Wetlands parcel as environmentally sensitive open space. We will be happy to discuss this matter with you in more detail. Please contact our Project Manager, Mr. Gary Gorman at any of the following: 714-963-2123 (office) 714-926-1945 (cell) e-mail 1porman@socal.rr.com Sincerely, I ordon W. Smith; ehairman HUNTINGTON BEACH WETLANDS CONSERVANCY K 4 3 57]•03'E Ba0.1W „ IF 'Y' 11+ -yp,•.. V.._x ...� a wesrex V UN u%i cu . IPER �7 99"� � .y9 ..• ,'.� •S'.ci \4.3.9�'o A' �F .\ .Cj�p /`�' `=-" ail - /.• g.,� �G•y�,�-. 4z , a � C%__ �• ro GI 7. $;I tip.. 1 •i at.. G'SC N, eye•` 4° I� 1''Lnl: I � ,(P' �7\ `•N n1 .'1':'•Y � �' eY:.'•_\'n kh IN IN. ro C; I 'P LIN ��(gyp• �\ y ,'�. �, \ o VAef ts IN aJcrJJ•� J• • ,r 180' c t4 a a FLOOD CONTROL CHANNELL ., NLY LPK Or StY Ilk.NM 1/4.SC 1/..SEC U � O z O P OB CD see�r�e-c irrox t - PARCEL 4 OF sera']rE •o A.vrsr Nf CITY OF NUNTINGTON p"o a:,i" r7 8 BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LL 97-3 OB 20, REC. 12/8/97 aU INST. NO. 19970628491 35 r 90 r: 8 OF0or• ,o M fo•3r■ a aj PARCEL 3 OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON 9t Npp'16'•t'E BEACH LOT LINE ]se. ss ADJUSTMENT ILL 97-3 ��. 7rQ`Tr pry r 5]071'SO'q g v tz ram" sTe'�.uT L ^Q e,ge PARCEL 1 OF M�•'�o� Q CITY OF HUNTINGTON -Z BEACH LOT LINE ry0 , ADJUSTMENT U. 97-3 sorb\ Apr M �g ky7. �tF�' QIIJ• 'yam m4r4riri A ^ (N O CD Or WID OCSC pi ('Jv^1 B�3• QQJ� IN 307 PC.09 or ows Q ' SOOTME•ST UNE wro oceWetD • N mo To SOUTHERN CA"WONMI• � �'�oy. ` [dsoR 0O.R WL mn•feu? + c�C LEGEND AREA DESCRIBED IN GRANT '� C0 t� F ^— DEED FROM AES CORP. T HUNTINGTON BEACH WETLANDS CONSERVANCY. EXHIBIT '�B'� FORKERT ENGINEERING & --.-,S,r- 8URVEYING. INC. NORTH WETLANDS PARCEL rrti !'`'� hUNI GONBEAT C SUITE L4 ry�� NUNTINGTON BEACfI,CA 92648 AES CORP. TO HUNTINGTON BEACH _ PHONE: (7,.) 983-7293 N� �es for FAX: 714 ng.co98 WETLANDS CONSERVANCY Les®forkI DATE, i , 3/ .corn, FE8. .IN.• OATEr 3/7/02 I j S 89'27'18' E 1220.30' P.O.B. NORTHWEST NORTHEAST S 0017'00" w CORNER OF CORNER OF 96.13• PARCEL 4 PARCEL 4 Q NORTH/SOUTH CENTERLINE OF R=y 87ao'3z"E a°02'47.51. R e 312.69' ZI SECTION 13, T6S., R11W., S.B.B.&M. N 89'a1'3r w 8.94' L.15.27' 20'I R-S 89'41'37"E 7 Q I-- + 40' T .B. cy > x SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF ` PARCEL NO. D1-104 IN AMENDED FINAL ORDER ^f OF CONDEMNATION y RECORDED 11/1/63 IN t� BOOK 6788. PAGES 915 THROUGH 922 OF PARCEL 4 OF t m OFFICIAL RECORDS. CITY OF HUNTINGTON 'y N BEACH LOT LINEIR ADJUSTMENT LL 97-3 a RECORDED DECEMBER 8, 1997 ^ f5 INSTRUMENT NO. 19970628491 � ;N • e Tr r � .o r e J EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 4 3 ■ i. N 57 4�i i S 8718'43--E m LEGEND � �g AREA DESCRIBED IN GRANS g'•`z DEED FROM AES CORP. TO <^ ,P A , ? 1 .5 HUNTINGTON BEACH WETLANDS 1—A, CONSERVANCY. FORKERT ENGINEERING d� EXHIBIT v B v SURVEYING, INC. NORTH WETLANDS PARCEL " HUNT eRooloSEAC1 St.,SUITE N r; s, —a' HUNTINGTON BEACtH■CA 92848 AES CORP. TO HUNTINGTON BEACH " � PHONE: 983-6793 >;4) 963-7296 `_. fes®forkerten ineerin .com WETLANDS CONSERVANCY I FES. JK, DATE, s/7/02 EXHIBIT A NORTH WETLANDS PARCEL THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 4 OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LL 97-3 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED ON DECEMBER 8, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19970628491 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4; THENCE S 00017'00"W,ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4,A DISTANCE OF 96.13 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE.WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 312.69 FEET, THROUGH WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS N 87030'32"E;THENCE SOUTHERLY,ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 4 AND SAID NON-TANGENT CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02047'5111, A DISTANCE OF 15.27 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING BEARS S 89°41'37"E; THENCE N 89041'37°W, ALONG SAID RADIAL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 8.94 FEET; THENCE S 00017'00"W, A DISTANCE OF 704.66 FEET, THENCE S 87°18'43"E, A DISTANCE OF 72.85 FEET, THENCE S 28°25'05"E,A DISTANCE OF 74.51 FEET TO A POINT IN SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 4,SAID POINT ALSO BEING A POINT IN THAT CERTAIN COURSE IN SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 4 SHOWN AS HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S 0001T00"W, 679.10 FEET, DISTANT S 00°1T00"W THEREON, A DISTANCE OF 78.7t FEET FROM THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS THEREOF; THENCE N 0001T00"E, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 4,A DISTANCE OF 78.71 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 2462.50 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S 7305545W;THENCE NORTHERLY,ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 4 AND SAID LAST MENTIONED NON -TANGENT CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°22'38",A DISTANCE OF 703.87 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SHOWN ON EXHIBIT"B"ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. CONTAINING AN AREA OF 0.7244 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. Michael A.Forked,L.S.5662 ARIn rr nF WA V\4rFVE St1ERMOEM1 MWrT A CONSERVANCY ORANr DEED.DOC Proposed Conditions for the Poseidon CUP by Robert E. Dingwall, Planning Commissioner Revised September 3, 2003• TAXES Condition # 1 If for any reason the Poseidon Operation and/or it's successors are deemed exempt from the Huntington Beach Utility Tax, an"In-Lieu"fee must be paid in an amount equal to what said Utility Tax would have been. Said In-Lieu Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth( 15 ) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization or it's successors must cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later than the fifth( 5 ) day of July, each calendar year. Condition # 2 If for any reason the Poseidon Operation and/or it's successors are deemed exempt from Real Property Tax, Business Tax (of any kind), Inventory Tax, Leasehold Tax, or any other tax normally paid by other businesses in Huntington Beach, an"In-Lieu" fee must be paid in an amount equal to what said Tax would have been to all agencies otherwise eligible for said Taxes. Said In-Lieu Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth( 15 ) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization(or it's successors) will cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to all eligible Agencies no later than the fifth ( 5 )day of July, each calendar year. Condition # 3 For all products developed and/or sold by Poseidon(or it's successors) in Huntington Beach, the official Point of Sale must be Huntington Beach, California. Page 1 Environmental Concerns Visual Blight: Condition #4 A perimeter of very leafy(evergreen) natural trees must be planted and maintained, of sufficient height and density (at 75%maturity) to completely block off any view of the Poseidon Project on all sides except the Pacific Coast Highway side. The views from the sides outlined above and the views from present or future home sites, are to be blocked so that the Poseidon Project will look like a dense stand of trees. Ocean Contamination: Condition # 5 All materials used in cleaning and/or maintenance of the Poseidon Equipment, either initially or periodically, whether they be solids, solids in liquid or liquid will be delivered(either by truck or pipeline) to the Orange County Sanitation District for processing. The cost of this activity to be borne by the Applicant or its successors. All liquid run-off from equipment, yard, grounds, spills, landscaping or for any other reason will be handled the same as above. Right-of-way Fees: Conveyance Fee Condition # 6 A Conveyance Fee will be included into the Right-of-Way Agreement for the use of Huntington Beach City Property in an amount equal to three ( 3 %)percent of Poseidon(or it's successors) Gross Annual Income. Said Conveyance Fee to be calculated on or about the Fifteenth ( 15 ) Day of March, each Calendar Year by the Huntington Beach Department of Finance. The Poseidon Organization(or it's successors)must cooperate fully in this calculation. Said Conveyance Fee to have a"Cost of Living" escalator clause based on the Annual Cost of Living Increase for the Huntington Beach area. The formula to be used is: Last Years Fee+Cost of Living Increase, or three ( 3%)percent of Gross Annual Income, whichever is greatest. Said Conveyance Fee will be paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later than the fifth( 5 ) day of July, each calendar year. Page 2 Operational Procedures, Return Water System Condition # 7 The water being returned to the ocean by Poseidon by way of the AES Outfall Pipe may not in any circumstance what-so-ever, exceed 12.5 % (twelve and one half percent) of the amount of water already flowing in the Outfall Pipe,thereby insuring a mix of 8:1 in the Outfall Pipe before it reaches the ocean. 500 MGD— 100 MGD =400 MGD. Poseidon would return 50 MGD = 12.5 % of 400 MGD or 8:1. The Applicant must install and maintain a system that will constantly monitor the temperature of the incoming water at the AES Intake Pipe and the temperature of the water at the point water is taken from the AES Cooling System. Said monitoring system shall have an automatic shut-down feature that will shut-down the desalination process at any time the water taken by Poseidon from the warm side of the AES cooling system rises above 30 deg F of the intake temperature from the ocean. Page 3 Poseidon CUP/CDP Conditions by Steve Ray September 9, 2003 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CUP/CDP: 1. a. The landscape area on the east side of the project site (landscape area three) shall include the removal of all Myoporum, and shall be planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Southern California coastal community. 2. i. (was 6.x.—moved here and modified) In order to minimize potential demolition and construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows and other species adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-demolition nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows or other species be found, adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-demolition survey. 4. n. 7) (new) On the Newland Street improvements, a plan to preserve the wetland characteristic of the area known as Blackford's Ditch, for example in a box culvert. 4. ee. 5) Immediately after a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. 4. kk. An archeologist, a paleontologist, and a qualified representative of the local Native American community shall all be identified by the applicant and approved by the City,to be available upon any archeological/paleontological findings during grading and construction. 4. 11. (was 18—moved here and modified) To address the risk of facility abandonment by the project owners, security will be posted to ensure the demolition of the plant and restoration of the site to its original condition. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a restoration bond or other security shall be posted with the City in the amount acceptable to the City and owner of the site to cover the cost of restoring the site to its original condition. The restoration bond or other security shall be based on cost estimates from licensed demolition contractors. Such security shall remain in effect for five (5) years after the plant is in operation. Six(6)months prior to the 5`h anniversary date and to each succeeding five (5) year period thereafter, if applicable, the desalination plant owner shall provide information to the City and the site owner sufficient to them, and the City and site owner shall determine if the risk of abandonment and/or bankruptcy is still a concern and if the security should be terminated or renewed for an additional five (5) year period. 6. c. A buffer shall be required between the wetland areas and the stormwater containment berm, designated as open space, and planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Southern California coastal community. 8. c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, at a minimum, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. 8. q. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries, except haul trucks and as otherwise restricted, associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday— Saturday 7:OOAM to 8:OOPM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 8. u. Construction activities, to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas and wetlands. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines and wetlands. 8. z. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, demolition, grading or construction, operations in that area shall cease immediately. The contractor shall immediately notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action to include notification to the public will be determined subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. 8. jj. If grading operations uncover paleontological/archeological resources,the applicant shall suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/archeological resources. The archeologist/paleontologist pre-approved by the City shall report such findings to the Planning Department and the pre-approved Native American representative, if applicable. If the paleontological/archeological resources are found to be significant, the City shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant and in consultation with the Native American representative, if applicable, for exploration and salvage. 11. Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas (LFG) generation and migration will be completed prior to any activity on the proposed water delivery component of the project. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site mitigation and passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems below trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. A plan approved by the City for periodic monitoring of the monitoring network will be established and performed. 17. The applicant shall completely remove the storage tanks from the site within eighteen(18) months from the date of approval by City adjudication authority. 18. (new) The applicant shall notify the City of Huntington Beach and applicable public agencies located with the service area of any agency that would receive any desalinated water produced from the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Plant upon receipt of any instrument of intent to purchase or execution of any agreement for the sale of any desalinated water produced from the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Plant, or at the time that any purchaser of desalinated water produced from the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Plant commences review of the potential future environmental and growth-inducing impacts that may result from such water purchase, whichever occurs earlier. 20. (new) Upon conclusion of the entrainment study required by the California Energy Commission(CEC)for operation of the AES intake facility, the applicant shall fund a supplemental investigation which will rely on the findings of the CEC entrainment study and the mitigation proposed therein to determine whether the potential future entrainment of marine life, if any, relative to the use of seawater by the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Plant will occur and whether specific mitigation is required. The supplemental investigation shall be conducted by an independent expert approved by both the City and the applicant. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 5. Demolition, grading and construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:OOAM to 8:OOPM, and shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays, except as otherwise restricted. - 18. The applicant or its successor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach within ten (10) days of being informed by AES Inc., or its successors, that electric power production shall either cease permanently or for an extended period of nine (9)months or longer. If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational after such power production ceases,they shall apply for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit from the City and be subject to an environmental review(equal to a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report) on potential environmental impacts and mitigation requirements relative to the intake of seawater for the desalination plant. 20. If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational after power production ceases permanently or for an extended period of nine (9)months or longer,the applicant or its successor shall comply with all legally enforceable directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements imposed by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies to mitigate, abate, or prevent conditions that cause the impingement or entrainment of marine life or otherwise harm or impact the marine environment relative to the intake of seawater for the desalination plant. Z 1. The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, the applicant shall supply Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) and any other water agency with water of quality that does not cause the agency to violate the pertinent limits of the agency's reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed project is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to water agencies. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County(MWDOC) and its affected agencies regarding the specific requirements of the quality of the desalinated water prior to beginning construction of the desalination plant. If agreement between the two parties is not reached by then, MWDOC has the right to reject the use of desalinated water. �J City Of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT H JNTINOTON BEACH - - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner . DATE: September 23, 2003 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (Continued From September 9, 2003 With Public Hearing Closed) (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) APPLICANT: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 (Contact Person: Josie McKinley) PROPERTY OWNER: AES Huntington Beach, LLC, 21730 Newland Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LOCATION: 21730 Newland Street(East side of Newland, south of Edison Ave) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 request: - To permit a seawater desalination plant which includes construction of a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures to produce 50 million gallons per day(MGD)of potable water. - Improvements also include water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system and perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. • Continued Item Planning Commission meeting September 9, 2003 —Planning Commission reviewed the first nine pages of conditions as well as conditions recommended by individual commissioners. Attachment No. 1 to this staff report contains the most current recommended conditions of approval incorporating the Planning Commission's revisions. Attachment No. 7 lists the issues the Planning Commission decided to forward to the City Council by minute action. Staffs Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 based upon the following: - The project is compatible with surrounding uses and is buffered from residential and other sensitive uses by significant setbacks,perimeter landscaping, and fencing. - The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures. - The proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for all the tanks fora unified theme. This coupled with the 10-foot perimeter landscape planter and screen wall will enhance the overall appearance of the site compared to the existing condition. - All other impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are addressed to avoid detrimental impacts to the area. - The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of P (Public)for the site. - The project is consistent with General Plan and Coastal Element goals, policies, and objectives. - The project conforms to the requirements of the Coastal Zone Overlay and will not impede access to the coast or any public recreation opportunities in the area. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with staff recommended findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." B. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 5 to the May 27, 2003 Staff Report)." C. "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment No. 6 to the May 27, 2003 Staff Report)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 and direct staff accordingly." ATTACHMENTS: (Attachment Nos.9-12 were previously provided and not attached.) 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval 2. is 3. all 4. Letters from Poseidon Resources dated September 4,2003 and September 9,2003 5. , 6. Letter in Opposition 7. ed to n 8. Qeftditiensy 9. CUP/CDP Staff Report for May 27,August 26,and September 9,2003 10. May 22,2003 Staff Report Updates 11. July 22,2003 Planning Commission Proposed Revisions To the Conditions of Approval 12. Late Communication for May 27,June 3,July 8,July 22,August 12,and Sept 9,'2003 HZ:SH:MBB:RR:rl PC Staff Report—9/23/03 2 (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) REVISED — September 23, 2003 (Conditions shown as bold and underlined are new. Staff recommended changes to the new conditions are shown in italics. New changes recommended by the Planning Commission are highlighted.) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day which includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures;perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks to be replaced with lower profile and modern structures with a more attractive design consistent with the city's adopted Design Guidelines. The project will further enhance the appearance of the area with the installation of 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high block wall along the Newland and Edison street frontages to provide additional screening and a consistent and upgraded appearance in contrast to the existing improvements. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as proposed and modified by the conditions imposed is compatible with the properties immediately surrounding it which are primarily industrial in nature. Additionally significant setbacks, including Newland Street to the west,Edison Avenue to the north, the flood control channel to the east, an existing concrete berm, 10 feet of landscaping and an eight foot high block wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages provide additional screening from surrounding uses. Impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are also addressed to make the project compatible. 3. The proposed seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project as proposed and modified by the conditions of approval meets or exceeds the minimum development standards and is allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit and coastal development permit. (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.1 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(Public) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. LU 7.1.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. b. LU 12.1.5 - Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass; b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c. use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots,including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; d. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls;e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and f. mitigation of noise, odor, lighting, and other impacts. c. LU 13.1.8 - Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. d. UD 2.1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. e. CE 7 -Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. The project will be an improvement to the area because it will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks. The new proposed structures are more compatible with the surroundings because they are lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. The project is required to provide a 10-foot landscape planter along the perimeter of the site to enhance the appearance of the area. These landscaping improvements are required to be consistent with the approved landscaping improvements for the rest of the AES property to the south for a cohesive appearance. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, as proposed and modified by conditions of approval, conforms to the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objective, and policies: (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.2 a. C 1.2.1 - Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule Table C-1. b. C 4.2.1 - Ensure that the following minimum standards are met by new development in the Coastal Zone as feasible and appropriate: a. preservation of public views to and from the bluffs,to the shoreline and ocean and to the wetlands; b. adequate landscaping and vegetation; c. evaluation of project design regarding visual impact and compatibility; and d. incorporate landscaping to mask oil operations and major utilities, such as the electrical power plant on Pacific Coast Highway. c. C 4.7 - Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. d. C 4.7.1 - Promote the use of landscaping material to screen uses that detract from the scenic quality of the coast along public rights-of-way and within public view. e. C 4.7.8 -Require landscape and architedtural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. f. C 6.1.13 -Encourage research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalinization as an alternative source of potable water. Participate in regional studies and efforts where appropriate. The proposed use is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use designation for the site of P (Public). The project will help improve the appearance of the area by replacing the existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks with more attractive structures that have a lower profile and by installing 10 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages. The proposed desalination plant structures will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the AES generation station site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination plant structures will have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project meets or exceeds all minimum development standards including but not limited to setbacks, height, and parking. The project will comply with all Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety Department codes and requirements. The proposal conforms to the city's Design Guidelines and incorporates variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The project provides buffering from sensitive uses such as residential developments through landscaping, a block wall, and increased setbacks. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the AES generating station property to the south for a cohesive appearance. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project is an infill development and as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructure to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. This includes (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No..1.3 dedication and improvements to the project lease frontag5 along both Newland Street and Edison Avenue to improve circulation in the area. 4. The development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as they will not impede any public access to the coast and public recreation opportunities in the area. All public access to the coast and public recreation in the area will not be impeded during the long-term operation of the facility as well as during the construction process with the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL— CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. The site plan received and dated April 22, 2003, floor plans and elevations received and dated April 7,2003, and landscaping plan received and dated April 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: ,f. - i a. TherYWWab a>re�°a►n the east s><de'ofpthe proles site`(landsca ie area three 3i d age d�. 'j I $: <H 'N7 shailn�ludertheremovatoal1 NiVopo� m, and shal��be pa�ted�wlrt [� „paette of.,pan'.tsn�dienos"to_t� e, cruhern Calioiaa "ccastatrc'cimi'u'niy. b. The architectural treatment proposed on all the tanks shall be limited to the top portion that is visible above the surrounding concrete berm. (DRB) c. The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to approval by the Design Review Board pe`r'condtirons set by the Planning Commission. (DRB) d. Perimeter landscaping for this project along Newland St. and Edison Ave. is required to be installed only along the lease area frontage ?;The lease area shall have a minimum of six percent landscaping of the enhre4acreleasearea. e. The landscaping and wall plan shall be consistent in design, colors, and materials with the landscaping and wall plan for AES for a cohesive appearance. f. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) g. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.4 h. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened From view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) (MM-ALG 1) i. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. j. If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage" tbw,-,' f fthe k and onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent wetlands, and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (MM-ALG 2) k. The landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages shall include the densest type and number of trees to provide the mo"s effective screening possible and sha11}lieu main 'a>ined to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. v g e a r" "' s, , • x r -^r } } y n.r sr^� 7 rtxs r h v 7 e i rr 3 } 1 The applicant shad ><nstall a satisfactory mechant deVj ,e such that°on1Y 4U ,.�., 5 , 3_` �,r} i' i,� } gr,� 3 ��r , #, �,x K l,'.h ,} percent„of�;the,.wa,ter,„d>uerted from,AES...cdif be.,used,tfor;d�esalinatian-puruoses 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b., Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (03 SR04E,CUP,02704/CDP.02=05) Attachment No. 1.5.-, d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. h. For the demolition of the three (3) 200 foot diameter fuel oil tanks, a work plan must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of work. (h'D) i. In order to minimize potential demolition and construction impacts to nestinf4 savannah sparrows and other threatened or endangered species adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-demolition nestinLy survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies: Should nesting savannah sparrows or other threatened or endangered species be found,adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-demolition survey. j. In. order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting-survey will be performed by a qualified biologist inconsultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting~savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation(such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures;etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. (.N4M- CON 41) 3. Prior to acceptance of grading plans for review: a. Ten feet (10') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Newland Street frontage. (PW) b. Twelve feet (12') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Edison Avenue frontage. (PW) 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall submit written proof of final project approval by each applicable regulating agency including but not limited to the California Coastal (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.6 Commission, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and South Coast Air Quality Management District acid.`ali":apRicab a�v ter:a�enciesr ant-.cities. b. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls and walls) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification #431-92. (FD) d. From the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells. (FD) e. From the DOGGR, provide proof of a Site Plan Review application. (FD) f. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification 4422-Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) g. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit/site plan. This approved plan must be presented to obtain the required Huntington Beach Fire Department Fire Code Permit Application to conduct installation and/or removal operations. (FD) h. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number, plus identify and detail all methane safety measures per City Specification 9429-Methane District Building Permit Requirements. These details shall be on a separate sheet titled"Methane Plan." (FD) i. Prior to issuance of any permit o_fh-p`-r-o„o`err mle o this `4-1- -��`, the applicant shall enter into a Franchise agreement with the City for the generation and transport of product water from the site, and through and across the city's streets, rights-of-way or properties. (PW) j. A corrected lease line exhibit for areas "1" and"2" and an accurate metes and bounds description of the project limits shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. A metes and bounds description and separate exhibit of all access routes shall also be provided with the submittal. (PW) k. Irrevocable vehicular access rights shall be established and recorded across the AES and Edison properties. The access width and turning radius criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. (PW) (03SR04E CUP.02-04/CDP.02-05) Attachment No. 1.7 The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (Code Requirement) 1. The applicant shall demonstrate utilizing a truck turning template overlay that a WB-50 vehicle can maneuver on-site through the designated access route. (PW) in. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The recommendations of the accepted geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities. The Grading Plan shall depict, but not be limited to the following items: (PW) 1) The parking layout shall be in conformance with the approved parking plan, and shall also conform to City Standards and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including Municipal Ordinance No. 10.40.050. No parking shall be permitted adjacent to emergency access areas in compliance with Fire Department Standard Specification Nos. 401 and 415. 2) Access for the handicapped shall be in conformance with Title 24. 3) Separate sewer lateral and sewer line to provide service to all onsite facilities. The plan shall provide horizontal location and vertical clearances and dimensional relationship with other utilities. 4) A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. 5) Fire sprinklers shall have a separate dedicated fire service with an appropriate backflow device. 6) Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, fire services and irrigation water services. The final location for all public waterline facilities shall be as approved by the Water Division. 7) Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree . Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. 8) Final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be submitted for review and approval to the Public Works Department. The report shall also include calculation of first flush flows to (03SR04E CUP 02=04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.8 substantiate the adequacy and effectiveness of Al water quality mitigation and structural best management practices. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall events (storm frequencies up to a 100-year frequency). Mitigation will' include adequate detention storage area onsite if the project pump systems fail to operate. The final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetlands. 9) Areas for containment shall be provided to mitigate possible spillage of any materials affecting storm water quality that may be stored on-site, and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. ' 10)In accordance with NPDES requirements, a "Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. "Best Management Practices" shall be identified and incorporated into the design. All structural BMPs shall be tested "state of the art" and sized to infiltrate, filter and treat the 85'h percentile, 24-hour storm event. The WQMP j shall comply with the requirements of the Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan i (DAMP). 11)A Notice of Intent(NOI), Notice of Termination (NOT) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and submitted to the 'Sahli-1 na rRe >to>t a11".Water I U`uahty 6161t, 6 Board. '3 t *', 12) g �Allri mate>Nials' �ise'd in ;cl�aaing, andlar� �maintvnan`ce of ,:the Poseidon: * ,.�.. h� iw,sy�.��n� S y4t a e*s rt, x ment ;eithi'r inifiall .;or, , '.eio'd3icallfwhether..Ythe..: be,solids solid's.ai.n x d ;,3 i t! a ,a 3 .'n Y� tip �. s. r."." 4 +fi 3.. . Su rF s i-Y �4 Mk lin�md� ortiliquid ><llbeypined to the � 5l �i 3� t � �aa� ��a ; }i�" � � ��p �di: Clranjte Countya.nitatretiLa'the,;;nearest swert:line,fa> processng The cc%s`t'o =th>ts?`,'aetXvityis�ta ki'e£!borii ebY"the'Appl�c'a°ator„ it's su,���essors.'All IY`` ' z .for,'nu mnt il lda n a or r other�r::"eas`cirri'y!yil' ;be.,haa'dled''th�e:iffie as4boy5e n. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PW 1) Curb, gutter, sidewalk and A.C. paving to the centerline of the street along the Newland Street lease frontage, within a 50-foot half-width street Right-of-Way per City Standard Plan Nos. 102 (84'/100'), 202 and 207. In lieu of constructing the Newland improvements, the applicant may pay the cost of their proportionate share of the Newland Street Widening Project. The total amount due the City for the proportionate share of Newland Street improvements shall be $186,269.33 based on current figures and the lease area frontage. This.fee is subject to change depending on when the fee is paid. (03SR04E.CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.9 2) Curb, gutter and A.C. paving to the new centerline of construction, plus an adequate feathered overlay section to provide a smooth pavement transition along the Edison Avenue lease frontage, within a 42-foot full-width street Right-of-Way per modified City Standard Plan Nos. 104 and 202 (including an 8-foot parking lane on the north side, 24-foot driving lane, a 6-foot parkway on the north and a 4-foot wide utility easement on the south). No parking shall be permitted on the south side of the street. 3) An ADA compliant access ramp at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan No. A88. The corner curb return radius shall be 35-feet. 4) New Edison-owned street lighting shall be provided for the frontage of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and shall be consistent with City standards. 5) At the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and at the Newland Street driveway located approximately 460-feet south of Edison Avenue, corner sight distance as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual must be provided. 6) All utilities (proposed and existing) shall be shown for reference purposes and shall be consistent with utility infrastructure plans. o. Improvement Plans for all offsite water transmission lines within the limits of the City of Huntington Beach shall be designed and prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer showing a plan and profile of the improvements. Said plans shall be submitted on mylar sheets to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Trenchless construction methods will be utilized to cross roadways sensitive to traffic disruption and drainage channels as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. (PW) p. Conflicts between the routing for all offsite water transmission lines and other existing or proposed utilities, facilities or public infrastructure shall be identified and mitigated on the water line improvement plans. (PW) q. Signing and Striping plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for Newland Street and Edison Way. (PW) r. Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for offsite pipeline construction or any other work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) s. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. Any an.sall harmful so>�1-conta'mtna-:6 o site:shall be removed fro`m.tie caty The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site; details on how�no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and details on how wind barriers around remediation equipment shall be provided. (PW) (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05). Attachment No. 1.10 t. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) u. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) v. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents and the surrounding area. The plan shall take into consideration any street improvement construction occurring in the vicinity. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 35) (PW) w. Should the project require off-site import/export of fill material during demolition, remediation, and construction,trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably Newland Street to Pacific Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard to I-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. (MM-CON 11) x. In conjunction with the submittal of application for preliminary or precise grading permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. (MM-GEO 2) y. As the South Branch Fault(situated beneath the subject site) is classified as "Category C"by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, special studies and subsurface investigation(including a site specific seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit, to the approval of the City Engineer. The subsurface investigation shall include CPT and exploratory borings to determine the fault rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. (MM-GEO 8) z. Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, which ever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -)T 'my' site to control predictable pollutant runoff and to protect the adjacent wetlands. ; (03SR04E CUP.02-04/CDP 02105) Attachment No. 1.11 '` 44W This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum,the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Appendix which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, and shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: (MM-HWQ 1) 1) Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and 2) BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person. 3) All fertilizers and pesticides used by the plant shall not pose any harmful effects upon plants, animals, and marine life in the adjacent wetland © - to any,surroundtn�3:;prop'ert�es. aa. Appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding, and to ensure protection of the adjacent wetlands. (MM-HWQ 2) bb. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first, an appropriate on-site drainage system shall be installed for the project that integrates permanent stormwater quality features. (MM-HWQ 3) cc. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the Applicant shall prepare an acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans, prepared under the supervision of a City-approved acoustical consultant, describing the stationary noise generation potential and noise mitigation measures (such as the installation of sound enclosures or placing noise-generating equipment indoors), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to meet the noise criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (MM-NO 1) dd. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. This plan will be submitted to the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. (MM-PSU 6) ee. Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: (MM-CON 1) 1) Where necessary, temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15tn (03'SR04E CUP 02-041CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.12 2) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. 3) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. 4) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. 5) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. 6) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. 7) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. 8) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. 9) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed r by the _ _ ><n�to ifY .of.Hu;nfn.Breach Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. ff. Construction of the project shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP) by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: (MM- CON 2) 1) Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line flushings. 2) During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. gg. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements, the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent(NOI) to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. (MM-,CON 3) (03 SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.13 hh. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans, the City shall include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications, which shall include measures to meet the requirements of the City and SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures may include, but are not limited to,the following: (MM-CON 9) During grading operations, the following shall be complied with: 1) Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts; 2) Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts; 3) All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas; 4) Comply with AQMD Rule 403,particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas; 5) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut; 6) Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 mile per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site; 7) Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods {�i %o 'e';t �an% d�dys)`,�with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation; 8) Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites; 9) Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites; 10)Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fitting tarp; 11)Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; 12)Maintain construction equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; 13)Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; 14)Use electric equipment whenever practicable; and 15)Shut off engines when not in use. ii. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall ensure evidence acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works that: (MM-CON 10) 1) All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.14 2) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control); 3) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas and wetlands; and 4) Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. J. Unless underground utility locations are well documented, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. (MM-CON 13) k1c.A'n arcliae'olci ' s> nidE, aleontolo st-`- lS ial?1'be`selected. b "thc,a" 1' cantdand the Cllty to b` .a SaYlaliZe,frtir�. chaebicigical and.,paleontolo i"c'al'zfin,-Ines,c `ue ,n. a" : a }_ .,� �'�Y 3' tradrngnandconstructian Asa�iaaltfied= epresentaheof the Nat11�e�Amrl4ean a- "� ti•'.,. : 1 t: L x r �" �v a'' g '# �._ 11z' comm.un><ty.shall,be evasu.ied, upon=for,a°ppro.priate.Nat'vc. mericaa fndi� s 11 The.,:appli A-i hal prr ide,.wr t en confrmat arn��by,.,AES'3;thaf theyy,ar6.1 Out 4 i b{' c:onYd>ltiori r�vU ichE.:re+gu'ires t1►e instal, a idif ` ' ��,of:a sati<sfacto y ��� rY mechaniM device{such.°ilia't3.oi%ly,4q,,rpe'rlre'n .al the;.rwa�er.,Nd .er eci`jfrom„gAES scan be us"ed fo.r dealia�taan.', nr ries an'd,thata,AfES,$ v�ll sip'' :'lo s 'docuirr�erits',re "',,'record's at,th?;`Ereguest.pf Z e,j ' rt'Y, rcflectin�3th'e.rampunts'°datesan'dUtrme of.wat'er diver#ed to 'ose don:.°Ail.d- tionall AIDS,.ma o l eleas 3i�c a=ter",tit v, .. Pose>don>wh�en t'ea'spna'blyTela vd,","to theypkrodnch`oa af.'e'Ie'et3r ci 5. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages j of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical,mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered. The recommendations of this report shall be reproduced on the plans. (BD) c. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.15 d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve,the final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue or., c001#[ons.se by the Planning Commission. (DRB) e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) f. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). g. A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application for the proposed desalination plant. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering, water quality, and chemical/fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential and groundwater constraints. Appropriate recommendations shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. (MM-GEO 1) 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for the irrigation system. (PV) b. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1)with minimum 36-inch box trees or palm equivalent(13-14 feet of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8-9 feet of brown trunk) and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PVO (Code Requirement) rP r. �f �,.; .i ,z'�5 i ,jz: 3 t Y'+ " J:2 y 7 c ::A buffer shah le,reQuirea between,the wetlands.and icon.#alriment„berm and .h �larited ii#fi a palette,ofrlants3nd�genous3}to'coastalwetlands commun><tie and;pro ldiri' 'public'acc'ess vra 'a.:'pa`thwa_ alo'n the, ro. ect'`r e`r meter E �'" €�> 1 A tivrder�ri the.vvetlaridsl%it.`sceene`dwfr..om.�tjso;as not,to disurbwsbrds` t affording views and:�is as of.v��ldl €e and awetlands' or.,r.:esid'm d. The Consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.16 trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW) e. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the.Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. f. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification#426-Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) g. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification#401-Minimum Access for Fire Department Access. (FD) h. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. (FD) i. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) j. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow,tamper, and trouble alarms,manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) k. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are 6'8"wide by 4'3" deep with a 42-inch wide (min.)right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54-inch depth. (FD) 1. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans:(FD) m. For classification within the City's Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program, a complete chemical inventory and a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a fire protection engineer, environmental hygienist, or the equivalent shall be submitted to the Fire Department. Included, but not limited to, shall be the ammonia storage tank, the lime silos and the chemical treatment facilities. These tanks and associated equipment shall be designed and installed in conformance with 2001 edition of the CFC. (FD) (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.17 n. As native on-site soils are compressible upon placement of structural loads, project implementation shall implement complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures. (MM-GEO 5) o. Type V cement shall be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measures (coatings, etc.)to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. (MM-GEO 6) p. Due to the potential for ground shaking in a seismic event, the project shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition)to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). However, given the proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust Faults, more stringent measures may be warranted. (MM-GEO 7) q. Due to the potential for liquefaction within the project vicinity, the Applicant shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition)for structures on-site to assure safety of the occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997) and"Recommended Procedures for implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California" (Dr. Geoffrey R. Martin et al, May 1999). (MM-GEO 9) r. The proposed project shall incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction. Typical methods include,but are not limited to: (MM-GEO 10) 1) Overexcavation and recompaction of soils; 2) in-situ soil densification(such as vibro-flotation or vibro-replacement); 3) injection grouting; and 4) deep soil mixing. s. The site specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed project shall analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. If deemed a possibility, adequate subsurface stabilization practices (similar to those utilized for liquefaction) shall be incorporated prior to the construction of on-site structures. (MM-GEO 11) t. All applicable school mitigation fees shall be paid pursuant to State law. (NM-PSU 1) u. The Applicant will be required to pay the prevailing sewer connection fee plus five percent of the OCSD connection fee. (MM-PSU 3) (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.18 v. The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate fees for water service connections, installation, and meters. In addition, the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. (MM- PSU 4) w. The Applicant will coordinate with the City's recycling representative to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. (NM-PSU 5) 7. The structures cannot be occupied,the final building permits cannot be approved, utilities cannot be released,the use cannot commence, and the Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following has been completed: a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. (FD) b. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. c. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Code. (FD) d. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. f. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire,pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. g. Secured entries shall utilize strobe-switch activated, automated gates and comply with City Specification#403-Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates. (FD) h. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and association(if any) hardware. (FD) i. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424-Portable Fire Extinguishers. (FD) j. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification#428-Premise Identification. Number sets may be required on front and rear of the structure. (FD) k. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415-Fire Lane Signs. Additionally, the site plan shall show all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.19 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the gradingand improvement plans. (PW) in. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance with the City-approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) n. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies(in City format) and a CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy" prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) o. The applicant shall demonstrate that final coverage under the permit has been obtained by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. (PW) p. The applicant shall demonstrate that all measures mycewwAW required by these conditions to protect the adjacent wetlands have been implemented. 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible and maintained in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetland. (PW) e. All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.20 h. Six foot high dust/wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the "Water Quality Management Plan" requirements. (PW) k. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. 1. Use low sulfur (0.5%) diesel fuel by weight tn.all equipment. L m 3 Shut iff3enginesswhen notaYn9use n. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. o. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. p. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/ grading activity. q. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) r. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) s. To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: (MM-CON 12) 1) Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and 2) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. t. During construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. The construction site shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. (MM-CON 14) u. Construction activities,to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling.shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines and wetlands. (MM-CON 15) (03 SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.21 v. Prior to excavation of the contaminated and other areas for rough grading, the project site shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash,piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly (recycled if possible). (Alm-CON 16) w. Proper excavation procedures shall be followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and Health Standards. If applicable, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. (MM- CON 17) x. The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. (MM-CON 18) y. If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures, the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. (MM-CON 19) z. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible time,the contractor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. (MM-CON 20) aa. All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off- site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. (MM-CON 21) bb. Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. (MM-CON 22) cc. The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size,wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (MM- CON 23) dd. Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). (MM-CON 24) ee. During remediation, if any soil is found to be hazardous due to contamination other than petroleum hydrocarbons, it will be segregated; stockpiled, and handled separately. (MM-CON 25) ff. Dust and volatile organic emissions from excavation activities shall be controlled through water spray or by employing other approved vapor suppressants including hydromulch spray in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Waste Discharge (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.22 Requirements and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)permit conditions. (NM-CON 26) gg. Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials, the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. (MM-CON 31) hh. Construction related activities will be subject to, and comply with, standard street use requirements imposed by the City of Huntington Beach, County and other public agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist with haul truck ingress and egress of construction areas and limiting the large size vehicles to off-peak commute traffic periods. (MM-CON 32) ii. During periods of heavy equipment access or truck hauling, the Contractor will provide construction traffic signage and a construction traffic flagman to control construction and general project traffic at points of ingress and egress and along roadways that require a lane closure. (MM- CON 34) J. If grading operations uncover paleontological/archeological resources, the applicant shall suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/archeological resources. An archeologist shall report such findings to the Planning Department. If the paleontological/archeological resources are found to be significant, the City shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and salvage. 9. Prior to the excavation process for pipeline construction, the contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. (A4M-CON 27) 10. Methane migration features will be consistent with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Specification Number 429 and other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features shall be submitted for review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA),Environmental Health Division. (MM-CON 28) 11. Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas (LFG) generation and migration will be completed prior to implementation of the proposed water delivery component of the project. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency,Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems below trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. Periodic monitoring.of the monitoring network will be performed. (MM-CON 29) (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.23 12. A Traffic Management Plan(TMP) shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be located where construction would affect roadways. The TMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures: (NM-CON 30) a. Limit construction to one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible; b. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; c. Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/routes are disrupted by construction activities, if any; d. Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible public agencies in order to minimize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; e. Where construction is proposed for two-lane roadways, confine construction to one-half of the pavement width. Establish one lane of traffic on the other half of the roadway using appropriate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer; f. The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. Per Caltrans requirements, the applicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans at the 90-percent design phase; g. Construction activities shall, to the extent feasible, be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and h. Provide for temporary parking, where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. 13. The Contractor shall obtain the necessary right-of-way encroachment permits and satisfy all permit requirements. Also, nighttime construction may be performed in congested areas. (NM-CON 33.) 14. Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down(e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac-out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated. It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally, the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. (MM-CON 40) 15. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.24 Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 16. The applicant and applicant's representatives shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 17.The applicant shall completely remove the storage tanks from the site within 18 months from the date of approval of City building permits and agreements. 18.To address the risk of facility abandonment by the proiect owners, security will be posted to ensure the demolition of the plant and restoration of the site to its original condition. No later than six (6) months after the start of construction of the desalination facility, a restoration bond or other security shall be posted with the City in the amount acceptable to the City and owner of the site to cover the cost of restoring the site to its original condition. The restoration bond or other security shall be based on cost estimates from licensed demolition contractors. Such security shall remain in effect for five (5) years after the plant is operational. Six (6) months prior to the 51h anniversary date, the City and the plant owner shall determine if the risk of bankruptcy is still a concern and if the security should be terminated or renewed. 19.The applicant/property owner and each successor in interest to the property which is the subiect of this proiect shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this proiect. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed or until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for Coastal Development Permit. Because the project is in the appealable area of the coastal zone,there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.25 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is _ , 2094 September 23, 2004, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday— Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 6. All applicable fees from the Building,Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the Cou=of Ora me and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 9. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid at issuance of building permits. 10. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 11. The development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 12. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying the building. 13. The Water Ordinance#14.52, the "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (PV ) (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.26 14. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) 15. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at a rate of$124 per net new added daily trip at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This rate is subject to change pursuant to any subsequent action by the City Council. (PW) (MM-PSU 2) 16. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) 17. The applicant is hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code 66020. 18.The applicant or its successor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach within 10 days of being informed by AES Inc., or its successors, that electric power production shall cease permanently. If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational after power production ceases permanently, they shall apply for an amendment to the new Conditional Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit from the City relative to the intake of seawater. 19.The applicant or its successor shall comply with all legally enforceable directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the adjacent wetlands, whether in the existing degraded conditions or as a restored wetland relative to the desalination plant. 20.If the applicant or its successor intends to remain operational after power production ceases permanently, the applicant or its successor shall comply with all lemally enforceable directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements imposed by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies to mitigate, abate, or prevent conditions that cause the impingement or entrainment of marine life with�*relative to the intake of seawater for the desalination facility. 21.The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In addition,the applicant shall supply Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) with water of quality that does not cause the IRWD to violate the pertinent limits of the IRWD reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed project is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to the IRWD. The applicant shall reach an (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.27 agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and its affected member agencies regarding the specific requirements of the quality of the desalinated water prior to beginning construction of the desalination plant. If agreement between the two parties is not reached by then, MWDOC has the right to reject the use of desalinated water. (03SR04E CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.28 = 0 4 September 4, 2003 Chairman Kokal and Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project CUP/CDP Review- Environmental and Economic Benefits Dear Chairman Kokal and Planning Commissioners: As Poseidon has previously stated during presentations to the Planning Commission, at the six meetings, including several public hearings held on the Environmental Impact Report. ("EIR") and Conditional Use Permit ("CUP")/Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") to date, Poseidon has appreciated the time and effort the Commission, City staff and public have spent in reviewing various components of our proposed Seawater Desalination Project("Project"). Now that the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEDV for the Project has been certified by the Planning Commission and the CUP/CDP is under consideration, it appears fairly critical that the Commission consider the environmental and economic benefits that would be realized by the City of Huntington Beach and Orange County from the proposed Project. The Commission's consideration of these benefits is appropriate from both a legal and policy perspective because: • Approval of the CUP/CDP requires a finding of consistency between the CUP/CDP and all�elements of the City's General Plan, including the Economic Development Element of the General Plan. ■ CEQA requires a decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, and technological or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project(Statement of Overriding Considerations). ■ The City of Huntington Beach, upon implementation of the Poseidon Project,. stands to-gain significant environmental and economic benefits Poseidon Resources Corporation 37 g0 Kilrov Airport way.Suite-60.Long Beach.CA '?0806.LISA 55__490•2003 Faz 5n_- ?0.2.03 � Desal benefits letter PC final 9-4-03 irTA MEN t�O_ �-� r---�Ge p Office:1055 Washington Boulevard,Stamford,CT 06901 •—"— Chairman Kokal and Planning Commissioners- September 4, 2003 Page 2 from the Project, as outlined in the attached summary of such benefits prepared by Poseidon. Poseidon hopes this information is helpful as the Commission prepares for its September 9th meeting and agendized review of the Poseidon Project CUP/CDP. Poseidon representatives will be available at the Commission meeting to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Billy Cans Sr. Vice President Enclosure cc: Ray Silver, City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Robert Beardsley, Director of Public Works Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Ricky Ramos, Assistant Planner Paul D'Alessandro, Esq.,Deputy City Attorney AT is 1: _ •rv' �'.; S S 7 -_--Z J !Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Huntington Beach Environmental Benefits for Huntington Beach • Significant improvement in the appearance of the area after the removal of the abandoned oil storage tanks; Edison Way street improvements. • Water quality benefits as a result of 5 MGD of desalinated product water hydraulically flowing in City pipes [higher quality (softer, lower TDS) water than the MWD water purchased by the City to supplement the seasonal availability of groundwater—whether or not the City purchases water from the desalination plant]. • Opportunity for City to diversify water supply portfolio - purchase of Water supply and / or water backup for City (if desired); local water source for drought insurance and improved supply reliability and service interruptions from MWD. • City booster facility energy use (and costs) will be significantly reduced by using Poseidon's high-pressure discharge to the City's MWD pipeline (OC-44). Economic Benefits for Huntington Beach • Annual franchise payments for using City streets for pipeline installation and operation, plus the share of the interconnection and operation and maintenance costs of OC-44. • Direct and indirect economic benefits during construction and operation. • Opportunity for City to share water storage that will save capital and operating costs for new storage. • The introduction of the desalination product water could reduce the City water CIP needs and operation and maintenance costs. • New tax revenue with little demand upon City services. Poseidon Resources Corporation A ' �;'_ °._ D U .w �:rn?'• .SAY:d_i`a v. i t: 3',50 Kiirov Airport gray.Suite 260.Long Seach.CA 90506.USa 562-490-20n3 Fa>::562.420-2103 August 2003 Executive Office:1055 Washington Boulevard,Stamford.CT 06901 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Huntington Beach Economic Benefits Real Estate Tax Base: $186,500,000 Annual Real Estate Taxes: $ 1,883,650 SE RDA: $ 1,130,190 (net to RDA) Table 1. Summary of Economic Impacts from 2-Year Construction of Huntington Beach Desalination Plant Outside Total Regional Impacts Orange Count Orange County Project Impacts Total employment(job-years) 1,900 1,500 3,400 Labor income $100 million $70 million $170 million Other income $18 million $19 million $37 million Indirect business tax recei is $5 million $7 million $12 million Sales Tax during construction—$1.5 million, Orange County 675 jobs per year- Direct 275 lobs per year- Indirect Estimated average earnings per job are$54,000, about 29% higher than average earnings per job for Orange County. Table 2. Summary of Annual Impacts from Plant Operation Regional Impacts Orange Count Annual employment jobs 350 Labor income $18.0 million Other income $7.0 million Indirect business tax receipts $3.0 million 18 full-time jobs 322 jobs per year- Indirect (Source: "Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Proposed Huntington Beach Desalination Project', .June 2003— M.Cubed) t 's't a.� r �-• a L4 August 2003 V :i September 9,2003 Chairman Kokal and Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project CUP/CDP Review—Suagested Findings and Conditions of Approval Dear Chairman Kokal and Planning Commissioners: As you know, Poseidon has been working for months with you and your staff on refining the document entitled "Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No.02-05." Poseidon has reviewed the September.9th version of the Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval and supports the draft conditions and the minor revisions highlighted in the new document. However, we do not support either of the Alternative Conditions shown in the document. Consequently, Poseidon urges the Commission to approve the September 9th version of the Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval as presented by your staff without the Alternative Condition language shown for conditions: l(k) Landscaping 4(m)(12) Membrane cleaning-disposal of liquids&solids(see alternative language below) 5(d) DRB-Conflicts with conditions 6(b)and 6(d) 6(c) Public Access - Conflicts with conditions 6(b) and 6(d)— no need for nor is there room for public access pathway;fenced industrial character site Suggested language changes: 4(m)(12) "...piped to the Orange County Sanitation District via the nearest sewer line." 80) "...in all equipment using diesel fuel." The first version of this.document was prepared by your staff and attached to the May 27, 2003 staff report for our project. At your July 8, 2003 meeting, your Commission first turned its attention from the Environmental Impact Report for our project to the Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval. Unfortunately, due to the lateness of the hour, the Commission did not take action on the CUP/CDP for our project that night. Instead you voted to individually submit any proposed revisions to the Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval to staff. The July 22, 2003 staff report incorporated proposed revisions as submitted by several of the Commissioners and attached a new version of the Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval marked"REVISED—July 22,2003." Poseidon 9ssources Corporation 3760 l0rov Airport Way,Suite 260,Long Basch.CA 90606.USA. 562.490-2003 Fax:562-490-2403 Executive Office: 1055 Washington Beufevard,Stamford,CT 06901r,3--r k:�'=�1 Chairman Kolcal and Planning Commissioners September 9, 2003 Page 2 Poseidon representatives met with your staff prior to the July 22, 2003 meeting and expressed our support for the revised July 22 version as presented by staff. At your August 12 meeting, staff provided another revised version of the Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval marked"REVISED-August 12, 2003." This version incorporated several additional proposed revisions submitted by individual Commissioners. More importantly, the August 12 staff report outlined the reasons why several other Commissioner-proposed conditions could not be incorporated into the August 12 version. Poseidon representatives indicated that they would support the August 12 version as presented by staff. The Commission began to page through the August 12 version of the Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval, one by one,to determine whether a majority of your Commission would mandate further revisions to the August 12 version. Again, due to the lateness of the hour, the Commission did not get too far into the document. The Commission resumed its page by page review of the August 12 version at your August 26 meeting. Based on input received from the Commissioners at your August 26 meeting,staff has now prepared another revised version of the Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval.marked "REVISED — September 9, 2003." A handful of minor revisions to the language in the August 12 version has been incorporated(and highlighted) in the September 9 version. In addition, the September 9 version highlights.two "Alternative Conditions" [one for condition l(k) on.page 1.5 and one for condition 4(m)(12) on page 1.9]. The reasons that staff did not incorporate this same language when it was originally proposed(over one month ago)are clearly set forth in the August 12 staff report. (See,staffs response to conditions 4 and 5 as proposed by Commissioner Dingwall.) We hope this information is helpful as the Commission prepares for its September 9 meeting and agendized review of the Poseidon Project CUP/CDP. Poseidon representatives will be available at the Commission meeting to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Billy Sr. Vice President cc: Ray Silver,City Administrator Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director Robert Beardsley,Director of Public Works Mary Beth Broeren,Principal Planner Ricky Ramos,Associate Planner Paul D'Alessandro,Esq.,Deputy City Attorney �'';,ter s1 14.0 O s E I D O N S O U R C E S September 9, 2003 Chairman Kokal and Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Jan D. Vandersloot, MD September 8, 2003 e-mail to Planning Commission— AES Huntington Beach Generating Station Surf Zone Water Quality Study, Final Draft, prepared for the California Energy Commission, prepared by Komex H2O Science Inc, dated August 4, 2003. Dear Chairman Kokal and Planning Commissioners: Poseidon feels it cannot allow the misleading statements and unfounded proposed conditions to sit before this body without a response. Dr. Vandersloot has submitted for your review and action an e-mail dated September 8th on the above referenced AES surfzone study. Dr. Vandersloot has read the above report and selected statements out of context(and inconsistent with the report's conclusions)that support his view. There is little new information in the report or the analysis that was not addressed in the various studies in the project EIR. The new information only confirms the EIR analysis and improves the case that the beach health problems are not originating at the power plant. Why is Poseidon concerned? Dr. Vandersloot's e-mail would lead one to believe that AES is a significant source of the beach health problems in Huntington Beach and in turn, the future discharge (in the AES outfall) from the Poseidon desalination plant will contribute to this problem. AES is not the source of the health problems on the beach, nor will the desalination project contribute to those existing problems. In fact the desalination plant will improve the mixing of the discharge and.reduce the potential for surfzone migration. The text quoted below from the report states the conclusions very clearly: Executive Summary(page iv) Based on the results collected in this study the following conclusions have been made: • Sub-thermocline water is occasionally[emphasis added] entrained into the AES HBGS intake. During this study there were no specific indications that the intake water contained part of the OCSD plume. However one event in August and three brief events in September demonstrated (brief) entrainment of sub- thermocline water into the intake vault. The mechanism required to support the Grant Hypothesis has been demonstrated on four brief occasions in this study; • Concentrations of bacteria introduced to the.AES HBGS from the ocean do not increase significantly in numbers during passage through the cooling water system prior to discharge [emphasis added]; • Land-based sources of bacteria (particularly Blackford Ditch and Blowdown Feed Water) do enter the discharge vault and are discharged to the ocean, but not at concentrations high enough to contribute significantly to bacterial contamination of the surf zone of Huntington State Beach [emphasis added]; and Poseidon Resources Corporation 3760 Kilroy Airport Way,Suite 260.long Beach.CA 90806.USA 562-490-2003 Fax:562-490-2403 Executive Office: 1055 Washington Boulevard,Stamford.CT 06901 94*1 t"R ALA 3 Loti� a SS • The sanitary sewers within the HBGS are not connected to, or leaking into the discharge vault. Because of the microbial and oceanographic results presented in this study further investigation of the role of the AES HBGS facility in surf zone water quality of Huntington State and City Beaches is not recommended [emphasis added) at this time. Poseidon has not had the time to address each of Dr. Vandersloot's assertions in this letter, so only a few examples are presented below: 4. The bacteria from the discharge pipe get on the beach, contributing total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci to the beach bacteria. Komex estimates that up to 16% of the Enterococci bacteria on the beach come from the AES discharge(p. 134). Response —The Komex study evaluated the percent contribution to exceeding an AB 411 standard that could be attributed to the AES discharge under several scenarios. a. One scenario was the minimum 36:1 dilution, combined with the highest concentrations of Enterococci observed in the discharge vault. So, minimum dilution was combined with maximum concentrations to evaluate a worst case scenario. Under these worst case conditions, the AES discharge contributed 17 CFU/100 mL or 16.3% of the 104 CFU/100 mL needed to exceed the Enterococcus standard. When all of the Enterococci data are evaluated, with minimum dilution of 36:1, the contribution from the AES discharge is generally less than 4% (see Figure 5-13 of Komex report). b. Under the average dilution scenario of 277:1, the contribution from the AES discharge is generally less than 0.5% with a peak of slightly over 2% when the maximum Enterococci value is used. c. The Komex report does not show "that bacteria from the AES outfall consistently reach the beach." The report shows that bacteria from the AES discharge occasionally reach the beach under worst case conditions (Figures 5-11, 5-12, 5-13). Under average conditions, the peak contribution of the AES discharge to the beach is as follows Total coliform—0.06% Fecal coliform—0.4% Enterococcus—2.2% Compared to MBC data previously on record: When the City of Huntington Beach reroutes the offsite storm drainage that currently enters the discharge vault, the bacteria levels in the discharge vault will be further reduced so that the contribution of bacteria from AES will be reduced. Other similar actions suggested by the report will further improve the mitigation of bacteria in the area. The interaction of the desalination plant will further reduce the bacteria count in the ocean in two ways: a. water taken from the AES wastewater will be treated to reduce bacteria entering the desalination plant so the discharge of the higher saline water into the AES will be lower in the presence of bacteria, and 2 f 14.� b. the higher saline discharge is higher in density than the normal AES discharge; so the discharge will stay below the surface and be mixed more thoroughly than today, further reducing the surface transport of bacteria to the surfzone So the desalination plant will not contribute additional bacteria to the AES discharge, and will therefore have no impact on beach bacteria conditions. 6. The intake vault contains high bacteria levels that Komex blames on a contaminated ocean (p. 107). However, Komex did not do any studies of the ocean bacteria at the Intake port or the discharge port. If the ocean is contaminated at the intake port, this would be the first evidence that the ocean is contaminated with measurable levels of indicator bacteria at 1500 feet out from the shoreline, where the intake port is located 23 feet below the surface of the ocean. (p.17). 8. Intake Vault bacterial concentrations in the summer of 2002 between July 12 and October 5, 2002, would have caused 4 exceedances of AB 411 if collected in the surf zone(p.80). Response to Items 6&8 - On page 107 of the Komex report, the authors state"Bacterial concentrations in the intake vault and discharge vault were consistently low (emphasis added)and only exceeded AB 411 standards 21 times (Table 5-1), of these exceedances nine were observed in the intake vault and therefore represent an import of contamination from the ocean" First, the report states that bacterial concentrations were consistently low. Second, Komex did not evaluate ocean bacterial levels and compare them to intake vault levels, as was done by Poseidon in the Sanitary Survey (Appendix E of the EIR, see Figures 4-9 and 4-10 of the Sanitary Survey) Poseidon recognized that ocean bacterial . levels were generally lower than the levels in the intake vault and suggested that leakage between the intake vault and the discharge vault could potentially be the source of bacteria. 7. Intake Forebay bacterial concentrations between May 30 and September 28, 2001, ranged up to 12,997 MPN/100 cc Enterococci (AB 411 standard Is 104 CFU/100cc for a single water sample) (p.42). Page 42 of the Komex report states, "Enterococcus concentrations ranged from below detection limits to 12,997 MPN/100 ml. The majority of samples were below detection limits(40 samples)." (emphasis added). The intake concentrations are not relevant to the issue of beach contamination or exceedance of AB 411 standards. Again, the intake concentrations are not relevant to AB 411 standards. 9. Discharge Vault bacterial concentrations ranged up to total coliforms 24,192 MPN/100cc, fecal coliforms up to 1,296 MPN/100cc, and Enterococci to 1,694 MPN/100cc between May 30 and September 28, 2001 (p.42) (AB 411 standards are a maximum of 10,000 Total Coliforms, 400 Fecal Coliforms MPN/100cc, or 104 Enterococcus CFU/100cc in a single water sample). Note that values >24, 192 exceeded the Instrument's capacity; therefore the actual numbers are higher, maybe much higher. Response-Page 42 of the Komex report states: 3 Total coliforms — "The majority of samples were between 10 and 100 MPN/100 ml (35 samples)." E. coli— "The majority of samples were below detection limits (44 samples)." (emphasis added) Enerococcus — "the majority of samples were below detection limits (40 samples)." (emphasis added) In addition, the report estimates the bacteria concentrations necessary in the vault to for the power plant discharge to exceed the AB 411 limits (see below): Page 133— Bacteria concentrations Needed inside AES to exceed AB 411 standards at the beach "Figure 5-8 represents the total coliform concentration required in the discharge vault to cause an exceedance on the beach. For example, the AB 411 single-sample criteria for total coliform is 10,000 cfu / 100 ml, In order to measure that concentration on the beach (assuming that no other sources are contributing), and based on the dilution value calculated from the outfall to the beach of 36 to 1, the required concentration of total coliform in the discharge vault would be approximately 360,000 cfu/100ml. Figures 5-9 and Figure 5-10, respectively, represent the required concentrations of fecal coliform and Enterococcus to cause an exceedance on the beach based upon their AB 411 single-sample criteria limits. " "A tabular summary of the key concentrations required in the discharge vault is shown below in Table 5-8" "Table 5-8 - Concentrations Of Indicator Bacteria Required In The DV (Discharge Vault of AES)To Cause An AB 411 Exceedance On The Beach Category Minimum Dilution (36 to 1) Total Coliform 360,000 Fecal Coliform 14,400 Enterococcus 3,744" "All concentrations are expressed in units of cfu/100ml. " The necessary concentrations (see above table) to affect beach.health are not typically found in the DV. Ms. Elaine Archibald will be at the Commission meeting tonight to respond to any questions you may have on the Surfzone Report. Sincerely, Billy Owens V Sr. Vice Presid t 4 9'1k'i (S_P 16 2003 OF HUh TIN Teti N, . Donaven 1001 SEP #8.3,,! os Patos Avenue Hunting CA 92649 714/ 840 7496 ndonaven aWea.net September 13, 2003 Mayor Connie Boardman Members of the City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Regarding: Poseidon Desalination Plant Dear Mayor Boardman and City Council Members: Having just read the draft report Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act from the California Coastal Commission,August,2003, I felt it necessary to bring to you some of the concerns which I personally feel regarding the establishment of private desalination plants along the California coast. I. Use of public resources All of the facilities, whether public or private, can be growth inducing. The Poseidon plant which has been requested in Huntington Beach would use 50 to 100 million gallons per day of seawater. An important question for Huntington Beach is what will the city gain from accommodating the Poseidon desalination plant. Other questions which arise are the following: Do we want our coastline and ocean water used for a proprietary facility with no gain to the City of Huntington Beach? And do we want to allow proprietary interests to have control over one of our most important resources? Studies are underway to determine the effect of desalination power needs on the electric grid of the state. II. Multinational trade restrictions and rules "Multinational corporations are at the forefront of the drive to privatize public serving water systems around the country and in the world."(*P. 23, see below) Some of the current international trade agreements have the potential to allow these corporations to disregard local rules and regulations. Poseidon Resources, has international partnerships with a number of companies including Suez and U. S. Filter which is a subsidiary of Vivendi, a French firm which has just purchased 45,000 acres of farmland in the Imperial Valley with water rights totaling approximately 250,000 acre-feet per year. This represents 8% of the water use of San Diego County. It is well to remember that under world trade agreements "California's phase-out of MTBE was successfully challenged as a barrier to free trade or investment by Methanex Corporation which is now seeking$970 million in damages"from the State of California *P.26 Multinationals could interfere with compliance with CEQA as well as other local laws. The international trade agreements give a tribunal of international corporate representatives control over the disagreements many international corporations might have with local regulations. There is no appeal from their decisions. III. Private vs. public desalination facilities Currently there are 12 desalination plants along the California Coast with a total capacity of 2.75 MGD. In addition there are some fairly small plants located on offshore platforms with capacities ranging from 2 to 30 thousand gallons per day. Public, government, and non-profit facilities account for 719,000 gallons per day while private, proprietary facilities for 1,598,000 per day. There are 16 desalination plants proposed for the coast in addition to the'two proposed by Poseidon. The 2 proposed by Poseidon are by far the largest of all of them. Most of the other proposed plants are planned for public agencies and even the Poseidon plant proposed for Carlsbad is joint with the San Diego Water Authority. The Huntington Beach plant stands alone as being one of the largest.and also being a private facility. Public facilities seem to have some immunity from the international trade agreements which private companies do not have. It seems then that public facilities have a leg up over the private from the point of view of environmental regulation and international trade agreements. *Page numbers quoted above are from the Draft Report"Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal,4ct,"California Coastal Commission, August, 2003. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I believe it is a very important subject for our city. Sincerely, 4 Le 7 Copy to: Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2 d.g'rkgyr w rr 1I n En,`�-n BNA ',�' 'hA.`�qs 2 'A xS a k in yr �e �^� �zws.r�2���m�'a.-..n�" �:..°:s,. , xn_s...aw's.'�:m��.�"�i' ✓n ��.As �s,� y ,� 'a,'rq r fs � as' a '� "�'•-�'fi' ;sty 4 i r-�a, ? �,"d� 2 ; .g � �a 'e !k ''� � �r �s'� �t t �`���£p e°,��.� �;�Ns ��i ¢ F ts, f'v�-7"�� �v�wr�+,�r ,.rA.�cCy�'' ��p; � �5���y�q ''�"r �•� a�e��,'�L' ?"xµ,'��y ��'�i.3G� �'���,�'t�, lpsp"�s�B� e�.� s$� PC Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 2 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)—Ricky Ramos Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, made a presentation to the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS— Regarding Study Session portion of Meeting Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation, voiced concerns about water quality and the notion that the proposed project would provide safe drinking.water and improve bacteria levels in the ocean water near the AES Power Plant. He thanked Ricky Ramos for his assistance in providing information, and also voiced concerns about Poseidon's association with the AES, and what the permit guidelines issued to AES will allow. Bruce Monroe, Sierra Club, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns about the regional affects of the proposed project. He provided a website address for interested parties wishing to review the Sierra Club's national policy on the environment, and also discussed the Club's position on reverse osmosis and desalination. He voiced concerns related to siting, entrainment, impingement, and outfall discharge. He referenced several special interest groups with similar concerns, and expressed concerns about decreased property values and quality of life. Randy Fuhrman, Roundhill Drive, spoke in opposition to the item and how it will affect Southeast Huntington Beach. He urged the Commission to consider alternate avenues to improve the area. He asked the Commission to consider how the City will benefit from approving the proposed project. He urged the Commission to postpone decision until further study was performed. Jan D. Vandersloot, Ocean Outfall Group, provided written material to the Commission and spoke in opposition to the item, calling the desalination process flawed because of the brine being put back into the ocean. He discussed how the proposed project would impact the AES Power Plant discharge and harm the marine environment. He urged the Commission to postpone action on the item until certain information is gathered The Commission asked Dr. Vandersloot about salinity calculations. Dr. Vandersloot referenced a section of the EIR that reports worst-case salinity conditions. Don May, California Earth Corps, voiced concerns about how the proposed project will affect California Earth Corps wetland restoration project near the proposed project area. He informed them of property acquisition and discussed issues related to the Talbert Marsh, sand bar removal, estuary bacteria and the increased lighting that may divert wildlife from the wetlands area. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE CLOSED. Questions/comments included: ■ What is the velocity of water in the intake pipe? ■ Has there been an investigation for bacteria within the AES Power Plant outflow? ■ Where:does the City's jurisdiction end in the ocean waters, and how does that affect permitting on the water intake line? (Mean high tide line; seaward of mean (03p=0527) PC Minutes, May 27,2003 Page 3 high tide line is under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. Discharge is regulated by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board). AGENDA REVIEW- Herb Fauland provided a brief overview of the agenda for the public hearing portion for tonight's meeting. 6:30 P.M. -RECESS FOR DINNER 7:00 P.M. -Crry COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALL GIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Dave Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray AGENDA APPROVAL Commissioner Dingwall prese ted a resolution thanking City staff for their involvement in expeditiously providing the publi information on significant projects to allow full and complete public scrutiny prior to action by t Planning Commission during the public hearing process. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dean Albright, Breda Lane, Hunti ton Beach, discussed issues related to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-2A&B (Poseid Seawater Desalination Plant), including the information provided by the Orange unty Sanitation District relative to marine life and water temperature. Mark Bixby, Hillgate Lane, Huntington Bea , discussed information located on the City website, and voiced concerns related to Pub' Hearing Item Nos. B-2A&B (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -PROCEDURE: Comm sion Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions, Public aring, Discussion/Action. B-1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-09 IBIZA STAURANT-DANCING Applicant: Jeff Bergsma Request: To permit dance in conjunction with existing live entertainment on two 50 square-foot danc floors; one within an existing 2,767 square foot restaurant and one on the 2, 0 square foot rooftop deck. The request includes participation in the Downtown arking In-Lieu Fee program for two additional parking spaces required for the posed dance floor. Location: 209 Main Street (West of Main Street, north of Wal ut Avenue). Project Planner: Paul Da Veiga,Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit No. 03-09 request: - Permit dancing within the restaurant and on the rooftop deck, 'n conjunction with existing live entertainment on two 50 square- of dance floors. (03p=0527) PC Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 9 B-2a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Prolect Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner e Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 (EIR No. 00-02) request: - Analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a request to construct a 50 million gallons per day (MGD) seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an approximately 11 acre site. The project also includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to connect to an existing regional transmission system, and two off- site booster pump stations. - Documents potential impacts to Land Use/Relevant Planning, Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Construction Related Impacts. - Evaluates four alternatives to the original project proposal. - Concludes that the project results in no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts in the areas of Agricultural Resources, Air Quality (long-term), Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use/Relevant Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Recreation, and Transportation/Traffic. - Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels in the areas of Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, and Construction Related Impacts. Concludes that potential impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels in the area of Short-Term Construction Related Emissions. e Staff's Recommendation: Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations based upon the following: - Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan goals, policies, and objectives - Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance - Potentially significant environmental impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened - Remaining significant unavoidable impacts are found to be acceptable due to overriding considerations - Benefits of the project are balanced against its unavoidable environmental impacts Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, made a presentation to the Commission. (03p=0527.) PC Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 10 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Norm Westwell spoke in support of the item and urged the Commission to approve Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 00-02. Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation, voiced concerns about the how the water intake and cooling system will affect marine life. He also stated that the EIR did not indicate who the final recipient of processed water would be, and inadequately address the growth inducement element. He urged the Commission to postpone the item until further study was done. Mark Bixby, Hillgate Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item citing lack of trust in private water companies, brine and water quality issues, and cleaning solution being added to the ocean water. He suggested a condition of approval be added that all cleaning solutions be discharged through the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD). Ed DeMeulle, Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association, urged the Commission to postpone the item. Randy Furhman, Roundill Drive, Huntington Beach, voiced concerns about the EIR reporting no negative impacts. He discussed the bacterial plume and urged the Commission postpone their decision on the item until more research was done. Bruce Monroe, Siena Club, spoke in opposition to the item, informing the Commission that a meeting of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) would be held on Thursday, May 29, 2003 to discuss water quality. He stated that the SARWQCB provides opinion on a case-by-case basis, and that a study on regional water was scheduled for release in September 2003. Deborah Zisch, Niguel Circle, spoke in opposition to another industrial project being constructed in a redevelopment area, and urged the Commission to consider another commercial use similar to Wal-Mart or the recently approved Strand project. Jan D. Vandersloot, Ocean Outfall Group, urged the Commission to approve Alternate Action "B" (continue certification and direct staff accordingly). He stated that the EIR was incomplete, and that recommendations by the California Coastal .Commission were not known and should be considered as part of the certification process. Larry Porter, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to the item and discussed the outfall conditions associated with OCSD and the AES Power Plant facilities. He distributed informational handouts and made an overhead projected presentation informing the Commission of noticeable discharge products. Don May, California Earth Corps, spoke in opposition to the item. He voiced concerns that the wetlands restoration project adjacent to the proposed project site was not discussed in the EIR. He also discussed additional impacts such as light, noise, and public access, along with possible mitigation measures. (03p=0527) PC Minutes May 27,2003 Page 11 Stephanie Barger, Earth Resource Foundation, urged the Commission to postpone the item. She discussed the lack of water conservation efforts in place, including drought resistant landscaping, and provided information on the number of gallons discharged by the OCSD per day. Monika Galluccio, Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association, urged the Commission to postpone the item. She discussed the wetlands restoration project and voiced concerns about pollution affecting the ocean water quality near the AES Power Plant between Newland and Magnolia. David Guido, Lochlea Lane, Huntington Beach, urged the Commission to postpone the item and conduct further study within the EIR on salinity levels within the Pacific Ocean. John F. Scott, Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the item and informed the Commission of the number of beach closures in 2001 due to poor water quality near the AES Power Plant. He discussed pollutants discharged by OCSD and AES, and the reverse osmosis plan in place by the Orange County Water District. Tim Anderson, I Street, Westminster, spoke in opposition to the item proposing that the City build down by opposing future projects. Billy Owens, Applicant, Poseidon Resources, made a PowerPoint presentation and spoke in support of the item. He informed the Commission that all items questioned during the response to comments period in September 2002 had been addressed, and that the EIR deserves certification. Ron Van Blarcom, legal counsel for Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item, pointing out that many of the issues and concerns being addressed have been repeatedly covered within the EIR in several different areas. He also informed the Commission that the EIR is meant to disclose information, not provide opinion. Dr. Scott Jenkins, Scripps Institute of Oceanography spoke in support of the item. He discussed his studies of the climate history and flow rates of California rivers, sea salt removal and how it affects bacteria content, and the effects of water temperature which creates a"plume" affect and is measured through state-of-the- art technology. He stated that the proposed project would increase sea salt outfall by 10%. The Commission asked Dr. Jenkins to explain what causes ocean water pollution in front of the AES Power Plant. Dr. Jenkins stated that the cause is unknown, but explained that the Plant is responsible for meeting the standards and conditions associated with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. Dr. Jenkins also discussed urban runoff and the chemical analysis of constituent parts affecting the AES Power Plant intake pipes. Nikolay Voutchkov, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. He discussed source water:intake compounds (organics, heavy metals, toxic compounds) to identify water quality and discharge water quality, and information (03p=0527) PC Minutes May 27,2003 Page-12 related to sample collection during the 2.5 year Sanitary Survey documented within the EIR. He noted that water samples were collected from the Santa Ana Riverbed, Talbert Marsh and AES Power Plant outtake discharge. The Commission again asked Dr. Jenkins to explain what causes the poor water quality in front of the AES Power Plant. Dr. Jenkins again stated that the cause was unknown, and that the Commission should not let existing conditions inhibit future possibilities in water quality improvement within that area. Dr. Jeffrey Graham, Scripps Institute of Oceanography spoke in support of the item. Dr. Graham is an expert in the way organisms adapt to a change in their environment. He indicated that the findings within the EIR are accurate, and discussed salinity ranges, citing areas studied for high saline content. The Commission asked the Scripps Institute consultants to explain the level of metallic or unnatural by-product compounds concentrated within discharge water. Dr. Voutchkov referenced Table 4.2 on page E-55 within the EIR Appendices, and discussed treatment and/or removal procedures. He also mentioned that the SARWQCB guidelines dictate the maximum level of compounds (weak acids and sulfuric acids) allowable for potable water. Dr. Jenkins discussed water flow rates between the AES Power Plant and the proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant during worse case conditions. Eileen Murphy, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, urged the Commission to postpone action on the item until further information/data was collected. Staff read into the record late communication from Robert Thomas in opposition to the item. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion ensued regarding jurisdiction over the review and regulation of various aspects of the project. The Commission inquired about the differences in standards between intake and outfall discharge permits. The Commission asked about the impacts of lead accumulation, and suggested that the applicant consider additional treatment to reduce lead concentration before discharging into the ocean. Consultants explained that the SARWQCB regulates the allowable concentration levels in discharge water. Kevin Thomas, RBF Consultants, ensured the Commission that staff, outside consultants and reporting agencies have provided an adequate level of review on the proposed project. The Commission discussed the benefits of capturing additional constituent material during the desalination process. Consultants explained that with minimal impact on the environment, increased removal of constituent material is unnecessary. (03p=0527) PC Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 13 The Commission asked if their authority included the right to impose conditions of approval pertaining to the portion of the project seaward of the mean high tide line. Staff and consultants responded that establishing conditions on an area outside of the Commission's jurisdiction was not possible. The Commission asked about the California Coastal Commission's jurisdictional boundaries for ocean water. Staff answered that the boundary line begins at the mean high tide line and ends 3 miles outward. Kevin Thomas called Huntington Beach the lead agency for the proposed project, granting them the authority to provide analysis and impose conditions. However, outside jurisdictional agencies, at their own discretion, may request further analysis, including a new EIR. Discussion ensued regarding how the project relates to Growth Inducing Impacts, located on Section 5.2 of the EIR. Kevin Thomas explained the relationship of water supply to regional planning documents. He stated that because regional planning authorities report that California's future water demand is so severe, and that integration of the proposed water supply 24 hours per day will help alleviate shortage in Orange County, the proposed project is not considered to cause a growth inducing impact. If the proposed project were considered growth inducing, mitigation measures would have been provided within the EIR. The Commission asked if any contracts are in place with end users. The applicant confirmed that one preliminary agreement has been entered into with the Santa Margarita Water District for the projected water supply for future development in South Orange County. Benchmark housing figures were provided. The Commission asked staff and consultants to respond to California Earth Corps communication dated May 27, 2003 identifying 14 elements within the EIR that they feel do not meet CEQA requirements. Charles Mitchell, MBC Consulting, discussed outflow temperature guidelines followed by the AES Power Plant, including intake to outflow temperature differential, ambient conditions and thermal mapping. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JUNE 3, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0527) PC Minutes May 27,2003 Page 14 B-2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-041COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 sq. ft. administration building, a 38,090 sq. ft. reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 sq. ft. product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an 11 acre lease area. The proposed improvements include up to four miles of water transmission lines in Huntington Beach, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone, to connect to an existing regional transmission system in Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Proiect Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02- 05 request: - To permit a seawater desalination plant which includes construction of a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures to produce 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of potable water. - Improvements also include water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system and perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. • Staffs Recommendation: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 based upon the following: - The project is compatible with surrounding uses and is buffered from residential and other sensitive uses by significant setbacks, perimeter landscaping, and fencing. - The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modem, and more attractive structures. - The proposed structures are in substantial compliance with the Design Guidelines by employing variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for all the tanks for a unified theme. This coupled with the 10-foot perimeter landscape planter and screen wall will enhance the overall appearance of the site compared to the existing condition. - All other impacts pertaining to noise, lighttglare, odors, and use of chemicals are addressed to avoid detrimental impacts to the area. - The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of P (Public)for the site. - The project is consistent with General Plan and Coastal Element goals, policies, and objectives. - The project conforms to the requirements of the Coastal Zone Overlay and will not impede access to the coast or any public recreation opportunities in the area. (03p=0527) PC Minutes May 27,2003 Page 15 A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)TO JUNE 3, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Stanton, Kokal, Shornaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to June 3, 2003 at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, Huntington Beach Civic Center. HZ:HF:rl APPROVED BY: Ho and Zelefsky, Secretary Randy Kokal _Chairperson (03p=0527) •�vu>_.r_-,..:.r,.o:-+ua.-u..�a.�,.::,. .a.._..i_...-.:.::....a..:,..-.:rimer.-.....�•:c.., _-- _.. .:._....�:.:',.w:_...r - - - ..� - — 0 MINUTES r HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2003 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 7:00 P.M. —CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS—The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Davis, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray AGENDA APPROVAL A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Julie Bixby, Hillgate Lane, thanked staff for posting the Planning Commission Agenda on the City's website and made suggestions on how to improve its location. Don McGee, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1 a (Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Dean Albright, Breda Lane, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1a (Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Chris Jepson, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1 a (Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). John Mills, Irvine Ranch Water District, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. 8-1a (Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -PROCEDURE: Commission Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions, Public Hearing, Discussion/Action. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NO. B-1A (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02--POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT, CONTINUED FROM MAY 27, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED), AND COMBINE WITH PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. B-1 B (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 -- POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT, CONTINUED FROM MAY 27, 2003), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Ray NOES: Dingwall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0603) PC Minutes June 3,2003 Page 2 B-1a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT -CONTINUED FROM MAY 27, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1581." Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, made a presentation to the Commission by outlining Response to Comments included in the May 27, 2003 staff reports, and response to issues raised at the May 27, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner, and Kevin Thomas, RBF Consulting, were available to comment or answer questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Billy Owens, Poseidon Resources (applicant),spoke in support of the item. He s discussed the number of agencies involved in a project of this type and size, identified three (3) major sources to the California water system, ground water stress factors, saltwater intrusion, Metropolitan Water District(MWD)future supply/demand, and drought insurance. He explained the deciding factors behind Poseidon's choice of location, including use of the existing AES facility for water intake/outfall, zoning and land use consistency, and access to the regional water system. He stated that the proposed project would provide economic benefits and area improvement by heightening coastal cleanliness. Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation, spoke in opposition to the item. He voiced concerns related to the Growth Inducement Element of the EIR and purchase of water from the Santa Margarita Water District, runoff within the watershed, and marine life mortality caused by the proposed cooling process. Rich Kolander, Strathmoor Lane, spoke in support of the item. He discussed past environmental projects considered controversial, citing the Ford Plant in Dearborne, Michigan as an example of cutting-edge technology whose initial harmful environmental impacts through production of carbon monoxide causing air pollution later served as a gateway to the transportation revolution. Greg Jewell, Surfrider Foundation, spoke in opposition to the item, urging the Commission to consider alternate locations. He also provided comments on build-out within Orange County, and the proposed project's impact on the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Randy Furman, Roundhill Drive, spoke in opposition to the item. He suggested the proposed project area be upgraded with support from the City's Redevelopment Agency. He voiced concerns about the project's impact on coastal water, and its lack of financial benefits to the City. He urged the Commission to consider alternate locations. (03p=0603) PC Minutes June 3,2003 Page 3 Don May, California Earth Corps, spoke in opposition to the item. He expressed concerns about the EIR ignoring the project's growth-inducing impacts. He stressed the importance of comments from outside agencies that classified certain areas within the EIR as incomplete. He called the EIR inadequate and urged the Commission to deny the request for certification. Larry Porter, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to the item. He showed slides to demonstrate the location of the OCSD discharge plume. He voiced concerns about the project's benefits to the City, and urged the Commission to deny the request for certification of the EIR. Ron Van Blarcom, CEQA Attorney for Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. He explained that mitigation measures related to AES Power Plant operations were not identified as significant. He discussed jurisdictional parameters, stating that CEQA does not grant power to agencies outside their jurisdiction and, that project findings, conditions, mitigation measures, etc. may be imposed by other agencies. He also discussed the nexus between the project and legitimate government interests. Dr. Jeffrey Graham, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. He explained that the lack of warning signs for negative impacts caused by the project through scientific analysis does not support the need for mitigation measures. He also cited examples of marine life that performs well near areas with a high salinity factor. Elaine Archibald, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. She provided credentials and discussed analysis on intake water quality provided in the Sanitary Survey. She assured the Commission that studies show that the proposed project will provide no connection between beach closures due to high-level bacteria and the process of desalination. Nikolay Voutchkov, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. He addressed concerns voiced by the Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD) and conditions of approval issued by the State Department of Health Services. He also discussed safe drinking water standards and how various water sources are integrated. Dr. Scott Jenkins, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. He substantiated the project's need by discussing Califomia's threatened water supply. He discussed on- shore and offshore flow patterns, explaining that the maximum wastewater discharge from the OCSD takes place off shore. He also discussed salinity levels in the offshore plume. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION TOOK A BRIEF RECESS. Commissioners Davis, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall and Ray made project disclosures, including speaking with the applicant, related associates and numerous members of the public, and touring the project facility. Commissioner Dingwall also spoke with representatives from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and the IRWD. The Commission asked Ron Van Blarcom, CEQA Attorney for Poseidon to explain earlier statements about appropriate language to approve or deny certification of the EIR. Mr. Van Blarcom explained that the main purpose of an EIR is to properly disclose (03p=0603) PC Minutes June 3,2003 Page 4 impacts, therefore necessary language to certify the document should include that the EIR either provides "proper or improper disclosure of impacts". The Commission asked John Hills, official representative for the IRWD, to substantiate his concerns about Poseidon's high sodium and chloride content mixing into IRWD's wastewater distribution system, causing the IRWD to violate permit requirements by exceeding acceptable chemical limits established by the State of California. Billy Owens, Poseidon Resources, explained that IRWD would most likely receive Poseidon water through source intake by the MWD, and that a formal agreement to purchase water for commercial purposes had not been discussed. The Commission asked if a mitigation measure would be appropriate within the EIR that protects outside agencies that receive Poseidon water. Mr. Hills urged Poseidon to resolve sodium and chloride issues prior to EIR certification. Corrosion control was discussed, including elevated lead and copper content levels. The Commission asked if pipe corrosion was highly likely. Mr. Hills replied that the proposed project would increase risk factors, but that the data type could not be quantified. The Commission asked if the EIR is conditioned upon affects to other agencies and/or end users. Staff suggested that at the Commission's request, a generic mitigation measure could be included in an appropriate area of the EIR that addresses regional agency's acceptance of water. Nicolay Voutchkov, Poseidon Resources, was asked to provide a brief description of how chemical/physical components react in aggressive water. He provided information on Ph and calcium, treatment and reverse osmosis. Dr. Jenkins, Poseidon Resources, explained the location of the OCSD discharge plume. He discussed the outfall process and how the AES Plant intake system is not strong enough to pull in the OCSD discharge plume. Discussion ensued regarding the NPDES permit system and how it relates to AES and the California Energy Commission (CEC). Consultants explained that a study evaluating water intake and outfall, including evaluation of loss of sea life, would be released as soon as Unit 3 of the AES facility becomes commercially operational. it was also mentioned that the study includes 20 years of collected data. Discussion ensued regarding the entrainment study mentioned in correspondence received from the CCC dated June 3, 2003. Discussion ensued regarding the heat treatment process identified in the Sanitary Survey. It was mentioned that AES is obligated to notify Poseidon when the heat treatment process is being performed so that Poseidon can operate°offline°. A long discussion about jurisdiction parameters took place between the Commission, staff and consultants. Ocean water jurisdiction was identified, and Kevin Thomas of RBF Consultants stated the EIR addresses all issues regardless of what agency has jurisdiction. He also stated that experts all agree that environmental concerns voiced by interested parties have been adequately addressed, based upon the data brought before-the-Commission. (03pcm0603) PC Minutes June 3,2003 Page 5 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED SHOMAKER, TO CERTIFY EIR NO. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1581, AND TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE TO MITIGATE CONCERNS ISSUED BY THE IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT RELATED TO SODIUM AND CLOURIDE CONTENTS. Discussion ensued on the urgency of certifying the EIR without further discussion, citing examples of other City projects that endured a long-term analysis period. The Commission also referenced a letter dated May 8, 2003 from the California Coastal Commission discussing project impacts on development. The Commission called for the question: AYES: Davis, Stanton, Shomaker NOES: Kokal, Dingwall, Ray ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILS A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JULY 8, 2003 WITH ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON JULY 8, 2003. WITH NO SECOND, THE MOTION FAILED. Discussion ensued on how to proceed to ensure that issues raised by the Commission would receive a response from staff. Commissioner Ray requested that Commission Dingwall restate his motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY RAY, TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JULY 8, 2003; AND WITH ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON JULY 8, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kokal, Dingwall, Ray NOES: Davis, Stanton, Shomaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILS Staff requested that the Commission identify issues for follow up on July 8, 2003. The Commission provided individually a list of issues to be addressed at the July 8, 2003 meeting. (03p=0603) PC Minutes June 3,2003 Page 6 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY RAY, TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JULY 8, 2003; AND WITH ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON JULY 8, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: Davis ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSES Staff requested that the Commission provide issues for follow-up by staff on July 8, 2003. The Commission responded as follows: Commissioners Davis, Stanton, and Shomaker: No additional information requested. Commissioner Kokal: 1. AES Heat Treatment/Reverse Flow Process 2. Growth Inducement (End Users) 3. 316(b) Entrainment Study 4. NPDES Review of AES Discharge 5. Leakage from AES Discharge Vault (bacterial levels) Commissioner Dingwall: 1. Growth Inducement - California Coastal Commission comment letter (dated 5/8/03) 2. Product Water Compatibility with Irvine Ranch Water District 3. Responses to Comments 2c, 21, 4b, and 11c - Surfrider National Foundation comment letter(dated 5/27/03) 4. Impacts of Project on Future Restored Adjacent Wetland - California Earth Corps comment letter(dated 5/27/03) Commissioner Ray: 1. Impacts of Project on Future Restored Adjacent Wetland/Possibility of Buffer Area-California Earth Corps comment letter(dated 5/27/03) 2. Archaeological Resources within Proposed Project Boundaries 3. Growth Inducement in Regards to Santa Margarita Water District and the Rancho Mission Viejo, Saddle Creek, Saddle Crest, and Saddle Meadow developments 4. AES Heat Treatment/Reverse Flow Process (03p=0603) PC Minutes June 3,2003 Page 7 B-1 b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT - CONTINUED FROM MAY 27, 2003): ADDlicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Re uest: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 sq. ft. administration building, a 38,090 sq. ft. reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 sq. ft. product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an 11 acre lease area. The proposed improvements include up to four miles of water transmission lines in Huntington Beach, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone, to connect to an existing regional transmission system in Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A) "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with staff recommended findings and suggested conditions of approval'; B) "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations"; and C) "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program." A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY KOKAL, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02- 05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) TO JULY 8, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: Davis ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. to June 10, 2003 at 5:15 p.m., Room B-8, Huntington Beach Civic Center. HZ:H F:rl APPROVED BY: and Zelefsky, Secretary Randy Ko I, Chairperson (03p=0603) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 2 2. PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM —Rosemary Medel emary Medel, Associate Planner, explained the Commission's role in the General Plan\ks nce process. Davty Engineer, identified various improvements including pavement mailip lining and park enhancements. Bob , ublic Works Transportation Manager, was present to answer queDiscued r arding: ARTROVEM TS: ■ Ellis Avenue Widening dwards to Goldenwest) ■ Garfield Widening @ De ware (new widen to 4 lanes, add curb, gutter) TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: ■ Pacific Coast Highway CCTV Oqmera (install cameras to monitor traffic flow) ■ Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) Edinger&Gothard; Warner& Gothard;Warner & Edwards (grant fund to cover ar s that have significant left turn accidents) DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: ■ Newland Station Reconstruction (rebuild rainage pump station) SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: ■ Edison Lane Sewer (install new line) ■ Alabama Storm Drain (construct storm drain to r oute flow into sewer system) WATER IMPROVEMENTS: ■ Pipeline Corrosion Control (begin large steel line corro 'on control program) The Commission asked staff why the Planning Commission's evious condition of approval to install a traffic signal and crosswalk at a certain loca n on Goldenwest near the newly constructed Sports Complex had not been completed. aff stated that the decision was appealed to the City Council and the condition of appro al was deleted by the City Council at the recommendation of the Public Works Commissi Discussion ensued regarding the Commission's role/responsibility in meeti mandatory. processing times for entitlements. 3. AGENDA REVIEW—Herb Fauland Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, identified staff report corrections and late communication received for Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a& B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Scott Hess, Planning Manager, provided the Commission a template to use when establishing alternate findings on conditional use or coastal development permits. (03p=0708) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS— Regarding Study Session portion of Meeting Doug Korthof, Seal Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). 6:30 P.M. —RECESS FOR DINNER 7:00 P.M. —COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P P ROLL CALL Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM NOS. B- 1A AND B-1B. WITH NO SECOND, THE MOTION FAILED. Staff notified the public that comments heard during oral communications would not be considered part of the Public Hearing record. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chris Stacy, Cabrillo Wetland Preservation Organization, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b(Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He voiced concerns about the project extending the life of the AES Power Plant. Charles C. Kelber, Cabrillo Wetlands Preservation Organization, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b(Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He voiced concerns about construction reliability and using redevelopment funds that may result in economic failure. Larry Porter, Newport Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He voiced concems about the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) discharge plume, stating that test results were intermittent, and not indicative of the environment. Eric Carlisle, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Brittany Buscomb, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), stating the project would generate tax revenue and increase the region's water supply. Karl Wysock, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b(Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Doug Korthof, Seal Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing item Nos. B-1 a and B- 1 b (Poseidon Seawater-Desalination Plant), calling the EIR insufficient and voicing concerns about building an unsightly industrial facility within the coastal region. (03pan0708) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 4 Nancy Donovan, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B- 1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), urging the Commission to delay the decision until findings from the California Energy Commission (CEC) entrainment study are published relative to the AES Power Plant discharge plume. Mark Bixby, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), voicing concerns related to high bacteria counts at Magnolia Street. He also discussed issues raised by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) provided under late communications. Joey Racano, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), voicing concerns about brine and lead compound levels negatively affecting the ocean. He stated that the proposed project violates the Coastal Act by sidestepping the check and balance system. Gino Rapagna, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), stating that AES is not tied to the Poseidon project, that issues with adjacent neighborhoods can be mitigated, and that Huntington Beach is environmentally conscientious. Stephanie Gledhill, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. 8- 1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), calling the EIR inadequate. He discussed issues raised at the June 3'd meeting including information related to CEQA, transfer of water to Rancho Santa Margarita Water District, and entrainment and impingement. Don May, California Earth Corps, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He voiced concerns about how Poseidon water will affect pipes that transport Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) wastewater, and the project's impact on wetlands restoration in the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) area (habitat). He urged the Commission to include mitigation measures that protect the wetlands restoration area. Philip Yasskim, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing item Nos. B-1a and B-1 b(Poseidon Seawater Desalination.Plant), urging the Commission to support a process that will provide an unlimited water supply when other resources are expiring. Mike Revelle, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b(Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant)for future water resources. Kami Celano, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant)for future water resources. Patrick Clynes, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1b(Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), calling.the desalination process environmentally friendly. Karin,Keene; Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon-Seawater Desalination Plant)for future water resources. (03p=0708) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 5 Gary Kutscher, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) for future water resources. Michele Blair Revelle, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), welcoming new technology and water use for existing customers. Allan Beek, Newport Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B- 1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) and praised the staff report. He voiced concerns about consumers paying more for a stand-by water supply, and that new development will take water away from existing users. Christine Carr, Newport Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Eben Sprague, Dana Point, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B- 1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He discussed how the continued build-out of the region is harming the environment and voiced concerns about waste products being near the ocean where his children frequently visit. Marco Gonzalez, Surfrider Foundation, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He discussed cumulative reclamation, synergistic impacts and growth inducement. He stated that the request should be dealt with at the State level. Eileen Murphy, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), urging the Commission to postpone certification until all issues are completely addressed. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - PROCEDURE: Commission Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions, Public Hearing, Discussion/Action. B-1a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT-CONTINUED FROM JUNE 3. 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSEM Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner • Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 (EIR No. 00-02) request: - Analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a request to construct a 50 million gallons per day (MGD) seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 square foot administration building, a 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an approximately 11 acre site. The project also includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to connect to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. - Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Construction Related Impacts. - Evaluates four alternatives-to the original project proposal. (03p=0708) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 6 Concludes that the project results in no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts in the areas of Agricultural Resources, Air Quality (long-term), Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use/Relevant Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Recreation, and Transportation/Traffic. Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels in the areas of Geology/Soils/Seismicity, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, and Construction Related Impacts. Concludes that potential impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels in the area of Short-Term Construction Related Emissions. e Continued Item: Planning Commission meeting June 3, 2003 - Planning Commission requested clarification regarding ten items pertaining to the EIR. Staffs Recommendation: Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations based upon the following: - Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) - Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan goals, policies, and objectives - Compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance - Potentially significant environmental impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened - Remaining significant unavoidable impacts are found to be acceptable due to overriding considerations - Benefits of the project are balanced against its unavoidable environmental impacts Ricky Ramos,Associate Planner, made a presentation to the Commission by responding to specific issues identified by the Planning Commission at their June 3, 2003. Kevin Thomas, RBA' Consulting, discussed growth-inducing impacts related to the Rancho Santa Margarita Water District, entrainment and impingement, water quality, and the relationship between AES and Poseidon. Staff identified late communication items. Commissioner Scandura made disclosures, including receipt of correspondence from John Scott and visiting the project site with Billy Owens of Poseidon, Vic Leipzip, and Rick Tripp,AES. Commissioner Dingwall made disclosures, including discussions with Vic Leipzig and Huntington Beach Tomorrow. (03p.cm0708) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 7 Commissioner Davis made disclosures, including receipt of correspondence from John Scott, a site visit to the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD), and discussions with Don May, Jan Vandersloot, Billy Owens, John Erskine and John Scott. Commissioner Ray made disclosures, including receipt of correspondence from John Scott and discussions with Doug Korthof, Don May and Billy Owens. Commissioner Shomaker made disclosures, including a discussion with Larry Porter. Chairman Kokal made disclosures, including discussions with Billy Owens and various individuals. AT 8:15 P.M. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO RECESS UNTIL 8:30 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: Scandura ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSES AT 8:30 P.M., THE MEETING RESUMED. The Commission shared information located within the CEQA Guidelines that discusses the environmental impact review process, including the general concepts and responsibilities of governmental agencies to protect the environment and keep the general public informed. A quote was also read from information received by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) stating that lead agencies must review a project in its entirety without limiting its review to the particular jurisdiction of that agency. The Commission asked if staff had received test information from the California Energy Commission (CEC) on water quality and the AES power plant during a presentation to staff. Staff replied test information had not been received, and that the CEC made a presentation to staff related to landscaping and the AES plant. The Commission voiced concerns about information on bacteria levels, and the presence of an intestinal virus found in a yard sump and flood control channel. The Commission and staff discussed Irvine Ranch Water District's (IRWD) acceptance of staffs incorporation of a condition of approval stating that"the applicant shall supply IRWD with water of quality that does not cause the IRWD to violate the pertinent limits of the IRWD reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed project is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to the IRWD". The Commission discussed deferred studies referenced in staff report material. The,Commission discussed lead agency responsibilities and the importance of public participation. (03p=0708) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 8 The Commission asked the applicant to explain the heat treatment process, including providing temperature figures in the outflow (discharge) pipe, and maximum levels permitted by National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. Nikolay Vouchkov, Poseidon Resources, identified figures related to the water temperature during the heat treatment process, and the maximum allowed by NPDES permit standards. Mr. Vouchkov used a diagram by Corolla Engineers to explain the elaborate process, including the time span of collection and return of organic substances to the ocean. Charles Mitchell, MBC Applied Environmental Sciences (MBC), was called upon to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's State Task Force on cooling water discharge regulations. He also defined entrainment and impingement and discussed coastal generating stations examined by government and local agencies. Billy Owens, Poseidon Resources, discussed broad-based data gathering, including site-related impediments, environmental justice, coastal dependency, siting (intake &discharge), community requirements and impacts, and public or state policy created for the desalination process. Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation, provided information on State task force agencies that study entrainment. Elaine Archibald, Poseidon Resources, discussed information provided in the Sanitary Survey, including standard procedures related to bacteria counts. Discussion ensued regarding the CEC's consideration of rerouting urban runoff. Charles Mitchell discussed how bacteria levels found in tidal components of discharge water rise when high tides flood storm drain basins. Dr. Scott Jenkins, Poseidon Resources, discussed how bacteria levels vary between the shallow surf zone waters where higher concentration is found, and off shore waters, where water depth reaches 25 to 30 feet and concentration levels are low. He explained how bacteria found in the surf zone becomes trapped in "closed circulation cells," keeping it from circulating into the off shore waters. He mentioned that experts have not yet discovered the source for chronic bacteria concentration found at the 9 North/Pacific Coast Highway and Magnolia location. He identified acceptable levels of measured bacteria, and provided information on the modeling data provided to Poseidon by MBC related to the AES facility discharge and NPDES permit requirements. He stated that the model used seven (7) physical variables (ocean waves, current flow, wind, salinity levels, water temperature, plant flow and the Delta T (plant operating temperatures)to study worst and average case scenarios for water quality. He stated that surf zone levels at the 9 North location had reached as high as 16,000 MPN, but were more consistently measured at 5,000 to 6,000 MPN. He stated that beach closures result when concentration levels exceed 1,000 MPN. He also stated that concentration levels near the AES outfall pipe never reached 1,000 MPN. (03pcm0708) PC Minutes Ju(y 8,2003 Page 9 The Commission inquired about IRWD's water distribution system agreement. Billy Owens explained that the agreement provides conditions that offer the IRWD a guarantee that all water quality standards are met, with emphasis on bacteria and chlorine content and maximum allowable water temperature during the heat treatment process. Nikolav Vouchkov confirmed that the process produces water temperature 5 to 15 percent above ambient ocean conditions. The Commission asked if the data provided on constituent collection were factual. Charles Mitchell stated that he was confident that the data were adequate, and explained that conditions on entrainment are measured and reported on annually by scientists who study the material. The Commission asked if any viable options were available to control the constituent material. Mr. Mitchell answered few. The Commission discussed late communication from Tom Luster, California Coastal Commission (CCC), Attachment 3.5 referencing project and mitigation alternatives not mentioned in CEC's scope of work. Staff explained that violation of a condition could cause examination of the project's conditions of approval to determine if mitigation measures are necessary. Staff also mentioned that the CEC would not address mitigation measures. The Commission discussed intake water velocity. Charles Mitchell mentioned that although shell life survival rate is dependent on the species, mortality is significant. He also explained the function of centrifugal pumps. The Commission asked if any testing for viruses were conducted. Elaine Archibald answered that such tests are only necessary when health agencies are notified of high coloform counts, and that the techniques used to measure virus activity are problematic and expensive. The Commission asked Dr. Jenkins to explain how water flow varies between the shallow surf zone and deep offshore zone. Dr. Jenkins described the two areas as separate systems, stating that the surf zone flow is dominated by on shore wave motion and rip currents that cause it to circulate, inhibiting a seaward motion. He added that the off shore system is dominated by tidal currents that flow along the shore, rather than into the surf zone. The Commission asked if contaminants from the off shore zone integrate into the surf zone. Mr. Jenkins answered occasionally. The Commission inquired about the legal issues involved in the CEQA process and Poseidon proposing to tie in with the AES plant's existing intake and discharge lines that pump water to produce electricity. Kevin Thomas stated that permits issued for the AES plant call for continuous pumping of seawater, and that the applicant is not proposing to operate independently from that activity. He also discussed worst-case scenarios identified in pumping percentages to ensure that the proposed project will not cause AES to violate permit requirements. The Commission voiced concerns about the split jurisdiction between the State Public Utilities Commission and Huntington Beach and asked if anyone representing AES were present in the audience to respond to issues related to conditions of approval that may affect the pumping process. With no one present,the Commission commented that AES should be responsible for acceptance of conditions. (03p=0708) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 10 The Commission voiced concerns about the EIR not including an entrainment and impingement study. Discussion ensued regarding salinity levels and the number of sea life trapped during the intake and outfall process. Kevin Thomas explained that the NPDES permitting process will govern whether or not the applicant is required to provide an entrainment and impingement study, and that the EIR did not include such a study because the proposed project ties into an existing facility, and because all five (5) conditions under the Phase Il rule listed on page 8 of the staff report must apply, and this was not the case. Discussion ensued regarding the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Phase li rule for existing facilities requiring a 316(b) demonstration as part of the NPDES permit process. Discussion ensued further on species that survive the entrainment process, and how CEC guidelines assume a 100% mortality rate. The Commission asked Dr. Jenkins to confirm information provided in his report that salinity levels vary between plus or minus ten percent. Dr. Jenkins confirmed. The Commission asked for source material for that finding, stating that a footnote was not in the report. Dr. Jenkins stated that the source was located within the appendix of the data provided by MBC. The Commission mentioned viewing outside research studies indicating that various areas of the ocean have higher or lower elevations in salinity. Dr. Jenkins agreed. The Commission asked Dr. Jenkins to provide the location of the documented evidence showing variations (range) of plus or minus ten percent for the outflow pipe area. Dr. Jenkins referred to the MBC Monitoring data appendix. The Commission asked for assistance in locating the appendix. The Commission pointed out differences in language relating to the amount of water pumped daily by AES included in the Response to Comments and the EIR Errata. Discussion ensued regarding Poseidon Resources easement agreement, and the language within the EIR Errata that relates to AES leasing land and/or surface area from the California State Lands Commission. It was mentioned that the CCC will require AES and Poseidon to submit landowner's approval, along with conditions of that approval. The Commission asked Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation to explain the EPA precautionary process. Staff addressed concerns reported by the CCC related to entrainment and Poseidon's operating independently from AES. The Commission suggested a condition that mitigates any archeological finds. The Commission called upon Don May to address issues related to the degraded wetlands. Don May requested that staff add conditions that address storm water runoff diversion, provide alternative lighting and landscaping to inhibit unwanted light and noise, provide for berm reconstruction, and require a 316B study (entrainmentfimpingement study). The Commission discussed-the-growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project and how they relate-to-the City-as the lead agency. Kevin Thomas discussed a (03pcm0708)- PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 11 CEQA requirement to include information on how the project relates to growth, regionally and cumulatively. He also discussed opinions heard by other agencies on this issue. Billy Owens provided percentage figures on residential development in the Rancho Santa Margarita District. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KOKAL TO DENY CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT No. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS; WITH NO SECOND, THE MOTION FAILED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO THE ERRATA: 1)ADDING LANGUAGE THAT STATES ADDITIONAL EIR OR EQUIVALENT WILL BE REQUIRED IF THE AES FACILITY CEASES TO OPERATE; 2) CORRECT MISINFORMATION RELATED TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION LAND LEASE WITH AES HUNTINGTON BEACH, LLC, BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1581, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Shomaker NOES: Kokal, Dingwall, Ray ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSES B-1b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 3, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSEDI: Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant including a 10,120.sq. ft. administration building, a 38,090 sq. ft. reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 sq. ft. product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an 11 acre lease area. The proposed improvements include up to four miles of water transmission lines in Huntington Beach, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone, to connect to an existing regional transmission system in Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A) "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with staff recommended findings and suggested conditions of approval"; B) "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations"; and C) "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program." A MOTION WAS MADE-BY STANTON, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT-NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER (04=0708) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 12 DESALINATION PLANT)WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JULY 22, 2003 WITH ISSUES TO BE IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON JULY 22, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSES C. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION WAS BY KOKAL, SECONDED BY DAVIS,TO CONTINUE CONSENT C ENDAR ITEM NOS. C-1, C-2 AND C-3 (PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DA D APRIL 22, 2003, MAY 13, 2003, AND MAY 27, 2003) TO JULY 22, 2003, BY THE F LOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis,Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: one ABSENT: N e ABSTAIN: Non MOTION PASSES D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING IT S - None. E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION COM TTEE REPORTS — None. E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMME S—None. E-3. DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR FUTURE ME INGS— None. F. PLANNING ITEMS F-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIO%MEING — None. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING— None. F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING None. (03p=0708) PC Minutes July 22,2003 Page 4 The following tion was made after action on Non-Public Hearing Item No. DI: A MOTION WAS MAD Y SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY STANTON, TO MOVE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. B-2. ( UAL REVIEW AND MONITORING REPORT— DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER PLAN) TO ECEED NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. D-2. (RECONSIDERATION OF ENV IRO NTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02/ POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT), THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Koka , homaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE LISTED IN THEIR ORIGINAL O ER A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ron Van Blarcom, Poseidon Resources, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed the proposed project's timeline, including permit streamlining and mandatory processing deadlines. John Erskine, Poseidon Resources, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No.. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant)discussing "Roberts Rules of Order" and circumstances related to the appeal process including Rule 36, case law and court proceedings. The Commission asked Mr. Van Blarcom to explain the difference between.directory versus mandatory processing dates. Lary Porter, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed activity related to the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD) outfall (discharge) pipe. Don McGee, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. 0-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed impacts associated with build-out and traffic. Maria Kutscher, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed the affects of reverse osmosis. Rich Kolander, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed improvements in technology and praised staffed and consultants for their work on the proposed project. (03p=0722) PC Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 5 Gino Rapagna, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant), describing the project as environmentally sound with improved technology. Pat Clynes, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed the benefits of new technology. Mark Bixby, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed in-lieu fees and drawing intake water downstream from the AES plume. Michele Revelle, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and discussed how the proposed projects revenue can support City services. Jan Vandersloot, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and voiced concerns about the City's water source being produced by private industry, and it's projected profit. Doug Korthdf, Seal Beach, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and voiced concerns related to permit requirements for the AES power plant, mortality in the outfall pipe, and promised technology. Eileen Murphy, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) voicing concerns about negative impacts to ocean life. Mike Revelle, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D- 2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant). Bunker Hill, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental-Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant). John Scott, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) voicing concerns related to air and water quality. He urged the Commission to keep the review period open. Nancy Donovan, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Non-Public Hearing Item No. D- 2 (Reconsideration of Environmental impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) voicing concerns about water quality. Dr. Scott Jenkins, Poseidon Resources, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No.. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02/Poseidon Desalination Plant). He provided,credentials and explained the methods of data collected included within the study on salinity. (03p=0722) PC Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 6 Billy Owens, Applicant with Poseidon Resources, spoke in opposition to Non-Public Hearing Item No. D-2 (Reconsideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 00- 02/Poseidon Desalination Plant) and explained why the project is needed. He also emphasized that environmental testing done by qualified independent consultants classified the project's affects on marine life as non-significant, therefore not harmful. Commissioner Dingwall addressed speakers providing supportive testimony during Oral Communications on the proposed Poseidon project, stating that if approved, Huntington Beach residents will not receive drinking water from Poseidon, only increased pollution within our storm drain channels and ocean waters. He also cited past examples of environmental disasters before informing the public of his decision to deny Poseidon's request for entitlement. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL.TO SUSPEND TEMPORARY RULES OR PROTOCOL THAT WOULD PREVENT THE COMMISSION FROM RECONSIDERING CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT). The Commission asked Commissioner Dingwall to elaborate on the rules he was referring to. The City Attorney explained that the Commission functions under the adopted Protocol and "Robert's Rules of Order." COMMISSIONER DiNGWALL MODIFIED HIS MOTION BY REQUESTING THAT RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) BE PLACED ON THE AUGUST 12, 2003 AGENDA. Staff informed Commissioner Dingwall that the item was already listed as D-2 on tonight's agenda. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - PROCEDURE: Commission Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions, Public Hearing, Discussion/Action. B-1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEiDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT -CONTINUED FROM JULY 8, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 sq. ft. administration building, a 38,090 sq. ft. reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 sq. ft. product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an 11 acre lease area. The proposed improvements include up to four miles of water transmission lines in Huntington Beach,one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone, to connect to an existing regional transmission system in Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Pro ect Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A) "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with staff recommended findings and suggested conditions.of approval"; B) "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations"; and C) "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program." Ricky Ramos, Associate.-Planner, provided an overview of proposed revisions to the recommended conditions of approval received by the Commission following (04=0722) PC Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 7 the July 8, 2003 meeting. He identified late communication and also explained that because proposed revised conditions from Chairperson Kokal and Commission Dingwall were submitted late, staff was not able to respond in writing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO CONSIDER BY STRAW VOTE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02- 04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 PROVIDED BY COMMISSIONER'S DAVIS AND SCANDURA. No vote was taken. Commissioner Scandura confirmed his acceptance of staffs recommendations to his proposed changes. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO ACCEPT A PROPOSED CONDITION STATING THAT SHOULD THE CITY BE SUED, POSEIDON WILL INDEMNIFY FOR ALL LEGAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CITY OR ITS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED Discussion ensued on Commissioner Davis' proposal to add a condition that the CUP shall expire on April 1, 2011. The Commission voiced concerns about Poseidon piggybacking onto the AES CUP permit that was approved years earlier for what was considered a non-conforming use. The City Attorney substantiated a written opinion as to why staff denied the recommendation to include the condition. She also explained that the April 1, 2011 expiration date discussed refers to the AES NPDES permit, not conditional use permit. Staff explained how entitlements are associated with the land, not owner or operator. Staff also discussed a change within the EIR Errata and also shown on Attachment No. 1.25, condition No. 18 that discusses what will happen if the project definition changes in scope because AES ceases to operate. The Commission discussed the possibility of AES being able to prolong its existence by including water production on its list of future selling points. Commissioner Davis requested a meeting with the City Attorney, applicant and associated consultants to discuss points of authority or establish a legal dialogue relative to his request.for the added condition. (03p=0722) PC Minutes July 22,2003 Page 8 The Commission reminded staff and the public that the CEC entrainment/ impingement study may produce cause for radical changes to the AES plant and/or its cooling system, and suggested that the City Attorney consider a "sunset clause"with an expiration date. The Commission referenced Attachment No. 1.25, conditions No. 18-21 that are applicable to this discussion. A MOTION VWAS MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-06 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED B-2. ANNUAL REVIEW AND MONITORING REPORT- DOWNTOWN PARKING MASTER AN: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Request: An al review of the Downtown Parking Master Plan addressing building activity een June 1, 2002 and June 1, 2003 Location: Downtown Specific Plan area nerally bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth Street, Acacia Avenue and Se nd Street) Prolect Planner: Wayne Carvalho The City of Huntington Beac lanning Department requests Planning Commission review of the Dow wn Parking Master Plan Annual Review and Monitoring Report. • The revision and update of the D ntown Specific Plan (DTSP)also referred to as the"Village Concept"was ado d in April of 1995 and became effective in June of 1995. • As part of the revisions, a shared parking ncept was prepared for the downtown core area of Main Street referred as the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP). • An update to the DPMP was approved by the Ci Council in November 2000, with final certification by the California Coast Commission in January 2002. • The DPMP includes provisions that an annual review an monitoring report be completed. e . The report shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission, ' Council and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission. • The review and monitoring report contained herein includes anal is between June 1, 2002 and June 1, 2003. Commissioner Shomaker excused herself from action on the.item due to a potential conflict of interest. Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner, discussed the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DPMP)Annual Review while providing PowerPoint slides depicting major projects affecting parking downtown, including two new developments (Koury (03p=0722) PC Minutes July 22,2003 Page 11 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS: The ommission asked staff to expand on activity related to Sidewalk and Curb Repla ment(CDBG).. Dave Webb, City Engineer explained how the one-time improve nts would be completed for those enhancement areas qualifying for CDBG fun 'ng. ARTERIAL I ROVEMENTS: The Commission ked staff to expand on activity related to the Beach/Edinger Improvements, Ga field @ D.O. 2 Channel (west of Brookhurst) and Magnolia Sidewalk Lighting—Pacific Coast Highway to Hamilton. TRAFFIC IMPROVEME S: The Commission asked staff expand on activity related to the Newland & Hamilton Signal Installation d Upgrade Signal Timing (TSCOUP). SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: The Commission asked staff to expa on activity related to Slip Lining and the Edison Lane Sewer. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: The Commission voiced concerns about drain a problems causing water to pond and incubate viruses in the parking area o the Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center at Newland Street and Pacific Coast High y. Staff explained how upsizing storm drain lines and rebuilding the Newla d Pump Station would manage the drainage problems in that area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY SC DURA, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1684, APPROVING GENERAL PLA CONFORMANCE NO. 03-01 AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR INAL CONSIDERATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, R NOES: Dingwall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED D-2. RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (,POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT): A request by Commissioner Davis to reconsider EIR No. 00-02 previously certified by the Planning Commission on July 8, 2003. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner No staff presentation was made. (03pom0722) PC Minutes July 22,2003 Page 12 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL,TO RECONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) DUE TO INACCURATE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AT THE JULY 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Commissioner Davis stated his request for reconsideration of the EIR was based on two reasons, including receipt of inaccurate information provided by Poseidon during the July 8, 2003 meeting claiming that salinity levels recorded near the AES outfall pipe location show a variation of plus or minus 10 percent when figures recorded within the EIR show a variation of plus or minus 5 percent; and, inconsistent data reported/recorded related to how many gallons of water AES pumps, on average, for approximately the past 20 years and the °worst case scenario" model used to report circulation averages. He also stated his intent was to question these two items only, and not to revisit the entire document for adequacy. Staff provided an overhead slide demonstrating salinity levels calculated over the past 20 years. The City Attorney stated that approving the request opens the entire EIR for reconsideration. Certain Commissioners provided opinions on why the item was worthy of reconsideration. Others discussed why it would be appropriate to deny the request for reconsideration and forward to the City Council for final approval. Discussion ensued on how either decision would affect the Mayor's appeal of the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR on July 8, 2003. Staff discussed the mandatory processing deadlines and requested that the Commission provide clear direction to staff about what type of information will be expected if the request for reconsideration is approved. Staff also reminded the Commission that action on the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit cannot be taken if the request for reconsideration is approved. Staff and the Commission discussed the option of denying the request and forward to the City Council with minute action that describes concerns related to incomplete or inaccurate information provided by the applicant. The City Attorney informed the Commission of staffs recommendation to deny the request and forward to City Council with minute action. She also advised against any discussion of the applicant's alternative to seek a court decision on processing deadlines. (03p=0722) PC Minutes July 22,2003 Page 13 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO RECONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) AT THE AUGUST 12, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Kokal, Dingwall, Ray NOES: Scandura, Stanton, Shomaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED THE CHAIR CALLED FOR A 10-MINUTE RECESS. Staff requested that the Commission provide a collective list of issues for staff to respond to at the August 12, 2003 meeting. The Commission requested an independent consultant be hired to verify the concerns relayed herein. Staff stated that MBC Applied Environmental Sciences is the reporting agency on information published by the Califomia Energy Commission relating to AES plant activity. Also, the firm is qualified to respond to marine biology issues, and that the process of soliciting contracts from another outside agency may be cumbersome and not timely. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, FOR STAFF TO PREPARE RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: 1) CONTRACT AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO VERIFY SALINITY LEVELS AND DILUTION MODELS PROPOSED IN EIR NO. 00-02; 2) PROVIDE GENERAL SALINITY INFORMATION ON THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT AND HOW IT AFFECTS HUNTINGTON BEACH AND AREA SEA ORGANISMS; 3) CONTRACT AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO VERIFY MODELING RELATED TO OCEAN INTAKE THAT IS DISCHARGED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT; AND, 4)VERIFY AES PUMP FIGURES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED Discussion ensued regarding public policy and jurisdiction issues. The Commission made reference to California Coastal Commission letter 10A dated February 20, 2003 that..provides detailed information on public policy. (03p=0722) PC Minutes July 22,2003 Page 14 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KOKAL, SECONDED BY RAY, DIRECTING STAFF TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES TO HELP INFORM THE PUBLIC AND COMMISSION MEMBERS HOW TO UNDERSTAND ITEMS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THEIR JURISDICTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kokal, Dingwall, Ray NOES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Shomaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED E. PLANNING C MISSION ITEMS A MOTION WAS M E BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO CONTINUE PLANNING COMMISSI ITEMS E-1, E-2 AND E-3 TO AUGUST 12, 2003 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Canton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED F. PLANNING ITEMS F-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEET G—None reported. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING—None rep ed. F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING— No reported. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 11:10 p.m.to the next regularly scheduled Plann' g Commission meeting of August 12, 2003. HZ:HF:rl APPROVED BY: ;Howard Zelefsky, Secretary n Davis, Chair (03p=0722) PC Minutes August 12,2003 Page 4 AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE LISTED IN THEIR ORIGINAL ORDER A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chris Stanley, Wetlands Village, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He thanked the Commission for reconsidering certification of the EIR and voiced concerns regarding the project's negative impacts to the community. Joey Racano, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), voicing concerns about the proposed project's effects on the Little Shell Wetlands, brine content levels and intake/outfall pipe entrainmentrmpingement. He also discussed the July 2002 Clean Water Act Waiver related to sewage dumping and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Stefanie Warren, Surfrider Foundation, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), voicing concerns related to entrainment and impingement. Lou Baker, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He discussed drought insurance, brine as a preservative, and how AES, Poseidon and OCSD should consider other options for a joint venture to ensure water production through the proposed facility. John Earl, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He discussed water as a human right, and voiced concerns related to public notification. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -PROCEDURE: Commission Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions, Public Hearing, Discussion/Action. B-1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. This EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on July 8, 2003 and then on July 22, 2003 the Planning Commission voted to reconsider this item. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Proiect Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, made a presentation to the Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY KOKAL, TO INCORPORATE AND CONSIDER ALL PROJECT-RELATED INFORMATION OR TESTIMONY RECEIVED TO DATE (MAY 27, JUNE 3, JULY 8, JULY 22, AND AUGUST 12, 2003) PRIOR TO VOTING ON CERTIFICATION OF EIR 00- 02, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0812) PC Minutes August 12,2003 Page 5 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Ron Van Blarcom, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. He discussed the applicant's August 7, 2003 response to issues raised by the Surfrider Foundation on August 5, 2003. He also discussed projects cumulative impacts and how they relate to California Coastal Commission (CCC), North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), etc. He stated that the CCC has not taken a formal position on this request. Mike Revelle, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item referencing population growth, a reliable water source and future drought issues. He also discussed salinity levels in the outfall area. Robert Harrison, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item referencing water quality testing programs, thermal elevation of discharge water, brine levels and plant conditions, described as clean, quiet, and environmentally friendly. Ken Maylone, Huntington Beach, spoke as a business representative for Operating Engineers Local 12. Although not opposed to the project itself, the engineers do have concerns related to harmful environmental elements and private industry profiting from a public commodity. Marty Earlebaugh, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item due to a state water crisis and population growth. Michele Revelle, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item and the EIR, stating the project will have a minimum effect on the environment. John Scott, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item. He discussed the global water market and stated that the applicant was partnered with two (2) major water corporations. He also described drinking water as a commodity and basic human right and voiced concerns related to quality of life, air quality and the possible effects on sea life. He asked the Commission to seek State guidance. Jan Vandersloot, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to the item. He discussed the California Energy.Commission (CEC) Surf Zone Water Quality Impact Report by KOMEX, and urged the Commission to postpone decision until the report findings could be considered. He also discussed the AES discharge plume and information related to other desalination facilities (Long Beach, California; Tampa Bay, Florida). He asked the Commission to add a condition to widen Newland. Joey Racano, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to the item and discussed the July 2002 Clean Water Act Waiver related to sewage dumping and the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD). He voiced concerns regarding information provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) about lead compounds in water pipes, membrane material at a desalination plant in Tampa Bay, Florida, and how Poseidon's product will not be used in Huntington Beach. John Earl, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, calling the EIR an independent evaluation that communicates ideas requested by developers. He urged the Commission to consider the rights of those who depend on the ocean (03p=0812) PC Minutes August 12,2003 Page 6 environment (natural resources). He also stated that the EIR does not address privatization issues. Larry Porter, Ocean Outfall Group, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns related to contamination (bacteria, buoyant constituents and pesticides and pharmaceutical material found with the intake and outfall pipes.) Billy Owens, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of the item. He addressed concerns heard by previous speakers about production problems at a desalination plant in Tampa Bay, Florida, misinterpreted information received by the CCC, and the KOMEX report that vindicates AES as not a contamination source. The Commission asked about cartridge filters associated with the Tampa Bay, Florida desalination plant. Mr. Owens explained that filter water is exposed to air and organisms can grow there. He continued by stating that organisms need to be removed earlier in the process. The Commission asked about the cost of water to the wholesaler. Mr. Owens responded that the cost was approximately $830 per acre-foot. The Commission asked about the Metropolitan Water District's subsidy. Mr. Owens responded that the MWD`s subsidy was approximately $250 per acre- foot. The Commission asked about the cost of bottled water. Mr. Owens responded that it is about$1.5 million per acre-foot. WITH NO ON ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion ensued about increased water prices and the City not being a recipient of the desalinated water produced by Poseidon. Commissioner Davis stated that the applicant has produced information on salinity levels, and AES average daily pumping that he finds to be reliable. He questioned legal issues related to the CEQA process and adding a condition of approval that requires AES to provide Poseidon with a maximum of 20% of the water pumped during electricity production, and a finding that suggests certain mitigation measures are unnecessary. Discussion ensued about what environmental impacts are considered significant and insignificant by CEQA. Kevin Thomas, RBF Consulting, discussed the concept of"betterment", a term used by CEQA to reduce an undesirable effect. He discussed the Commission imposing conditions that mitigate impacts to protect ocean water quality, but qualified that the project was not identified as causing significant marine biological impacts. Therefore, there is no basis for requiring mitigation measures. The Commission asked about the ocean water's"dead zone" and voiced concerns about the impact from salinity levels and pipe height from the ocean floor for dilution purposes. (03p=0812) PC Minutes August 12,2003 Page 7 The Commission asked about bringing an existing use into conformance when zoning laws change. Staff replied that only the portion of the existing use that ties into the new use must be in conformance. Staff further explained that AES is a conforming use within a non-conforming structure. The Commission and staff discussed scenarios related to the existing land lease agreement between the applicant and AES. The Commission discussed the strength of the AES discharge plume, and normal and worst-case scenarios related to salinity levels within the plume and how variations affect organisms and plant life. The Commission discussed the possibility of Poseidon applying independently for a stand-alone, water production facility. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO CERTIFY EIR NO. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1582. The Commission discussed the large volume of project-related material and detail to review, and the difficulty in understanding overlapping jurisdictions and environmental impact issues that do not fall within the scope of the EIR. The Commission suggested that the issue of entrainment and impingement were not adequately addressed in the EIR. It was requested that the Commission delay decision until it has had adequate time to review findings within the KOMEX report and allow various water/state agencies to review related material and concur with the findings of the EIR before certifying it as adequate. The Commission discussed the importance of public trust and how Huntington Beach as the lead agency on this proposed project has a responsibility to the community. The Commission suggested considering alternatives to desalination to produce potable drinking water and alternative siting (a plant location that provides the least amount of environmental impacts). The Commission discussed growth inducing impacts, including the number of gallons of drinking water produced daily, whether or not the water product should be identified as"replacement" water, and issues related to the contract with the Rancho Santa Margarita District for production of 25 million gallons of drinking water per day. It was also mentioned that 14,000 homes are planned to be built in areas surrounding Rancho Mission-Viejo, that CEQA requires growth inducing impacts be considered, and a question as to where the remaining 25 million gallons of drinking water produced daily will end up. Discussion ensued about restoration of the area designated as wetlands, and how CEQA guidelines state that public hearings gather new information that should be considered within the EIR. The Commission voiced concerns about the EIR not identifying potential impacts to the environment through increased electrical usage. (03pcm0812) PC Minutes August 12,2003 Page 8 It was suggested that Commissioner Davis withdraw his motion to recertify the EIR until the City, in concert with other agencies(CEC, CCC, etc.) can evaluate the project as a whole and include data collected from other agencies relative to the proposed project. Staff described the CCC's report on desalination as a broad policy document that should be used as a guidance tool only. Staff also cautioned the Commission about their role in private vs. public water ownership matters, and state agency jurisdiction. Kevin Thomas explained how the growth inducing, entrain mentrmpingement, wetland and energy production impacts identified by the Commission as significant were considered insignificant by expert consultants, and that an EIR is designed to evaluate prospective development at a given point in time, per circumstance, and with existing conditions. He also suggested that the Commission hear from Elaine Archibald for comments about the KOMEX Report. Elaine Archibald approached the podium to inform the Commission that she had read the KOMEX Report, and that nothing in the document contradicts the Sanitary Survey or water quality data provided in the Poseidon EIR. She read excerpts identifying four(4) conclusions found in the report including sub-thermal incline water intake, bacteria concentration during the intake/outFall process, land based sources of bacteria significant to contamination, and sanitary sewer source connections. The Commission requested that they, along with staff, be given time to review the KOMEX report, along with the CCC's report on desalination prior to making a decision on the adequacy of the EIR. The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Ray spoke with Billy Owens (Applicant), Jim Adams, Lena Hayashi, Joe Geever and Marco Gonzales (Surfrider Foundation), Linda Moon, Larry Porter, Tom Luster and Allison Dittmar(CCC). Commissioner Dingwall had no disclosures to make. Commissioner Shomaker spoke with Vic Leipzig (Poseidon Resources). Chair Kokal spoke with various CCC representatives, Billy Owens (Applicant), and responded to email correspondence. Commissioner Stanton spoke with Billy Owens (Applicant), and several members of the public. Commissioner Scandura had no disclosures to make. Commissioner Davis spoke with John Erskine, Vic Leipzig, Larry Porter, members of the public and responded to email correspondence. Commissioner Stanton called for the question: (03p=0812) PC Minutes August 12,2003 Page 9 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO CERTIFY EIR NO. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO.1582, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Stanton, Shomaker NOES: Kokal, Dingwall, Ray ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-041COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-06(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT-CONTINUED_ FROM JULY 22, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSEDI: Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 sq. ft. administration building, a 38,090 sq. ft. reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 sq. ft. product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an 11 acre lease area. The proposed improvements include up to four miles of water transmission lines in Huntington Beach, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone, to connect to an existing regional transmission system in Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Proiect Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner A MOTION WAS MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER,TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-041COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER - DESALINATION PLANT)WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO AUGUST 26, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall NOES: Davis, Ray ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Commissioner Dingwall confirmed that he will distribute a copy of the KOMEX report on CD-Rom to the Commission and staff. B-3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-081 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16490NARIANC . 03-10 (BEL AIR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT): Applicant: Bill Holman, Land Company Request: CUP: To construct 104 residential units on a site with4vqde differential of three feet or greater and retaining walls two feet high or greater1qaximum 7 feet high). TTM: To subdivide 17.89 acres of land into 106 num lots and nine (9) lettered lots for residential development purposes. The sub divisio o includes one 4.01-acre parcel to be dedicated for park purposes and one 1.36-a-bwemnant lot for ongoing soil remediation. VAR: To allow a 10-foot building separation in lieu of the minimum required 15-foot building separation. Location: 1880 thard (03p=0812) PC Minutes August 26,2003 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS—Regarding Study Session portion of Meeting Bill Holm PLC Land Co., spoke regarding Public Hearing Item No. B-2 (Bel Air Residential Developmen He requested that the Commission continue the item until September 9, 2003 and informed th that he met with neighboring businesses who had various concerns, and that modifications were eing made to his application to accommodate those affected by the proposed developme 6:30 P.M.—RECESS FO INNER 7:00 P.M.—COUNCIL CHAM`BERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Led b Commissioner Shomaker P A P P P P ROLL CALL: Davis, Scandura, Stan to Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray CHAIR KOKAL MADE A PRESENTATION OF SOLUTION NO. 1585 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO OUTGOING PLANNING CO ISSIONER DON STANTON Commissioner Davis acknowledged Mr. Stanton's nume us accomplishments throughout his years of service to the City. AGENDA APPROVAL. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO M E PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. B-2(BEL AIR RESIDENTIAL)TO THE BEGINNING OF E AGENDA BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Kokal, Shomaker, Ray NOES: Dingwall ABSENT: Scandura, Stanton ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE LISTED IN THEIR ORIGINAL ORDER A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mary Jo Baretich, We Vote, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). She voiced concerns related to bacteria and pollution, discussed how the project would affect Cabrillo Mobile Home Park residents, and urged the Commission to deny the project. Jeff Ackley, We Vote, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He described Huntington Beach as a tourist destination, voiced concerns about beach closures due to contamination, and urged the Commission to deny the project. Joey Racano, We Vote, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He voiced concerns about the project being built near a (03pcm0826) PC Minutes August 26,2003 Page 3 designated wetland area and stated that it will provide an upgrade for the AES power plant. He described the desalination process as "brewing bacteria°with use of organic chloride that is harmful to the environment, and voiced opposition to Rancho Santa Margarita Water District being the recipient of the project's drinking water product. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - PROCEDURE: Commission Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions; Public Hearing, Discussion/Action. B-1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT -CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 12, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 sq. ft. administration building, a 38,090 sq.ft. reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 sq. ft. product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an 11 acre lease area. The proposed improvements include up to four miles of water transmission lines in Huntington Beach, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone, to connect to an existing regional transmission system in Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, provided a brief overview of staffs recommendations and identified the conditions of approval recommended by the Commission at their August 12, 2003 meeting. Discussion ensued about the possibility of getting four (4) votes to approve the entitlement. The Commission asked Billy Owens, applicant, if he wanted the discussion to continue, even if a decision could not possibly be reached that evening. Mr. Owens asked that the Commission continue their discussion. The Commission discussed the AES permitting process, including State of California control and imposing conditions upon Poseidon that are superceded by the AES operating permit. The Commission asked about the water table level. Billy Owens provided information on location, height and depth. Discussion ensued regarding revenue generation and the franchise agreement in place. The Commission asked if the City could preclude the sale of an existing facility with a conditional use permit, coastal development permit, etc. to another developer. Staff answered no, that it would be considered a private party matter. Division Chief/Fire Marshall Chuck Burney discussed soil specifications and standards consistent with state and federal requirements. AT 9:50 P.M. THE COMMISSION TOOK A 10-MINUTE RECESS. The Commission discussed stringent mitigation measures contained in the EIR. The Commission asked Dave Webb, City Engineer, what happens if precise studies-countermand preliminary results. Mr. Webb replied that in that case, the permit would not be issued. (03p=0826) PC Minutes August 26,2003 Page 4 Staff identified geotechnical information provided in the EIR, and references were made to the Subdivision Map Act. The Commission voiced concerns about water ponding on the property. Staff explained that ponding is absorbed into the ground or evaporates, and that the applicant's drainage and grading plans will address those issues. Staff also explained the purpose behind containment berms. The Commission voiced concerns about how the project will affect the public's general welfare and property values and improvements in the neighborhood. The Commission asked the Fire Department to provide information relating to soil remediation as mentioned in Condition of Approval No. 4.c. The Commission asked the Public Works Department to provide information on permit issuance as it relates to franchise agreements. The Commission asked about the number of mature trees being removed as mentioned in Condition of Approval No. 4.m.7. The Commission asked about Orange County's jurisdiction relating to daily grading operations and South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 guidelines as mentioned in Condition of Approval No. 4.ee.9. The Commission questioned right-of-way dedication figures mentioned in Condition of Approval Nos. 3.a. and 3.b. The Commission asked about underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks as discussed in Condition of Approval No. 4.g. The Commission asked staff to define Assembly Bill No. 939. Staff replied that it is a state measure to reduce solid waste. The following Conditions of Approval were discussed and modified: SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-041 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1.a. The landscape area on the east side of the project site (landscape area three) shall include additional Myoporum (BE MORE DESCRIPTIVE) as needed to fill in the gaps to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. (DRB) 1.c. The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to final approval by the Design Review Board after action by the Planning Commission'(REWORD GRANTING PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL APPROVAL\. (DRB) 1.j. If outdoor lighting is included, fight intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent°spillage onto adjacent properties, including the adiacent wetlands(ADD and upward into the skv,) and shall be shown (03p=0826) PC Minutes August 26,2003 Page 5 on the site plan and elevations. (MM ALG 2) 1.k. The landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages shall include the densest type and number of trees to provide the greatest screening possible to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. (ADD ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE ON ATT. 3.6, #4 FOR INCREASED DENSE LANDSCAPE COVER DESCRIPTION): A perimeter of very leafy, natural trees must be planted and maintained, of sufficient height and density(at 75%maturity) to completely block off any view of the Poseidon Project on all sides except the Pacific Coast Highway side. The views from the sides outline above and the views from present or future home sites, are to be blocked so that the Poseidon Project will look like a dense stand of trees. 4.a. No grading permits shall be issued until the applicant submits written proof of final project approval by each applicable regulating agency including but not limited to the California Coastal Commission, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, aPA-South Coast Air Quality Management District, and all applicable water agencies and cities. 4.m.8) Final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be submitted for review and approval to the Public Works Department. The report shall also include calculation of first flush flows to substantiate the adequacy and effectiveness of all water quality mitigation and structural best management practices. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall events (storm frequencies up to a 100-year frequency). Mitigation may will include adequate detention storage area onsite if the project pump systems fail to operate. The final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adlacent wetlands. 4.m.11)A Notice of Intent (NOI), Notice of Termination (NOT) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4.m.12) Membrane cleaning solution shall be disshaf-ed piped to the Orange County Sanitation District. (ADD ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE ON ATT. 3.6, #5 FOR DETAILED SOLUTION DESCRIPTION): All materials used in cleaning and/or maintenance of the Poseidon Equipment, either initially or periodically,whether they be solids, solids in liquid or liquid will be delivered (either by truck or pipeline) to the Orange County Sanitation District for further processing prior to being returned to the sea or landfill. The cost of this activity to be borne by the Applicant or its successors. All liquid run-off from equipment, yard, grounds, spills, landscaping or for any other reason will be handled the same as above. 4.s. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related (03p=0826) PC Minutes August 26,2003 Page 6 impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site; details on how no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and details on how wind barriers around remediation equipment shall be provided. (PW) (ADD: "Any and all harmful soil contaminants must be completely removed from the City.") 4.x. In conjunction with the submittal of application for preliminary or precise (CONFUSING, POSSIBLE REWORD TO ROUGH OR FINAL) grading permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. (MM-GEO 2) 4.z. Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, which ever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutant runoff(QUESTIONED PREDICTABLE) and to protect the adjacent wetlands to4he This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Appendix which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, and shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: (MM-HWQ 1) 4.z.1) Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained (USE ANOTHER WORD, POSSIBLY utilized) in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and 4.z.3) All fertilizers and pesticides used by the plant shall not pose any harmful effects upon plants, animals, and marine life in the adjacent wetland. (CLARIFY) 4.hh.3)All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas; (DIFFERS FROM 1.19 8e (USE STRICTER CONDITION) 4.hh.5) Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut; (CLARIFY) 4.hh.7)Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods (DEFINE EXTENDED PERIODS)with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation; 4.hh.8) Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites; (DIFFERS FROM 1.19 Bf(USE STRICTER CONDITION) 4.hh.13)Use low-sulfur-diesel-fuel in all equipment; (DIFFERS FROM 1.19 81 - USE:STRICTER CONDITION) (03p=0826) PC Minutes August 26,2003 Page 7 4.hh.15)Use electric equipment whenever practicable; and (DIFFERS FROM 1.20m -USE STRICTER CONDITION) 4.ii.3) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential (ADD and wetlandl areas; and 4.ii.4) Notations (CLARIFY NOTATIONS) in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. 4.kk. An archaeologist and paleontologist shall be selected by the applicant and the City to be available for archaeological and paleontological findings during grading and construction. A qualified representative of the Native American community shall be consulted upon for appropriate Native American findings. 5.b. A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified (CLARIFY QUALIFIED) person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered. The recommendations of this report shall be reproduced on the plans. (BD) 5.d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue after action by the Planning Commission. (DRB) (REWORD GRANTING PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL APPROVAL) 6.c. A buffer shall be required between the wetlands and containment berm and planted with a palette of plants indigenous to coastal wetlands communities and providing public access via a pathway along the project perimeter bordering the wetlands but screened from it so as not to disturb birds vet affording views and vistas of wildlife and wetlands for residents. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)TO SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: Scandura, Stanton ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0826) PC Minutes DRAFT September 9,2003 Page 23 B-2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO-02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT -CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 26, 2003 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED►: Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant including a 10,120 sq. ft. administration building, a 38,090 sq. ft. reverse osmosis building, a 36,305 sq. ft. product water storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory structures on an 11 acre lease area. The proposed improvements include up to four miles of water transmission lines in Huntington Beach, one mile of which will be within the Coastal Zone, to connect to an existing regional transmission system in Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and Edison Avenue. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Proiect Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, identified the recommended changes to the conditions of approval, including staffs responses to conditions suggested by Commissioners Scandura and Davis dated July 22, 2003, and staffs responses to conditions suggested by Commissioners Kokal and Dingwall dated August 12, 2003. He also identified proposed conditions received from Commissioners Ray and Dingwall that staff had not yet responded to. Commissioner Davis disclosed that he spoke with John Erskine. Commissioner Ray disclosed that he spoke with the applicant, Ron Van Blarcom, RBF Consulting, and Gary Gorman with the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy. Commissioner Scandura disclosed that he viewed the videotape of the August 26, 2003 Planning Commission meeting and spoke with Vic Leipzig, Tim Geddes and Paul D'Alessandro. Commissioner Livengood disclosed that he had viewed videotape material from the May 27, June 10, July 8, July 22, August 12, and August 26, 2003 Planning Commission meetings, along with staff report and related material provided to the Commission to date. Commissioner Dingwall disclosed that he spoke with Vic Leipzig. Questions/comments included: ■ Does the California Department of Fish & Game play a role in governing landscape conditions? Staff replied yes, adjacent to the wetland due to concerns with Raptor Perch. ■ Explanation of Landfill Gas (LFG) generation and migration near the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary (Attachment 1.23, No. 11) ■ Explanation of mitigation measures for facility abandonment (Attachment No. 1.25, No. 18) Commissioner Davis proposed a motion for denial and staff distributed suggested findings for denial. Discussion led to two (2) modifications by adding "and potential sea life" to Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 1.a.; and, "rather than enhances them" to Coastal Development Permit No. 1.b. (03p=0909) PC Minutes September 9,2003 Page 24 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY KOKAL, TO DENY WITH REVISED FINDINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Kokal, Dingwall NOES: Scandura, Shomaker, Ray, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO TAKE STRAW VOTES ON COMMISSIONER DINGWALL'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1, 2, 3(TAXES) ON ATTACHMENT 3.5 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02- 04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT). Discussion ensued regarding alternate methods to reviewing suggested changes to the conditions of approval. THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN. Discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Dingwall's proposed conditions for the Poseidon CUP. It was suggested that the Commission provide minute action to the City Council that would include the following proposed conditions: 1) "In-lieu"fee collection if the Poseidon operation and/or its successors are deemed exempt from the Huntington Beach Utility Tax; 2) "In-lieu"fee collection if the Poseidon operation and/or its successors are deemed exempt from real property tax, business tax (of any kind), inventory tax, leasehold tax, or any other tax normally paid by other Huntington Beach businesses; 3) Huntington Beach must be the official point of sale for all products developed and/or sold by Poseidon or its successors in Huntington Beach; 6)A conveyance fee will be included into the right-of-way agreement for the use of Huntington Beach City property in an amount equal to three (3) percent of Poseidon (or its successors) gross annual income. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO PROVIDE MINUTE ACTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT WOULD INCLUDE COMMISSIONER DINGWALL'S PROPOSED CONDITION NOS. 1, 2, 3 AND 6 AS A FINANCIAL MECHANISM TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL REVENUE LOSS RELEVANT TO APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-WCOASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Livengood, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0909) PC Minutes September 9,2003 Page 25 Discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Dingwall's proposed condition#4 addressing visual blight. Chuck Davis, City Landscape Architect shared concerns restricting the type of landscape material for the project. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1.K. ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.5 WITH MODIFIED LANGUAGE RELATED TO EFFECTIVE LANDSCAPE SCREENING AND MAINTENANCE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Livengood, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER DINGWALL'S RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 4.M.12 ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.9 WITH MODIFIED LANGUAGE RELATED TO PIPING VIA THE NEAREST ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SEWER LINE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Livengood, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Dingwall's proposed condition#7 addressing the return water system and AES outfall temperatures. It was mentioned that monitoring the AES intake pipe is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board (SARWCB). A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO REMOVE LANGUAGE RELATIVE TO MONITORING WATER TEMPERATURE IN COMMISSIONER DINGWALL'S PROPOSED CONDITION NO. 7 ADDRESSING THE RETURN WATER SYSTEM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Livengood, Kokal, Shomaker, Ray NOES: Dingwall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Discussion ensued regarding the mixed ratio figure of 8:1 included in Commissioner Dingwall's proposed condition#7. It was suggested that a mixed ratio of 4:1 was more realistic. (03p=0909) PC Minutes September 9,2003 Page 26 A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO REMOVE LANGUAGE IN COMMISSIONER DINGWALL'S PROPOSED CONDITION NO. 7 RELATED TO MIXED RATIO FIGURES IN THE RETURN WATER SYSTEM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Shomaker, Ray NOES: Kokal, Dingwall, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN COMMISSIONER DAVIS' PROPOSED CONDITIONS ON ATTACHMENT 2.2, ITEM NOS. 3 AND 4 RELATING TO WATER DIVERSION BY LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF WATER DIVERTED FROM AES THAT CAN BE USED FOR DESALINATION PURPOSES TO 40 PERCENT, AND ADOPTING A 4:1 MIX IN THE OUTFALL SYSTEM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Kokal, Dingwall, Ray NOES: Scandura, Shomaker, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO ACCEPT COMMISSIONER RAY'S PROPOSED CONDITION NO. I.A. RELATING TO PLANTS INDIGENOUS TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMUNITY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Kokal, Shomaker, Ray, Livengood NOES: Dingwall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Discussion ensued regarding in-lieu fees associated with street widening. Staff provided information on the Newland Street improvements. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY RAY, TO ACCEPT MODIFIED CONDITION NO. I.C. ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.4, AND REVISE CONDITION NO. I.D. ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.4 BY ADDING LANGUAGE "OF THE ENTIRE 11 ACRE LEASE AREA" TO THE LAST SENTENCE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0909) PC Minutes September 9,2003 Page 27 A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL TO ACCEPT ALL NEW CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER RAY. THE MOTION RECEIVED NO SECOND. MOTION FAILED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO MODIFY COMMISSIONER RAY'S PROPOSED CONDITION NO. 2.1. RELATIVE TO PROTECTING THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES DURING DEMOLITION OR GRADING PERIODS AND MOVING CONDITION 6(x)to 20), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER,TO STRIKE LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 4.M.7. RELATING TO PALM EQUIVALENT DESCRIPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Scandura, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY KOKAL, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 024WCOASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02- 05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)TO SEPTEMBER 23, 2003, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: Davis, Scandura, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C. CONSENT C&E DAR— None. D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING MS -None. E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION COMM'lU REPORTS Chair Kokal provided a brief report on action t n at the September 4, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting, and informed the ommission that Tentative (03pcm0909) I f ifs d ,� + '� '¢"'.' ^F#. atsuu� I s r ara3`�' t r� d � �K� .,�. '��$ 'm' �r��p r�p,�' +�. ` aN� ",r��fr+',++� � .� r. .: "�`s7x t� `� ,����fit a✓ tv*� ,�r� ,,�, 09/20I2003 04:02 7148425619 CARLBERG HAW-- September 21, 2003 To Members, Huntington Beach Planning Commission VIA FAX 374-1648 My name is David Carlberg and I am a 35 year resident of Huntington Beach. I have been teaching and conducting research in microbiology at tong Beach State University for 36 years. In addition I have been an active member of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica for 26 years and its president two times. I think that qualifies me as being considered both a scientist and an environmentalist. My comments involve item B1 on the September 23 planning commission agenda, the Poseidon desalination plant. I ran across a copy of the findings that the commission is considering to support their denial of the conditional use permit and coastal development permit for the desalination plant. Two items caught my attention. Item 1 a. states in essence that a (modest) increase in salinity(salt water) is bad for our beaches. It has always been my understanding that our beaches have been bathed by salt water of varying concentrations for millions of years, and . now the commission is about to claim salt water has a negative impact on them. What is the scientific basis for that claim? The second item that attracted my attention is finding 1 a. to deny the coastal development permit. The finding claims the plant will degrade ocean water quality which may have an impact on adjoining wetlands. The closest wetland with an ocean entrance is the Talbert Marsh. It is hard to see how the plant's effluent, which has already been found to have an insignificant environmental impact on the ocean immediately around the outfall, would affect a wetland one and a half miles away. My personal opinion is that these findings have no scientific basis and that the commission should approve the CUP and CDP. I believe a number of cities up and down the coast are supporting construction of desalination plants, including Long Beach. Long Beach is actually building its own pilot desalination plant using a new technology that the city developed and on which the city holds a patent. Incidentally, I have no interest in the Poseidon desalination plant, financial or otherwise. My only concern is that the commission is using bad science to oppose what appears to be a worthwhile endeavor. Thank you for your attention. David Carlberg, Ph.D. 17422 Lido Lane Huntington Beach (714) 842 5619 SET 2 3 200�= To the Chairman of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Commissioners: Dear Chairman Kokal: I urge the Planning Commission to give approval to the Poseidon Project. It has been thoroughly studied by a myriad of scientists, and has been found over and over to be environmentally sensitive and safe for our beautiful beach area. THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT! As Southern Californians, we understand that we basically live on a desert....that water is a precious commodity that we can't live without. Huntington Beach's underground storage water is getting depleted, and our imported water from the Colorado River and Northern California is limited We now have the opportunity to increase the water supply in an economically feasible way. Additionally this project will benefit the City of Huntington Beach by paying thousands of dollars in taxes each year, it will be built by private funds, and those tax dollars will help fund Huntington Beach Police and Firefighters as well as other city cervices. Poseidon Resources will provide Huntington Beach the opportunity to tap into a virtually limitless water supply, harnessed and processed in a cost effective and environmentally sensitive manner. If the city taps into Poseidon's desalinated seawater, the water pressure in the city would quadruple in some places, which would help our city's firefighters provide superior fire protection. At no additional cost to Huntington Beach residents or businesses and with no damage to the beach or wetlands, the city has the opportunity to be the beneficiary of a vast supply of clean, safe and reliable water. I urge you to approve this project. Yours truly, ��L� v�rvL1J187�4 Shirley Commons Long '- P O S E I D O N R E S O U R C E_,3 Ar Via Overnight Delivery October 9, 2003 CEMED OCT 10 2003 Honorable Connie Boardman Chairperson, Redevelopment Agency City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 51h Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Poseidon Resources —Agreement for Protection of Taxation Benefits Dear Ms. Boardman: Poseidon Resources Corporation is currently processing various entitlement approvals through the City of Huntington Beach for the establishment of a seawater desalination plant on an 11-acre site within the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Project area. In addition to the City's approval of the project applications, Poseidon is also willing to seek approval by the Redevelopment Agency of an agreement that would assure continuation of the economic benefits emanating from local taxation of the project in the event of future sale to a public entity. It is Poseidon's understanding that the Redevelopment Agency's agreement could be processed and approved by the Agency concurrently with the City's consideration of our entitlement applications, or shortly thereafter. As such, we would request that you advise us as to the best method to secure this approval by the Redevelopment Agency. We would note that we will also be transmitting a second letter to the Mayor and Council members indicating Poseidon's willingness to enter into a "Limited Development Agreement" as a non-redevelopment option to accomplish the same purposes outlined above, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Sincerely, Billy Ow Sr. Vice resident CC: Ray Silver David Biggs Howard Zelefsky.J' Jennifer McGrath John Erskine Poseidon Resources Corporation 3760 Kilroy Airport Way,Suite 260.Long Beach,CA 90806,USA 562-490-2003 Fax:562-490-2403 Executive Office 1055 Washington Boulevard,Stamford,CT 06901 NOV-14-2003 01 :46 PM BOB. POLKOW 714 962 4810 P. 02 BOB POLKOW 21772 Oceanview Lane Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8215 (%I CLtrK Home Phone(714)962-4810 CITY OF Email RPolkowQaol.com HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 100� NOV I u P 2: 1 b November 14,2003 City council Agenda item D2A and D2B It is about time the maysayers and NIMBY protests to progress be eliminated by the elected representatives of the people. Arguments that cry "what does it do for me" are shameful, selfish and a detriment to the positive future projects such as the Poseidon Plant. Our neighboring city to the north, Long Beach, obviously is more interested in the future of those that come after our generation. Ground breaking has started in their city for a desalination plant despite the wails of a few self centered groups. Should Huntington Beach become known as the timid city controlled by a few fearful groups or a city to welcome new technology even if it, at first, only benefits a few? RE PVKK F D L BC7 , 2 7 Oceanview Lane, Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8215(714)962-4810 01/ �b CLERI( CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA November 12,2003 1003 NOV I P I- 2 RECEIVED S NOV 1 7 2003 Honorable Connie Boardman C:,Y of Huntington coach Mayor Ciro CoLl11•-11 0"l , City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Reference: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor Boardman: I am writing to you in support of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This project will provide a much needed, local supply of reliable water for Huntington Beach and all of Orange County. As a resident of Huntington Beach, I would like to urge the City Council to approve and move forward with the Environmental Impact Report for this project. Working for a civil engineering firm, I have had the opportunity to become abreast on a few of these distinguishing factors listed below. Please give careful consideration when deliberating on these facts: ✓ Seawater desalination is a proven technology and has been used for potable water production for more than 20 years worldwide. ✓ The project would prove to be beneficial for Orange County and the residents of Huntington Beach because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply. ✓ This project will bring significant tax revenue for the City of Huntington Beach (approximately 1.3 million annually)which will benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach directly. ✓ Seawater desalination is a clean food-type process that is environmentally safe in terms of noise, air emission, and traffic. Your approval of this ever so important project will provide long lasting benefits to our community for many years to come. I thank you in advance for your time and consideration of my request for this project. Respectfully submitted, Sue Bennett Hodgson 9661 Bickley Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 = I:\corres03\Letters\I-629tic-sdt.doc CITY CLtRK I Ei C E �: Marinka Horack CITY OF 21742 Fairlane Circle HUNTINGTON BEACH: CA NOV 1 3 2003 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1003 NOV I I P 2: 26 November 12, 2003 Jill Hardy Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: The Premature Poseidon Project is Bad for Huntington Beach i Dear Councilmember Hardy: I The Poseidon desalination project as it stands now, is not good for the citizens of Huntington Beach. Here are some reasons why this project must be sunk: • Private utilities have private profit as their first goal; public good is down on their list; let's learn a lesson from the Enron debacle; • Poseidon would keep the dinosaur AES plant operating with its ugly stone age technology; AES must modernize first; • Questions about many environmental concerns need to be fully addressed; HB beaches are the city's greatest natural resource, just ask any citizen; • Poseidon already has agreements with a water district to supply half of Poseidon's product water to South County, thereby inducing growth; this would only create larger water shortages, increasing traffic congestion, destruction of rare natural habitat in South County, etc. • H.B.'s budding tourist industry needs clean, beautiful beaches which are unmarred by hideously ugly industrial eyesores such as AES; • Irvine Ranch Water District reported that.Poseidon would put corrosive water into the public water pipe system; • The few desalination plants that exist nationally have unsuccessful records; Why hurry a project that has so many serious problems attached to it? This is our city. Do not give it away to greedy corporate interests! Thank you for your attention and consideration of this important issue. Thank you for your outstanding service to our city. Sincerely Yours for a Better Huntington Beach, Marinka Horack An H.B. Resident for 30 Years L G L ';ITY I CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,-CA 1003 NOV I I P 2. 2 b NOV 1 3 .9003 November 12, 2003 Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Reference: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor Boardman: I am writing in support of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This project will provide a much needed, local supply of reliable water for Huntington Beach and all of the Orange County area. As a resident of Orange County and a registered professional engineer familiar with the desalination technology, I respectfully ask that you and the Huntington Beach City Council approve the Environmental Impact Report for this project. In your careful deliberation, please carefully consider a few of the following facts: ✓ The project would prove to be beneficial for Orange County and the residents of Huntington Beach because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply. ✓ This project would bring significant tax revenue for the City of Huntington Beach(approximately $1.3 million annually)which will benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach directly. ✓ Seawater desalination is a proven technology and has been used for potable water production for more than 20 years worldwide. Seawater desalination is a clean food-type process that is environmentally safe in terms of noise, ai,i emission,and traffic. Your approval of this important project will provide long lasting benefits to the community of Huntington Beach and Orange County for many years to come. Sincerely,. Andy Tran 6 Heritage Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 AT/at , C:\Temp\Andy\HB Desaltation Project.doc ' ' ` �LC CITY CLERK CITY kklU 1 q 080V HUNTlNGTON BE/\OH�CA _ ``uv / , �,,v y4ovennhcr |2, 2003 � ' 101NOU I P 2: 2 b Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Reference: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor Boardman: [ am writing boyou in support of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This project will provide u much needed, |ouu| supply of re|iuh|c water for Huntington Beach and all of Orange County. As u resident of Orange County, l would like to urge the City Council to approve and move forward with the Bovinoornentu| Impact Report for this project. Working for u civil engineering firm, } have had the opportunity to become informed on u 5ovv of the distinguishing factors listed below. P\cuoc give careful consideration k»these facts during your deliberations: "^ Seawater desalination is u proven technology and has been used for potable water production for more than 2O years worldwide. v/ The project vvuu|d prove to be beneficial for (]nuogc County and the residents of Huntington Beach because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply. This project will bring significant tux revenue for the City of Huntington Beach (approximately l.3 million annually)which will benefit the citizens nf Huntington Beach directly. Seawater desalination is uu\cun food-type po»ucoo that is environmentally yu[e in terms of noise, air emission, and tnuOOu. l/ourupprnvu\ o[this important project wi|| providc |ong |umtinghcnefitatoouroommunityfhrmuny years tocome. [thank you in advance for your time and consideration ofnmy request for this project. Sincerely, J/V Deanna G. Rose f?Riz Iva CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH::CA J November 12, 2003 2003 NOV I I P 2- 2b NOS/ 1 3 2 03 Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Reference: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor Boardman: I am writing to you in support of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This project will provide a much needed, local supply of reliable water for Huntington Beach and all of Orange County. As a resident of Huntington Beach, I would like to urge the City Council to approve and move forward with the Environmental Impact Report for this project. Working for a civil engineering firm, I have had the opportunity to become abreast on a few of these distinguishing factors listed below. Please give careful consideration when deliberating on these facts: v/ Seawater desalination is a proven technology and has been used for potable water production for more than 20 years worldwide. ✓ The project would prove to be beneficial for Orange County and the residents of Huntington Beach because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply. ✓ T'his project will bring significant tax revenue for the City of Huntington Beach (approximately $1.3 million annually)which will benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach directly. ✓ Seawater desalination is a clean food-type process that is environmentally safe in terms of noise, air emission,and traffic. Your appr,oval of this ever so important project will provide long lasting benefits to our community for many years to come. I I thank you in advance for your time and consideration of my request for this project. espectfully submitted, Terese L. Caiazzo 19901 Keswick Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 [:\corres03\Letters\1-029tic-sdt.doc i�..Lb CITY CLERK a .. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA November 12, 2003 1003 NOV p 2; 2b I%101/ 1 3 c003 Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Reference: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor Boardman: I am writing in support of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This project will provide a much needed, local supply of reliable water for Huntington Beach and all of the Orange County area. As a resident !of Huntington Beach and a registered professional engineer familiar with the desalination technology, I respectfully ask that you and the Huntington Beach City Council approve the Environmental Impact Report for this project. In your careful deliberation, please carefully consider a few of the following facts: ✓ The project would prove to be beneficial for Orange County and the residents of Huntington Beach because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply. ✓ This project would bring significant tax revenue for the City of Huntington Beach(approximately $1.3 million annually)which will benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach directly. ✓ Seawater desalination is a proven technology and has been used for potable water production for more than 20 years worldwide. ✓ Seawater desalination is a clean food-type process that is environmentally safe in terms of noise, ai I remission, and traffic. Your approval of this important project will provide long lasting benefits to the community of Huntington Beach for!many years to come. I FRIon a, P. E.ch Lane,#108n Beach,CA 92648 RJE/tic [Acorres03\Letters\I-030rj e-sdt.doc i;E VE0 CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH;CA Z003-NOV I P 2: 2b, ')V 1 3 2003 November 12, 2003 Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Reference: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor Boardman: I am writing in support of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This project will provide a much needed, local supply of reliable water for Huntington Beach and all of Orange County. As a resident of Orange County and a registered professional engineer familiar with desalination technology, I urge you and the City Council to approve the Environmental Impact Report for this project. In your deliberation please carefully consider the following facts: • Seawater desalination is a proven technology and has been used for potable water production for more than 20 years worldwide. • Seawater desalination is a clean food-type process that is environmentally friendly in terms of noise, air emission,and traffic. • The project is going to be beneficial for Orange County and Huntington Beach because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply. • The project will bring significant tax revenue for the City(approximately $1.3 million annually) which will directly benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach. Your approval of this important project will provide long lasting benefits to our community for many years. Sincerely, /tevea sco, Pany Street Irvine, CA 92604 L i C.b p s ?� F- 0 (;ITY" CLERK v CITY OF HUNT INGTONSE-A CHIC A �lnV 0 03 1003 NOV i P November 12,2003 Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Reference: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor Boardman: I am writing in support of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This project will provide a much needed, local supply of reliable water for Huntington Beach and all of Orange County. As a resident of Orange County and a registered professional engineer familiar with desalination technology, I urge you and the City Council to approve the Environmental Impact Report for this project. In your deliberation please carefully consider the following facts: • Seawater desalination is a proven technology and has been used for potable water production for more than 20 years worldwide. • Seawater desalination is a clean food-type process that is environmentally friendly in terms of noise, air emission, and traffic. • IIThe project is going to be beneficial for Orange County and Huntington Beach because it will i provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply. • The project will bring significant tax revenue for the City (approximately $1.3 million annually) (which will directly benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach. 1 Your approval of this important project will provide long lasting benefits to our community for many years. I Sincerely, r Kara A. Buttacavoli, P.E. 28965 Live Oak Circle Trabuco Canyon, CA 92679 h;r Li_, s LiJ CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA NOV 1 3 2003 1003 NOV I I P 2: 2 b November 12, 2003 Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 200 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Reference: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor Boardman: I am writing in support of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This project will provide a much needed, local supply of reliable water for Huntington Beach and all of Orange County. As a resident of Orange County and a registered engineer-in-training familiar with desalination technology, I urge you and the City Council to approve the Environmental Impact Report for this project. In your deliberation please carefully consider the following facts: • Seawater desalination is a proven technology and has been used for potable water production for more than 20 years worldwide. • Seawater desalination is a clean food-type process that is environmentally friendly in terms of noise, air emission, and traffic. • The project is going to be beneficial for Orange County and Huntington Beach because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply. • The project will bring significant tax revenue for the City (approximately $1.3 million annually) which will directly benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach. Your approval of this important project will provide long lasting benefits to our community for many years. Sincerely, �M) (31 Angel Bustamante 65 Wild Horse Loop Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 • iiri;r:i`rCu CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH.-CA :; y: :- November 12, 2003 1003 NOV 11 P 2: 2 b NOV 1 3 200 Honorable Connie Boardman l Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Dear Mayor Boardman; As a resident of Huntington Beach and someone who is familiar with seawater desalination technology, I would like to express my support for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. California's population is projected to increase by 600,000 per year, largely from natural increases (births minus deaths), which will impact demands for potable water. In addition, California faces unmet environmental water needs in virtually very region. Seawater desalination, as part of a balanced, integrated water resource management strategy, could help meet California's potable and environmental water supply needs. Seawater desalination has been widely utilized for potable water production throughout the world for more than 40 years. Over the past 20 years, the reverse osmosis technology, which is being proposed by Poseidon, has become the process of choice where energy economics are most important. The co-location with an existing power plant allows the use of existing structures, such as intake and discharge pipelines, already being used by the coastal power plant, eliminating the need for new construction and negating the possibility of disturbing the existing coastal community environment. This;project will be beneficial for Huntington Beach and Orange County because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply to supplement imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River. The project will also bring a significant tax revenue for the City, which will directly benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach. I strongly encourage you to support the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project by voting for approval of their Environmental Impact Report (EIR) at the City Council meeting on November 171' Sincerely, Stacey Grosvenor 601 21" Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1i%t',i_iV7tC.D CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA - 41 November 12, 2003 1003 NOV I I P 2: 2b f;N0V 1 3 2003 Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Reference: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor Boardman: I am writing in support of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This project will provide a much needed, local supply of reliable water for Huntington Beach and all of Orange County. As a resident of Orange County and a registered professional engineer familiar with desalination technology, I urge you and the City Council to approve the Environmental Impact Report for this project. In your deliberation please carefully consider the following facts: • Seawater desalination is a proven technology and has been used for potable water production for more than 20 years worldwide. • Seawater desalination is a clean food-type process that is environmentally friendly in terms of noise, air emission,and traffic. • The project is going to be beneficial for Orange County and Huntington Beach because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of water supply. • The project will bring significant tax revenue for the City (approximately $1.3 million annually) which will directly benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach. Your approval of this important project will provide long lasting benefits to your City and many residents and visitors to/of the County of Orange for many years. Sincerely, Steven Agor, E. 25462 Morningstar Road Lake Forest, CA 92630 WILLIAM H. TAPP;�rI`'CLERK CITY OF HUNTING-TON BEACH, CA November 10, 2003 1003 NOV P 2. 2 Honorable Connie Boardman, Mayor - .N'1QV 1 J 2003 City of Huntingtou Beach 2000 Mairi Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Dear Mayor Boardman: As a 50-year resident of Orange County and a professional in the water industry for over 20 years, I want to enthusiastically give my endorsement to the subject project. In my opinion, this is the type of forward thinking project that creates a win-win situation for all concerned; ratepayers, environmentalists and politicians. This is a project which offers a drought-poof alternative water supply to offset our local dwindling groundwater resources. It will help the County reduce its dependence on costly imported-Colorado River water, reduce energy consumption and be environmentally friendly. It is my-understanding that the City of Huntington Beach stands to receive substantial annual tax revenues (in the range of$1.3 million) which are dearly needed in these times of tight budgets and revenues. Additionally, it is my understanding this project will not cost the City of Huntington Beach a penny from your capital improvement budget which means those funds are available for other critical facilities and services for your citizens. Desalination is a proven technology which has been around for more than 20 years. The City of Avalon has relied on it for a decade or more. Entire cities in the Middle East and some small island nations worldwide are dependent on desalination of seawater for their water supplies. It is safe, reliable and more affordable todav than ever before. The Planning Commission has certified the EIR for this project. I encourage you, Mayor Boardman, and your Council to approve the project at your November 17, 2003 meeting. It is truly a wiin-win opportunity for all stakeholders. Thank you. Sincerely; _ 7 P 1/.d. Irvine,California 92614-5379-USA Telephone: (949)251-9905-Fax:(949)251-9906-Email:Justiean@cox.net PAUL E. COOK AND ASSOCIATTV"�"u CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 1003 NOV I l P 2* 2 b November 10, 2003 0 E n , Honorable Connie Boardman NOV 1 3 2003 Mayor City of Huntington Beach ,Y 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Poseidon Resources Seawater Desalination Project Dear Ms. Boardman: I strongly urge the City Council to approve the Poseidon desalination project. The:project EIR and associated staff reports have found no significant environmental impacts with the desalination plant. While the plant may sit in the shadow of the power plant, it does not burn materials nor does it manufacture a product that adds more pollution. The project site is zoned to allow for water treatment plants and the surrounding area is industrial in nature. The City needs both the water and the associated tax revenues this project can bring. Rather than rusting oil tanks, the City is better served by having a clean, tax paying business that improves the looks of the industrial area along Newland and PCH. As a long time resident of Huntington Beach and a professional civil engineer, I believe the appropriate decision for the City Council is to approve the Poseidon desalination project. i Sincerely, Paul E. Cook, P.E. 7155 Little Harbor Drive • Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 960-8298 Fax (714) 536-1333 L D i;ITY CLERK CITY Of October 31 2003 HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA S`, 1003 NOV I l P 2: 21. r V r- Honorable Connie Boardman j 2003 Mayor NOV City of Huntington Beach 200 Main Street 4e Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor: My name is Tanveer Rao, and I am a resident of Huntington Beach at 18606 Park Ridge Lane, Huntington Beach for the past 5 years. I have seen our City grow significantly in these past 5 years and am excited about what our City is doing for our future plans. The City offers so many amenities that make it a great place to live. Our reliability of water is becoming more and more critical for our future growth. I have been following the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project during the past year. As a resident I am in complete support of this project for several reasons: - It reduces our reliability on Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California as the only source of imported water for our City's needs. - It helps create additional water supplies that are not presently available at a competitive price. - It introduces competition to MWD of Southern California that will help us obtain better water rates in the future as we increase our need for additional supplies. - It provides a state-of-the-art technology resource that will have a long life span for our future generations to take maximum advantage of. In light of these excellent reasons, I would like to request that for the benefit of our Huntington Beach community and its future, you consider the approval of this project seriously. The implementation of this project offers many community benefits. As a Civil Engineer with more than 20 years of experience, and having a solid understanding of water issues in Southern California I can sincerely submit that a new water source from the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will be a major benefit to our community. Res ectfully Tanveer Rao. PE CITY CLERK November 4, 2003 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Honorable Connie Boardman 1003 .NOV .I.1 P 2: 2 1 Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. !N10V ` E 2003 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT Dear Mayor Boardman, My name is Gino Rapagna. I have been a resident and homeowner in Huntington Beach since July 1095 (over 8 years). I am proud to be part of this community; I'm sure in part due to.the lifestyle that our City Council has helped to develop. I write to you today in strong support of the seawater desalination project which is under council consideration. Being a registered civil engineer for over 10 years, specialized in environmental, water treatment and civil infrastructure, I have significant understanding of the issues surrounding this project. Although I am in not professionally associated with the project, I feel that it would be quite beneficial to our great city to allow the project to be implemented as proposed. Please consider the following: I Huntington Beach is an environmentally conscious community. • Seawater desalination is environmentally friendly. • Close proximity to AES power plant provides opportunity for environmentally friendly design. • This project reduces reliance on other environmentally-UNfriendly means of water supply, such as groundwater, Colorado River water or surface water from other MWD sources. i The HB community will have a new high quality water supply. Water quality will be better than the current supply. Mov ng forward provides opportunity for leadership, education and advancement in deal ng with water supply issues that have impacted Southern California for many years. Success is achieved by teaming with industry experts, like Poseidon Resources. All project issues, including those related to environmental, aesthetics, noise, safety, construction, etc., can be appropriately managed by teams with experience in construction of seawater desalination plants. The answer is in effective project implementation, not project avoidance. My home stands less than one mile from the project site. I am in total support of this very imprtant project. Sincerely, i a ino Rapagna Homeowner and Taxpayer 8132 Pawtucket Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 iU 11 v CITY CLCRK CITY OF November 10, 2003 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 1003 Honorable Connie Boardman NOV I P 2. 2 Mayor 4 2003 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Dear Mayor Boardman; I have lived in Huntington Beach for 15 years. I am a licensed General Engineering contractor and a mechanical engineer. I am also someone who is familiar with water and in particular seawater desalination technology. I would like to express my support for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This is a chance for the City of Huntington Beach to show leadership in the preservation of our lifestyles in Southern California. The entire state will benefit. California's population is projected to increase by 600,000 per year, largely from natural increases (births minus deaths), which will impact demands for potable water. In addition, California faces unmet environmental water needs in virtually very region. Seawater desalination, as part of a balanced, integrated water resource management strategy, could help meet California's potable and environmental water supply needs. Seawater desalination has been widely utilized for potable water production throughout the world for more than 40 years. Over the past 20 years, the reverse osmosis technology, which is being proposed by Poseidon, has become the process of choice where energy economics are most important. The co-location with an existing power plant allows the use of existing structures, such as intake and discharge pipelines, already being used by the coastal power plant, eliminating the need for new construction and negating the possibility of disturbing the existing coastal community environment. This project will be beneficial for Huntington Beach and Orange County because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply to supplement imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River. The project will also bring a significant tax revenue for the City, which will directly benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach. I strongly encourage you to support the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project by voting for approval of their Environmental Impact Report (EIR) at the City Council meeting on November 17 th. I can be contacted on my cell phone at 562-755-2218 if you have any questions or need additional support. Sincerely, 11 Craig Watkins 7048 Toledo Court Huntington Beach, CA 92648 t'IL LI'c`i:li CI1'Y CLERK OF HUNTING I BEACH, CA 1003 NOV 11 p 2; November 12,2003 NoV 4 200,q Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Reference: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor Boardman: I am writing in support of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This project will provide a much needed, local supply of reliable water for Huntington Beach and all of Orange County. As a resident of Orange County and a registered professional engineer familiar with desalination technology, I urge you and the City Council to approve the Environmental Impact Report for this project. In your deliberation please carefully consider the following facts: • Seawater desalination is a proven technology and has been used for potable water production for more than 20 years worldwide. • Seawater desalination is a clean food-type process that is environmentally friendly in terms of noise, air emission, and traffic. • The project is going to be beneficial for Orange County and Huntington Beach because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply. • The project will bring significant tax revenue for the City (approximately $1.3 million annually) which will directly benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach. • This project will benefit all of Orange County. Your approval of this important project will provide long lasting benefits to our community for many years. Sincerely, Rob J. Ohlund 30111 Branding Iron Road San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 fi',EGUYLL, T I C Y CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 2003 NOV I I P 2: 21 NOV 1 2003 November 12, 2003 Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Reference: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor Boardman: I am writing in support of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This project will provide a much needed, local supply of reliable water for Huntington Beach and all of Orange County. As a resident of Orange County and a registered professional engineer familiar with desalination technology, I urge you and the City Council to approve the Environmental Impact Report for this project. In your deliberation please carefully consider the following facts: • Seawater desalination is a proven technology and has been used for potable water pioduction for more than 20 years worldwide. • Seawater desalination is a clean food-type process that is environmentally friendly in terms of noise, air emission, and traffic. • The project is going to be beneficial for Orange County and Huntington Beach because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply. • The project will bring significant tax revenue for the City (approximately$1.3 million annually) which will directly benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach. Your approval of this important project will provide long lasting benefits to our community for many years. Sincerely, Rashelle L. Smith 2837 S. Fairview St. Unit I Santa Ana, CA 92 704 L'ERM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 1003 NOV 25 P 4: 18 ° J November 12, 2003 NOV 2 2003 Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 200 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Reference: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor Boardman: I am writing in support of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This project will provide a much needed, local supply of reliable water for Huntington Beach and all of Orange County. As a resident of Huntington Beach and a registered professional engineer familiar with desalination technology, I urge you and the City Council to approve the Environmental Impact Report for this project. In your deliberation please carefully consider the following facts: • Seawater desalination is a proven technology and has been used for potable water production for more than 20 years worldwide. • Seawater desalination is a clean food-type process that is environmentally friendly in terms of noise,air emission, and traffic. • The project is going to be beneficial for Orange County and Huntington Beach because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply. • The project will bring significant tax revenue for the City(approximately$1.3 million annually) which will directly benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach. Your approval of this important project will provide long lasting benefits to our community for many years. Sincerely, Patti Sexton. . 6111 Kelley Circle HB, CA 92647 ,�J.J Aff CITY COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATION Citizen Inquiry 2003 DATE RECEIVED November OS, 2003 Comment/Opinion INQUIRY # 814 El Mayor's Response Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name: Last Name: various Tide: Organization: Address: City: Huntington Beach State: CA Zip: Phone: �I Contact Type: Letter Qty: 23 EMail: i Subject: Supports Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project i I Referred To: Department Date Referred #Days Rec/Ref Date Closed #Days Ref/Cls Total Days City Clerk 11/20/2003 15 11/20/2003 0 15 Topic: Desalination Plant Assignment: None- FYI Action: Sent to City Clerk-Agenda Item (1 of 22 comments received on this topic) Department Date Referred #Days Rec/Ref Date Closed #Days Ref/Cls Total Days Planning 11/5/2003 0 11/6/2003 1 1 Topic: Desalination Plant j Assignment: None -FYI Action: Sent Comment Postcard I i Date Closed November 20, 2003 (blank field indicates open file) PLEASE FORWARD A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATION DENISE BAZANPT/) FROM TOMgLIVENG00Dsa Cnica FAX NO. : 7148469443 Nov. 19 2003 09:24PM P1 ell c;TY,�R� TO: Mayor Boardman, Council Members NuNr-I NGToN SEA CH, CA FROM: Tom Livengood, Resident of Huntington Beach 100] NOV 20 P 3: �9 SUBJECT: What is Normal? This is in reference to the California Energy Commission November 7, 2003 comments on the Poseidon EIR. At the November 17, 2003 Council Meeting, there was a brief discussion on the CEC November 7 Comments Letter. One comment was that it was normal for a report to be prepared by Commission Staff and not acted on by the governing body. That is correct. What is not normal is for Commission Staff to submit a response to an EIR nearly six months after the deadline to submit responses. It is also not normal for Commission Staff to submit comments two months after a Planning Commission certifies an EIR. This action by the CEC Staff, ignoring deadlines and submitting their response a few days before the City Council Public hearing, completely shuts out the public and the applicants ' ability to read and respond to the comments. Also, the letter was not available at the Planning Commission Public Hearing. When Terrence O'Brien, Deputy Director, received the Planning Department ' s response dated November 17, 2003 to the Commissions comments to the EIR, he immediately sent a letter of "explanation" that was distributed to the Council. The Planning Staff needs to be commended for preparing a pro- fessional, factual response to the CEC comments. The Staff only had about five days (including a Saturday and Sunday) to prepare a response. The issues addressed by the CEC were addressed in the EIR. One has to ask what was the motivation for CEC Staff to submit a very poorly prepared response to the EIR so late? wnu-ig-2003 09:1? 7148469443 Sax P.01 °d. CITY COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATION ' Citizen Inquiry 2003 DATE RECEIVED November 19, 2003 Comment/Opinion INQUIRY # 829 Mayor's Response Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name: Tom Last Name: Livengood Title: Organization: Address: City: Huntington Beach State: CA Zip: Phone: 846-631 S Contact Type: Fax Qty: 1 EMail: i Subject: California Energy Commission November 7, 2003 comments I Referred To: Department Date Referred #Days Rec/Ref Date Closed #Days Ref/Cls Total Days City Clerk 11/20/2003 1 11/20/2003 0 1 Topic: Desalination Plant Assignment None- FYI Action: Sent to Clerk's office- agenda item Department Date Referred #Days Rec/Ref Date Closed #Days Ref/Cls Total Days Planning 11/20/2003 1 11/20/2003 0 1 Topic: Desalination Plant Assignment: None- FYI Action: None Date Closed November 20, 2003 (blank field indicates open file) PLEASE FORWARD A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATION DENISE BAZANT l_ CITY CLERK( CITY & HUNTING.TON BEACH, CA 1003 NOV 20 P 3: 09 U , w � VwL November 12,2003 NOV 1 9 2003 C ;,. Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 200 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Reference: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project- Honorable Mayor Boardman: I am writing in support of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. This project will provide a much needed, local supply of reliable water for Huntington Beach and all of Orange County. As a resident of Orange County and a registered professional engineer familiar with desalination technology, I urge you and the City Council to approve the Environmental Impact Report for this project. In your deliberation please carefully consider the following facts: • Seawater desalination is a proven technology and has been used for potable water production for more than 20 years worldwide. • Seawater desalination is a clean food-type process that is environmentally friendly in terms of noise, air emission, and traffic. • The project is going to be beneficial for Orange County and Huntington Beach because it will provide an alternative drought-proof source of supply. • The project will bring significant tax revenue for the City (approximately $1.3 million annually) which will directly benefit the citizens of Huntington Beach. Your approval of this important project will provide long lasting benefits to our community for many years. Sincerely, Scott Szymborski. 21541 Partridge Street Trabuco Canyon, CA. 92679 CITY COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATION ° Citizen Inquiry 2003 DATE RECEIVED November 05, 2003 a Comment/Opinion INQUIRY # 814 Mayor's Response Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name: Last Name: various Title: Organization: Address: City: Huntington Beach State: CA Zip: Phone: Contact Type: Letter Qty: 22 EMail: Subject: Supports Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project I Referred To: Department Date Referred #Days Rec/Ref Date Closed #Days Ref/Cls Total Days City Clerk 11/20/2003 15 11/20/2003 0 15 Topic: Desalination Plant Assignment: None- FYI Action: Sent to City Clerk-Agenda Item (1 of 22 comments received on this topic) i Department Date Referred #Days Rec/Ref Date Closed #Days Ref/Cls Total Days Planning 11/5/2003 0 11/6/2003 1 1 Topic: Desalination Plant Assignment: None - FYI Action: Sent Comment Postcard I I i I i Date Closed November 20, 2003 (blank field indicates open file) PLEASE FORWARD A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATION DENISE BAZANT �Cl . c;rfY CLcRK HUNTINGTON OF November 14, 2003 BEACH.-CA Mayor Boardman and City Council Members 1003 ►OY I I P 3. 1-,2 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Boardman and City Council Members: I am writing to you because I believe it is not in the best interests of Huntington Beach to approve the Poseidon project When I first learned about this issue as a Planning Commissioner, I thought that manufacturing very expensive water was silly and a bad business bet,but I couldn't think of a reason to oppose the plant. And I initially believed the EIR would be certified within a meeting or two. However, after extensive study, literally hundreds of hours on this issue, I am fully and forcefully opposed to the Poseidon Project. I will briefly outline just a few of the issues that I'm afraid may be obscured in the upcoming discussion. The first three of these issues were beyond the scope of the Planning Commission but any one of these should provide rationale for you to vote against this project. 1) Hidden Tax / Rate Increase -This plant will receive a subsidy of approximately$250 per acre-foot of water. We the ratepayers will pay a hidden tax to provide for this subsidy. This subsidy will enable Poseidon, a private company, to privatize seawater(a public resource) without any consideration, compensation or payment going to the ratepayers! And even though this subsidy reduces Poseidon's costs by as much as 25% they will still provide very expensive water. If it is good public policy to spend this kind of money on water I'm sure you'll agree that there are better, more effective and more efficient ways to spend this amount of money that will yield a bigger bang for our buck. 2) Is This Proper Policy?- Seawater is a public resource and the applicant wants permission to monopolistically control this resource, solely for the benefit of Poseidon's stockholders. If desalinization is such a wonderful opportunity now, I believe it will become an even greater opportunity in the future as our water resources become scarcer. And I believe we need to examine how local municipalities can control this process so that we rate payers, rather than stockholders will receive maximum benefit. 3) Why Grant a Monopoly? - One question that has never been fully addressed is why Poseidon should be granted this monopolistic and exclusive franchise? Is this truly the best policy we can come up with? Should an issue of this great significance be decided just because Poseidon was the first to file an application? 4) EIR Errors and Omissions: I believe the Environmental Impact Report is inadequate because it does not adequately analyze the: a) Impact that pumping water through a reverse osmosis system has on the marine ecosystem b) Effect of electricity generation and its contribution to air pollution c) Bacteria growth in the intake and discharge vaults that are beyond conventional measurement d) Impact of high concentrated brine on echinoderms e) Growth inducement this water will provide in our county. f) Please remember any data that we have on entrainment, impingement, bacterial growth, etc.. were conducted when the plant was operating at a fraction of its capacity. We honestly don't know what the impacts will be when the plant is scaled up and is running at its full capacity. 5) Questions Never Effectively Answered: a) What effect will this project have on our beaches? As we look to the south we see natural ecosystem. As we look to the north we see visitor friendly facilities. Both AES and Poseidon are out of step with what Huntington Beach needs to be. Both AES and Poseidon need to be relocated off our beachfront. And approving Poseidon will only enhance AES's ability to stay at its current location. b) If you vote for this project, can you be absolutely certain that increasing the AES discharge will have absolutely no detrimental effect on our beaches? The knowledge base on entrainment and the connection to our beach closures is practically zero. It would be irresponsible to approve this plant until we can be absolutely confident that there is no relationship between it and the levels of bacteria that are so high(beyond 24,000 MPN) that they are beyond actual measurement. Poseidon's paid experts have admitted that this most likely due to the exponential growth of bacteria and that no one knows the actual levels of bacteria because the statistical extrapolation needed to make this determination has never been done! c) What will happen if/when the plant is sold to a multinational corporation? This question is more than theoretical as this process is already underway in Northern California d) Private vs public ownership of the plant was not debated in the EIR. Under whose jurisdiction does protecting the public interests fall? e) What are the implications of the state assembly Bill A. B. 860 This bill limits the PUC's ability to regulate the sale of electricity from power plants to desalination plants? f) Why have the options of extending the AES outfall or inflow pipes not been explored? g) Why has the option of locating this plant to OC San District facility never been seriously explored? Remember, the sanitation district already uses reverse osmosis technology. 1 r Finally if you are still undecided on this issue,please ask yourself do people such as Randy Kokal have anything to gain or lose from supporting or opposing this issue?Unlike the paid experts, I am here on my own volition. I am here trying to make Huntington Beach a better place so that when my son grows up he can live in an environment that was developed to benefit the citizens of this town, rather than the stockholders of a corporation that is headquartered in a different state. Tonight my son will be up past his bedtime. But he knows that unless we as individuals do our part we have no right to complain about the outcome. Please do your part tonight. I've given you over a dozen reasons to vote against this project, all you need is one. If you have questions I'd be happy to answer them for you now. Sincerely, Randy C. Kokal 18507 Pueblo Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Jones, Dale From: rkokal@juno.com Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 2:24 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; Djones@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Late Communication re Poseidon. Ej- Dear Mayor oardman and City . Many thanks! Randy C. Kokal (714) 378-9885 "Making the world a better place one donor at a time. " (TM) 1 I City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street / J Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 d S _ i;IT),' CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA November 16, 2003 100) NOV I l P 2= 2 3 Dear Mayor Boardman and City-Council Members, I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night,November 17. I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage,poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter,have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission(see enclosed below). While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Merrilee Madrigal �� Qkw.\-rV1_'0Vx_ �- �b a poses SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day(MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: l. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible;and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water . The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. ("Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, t,JTY C LERK pp�� CITY OFF I am writing to ask that you oppose the P�� iTdt3Tc7� B�ACN� CA p 9I1 � sa ination plant EI R, 1 NW r1L1. P 2' d 3 Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Develop , Agen a Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below) . While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Adam Palitz 22032 Capistrano Lane Huntington Beach, CA Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. � Y � I I CI I ( CLERK "Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EI R, 1003 NOV I l P 2: 2 2 Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below) . While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincere J es F. Scott 22032 Capistrano Lane Huntington Beach, CA Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. 6mlu "Dear Mayor Boardman Wid City Councilmembers, G(TY CLERK CITY RROF I am writing to ask that you oppose the PoseidoWU9JAN93�YnnN Qt'nAt EIR, nn' �nc�a e IL 4 Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development PJ!►1�VPVA4 D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic,. while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below) . While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, L �JScott 22032 Capistrano Lane Huntington Beach, CA Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. CI i 1, CLE1\-Il "Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, ZOO) NOV I l P 2= 12 Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and _ California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below) . While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Since y, ?2`20 Scott032 Capistrano Lane Huntington Beach, CA Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. -ICY LU r CLERK HUNTINGT OF November 16, 2003 BEACH:CA Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, 1003 NOV 11 P 2. 11 1 am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit,Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. 1 live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic,while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel,gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments.There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida,which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public r am very.worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company flhat may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations.Already, Poseidon is partly-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below). While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches,tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Cheryl Elli 21652 Branta Circle Huntington Beach, California 92646 Enc: Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b.The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2.The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. CITY CLERK November 16,2003 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH:CA Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, 2003 NOV i I P 2: 09 I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit,Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. 1 live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic,while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel,gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments.There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida,which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations.Already, Poseidon is partly-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8,2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below). While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration. S' c rely, enn Elliott 21652 Branta Circle Huntington Beach, California 92646 Enc: Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall,which are outdated. 2.The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. iS 1,L 1 N r U November 16, 2003 CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, 1003 NOV I I P 2: 08 1 am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit,Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. 1 live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. 1 am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic,while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel,gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments.There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida,which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations.Already, Poseidon is partly-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8,2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below). While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration. Z c i ia ne Elliott 21652 Branta Circle Huntington Beach, California 92646 Enc: Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall,which are outdated. 2.The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. L;ITY' CL'RK CITY OF November 16, 2003 HUNTINGTON BEACH.-CA Z003 Nov I I P 2= 0 8 City Council Huntington Beach, California Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. J; The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, t+; while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from .; r thedesalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the i t :, desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below). While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, SteveeAnnie al J22031an Huntington Beach Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water . The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. CITYLOFK HUNTINGTON BEACH.-CA November 15, 2003 1003 NOV I l P 2' �8 Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, My wife and I are writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR,Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. We have lived in Huntington Beach for 25 years and we believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of our neighborhood. We are very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. We are very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. We believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, we are very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. We agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, we ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below) . While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for us. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Bob & Mona a nawe 21651 Dirigo Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water . The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. C17Y CLERK CITY OF November 16,2003 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA I l Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, 1003 NOV P2: pg I hope that you will consider opposing the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit,Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda November 17. I am a resident of Huntington Beach,and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health,safety,and welfare of my neighborhood.I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl,aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach,at the end of the funnel,gets the runoff,sewage, poor air quality,and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments.There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues.Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida,which was also built by Poseidon,and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition,I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water,a public resource. Both the California Coastal Commission,in its May 8,2003 letter,and California Energy Commission,in its November 7,2003 letter,have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project.I agree with these recommendations,and hope that you heed them. Alternatively,I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Ann Tweedy 9761 Melinda Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92646 t r� II Ii E;L_.V e ii CITY CLERK CITY OF "Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, HUNTINGTON BEACH: CA I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, 1003 NOV i I P 2: 0 8 Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission(see enclosed below). While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Scott and Debbra Cooper 9372 Malahine Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day(MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water . The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.L2-Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. I r;rL ;v�tl CITY CLERK Christine A. Padesk CITY OF Y HUPITINGTOtd BEACH,.CA 22022 Hula Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646 IOOl NOV i I P 2- 08 November 15,2003 Dear Mayor Boardman and City Council members, Please oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR,Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit,Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night,November 17. 1 live in Huntington Beach near the proposed site,and I believe the desalination project will harm the public health,safety,and welfare of my neighborhood. When the AES plant was"fast tracked"to have old dirty generators put back on line,we were promised no adverse environmental effects. In fact,our neighborhood has heavier soot and pollution now than anytime else in the 22 years I have lived in this neighborhood. I am very concerned about pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am also skeptical of protective promises made because past promises(e.g.,that the energy produced by dirty AES generators would stay in California)were broken less than a year after political approvals were obtained. Our neighborhood is already highly industrialized with the power plant,the sewage treatment plant and the proposed clean up of the NESI site. Please do not add more environmental burden and visual ugliness to Huntington Beach! We have been told before that new projects will not add to beach and ocean pollution. This promise is never shown to be true. In addition to our residential neighborhoods,the wetlands we fought so hard to preserve will be impacted adversely by the Poseidon plant. Ocean temperatures in the nearby vicinity will be affected;just as we recently learned they were affected by the AES plant water circulation. I know the city needs money but there are better ways to earn that money than risking the future beauty of our coastline. How long will Huntington Beach be a tourist destination if industrial plants surround our beaches? Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8,2003 letter,and California Energy Commission, in its November 7,2003 letter,have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations,and hope that you heed them. Even better,I would ask you to deny the project outright and end this drain on our city. Once approved, our city council will have minimal control over what follows. You can only protect our citizens now. Thank you for your consideration. I urge you to bravely reject the big money backing of this project. Sin erely, C ristine Padesky 22022 Hula Circle Huntington Beach CA 92646 T l CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA November 16, 2003 Dear Mayor Boardman and City CouncilmeAlefV I 1 P 2' 01 I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night,November 17. I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission(see enclosed below). While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, 2) lam g and Donna Dillon 22102 Jonesport Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day(MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water . The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. CLtRK CITY OF Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination p�ani� ETR,( 5 Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California,Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below). While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, G4 6 [;I T CLERK 22861 Rockport Lane CITY OF Huntington Beach, CR 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Nouember 16, 2883 1003 NOV I l P I: 50 Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers: I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Deuelopment Permit, Agenda Items 0-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, Nouember 17. 1 haue Hued in Huntington Beach for the past thirty years, and I belieue the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am uery concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we haue in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the RES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete RES plant that has had a uery deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and uisual impact on our residential neighborhood. I belieue this project will haue a negatiue impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will prouide water for inland development and sprawl, aggrauating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland deuelopments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial reuenues. Financial reuenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am uery concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. 1 am uery worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not haue to abide by local and state enuironmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public ouersight ouer its operations. Riready, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2803 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its Nouember 7, 2883 letter, haue recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approue the EIR and the project. 1 agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Riternatiuely, i ask that you simply deny the project prouiding the recommended Findings For Denial giuen to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission . While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a uibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the RES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental reuiew is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Edward L. Muphy 22861 Rockport Lane Huntington Beach 92646 CITY CLERK November 15, 2003 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Huntington Beach City Council 1003 NOV I I P 1: 50 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Re: Poseidon Plant Proposal. Dear Mayor Boardman and City Council members, I am writing to ask that you OPPOSE the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. I live in South Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply DENY the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below) . While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for us. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Ernie & Linda Courter 21542 Kanakoa Ln. Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646 Findings for DENIAL Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water . The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. CITY CLERK HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 11/17/03 Dear Mayor Boardman A ftJC1apmci' rs, We are writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Agenda items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. We live in Huntington Beach, and we believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of rrry neighborhood. We are very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. We are very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. We believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project- The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland develop rnent and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, we are very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. We are very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. We agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, we ask that you sirr#y deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below). While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for our family. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Joseph F. Ongie ' Joan K. Ongie v 9411 Mokihana Dr. �1. Huntington Beach 92646 Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Comrrrissiom SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission Ones will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water . The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. November 15, 2003 "ir CITY CLERK Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, HUNTI CITY OF NGTON BEACH; CA I am writine to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination pladifEn Kodifional yee Permit and Coastal Development Permit,Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night.November 17. Reasons: Your job as civic leaders of HB is to decide matters in the best interests of HB. Please consider the following. 1. The future of HB does not lie in further industrialization of its coastal zone. On the contrary, there are far more economic and quality-of-life benefits for HB to be gained on the long term by enhancing the coast of HB than by burdening it with more industrial plants. This plant as proposed will degrade HB. Turn it down. 2. Even if more industrialization were a good idea,the Poseidon option is still a bad one. I challenge you to name even one benefit the city of Tampa Bay eniovs from its association with Poseidon.Bankruptcies?Endless expensive legal wrangling?An utter lack of financial revenues forthcoming from the deal?As stewards of HB's resources you must say no to Poseidon, whose track record promises only to squander those resources. 3. It is no secret that Poseidon has no intention of retaining ownership of the desalination plant. A likely buyer will be a foreign company not bound to local and state environmental restrictions. Future generations will admire your wisdom in turning down this proposed Want. 4. The California Coastal Commission and the California Energy Commission have recently raised large red flags of concern over the project's EIR. Their positions are well-founded. Why would you ignore them? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the Poseidon plant proposal is not in the best interests of HB. Please do what's right for your constituents and turn down this proposal. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, William Yarc ' , PhD. 9291 Hudso rive Huntigton Beach, CA 92646 yarchin@surfcity.net CLr;fCiTY ?R Steve&Kathi Richardson HUNTINGTOFI BEACH, CA 22021 Balboa Circle lUOj Nov I Huntington Beach, CA 92646 P S 6 714/964-6172 November 17,2003 Mayor Boardman, City Council Members City of Huntington Beach, California Dear Mayor Boardman and City Council Members, I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit,Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night,November 17. I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety,and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood,and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, WHILE Huntington Beach,at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization on the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operatio9ns. Already, Poseidon is part owned by US Filter, a French company. Mayor Boardman, City Council Members November 17, 2003 Page 2 Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8,2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter,have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission. While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits,the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches,tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for my family. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Q4�4' Kathi Richardson Page 1 of 1 Brockway, Connie From: Murphyeile@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 6:58 AM To: brockwac@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Agenda item comment RE: Poseidon The California Energy Commission comments are startling and should be another reason to deny this project until: 1. The EIR has adequately addressed the problems mentioned in the report the councilmembers have received. 2. The bankruptcy of the Poseidon plant in Tampa should be considered because it has now cost the City 109 million dollars and they don't have a viable way of producing water. 3. The entrainment and impingement study of the AES HBGS study will not be available until the end of 2004. 4. By allowing Poseidon to piggy back on the AES permit we are giving AES a reason to have their permit(which expires in 2005) renewed. Desalination is the way of the future, in my opinion, the time is not now, not at this location and not Poseidon Respectfully, Eileen Murphy 201 21 st Street H B CA 92648 o C o a CJC:)r fir,• -4 Cn -b Co �7 11/14/2003 Y: CI i Y CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA _L i4,vl t oz (i IAI G- -F,� �Q Ste- i 9- ,*T SF �;E Psc/Do,\/ DE-511G>A/f}i/o-1 /G4N7- c/2 06'A1,P11-;b✓,lL 4115 AeW17-4AIR 00.4,574 L ZIEv.651-a 1-�M,Eni T AX-4-1 i T M i T,EM6 4A/D ,D- z .6 771E C7/ry 0,e jwe i L ,96cAAl �l,dAIONy �✓16N� y G✓d� /A✓ Sv c/i 1,J6-To�J 6: 6qn � S'R-L l✓i¢!/D�t/ P.E���EC�% t(//LL /7/A�Nf l Q 7f/,E , L,y 05� F�ry ,may A&1,6:,11Jo12�jc)D . ., oqM t)F�y 0,0 AfC,6kAf E6 o '&IIT i/0 E Z!W QN 15W m LLu T/o 1) /5P0/3CEAlS &J-6 /7/,,P/E / / 7711-Y W/2E,4 OqAID %h1E A6q TioA1"11P /9L4N7— w/TH 7We ,4,E s PO&J44 � ,vT, -L .#/,-I 2y &/lea /N,t) ZJs74- 14Llz/V i/oA/ o` mufL 41,EiC-4i3412-16dD OgWlj 71E G/FF- 0 /:7 i�� OuT OWTF6 .4AID e/36Q L FTE %�i YoVgs //• g .�- j4r4 y 0EL,6i,,s/o us r. ,tee i a•v o��2. gif,4 ► i Y OF out- Z,cF /Xbm 17-s A141S , 4isz /'ZZuria.v '00 c p /i4S'LI,41 P�e aN d�r2 r�E.s/dE,vri.4L 4A),9 T#6- W,,c- loA1'D.5 7#-,17- TW,6 AoXa/ . 'PE Pos"- IDD14 ol�E S%L l•Vi�Tip�/ ��q.V% L/J/L L ��0 d/!7� 41AT eA- ICa2 1AIZ t/D ✓ =-Pt Z- 6 PAIAEN! �q VD d5P/l ti/t)4 4 o96,e,4 VAT/1c/G P,q&E Z 0 �ERA LL tl �oLG f lo/t1 4AJ D %/1�F�/C 1NIflL NU�ITin/�-TD/� BEA e 14 A T T hV Em b of 7/�E. ,c-(1AWC Z G CTs irYc ZA&aFi EW A r,E/ P062 14 l/2 qj,4L./T y, 4,UD lA/eX,64 SEI) Au/,K P Y - RF- /A/Lfi'clD LD V EG e l'M,6A %s a �i�E2 4 / ;' A/o .�,E,r/� �7- d Add�C7'0 ,( EAC 1� F/Zb q T 116 D ek5n lV g7—iow e 7,Yeme. .,� lcl�VW✓el y L 2elIZ-AlA 9 crJ,,TV Ti�f� �i9%�Fl /C 9y D)FS4L/.JAT/Z)A) �LqI T >V Lag>D,$ LvyiCf/ u/,IS 46SO 8UJ6T 2y P sE I D0A j 4AI D / S 0A16Y �•#L f T-{E -'/CF- of %HE P2ofo.5'E.0 DES 4L/,c/A T/a// Peo JEeT /A/ .z5S #qD!? 1/o Al -L RIV ✓ 4y Cho/ (26eATFO AS'b T f0a,V,4Tlz>4TI6,AI o F T04E a Q 44AI ullf FEA> � /�U.F�L/e /1,Esa U/'Z W02/l►E�0 T//f�T �ds,E1,DVAl 1'9/9'/ oS'EL.L %�E ��s�L/�/ Tig.✓ b PE2l4 T/o AJ p j4X E 16A) C/d,V.9,c1 y Tf/4T �l v y ,✓o T h/.4v,6 %o 48149,E )Sy o�e e 4 4- 4A16 4V v1QvAIMrA1T q L sT2 Tlp,ufS, ,gA11D Mi9 y i/L T1 M i4 TEL y �flM/°/1v�11 � c S'E(?u&ITY OF 6aA, WoqT,E/L SjAO&y /3y POV1,61. c,- 1ERze) k S T 4cueEss To ovfL uj 4TE2 sU��°�y, ZVW41s6 / T /S Al t/R-T,ELy 04CJAreb , .LA/siZ:.qAe-) - /fTiolrl p2oPvs�L aS'r�{auLl� RE Pur3L/e4. y o cc VAO IfA149 O pal4 TED /Al O,Q o7E2 /::42 1?dA!5 941.4 TE /Jars!/& d pt et-5/r 11F o vEI2, TS a�E/�,4 To�✓s& 1� Oq�Y SEi�onl /S A94 T- ou3 J ED Sy U S «r�2 �/1 E•ve A4 e dAIPW Al y. ?OTA TO= OACiFc)1ZV1A C1olrs TAB GMMissloAll lAI 176 AIXY It a 0 0 S Z-EITE/Z AA) D E IEW �y C7dWIS_ff0At/ I N ITS ND✓EM�Ek I 2609 4E77441 I—IXIIE 6V ✓/72 D At AAF_A✓!-,l L ;D4 0 V M EN l-477/D Al RAID 6TJDY A6AEE W ITA -i AEA ,►2�e� .vr ,�,:/r�6�T�b�sr nl t/1J /�o�g T�#4T yD U gEf-:-D Pf6m d 0E FM L 91(JE A1 Too 7YE &W e 4 �1�/i✓>>c/� (25AJA41 SS16AI 6SEE FAleLOSED 3E14iJ , Dc-s#4 L-1A/AT1a rJ AS A S'a u&e E 6 i r 177-,E4 X4-)Z.. ,v ri)AE G,E.VEi2 ATio ArS f14 S (2,6"�T.9�.�J ,�¢,v E,�rTs TiyE_ C tWZ,E JT 14SJ 6 /D 6 n) &b J-Ee 7— 19 s P a kOD,5 ED /s TW�,=— Ini 126,AfC- )O�2d Kc T /A/ 7-4— Wlj iv ,Cd (>,4 i-1vn/ 1 T 7-, � #,VD T)Yy ?i s1D,6A1I-iR L 4�7 s A,,✓r Mll r,�-I A T,fin/u o 0 S _b s*4 L/A/4 i io nl A o c7"Ec T 7"#,1 T r(4s I/o T" -14410 9DE�0,4T`a EA1ViAoi✓Ale.t/ii4 L Aviet) is W&,\I&, -rJ4 1 S P2 6 d E cT IS a,4,D r6 2 f4ijA1 1AI -Ton/ 106,4 c7 l 4.v0 1 T / S 134,E Z,14Lv w Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, F;E-f;LlVEd I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desITY C plant EIR, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Age t'�� C 2b on the City A Council agenda Monday night, November 17. NTWf0 I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desOalina&TnPr�'g p �e will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below) . While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. "Visnos lvia Visnos i 22002 Capistrano Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water . The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. ERK CITY OF N.UNTLPdG�TON—B�ACF1, CA, . \c,��'�'Q. ��l\�V�c3�2. �O d�.'�.�Mr��A�U►'�,���U �'��v_`�O.0 uCl�,+— Az CITY CLERK "Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers CITY OF , HUNTIN GTON BEACH" CA I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseido0�} ,}it n plant. EIR, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development e°Y ��ll, e a t5as D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I 'ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below) . While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, , /✓3 c�+ 9Z& ind hgs for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water . The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. I. CITY CLERK CITY OF "Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, HUNPINGTON BEACH,CA I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desJ0WnRaV*Jp.Qnt -E5R, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our Water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below) . While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at .the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Z ( S 7 Z IC a ^ � \Ao��,n P��a 3A , Co, �2 6 4 6 Findings for Denial Presente to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water . The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. e CITY CLERK CITY OF "Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalinat= PUt1 ERJ 51 Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night, November 17. I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8,. 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission (see enclosed below) . While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate.environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, '6t' Cl/rJ� �/7r4� C� 16 Findings for Denial resented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04:. 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water . The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. CI ,rY CLERK Marinka Horack CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 21742 Fairlane Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1003 NOV I P I: 5 I November 12, 2003 Mayor Connie Boardman Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: The Premature Poseidon Project is Bad for Huntington Beach Dear Mayor Boardman: The Poseidon desalination project as it stands now, is not good for the citizens of Huntington Beach. Here are some reasons why this project must be sunk: • Private utilities have private profit as their first goal; public good is down on their list; let's learn a lesson from the Enron debacle; • Poseidon would keep the dinosaur AES plant operating with its ugly stone age technology; AES must modernize first; • Questions about many environmental concerns need to be fully addressed; HB beaches are the city's greatest natural resource, just ask any citizen; • Poseidon already has agreements with a water district to supply half of Poseidon's product water to South County, thereby inducing growth; this would only create larger water shortages, increasing traffic congestion, destruction of rare natural habitat in South County, etc. • H.B.'s budding tourist industry needs clean, beautiful beaches which are unmarred by hideously ugly industrial eyesores such as AES; • Irvine Ranch Water District reported that Poseidon would put corrosive water into the public water pipe system; • The few desalination plants that exist nationally have unsuccessful records; Why hurry a project that has so many serious problems'attached to it? This is our city. Do not give it away to greedy corporate interests! Thank you for your attention and consideration of this important issue. Thank you for your outstanding service to our city. Sincerely Yours for a Better Huntington Beach, mw�� ft6-1� Marinka Horack An H.B. Resident for 30 Years Marinka Horack, 21742 fairlane Circle HuntbWon Beach, CA 92646 November 13, 2003 Dave Sullivan HB City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: To Express Strong Opposition to Districting Plan Dear Councilmember Sullivan: The initiative proposal to change the structure of our city government from the current seven at-large council seats to five districts, where each citizen has only one representative on city council is an extremely bad idea. It is obviously much less democratic. Now each citizen votes for, and is represented by, seven council members. Every two years we can vote for all the city council positions that are on the ballot. Each citizen can contact any or all council members as they represent all the people of the city. The districting proposal would allow citizens to vote only once every four years for only one council member representing only one district. The citizen would be out of luck if that representative doesn't agree with him on issues. Further, that citizen would have no one else to turn to on city council. In other words, that citizen would lose his voice in our city government! How fair is that? Scott Baugh was a lobbyist for the AES plant when he brought forth the districting proposal. It is evident-that such a plan would make it much easier for special interests such as AES to control our city elections. Smaller voting areas mean that less money would be spent on fancy campaign brochures. AES imposes a hideously ugly eyesore on our city. It also spews polluting smoke into our air. It doesn't pay its fair share of taxes. Now, to add insult to injury, special interests want to take away our political voice. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue. Thank you for your excellent service to the citizens of Huntington Beach. Yours for a Better Huntington Beach, IA Marinka Horack ` FiECEIv wD FROM AND MADE A PART Or THE R�CO�RD AT TH COUNCIL MEETING OF_ 1 OFFICE THE CITY CLERK' /�IGjiCjjg$pfl'Cltl�'p,�7'fCUltp COItfNfE RROCLECKWAY,CITY CLERK 9682 Surfarest Drft Yfwrington 8�ach GA 92646 , /0 M714-964-6389— November Ira, 2003 Dear Mayorgoardm.an and CLty CouncLlmembers, I am wrLtfing to ask that you oppose the 7>os6don desaUnatLon pLant EIR, COVA. tLov,.aL I.Ise Perm.Lt and CoastaL Dev"m.ent Perm.Lt,Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the CLty CoLtvtZU agenda mowday nLght, November 27. I five fin I-f vvn ngton beach, and i believe the desalination project wUL do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of` 4,U neighborhood. I am very concerned about the beach and oceaw pollutfion problems we have Ln thLs area and the relationship of the desolUnatLon pLant wLth the AES power pLant. I am verb opposed to further LndustrtClUzatLon of our nt: ohborhood, and the prospect that the POseidonpLant wtay prOLOnoj the Ufe of the outdated and obsolete / AI5,S pLant that has had a verb deleterLous effect on our quaUty Of our Ufie from Lts noLse, air poLtutiovi., beach pollutLon and vfisuaL Ln pact on our resfidevvtfiaL neighborhood. I beUeve this project wU have a negative Lmpact on our resfidentiaL neighborhood and the wetLands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination ptant will provfide water for LnLand devetopment and sprawl, aggravatLng overaLL air poltutLon and tra ffic, wKLe FtuntLngton Beach, at the end of the funneL, gets the rLtno f f, sewage,poor air c[uaUtd, and Lncreased power pLawt operatLons necessitated by the LnLand deveLopvuents. There Ls no benefit to Huwtingtowgeach from the desaUnationplant otherthanprom.Lsed financLOL revenues. FLvl.ancfiaL revenues are prom ses that are very dubLous gLveo.the three banJruptcfies assocLated with the Tampa -ay desaUnatfiov�,pLant Ln Ftortda, which was also b66tt by Poseidon, and Ls onty hat f the sLze of the proposed desalination project fin I-tuntington beach. Ivk,additLon, I am verb concerned about privatization of the oceaw water, a public resource. I ant very worried that Poseidon mom sett the desaU"tfion operation to a foreLgn covupany that w&ay not have to abide by LOcat and state envfironvkentaL restvtotions, and m,ay uLtfim.ateLy conprom.Lse the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because Lt fis prWateLy owned. Instead, awry desaUoxitiow proposal shouLd be publicly owned and operated Ln order for adequate pubUc oversight over Lts operatLons. ALread y, Poseidon Ls part-owned by tks ;`filter, a French company. -Dth the""forma CoastaL COM M.LSSLOn, LW Lts May 9, 2003 Letter, and CUUfornLa Energy co►M vwLssLDw, Lw its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further env'arovw&entaL docttmentatLon and study before you approve the EIP-and the project. I agree wLth these recom.vu.endatfions, and hope that you heed them.. 11 Alterwativeld, t ask that Uou simpLU dewtJ, the project proJi.oliwg the recow&v&evwled Elwdivtgs For De►L al givew to the Ftuwtiwgtow leach PLClwwiwg Cowt.vu.issiow (see ewctosed below). while desaliwatiow as a source of water for future geweratiows has certaiw beweftts,the . currewt Poseiolm.project as proposed is the wrov a prpie,ctivt,the wrowg laaatiow at the wroijo tiwA&. Ftuwtiv Otow leach depevwls ow clettw beaches,tourisn&, av%.d a vibrawt health residewtial communit�. Perpetuatiwg the AES pLawt with a tewuous desaliwatiow project that has wot had adequate ev%,viroK4,mwtal review is wrov.g. This prDjeet is bad for Ffuwtiwgtow leach awd it is bad for me. Thank,,Oou.for Dour covwsioleratiow of ml� contmewts. Siwcerell�, \ } Michelle A friCawo 9682 Sur(crest Drive 11 I-fOW MANY MORE REASONS DO WE NEED? f4mAv gs for Devu.al PreseKted to the Pl.awwLvuo cove vlsstow: SUC;C�ESTED FINDINGS FORDENIAL, CONDITIONAL- uSE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ CO.hSTAL.DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SIACiCIESTED FINDINCtS FOR.DENIAL.-CONDITIONAL.KSE PERMIT NO. 02-04: t. cov�dtttowal use Permtt No.o2-04 for the estab"hmtvd, n&alv►tev AKze avWl operattow of a seawater desaUKattowplawtproduetwg 5o vv!Mow gallows per dalo (MGD) awd up to four mUes of water trav►svu.tsst ;&U Kes wtl.l be detKn4twtal to the ge►tieral welfare o f persovas worl¢twg or resWLv►,g tw the VvLKttq or detrLYK&Ltal.to the value of the propertu awd 4uproventewts twthe area because: a. The proposed desaU"t%ow ptawt will talee too MCD of raw seawater from the Paclfi c Oceaw through the existtwg/DES gewerattwg stattow twtalze UKe aw.Gl discharge So MCD of br%we therebo twcreastw.g the oeeaw water saUK to which will have a wegattve effect or.local beaches. b. The proposed desali.wattowptawt will utilize the existiwg AES twtalee avid outfall, which are outdated. 2. The cowollew al use perwut will be twcompattble with surrouvwl Kv uses because the proposed project is am twdustrtal use wtthtw close proxtvvutH to sMsttWe MWeKtial uses. It will also discharge brtwe twto the oceaw tw close proxLm to to a wetiawds area. SI.I.C;C,ESTED FINDINGS FORDENIAL--COASTAL-DEVELOPMENTPERMIT NO.02-05: t. coastal Developv Kt Perwut No.02-05 for the devetopmewt of the desattwattow ptawt awd approAmateld oKe mU,le of water tramnt sstow UKes wtthtw the coastal zowe, does vvat cowforKk to the goals awd policies of the C,ewerat Ptaw, twctudtvi.g the Local coastal Program awd coastal Elemewt as follows: a. C C,.t.t-Requk that wew developmtwt twclude mt"attow v►4.easures to e►vhav to water g"Uttd, tf feasible; a", at m4,timunt,prevewt degradattow of water quaUto of grouvwlwater bastvts,wettav►4s, avW stkr face water. The proposed desaUvwttow.plant further degrades the oceaw water q"Utd a" mao have a►n. LK&paet ow the ad OLKw g wetlavwls. b. e 6.t.2- MArtKe resources shalt be matKkatwed, ewhavized, avid where feasible, restored. The proposed desaltwattow ptawt further degrades marine resources. 7 Dear Mayor Boardman and City Councilmembers, 9 I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant EIR, ° Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, Agenda Items D-2a and D-2b on the City Council agenda Monday night,November 17. 9�490� I live in Huntington Beach, and I believe the desalination project will do harm to the public health, safety, and welfare of my neighborhood. I am V 9 very concerned about the beach and ocean pollution problems we have in this area and the relationship of the desalination plant with the AES power plant. I am very opposed to further industrialization of our neighborhood, and the prospect that the Poseidon plant may prolong the life of the outdated and obsolete AES plant that has had a very deleterious effect on our quality of our life from its noise, air pollution, beach pollution and visual impact on our residential neighborhood. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. The Poseidon Desalination plant will provide water for inland development and sprawl, aggravating overall air pollution and traffic, while Huntington Beach, at the end of the funnel, gets the runoff, sewage, poor air quality, and increased power plant operations necessitated by the inland developments. There is no benefit to Huntington Beach from the desalination plant other than promised financial revenues. Financial revenues are promises that are very dubious given the three bankruptcies associated with the Tampa Bay desalination plant in Florida, which was also built by Poseidon, and is only half the size of the proposed desalination project in Huntington Beach. In addition, I am very concerned about privatization of the ocean water, a public resource. I am very worried that Poseidon may sell the desalination operation to a foreign company that may not have to abide by local and state environmental restrictions, and may ultimately compromise the security of our water supply by providing terrorist access to our water supply, because it is privately owned. Instead, any desalination proposal should be publicly owned and operated in order for adequate public oversight over its operations. Already, Poseidon is part-owned by US Filter, a French company. Both the California Coastal Commission, in its May 8, 2003 letter, and California Energy Commission, in its November 7, 2003 letter, have recommended further environmental documentation and study before you approve the EIR and the project. I agree with these recommendations, and hope that you heed them. Alternatively, I ask that you simply deny the project providing the 1 recommended Findings For Denial given to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission(see enclosed below). While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project as proposed is the wrong project in the wrong location at the wrong time. Huntington Beach depends on clean beaches, tourism, and a vibrant healthy residential community. Perpetuating the AES plant with a tenuous desalination project that has not had adequate environmental review is wrong. This project is bad for Huntington Beach and it is bad for me. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, , Augustine Ronald Pepi and S ley Elizabeth Pepi 21902 Kaneohe Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 Findings for Denial Presented to the Planning Commission: SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day(MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a. The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge 50 MGD of brine thereby increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses a because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water . The proposed desalinat-ion plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b.,C,6.1.2- Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Thyproposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. 3 c�� U CALIFORNIA EARTH CORPS RECEIVED FROM C� 4927 Minturn Avenue AND COUNCIL MEETING OF R RpA TH< Lakewood, CA 90712 OFFICE OF THE(562) 630-1491 CONNIE BROCKWAyITY LERK November 17, 2003 CITY CLERK Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Poseidon DeSalinarion E=R, SOC, CUP & LCP RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL Dear Mayor and Council: California Earth Corps has commented by statement and testimony at the May 27, June 3, and August 6 Planning Commission EIR Hearings as to the omissions, general inadequacy and failure to disclose pertinent factual information on the predictable environmental impacts of the Poseidon Project as required under CEQA. We will forego repetition here, but feel you may benefit from San Francisco' s recent example: New Approaches to Safeguarding the Earth An environmental version of the Hippocratic oath Jared Blumenfeld Monday,August 4,2003 ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle I Feedback U RL: littt):Hsfaate.com/c�-�i-bin/article.cgi?f--/c/a/2003/08/04/ED47457.DTL A bold environmental code becomes law in San Francisco today, one whose overarching framework is called the Precautionary Principle. Through it, San Francisco is taking a significant step away from the Bush administration's anti-environmental policies. The Precautionary Principle sets out to improve the way we make envirorunental decisions. While the Bush team asks, "How much environmental harm will be allowed?," in San Francisco, decision-makers will ask a very different question: "How little harm is possible?" San Francisco is a leader in making choices based on the least environmentally harmful alternatives, thereby challenging traditional assumptions about risk management. The 1 I existing laws consolidated in the Environment Code have introduced more than 700 zero- or low-emission vehicles to the city's fleet, conserved 6,800 trees and more than half-a- million gallons of water each year by purchasing recycled content paper, cut toxic- pesticide use in half and protected worker health by designing buildings that use less energy and other precious natural resources. We acknowledge that our world will never be free from risk. However, a risk that is unnecessary, and not freely chosen, is never acceptable. San Francisco's Precautionary Principle, enacted as part of the Environment Code, insists that environmental decision- ac�c.: R CEC, page 2 11/17/03 making be based on rigorous science -- science that is explicit about what is known, what is not known and what may never be kriown about potential hazards. Unfortunately, in today's regulatory system lack of proof of harm is usually misinterpreted as proof of safety. In San Francisco, we want to create a means to take action despite scientific uncertainty about the degree of a given risk. Too often, regulatory agencies get stuck in "paralysis by analysis"; the new framework removes excuses for inaction on the grounds of scientific uncertainty. The costs of not taking precautionary action are often very high, as we've seen in the case of tobacco, lead and asbestos. Early scientific warnings about risks to health went unheeded by government agencies. As a result, billions of dollars have been spent to deal with the consequences of these problems. Costs include health care and health insurance, lost economic productivity, absenteeism, lost wages and cleanup. The Precautionary Principle process also requires decision-makers to consider possible impact to the local economy. Our Precautionary Principle calls for a careful analysis of a range of alternatives using the best available information. The goal of this process is to determine whether a potentially hazardous activity is necessary, and whether less hazardous options are available. For instance, our pesticide reduction program eliminated all of the most toxic chemicals used by city gardeners and identified less-toxic ways to solve weed and pest problems, some as benign as using goats to clear weed-choked hillsides or heat cannons to kill termites in walls. Science provides vital evidence for making these decisions. However, elected officials will ultimately use a combination of scientific data and judgments of what is necessary, useful and fair to make environmental decisions. Both locally and internationally, the public bears the direct consequences of environmental decisions. A government's course of action is necessarily enriched by broadly based public participation when a range of alternatives is considered. This concept of environmental democracy is deeply ingrained in San Francisco's Precautionary Principle. At the World Trade Organization, the Bush administration is fighting the European Union's right to restrict imports of genetically modified foods; beef containing hormones, and proposed legislation that would require some 30,000 chemicals now in use to be immediately registered with EU authorities. The failure of the United States to adopt the Precautionary Principle is yet another way in which we are ostracizing ourselves from the rest of the planet. San Francisco's Precautionary Principle presents a historic opportunity to refocus environmental decision-making on reducing harm. In doing so, we are sending a message to Washington: The days of letting polluters and industries set our health and environmental agenda may be over sooner than you think. N CEC, page 3 1 1/17/03 California Earth Corps comments are repeated here for the record: GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS: The disclosure of the proposed Santa Margarita purchase demonstrates that the Poseidon Business Plan is to market desalinated water through local agencies to developments who must show firm water supplies before subdivision is permitted. This is a clear showing of how growth is directly induced by the Poseidon Project whose impacts must therefore be fully evaluated under CEQA. ENTRAINMENT IMPACTS: AES is a peaking plant; Poseidon intends to purchase power and operate during off peak hours. Thus they require additional power over what would ordinarily be produced, causing additional entrainment losses under Section 316b of the Clean Water Act. DISCHARGE IMPACTS: The discharge salinity plume, being denser than receiving waters, drops to the bottom, where it impacts salinity sensitive Echinoderms especially sand dollars, which ordinarily remove bacteria from coastal waters. Reduction or elimination of the Huntington Beach sand dollar bed would exasperate beach contamination problems. DRINKING WATER QUALITY IMPACTS The testimony at the June 3 Hearing by the Irvine Water District revealed that the actual R/O water produced by Poseidon would be received not by the purchaser, but by the users located closest to the injection point into the MWD plenum. Since this water has a lower pH than the ground water used 65-70% of the time, the Irvine WD Quality Control manager described how the rust and organics released would discolor laundry and how the mildly acid R/O water could corrode copper pipe and lead solder to release toxic metals into the drinking water, causing Irvine to exceed safe drinking water standards. Since the Costa Mesa injection point is closer to Huntington Beach than Irvine, the potential adverse impacts on Huntington Beach drinking water may be substantially greater. The EIR does not address this issue at all, even though it potentially impacts Huntington Beach Public Health and Safety. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON ADJACENT WETLANDS While the wetlands adjacent to the Project have not yet been restored, the land has been acquired and the restoration planning is underway, thus the EIR must address the impacts of the Project upon a restored, fully tidal wetland, so that valuable planning options will not be lost. However, the Council must act tonight to either avoid or mitigate the adverse impacts through Conditions of Permit, or to deny the project outright. WATER QUALITY: The greatest threat to both the beach and to restored wetlands comes from contaminated stormwater runoff, mostly in the first flush from each rain. That is why the City must obtain an NPDES Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to discharge to the ocean.While the Orange County Board has not yet promulgated standards, most of US has adopted Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) with both narrative and numeric standards (cf: LA RWQCB) ; the former describing strategies to interdict contaminants from reaching State and Federal waters; the latter requiring retention of the first .75 inches of each precipitation event (1) . MITIGATION: A Condition of Permit to require all surface runoff to be directed to and contained behind a modification of the existing barrier retention berm and into a trench sized to contain .75 inches times the total area of the Project. The trench would be filled with cobble and gravel decreasing in size to sand at the bottom and planted with rush, sedges and other aquatic plants known for their abilities to scrub the various impurities from runoff CEC, page 4 11/17/03 (the French Drain Option) . Clarified bioremediated water would percolate into the saltwater table at -5 feet and onward into the wetland. Having retained and cleansed the first flush, the relatively clean runoff in excess of .75 inches will meet standards, including future TMDLs, for discharge by gravity drain into the Flood Control Channel or pumped into the ocean outfall. GROUNDWATER QUALITY: The EIR does not speak to potential plumes of groundwater contaminated by the upgradient landfills or washout of the residual contaminants after the remediation of leakage from the fossil fuel storage tanks. In fact, it offers no existing concentrations or even species or spatial locations of contaminants under the leaking tanks, much less methodology or numeric standards for remediation. In the absence of any evaluation of post remediation monitoring, we can only assume that none is planned. MITIGATION A Condition of Permit to require groundwater monitoring of wells located around the periphery of the Project with an action plan for containment and abatement should contaminants be detected, is appropriate to protect the (wetland) resources of the State, before it becomes the responsibility of the City to clean up under the Clean Water Act. LIGHT and NOISE: will disturb and adversely impact residents of the restored wetland and may interrupt migration patterns or divert birds away from the wetland yet can be avoided with simple low cost measures: MITIGATION A Condition of Permit to require all lighting to be directed away from the wetlands, and shielded in such a way that no artificial light falls outside the reconstructed containment berm, and that the berm be planted with a palette of native shrubs and trees selected to muffle noise, block light, provide a visual buffer from the wetlands, screen industrial operations and improve the public viewshed. ESTHETICS and PUBLIC ACCESS: A buffer should be required between the wetland and the stormwater containment berm and planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Coastal Sage Community and providing public access via a pathway along the Project perimeter bordering the wetland but screened from it so as not to disturb birds, yet affording views and vistas of wildlife and wetland for residents and schoolchildren. MITIGATION a Condition of Permit should be required to provide for public access via such a trail as will be designed and constructed by the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy as a component of the forthcoming Talbert Marsh Conceptual Plan. CULTURAL and ARCHEOLOGY: This site has been a temperate seashore where people have gathered to fish and dig clams since time immemorial. The top 15 feet contains the unbroken record of human occupation and land use since humanity entered North America. We have been drawn to this seashore, to this site for over 10,000 years. It is difficult to believe no record of our presence exists, or won't be uncovered during Project construction. The National Historic Preservation Act and the Cultural Resource Management Act (CRM) require a Section 106 process. MITIGATION A Condition of Permit should acknowledge the likelihood of middens and tool scatters and require the CRM Section 106 process. When moving or cleaning soils during site remediation and when excavating or moving soils during construction, all personnel shall be alert for shell middens and artifacts of any human activity, and, should any materials be found, to immediately alert the City, Coastal Commission and State Historic Preservation CEC, page 5 11/17/03 Officer to their presence, and to save and entrust all such items of interest to the City for display at a future Marsh Visitor Center or other Civic venue. CHEMICAL STORAGE and HANDLING: The EIR does not speak to, or evaluate handling, storage & plans to prevent the release of toxic chemicals or emergency plans should they be released. You have heard conflicting testimony that chlorine will not be stored on site and that the Department of Health Services requires chlorination before product water is stored. MITIGATION a Condition of Permit to require all toxic or hazardous chemicals be handled and stored in a HazMat explosion proof seismically safe Containment Structure capable of withstanding a 6.9 earthquake or 2 g's of strong motion in all three axes and fitted with seismic shutoff valves. HABITAT LOSSES at the Subsurface Booster Pump located in an NCCP area must be mitigated. The EIR does not discuss this requirement, or the Habitat Conservation Plan for this restrictive area. MITIGATION The disturbed area within the NCCP should have all exotic and non native vegetation removed and be replanted after completion of the product water pipeline and Underground Booster Pump with a palette of native plants originally indigenous to the area and maintained free of invasive and exotic plants until the Pump has been removed according to a Planting and Maintenance Plan to be developed in coordination with the California Native Plant Society and US Fish & Wildlife. We believe that the Hunting Beach City Council has no alternative but DENIAL of the EIR, the SOC, the CUP and the LUP, failure of Poseidon to meet the criteria for acceptance of each and all of these discretionary actions and the failure to mitigate the known adverse impacts of such actions, should they be approved. We appreciate the long process and many hours your Staff, Planning Commissioners and this Council has put in evaluating this proposal, but, in the final analysis, this Project is just not compliant with the applicable laws nor in the best interest of the Public, whether Huntington Beach residents or of the State of California. We urge you to act responsibly and DENY THIS PERMIT. Sincerely, Don May, Executive Director California Earth Corps JAN D. VANDERSLOOT; MD Certified, American Board of Dermatology 8101 Newman Ave, Suite C Phone: (714) 848-0770 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 FAX: (714)848-664/3�, U November 16, 2003 (�y� RECEIVED FRO Mayor Connie Boardman, and AND MADE A PART&THE REC AT THE - COUNCIL MEETING OF 3 Huntington Beach City Councilmembers OFFICE OF THE CITY CLE K City of Huntington Beach CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Beach City Council Meeting November 17, 2003 Agenda items D-2a and D-2b Poseidon EIR,.CUP,and CDP Dear Mayor Boardman, and Huntington Beach City Councilmembers: I am writing to request that you oppose certification of the EIR for the Poseidon Desalination Project and that you vote to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)and Coastal Development Permit for this project. Regarding the Poseidon EIR, I believe there is a major deficiency in the EIR not considering the study written by Komex H2O, Inc. for the California Energy Commission (CEC)titled: "AES Huntington Beach Generating Station Surf Zone Water Quality Study, Final Draft, dated August 4, 2003". In the meantime,the CEC has written you a letter dated November 7, 2003,giving you many reasons why the Poseidon EIR is deficient because of its association with the operations of the AES plant. Although I had written an email dated September 8, 2003 to the Planning Commission recommending consideration of AES CEC study report, and sent it to you by email (see attached), this report was not considered nor referenced in the EIR certified by the Planning Commission. Neither the staff nor Planning Commission made an analysis of the data within this report. However,the attached email details my own analysis of the Komex AES CEC study, which should give you reason to request further analysis of the Poseidon EIR. The AES CEC report shows how bacteria from the AES plant is found within the plant and within the intake and discharge vaults of the AES plant, where it is then discharged into the ocean some 1500 feet offshore. The report shows how bacteria are then diluted at only a 36 to 1 ratio when the bacteria hit the shoreline. Concentrations of bacteria within the discharge vault sometimes exceeded 24,192 MPN/100cc, which was the limit of the ability of the instrument to measure the bacteria. The actual numbers of bacteria could have been much higher. The dye study in the AES CEC study showed that the AES discharge plume reaches the shoreline within an hour of injection into the discharge vault. Since the Poseidon desalination operations will concentrate and add other constituents to the AES discharge plume, consideration must be made to what impact the Poseidon operations will have on beach bacteria and marine water quality. Given the persistently high bacteria readings on the beach adjacent to the AES plant in the vicinity of Magnolia Street, it is critical to further examine the role of the AES plant and the proposed desalination plant's impact on the AES discharge. 1 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, MD Certified, American Board of Dermatology 8101 Newman Ave, Suite C Phone: (714) 848-0770 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 FAX: (714)848-6643 I am submitting another report for your consideration titled: "Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III, Peer Review Panel Summary Report", dated March 21, 2003. Page 4 of this report,bottom of the page, states: "If the beach is considered to be the end of the transport pathway, and the bacteria transported to shore remain on shore or trapped in the surfzone, possibly adsorbed to sediment particles,then low concentrations of bacteria just offshore can be reconcentrated at the beach. The potential for resuspension of fecal indicator bacteria within the surfzone was not addressed in the Phase III study and therefore cannot be ruled out as a possible source of beach contamination." Although this report referred to the OCSD outfall,the same principles apply to the AES outfall, which also discharges bacteria, although in lower amounts than the OCSD outfall. However, unlike OCSD,the AES outfall discharge has been definitively shown to reach the beach. I am enclosing the color photographs of the dye study in the AES CEC report to show how the AES discharge is shown to.reach the beach, Figure 4-19b and Plate 5-1. This could be the explanation for the high bacteria readings on the beach. Bacteria from the AES discharge vault reaching the beach, resuspending in the surfzone and reconstituting on the beach adsorbed to sand particles, The Poseidon operations,through concentration and addition,will alter the bacterial levels within the AES discharge vault, and therefore the bacterial levels that reach the beach, where they may become resuspended and reconcentrated, perhaps worsening the bacteria problems on the beach at 9 North. This impact should be analyzed in the EIR. I am also attaching my letter to the Planning Commission of May 29, 2003,along with Exhibits 13, 14, and 16 from the Poseidon EIR, showing how the salinities from the AES discharge follow the shoreline, outlining the plume. Again, if bacteria are also entrained in this plume, you can see how the beach can receive these bacteria, and you have an explanation for the beach pollution problems we continue to have along this stretch of beach. In this letter, I requested further analysis of this potential impact in the EIR, which was never done. I am also attaching my letter to the Planning Commission of July 22, 2003, detailing my concerns about the privatization of public water supplies, and the potential for security problems and difficulties with international trade laws if Poseidon should sell out to a foreign company. Poseidon is already partly owned by US Filter, a French company despite its name. Our public water supply should remain in public hands, subject to public oversight, and not be manipulated by for-profit and foreign corporations. I am also attaching the recent news article from the St. Petersburg Times, published October 30, 2003,titled: "Desal builder files for bankruptcy"..I think this article should give you pause as to the financial stability of the company who is making application for this project and the financial promises being made. I would also ask if it is smart to locate a water reservoir over an area subject to earthquake and liquefaction potential. All in all,the Poseidon desalination project raises many questions that need to be answered before you approve this project or its EIR. I think this project is the wrong project in the wrong place. Desalination of ocean water is a potential source of water, but locating a plant at the AES site is just asking for trouble. 2 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, MD Certified, American Board of Dermatology 8101 Newman Ave, Suite C Phone: (714)848-0770 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 FAX: (714)848-6643 The Planning Commission developed"Suggested Findings For Denial, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05", attached. I recommend that you adopt these findings for denial, in addition to finding the EIR to be inadequate as submitted. Thank you. Sincerely, f/ 1! �G"ZcJ Jan D. Vandersloot, MD Attachments: I. September 8, 2003 Email to Planning Commission and City Councilmembers 2. March 21, 2003 Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase 1I1, Peer Review Panel Summary Report 3. May 29, 2003 Letter to the HB Planning Commission 4. Exhibits 13, 14,and 16 from the Poseidon EIR 5. July 22, 2003 Letter to HB Planning Commission 6. October 30, 2003 Newspaper Article from the St. Petersburg Times 7. Suggested Findings For Denial, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coasatal Development Permit No.02-05 3 rage i of s Subj: [sehbna] OOG et al:AES CEC Study, HB Planning Commission Tuesday,7 PM `Date: 9/8/2003 1:01:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: JonV3@aol-com :Reply-to: sehbna yahoogroups.com To: Jo_nV3@ao_r,com, sehbna@yahoogroups.com, oceanoutfallgroup@yahocgroups_com, hbdac@hotmail.com,DSULLIVAN@socal.rr.con., BoardmaC@surfcity-hb.org, CBoardBCLT@aol.com, Hbmissjiii(a)aoI.com, glcoerpl(c—Qgte.net, C134Council@aol.com, green a,,)suricity-hb.org, gcoerper(cbsurfcity-hb.org,jhardynsurfcity-hb.orq, phouchenrMsurfcity- hb,org, dsullyan@surfci.ty-hb,crg, PPcgreen@aol.com, contact-pm@rnindspring.corn, rkoka.l_@juno com, TomNeilLivengood@aol com, rdd@socja rr.co_m, steveray4su-rf._city@hotma l_cotn, shomaker(a�att.net, idscanduracd�earthlink.net .Sent from the Internet(Details) September 8, 2003 Re: Poseidon CUP, HB Planning Commission, September 9, 2003 Dear Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commissioners: This is part of my ongoing analysis of the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station Surf Zone.Water Quality Study, Final Draft, prepared for the California Energy Commission, prepared by Komex H2O Science Inc, dated August 4, 2003. After spending some 20 hours reading and rereading this report, these are my recommendations and findings for the Poseidon EIR, CUP, and further AES proceedings: Recommendations: 1. Because the AES CEC report shows that bacteria from the AES operations are discharged into the ocean and come back to shore via the AES plume, this whole report should be included in the Poseidon Desalination EIR, as a Supplemental EIR, because the findings in this report were not considered in the Poseidon Desalination EIR, and Poseidon will alter the AES discharge by virtue of concentration and addition. 2. The Conditional Use Permit for the Poseidon Desalination Project should contain requirements that: 1. All freshwater discharges from AES into the Discharge Vault of AES should be diverted to the OCSD for further treatment and not be allowed to enter either the Poseidon intake pipes or the AES discharge pipe. 2. The brine concentrate from Poseidon should be diverted to OCSD for further treatment, similar to the treatment of the brine concentrate from the GWRS system. 3. Blackford's Ditch has characteristics of a wetland and should be considered as such in terms of enclosing it in a box culvert as part of the widening of Newland. 4. Internal practices by AES that resulted in lower bacterial counts in 2002 than in 2001 should be identified and required for future practices to prevent backsliding. These recommendations are based on the following findings, with page numbers referring to the AES CEC Report: 1. The AES discharge plume into the ocean 1200 feet from the shoreline comes back through the surf zone and affects the beach, as proven by the August 2002 dye study. The plume reached the beach first at Station 12 North, and then appeared on the beach to the south (p.116-118) (plates 4-18, 4-19b). 2. The discharge plume goes straight up to the surface of the ocean, without dilution, from the AES discharge port, which is 19 feet wide and only 11 feet below the surface of the ocean, at a distance of 1200 feet from the shoreline. At the surface of the ocean,the plume is diluted by 6 to 1, reaches the surf zone at 24 to 1, then the beach at a minimum of 36 to 1 dilution (p. 123). 3. The discharge plume, as evidenced by the dye study, can reach the intake port some 700 feet away from the discharge port, at a dilution of 24 to 1 at 600 feet (p. 117), and the plume fills the entire water column (p.126). Komex did no measurements of dye inside of the intake pipe, however. 4. The bacteria from the discharge pipe get on the beach, contributing total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci to the beach bacteria. Komex estimates that up to 16% of the Enterococci bacteria on the beach come from the AES discharge (p. 134). Sunday, November 16, 2003 America Online: Jon V3 rage L of s 5. Komex fails to consider the influence of beach sand acting as a reservoir and sink for continuous bacterial buildup and propagation from the AES discharge, although it does give an analysis of how bacteria survive and enhance in a saline environment(p.178-183). The independent peer review panel evaluating the OCSD Phase 2 investigation first proposed the role of beach sand acting as a reservoir. However, OCSD consistently denies that bacteria from its outfall ever reach the beach. On the other hand, Komex has shown in this report that bacteria from the AES outfall consistently reach the beach. 6. The intake vault contains high bacteria levels that Komex blames on a contaminated ocean (p. 107). However, Komex did not do any studies of the ocean bacteria at the intake port or the discharge port. If the ocean is contaminated at the intake port,this would be the first evidence that the ocean is contaminated with measurable levels of indicator bacteria at 1500 feet out from the shoreline,where the intake port is located 23 feet below the surface of the ocean. (p.17). 7. Intake Forebay bacterial concentrations between May 30 and September 28,2001, ranged up to 12,997 MPN/100 cc Enterococci (AB 411 standard is 104 CFU/100cc for a single water sample) (p.42). 8. Intake Vault bacterial concentrations in the summer of 2002 between July 12 and October 5, 2002,would have caused 4 exceedances of AB 411 if collected in the surf zone (p.80). 9. Discharge Vault bacterial concentrations ranged up to total coliforms >24,192 MPN/100cc, fecal coliforms up to 1,296 MPN/100cc, and Enterococci to 1,694 MPN/100cc between May 30.and September 28, 2001 (p.42) (AB 411 standards are a maximum of 10,000 Total Coliforms,400 Fecal Coliforms MPN/100cc, or 104 Enterococcus CFU/100cc in a single water sample). Note that values>24, 192 exceeded the instruments.capacity;therefore the actual numbers are higher, maybe much higher. 10. Discharge Vault concentrations in the summer of 2002 would have caused a total of 6 exceedances of AB 411 standards if the samples were collected in the surf zone. 11. Bacterial concentrations at the intake and discharge vaults exceeded AB 411 21 times if the samples had been collected in the surf zone (Table 5.1). Of these exceedances nine were observed in the intake value and therefore represent an import of contamination from the ocean. (p. 107) 12.A considerable amount of bacteria comes into the discharge vault of the AES plant from on-site fresh water sources. "The source of the bacterial contamination within the discharge vault is most likely a freshwater source" (p. 107).These on-site sources include the General Purpose Retention Basin, receiving water from yard and in-plant drains (p.20),the Boiler Fireside Wash, the Boiler Sump Wash,the Storm Water Sump, and Blackford's Ditch on Newland. The discharge from the General Purpose Retention Basin goes into the discharge vault at a rate of up to 230,000 gallons a day. (p. 121). Indicator bacteria concentrations from these sources added up to 644 exceedances of AB 411 standards if the samples had been collected from the surf zone (p. 82 to 84). 13.Ammonia levels are very high within the system at both intake and discharge vaults, without adequate explanation. Only surmises are offered to explain high ammonia levels, including the highly questionable contention that bivalve biofouling occurs at an arbitrary density of 500,000 bivalves (mussels, clams) per square meter lining the intake pipe surface (p.112), despite procedures to prevent biofouling such as reverse flow heat treatments (p.19)and removal by divers.This would equate to a diameter of a bivalve being .003 of an inch, or 323 bivalves per square inch. The other explanation questions the accuracy and sensitivity of the EPA methodology, as Komex could not explain consistently high ammonia levels above 1.0 mg/I in both intake and discharge vaults (p.112). 14. Data is thrown out if Komex could not explain it, such as low salinities on CTD Cast#1. These salinities were thought to be not possible, so the salinity values were not included in the subsequent analyses (p. 97). 15. Data had to be"rectified" or altered to match the data from other studies, including adjusted temperature data that was used to calculate adjusted salinities. (p. 95) 16. The Grant hypothesis of entrainment of OCSD discharge could not be dismissed, and evidence of cold subthermocline water in the intake vault was found (P.138). 17. An alternate hypothesis of entrainment of water and bacteria from the San Gabriel, Los Angeles,or Santa Ana Sunday, November 16, 2003 America Online: Jon V3 rage � vi � River, by the AES plume is suggested. (P.141). 18. The computer model of the plume discharge did not match the actual observations of the dye study until far field distance. The near field and intermediate field were not accurately depicted by the UM computer model (p.127). 19. Blackford's Ditch along Newland qualifies as a wetland. It is called a creek(p.58)."Approximately 100 feet of the creek has water present to a depth of two feet. The presence of adapted plants and small fish observed in the creek suggests that the creek is a standing body of water for long periods" ...'The creek is hydraulically connected to the discharge vault and, at high fides; ocean water from the discharge vault may be forced up into the creek." (p.58).Also, salinity concentrations were approximately 2/3 of ocean water and decreased along the length of the ditch from the pump house to the dry inlet(p. 93). Also, tolytriazole, a corrosion inhibitor used in the AES plant,was found in the ditch (p. 93). Blackford's Ditch is also called a creek, with poor water quality and high concentrations of indicator bacteria (p.108). 20. Internal practices in the AES plant improved high bacterial counts in the discharge vaults and other locations in 2002 compared to 2001 (p. 136). No mention of what these "internal practices" actually were. If verified,these practices should be codified. 21. In-Plant Water Quality Measurements included the following high values: Intake Vault: Enterococcus to 590 cfu/100 cc (AB 411 is maximum 104) (p.80) Discharge Vault: Enterococcus to 610 cfu/100cc(p.81) Blackford's Ditch:Total Coliforms up to 370,000 cfu/100cc (AB 411 is 10,000) Fecal Coliforms-to 31,000 cfu/100cc(AB 411 is 400), Enterococcus to 62,000 cfu/100cc(AB 411 is 194) (p. 82) Boiler Fireside Wash:Total Coliforms to 68,000, Fecal Coliforms to 4,300, Enterococcus to 160,000 cfu/100cc (p.82) Boiler Sump Wash: Total Coliforms 21,000, Fecal Coliforms 3,800, Enterococcus to 11,000 (p.83) Storm Water Sump: Total Coliforms to 11,000, Fecal Coliforms to 1,400, Enterococcus to 2,200 (p.83) General Purpose Retention Basin: Total Coliforms to 32,000, Fecal Coliforms to 9,400, Enterococcus to 700 (p.84) These all show high numbers of indicator bacteria that get discharged into the Discharge Vault and ultimately out into the ocean,where they come back to shore. The Poseidon desalination operations may act to concentrate these bacteria and other freshwater toxics such as corrosion inhibitor, and therefore all freshwater inputs to the discharge vault should be diverted to OCSD,where the toxics can be regulated under OCSD's source control program. In addition, whatever toxics and bacteria that are concentrated after Poseidon's operations should be sent to OCSD for further treatment similar to the GWRS program. Respectfully submitted, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 2221 East 16th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 548-6326 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: sehbna-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Sunday, November 16, 2003 America Online: Jon W MAY-27-03 13 :94 FROM :OCSD ADIII14 ID: 71gSB20356 FAGS 2/10 Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III Peer Review Panel Summary Report Prepared by University of Southern California Sea Grant Program and University of California,Santa Barbara Marine Science Institute March 21, 2003 -.---27-03 12 .46 FROM=OCSD ADM I N I D= 7 1 4 9622 3 5E PAGE 3/10., Executive Summary of Review Pauel Comments on the Huntington Beach Phase III Final Draft Report March 21,2003 Background High bacteria counts at Huntington State Beach forced a two-month beach closure in the summer of 1999,at significant cost to the community. This occurred immediately upon implementation of the AB411 beach closure standards.The Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD) conducted a series of studies to determine the source of the bacteria. Initial studies suggested that contamination from the sewage outfall 7 km off the east end of the beach was unlikely,but not impossible.Sewage leakage from beach restrooms,and animal waste from nearby Talbert Marsh have been implicated in tracer studies,but the source of the contamination had not been clearly identified as of spring, 2001. Scient ft Objectives Phase III of the Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation re-focused auention on the sewage outfall,with specific hypotheses concerning onshore transport of the sewage plume_The study objectives,as originally stated in the Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation,Phase III Workplan are: "1)characterize the physical ooeanopaphic.processes involved in possible cross-shelf transport of the wastewater plume in the vicinity of the AES themral discharge outfall;2)determine if there is a cau r weer o shore ands Zone acteria and related plume constituents;and 3)determine if the conditions during the summer of 2001 are similar to those of 1999 and other years with unusual surf zone bacteria levels The Principal Investigators(PIs)in the study,after careful consideration,re-defined the objectives in October,2002 thus: "The principal objective for this multifaceted measurement program was to deternune if there is a causal link between offshore wastewater discharge and significant bacterial contamination at or above state beach sanitation standards(i.e.,AB411)along the Huntington Beach shoreline_This objective includes the aim of identifying coastal ocean processes that could explain any observed Iinks_ A secondary objective was to determine the principal coastal-ocean circulation patterns in this region,allowing the evaluation of any new ideas that may arise or gain recognition during or following this study.Thirdly,conditions during the summer of 2001 would be compared to those of 1999 and other years with a high incidence of surf zone bacteria contamination." By this statement,the PIs defined the important issue as bacterial contamination causing beach closures, not a more general question about bacterial transport_ 1 MAY-27-03 13:45 FROM =OCSO ADMIN ID= 714SG203SB PAGE 4/10 Study Result As stated in the Phase III Draft Report: there were no direct observations of either the high bacteria concentrations seen in the OCSD plume at the shelf break reaching the shoreline in significant levels or of an association between the existence of a coastal ocean process and beach contamination at or above A13411 levels_ It is concluded that the OCSD plume is not a major cause of beach contamination;no causal links could be demonstrated. This conclusion is based on the absence of direct observation of links between bacteria in the outfall plume and beach contamination,on analysis of spatial and temporal patterns of shoreline contamnation and coastal processes, and on the observation of higher levels of contamination at the beach than in the plume_" Review process The University of Southern California Sea Grant Program convened an independent panel of experts to conduct a peer review of the Huntington Beach Phase III Study_ The purpose of this review was to"evaluate the scientific process,data,and interpretation of scientific results, and provide ongoing feedback to help guide the investigators in their analysis of these studies." The Re-,view Panel met with the Principal Investigators in person in April 2002 for preliminary presentations of the Phase III Study results and analyses. Subsequent to this first meeting,the Panel submitted a Preliminary Report to OCSD on their initial findings of the Phase III Study on May 15,2002. In August 2002, the Panel and Pis met main to further discuss the analyses of the Phase III data. Following the August meeting,the Panel submitted a second response to the PIs with recommendations for further improvement of the Phase III analyses. The Panel and PIs have also corresponded via phone and email throughout the review process. A written Final Draft report was made available by the Pis in January 2003 for review by the Panel_ This Executive Summary is the result of a concerted peer review effort by the Review Panel over the last two months and represents a synopsis of their collective comments on the Phase III Final Draft Report. The Review Panel consisted of: John Allen,Ph.D. Oregon State Uni versi ty Theoretical geophysical fluid dynamics;Coastal ocean dynamics Jack Barth,Ph.D. Oregon State University Coastal ocean dynamics; Flow-topography interactions MAY-27-03 13:45 FROM:OCSD ADMIN ID: 71496203Se PAGE 5/10 Walter E.Frick,Ph.D. USEPA Ecosystems Research Division. Plume models for outfall design and assessment;Low-velocity compressible flow theory Roger F ujioka,Ph.D. Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii Environmental water quality; Public health microbiology Trislb Holden,Ph.D. University of California, Santa Barbara Microbiology; Bacterial community fingerprinting Jesus Pineda,Ph.D. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Cross-shore transport of planktonic larvae; Benthic population ecology Cynthia Cudaback,Ph.D_ (Co-chair) University of California, Santa Barbara Inner shelf transport and effect on biological communities Judy Lernus, Ph.D.(Co-chair) Sea Grant Program,University of Southern California Marine Advisory Program Leader Review Panel Objectives OCSD initiated phase III of the HB studies to determine whether sewage discharged offshore from Huntington Beach can be transported to the beach and under what conditions it may do so_ Therefore,the Panel has focused on three main questions: 1. Do the studies adequately answer the specific investigatory objectives that were addressed? 2. Were the data properly interpreted and presented in the preliminary reports`' 3. Are there other studies that could be conducted to determine the risk of plume insurgency onto the shoreline? General Comments The Panel acknowledges that the Phase III field studies conducted during the summer of 2001 were of high quality and represent a commendable undertaking. The size and completeness of the data that this study has generated set is also impressive_ Given the amount of time available to the Principal Investigators, the analyses are progressing well. 3 MAY-27-03 13 :46 FROM=OCSD ADMIN ID= 71496203S6 PAGE 6/10 The Panel considers the Final Draft Report to be a good start at analyzing the full complement of data and expect that several new contributions to the field of ocean coastal circulation will be forthcoming from this work. The main conclusion of the Final Draft Report. "It is concluded that the OCSD plume is not a major cause of beach contamination; no causal links could be demonstrated,"is complex, with two separate statements. The second statement, "no causal links could be demonstrated,"is based on temporal and spatial disconnects between the outfall, transport processes,and beach contamination. Although events that might drive onshore transport of bacteria were observed (such as cold water entering the surf zone),these events did not coincide with or precede beach contamination events in exceedence of the AB411 standards. High bacterial concentrations were observed near the outfalI and at the beach,but measurements also indicated that there was a zone of lower concentration between the two regions_ Given the current status of analyses on the Phase III studies and based on the available measurements,this conclusion seems to be reasonable and accurate. However, with respect to the first half of the conclusion,"the OCSD plume is not a major cause of beach contamination."the Panel finds that this statement is not supportable because of the incomplete nature of the analyses and to limitations in the spatial and temporal resolution of the Phase III sampling. While a connection between the OCSD outfall and beach contamination has not been found,a lack of understanding of some key parameters warrants caution;categorical dismissal of the OCSD plume as a major cause of beach contamination is not scientifically justifiable at this point. Several variables that remain in question are discussed below. 1) Bacteria] sam 11Ln, The Panel recognizes the difficult,of collecting and analyzing bacterial data, but notes that the spatial and temporal resolution of sampling in this study was heavily weighted towards hydrographic data_ While these field experiments far exceeded previous studies in sampling intensity,and the number of bacterial samples processed by OCSD was extraordinary,the bacterial monitoring data remain a limitation. Accordingly,the transport.and behavior of bacteria in the coastal ocean is not adequately understood. Another limitation of the surfzone bacterial analyses is that a large percentage of the data are not graphically represented because samples with less than 20 MPN total or fecal coliform or less that 10 MPN enterococci,are not included (HB-III Final Draft Report, Figs.Za,2b,2c). 2) Spgtial disconnection The argument that the OCSD outfall plume is not a major source of beach contamination relies on the spatial gap between high bacterial concentrations in the core of the plume and the high bacterial concentrations measured at the beach. Given that the transport properties of bacteria in the coastal ocean are not-vvell understood,it seems prudent to allow for the possibility of a range of plausible behaviors. A possible mechanism for bridgino the observed spatial disconnect could be in the reconcentration of bacteria either within the surfzone or during transport I e beach is considered to be the end o the - transport pathway,andTbactena transpo to s ore remain on s ore or trap in the surfzone, possibly adsorbed to sediment panic es, t en ow concentrations of bacteria just 4 27-03 . 13:46 FROM:OCSD ADMIN ID: 7149620356 PAGE 7/10 offshore can be reconcentrated at the beach. The potential for resuspension of fecal indicator bacteria within the surfzone was not addressed in the Phase III study and therefore cannot be ruled out as a possible source of beach contamination_ Another explanation involves the gravitational collapse of the plume, which tends to limit its vertical extent. As a vertically collapsed lens,the plume could penetrate coarse vertical sampling grids, and thereby lead to substantial bacteria maxima being missed. 3) Patchin The spatial discontinuity between high concentrations of bacteria in the outfall plume and high concentrations of bacteria at the beach may be due to a patchy distribution of bacteria and other plume tracers.The Phase III data clearly demonstrate that the plume field can be patchy(Fig.5-12, Volume II),and that patches of the plume can sometimes come close to shore (Figs. 3-11 and 6-12,Volume II). Although the region between the plume signature and the beach contains low bacterial concentrations,the distance between the two is sufficiently close to warrant careful consideration of sampling adequacy. Additionally, these high values at shallow depths are coincident in time with high bacterial concentrations near the beach_ 4) Surface transport The wind-driven surface transport of buoyant particles should be examined as a possible pathway for the transport of plume bacteria onto shore. The possibility of this mechanism was acknowledged in the Final Draft Report,but not included in the design of the Phase III studies for several reasons involving the unlikely association of bacteria with grease and oil particles, both offshore and at the beach_ Indeed,the Phase III data indicate that the plume is almost always submerged beneath.the thermocline. Independent modeling by one member of the Panel (W. Frick) supports these results. However, low concentrations of bacteria have been measured at the surface by OCSD personnel, and features of the plume were occasionally observed at the surface during the Phase 11 investigations (Figs. 3-14 and 4-13 of HB-III Final Draft Report). Finally,the accumulation of buoyant particles at onshore propagating fronts associated with an internal tide has been observed in Southern California(Pineda, 1999). S)Cross-shelf transpM mechanisms A thorough consideration of cross-shelf transport of physical water properties and plume material is not yet complete. For example, additional analyses should be directed at quantifying the nature of the across-shelf transport of the temperature field as a function of spatial location on the shelf and as a function of frequency_ In addition,internal solitary waves, which are often associated vrith the internal tide and capable of transporting particles onshore, are not adequately addressed in the Final Draft Report- Likewise., the association of at least one cold water intrusion into the nearshore indicates the plausibility, if not probability, of this mechanism and deserves further analysis. A third mechanism that could also be investigated is transport in the bottom boundary layer by breaking internal waves near a sloping boundary. 5 MA,y-27-03 13 :46 FROM=OCSO ADMIN ID= 714SG203S6. PAGE 6/10 Future Studies There are two main areas of concern that could benefit from further research: cross-shelf transport and circulation mechanisms,and accurate tracking of plume bacteria. Cross-shelf transport and circulation mechanisms t) The spatial and temporal variability of the internal tide must be investigated in order to better understand the role of internal tidal motions in across-shelf transport. Field observations are needed to conclusively discard internal solitary waves as a mechanism for onshore transport of plume effluent bacteria. 2) Further dye tracking experiments, with a release outside the swfzone,may be useful to determine whether water-borne particles can be transported from the 15m isobath to the surfzone_ If possible,adding dye to the effluent after the 200:1 dilution near the outfall may also yield profitable results. This latter experiment would need to be.timed with the occurrence of spring tides_ 3) The nature of the across-shelf circulation could be further explored by examining in more detail the coupled behavior of the temperature and velocity field.This analysis should include calculations of the mean across-shelf and along-shelf fluxes of temperature(uT and vT) as a..funcrion of depth and spatial location on the shelf,including a breakdown into contributions from different frequency bands_ 4) A comprehensive model of plume rise,ocean circulation,and very possibly bottom and sea-surface atmospheric interaction is necessary to help synthesize the complex processes and interactions involved in the transport and fate of the OCSD effluent. Such a model, including the AES Power Plant plume and other sources, will likely be the only way to reach definitive conclusions about what proportion of beach contamination is due to the OCSD effluent. Trackil3g of plume bacteria I) One important issue that remains unanswered,and should be addressed in future studies,is the question of which chemical and physical oceanographic measurements are suitable tracers for fecal indicator bacteria and for pathogens directly. 2) Good high-resolution time series data of some plume indicator other than temperature and salinity would be beneficial. This will not be possible for . bacteria, but could be done for tracers, such as nutrients, as one (J. Largier)has used in other areas. Commercially available moored nutrient sensors could be deployed along the potential pathway to provide hi -temporal resolution measurements of a chemical signature of the plume. 6 MAY-27-03 13:47 FROM=OCSD ADMIN ID= 71496203S6 PAGE 9/10 3) Although the objective of the current study was to demonstrate whether the ocean outfall was responsible for high bacterial counts in the surfzone,the probability that measurable but low levels(1-50 MPN/100 ml) of fecal bacteria in ocean effluent do reach the surfzone remains an important question to answer for all ocean outfalls. 4) The possibility of beach contamination due to local sources on the beach should be further addressed. Land based sources of bacteria are not restricted to restrooms, Talbert Marsh or the Santa Ana River_ Bird feces,dog feces, seaweed,and soil on the beach,and marine mammals are other known sources of fecal indicator bacteria. While bird counts and marine mammal observations have been performed in previous Huntington Beach contamination studies,this contingency could be more thoroughly explored. 5) A good model of bacterial transport and die-off would be useful: However, bacterial die-off is a difficult issue and quantitative die-off models are rare. One such model is the Mancini model (1978)that expresses a decay coefficient as a function of light intensity,salinity, and temperature.A review of Mancini's data reveal considerable scatter,testifying to the uncertainty implicit in the decay rates derived from the model. However,the Mancini model does at least allow one to determine the sensitivity of coliform bacteria to sunlight intensity. A more complete model of bacterial die-off would necessarily be considerably more complex than the Mancini model. Editorial Comments The final report by the Pls should be written for an audience that is potentially unfamiliar with the issues at Huntington Beach.This requires greater clarity and more careful explanations. In many chapters, shorter paragraphs would be helpful.The report requires a number of edits,the most general of which are discussed in this section. Detailed editorial comments are contained within the appendices. The rule to follow is that a short explanation should be stated for each statement or conclusion.The authors should pay close attention to grammar for all chapters.The executive summary,especially,should be carefully edited for clarity, since this is the only section that most people will read. Each chapter should be understandable and complete unto itself,or at least have clear references to chapters where certain issues are explained. Some chapters are long with many subheading and some are very short with few subheadings. AIso,some important information is contained only in the figures and tables,making the reader's task more difficult. In general,readers should be informed of the experimental design of the study before the results are discussed.The document would be easier to read if each chapter had this structure: 1.Introduction 2. Goals or Objectives 3. Experimental Design and Methods 7 MAY.-27-03 13 :47 FROM:OCSD ADMIN ID: 7149620356 rHL,t ivJi ivy 4. Results J. Conclusions In Chapter 1,the objectives of the study must be clearly stated in a separate sub-section (objectives are not hypotheses),and those objectives must match the charter as understood by the s.The objectives listed here resemble those in the original work order, which caused so much confusion at the last meeting between the Panel and s. Is the objective of this study to determine where the plume goes,whether it affects the beach at all,or whether it causes AB411 beach closures? This chapter should more effectively introduce the complex nature of the study,particularly the bacterial sampling,to readers, explaining the rationale for creating the type 1,type 2 and type 3 violations and discuss how the authors would use these categories of violation to interpret results. Without an explanation,these chosen types appear to be arbitrary_ Chapter 2 nos a better introduction to the bacterial sampling methods,and should be organized along the lines described above.The three bacterial violation categories are used in the discussion of this chapter,however,since the basis for these three types of violations were not clearly established,the reader cannot determine the significance of these violation events_ In addition, Chapter 9,the methods section,could precede Chapter 2. Also in Chapter 2,combine the plots for total coliform on a single page,one above the other,to show the consistent M2 pattern and along-shore propagation. Do the same for each species.This will allow a clearer discussion of patterns and make Iife easier for the reader. Compare the timing of observed poleward motions of total coliforrn with timing of flood currents measured at the ADCP closest to the shore. The Pis should also plot the bacteria data from lines 1 and 2 in Figure 3-16 of Volume 2. This would allow them to examine the question of sampling aliasing.The analysis in Figure 3-16 should be repeated for all the intensive sampling periods. It is also important to plot vertical sections (not 3D renditions)of the ammonium data like was done for the bacteria data so that they can be examined for coherent cross-shelf structure. References Mancini,J_1,.. (1978). Numerical estimates of coliform mortality rates under various conditions.Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation Nov2477-2484. Pineda,J. (1999). Circulation and larval distribution in internal tidal bore warm fronts. Limnology and Oceanography 44:1400-1414 8 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT,M.D. Diplomate, American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone (714) 848-0770 Email JonV L a_o!1.com Fax (714) 848-6643 May 29, 2003 Mr. Randy Kokal, Chairman, and Huntington Beach Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 c/o shess@surfcity-hb.org Dear Chairman Kokal, and Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners, At the Planning Commission meeting on May 27, 2003, Commissioner Dingwall asked that I refine and reinforce the comments I made to the Planning Commission on that date. As you may recall, I passed out a four-page handout at the Study Session and I incorporated that handout by reference at the Planning Commission Public Hearing, as well as incorporating the comments made by the Coastal Commission staff in its May 8, 2003 letter to the Planning Commission. I asked that you consider those comments and choose to take discretionary action in voting for the Alternative Action of: "B. "Continue .certification of EIR No. 00-02 and direct staff accordingly". I would like to discuss the handout and the Coastal Commission letter more thoroughly. The first page of the handout was figure 13 of the Poseidon EIR. This figure showed "Projected Mid-Depth Salinity Over the AES Outfall- "Worst Case" Scenario". The figure showed how the salinity discharged from the Poseidon operations will cause a plume emanating from the AES outfall pipe, and how this plume hugs the beach south of the AES plant, including Station 9N. Since salinity is one way to measure the extent of a plume from an outfall, my purpose was to show how constituents emanate from the AES discharge outfall, including, but not limited to, salinity, including bacteria. The salinity is one marker for the plume caused by the AES discharge pipe, but the plume will include other things, including bacteria and chemicals used by the desalination plant, cleaning solutions, concentrated.metals, etc. Figure 13 shows what the AES plume looks like. The second page of the handout was "Figure 2: Huntington Beach Aerial Location Map". This came from the Huntington Beach Closure Investigation, Phase I. It shows the location of bacterial testing stations 9N, 6N, and 3N, these numbers referring to 1 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT,M.D. Diplomate, American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone (714) 848-0770 Email Joni-­,r1Ao1.co.m Fax (714) 848-6643 thousands of feet north from the Santa Ana River. 9N is the station immediately south of the AES plant. These bacterial testing stations, particularly station 9N, have been the source of persistently high bacterial readings on the beach, often causing posting of the beach at the end of Magnolia. The source of these elevated bacterial readings has been mysterious, not having been solved even after a $5.1 million dollar Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III. If you then compare the two pages, you will note the apparent coincidence of the discharge plume from the AES plant with the bacterial testing stations, especially 9N, the end of Magnolia, where the worst beach bacteria problems occur. This would indicate to me, and I hope to you, that discharge from the AES plant may be contributing to the beach bacteria problems. The possible role of the AES plant in causing beach bacteria problems is corroborated by additional comments by scientists, including the Peer Review Panel Summary Report for the Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III, prepared by the University of Southern California Sea Grant Program and the University of California, Santa Barbara, Marine Science Institute. The third page of the handout is the face page of this Peer Review Panel Summary Report, and the fourth page of the handout is page 6 of the report. I put a star next to Paragraph 4, and underlined the phrase "AES Power Plant plume". My purpose in doing this is to show the concern that these scientists have in studying the role of the AES power plant discharge plume, as well as other sources, in determining the proportion of beach contamination due to the OCSD effluent. In addition, I will fax the entire Executive Summary of this report on Friday, May 30, 2003, to be included in the EIR. This summary is important, as it outlines further studies which should be done to define the important issue of bacterial contamination causing beach closures, as well as stating that one of the original objectives was to: "1) characterize the physical oceanographic processes involved in possible cross-shelf transport of the wastewater plume in the vicinity of the AES thermal discharge outfall" (see page 1 of this report). In addition, UCI scientist Stanley Grant, in his presentation to the OCSD Technical Advisory Committee meeting of April 3, 2003, stated that the bacterial problems at 9N were different from those at Station 0, the Santa Ana River, and 3N, the Talbert Marsh, showing a different Total Coliform/Fecal Coliform ratio. He also stated that there appears to be an as-yet unidentified offshore cause of the bacterial problems at 9N. 2 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT,M.D. Diplomate, American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone (714) 848-0770 Email Tor,V 1(F,.aol.com Fax (714) 848-6643 Therefore, could the plume caused by the AES plant discharge pipe be a factor in the bacterial problems at 9N? If so, could an additional influence of the Poseidon operations affect the AES plume and thus impact the bacteria] problems at 9N? The answer should be discovered before the EIR for Poseidon is approved as complete. We know that Poseidon will influence the salinity and temperature of the AES discharge plume. What about bacteria generated by the AES operations, including decomposition of marine life entrained and impinged by the once through cooling system and killed by the 30 degree temperature change within the pipes?Larvae, plankton,and small fish trapped and killed within the pipe may cause a level of bacteria. What are the bacterial levels within the AES pipeline? What are the bacterial levels at the discharge pipe? Any bacteria levels over the ambient ocean conditions(<I0 N1PN/100 cc)that are found within the cooling system pipe or at the discharge outfall may come to the beach only 1500 feet away, as shown by the shape of the AES discharge plume, ocean currents, and wind driving the bacteria to the beach. Even low levels of bacteria can be reconcentrated.at the surfzone or at the beach, or be adsorbed to sediment particles, as suggested by Phase III Peer Review Panel, pages 4 and 5. Without knowing baseline conditions of the AES discharge plume with regard to pollution at station 9N, it would be impossible to know how Poseidon operations may affect these impacts, or what mitigation measures should be required. That is one reason why I suggest you require additional environmental documentation such as a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR. This Supplemental EIR should examine the AES power plant operations as a baseline, since an EIR has never been completed for the AES plant. Once the AES baseline conditions are known, including actual, existing conditions, rather than permitted conditions, then the Poseidon effects on the AES plant can be determined, and mitigation requirements imposed. For example, one of the baseline conditions not currently known, is the HBGS entrainment and impingement study currently being done, but not yet finished, and therefore the results are unknown. This study is investigating the marine life, including larvae and plankton present in the vicinity of the intake and outfall pipes. 3 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT,M.D. Diplomate, American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone(714) 848-0770 Email Jonk`=i �aol.com Fax (714) 848-6643 The Poseidon operations may impact the entrainment and impingement of these organisms if AES power plant operations are curtailed or suspended for maintenance or other reasons. What responsibility should Poseidon have for effects on this marine life if the AES power plant goes oflline for whatever reason? What mitigations should be the responsibility of Poseidon? With regard to mitigations that are required, what will happen if Poseidon sells its operations to an international or multinational company subject to international trade laws as mentioned in the May 8, 2003 Coastal Commission letter? Will any local mitigations remain in effect?Now is the time to lock in the mitigations. Will there be any element of public oversight of this private company? Is it proper for a private company to utilize a public resource such as ocean water for private gain without public oversight? Has the EIR considered and analyzed alternative locations for the Poseidon Operations such as Plant 2 at the Orange County Sanitation District? Has the EIR considered mitigations such as requiring the RO reject brine to be routed through the OCSD sewage treatment system, thus avoiding adverse ocean water quality impacts from its direct discharge to the ocean? Has the EIR considered the human impacts from increased salinity in the area proximate to the discharge pipe, including station 9N. Will the increased salinity cause mucous membrane irritation, such as eye irritation to surfers and swimmers in the vicinity of the increased salinity? For all these reasons, and the reasons brought up by the Coastal Commission staff, I respectfully request the Planning Commission either request further environmental documentation or reject the draft EIR outright. Since this is the first and largest of the coastal desalination plants to be considered along the California coast in the past 10 years, it is important to get it right the first time. I personally do not see the need to rush this project through without waiting for the studies to be done and to analyze the results. 4 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT,M.D. Diplomate, American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone (714) 848-0770 Email JonV-a.)aol.com Fax (714) 848-6643 And lastly, what good is this project doing for the citizens of Huntington Beach? I have yet to see a good reason for how this project will benefit the people of Huntington Beach. The vast majority of the speakers from the community seem to be opposed to this project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 5 1 2 ] A 5 6 ] B 1 10 it 12 13 la 16 16 TUESDAY,AUGUST 20,2002-DYE INJECTION#4(16:30 to 15:66)-TIME-SERIES DYE IMAGES FROM 15:41 to 16:46 A A snL6Nzn6°vP left NMk - n 1- rt-¢^n^S:m,:-wa I.ye•t•+.emxmcfasa w.�l m=rntn-z,�mznls,.00- nc••I+u.S:y:..0.-+n¢o- w:.at�u.ry lxf ror c c E - E t2M1 t T J of«i y. ¢Ol'Y f Inn K}�f JL Orv`PB` �} � I.Gf 1P&`YMJ.GSFVS ¢ G G 11 6R0.C`i}I'1 '( Y2 'M+.t1 P ] }Y•S:V'21S A' m<g f1'L p" YnY t 1 1 •. o .. c v, n..m•v<.."...,.� o- _r v.-.. . u.. nr.. ♦.. rr.. .-r., .. � ..yr va v..n,s. -..�.n• Cti�N:... .e..•. ry .,.. � I California Energy Commission r q.aRu°HBGS-AES Powerplant ,oe¢,"„ VIE, IE, 1 zzs ao1 JKKOMEX Time Series Dye Releases: Dye Release No.4 Part 1 4-19b 1 2 } A 5 6 I B 9 10 iin' n"•12 13 14 16 16 s� a t { I Current Patterns Inferred From Dye Dispersion Image 211 - 8/20/2002 1610 PDT . ' 12 200 4 '`' �P Y ' v. 10 , Y Wave Driven 400 x Flow .sr U 600 a �7 800 §.lit '�r,s• 3 a 'o- '+` , E+p- kA, � t v 4 1000 , fi ' k '1200 2 1400 Q 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Ambient Currents Qutfalt Driven Currents -30 Client. California Energy Commission Date: April 2003 Project No: 225-001 Projecvsite: HBGS-AES Powerplant Plate No: KOF?EX Title:P�Pq�Ds�i.E�i���D A=iE��•n« Inferred Current Patterns From Dye Dispersion �® PEVUEFEert�iiOxoF urvgii0i94wE LOOIXEA PM11E5 vniH i1Ef�Dii�10♦Op�1WD1. ,� �'�lltC�it3C1J(1 '� GrpdnvMe r�lln Iq r � w h1ar�,87 v u . 4 4 q {, 5 ; mow. Figure 7�' 1,t ;i�' l-1 '�. tSt _�M&°Il,?' ?1 ,.;.7t� .ti viEl'i� 'iP�11i1'I"si.17+:t tth C�1�'i;.11YCltl�?Lil l:i.� .t "Mer Am" RK — tiff nigh P JMO Row No W7 IY W t;Uiilti7nt"fyiAhNns. Projected Mid-Depth Salinity Over the AES Outtal! 'Morst Case" Scenario 1 I= Beach • '4 I Talbert. s - Marsh.. r' ` reariti�jlle - 'Banning . L, Marsh 1 ui:ys I j •fit Y FIgUYC 30 dt1\ i71 Cl'ilCl' Ul s.1hI111\ loll SC.I fill CU:,,7.LS:LI;IwJ 1\':1ltC •.. from: R.O. ... N uyd, 1 hini Flow R::]}, t't,.7 m,,!d. s mimL r 1--^ �pz-;:h.1 J.'I aREir:utr m�i:•:rnnird lr•n,.�ug`.IT.i'r.'Ri:'� it-)L N[AAA P', I':Il ti',l.1°:.1.ICi�. P1'OfF( I Projected Seafloor Salinity At the AES Outfall, - "Worst Case" Scenario • A S Huntington Beach . • f.a _ Talbert Marsh: - `r 'Greenville Bannlnc Marsh . �A+p;`� - y- Fi�ure w era,.,: of,ahnl[N al ,cahiu fOr cln-centrx d sea later 5o nl�s�1_ NI:1m FIUu RZ:Ie- 25 .-I Ill_".INCidLl colld:l lit - Sc.�rce� F,So�..ine-�f:9Gi.rces Cor1}J�2'.li'.il Ai::;:151=C'Cc . P(aSEIDON SE.A VATER DESALINATIO%. PR#J.1.: 1 Projected Seafloor Salinity At the AES Outfall - "Average" Scenario ?_ .__—•Rtir...r.. • 3[��.��. ■ I:rr r.Sll:.rC-Cti Q� JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, MD Certified; American Board of Dermatology 8101 Newman Ave. Suite C Phone: (714)848-0770 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 FAX: (714)848-6643 July 22, 2003 Randy; Kokal, Chairman, And Planning Commissioners Huntington Beach Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Re: Poseidon ElR Request analysis public versus private ownership of public water Dear Chairman Kokal, and Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners: Regarding the Poseidon EIR, 1 would like to request that further analysis be done concerning the implications of private versus public ownership and dealership of ocean water,and oversight and responsibilities concerning the public trust of a resource owned by the public, that is,our ocean water. My concerns are as follows: 1. Public service sector responsibilities, such as community water systems and services , should not be turned over to for-profit corporations as a-matter of sound public policy and for some very practical reasons. 2. Water and access to clean water to meet human needs must be treated as a right and should NOT be treated as a commodity that can be traded for profit. 3. Corporations exist to maximize profits for their shareholders and not to do what is in the best interest of the community or the environment. This is simple fact because that is the nature of legal entities known as corporations. The responsibility of the directors and officers of the corporation is to maximize return on investment. That is their mission and affects the way business is conducted, expenditure decisions are made, and how they address, in the water service area, doing what is or is not in the best interest of the consumer,the community and the environment. 4. If corporations are allowed to own and operate and profit from water services they will invariably bring pressure to bear to expand service area,rates and consumption to the detriment of sound environmental stewardship. Examples include the lack of incentives to promote water conservation, enhance water quality, minimize growth-inducing effects, and to maximize protection of public safety. Environmental protections and other safeguards will most likely be limited to the minimum that government regulations require or what marketing and tax write downs offer as benefits. 5. Water is a public trust resource, especially ocean waters, and should not be expropriated by private business for profit. JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, MD Certified, American Board of Dermatology 8101 Newman Ave. Suite C Phone: (714)848-0770 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 FAX (714)848.6643 6. Public water systems are possible targets of terrorism and it is necessary and appropriate to expect the owner-operator to take the initiative to ensure public safety by.guarding against attack or contamination. Public agencies do so as a matter of responsibility and duty notwithstanding the costs involved. Private corporations are not driven by similar considerations. It is unreasonable and naive to expect private entities that are in the business of providing public water services for profit to do anything above and beyond the.minimum necessary to protect the systems. Doing otherwise would reduce profits. 7. The consumer is not protected against unreasonable rate increases if it were solely up to corporations. Experience shows that where corporations operate water systems for public use they invariably push for higher rates. 8. It is not clear whether water services will be encompassed in new international trade agreements currently being negotiated. If such services are included, state and local regulations would be subject to challenge and could be trumped by such trade agreements. Complaints filed by multinational corporations challenging state and local regulations intended to protect public safety, health and welfare, including environmental protections (e.g.,water conservation measures, limits to service area to guard against adverse environmental impacts stemming from the growth-inducing effects of the system)would be resolved through secret trade dispute resolution tribunals established by the WTO or other international trade organization. Public water agencies would NOT be subject to international trade agreements while the investment and operational activities of multi-national corporations to maximize return on investment would be. Experience around the world shows a growing number of examples where multi-national corporations that were given approvals to operate water services for public consumption are taking the country in which their investment is made before international trade tribunals to seek compensation for lost profits as a result of some state or local government action protective of local community values. Why would a public governing body, like a city or county or even a state, knowingly put its residents in harm's way even where such harm is merely potential at this time?Longer range thinking is essential and the question must be asked whether privatization of public water services is in the long-term best interest of the public. Why should investment ventures for private profit benefit at public expense?Are we as a society so poor or so desperate that we need to turn over the keys of control over what the United Nations has recognized as a fundamental human right, access to drinking water,to amoral, self-serving corporations that do not and cannot place community best interests above those of the bottom line? Please address these comments in the revised EIR and in your deliberations concerning the wisdom of granting the permits to the Poseidon desalination firm. Thank you. Sincerely D. D. Vandersloot, MD Tampabay: Desal builder tiles for bankruptcy Yage 1 of 3 L'AWO ON LI N E TAMPA BAY Weather Sports I Forums I Comics I Classifieds I Calendar I Movies Desal builder files for bankruptcy Covanta Tampa Construction becomes the third contractor to do so. Tampa Bay Water views the move as a way to prevent being fired from the $110-million job. By CRAIG PITTMAN, Times Staff Writer Published October 30, 2003 The builder of the area's huge desalination plant filed for bankruptcy Wednesday, preventing Tampa Bay Water from firing the company and hiring someone else to finish the $110-million job. Construction of the Apollo Beach plant was completed last spring, but sporadic water production has required further work. Tampa Bay Water is counting on the plant to produce a sixth of the utility's needs - or, about 25-million gallons out of 150-million gallons a day. But for the past five days the plant has not cranked out a single drop, utility officials say. This marks the third bankruptcy associated with the construction of the desal plant, which ultimately is expected to be the largest in the United States. Two previous contractors, including the parent company of the one that filed Wednesday, also declared bankruptcy. Covanta Tampa Construction filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in New York City, even as company officials were negotiating with Tampa Bay Water officials to avoid being fired in two weeks. "To us this amounts to a betrayal of the public trust," said Tampa Bay Water general counsel Don Conn. That's not the way Covanta officials see it. They say by filing for bankruptcy, they have guaranteed that they will finish the plant with no increase in cost,-rather than some other contractor stepping in and doing the job for more money. Covanta has two dozen employees working on the plant every day, trying to get it running, and this way they aren't distracted by the prospect of losing their jobs, said Covanta vice president Scott Whitney. "We're the only ones doing anything productive," Whitney said. "Tampa Bay Water seems to be focused on public relations and finding a way to terminate our contract." Begun two years ago, the plant is supposed to take 40-million gallons of seawater each day from Tampa Electric Co.'s Big Bend power plant next door and force it through 10,000 tightly woven membranes to. produce 25-million gallons of potable water and 15-million gallons.of brine. http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/30/news_pf/Tampabay/Desal_buil der_fil es_f.shtml 11/12/2003 Iampabay: vesal bunaer riles ror oanxruptcy 1 age. C. V1 The water"goes to Tampa Bay Water's 2-million customers, while the brine is mixed with the electric company's regular discharge into Tampa Bay. The plant's original contractor, Stone& Webster, went bankrupt in 2000. A year later its replacement, Covanta Energy, filed for Chapter 11 too. Tampa Bay Water stuck with the company, which the utility's general manager, Jerry Maxwell, defended as the only way to keep construction moving forward. At Tampa Bay Water's insistence, Covanta created a subsidiary that would continue building the plant. That subsidiary, Covanta Tampa Construction, has one asset: the contract to build the desal plant. "It has no other existence on Earth," Maxwell said earlier this week. "If they bankrupt it, they will prevent us from going in and effecting a repair." Although construction is done, the key to completing the plant is a 1.4-day test to show that everything is running smoothly. Covanta ran the test in May but failed to satisfy Tampa Bay Water, which was concerned about problems that could drive the operating cost above the budgeted $10-million a year. It noted 17 problems, not the least of which was the filters clogging more frequently than expected, which required cleaning more often and with a stronger solution. Covanta officials have blamed the clogging on Asian green mussels that stick to the intake grates. The need to change and increase the cleaning solution for the membranes caused a bigger problem. Hillsborough County balked at allowing large quantities of the cleaning solution to be disposed of in its sewer system, so Covanta was forced to store 2-million gallons in tankers parked around the site - a glitch Covanta blamed on Tampa Bay Water. In June, the utility gave Covanta until Sept. 30 to successfully complete the 14-day test. When Covanta failed to meet that deadline, Tampa Bay Water's board voted to find the company in default of its contract. A default meant the company would face $465,000 in fines, as well as a requirement that it hand over 306-million gallons of free water. But it would still have until Nov. 17 to fix the problems. If Covanta still had not completed the test successfully by Nov. 17, though, the board said it would fire Covanta and use a $23-million performance bond -guaranteeing the completion of the plant -to hire a replacement to finish the work. Conn, general counsel for Tampa Bay Water, said that during negotiations on Tuesday Covanta officials said they could not start the two-week test on Nov. 3, the last possible date on which to start and still finish the test by Nov. 17. Conn said the bankruptcy filing appeared to be a defensive action "to protect them from inevitable termination." Because the company's sole asset is its Tampa Bay Water contract, any attempt to fire Covanta requires approval of the bankruptcy court judge, Conn said. http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/30/news_pf/Tampabay/Desal_builder files_f.shtmi 1.1/12/2003 Tampabay: Desal builder tiles for bankruptcy rage s or 3 The same goes for the $23-million performance bond: Tampa Bay Water cannot claim that money without getting a judge's approval. The company filed for bankruptcy in New York because that's where its parent company filed too, Whitney said. The New York City bankruptcy court "is a very popular destination for bankruptcy filings," Whitney said, so getting a hearing could take a while. Since all the company's assets are in Florida, though, Tampa Bay Water may file an emergency motion to move the case here, as well as challenging whether the company can really call itself bankrupt at this point, Conn said. - Times staff writer John Hill and researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report. Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved http://www.spti mes.com/2003/10/30/news_pf/Tampabay/Desal_bui 1 der_fil es_f.shtml 11/12/2003 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No.02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination plant producing 50 million gallons per day (MGD) and up to four miles of water transmission lines will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area because: a.The proposed desalination plant will take 100 MGD of raw seawater from the Pacific Ocean through the existing AES generating station intake line and discharge_ 50 MGD of brine thereby_ increasing the ocean water salinity which will have a negative effect on local beaches. b. The proposed desalination plant will utilize the existing AES intake and outfall, which are outdated. 2. The conditional use permit will be incompatible with surrounding uses because the proposed project is an industrial use within close proximity to sensitive residential uses. It will also discharge brine into the ocean in close proximity to a wetlands area. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No.02-05 for the development of the desalination plant and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, does not conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program and.Coastal Element as follows: a. C 6.1.1 -Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible: and, at minimum, prevent degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water . The proposed desalination plant further degrades the ocean water quality and may have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. b. C 6.1.2-Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. The proposed desalination plant further degrades marine resources. i M VU, .ss,_' `�a'; ' L�'Ih' ui- ��t {�a��� � � � ,�.„� �,�� " .a� �� X�'+#tKi�,•�.; 1 `a{, � "� x Sze n t �.. �S r��;,,,. �s«�'`r;x5t_,�''' 3. ..�»;a>E.e;:�.�t���_.,;...aa'.45a`Si;�w .,cb�.. .�#:� :�r3.'r .�,�:.w' ..:.��.:� �::'rS�7��.�,,&�t� �:z�i�.�...�"�::r.�at�'�a,X.;s�;<-_ � Pa�:,��{S;�.kc�`4.�Jw�' F;;�� h,�r'�`y-�r•� I - CUP NO. 02-04/C D P NO. 02-05 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant PROJECT LOCATION t_ : .. _ ■ 11-acre lease area at AES property on the east side of Newland St. R� z � south of Edison Ave. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ■ CUP and CDP to construct: ►� i� l ; K x desalination plant ; i on 11 acre lease area Includes administration building, reverse �'� :<► ; j� osmosis building, ` product wateri �� ; storage tank, and . miscellaneous +1'4iY ! �K+' i• accessory �,Y -f-' structures QQQ ; i ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION ■ CUP and CDP to construct: Perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland St. and Edison Ave. frontage WLI Y � t I - - — ,P-,c u 0. -•yc+,� .MASTf R SITr MAN 1 2 - r6 l �^y„* IN 31 a r,`�y �i s,$ EY i l rt ' � Nw t ��'T„� ,� i'''ttii#'"t` "x `°'d �' S t `7 a . $ f rt� ; 2i srx 5t cgy 'a rx'^51 �``• PdtFIDGN P[SW CF6 O x It, Ole �� nF5 NUMI G t 1 r�c[oro��o'`�: .k�.:. a.;:F�s �»,i�-iy`^1•'�e.i�tck" �:�..,�.''.'�r�L �.avcovossonvscourts�'. PCi�J �SST © � SCF� If�S � f� .". ... ........ ........ . ........ . .... ..... ..... ... ... • / •• • • �€ '#� !- • • • • '„�-x:.��, _ t '`"``fir f�3�� r "I JE •• • • • '3 fi yr� • cn � `�`~ mf a a� +�ei''s 41i]ipp BACKGROUND ■ AES circulates up to 507 MGD of ocean water for cooling ■ Project will take 100 MGD from AES cooling water to produce 50 MGD of drinking water using reverse osmosis ■ Reverse osmosis involves pushing seawater through synthetic membranes to remove salt and other solids ■ Product water will provide new drought proof source ANALYSIS ■ Conforms to General Plan land use and zoning designation ■ Conforms to General Plan/Coastal Element goals, policies, and objectives ■ Meets or exceeds all development standards ■ Conforms to Urban Design Guidelines ■ Furthers several Redevelopment Plan goals 4 ANALYSIS ■ Land Use Compatibility Compatible with industrial uses on-site and immediately surrounding project Industrial uses, flood control channel, Newland St., and Edison Ave. provide adequate buffer for residential uses Low profile tanks and structures ANALYSIS ■ Aesthetics Improves appearance by removing three 40 foot high fuel storage tanks New structures lower in profile, modern, and more attractive 30 foot high water storage tank setback 180 ft. from Newland and 100 ft. from Edison to reduce visual impacts 10 foot planter and eight foot high wall along Newland St. and Edison Ave. frontage Project consistent with Urban Design Guidelines Design Review Board recommends approval 5 Administration and a r fa Solids Handling Buildings L ,V- f- I y£ 9 Y Reverse Osmosis Building And Pretreatment Filter Structure Y r ear k - 6 Product Water Storage Tank _ /Y 11 .a = ----- - - :r( f ae - PIAII IR IMF tom, :I, - 4 i ;. P ROD.uc-r "ATFR41'ORAGR--� I L1iA'1.®: !� OkG Po I.lo Rls-�vacl ;F.ve,.L x- r�cvl rmknr.• TANK P"NS&. i -mRIOR FLF\ATIOPQS: - Various Tanks 7: T.J. -;7. f 1 I 4 �13+.II -0.r• '.�i :k•A.a:. -__IA 1PIANCO - - :. 1 _ 7 Electrical Room/Substation and Wdter Pumps `J Site Plan - Photo Simulation R1t.t pv ti Y� �•• ` t 1 r Syr• s '`ti POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT HunrnPten BwcR.Cafi)mnn April tU6i View 3.From Nnwlepd Overpass looking S—h toward the Proposed Site T S•u.—} ra€nrodr3 Ritsnnncna POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT Nunting[un BunA,CeGlornh Ap/P 20N View t•From M9Dnplin Svom Ipo4iA0 Nolth toward the Propose)Sho '^5+!Ef,'?' View From Flood Control Channel—Photo Simulation E++m n `NI/\� V RI tl f \,{ �j Other Project Requirements Off-site water lines located within existing right-of-way Right-of-way dedication along lease frontage on Newland and Edison will improve area circulation Noise - Compliance with Noise Ordinance Chemicals — Project includes leak containment; waste management and safety plan required pursuant to OSHA and EPA regs; Fire Dept. will require complete chemical inventory and use, storage, and handling plan; transportation will be by registered haulers subject to Caltrans regs PLANNING COMMISSION ■ Considered the project at eight meetings ■ Forwarded the project with no recommendation ■ Forwarded conditions of approval approved by straw votes and findings for denial ■ Forwarded by minute action several issues for Council consideration RECOMMENDATION ■ Staff recommends approval of CUP/CDP because: ✓Project is compatible with surrounding uses ✓Adequate buffering from residential and other sensitive uses is provided ✓Project will improve appearance of the area ✓Consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the site ✓Conforms to Coastal Zone overlay designation 11 END OF PRESENTATION 12 Brockway,City Clerk l t Connie City of Huntington Beach i Office of the City Clerk .._._ � , � ..: :..:.: .....:.: .. P.O.Box 190 CA 92648 Beach, Huntington donPost®italiane Mod,L i�l Etl o�oi 939-g8-Oa RONALD KORO Siamo spiacenti di non aver recapitato T questo invio in quanto: MONZ 5 ❑6 stato rifiutato �fndirizzo 6 insufficiente INGTQ�►6 IT ❑19ndirizzo b inesatto❑19ndlrizzo b inesistente = ro��rro /^ it deatinatario 6: ❑irreperibile ❑sconosciuto ❑deceduto ❑trasferito G Z 9 " — Data Firma a ....................... .......... ........................................... s��DUNt`I TICS- PUBLIC HF}�Fi Ilt,itllttittillt f r is �� a LEGAL NO ,1 j i��:' �=r lie Connie Brockway, City Clerk - City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 AWL "•Y !•V:V, t Z. j j w1irs i i 148-074-13 7 .J BARBARA P HENNESSEY 21401 YARMOUTH LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 INGTpy . w 40 HENN401W 9264610aa 19OR 43 11/11/03 —_ - FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND Z HENNESSEY'6ARBARA P 1948 SANTIAGO DR �6►�, r t i�..,►9 ` _ NEWPORT BEACH CA 9a660-9633 �Nl1NTY �a LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC G >> > O S E I D O N jt E S O U R - C E S Via Messenger CA November 17, 2003 tOQ3 ru'J 1 P 3: Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach . 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: CEC Letter dated November 7. 2003—EIR for Poseidon Resources Seawater Desalination Project Dear Ms. Boardman: The City Council has received the above referenced letter from the California Energy Council (CEC)arguing the Poseidon Desalination EIR should not be approved. Poseidon disagrees. The CEC letter does not introduce new information that has not been considered by either the planning commission or the planning staff. The March 21, 2003 Responses to Comments, prepared by the city on the project EIR responds to most of the questions or assertions raised by the CEC. The planning commission hearings re=examined these issues in great detail and even hired a UCI professor to address the salinity and dilution modeling questions above and beyond the analysis by the city staff and its independent consultants. Clearly the CEC staff involved in drafting this letter has not read the EIR or the record from the city's review of the project. Much of the"inaccurate or missing"data referenced in.the CEC.letter is found in the EIR Appendices. The CEC assumes,the desalination plant(will)"increasing the water volume intake"from the . power plant.. The EIR clearly.states the desalination plant will use the waste cooling water without changing the operating profile of the power plant. The letter is misleading in many respects, inconsistent with CEQA and intended to confuse the City Council about the facts surrounding the EIR and the city staff analysis. More specific remarks are enclosed to address many of the letters arguments: Very Truly Your , Billy wens Sr. Vice Presi nt (} Q CC: City Council (03 Poseidon Resources Corporation 3760 Kilroy Airport Way,Suite 260,Long Beach.CA 90806,USA 562-49b-2003 Fax:562-490-2403 Executive Office:1055 Washington Boulevard,Stamford,CT 06901 1r v P O S E I I) O N R E S Co U R C E S c� Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project EIR: Response to California Energy Commission Comment Letter Dated November 7, 2003 Relevant AES HBGS Background This summary of background information repeats basic information that is already in the record. General Comment No. 1 This comment raises several questions relating to the baseline conditions used in the EIR analysis, flow rates and flow rate assumptions, and the location of the power plant's discharge and intake facilities. In the summary of background information, O'Brien acknowledges that on June 30, 2000, the SARWQCB re-issued NPDES Permit No. CA0001163, Order No. 00-5 for the AES ocean intake, industrial waste discharges and stormwater discharges, and that "[t]his permit is based on the designed capacity of the entire plant." However, he suggests that it is improper for the EIR to address potential environmental impacts using the capacity of the entire plant as permitted under the NPDES Permit and its associated environmental documentation as a baseline condition. Essentially, O'Brien argues for a different baseline analysis without specifying what the new.baseline should be. The law does not support O'Brien's position. An EIR may properly assume existing impact levels associated with operation at full permitted capacity as a baseline condition. (Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 238, 242-243.) In fact, the Fairview Neighbors case warned that discussing the possible environmental impacts of anything less than full permitted capacity (relying instead on operational fluctuations) could be "misleading and illusory." Certainly the Regional Water Quality Control Board did not allow the issuance of its NPDES Permit for the power plant with environmental analysis of a lesser capacity than what was permitted for the AES facility. Likewise, this EIR cannot undertake a lesser environmental analysis. The existing power plant NPDES permit does not limit the power plant operations in terms of how many hours per day and days per year the plant can run. In fact, the NPDES permit allows the power plant to operate 365 days per year, 24 hours per day at 517 million gallons per day ("mgd") of intake. flow. Because the NPDES permit does not limit the mode of operation of the power, plant, speculating the future power production patterns of the plant is environmentally irrelevant. Power plant production patterns would only matter if the NPDES permit has established constraints of total or maximum hours of operation of the power plant at preset levels. In this case, the EIR utilized the maximum flow set by the NPDES Permit as a baseline. In addition, however, the EIR also provided average case and worst case analyses based on historic operating data collected over the prior twenty years. For unknown reasons, O'Brien's letter only provided AES flow rate information for the period of 1997-2001 when the plant was undergoing retooling. It would be misleading and illusory to rely on that snapshot of information because that period is not representative of recent operations, likely future operations, or long-term historical operations of the plant. 1 P O S E I D O N R E S O U R C E S As the testimony and documentation before the Planning Commission demonstrates (this matter was discussed in depth at the August 12 meeting), AES ran all eight circulation pumps (506.88 mgd) in July of both 2002 and 2003. Furthermore, it. also ran at least seven circulation pumps (443.52 mgd) in both June and July of 2003. During the post-retooling period from 2002_to July 2003, AES has averaged.265.-mgd, greater than,even the average case scenario of 253.4 mgd used in the dilution modeling and marine impact assessments in the EIR. Finally, the so-called "Figure 3" (presented at the August 12 meeting) charts the power plant discharge flow over the prior twenty years. At no time during this period was the flow below the minimum worst case scenario of 126.7 mgd. Analysis of the saline impacts of the discharge were based either on a worst case scenario that assumed minimal flow rates of 126.7 mgd due to two circulation pumps in combination with minimal ocean mixing by wind, waves and currents; or an average case scenario that assumed four circulation pumps producing flow rates of 253.4 mgd combined with average ocean mixing by wind, waves and currents. These assumed flow rates agree closely with how O'Brien characterized the plant operation in his background summary as "only two pumps operate during most of the winter and only four pumps operate most of the summer months." The only portion of the EIR analysis that assumed maximum permitted flow rate levels was that related to source water issues. The purpose for assuming maximum permitted flow rate levels for the source water analyses was to capture a worst case assessment of the potential for the power plant discharge to be recirculated in the power plant intake. O'Brien also requested a description of how the power plant and desalination plant operations.would be coordinated. That information was concisely presented in the response to comment 2d at pages 19 and 20 of the Response to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project, dated March 21, 2003. As indicated in that response, the desalination plant intake will be connected to the power plant discharge facilities only. When the power plant intake pumps are shut down no water can reach the power plant discharge, and therefore no water can reach the desalination plant intake. Consequently, the desalination plant intake pumps will also shut down. It bears repeating that, if the power plant permanently ceases operation then the project description changes and Poseidon would need to amend any entitlements accordingly (including an NPDES permit). The Planning Commission suggested adding item No. 18 to the Information on Specific Code Requirements documentto clarify this situation. (See Attachment 2.29 to the RCA for the CUP/CDP.) In. this comment, O'Brien also raised concerns that the EIR may have misstated information regarding the location of the power plant's discharge and intake facilities. The coordinate location of the power plant discharge facility in the EIR matches the coordinates provided in the power plant NPDES permit. The data described in the EIR and its technical appendices for the location and dimensions of the discharge agree with the information provided by O'Brien which was also taken from the NPDES permit. In the technical appendix of the EIR, the discharge was located at latitude 330 38' 19" N, longitude 117' 58' 57" W, as stated in paragraph 6a of the NPDES permit and the water depth at this location was stated as 27.9 feet mean sea level as derived from the National Ocean Survey (NOS) digital database. This is essentially the same as a water depth of 25 feet in units of mean low low water as cited by O'Brien. Both the NPDES permit and O'Brien describe this location as "1500 feet offshore" but neither state the specific "offshore" location. Comparing the latitude/longitude coordinates 2 P O S E I D O N R E S O U R C E S of the discharge with the National Ocean Survey (NOS) digital database, this location is found to be approximately 1500 ft offshore of the mean high ride line, a common reference datum used in design of coastal structures. The.relative location of the power plant's intake facility is a separate issue. In the EIR, the power plant intake facility coordinates are based on engineering calculations from the as-built drawings.performed by Carollo Engineers (2001). The coordinates for the infall chamber-1 were determined by Carollo Engineers to be at latitude 33' 38' 13" N, longitude 1170 59' 03" W. These coordinates compare well with the location of the intake shown in Figure 4-24 of the CEC's April 2003 draft report prepared by KOMEX, and overlay on intake sample station #8d used in the NPDES receiving water monitoring studies (M[BC Applied Environmental Sciences, 2000). On the other hand, the NPDES permit gives no latitude/longitude coordinates for the intake facility, but merely offers a description that it is "approximately 1650 feet offshore" (with no specific offshore location cited). Comparing the latitude/longitude coordinates of the intake facility as determined by Carollo Engineers with the National Ocean Survey (NOS) digital database indicates that this location is 2,292 feet (699 meters) offshore from the mean high tide line. The apparent discrepancy between this distance reference and the distance reference in the NPDES permit is due to the fact that the NPDES permit is describing the location relative to the mean lower low tide line. The NPDES permit does not give the depth at this location, but if one adds the height and depth of the velocity cap atop the intake tower as stated in the NPDES permit, the result is a supposed depth of 27.5 feet mean lower low water(in contrast to "27 feet of water" as stated by O'Brien). Converting mean low low water to mean sea level datum, this depth estimate would be equivalent to 30.3 feet meansea level. However the National-.Ocean Survey (NOS) digital .database. shows the depth at the latitude/longitude coordinates of the intake to be 34.1 feet mean sea level,which.is the value used in the EIR. In point of fact, seafloor elevations near a structure can easily vary by four feet due to current or seasonal changes in the shore rise bottom profile associated with wave climate and migrating sand waves. Given the ambiguity of the NPDES permit in regards to the precise depth and location of the intake facility, the EIR analysis was based on physically documented coordinates and depths. The EIR analysis used structural dimensions for the intake and discharge towers based on as-built drawings provided by AES that are in general agreement with values stated in the NPDES permit. Consequently, the documented coordinates on record for the locations of the discharge and intake towers do not calculate a separation of 350 feet between these structures as claimed by O'Brien. Rather these coordinates indicate a separation of 792 feet. The CEC's own KOMEX study has already shown that the intake is not entraining the cold, denser water from sub-thermocline depths. At 350 feet from the discharge, the brine water from the desalination plant has a density comparable to the sub-thermocline water. Hence there is not likely to be measurable difference in the brine plume regardless of whether the intake is 350 feet or 792 feet from the discharge. Furthermore, the plant induced suction flow at a distance of 350 feet (if one were to assume this distance) from the intake is at most 0.003 feet per second, less than natural ocean turbulence, even if the plant intake flows were at the maximum certified limit of 2 feet per second. The location of the discharge is the central issue with respect to the integrity of the EIR findings of impacts,associated with brine discharge. As shown in this response, there is no discrepancy between O'Brien's information and the information presented in the EIR in regards to the location of the discharge facilities. 3 P O S E I D O N R E S O U R C E S General Comment No. 2 This comment suggests that the City should wait for additional studies to be completed before certifying the EIR. Environmental analysis under CEQA is founded upon a commencement point and a terminal point. The baseline analysis for a project's .impacts recognizes a commencement point "at the time.the notice of preparation is published." (CEQA Guidelines § 15125.) As for the terminal point, CEQA requires the City to "complete and certify the final EIR ... within one year" for"private projects" like the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15108.) The fact that ongoing, pending or future studies, like those referred to by O'Brien, may be conducted does not justify postponing (indefinitely) the certification of the final EIR. To the contrary, CEQA includes procedures for dealing with future studies and information that may alter the environmental conclusions of a certified EIR. (See, CEQA Guidelines § 15162-15164.) Delay based on the unknown information, applicability and conclusions of a future study is delay based on speculation and therefore unreasonable under CEQA. This issue has also been discussed at length during Planning Commission hearings. General Comment No. 3 This comment suggests that an entrainment and impingement study is required because "the addition of a desalination facility will likely increase the volume of ocean water flows" through the AES HBGS plant. The 316(b) study currently underway at the HBGS will use maximum cooling water intake system (CWIS) flows for.estimating entrainment effects providing a "worst-case assessment of cooling water. intake system effects. The use of the maximum CWIS .flows assures that the assessment is applying the "best technology available" (BTA) to minimize environmental effects due to an operating scenario (maximum CWIS flows) that will produce the greatest impacts. The cost of these effects can then be weighed against the cost of various CWIS technologies. The environmental effects would be undervalued if the assessment was done using reduced flows. As was explained in response to the same comment when it was raised at the Planning Commission, the Poseidon project relies upon the discharge from the HBGS cooling water system and therefore will not increase the maximum flows used in the CWIS assessment. If the HBGS CWIS is determined to meet BTA under 316(b) then this determination would cover any of the plant operating scenarios and the operation of the Poseidon project would have no effect on this determination since its operation would not result in any increased CWIS flows. From a regulatory perspective, the point is that no water will be used by the Poseidon project that does not fully comply with the HBGS NPDES permit and intake BTA. The use of the maximum flows assures that the BTA assessment is based on the operating scenario that will produce the greatest effects. In his background information, O'Brien states that "entrainment and impingement studies at most California power plants are quite old, of little value, or nonexistent" and"those coastal power plants where recent entrainment and impingement analyses have been completed (e.g. Moss Landing, San Onofre, Diablo Canyon, and Morro Bay), all show these systems to cause significant impacts to marine biological resources." Because O'Brien includes the study at San Onofre (a study that was completed over 20 years ago) in his list of"recent" studies, it is unclear which studies he believes are unacceptable. Entrainment data from San Onofre and Ormond Beach power plants were used in the 1983 HBGS 316(b) Demonstration along with HBGS impingement data to model HBGS cooling water intake system effects (SCE 1983). The study also included an intake technology evaluation that concluded that the current intake design was the best technology available. 4 G ' ffb O S EI D O N R E S O U R C E S L In contrast to O'Brien's statement, the cooling water intake systems at Moss Landing (Tenera 2000a. Moss Landing Power Plant Modernization Project: 316(b) Resources Assessment . Prepared for Duke Energy Moss Landing, L.L.C., Oakland, CA.), Diablo Canyon (Tenera 2000b. Diablo Canyon Power Plant: 316(b) Demonstration Report. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Elec. Co.,.San Francisco, CA Doc. No. E9-55.0.), and Morro Bay (Tenera 2001. Morro Bay Power Plant Modernization Project 316(b) Resource Assessment. Prepared for Duke Energy Morro Bay LLC.), have not been determined to have significant effects on marine biological resources. Similar to the results from the HBGS 316(b) studies, the effects on individual species vaned considerably. Estimated effects were largest for small, bay and estuarine fishes at Moss Landing and Morro Bay, and small nearshore fishes at Diablo Canyon. Although there was thought to be some potential for localized effects on the adults of these species, the effects (10-20 % of the local source larval populations) were not considered to have any long-term population-level effects for the following reasons: • length measurements of the larvae showed that many of these species are subject to entrainment for a relatively short time period during their development, • adult stages of these species are not exploited by commercial or recreational fisheries, and • other data showed no long-term trends in the adult populations that would indicate any population- level effects. Impingement studies were only conducted at the Morro Bay facility because previous studies showed low impingement levelsat Moss Landing, and Diablo Canyon. The more. recent.Morro Bay impingement study confirmed the results of the earlier studies showing low impingement rates. See also responses to General Comment Nos. 1 and 2. General Comment No. 4 This comment suggests that the EIR should have addressed potential changes to federal Clean Water Act Rules that may be adopted by EPA. However, as was explained in response to the same comment when it was raised at the Planning Commission, the draft Rules for once-through cooling systems (if implemented in February 2004 as planned) will only apply to the HBGS and not to the Poseidon project. The draft Rules still involve an environmental assessment to determine the environmental effects, and a technology assessment to determine if there are any technologies that could provide cost effective reductions of the effects. Any changes to the cooling water intake system that might be required to achieve best technology available (BTA) would apply to the power plant and not to the Poseidon project. _See also response to General Comment No. 3: General Comment No. 5 The heart of this comment is O'Brien's assertion that the EIR's source water contamination analysis did not account for chemical treatment of cooling water. This assertion isincorrect. The Watershed Sanitary Survey Report, attached as Appendix E of the EIR, contains a detailed description of all potential sources of contamination from the power plant's system to the desalination plant that fulfills the informational requirements required by CEQA. It should be noted that the Department of Health Services, the state agency charged with protecting the quality of drinking water 5 G , QP O S E I D O N R E S O U R C E S supplies, accepted the Watershed Sanitary Survey Report as a final report and on August 6, 2002 and issued a conditional approval letter to Poseidon Resources Corporation. (That letter is included at pages 81-84 of the Responses to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project, dated March 21, 2003.) Chapter 3 of the Watershed Sanitary Survey Report contains an evaluation of the impacts of cycle water discharges (screen wash water, pump seal water, boiler blowdown water, bearing cooling water heat exchangers, condensate overboard); storm water discharges to the cooling water system (offsite storm drainage, yard storm drainage, floor drains); and wastewater discharges to the cooling water system (low volume wastes, metal cleaning wastes, hydrostatic test water, and heat treatment water). Table 3-1 on page E-36 of Appendix E contains a description of the volumes of discharges and the concentrations of chemicals in the discharges to the cooling water system. As noted in the Watershed Sanitary Survey Report, chlorine, in the form of sodium hypochlorite, is also injected into the cooling water system upstream of the desalination plant intake. As described on page 2- 28 of Appendix E, "The seawater will first be treated to remove solids and free chlorine, which could foul or physically damage the RO membranes." Chapter 2 of the Watershed Sanitary Survey Report contains a thorough description of the various water treatment processes that will be used in the desalination plant and the contaminants those processes are designed to remove. O'Brien suggests that the interrelationship between discharge and intake water was not adequately addressed in the EIR. Summaries of the modeling results on the recirculation of power plant discharges into the intake are included.on page 4.3-11 of the EIR and again in.Appendix E of the EIR (pages E-20 to E-23). A complete discussion of the modeling results is presented in the EIR Appendix. O'Brien's concern regarding the distance between the intake and discharge facilities is addressed in the response to General Comment No. 1. General Comment No. 6 It is unclear whether O'Brien has reviewed Appendices C and D to the Draft EIR because the type of technical analysis he is requesting has already been completed. Many of O'Brien's concerns regarding technical analysis are addressed in Appendices C and D of the Draft EIR. Re-circulation of in-plant waste streams during operation of the Poseidon project at 50 mgd was studied in Section 5 of Appendix C to the Draft EIR, assuming discharges of plant waste water at the maximum certified limit of 1.66 mgd. The thermal field properties of the combined discharges of waste heat and in-plant waste water from the power plant and concentrated sea salts from the SDP were also in evaluated Section 5 for the extreme range of hot El Nino summers and winter time storms. Appendices C and D studied a range of plant flow rates that included: 1 unit (2 pumps, 126.7 mgd), 2 units (4 pumps 253.4 mgd), and 4 units ( 8 pumps, 506.9 mgd). For the re-circulation analysis of plant waste streams in the combined effluent, the modeling assumed 4 units(506.9 mgd)to maximize the suction field. O'Brien asserts that "recent studies" found that "dilution and mixing of the [discharge] plume are not as vigorous as originally expected" and cites the CEC's own recently completed study (A-ES Huntington Beach Generating Station Surf Zone Water Quality Study, prepared by KOMEX, dated August 4, 2003, the "KOMEX Study"). The results of the KOMEX Study seem to contradict O'Brien's statement. The 6 G P O S E I D O N IZ E S O U R C E S WtIl � KOMEX Study found that dye discharged from the AES outfall is diluted by a minimum of 36 to 1 at the shoreline. Worst-case dilution of AES discharge calculated by the hydrodynamic model study in the EIR was found to be 32 to 1 at the shoreline (see Figures 4.6 of Appendix D to the Draft EIR). Thus the EIR model results derived two years before the KOMEX Study are confirmed by the KOMEX Study. Both the EIR model study and the KOMEX Study conclude that the dilution associated with the AES outfall is sufficiently large and that it cannot account for the high bacteria levels measured at the shoreline. It is not clear why O'Brien references the KOMEX study without further noting the study's positive conclusion about AES not being a source of bacteria to the surfzone or the beach. In his background information comments (one sentence before he first cites to the KOMEX Study), O'Brien states that earlier studies suggested the AES intake and discharge interact to cause an "upwelling of bacteria from the sub-thermocline waters transporting the bacteria to the near-shore region." This theory was rejected by the findings of the KOMEX Study. O'Brien also argues the increased salinity in the discharge from the desalination plant will violate the current NPDES (power plant) permits. Mr. O'Brien fails to note that the desalination plant has filed for and will obtain a separate NPDES permit for its operations. This will allow the Regional Board to separately monitor and segregate waste streams to ensure compliance for both operations under distinct permit conditions. General Comment No. 7 Without providing a specific citation, O'Brien criticizes the EIR for "incorrectly" describing a "typical day." At page 4.3-13 the EIR describes 'a set of operational and environmental 'conditions that it characterizes as "normal" and "average" conditions. Average conditions are also clearly defined on Page D-79 of Appendix D of the DEIR. In summary, the average daily flow rate is defined as two generation units on line (four.pumps)with cooling power circulation at 176,000 gallons or 253.4 mgd. A worst-case scenario is examined in the EIR, defined as two pumps of the smallest generation unit (Unit 1) in operation only—i.e. minimum discharge flow of 126.7 mgd. The EIR's average and worst case flow rates are exactly the same as O'Brien's "typical"summer flow rates (253.44 mgd) and his"typical"winter flow rates (126.72 mgd). The same considerations are included in the Watershed Sanitary Survey, attached as Appendix E to the Draft EIR. O'Brien's assertion that the EIR considered each desalination project waste stream separately, and not the project's combined waste stream or in combination with the AES waste stream is untrue. Although the modeled outcome for each.constituent discharge was.presented in separate sections for clarity in the Jenkins and Wasyl reports in the EIR appendices (Appendices C and D), it would have been insensible to model these constituents independently, as each affects the specific volume, density and diffusivity of the combined effluent. The physical effects of combining the desalination discharge with the power plant heat and in-plant waste streams was summarized in the EIR technical appendix. A great deal of attention was given in these reports regarding how these constituents were modeled together, and the complexity of the physics required to do so. It was interesting to find that combining the desalination plant discharge with the power plant discharge produced a favorable effect, reducing the size of the thermal plume while satisfying the thermal limits of the NPDES permit(see Figures 5.3-5.5 of Appendix C to the Draft EIR). 7 P O S B I D O N It E S Co i7 R C E S The cumulative effect of the mixed desalination plant and power plant discharges are already reflected in the hydrodynamic modeling of the combined discharge presented in the Appendices of the Draft EIR. The desalination plant operations will not have a negative effect on the power plant thermal plume. As compared to thermal desalination facilities which separate fresh water from ocean water through evaporation,_the Poseidon desalination plant will use reverse osmosis membrane process to produce fresh water. The reverse osmosis process is not a source of thermal discharge and will not contribute to the thermal plume of the power plant. Quite opposite, by turning 50 mgd of the power plant thermal discharge into potable water, which is removed away from the plant outfall, the desalination plant will reduce the power plant thermal discharge load. The changes in temperature of the power plant discharge as a result of the desalination plant operation are reflected in the hydrodynamic modeling provided in the Appendices of the DEIR. The impact of heat treatment on the desalination plant source water quality was discussed in Chapter 3 of Appendix E to the EIR. Poseidon will not operate the desalination plant during heat treatment periods so there will not be a discharge from the desalination plant during heat treatments. There is, therefore, no need to analyze the impacts of heat treatment on ocean water quality since the proposed project will have no impact on how AES conducts the heat treatments. Also see responses to General Comment Nos. 5 and 6. General Comment No. 8 In this comment, O'Brien calls for an analysis that has already been completed. The analysis of"potential . impacts to sediments and benthic organisms that occur there" is summarized in the EIR at pages 4.3-18 and 4.3-19. The analysis includes an alternative for discharging "first flush" of treated waste cleaning solutions into the Orange County Sanitation District system. After extensive discussion of this issue and review of the technical studies in the record supporting the summary analysis in the EIR, the Planning Commission recommended this alternative and included condition 4(m)(8) in its conditions of approval (see page 2.9 in Attachment 2 to the RCA for the CUP/CDP). As noted by O'Brien, the existing power plant NPDES permit limits the amount of the sediment in the power plant discharge by establishing a total suspended solids (TSS) concentration limit. This limit is consistent with the TSS limit of the California Ocean Plan. The amount of sediments material in the combined effluent (measured as TSS) is several times lower than the current NPDES limit. Therefore, concerns about a significant impact of sediments created by the combined discharge are unfounded.... The sea floor around the AES outfall consists of well-sorted fine sand over a distance of at least 6 kilometers in both up coast and down coast directions. Sand does not flocculate in response to elevated salinity and does not adsorb metals, organo-chlorines or other biocides or cleaning compounds. Sand is technically regarded as non-polluting by present NPDES standards for dredging. Hence the hypothetical impact to local sediments does not exist. General Comment No. 9 The responses to each of O'Brien's previous comments (see responses to General Comment Nos. 1 through 8) refute his statement in this comment that "information provided in the EIR" provides a'basis 8 p O S E I D O N R E S O U R C E S for concluding that the Poseidon project "has the potential to cause a significant change" in the operation of the power plant's legally permitted cooling system. To the contrary, information in the EIR supports the conclusion that impacts in this regard are less than significant. It is not proper for the EIR to speculate about whether upgrades to the current AES facility will be required based on future studies or future amendments to applicable laws and regulations, nor is this within the scope;of the EIR to speculate how long the HBGS will exist. As no upgrades to the existing AES intake/outfall facilities (thus expanding power plant operations) are anticipated to be necessary for project implementation, Mr. O'Brien's request for an assessment of cumulative impacts for expanded power plant operations is unnecessary. Also see responses to General Comment Nos. 2 and 4. General Comment No. 10 As stated within the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments, two off-site underground electrically- powered pump stations would be necessary for the conveyance of product water. One underground pump station would be located within an unincorporated area of the County of Orange, along the eastern border of the City of Newport Beach. Residences exist to the west of the subject site. The second underground pump station is proposed within the parking lot of St. Paul's Greek Orthodox Church in the City of Irvine. Multi-family residential structures exist adjacent to the eastern edge of the parking lot. Both of these pump stations would require the installation, periodic testing/maintenance, and potential use of diesel- powered emergency backup generators. As such, diesel fumes would be periodically emitted from these generators. The Applicant will be required.to obtain a permit from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for operation of off-site emergency backup generators. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) provides guidance and recommendations to local air pollution control districts (including SCAQMD), and provides thresholds for the preparation of site-specific Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) for diesel-fueled_generators based on the horsepower rating and total number of operational hours per year. CARB recommends that diesel-fueled generators greater than 50 horsepower and operating over 400 hours per year be subject to a site-specific HRA. As diesel-powered pumps associated with project implementation(Caterpillar 3516 or similar model)would be used solely for emergency backup purposes, it is not anticipated that annual use would exceed 400 hours per year. No emissions are anticipated during normal, long-term operation, as the pumps would be electrically powered. As such, it is not expected that the preparation of an HRA for either pump station site will be necessary. In addition, as stated in the Draft EIR, modeling for temporary construction emissions included an analysis of diesel mobile equipment and truck trips. Modeling results indicated that PM10 emissions (including diesel exhaust particulate matter) would be below SCAQMD thresholds. The project site and associated construction activities are also located in a favorable coastal area with typically good mixing conditions, and is not otherwise in an area designated by SCAQMD as a "hot-spot" for diesel emissions. Given the short-term nature of proposed construction activities, an HRA is not considered necessary. General Comment No. 11 The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 13, Section 2423(b)(1) requires that exhaust emissions from new off-road compression-ignition engines (produced on or after January 1, 1996) sold in this state, shall not exceed certain "Tier 1" criteria, equating to 0.54 to 1.0 grams per kilowatt-hour in regards to 9 r O S E I D O N R E S O U R C E S c� particulate matter (PM). However, given that air quality modeling performed for the project did not find particulate matter (including diesel particulate matter) to be a significant impact, the requirement for the construction contractor to limit off-road equipment use to "Tier 1"criteria is not necessary. In addition, mitigation measure CON-9 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows, to reflect.the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel,rather than just low sulfur diesel fuel,(change is highlighted/underlined): ❖ ".....equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; ❖ Use ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; ❖ Use electric equipment whenever practicable....." General Comment No. 12 As stated within the Draft EIR, a Remedial Action Plan (including Phase H subsurface soil testing and analysis) will be prepared for the proposed desalination facility and portions of the water conveyance system, where necessary. The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) will include an analysis of potential options for the sampling, management, and disposal/recycling of hazardous materials, including the demolition of the existing fuel storage tanks on-site and excavation of surrounding soils/berms. The quantity of slurry necessary for directional boring associated with pipeline implementation will not be known until construction-level design documentation is prepared. In addition,Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) will be prepared for the .two proposed off-site booster pump stations-prior to . construction (one in the City of Irvine, and.another.in.unincorporated.Orange County) to examine the likelihood of subsurface contamination. Should the Phase I recommend additional testing/analysis, 'a RAP will be prepared to examine potential options for the sampling, management, and disposal/recycling of hazardous materials. 10 r •- mS'T, f � P O S E I D O N R E S O U R. C E S Via Messenger November 14, 2003 Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Comments on the Coastal Commission Seawater Desalination Report Dear Ms. Boardman: Enclosed is a copy of the letter comments filed by Poseidon Resources in response to the August 2003 Coastal Commission Seawater Desalination Report. Poseidon is providing the report because the Coastal Commission's report has been cited by several persons with respect to the proposed Huntington Beach project. While-many of these points were discussed at the Planning-Commission, it is expected they will be raised again before.the City Council on November 17 h. Poseidon believes it is important-to. consider another point of view on the positions taken and the issues raised by the Coastal Commission. Sincerely, Billy Owe Sr. Vice P sident Cc: City Council Members Planning Staff Poseidon Resources corporation 3760 K"rcy Airport Way,Suite 260,Long Beach,CA 90806,USA 562-490-2G0 Fax:562-490-2403 Execu:;e Office: 1055 Washington Boulevard.Stamford,CT C6901 P POSEIDON R E SOURCES November 6, 2003 VIA E-MAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Tom Luster California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94105 Re: Comments on Coastal Commission's Seawater Desalination Report Dear Mr.Luster: Poseidon Resources is writing to comment on the Commission's draft report entitled Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act. the"Report".).)• Poseidon's primary business is advancing seawater desalination projects throughout the United States: The Company recognizes the importance of seawater desalination in helping meet the State of California's growing water needs and appreciates the Commission's focus on this very important subject. Given the importance of the policy issues set forth in the Report,Poseidon asks that the Commission request its staff to revise the report, respond to the public's comments, and circulate the revised draft for additional public review and comment. Desalination has evolved into a viable water supply alternative and is widely used in many areas of the world including the Middle East,the Mediterranean,and the Caribbean. Desalination plants operate in more than 120 countries in the world,including Saudi Arabia, Oman,United Arab Emirates, Spain,Cyprus,Malta, Gibraltar,Cape Verde,Portugal, Greece, Italy, India,China-,Japan, and Australia. The first large-scale desalination facility in the United States began operation in Tampa,Florida,this year. The collective capacity of desalination plants using reverse osmosis technology has increased exponentially over the last 30 years. Worldwide, 21,000 desalination plants produce over 3.5 billion gallons of potable water at day. 1. Poseidon Resources is working with communities throughout the United States to enhance water supplies through seawater desalination. Poseidon Resources is a U.S.-based developer of seawater desalination projects in California,Texas and Florida. The Iona Beach Office San Diego Ofliee 3760 Kilroy Airport Way,Suite 260 501 West BroadKay,Suite 804 Lon-Beach,Ca.90806 San Diego,Ca.92101 562-490-2003 Tel. 619-595-7958 Tel. 562490-2403 Fax 619-595-7892 Fax 00632387.8 two Poseidon projects currently proposed in California,both in the Coastal Zone, would improve the quality' and reliability of local water supplies, providing enough water to meet the needs of 600,000 existing residents in the areas they will serve. Poseidon has partnered with the City of Carlsbad and the San Diego County Water Authority to advance the development of a desalination facility co-located with the Encina Power Station in Carlsbad. The project will produce 50 million gallons of drinking water each day.for.the cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside, and the San Diego County Water Authority. Another Poseidon project, the construction of a desalination project in the city of Huntington Beach would be co-located with the Huntington Beach Generating Station and would produce 50 million gallons per day of high quality drinking water for Orange County. The Huntington Beach project is expected to be a public-private partnership as well. With two of the largest desalination projects in the United States soon to be considered,Poseidon appreciates the Commission's careful attention to a topic that is critical to the State's water needs and economic vitality. 2. Seawater desalination is a vital component necessary to meet California's water supply reliability needs. The demand for water in California is expected to increase significantly,even in light of aggressive conservation efforts. The Department of Finance projects that California's population will increase by 11 million people from 2000 to 20201 The state's population is predicted to grow by 600,000 per year,resulting in a 50 percent increase by the year 2030. Births are projected to be the largest contributor to population growth. Most of this indigenous population growth will occur in southern California.' Water use in the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's(MWD's) service area is expected to increase from.3.8 million acre-feet to 4.8 million acre-feet per year.by the year 2025.' This extraordinary growth in water demand is projected despite the urban sector's ongoing commitment to aggressive pursuit of best management practices for water conservation. During the 1987-92 drought,the urban areas in.California began to implement(or proposed for future implementation)a broad range of water saving measures such as low-flow toilets, shower heads and faucets;Xeriscape landscaping; soil moisture sensors tied to landscape irrigation; time-shifting irrigation to cooler periods of the day; and constructing recycled water systems for irrigation and a variety of other municipal and industrial uses. Other conservation measures include conjunctive use management,'improvements in agricultural irrigation,water transfers between agricultural and municipal areas, and increased reservoir storage." The San Diego California Department of Water Resources,Desalination Task Force, Findings and Recommendations(Oct. 2003). . 2 California Department of Water Resources(DWR),Bulletin-160(1998). 3 DWR, Stakeholder Briefing Draft, California Water Plan Update 2003(Sept.30,2003). 4 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California p (MWD),Report on Aletropolitan's Water Supplies, Appendix A(March 25,2003). ' A process of banking high water flows during times of heavy rainfall and storing the water to be used in low rainfall or drought years. This is accomplished using a combination of surface reservoirs to capture flows and actively recharging overdrafted groundwater basins. 6 DWR, Stakeholder Briefing Draft, California Water Plan Update 2003(Sept.30,2003). 2 OC\632387.8 County Water Authority and its member agencies are implementing a regional water supply master plan that includes a three-fold increase in conservation measures and a four-fold increase in recycled water use from 2003 through 2020.' Because southern California is expected to bear the greatest share of the state's population growth, successful implementation of conservation measures will'be of particular importance in thus.region. At the same time demand is increasing, allocations from traditional supplies,such as the Colorado River and State Water Project,are declining.' Significant historical changes have occurred which make it difficult for the state's water agencies to predict future deliveries from traditional supplies. As a society we have made a choice to protect sensitive ecological resources by reducing diversion of water from rivers,streams and estuaries. Uncertainty in the reliability of supplies also is due in part to climate changes,increasing water quality standards for drinking water,and groundwater overdraft." DWR estimates that the state is overdrafting its groundwater by 1 million to 2 million acre-feet annually,a deficit that is not sustainable.10 Moreover,many areas of the state do not have groundwater basins and are increasingly dependent upon imported surface water supplies. As a result of increasing demand and decreasing supplies,the state's water planners have concluded that desalinated seawater will be a key component of the aggregate water resources needed to meet the state's water needs,particularly in southern California. In its 2002 report, MWD stated,"Water recycling,conservation and desalination will play an increasing role in meeting water supply needs"" The California Department of Water Resources echoed that opinion in-its 2003 draft California Water Plan Update,stating,"There is a consensus that - strategies such as increased conservation,conjunctive management,recycling;desalination, water quality protection and ecosystem restoration should all be implemented.`` Currently,30 desalination plants operate statewide,producing 80,000 acre-feet per year of municipal water. Nine additional plants with anticipated capacity of 187,000 acre-feet per year are planned or projected." In December 2002,MWD formally approved its Seawater Desalination Program,which provides financial incentives to its member agencies and sub- agencies to encourage development of up to 150,000 acre-feet per year of desalinated seawater to underscore the importance of this technology. Other water agencies are in the planning or pilot 7 San Diego County Water Authority,2030 Regional Water Facilities Master Plan(2003). ' See generally Los Angeles Times,0 icials Sign Deal to End Feud, Divide Up Colorado River Water,Oct. 17, 2003. A settlement between the Department of Interior and the Imperial Irrigation District will result in the loss of 800,000 acre-feet per year of surplus Colorado River water the state had been receiving;DWR,Stakeholder Briefing Draft, California Water Plan Update 2003(Sept.30,2003);MWD,Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies,Appendix A(March 25,2003). " Groundwater overdraft occurs when the amount of water pumped exceeds the amount of recharge. 10 DWR,California Water Update(Draft)(2003). 11 MWD,Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies(Feb. 11,2002). 12 DWR Stakeholder Briefing Draft, California Water Plan Update 2003(Sept.30,2003). 13 DWR,California Water Update(Draft)(2003). 3 OC1632387.8 stages of desalination efforts. Overall,desalination projects currently proposed or under development would provide enough water to meet the needs of one million Californians. We agree with the Report's finding that a desalination facility can be environmentally friendly if designed properly. Desalination also helps offset the amount of water that otherwise would need to be diverted from ecologically sensitive areas,such as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 3. Private involvement is a critical component of desalination efforts. Participation by the private sector is vital if the benefits that desalination promises for California's public are to be fully achieved. The private sector is playing a needed role in ensuring the timely development and implementation of this critically needed supply option through innovation,creativity,risk management and private investment in capital facilities. Public sector water agencies are conservative and risk adverse institutions by nature and charter. Private companies,on the other hand,are willing and prepared to take appropriate business,regulatory and technology risks. Because desalination is still considered to be outside the core expertise of most public water agencies,private sector involvement is necessary to absorb some of the financial and regulatory risk in undertaking this important technology. Most public agency projections have assumed the costs of development would be higher and performance would be lower than what has been reflected in the recent findings of the Desalination Task Force.14 Especially in times when new public sector funding for infrastructure investment is scarce,the private sector can provide needed resources to fund the entitlement, construction,and start-up operations of new desalination facilities. Through contractual arrangements,private sector entities can manage and limit risk that prevents many public sector entities from proceeding on their own. Public-private partnerships provide significant construction cost savings,financial guarantees,performance financing,and predictable, long-term water prices.15 Such arrangements shift design,permitting and financing risk to the private sector. At a time when municipal budgets are strained and significant capital investments are required for the construction of desalination plants and infrastructure,allowing and encouraging private participation is in the public interest. Poseidon is concerned with the Report's contention that private desalination projects should be treated differently than public projects. We disagree with the thrust of the Report's statement that"Coastal Act policies have been applied recognizing the difference between public and private proposals,especially as they relate to public services." If this statement is true,there is no authority under either the Coastal Act or public trust doctrine for treating a private project differently than a public one. The issue is not whether the project is public or private, but 14 California Department of Water Resources,Desalination Task Force, Findings and Recommendations(Oct 2003). 15 According to the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies,private operators deliver services of comparable quality at an average of 24 percent lower cost than public operators. Water Partnership Council,Establishing Public-Private Partnerships for Water and Wastewater Systems(2003). 4 00632387.8 whether it promotes public trust values and conforms to the Coastal Act. The environmental impact and benefits of any project designed to serve the public should be assessed through the prism of the Coastal Act, not the nature of its ownership interests. The Coastal Act recognizes the importance of protecting projects that are important to the . state's economy. The.Legislature recognized of the need to balance competing interests to . "assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state"t" The Act makes specific reference to the public trust doctrine and recognizes the need to consider public safety,economic development,environmental and access concerns, and private property interests in considering coastal development permits." Furthermore,the Act acknowledges that, despite potential adverse impacts, "it may be necessary to locate uses such as electric generating facilities, refineries, commercial fishing facilities, offshore petroleum and gas development in the coastal zone in order to ensure that inland as well as coastal resources are preserved and that orderly economic development proceeds within the state."" The California courts have repeatedly recognized commercial enterprise that benefits the public as a legitimate use of public trust and coastal resources." For example,in Boone V. Kingsbury,the court ordered the issuance of permits to a private entity for oil and gas exploration on tidelands after the state agency had refused to grant the permit on the grounds it would interfere with navigation and fisheries.20 In Martin v. Smith,the court authorized . commercial development of a filled breakwater to include restaurants next to a yacht harbor." In Carstens v. California Coastal Commission,the Commission.prevailed in its decision to permit an easement to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station that significantly impaired.coastal access while providing the public benefit of power generation.22 Poseidon disagrees with the Report's statement that"privatization of public trust resources would represent a major shift in public policy." Private involvement in managing natural resources and providing them to the public is the non-,not a shift in policy. Examples of this include commercial fishing,logging,mining, and grazing industries,all of which are consumptive uses. Moreover, California has historically granted water rights(which are also subject to the public trust doctrine)to private parties,and private entities have been involved in delivering water, electricity,natural gas;waste treatment and telecommunications services to the public infrastructure. The Report also implies that less public oversight and involvement are likely with a private entity. A private proposal has no statutory ability to waive certain laws and 16 Pub.Res.Code, §30001.5(b)(emphasis added). 17 Id. §§30001.5(b),30210,30212,30214. " Id. §30001.2(emphasis added). 19 See Martin v.Smith, 184 Cal.App.2d 571 (1960);Boone v.Kingsbury,206 Cal. 148(1928). 20 See Boone v. Kingsbury,206 Cal.at 181. 21 See Martin v. Smith, 184 Cal.App.2d at 578. 22 See Carstens v. California Coastal Commission, 182 Cal.App.3d 277(1986). 5 OC1632387.8 processes as do public agencies,thereby ensuring'local public involvement in the early stages of the project proposal. The Report also implies that private involvement in the production and sale of water may ..lead to improper activities that hurt the public. For example.,the Report suggests that . "international trade agreements and legal decisions relating to `free' trade may hamper the ability of state and local governments to regulate the activities of multinational companies." This is unlikely. The private sector participants would be contractually obligated to comply with all state and federal environmental regulations per standard terms and conditions typically included in the construction financing and the water purchase arrangements for the project. While Poseidon is not a multinational company,we refer the Commission to the comments being submitted by the Water Partnership Council,and note our agreement with the points expressed in its letter with regard to multinational companies and the international trade agreements. We agree that the international trade agreements would not prevent the Coastal Commission from regulating the operation of desalination facilities within the authority granted the Commission by the Coastal Act. The Department of Water Resources articulated this view in its draft 2003 California Water Plan Update,stating: No international treaty now in effect or being negotiated by the United States would prevent local, state or federal government agencies from reviewing and regulating water projects that involve private companies with multinational ties. Such projects include desalination plants.... So long as government regulations are applied in the same manner to water projects involving multinational corporations as they are to.water projects owned and operated by domestic companies or public utilities,there would be no conflict with international trade treaties." The Report raises concerns regarding the commodification of water.' Private desalination companies will not have unfettered discretion to sell water on the open market because in most cases they will be bound by statutory provisions that make it extremely difficult for a private water supplier to construct facilities or extend retail water service to an area already. served by a public or private water utility.' Therefore,even though the private operator of the desalination facility is not regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, under existing state law, the only practical means available to that private operator to sell the output of the facility is through a wholesale contract with retail water providers who are regulated by the state of California. As the Commission is aware,many desalination projects currently being proposed will not be solely private ventures,but will take the form of public-private partnerships. Even facilities that are wholly owned by a private sector entity must enter into agreements to sell water 23 DWR,California Water Update(Draft)(2003). Z' It should be noted that water pricing is not controlled by the commodity markets in the same way that electric power and other utilities are. Water pricing is controlled by long-term wholesale contracts to retail water service providers. zs Pub.Res.Code§ 1501 et seq. 6 00632387.9 to existing water service providers that are heavily regulated to protect the public. For example, Poseidon has partnered with the City of Carlsbad and the San Diego County Water Authority for its desalination project in Carlsbad and expects to secure a public partner for its project in Huntington Beach.. Few private partners would undertake a substantial capital investment. without securing commitments from municipal and regional water suppliers,just as few public partners would agree to purchase water without`a framework for cost control. For that reason, contracts subject to public review and comment govern the relationship between the public and private partner. Such contracts typically ensure price certainty with increases that are tied to inflation indices, regulatory changes and unforeseen changes in demand, in compliance with existing law. 4. Co-located desalination plants have important benefits, including the reduction of adverse effects on marine life. As the Commission is aware,most of the large seawater desalination facilities currently under review will be co-located with existing coastal power plants. The benefits of co-location are numerous. First,co-location utilizes an existing industrial site,limiting the concentration of development in the coastal zone and eliminating the need for duplicative infrastructure.' Additional benefits include location security,reducing the thermal plume of the host power plant and reducing energy requirements of the desalination facility.27 Co-location minimizes energy consumption,consistent with section 30253(4)of the Coastal Act. If a desalination plant uses cogeneration to supply part of its energy needs,the plant could reduce both its demand for power and the associated environmental impacts of that power generation.Use of the exhaust steam from a power plant to preheat the feedwater to a reverse osmosis facility lessens the energy required to desalinate.seawater by 3%to 5%: Both the current Report and the Commission's 1993 Report28 recognize that a key benefit of co-locating the plants is the common use of the power plant's intake and outfall structures.. The 1993 Report recommends that desalination plants be built"in locations`where existing intake or outfall structures may be used"to mitigate construction impacts and notes that co-location would cut energy demands.29 The 1993 Report also notes that"mixing the discharges with power plant cooling water would most likely be desirable because the brine solution discharged would be considerably less concentrated.s30 Another key benefit of co- location is utilizing common intake and outfall structures to minimize entrainment and impingement impacts." The current Report,however,raises concerns about the adverse impacts of desalination upon marine organisms. The potential impacts related to brine discharge have been well studied 26 California Department of Water Resources,Desalination Task Force, Findings and Recommendations(Oct. 2003). 27 id. 28 Seawater Desalination in California,California Coastal Commission 0993). 2' id. 30 Id. ' For the purposes of this letter,references to entrainment impacts also include impingement impacts. 7 00632387.8 by biological resource experts who have concluded that the impacts of the desalination discharge upon marine life are not significant if the outfall is sited properly.32 The Report suggests that,"while a co-located facility is likely to cause less entrainment than one using a separate intake structure,it.may still result in significant entrainment losses.". It further suggests that, "even if a proposed desalination facility would not significantly increase the entrainment rate,the existing effect must be taken into account when determining an appropriate intake location." We disagree with these conclusions. One of the recognized benefits of co-location is minimizing entrainment impacts that would occur if the plant were sited as an independent facility. The desalination plant typically receives its intake after the power plant has used it to condense steam exiting the turbines. Thus,the entrainment impacts of the power plant occur before the water reaches the desalination operation. . The Report has focused much attention on the power plant's intake system and its entrainment impacts. However,requiring an entrainment study of existing impacts for co- located desalination facilities is not necessary on the grounds that power plants are heavily regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board and they are already permitted for the entrainment losses that are occurring. The State Water Resources Control Board and its Regional Water Quality Control Boards are also the agencies with the authority to regulate the desalination plant's intake and discharge,a fact recognized by Coastal Act section 30412. This section expressly provides that The State Water Resources Control Board and the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards are the state agencies with primary responsibility for"the coordination and control of water quality.... The Commission shall not modify,adopt conditions,or take any actions in conflict with any determination by the.State Water Resources Control Board or any California Regional Water Quality Control Board in matters relating to water quality or the administration of water rights' A proposed co-located desalination facility will require a discharge permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)when its application for a coastal development permit reaches the Commission for review. This statutory provision would suggest that the Commission cannot impose requirements that are inconsistent with the requirements imposed by the RWQCB. The power plant's permit also requires annual monitoring of entrainment effects for compliance with Clean Water Act section 316(b),which governs entrainment impacts for power plants. In February 2004,the EPA is expected to issue new 316(b)rules for existing power plants that will be phased in by the RWQCB when the power plants' intake permits come up for renewal. These regulations are expected to require additional analysis and enhanced mitigation 32 California Department of Water Resources,Desalination Task Force, Findings and Recommendations(Oct. 2003). 33 Pub.Res.Code§30412 8 00632387.8 of the entrainment and impingement impacts of power plants based upon the maximum permitted flow through the intake. Since a proposed desalination facility would not cause any additional water to flow through the intake beyond that already permitted under section 316(b), there will be no new entrainment and impingement losses beyond those that were considered during evaluation of the power plant._Under Coastal Act section 30412,the Commission:may not impose new requirements that are inconsistent with the power plant's existing intake permit. The Report takes the position that"most,if not all,proposals to co-locate a desalination facility will need to be reviewed as if they will operate independently,since most will,at some point in their operating life, operate when the power plant does not." The suggestion that a co- located desalination plant should be reviewed as if it were an independent facility is inconsistent with the fact of co-location and ignores the extraordinary benefits of co-location. We are concerned that the policy positions articulated in the current Report may undermine the historical recognition of the benefits of co-location and result in fewer co-located plants,with their significant economic and environmental benefits, from being approved. The Report appears to base its rationale on the fact that the desalination facility will continue to operate even when the power plant is shut down or undergoing maintenance activities,noting, "Desalination facilities that continue to operate when the power plant is shut down will cause entrainment that would otherwise not be occurring." In most cases,coastal power plants are permitted for continuous operation. We believe that the.independent review of the co-located.desalination facilities represents a_significant departure from traditional notions of baseline conditions. The reference point for analysis of impacts would be the'power plant's permitted intake levels, and the impacts occurring during power plant shutdown would,therefore,not be significant34 Said another way,the current methods of-analyzing entrainment and impingement effects of the power plant assumes the worst-case scenario of operations at full-permitted capacity. Since the desalination facility will cause no new intake, it will not have impacts beyond those analyzed. 5. Desalination projects currently proposed are necessary to augment diminishing water supplies needed for predicted growth in the state. The Report raises concerns that desalination facilities may be growth inducing in a manner inconsistent with the Coastal Act. The relationship between water and growth is an indirect one. Studies show that growth occurs regardless of available water supplies" The primary drivers of growth are birth rates, followed by mortality,economic opportunity and migration" At the state,regional and local level,public planning agencies develop growth plans. Those growth plans become the basis for subsequent water supply plans by water resource agencies. When public planners sa See generally Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura,70 Cal.App.4t°238(1999)(environmental baseline is the full range of permitted requirements);Benton v.Board of Supervisors,226 Cal.App.3d 1467(1991) (same). 35 Peter H.Gleick,Testimony before U.S. Congress,Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure(June 4,2003),as cited in LSA Associates,Evaluation of Water Supply and Growth Planning in Southern California(Aug.2003). 36 LSA Associates,Evaluation of Water Supply and Growth Planning in Southern California(Aug.2003). 9 OC%32387.8 consider water supply, it is in the same context as other utilities such as electricity and natural gas or infrastructure such as sewers,roads and schools. Public planners do not consider water a cause of growth,any more than they would consider new schools a cause of growth. Rather, both are resources needed to support the expected population increases in the area. Similarly, . water supply agencies do not allocate new sources of water to specific development projects. Planning is done on a regional basis to address the total water needs for all existing,entitled and projected projects in the service area.37 Most desalination projects currently under consideration will enhance regional water supplies, and will supply water primarily to areas outside the coastal zone. Moreover,the desalination projects that are currently proposed are necessary to augment or replace diminishing water supplies for already anticipated growth in the state. The Commission's analysis of growth impacts is focused on water deliveries within the coastal zone. CEQA provides for the analysis of impacts inside and outside the coastal zone by the lead agency responsible for"the project. In legislation passed last year,water supply assessments became mandatory under CEQA for new subdivisions and similar developments. Evaluation of growth-inducing impacts requires consideration of the geographic area. In southern California,the development of a seawater desalination facility is not likely to be growth inducing. A large desalination plant can be expected to produce 56,000 acre-feet per year,which is less than one percent of the total water supply needed to serve the southern California region and just a fraction of what the region is losing from imported sources,such as Colorado River surplus water. 6. Seawater desalination is a coastal-dependent use:under the Coastal Act. As` the Commission is.aware,the Coastal Act prioritizes and defines development that is coastal dependent. Among coastal dependent uses that are specifically identified are power plants, refineries, offshore drilling platforms,ports and commercial fishing facilities38—all are uses that need proximity to ocean water to function. In its 1993 Report,the Commission recognized seawater desalination plants as coastal dependent as well,recommending"siting of plants near existing seawater intakes"to mitigate potential adverse impacts. Inexplicably and surprisingly,the Report takes the position that seawater desalination plants are not coastal dependent, indicating that only that the associated intake and outfall pipelines are coastal dependent. The explanation provided is that"many desalination facilities are located at inland locations where the source water is brackish water,groundwater,reclaimed water,.or similar sources other than seawater." We disagree with the Report's reasoning. .Taking the position that a plant dedicated to the desalination of ocean seawater is not coastal dependent is illogical, is inconsistent with the analogous examples of coastal-dependent uses identified by the Legislature in the Coastal Act,and is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the language of the Act. The Coastal Act defines a"coastal-dependent use" as"any development or use which requires a site on,or adjacent to,the sea to be able to function at all."" 37 Id 38 Pub.Res.Code§30001.2 39 pub.Res.Code§30101.3 10 00632387.8 Seawater desalination plants clearly fall within the definition because such plants require"a site on,or adjacent to the sea"in order to draw seawater into the plant. To suggest that the plant is not coastal dependent because only the intake requires a coastal site is inconsistent with other examples identified as coastal dependent in the Coastal Act.'° Using the.Report's reasoning,one could argue that ports and marinas,commercial fishing operations,electric generating facilities, refineries,and offshore drilling for oil and gas are not coastal`dependent-because these land uses can also be sited outside the coastal zone. Seawater desalination falls squarely within the profile of uses the legislature envisioned as coastal dependent. It is indistinguishable from a commercial fishing facility,a refinery,or a power plant in its need to be located near the ocean." The very raw material of a desalination plant is the ocean water itself. It is unsupportable to suggest that seawater be pumped for miles to reach an inland desalination facility and then for the waste stream to be pumped back to the ocean for discharge to the outfall. Moreover, such a notion contradicts the benefits of co- location identified by the Commission in its prior and current report. There is no distinction that can be drawn from refineries and power plants that similarly can be located inland,but which generally are not,because of the huge and avoidable expense necessary to provide the transfer infrastructure to locate them inland. Increased pumping of seawater and waste discharge from an inland site would have the unintended consequence of increasing electric power demands and air pollution impacts. The point makes even less sense for a co-located desalination plant,since the location of the power plant itself was based on its coastal dependency. We suggest that these statements regarding coastal dependency be revised. 7. Other Issues. The.Report notes the significance of examining.each proposed desalination plant on a case-by-case basis. Poseidon agrees that it is critical to the analysis that each proposed project be distinguished on the basis of its location, scale and integration into the regional infrastructure. These distinctions underscore the importance of site-specific analysis and should be factored into the Commission's decision making. In addition,we believe there are a number of statements in the Report that are inaccurate or unsupported. These statements,set forth in Appendix A, should be corrected or deleted from the Report. Thank you for the opportunity to offer our comments on the draft Report. These comments are not intended to be an exhaustive response to all points raised by the Report. We have attempted to focus our remarks on the sections that we perceive are most important and can benefit from Poseidon's perspective. We believe that desalination plants provide an exceptional 40 In the Coastal Act,the Legislature made a finding that,"notwithstanding the fact electrical generating facilities, refineries,and coastal-dependent developments,including ports and commercial fishing facilities,offshore petroleum and gas development,and liquefied natural gas facilities,may have significant adverse effects on coastal resources or coastal access,it may be necessary to locate such developments in the coastal zone in order to ensure that inland as well as coastal resources are preserved and that orderly economic development proceeds within the state." Pub.Res.Code§30001.2. 41 Many Local Coastal Plans(LCPs),certified by the Commission,list seawater desalination plants as an approved coastal use. See, e.g.,Huntington Beach LCP. 11 00632387.8 public benefit and will be a critical component of the state's future aggregate water resources. Again,we ask that the Commission recirculate the revised draft of the Report for additional public review and comment. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the opinions expressed in this letter,please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely Billy Owe Senior Vice President Poseidon Resources Corporation cc: Honorable Members of the California Coastal Commission 12 00632387.8 Appendix A: Statements that are Inaccurate or Unsupported Page 21: ."For example,a seaside Please delete:or correct the comment. The community maybe asked to absorb impacts. Huntington Beach project is a regional from ... a desalination facility while the infrastructure project. Much of the water will produced water is actually intended for use be delivered to other parts of Orange County, in another area of the state. This is but the City will receive any water deliveries apparently the situation in Huntington that it requests. This is not unlike other utility Beach(the produced water is not intended services that serve parties outside their for local use)." municipal jurisdictions. Page 22: "With the current interest in Please delete comments. See discussion in `deregulation', `privatization',and `running section 3. government like a business',there is a potential for commodification and privatization of ocean waters that, from the served community's perspective,may prove to be environmentally,socially and economically ill advised."and "Obviously,the policy implications of allowing public trust resources(ocean ; waters)to be expropriated by the private sector as a commodity to be marketed for profit are far-reaching." Page 23: "When monetary profit is the Please delete comment. See discussion in primary motive underlying the ownership section 3. and provision of services,it is not unreasonable to expect that water conservation,water reclamation,water quality,minimization of growth-inducing effects, and safeguarding community serving water systems against hostile action will be compromised." Page 27: "Given.these risks,the state Please delete comment. See discussion in should proceed cautiously in this area, section 3. because the privatization of water and water services by multinational corporations is fundamentally incompatible with the treatment of public access to drinking water as a basic human right. It .also may well compromise the ability of state and local government to effectively protect the environmental quality and 13 OC1632387.8 integrity of life in natural and human communities." Page 48: "...most,if not all,proposals to Please delete comment. See discussion in co-locate a desalination facility will need to section 4. be reviewed as if they will operate independently,since most will, at some time in their operating life, operate when the power plant does not." Page 48: "Unless a desalination processing Please delete comment. This is not an accurate facility proposed for such a site is statement. considered coastal-dependent,it could be considered a non-conforming use,which may require a change in land use designation or other measures to allow it to be sited there." 14 C0632387.8 Brockway, Connie From: Ramos, Ricky Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 8:20 AM To: Brockway, Connie Subject: FW: Additional comments on Huntington Beach desalination EIR b .b image.pdf Connie - Since Dale is out . . . -----Original Message----- From: Ramos, Ricky Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 8: 18 AM To: Jones, Dale Cc: Broeren, Mary Beth Subject: FW: Additional comments on Huntington Beach desalination EIR Hello Dale - In case this comment letter from the Coastal Commission on the Poseidon project hasn't made its way to the City Clerk, here it is attached. As you can see below, it was copied to the City Council. Thanks again. -----Original Message----- From: Zelefsky, Howard Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 2:04 PM To: Broeren, Mary Beth; Ramos, Ricky Subject: FW: Additional comments on Huntington Beach desalination EIR -----Original Message----- From: Tom Luster [mailto:tluster@coastal.ca.gov] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 12:58 PM To: 'hzelefsky@surfcity-hb.org' ; Billy Owens (E-mail) ; Terry O'Brien (E-mail) Cc: 'cgreen@surfcity-hb.org' ; 'CB4Council@aol.com' ; 'gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org' ; 'hbdac@hotmail.com' ; 'jhardy@surfcity-hb.org' ; 'phouchen@surfcity-hb.org' ; 'dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org' ; Fawzi Karajeh (E-mail) ; Joe Geever (E-mail) ; Marco Gonzalez (E-mail) ; Mark Massara (E-mail) ; David Woelfel (E-mail) ; Steve Rynas; Rick York (E-mail) Subject: Additional comments on Huntington Beach desalination EIR This letter provides additional comments from Coastal Commission staff regarding the City of Huntington Beach environmental review for the proposed Poseidon desalination facility. Please let me know if you have questions. Tom L. Tom Luster California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont St. , Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 904-5248 «image.pdf>> 1 I r ' CITY OF HUNTINGT , CLERK A Inter Office Communic0i" p Z. 39 C° Planning Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator Pf FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning DATE: November 17, 2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON DESALINATION PLANT)—RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 7, 2003 City Staff has reviewed a comment letter submitted by Mr. Terrence O'Brien of the California Energy Commission (CEC) dated November 7, 2003. The responses below provide additional clarification of EIR issues, including several factual errors and misrepresentations of the EIR contained in the CEC comment letter. Relevant AES HBGS Background This summary of background information repeats basic information that is already in the record. General Comment No. 1 This comment raises several questions relating to the baseline conditions used in the EIR analysis, flow rates and flow rate assumptions, and the location of the power plant's discharge and intake facilities. In the summary of background information, O'Brien acknowledges that on June 30, 2000, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) re-issued National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0001163, Order No. 00-5 for the AES ocean intake, industrial waste discharges and stormwater discharges, and that "[t]his permit is based on the designed capacity of the entire plant." However, he suggests that it is improper for the EIR to address potential environmental impacts using the capacity of the entire plant as permitted under the NPDES Permit and its associated environmental documentation as a baseline condition. Essentially, O'Brien argues for a different baseline analysis without specifying what the new baseline should be. The law does not support O'Brien's.position. An EIR may properly assume existing impact levels associated with operation at full permitted capacity as a baseline condition. (Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 238, 242-243.) In fact, the Fairview Neighbors case warned that discussing the possible environmental impacts of anything less than GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\1103 rr2.doc r full permitted capacity (relying instead on operational fluctuations) could be "misleading and illusory." Certainly the Regional Water Quality Control Board did not allow the issuance of its NPDES Permit for'the-power plant with environmental analysis of a lesser capacity than what was permitted for the AES facility. Likewise, this EIR cannot undertake a lesser environmental analysis. The existing power plant NPDES permit does not limit the power plant operations in terms of how many hours per day and days per year the plant can run. In fact, the NPDES permit allows the power plant to operate 365 days per year, 24 hours per day at 517 million gallons per day ("mad") of intake flow. Because the NPDES permit does not limit the mode of operation of the power plant, speculating the future power production patterns of the plant is environmentally irrelevant. Power plant production patterns would only matter if the NPDES permit has established constraints of total or maximum hours of operation of the power plant at preset levels. In this case, the EIR utilized the maximum flow set by the NPDES Permit as a baseline. In addition, however, the EIR also provided average case and worst case analyses based on historic operating data collected over the prior twenty years. For unknown reasons, O'Brien's letter only provided AES flow rate information for the period of 1997-2001 when the plant was undergoing retooling. It would be misleading and illusory to rely on that snapshot of information because that period is not representative of recent operations, likely future operations, or long-term historical operations of the plant. As the testimony and documentation before the Plamung Commission demonstrates (this smatter was'discussed in depth at the August 12 meeting), AES ran all eight circulation pumps (506.88 mad) in July of both 2002 and 2003.. Furthermore, it also ran at least seven circulation pumps (443.52 mad) in both June and July of 2003. During the post-retooling period from 2002 to July 2003, AES has averaged 265 mad, greater than even the average case scenario of 253.4 mad used in the dilution modeling and marine impact assessments in the EIR. Finally, the so-called "Figure 3" (page 342 of the EIR staff report and presented at the August 12 meeting) charts the power plant discharge flow over the prior twenty years. At no time during this period was the flow below the minimum worst-case scenario of 126.7 mad. Analyses of the saline impacts of the discharge were based either on a worst case scenario that assumed minimal flow rates of 126.7 mad due to two circulation pumps in combination with minimal ocean mixing by wind, waves and currents; or an average case scenario that assumed four circulation pumps producing flow rates of 253.4 mad combined with average ocean mixing by wind, waves and currents. These assumed flow rates agree closely with how O'Brien characterized the plant operation in his background summary as "only two pumps operate during most of the winter and only four pumps operate most of the summer months." The only portion of the EIR analysis that assumed maximum permitted flow rate levels was that related to source water issues. The purpose for assuming maximum permitted flow rate levels for the source water analyses was to capture a worst case assessment of the potential for the power plant discharge to be recirculated in the power plant intake. O'Brien also requested a description of how the power plant and desalination plant operations would be coordinated. That information was concisely presented in the response to comment 2d at pages 19 and 20 of the Response to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination G:\AdmLtr\Adm1tr03\1103rrldoc Project, dated March 21, 2003. As indicated in that response, the desalination plant intake will be connected to the power plant discharge facilities only. When the power plant intake pumps are shut down no water can reach the power plant discharge, and therefore no water can reach the desalination plant intake. Consequently, the desalination plant intake pumps will also shut down. It bears repeating that, if the power plant permanently ceases operation then the project r description changes and Poseidon would need to amend any entitlements accordingly (including an NPDES permit). The Planning Commission suggested adding item No. 18 to the Information on Specific Code Requirements document to clarify this situation. (See Attachment 2.29 on page 74 of the CUP/CDP staff report.) In this comment, O'Brien also raised concerns that the EIR may have misstated information regarding the location of the power plant's discharge and intake facilities. The coordinate location of the power plant discharge facility in the EIR matches the coordinates provided in the power plant NPDES permit. The data described in the EIR and its technical appendices for the location and dimensions of the discharge agree with the information provided by O'Brien which was also taken from the NPDES permit. In the technical appendix of the EIR, the discharge was located at latitude 330 38' 19" N, longitude 117' 58' 57" W, as stated in paragraph 6a of the NPDES permit and the water depth at this location was stated as 27.9 feet mean sea level as derived from the National Ocean Survey (NOS) digital database. This is essentially the same as a water depth of 25 feet in units of mean low low water as cited by O'Brien. Both the NPDES permit and O'Brien describe this location as "1500 feet offshore" but neither state the specific "offshore" location. Comparing the latitude/longitude coordinates of the discharge with the National Ocean Survey(NOS) digital database, this location is found to be approximately 1500 ft offshore of the mean high tide line, a common reference datum used in design of coastal structures. The relative location of the power plant's intake facility is a separate issue. In the EIR, the power plant intake facility coordinates are based on engineering calculations from the as-built drawings performed by Carollo Engineers (2001). The coordinates for the infall chamber-1 were determined by Carollo Engineers to be at latitude 330 38' 13" N, longitude 117' 59' 03" W. These coordinates compare well with the location of the intake shown in Figure 4-24 of the CEC's April 2003 draft report prepared by KOMEX, and overlay on intake sample station #8d used in the NPDES receiving water monitoring studies (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, 2000). On the other hand, the NPDES permit gives no latitude/longitude coordinates for the intake facility, but merely offers a description that it is "approximately 1650 feet offshore" (with no specific offshore location cited). Comparing the latitude/longitude coordinates of the intake facility as determined by Carollo Engineers with the National Ocean Survey (NOS) digital database indicates that this location is 2,292 feet (699 meters) offshore from the mean high tide line. The apparent discrepancy between this distance reference and the distance reference in the NPDES permit is due to the fact that the NPDES permit is describing the location relative to the mean lower low tide line. The NPDES permit does not give the depth at this location, but if one adds the height and depth of the velocity cap atop the intake tower as stated in the NPDES permit, the result is a supposed depth of 27.5 feet mean lower low water (in contrast to "27 feet of water" as stated by O'Brien). Converting mean low low water to mean sea level datum, this depth estimate would be equivalent to 30.3 feet mean sea level. However the National Ocean Survey (NOS) digital database shows the depth at the latitude/longitude coordinates of the intake GAAdn1Ltr\Adm1tr03\1103rr2.doc to be' 34.1 feet mean sea level, which is the value used in the EIR. In point of fact, seafloor elevations near a structure can easily vary by four feet due to current or seasonal changes in the shore rise bottom profile associated with wave climate and migrating sand waves. Given the ambiguity of the NPDES permit in regards to the precise depth and location of the intake facility, the EIR analysis was based on physically documented coordinates and depths. The EIR analysis s used structural dimensions for the intake and discharge towers based on as-built drawings provided by AES that are in general agreement with values stated in the NPDES permit. Consequently, the documented coordinates on record for the locations of the discharge and intake towers do not calculate a separation of 350 feet between these structures as claimed by O'Brien. Rather these coordinates indicate a separation of 792 feet. The CEC's own KOMEX study has already shown that the intake is not entraining the cold, denser water from sub- thermocline depths. At 350 feet from the discharge, the brine water from the desalination plant has a density comparable to the sub-thermocline water.. Hence there is not likely to be measurable difference in the brine plume regardless of whether the intake is 350 feet or 792 feet from the discharge. Furthennore, the plant induced suction flow at a distance of 350 feet (if one were to assume this distance) from the intake is at most 0.003 feet per second, less than natural ocean turbulence, even if the plant intake flows were at the maximum certified limit of 2 feet per second. The location of the discharge is the central issue with respect to the integrity of the EIR findings of impacts associated with brine discharge. As shown in this response, there is no discrepancy between O'Brien's information and the information presented in the EIR in regards to the location of the discharge facilities. General Comment No. 2 This comment suggests that the City should wait for additional studies to be completed before certifying the EIR. Environmental analysis under CEQA is founded upon a commencement point and a terminal point. The baseline analysis for a project's impacts recognizes a commencement point "at the time the notice of preparation is published." (CEQA Guidelines § 15125.) As for the terminal point, CEQA requires the City to "complete:and certify the final EIR ... within one year" for "private projects" like the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15108.) The fact that ongoing, pending or future studies, like those referred to by O'Brien, may be conducted does not justify postponing (indefinitely) the certification of the final EIR. To the contrary, CEQA includes procedures for dealing with future studies and information that may alter the environmental conclusions of a certified EIR. (See, CEQA Guidelines § 15162-15164:) Delay based on the unknown information, applicability and conclusions of a future study is delay based on speculation and therefore unreasonable under CEQA. This issue has also been discussed at length during Planning Commission hearings. General Comment No.-3 This comment suggests that an entrainment and impingement study is required because "the addition of a desalination facility will likely increase the volume of ocean water flows" through the AES HBGS plant. The 316(b) study currently underway at the Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS) will use maximum cooling water intake system (CWIS) flows for estimating entrainment effects providing a "worst-case" assessment of cooling water intake system effects. GAAdmLtr\Admltr03\1103rr2.doc - The use of the maximum CWIS.-,flows assures- that the assessment is applying the "best technology available" (BTA) to minimize envirorunental effects due to an operating scenario (maximum CWIS flows) that will produce the greatest impacts. The cost of these effects can then be weighed against the cost of various CWIS technologies. The environmental effects would be undervalued if the assessment were done using reduced flows. As was explained in response to the same comment when it was raised at the Planning Commission, the Poseidon project relies upon the discharge from the HBGS cooling water system and therefore will not increase the maximum flows used in the CWIS assessment. If the HBGS CWIS is determined to meet BTA under 316(b) then this determination would cover any of the plant operating scenarios and the operation of the Poseidon project would have no effect on this determination since its operation would not result in any increased CWIS flows. From a regulatory perspective, the point is that no water will be used by the Poseidon project that does not fully comply with the HBGS NPDES permit and intake BTA. The use of the maximum flows assures that the BTA assessment is based on the operating scenario that will produce the greatest effects. In his background information, O'Brien states that "entrainment and impingement studies at most California power plants are quite old, of little value, or nonexistent" and "those coastal power plants where recent entrainment and impingement analyses have been completed (e.g. Moss Landing, San Onofre, Diablo Canyon, and Morro Bay), all show these systems to cause significant impacts to marine biological resources." Because O'Brien includes the study at San Onofre (a study that was completed over 20 years ago) in his list of"recent" studies, it is unclear which studies he believes are unacceptable. Entrainment data from San Onofre and Ormond Beach power plants were used in the 1983 HBGS 316(b) Demonstration along with HBGS impingement data to model HBGS cooling water intake system effects (SCE 1983). The study also included an intake technology evaluation that concluded that the current intake design was the best technology available. In contrast to O'Brien's statement, the cooling water intake systems at Moss Landing (Tenera 2000a. Moss Landing Power Plant Modernization Project: 316(b) Resources Assessment. Prepared for Duke Energy Moss Landing, L.L.C., Oakland, CA.), Diablo Canyon (Tenera 2000b. Diablo Canyon Power Plant: 316(b) Demonstration Report. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., San Francisco, CA Doc. No. E9-55.0.), and Morro Bay (Tenera 2001. Morro Bay Power Plant Modernization Project 316(b) Resource Assessment. Prepared for Duke Energy Morro Bay LLC.), have not been determined to have significant effects on marine biological resources. Similar to the results from the HBGS 316(b) studies, the effects on individual species varied considerably. Estimated effects were largest for small, bay and estuarine fishes at Moss Landing and Morro Bay, and small nearshore fishes at Diablo Canyon. Although there was thought to be some potential for localized effects on the adults of these species, the effects (10-20 % of the local source larval populations) were not considered to have any long-term population-level effects for the following reasons: ■ Length measurements of the larvae showed that many of these species are subject to entrainment for a relatively short time period during their development, • Adult stages of these species are not exploited by commercial or recreational fisheries, and ■ Other data showed no long-term trends in the adult populations that would indicate any population-level effects. GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\1103rr2.doc f l Impingement studies were only conducted at the Morro Bay facility because previous studies showed low impingement levels at Moss Landing and Diablo Canyon. The more recent Morro Bay impingement study confirmed the results of the earlier studies showing low impingement rates See also responses to General Comment Nos. 1 and 2. General Comment No. 4 This comment suggests that the EIR should have addressed potential changes to Federal Clean Water Act Rules that may be adopted by EPA. However, as was explained in response to the same comment when it was raised at the Plamiing Commission, the draft Rules for once-through cooling systems (if implemented in February 2004 as planned) will only apply to the HBGS and not to the Poseidon project. The draft Rules still involve an enviromnental assessment to determine the environmental effects, and a technology assessment to determine if there are any technologies that could provide cost effective reductions of the effects. Any changes to the cooling water intake system that might be required to achieve best teclulology available (BTA) would apply to the power plant and not to the Poseidon project. See response to General Comment No. 3. General Comment No. 5 The heart of this continent is O'Brien's assertion that the EIR's source water contamination analysis did not account for chemical treatment of cooling water. This assertion is incorrect. The Watershed Sanitary Survey Report, attached as Appendix E of the EIR, contains a detailed description of all potential sources of contamination from the power plant's system to the desalination plant that fulfills the informational requirements of CEQA. It should be noted that the Department of Health Services, the state agency charged with protecting the quality of drinking water supplies, accepted the Watershed Sanitary Survey Report as a final report and on August 6, 2002 and issued a conditional approval letter to Poseidon Resources Corporation. (That letter is included at pages 81-84 of the Responses to Continents for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project, dated March 21, 2003 and pages 230-233 of the EIR staff report.) Chapter 3 of the Watershed Sanitary Survey Report contains an evaluation of the impacts of cycle water discharges (screen wash water, pump seal water, boiler blowdown water, bearing cooling water heat exchangers, condensate overboard); storm water discharges to the cooling water system (offsite storm drainage, yard storm drainage, floor drains); and wastewater discharges to the cooling water system (low volume wastes, metal cleaning wastes, hydrostatic test water, and heat treatment water). Table 3-1 on page E-36 of Appendix E contains a description of the volumes of discharges and the concentrations of chemicals in the discharges to the cooling water system. As noted in the Watershed Sanitary Survey Report, chlorine, in the foi7n of sodium hypochlorite, is also injected into the cooling water system upstream of the desalination plant intake. As described on page 2-28 of Appendix E, "The seawater will first be treated to remove solids and free chlorine, which could foul or physically damage the RO membranes." Chapter 2 of the Watershed Sanitary Survey Report contains a thorough description of the various water treatment processes that will be used in the desalination plant and the contaminants those processes are designed to remove. GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\1103 rr2.doc O'Brien suggests that the interrelationship between discharge and intake water was not adequately addressed in the EIR. Summaries of the modeling results on the recirculation of power plant discharges into the intake are included on page 4.3-11 of the EIR and again in Appendix E of the EIR (pages E-20 to E-23). A complete discussion of the modeling results is presented in the EIR Appendix. O'Brien's concern regarding the distance between the intake and discharge facilities is addressed in the response to General Comment No. 1. General Comment No. 6 Many of O'Brien's concerns regarding technical analysis are addressed in Appendices C and D .of the Draft EIR. Re-circulation of in-plant waste streams during operation of the Poseidon project at 50 mgd was studied in Section 5 of Appendix C to the Draft EIR, assuming discharges of plant wastewater at the maximum certified limit of 1.66 mgd. The thermal field properties of the combined discharges of waste heat and in-plant waste water from the power plant and concentrated sea salts from the Seawater Desalination Plant (SDP) were also in evaluated Section 5 for the extreme range of hot El Nino summers and winter time storms. Appendices C and D studied a range of plant flow rates that included: 1 unit (2 pumps, 126.7 mgd), 2 units (4 pumps 253.4 mgd), and 4 units (8 pumps, 506.9 mgd). For the re-circulation analysis of plant waste streams in the combined effluent, the modeling assumed 4 units (506.9 mgd) to maximize the suction field. O'Brien asserts that "recent studies" found that"dilution and mixing of the [discharge] plume are not as vigorous as originally expected" and cites the CEC's own recently completed study (AES Huntington Beach Generating Station Surf Zone Water Quality Study, prepared by KOMEX, dated August 4, 2003, the "KOMEX Study"). The results of the KOMEX Study contradict O'Brien's statement. The KOMEX Study found that dye discharged from the AES outfall is diluted by a minimum of 36 to 1 at the shoreline. Worst-case dilution of AES discharge calculated by the hydrodynamic model study in the EIR was found to be 32 to 1 at the shoreline (see Figures 4.6 of Appendix D to the Draft EIR). Thus the EIR model results derived two years before the KOMEX Study are confirmed by the KOMEX Study. Both the EIR model study and the KOMEX Study conclude that the dilution associated with the AES outfall is sufficiently large and that it cannot account for the high bacteria levels measured at the shoreline. It is not clear why O'Brien references the KOMEX study without further noting the study's positive conclusion about AES not being a source of bacteria to the surfzone or the beach. In his background information comments (one sentence before he first cites to the KOMEX Study), O'Brien states that earlier studies suggested the AES intake and discharge interact to cause an "upwelling of bacteria from the sub-thermocline waters transporting the bacteria to the near-shore region." This theory was rejected by the findings of the KOMEX Study. O'Brien also argues the increased salinity in the discharge from the desalination plant will violate the current NPDES (power plant) permits. Mr. O'Brien fails to note that the desalination plant has filed for and will obtain a separate NPDES permit for its operations. This will allow the Regional Board to separately monitor and segregate waste streams to ensure compliance for both operations under distinct permit conditions. G AAdm Ltr\Adntltr03\1103 rrldoc General Comment No. 7 Without providing a specific citation, O'Brien criticizes the EIR for "incorrectly" describing a "typical day." At page 4.3-13 the EIR describes a set of operational and environmental conditions that it characterizes as `'normal" and "average" conditions. Average conditions are also clearly defined on Page D-79 of Appendix D of the DEIR. In summary, the average daily flow rate is defined as two generation units on line (four pumps) with cooling power circulation ��. at 176,000 gallons or 253.4 mgd. A worst-case scenario is examined in the EIR, defined as two pumps of the smallest generation unit Unit 1 in operation only i e. minimum discharge flow of p p g ( ) � P Y—•• g 126.7 mgd. The EIR's average and worst-case flow rates are exactly the same as O'Brien's "typical" summer flow rates (253.44 mgd) and his "typical" winter flow rates (126.72 mgd). The same considerations are included in the Watershed Sanitary Survey, attached as Appendix E to the Draft EIR. O'Brien's assertion that the EIR considered each desalination project waste stream separately, and not the project's combined waste stream or in combination with the AES waste stream is untrue. Although the modeled outcome for each constituent discharge was presented in separate sections for clarity in the Jenkins and Wasyl reports in the EIR appendices (Appendices C and ' D), it would have been insensible to model these constituents independently, as each affects the specific volume, density and diffusivity of the combined effluent. The physical effects of combining the desalination discharge with the power plant heat and in-plant waste streams was summarized in the EIR technical appendix. A great deal of attention was given in these reports regarding how these constituents were modeled together, and the complexity of the physics required to do so. It was interesting to find that combining the desalination plant discharge with the power plant discharge produced a favorable effect, reducing the size of the thermal plume while satisfying the thermal limits of the NPDES permit (see Figures 5.3-5.5 of Appendix C to the Draft EIR). The cumulative effect of the mixed desalination plant and power plant discharges are already reflected in the hydrodynamic modeling of the combined discharge presented in the Appendices of the Draft EIR. The desalination plant operations will not have a negative effect on the power plant thermal plume. As compared to thermal desalination facilities which separate fresh water from ocean water through evaporation, the Poseidon desalination plant will use reverse osmosis membrane process to produce fresh water. The reverse osmosis process is not a source of thermal discharge and will not contribute to the thermal plume of the power plant. Quite opposite, by turning 50 mgd of the power plant thermal discharge into potable water, which is removed away from the plant outfall, the desalination plant will reduce the power plant thermal discharge load. The changes in temperature of the power plant discharge as a result of the desalination plant operation are reflected in the hydrodynamic modeling provided in the Appendices of the DEIR. The impact of heat treatment on the desalination plant source water quality was discussed in Chapter 3 of Appendix E to the EIR. Poseidon will not operate the desalination plant during heat treatment periods so there will not be a discharge from the desalination plant during heat treatments. There is, therefore, no need to analyze the impacts of heat treatment on ocean water quality since the proposed project will have no impact on how AES conducts the heat treatments. Also see responses to General Comment Nos. 5 and 6. G:\AdmLtr\Adm1tr03\1 103rrldoc General Comment No. 8 In this comment, O'Brien calls for an analysis that has already been completed. The analysis of "potential impacts to sediments and benthic organisms that occur there" is summarized in the EIR at pages 4.3-18 and 4.3-19. The analysis includes an alternative for discharging "first flush" of treated waste cleaning solutions into the Orange County Sanitation District system. After extensive discussion of this issue and review of the technical studies in the record supporting the summary analysis in the EIR, the Planning Commission recommended this alternative and included condition 4(m)(8) in its conditions of approval (see page 2.9 in Attachment 2 to the RCA for the CUP/CDP). As noted by O'Brien, the existing power plant NPDES permit limits the amount of the sediment in the power plant discharge by establishing a total suspended solids (TSS) concentration limit. This limit is consistent with the TSS limit of the California Ocean Plan. The amount of sediments material in the combined effluent (measured as TSS) is several times lower than the current NPDES limit. Therefore, concerns about a significant impact of sediments created by the combined discharge are unfounded. The sea floor around the AES outfall consists of well-sorted fine sand over a distance of at least 6 kilometers in both up coast and down coast directions. Sand does not flocculate in response to elevated salinity and does not adsorb metals, organo-chlorines or other biocides or cleaning compounds. Sand is technically regarded as non-polluting by present NPDES standards for dredging. Hence the hypothetical impact to local sediments does not exist. General Comment No. 9 The responses to each of O'Brien's previous comments (see responses to General Conunent Nos. 1 through 8) refute his statement in this comment that "information provided in the EIR" provides a basis for concluding that the Poseidon project "has the potential to cause a significant change" in the operation of the power plant's legally permitted cooling system. To the contrary, information in the EIR supports the conclusion that impacts in this regard are less than significant. It is not proper for the EIR to speculate about whether upgrades to the current AES facility will be required based on future studies or future amendments to applicable laws and regulations, nor is this within the scope of the EIR to speculate how long the HBGS will exist. As no upgrades to the existing AES intake/outfall facilities (thus expanding power plant operations) are anticipated to be necessary for project implementation, Mr. O'Brien's request for an assessment of cumulative impacts for expanded power plant operations is unnecessary. Also see responses to General Continent Nos. 2 and 4. General Comment No. 10 As stated within the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments, two off-site underground electrically powered pump stations would be necessary for the conveyance of product water. One underground pump station would be located within an unincorporated area of the County of Orange, along the eastern border of the City of Newport Beach. Residences exist to the west of the subject site. The second underground pump station is proposed within the parking lot of St. Paul's Greek Orthodox Church in the City of Irvine. Multi-family residential structures exist G AAdinLtr\Adm1tr03\1103 rr2.doc adjacent to the eastern edge of the parking lot. Both of these pump stations would require the installation, periodic testing/maintenance, and potential use of diesel-powered emergency backup generators. As such, diesel fumes would be periodically emitted from these generators. The Applicant will be required to obtain a permit from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for operation of off-site emergency backup generators. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) provides guidance and recommendations to local air pollution control districts (including SCAQMD), and provides thresholds for the preparation of site-specific Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) for diesel-fueled generators based on the horsepower rating and total number of operational hours per year. CARB recommends that diesel-fueled generators greater than 50 horsepower and operating over 400 hours per year be subject to a site-specific HRA. As diesel-powered pumps associated with project implementation (Caterpillar 3516 or similar model) would be used solely for emergency backup purposes, it is not anticipated that annual use would exceed 400 hours per year. No emissions are anticipated during normal, long- term operation, as the pumps would be electrically powered. As such, it is not expected that the preparation of an HRA for either pump station site will be necessary. In addition, as stated in the Draft EIR, modeling for temporary construction emissions included an analysis of diesel mobile equipment and truck trips. Modeling results indicated that PMIo emissions (including diesel exhaust particulate matter) would be below SCAQMD thresholds. The project site and associated construction activities are also located in a favorable coastal area with typically good mixing conditions, and is not otherwise in an area designated by SCAQMD as a "hot-spot" for diesel emissions. Given the short-term nature of proposed construction activities, an HRA is not considered necessary. General Comment No. 11 The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 13, Section 2423(b)(1) requires that exhaust emissions from new off-road compression-ignition engines (produced on or after January 1, 1996) sold in this state, shall not exceed certain "Tier 1" criteria, equating to 0.54 to 1.0 grams per kilowatt-hour in regards to particulate matter (PM). However, given that air quality modeling performed for the project did not find particulate matter (including diesel particulate matter) to be a significant impact, the requirement for the construction contractor to limit off- road equipment use to "Tier 1" criteria is not necessary. In addition, mitigation measure CON-9 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows, to reflect the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, rather than just low sulfur diesel fuel (change is highlighted/underlined): ❖ "...equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; ❖ Use ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; ❖ Use electric equipment whenever practicable..." General Comment No. 12 As stated within the Draft EIR, a Remedial Action Plan (including Phase II subsurface soil testing and analysis) will be prepared for the proposed desalination facility and portions of the water conveyance system, where necessary. The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) will include an G:\Adm Ltr\Admitr03\1103 rr2.doc analysis of potential options for the sampling, management, and disposal/recycling of hazardous materials, including the demolition of the existing fuel storage tanks on-site and excavation of surrounding soils/berms. The quantity of slurry necessary for directional boring associated with pipeline implementation will not be known until construction-level design documentation is prepared. In addition, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) will be prepared for the two proposed off-site booster pump stations prior to construction (one in the City of Irvine, and another in unincorporated Orange County) to examine the likelihood of subsurface contamination. Should the Phase I recommend additional testing/analysis, a RAP will be prepared to examine potential options for the sampling, management, and disposal/recycling of hazardous materials. In summary, staff believes that the Poseidon EIR is adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements and recommends certification by the City Council. xc: William P. Workman, Assistant City Administrator Robert Beardsley, Director of Public Works Howard Johnson, Utilities Manager Scott Hess, Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner GAAdmLtr\Aden Itr03\1103 rr2,doc NOV-17-2003 15:20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY Arnold Schwarzenegger,Governor CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION , 1516 NINTH STREET m SACRAMENTO.CA 85814-5512 4s' November 17, 2003 Mr, Howard Zelefsk Planning Director Post-it'Fax Note 7671 ae1e /f J 1 pa°pes> City Of Huntington Beach g TO De Ze I e w F'°"' %. 2 r Co./Dept e ►f� . !� . Co. c cG 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phoned 71 Ll• 1536p./SL146 Ph°"°II �i /Lc (�$��• 3�j�c Fax 11 C1 1 LP 1pJr -? Z RE: Follow-up Comments on the City Of Huntington Beach I four fie Propose Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant Dear Mr. Zelefsky: x I would like to clear up any confusion that might exist regarding the comments Evrg� Commission staff sent to you in a letter dated November 7, 2003. First, let me ''' i emphasize that the letter does not represent the position of the Energy Commissl=%l since the Commissioners did not review or approve its contents. The letter representsa-J.--;- the opinions of Commission staff, specifically the Systems Assessment and Facilities w o, Siting Division. Therefore, it is important to note that the full Commission has not toe► a position on the adequacy of the city's EIR on the Poseidon Seawater Desalination. Plant. C, Second, I want to make It clear that the staff is supportive of desalination facilities since they appear to help address the state's need for additional sources of fresh water. We also believe there exists an opportunity to site desalination facilities at existing power plants and that the energy and waste heat from power plants can be efficiently used by co-located desalination plants. As staff, our concern with the city's review of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant is twofold: will the desalination plant require a change to the AES Huntington Beach Station Units 3 and 4 which are under the jurisdiction of the Energy Commission, and will the desalination facility, in conjunction with the power plant, create a significant cumulative impact? We would hope and might reasonably expect that the cumulative impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Certainly, if approval of the desalination plant requires changes to the previously approved Huntington Beach Power Plant Units 3 and 4 operating conditions, the Energy Commission will review and recommend any appropriate and necessary mitigation. Finally, staff is supportive of seeing this project proceed expeditiously if all issues are satisfactorily addressed. If you have any questions regarding these comments please call me at (916) 654-3933. Sincerely, TERRENCE O'BRIEN, Deputy Director Systems Assessment and Facilities Siting TOTAL P.01 Y. STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCH WARZEN EGGER.GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 ��- VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 h, -- O C .. o z 4J yyJ 6 December 8, 2003 `- Mr.Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director rnCD City of Huntington Beach ' 200 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 N "n r RE: Comments on the City of Huntington Beach Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the Proposed Poseidon Desalination Facility Dear Mr. Zelefsky: I am writing regarding the City's environmental review of the desalination facility being proposed by Poseidon Resources. I received a copy of your November 17, 2003 memo, Interoffice Communication from the City's Planning Department to the Mayor and City Council Members,which was written in response to concerns expressed by California Energy Commission(CEC) staff about the analysis of the proposed project in the City's EIR. I wish to provide some comments regarding three of the issues raised by the Planning Department's memo. These comments are meant to help ensure the City's decision conforms to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and applicable provisions of the City's Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act. I am also providing copies of this letter to members of the Huntington Beach City Council to use in their deliberations on this proposed project. This letter does not address each as-of-yet unresolved concerns we have with the EIR as expressed in our previous comment letters,but focuses on three points raised in your recent memo: • First,the EIR does not use an appropriate baseline to establish the existing marine biology and water quality conditions at the site; • Second,the EIR's use of the maximum allowable water volume described in the NPDES permit for the associated power plant does not equate to CEQA's requirement to base impacts on existing physical conditions at the site; and, • Third,regardless of the City's eventual position on the above two points,the current version of the EIR is not adequate to determine whether the proposed project will conform to applicable provisions of the City's Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal Act. Each of these three points is discussed in more detail below. We raised similar concerns in several comment letters we sent earlier during the EIR process,many of which highlighted inadequacies in the EIR that create what is likely a substantial understatement of the proposed project's impacts to marine life and water quality and result in insufficient information for decision-makers. `J Comment letter to City of Huntington Beach re: EIR for proposed desalination facility December 8, 2003 Page 2 of S 1) The EIR does not use an appropriate baseline to establish the existing marine biology and water quality conditions at the site. The EIR bases its analysis and its determination of no significant adverse impacts to marine biology and water quality on the review done by the RWQCB during renewal of the power plant's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit in June 2000. The RWQCB used a 1983 entrainment study as the basis for its NPDES decision. CEQA allows EIRs in some circumstances to use for baseline conditions the levels of impact identified in previous CEQA reviews. Your memo cites Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura as supporting this approach. However,because NPDES permit review is exempt from CEQA,it is not appropriate in this case to use it to establish baseline conditions. The NPDES permit review,pursuant to federal and state water quality standards, is meant primarily to determine whether the existing once-through cooling system at the power plant provides the"Best Technology Available"for power plant cooling. Section 15263 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically exempts NPDES permits from undergoing CEQA review(except in the case of new sources,which does not apply at the AES Huntington Beach facility). This determination that NPDES review is CEQA-exempt, and that it involves a different type of review than the review required under CEQA, is further supported by the recent decision in City of Burbank vs. State Water Board'. If the City wishes to use an acceptable previous review in the EIR,it would be more appropriate to use the CEC's more recent review from May 2001, which was done as part of the CEC's Application for Certification(AFC)process used to review proposed new power plants and power plant upgrades. Section 15251 of the CEQA Guidelines designates the review that occurs during this AFC process as"CEQA-equivalent",and the CEC process incorporates elements of CEQA review not required during NPDES permit review. In its CEQA-equivalent review,the CEC determined that the entrainment data at the facility were out-of-date, and required the power plant owner to perform a new entrainment study,which is currently underway'. The CEC's reasons for requiring an updated entrainment study are the same as the reasons these study results are needed for the City's current CEQA review—to. incorporate relevant and necessary information about existing conditions at the project location,to determine whether the proposed project will cause impacts, and to determine From p.20-21 of the decision:"We conclude that Water Code section 13389 not only relieves Regional Board of the requirement to prepare an EIR or cause an EIR to be prepared(pub.Resources code, §21100,subd.(a)),but also relieves Regional Board of those CEQA obligations that ordinarily are satisfied through preparation and consideration of an EIR,including the obligation to consider potential environmental impacts,project alternatives, and mitigation measures." 2 The usual CEC review process,as evidenced in the recent Moss Landing and Morro Bay power plant proceedings, is to require up-to-date entrainment data be provided before a permit decision is made. The CEC's review of the AES power plant was done under a special emergency provision meant to expedite decision-making during the Governor's declaration of a state energy crisis,and is the only recent proceeding in which the CEC allowed a required entrainment study to be completed after its decision. t t Comment letter to City of Huntington Beach re:EIR for proposed desalination facility December 8, 2003 Page 3 of 5 what mitigation measures may be necessary to address those impacts. By not using the more recent and CEQA-equivalent CEC review,the EIR is likely providing inadequate information for decision-makers and likely understating the impacts of the proposed proj ect. 2) The EIR's use of the maximum allowable water volume described in the power plant's NPDES permit does not equate to CEQA's requirement to base impacts on existing physical conditions at the site. Section 15125(a)of the CEQA Guidelines states: "An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced,from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." In addition to the NPDES permit review not providing the necessary CEQA-equivalent basis for the EIR,the maximum allowable flow established in the NPDES permit does not represent actual site conditions. The EIR uses for its baseline the maximum allowable flow permitted in the power plant's NPDES permit(517 million gallons per day). However,the power plant has rarely operated at that maximum level and has generally operated for the past several years at levels far below that maximum(averaging around 250 million gallons per day). This period of lower flow operations coincides with the time of the City's environmental analysis for the proposed desalination facility. Therefore, for this EIR, it is not appropriate to use the NPDES permitted maximum as the baseline, since that does not represent actual conditions at the site. We recognize, as noted in your memo,that there are various court decisions regarding how baseline conditions are to be determined for analysis under an EIR, and we also recognize that countervailing decisions on this issue are based largely on how the CEQA Guidelines apply to the particular facts of a proposed project. Fairview is one, as is the more recent decision on Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors,which discusses several of the factors to consider when establishing baseline conditions, including the recency of data and the use,where available,of documents and records showing actual rates of use. For this proposed desalination facility, it is clear that the facts support a characterization of existing site conditions_based on far lower power plant operations than are described in the EIR and more recent entrainment data than are provided in the 1983 study. Without a more accurate description of the power plant's operational characteristics, and without a clear understanding of how the desalination facility operations will affect or will be affected by power plant operations, it is not possible to determine from the EIR what adverse effects may result and what mitigation measures may be needed. Comment letter to City of Huntington Beach re:EIR for proposed desalination facility December 8, 2003 Page 4 of 5 Additionally,the EIR assumes that the desalination facility will not change power plant operations,and will therefore cause no additional entrainment beyond what would be caused by the power plant operating alone. As a result of this assumption,the EIR does not evaluate, as it should,how the high daily and seasonal variability of power plant operations will interact with the proposed"steady-state"flow of 100 million gallons per day proposed for desalination operations 3. The contradictory statements in the City's record regarding this operating relationship make it impossible to tell whether this assumption is correct. For example,the EIR describes the desalination facility as using heated water from the operating power plant after it passes through the plant's condensers;the EIR's Errata section states that the facility would operate constantly and be independent of the power plant operations; and most recently,your November 17 memo states that the facility would shut down when the power plant pumps shut down. Each of these scenarios could result in a very different range of adverse entrainment effects,but the EIR does not include an adequate analysis of any of the scenarios. 3) The current version of the EIR is not adequate to determine whether the proposed project will conform to applicable provisions of the City's Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal Act. Finally,regardless of the City's eventual decision regarding the two points above,the EIR in its current form is inadequate for determining conformity to at least one provision of the City's Local Coastal Program(LCP) and two provisions of the Coastal Act, all of which apply to the proposed project. Policy 6.1.19 of the City's LCP states"Prior to approval of any new or expanded seawater pumping facilities,require the provision of maximum feasible mitigation measures to minimize damage to marine organisms due to entrainment in accordance with State and Federal law." The EIR clearly shows that the proposed project, a seawater desalination project, will require new seawater pumps. Additionally, Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act,require,in part,that proposed projects restore the marine environment where feasible, and minimize the adverse effects of entrainment4. 3 We note,for example,that the environmental analysis of the country's only other recent large-scale desalination facility co-located with a power plant(in Tampa Bay,Florida)estimated there would be an entrainment increase of between two and seven percent. These facilities likely have a different operating relationship than the one proposed between the AES Huntington Beach plant and the desalination facility,so while the actual change in entrainment in Huntington Beach is likely to be different,the review done in Tampa shows,at the very least,that assuming no entrainment increase may not be accurate. 4 Coastal Act Section 30230:"Marine resources shall be maintained,enhanced,and where feasible,restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational,scientific,and educational purposes." Coastal Act Section 30231:"The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters,streams,wetlands, estuaries,and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and,where feasible,restored through,among other means,minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment,controlling runoff,preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow,encouraging waste water reclamation,maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats,and minimizing alteration of natural streams." Comment letter to City of Huntington Beach re:EIR for proposed desalination facility December 8, 2003 Page S of S As noted above,the EIR's determination that the desalination facility will cause no additional impacts to water quality or marine biology beyond those caused by the power plant is based on inadequate data and analysis. Minimizing entrainment impacts, as required in the policies cited above,first requires knowledge of what those impacts are. For the CEQA evaluation of this project proposing to use a large amount of water from the impaired ocean waters off of Huntington Beach,relying on data over twenty years old does not provide that knowledge—it is as if one were depending on a twenty-year old termite inspection report to determine if a house has termites. As stated earlier in this letter and in previous EIR comment letters to the City from Coastal Commission staff, current entrainment data will be needed during review of the proposed project's coastal development permit applications to the City and to the Coastal Commission. We also note that the state regulatory agencies participating in the recently completed Desalination Task Force convened by the Department of Water Resources agreed that the environmental review for proposed desalination facilities needed to include up-to-date entrainment datas. The EIR's current determination that updated entrainment data are not needed has at least two consequences—first, it does not provide adequate assurance that the project will conform to the City's LCP and to the Coastal Act; and second, it does not allow the results of the study to be used as they are intended to be used—to allow decision-makers to determine whether the project will result in adverse impacts and whether design changes or mitigation measures will be needed to address those impacts. There is no benefit,therefore, in certifying the EIR without this information, since it is part of the substantial evidence needed by decision-makers to make an adequately informed decision. In closing,we recommend the City not certify the EIR at this time. We instead recommend that, at the very least,the City incorporate updated entrainment data into a revised EIR. This would better allow the environmental review to conform to the applicable provisions of CEQA,the Coastal Act, and the Local Coastal Program,and perhaps more importantly, ensure that impacts of the proposed project are adequately addressed. Sin rel , Tom Luster Cc: City of Huntington Beach City Council members Poseidon Resources—Mr.Billy Owens California Energy Commission—Mr. Teary O'Brien Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board—NPDES Unit 5 See the Task Force's Final Report at:http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/recycle/desal/desal.cfm HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA � 1-'I 7-203 3=33PM FROM P. 1 2003 NOV I p 2: 3 5 • f SINCE 1864 FAX rr CALIrURNIA Dr_•.PART'vIENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ORANGE COAST DISTRICT-NORTH 8471 NORTH COAST HIGHWAY LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 DAVID R.-PRYOR ASSOCIATE RESOURCE ECOLOGIST (949)497-1421 (949)497-1177 FAX / '•1/20U3 TO: `lam �x.�.�--5. • FAX: RE: (�o s � -- PAGES ` v E 11-17-203 3:33PM FROM P_ 2 State of California.The Resources Agency E�L i Arnold Schwarzenegger,Governor DEPARTMENT Of PARKS AND RECREATION C I`T Y BF Ruth G.Coleman,Director Orange Coast District HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 3030 Avenida del Presidente 1003 NOV San Clemente CA 92672 I P 2- 35 (949) 492-0802 November 17, 2003 City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92647 Subject: Poseidon Desalinization Plant Environmental Impact Report Dear Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Poseidon Desalinization Plant. The California Department of Parks and Recreation owns and manages Huntington State Beach for the citizens of California. Millions of visitors annually come to Huntington State Beach to enjoy its wide sandy beach and world renowned surf. We remain very concerned about the water quality offshore of Huntington State Beach. Since 1999, ocean water quality postings and closures are common place due to high levels of bacterial. While many comprehensive studies have been completed to identify possible sources of this pollution, no apparent"smoking gun" has been identified. Currently, the AES Huntington Beach Generating.Station collects and discharges ocean water offshore of Huntington State Beach. This activity undoubtedly changes the natural littoral environment where the public swims daily. The quality of the discharges from the AES plant was recently analyzed in a water quality study. The findings of this study raises additional concerns regarding bacterial levels of coolant waters that are discharged. The proposal by Poseidon Desalinization Plant to utilize the AES ocean water collection/discharge facility will significantly alter the discharge salinity and make it more resistant to ocean mixing. 11-17-203 3:34PM FROM P. 3 Huntington Beach— Poseidon Desalination Plant November 17, 2003 Page 2 In light of the lack of information surrounding the causes of high bacterial levels offshore of Huntington State Beach, we believe permitting a significant change in the makeup of the discharge to the ocean waters near this public beach is premature. We ask that the City of Huntington Beach definitively rule out any connection between this industrial activity with the high levels of bacteria in the Pacific Ocean prior to approving any changes to the existing collection/discharge regime as proposed by Poseidon_ Thank you for considering our comments regarding water quality along the shoreline of Huntington Beach. Sincerely, Mike Top District Superintendent �► NOV-17-2003 15:35 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 714 536 5233 P.01 oOAAO OF OiRECTO" S i._J aEMH.OLSON,PN.O. G1AfaAVWtSON CIT;" CLERK SAUNDRA F,JACOBS 9AUJONN60N CIT OF JE HUNTFy-GTOfb BE .1 WALL JOHN J.OCMAY2 - CA athmnr�W7C- Santa Mangarzita1Wca"te' VID&Ladhict November 17, 2003 The Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor, City of Huntington Reach City Council Members 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Via Facsimile: (714) 536.5233 Dear Mayor Boardman and City Council Members: Following, are Santa Margarita Water District's (SMWD) continents concerning Puseidon Resources' proposal to produce up to 50 million gallons per clay of desalted water from a new plant in Huntington Beach, One of the hallmarks of the water industry is lung-term planning. 13ecause inl'rastructure comtructiort by it, very nature requires substantial lead-time,time, suppliers arc required to anticipate future needs long befum actual services are required. Ocean dCRalina[ion is no exception. We huve uu doubt that you struggle with these issues as well. In determining our luturc needs, we must unticipate the reliability of existing supplies considering ever-changing* water availability and overall demands. Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Itas vigorously puNued a itumber of projects designed to insure continued w;+ter availability and reliability for all of us, including desalination. MWD has solicittal proposals for up to five ocean desalination plants constructed within its service: area. SMWD joins MWD and an increasing number of salter Southern California water providers, both adjacent to the coast and inland, that belicvc desalination will be a fundamental part of California's supply resourees for purposes of increasing reliability and Lit least stabilizing Southern Califocniu's demand on imported sources. Stabilizing demands, I'or iutported so,urce.s from areas such as the sensitive Ray-T)elta niay also prove environmentally heneli6al. Thanks to this farsighted effort Lu support the advancement of doalitiatit.nt tochnolugy, five desalination projects in Southern California are tinder consideration, Togellier, these plants could produce ab rrtuch as 150,000 acre-feet of much-needed wMer cacti day. 2611 t Antonio Parkway,Suite A,Las Hores,CA 926tM8-Mailing Address;P.0.1iox 2279,Mistion Vieln,CA 926904279 CustumcrService(949)459-6420■Administration (949)459,6600.Opemion,i(949) 459.6430 NOU-17-2003 15:35 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 714 536 5233 P.02 oil The Honorable C'onnic Boardman City Council Members November 0, 2003 Page Two As we are sure you are aware, our region needs diversified water resources. Orangc County Water District is considering and will likely once again reduce the amount of water which its member agencies can produce from the groundwater basin. Additionally, despite apparent consensus, the outcome of the Quantification Scttlernent Agreement and thtty allocation of Colorado River water remains uncertain under the current cloud of litiplion. Over the nost 20 years, we can anticipate the same or nuw challenges to Southern California's current supplies, including State Project Water and California's infamous natural history of earthquakes, Protecting and robtering localized water sources are paratnot►nt for Southern California. SMWD believes desalinatioil provides yet another source, essentially an insurance policy, to underwrite Orange County' s water supply reliability. You are fortunate indeed to have (his virtually unlimited supply at your doorstep. While some fear that water supply diversification encourages growth, there is no question Orange County and thus the states overall supply reliability benefit from the development of local water sources. We appreciate your consideration of, and part in, this important regional pruject l,huL will also bctnent rruntington I'leach. Sincerely, I.'J,,�k John Schat- General Manager Santa 11tlargarita Water District 7n, A Pnn, oIJ t77! CT C,n, J,T AnN 74f74F,CvAOA: aT J914-Lm p1 i JP6J-eW 'elU2q TOTAL P.02 Nr6v�03 03 02: 41p Information Systems 714-901-5949 p. 1 f Page I 7 a ,, /)�.`"`.'aAot A'"' udy Session at 4 PM,not 5 PM Monday, Nov.3 ; is Standard Time rr � To: PPcgreen Forwarded Message: Subj: OOG:Poseidon Study Session at 4 PM,not 5 PAR Monday, Nov.3 JCVA-11 Date: 11/1103 6:27:59 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Jon V3 To: ipp.V3, oceanoutfallgroup@yahoogroups.com,sehbna.@yaho..ogrou_p�_com _ (� ►..r Dear Ocean Outfall Group(OOG)and SEHBNA: The Poseidon Desalination Study Session item on Monday, November 3 will be occurring at 4 PM, not 5 PM, as I misstated in a previous email.This will be heard in the Huntington Beach City Council Chambers at 2000 Main Street, HB.Remember 4 PM, not 5 PM.The Poseidon matter, EIR and Conditional Use Permit, are then scheduled for a regular HB City Council meeting on November 17. As you may recall,there are many cogent issues surrounding this matter that warrant careful consideration for the HB City Council to simply deny the project outright.The HB Planning Commission voted to send the matter to the City Council on a 3-3 vote to deny,which meant they sent it to the Council without a recommendation.Some of the issues include: 1.The harmful effects of the Poseidon discharge on the ocean. 2.The additive effects of the harmful effects from Poseidon added to the AES power plant operations. 3.The poor operational history of desal plants built by Poseidon(Tampa Bay). 4.The unforeseen difficulties and bankruptcies encountered by Tampa Bay. 5.The issue of privatizing public water supplies and the threats of environmental noncompliance and terrorist access if the plant becomes owned by intemational conglomerates. 6.The growth inducing impacts of the desal operations(Ranch Mission Viejo,Trabuco area). 7.The issue of HB experiencing the downstream impacts of increased densification and urbanization of inland areas while not receiving any benefits of the desal operations. (runoff, ocean pollution). 8.The local impacts of increased industrial use in a residential neighborhood(SEHBNA). 9.The prolongation of the AES power plant by the Poseidon addition. 10.The increase in beach pollution due to increased discharge into the ocean from the AES discharge pipe. 11.The impacts on wetlands. 12.The as-yet unknown impacts of entrainment and impingement within the AES intake pipes. Everybody has different concerns. Here are some from another citizen that were relayed to me: the Poseidon Tampa Bay project bankruptcy and sale, _ ti c the lack of contracts to purchase the water(no buyers), W z :Z the high cost of the water to the purchaser(other sources cheaper), o J Z n Monday,November 03,2003 America Online: PPcgreen D v o,r, , o x C7 s N n ---- -- N D Nov 03 03 02: 41p Information Systems 714-901-5949 p. 2 Page 2 of 2 the bacterial effects of pooling water with AES, the concentrating of pollutants then put back into the ocean, the likely sale of the project as soon as approved or built to a local agency, the loss of tax revenue when Poseidon project sold to a local agency, the extending of AES due to water and/or electricity for Poseidon, the effect on local community (SE HB wants parks and such, not more industry), the effect on the wetlands recently purchased next door, no benefit to HB but HB gets all the harm, and on and on,so many more. Benefits-source of water too expensive to purchase, more industry in SE HB, profits for Poseidon at the expense of HB residents,and ..." etc. I think itwoukt be a good idea if other people posted their concerns to me by reply mail. Please feel free to do so. In the meantime,you can get access to the EIR at the link: Poseidon Desal EIR 1 would also suggest reading the Coastal Commission letter of May 8,2003,which was never adequately addressed by the City at: CCC Poseidon Letter to HB 5_8.03 Hope you can make it Monday. It would be great to have a large turnout at the Study Session (for those available at 4 PM).The City Council needs to see that the citizens care,even if you do not plan to speak at Public Comments. Thanks. Jan Vandersloot(949)548-6326 Monday,November 03,2003 America Online: PPcgreen 11/14/2003 16: 56 7146397212 VAN BLARCOM PAGE 02/06 7-coOnC'1 1 -C,4y 4,1(, ,., , VAN BLARCOM RONALD A. VAN SLARCOM LEIBOLD Dircet Phone: 714-639-6700 birect Fax: 714-639-7212 MCCLENDON —,(a,CCOA.COm MANN 23422 Mna,CRESS.DRivr;,SUITE 105 - LAGUNA Huas,CAtiroxx2A 92653 'TEL 949.457.6300 • FAx 949.457.6305 A P.-6a]ONnL C- AI ION November 14, 2003 Honorable Mayor Members of the City Council City of T-Tuntington Beach, California. Re: Appeal ji.led by Mayor Boardman oj'lhe Planning Comnfrs.cion's Certification of Eni-ironmenlal Impact Report 1Vr,. 00-02 (Poseidon Feaivaler Desalination Report); Agenda Item D-2o.for the Noremher 77, 2003 Council Meeting Dear Mayor and Council.members: Our rrm represents Poseidon Resources, Inc. ("Pose.idon") with respect to the preparation and processing ofrnvironmental.Impact Report No.00-02(Poseidon Seawater.Desalination Plant)(the"FTR.") by the City of IIuntington Beach(the"City"). In this letter,we respectfully request on behalf ofPoseidon that the City Council deny Mayor Boardiii.an's appeal. and.take action to certify the ETR_ We maintain that the EIR should be certified by the City Council because the rTR,as required by CFQA, the CEQA Guidelines and controlling case law, has provided concerned citizens and decisionmakers in Huntington Beach with adequate intbrination about the environmental consequences of approving Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 (the"CIP") and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (the"CDIP".) All of the potcutially >i�,nilica.rti.cnviron:rncnia) effects tbatwere.iclentilied as resultitig from approval of the CUP and CDP have been disclosed in the EIR and,where applicable,mitigation meast,res to reduce such effects to a level of insi.giiifEiconce .havc been identified and imposed by the Planning Commission. The EIR therefore meets all. of the legal requirements imposed under CEQA. v For your convenience,the remainder of this letter provides an overview of the action taken by your Plannin^ Commission with respect to the EIR and summarizes reasons-why Mayor Boardman.'s appeal should be rejected. I will.be available at your November 17, 2003 meeting to answer any questions you may have with respect to certification of the MR.. 11/14/2003 16:56 7146397212 VAN BLARCOM PAGE 03/06 Poseidon Position Statement on EIR Appeal November 14, 2003 Page 2 Planning Commission Action On August 12,2003,after receiving dozens of hours and weeks of public testimony and conducting an exhaustive examination of the EIR over the course o.fIivcllleeti.ngs,the Plamung Commission certified the EIR, adopted Resolution No. 1582 and made the following findings; o The Planning Commission certified that EiR No. 00-02 was adequate euld complete in.accordance with CEQA requirements by apprnvin Resolution No, 1582. Through its adoption of this Resolution, the Commission's action to certify the FIR was based on a thorough review of Final EIR No. 00-02 which.consisted of the Draft EIR and Appendices,the comments receivi-d on the Draft EIR,the Response to Comments,the Appendices to the Response to Comments,the Errata to the Draft EIR, all of the Planning Department Staff Reports and Ccmimunications to the Planning Commission, the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings and all of the documents submitted into the record.before the Planning Commission.; • The Planning Commission found that the Final ET..R identified all of the significant effects of the project cold that there wee c llu kliuwri potential environmental impacts that were not addressed by the Final FIR; • The Planning Commission adopted a written "Statement of Facts and Findings" (attached as Exhibit "A"to Resolution No. 1592)addressing each of the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and found that each fact in support of the findings was true and was based upon "substantial evidence"presented to the Planning Commission; • The Planning Commission found that the Final EIR described and considered a.reasonable range of alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project; • The Planning Commission found that no"substantial evidence"had been presented which would call into question clip. facts and conclusions in the final MR-, • The .Planning Commission. Found that no "significant new information" had been added to the Final EIR; • The Planning Commission found that the Final EiR rclleutcd Lllc i0L1VPUT1de.nt juLigment of the Planning Coirunission. • 'The Planning Commission found. that the Final .FIR. served as adequate and. appropriate environmental documentation for the project and that the Final EIR had been prepared in comp.liance with the requirements of the California Environmental Qua.livy Act. 11/14/2003 16:56 7146397212 VAN BLARCOM PAGE 04/06 Poseidon Position Statement on EIR Appeal November 14, 2003 Page 3 The City Council should affirm the action taken by the Planning Commission by certifvi.ng EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete as recommended by both staff and the Planning Commission. Mayor Boardman's Appeal ofthe Planning Commission's Certification of the EiR Should be Rejected Because Alleged Deficiencies Havc No Merit iVinyor Boardman's appeal of the Planning Commisai.on's action to certify EIR No. 00-02 was (according to the Appeal Statement)"because the.EIR does not adequately analyze the project's impacts relative to ocean water uali , marine hicilopy, prnwfih inducement, and the adjacent wetland." 1% is Poseidon's position--a position supported by the administrative record now before the City Council — that the rTR did adequately analyze the projeet's impacts in each of these lour areas. The questlon of what constitutes a"legal"analysis of environmental impacts in an environmental impact report is not new. The answer is provided to this City Council and to other lead agencies by the CEQA statute(Public Resources Code sections 21000 el seq.),the CEQA Guidelines(California Code of Regulations. Title 14, sections 1.5000 el seq-), a.n.d, perhaps most importantly, by the cases decided by California Courts. Simply put,an environmental impact report is an environmental disclosure document. it is a.document of integrity and accountability. Onc California Appellate Court has succinctly stated that an environmental impact report"mast contain sufficient detail to help iaisure the integrity of the process of clecisionmaicing by precluding stubborn.problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug.' (Kings(I'Winly Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 733-) As the Council and staff has previously witnessed during the five Planning Comrnission m.eetingslhearings and dozens ofhours of excruciating analysis and muckraking,no criticism was ignored. unheard.or discounted, Jet alone "swept under the rug" during the exhaustive analysis of EIR 00-02. Tf anything, "stubborn problems" and "serious criticisms" were openly discussed and publicly dissected repeatedly, in meeting after meeting. Examination ol'the Poseidon projcct's potential to result in significant adverse impacts on ocean water quality and marine biology was seen by the Planning Commission as one of its most important tasks. In fact,after a majority oftlhc Planning Commission decided that the EIR met the reyuiVcInciits of CBQA, the EIR's analysis of ocean water quality and marine biology impacts was laid bare and revisited once again through a Commission-mandated peer review of Dr. Scott Jenki.ti's studies and Charlca Mitchell's peer review ofsame,by a second"peer reviewer"Dr. Stanley Grant. Dr. Stanley Grant concluded that Dr. Jenkins' methodology was sound before the decision to certify the FIR was finalized. In addition. information about marine life throughout the Southern California .Bight was scrutinised and found to be complete. The California.Supreme Court b.as explained that in applying the substantial evidence test for the validity of an EIR, the test is not "whether the studies are irrefutable or whether they could have been better." Obviously, experts may disagree on some points. Only a "clearly inadequate or unsupported 11/14/2003 16:56 7146397212 VAN BLARCOM PAGE 05/06 Poseidan.Position Statement on FIR Appeal November 1492003 Page 4 study is entitled to no_judicial deference." (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee a Board Of,por•t (-ornmissioner.s (2001.) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1356, quoting Laurel I-leis,>hty 1, 47 Cal_ 3d at 409.) Mayor Boardma» raised the issue of growth-inducement in her apprnl Enviromnental. impact reports must discuss the ways in which a project could foster economic or population growth. (Public Resources Code section 21100(b)(5);CEQA Guidelines sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(.d).) However,a dctai led analysis is not required. "Nothing in the Guidelines,or in the cases, requires more than a general analysis of projected growth. The detail required in any particular case necessarily depends on a multitude of I'actors, including, but not limited. to, the nature of the project, the directness or indirectness of the contemplated impact and the ability to forecast the actual effects the project will have on the physical environment. (Nora Citizens for•Hurle.i Gurerwneni v. 1VOI)a County Board o1;S'upervisors(2001) 91 Cal.App. 4"' 142, 369.) It is proper For the analysis of growth-inducing impacts to rely on growth projections utilized by other agencies. In Cannel-fry-the-.SPn v T_I S..Dept. of Transporiallon(901 Cir. 1997) 1.23 R-ld 11421, 1.1.65, the discussion of gro,,t th-inducing impacts for a freeway expansion project was legally adequate wlhere the analysis referenced "several local.planning documents"that included the project"in their L?rowth plans." As with other aspects of environmental.impact reporting. disclosure of potential impacts is key. CF,QA does not require the analysis to characterize growth as adverse orbenelicial. "it must notbe assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment." (CEQA. Guidelines section 15126.2(d).) The relationship betweenthe availability of water supplies and growth has garnered much attention in recent years. Tn fact,the Cilifuriiia Legislature has specil:ically amended CEQA,the Water Code and the Planning and Zoning Law and added a new procedure -reusing on the relationship between housing projects and water supply. 'Ilic Legislature could have arnend.ed tlic CEQA.provisions rclati.ng to analysis of growth-inducing impacts and required that a more detailed discussion be included in all environmental impact reports. lnctead it clhosn to n.reste anew procedure and reclu.ire preparation of a "Water Supply Assessment"ibr certain »ew.housi.ng projects. This new law-frames the discussion.properly. When new housing projects are proposed,detailed information about water supply sources is required. As recognized by CEQA. it is speculative and unreasonable to require regional water supply projects to provide detailed. information.about the myriad of specific housing projects that may be proposed in the fixture. Finally, Mayor Boardman also raised issues pertaining to the potential impacts on the wetlands located adjacent to the project site. Phis topic also received significant examination by the Planning Commission and several conditions were discussed that would provide added protection to the wetlands. Our firm and Poseidon's team of scientists and consultants assisted the City in preparing responses to all of the timely comments received on the E1R. We have ako carefully reviewed each late comment letter that has been received by the City regarding the FiR. We have worked with your staff to assist in providing responses to the topics and issnPs raised in.these letters and continue to do so. Most recently. we have assisted in responding to the letter dated November 7,2003, from Mr. Terrence O'Brien of the California Energy Commission staff. 11/14/2003 16:56 7146397212 VAN BLARCOM PAGE 06/06 Poseidon Position Statement on FiR Appeal November 14, 2003 Page 5 This last minute commentary offers speculative conclusions based on issues raised by project opponents regarding water quality evidence contained within the Draft FIR and further addressed in the Response to Comments. The coinnic.nt letlC,. is inerel.y recycling previously addressed criticisms of the water quality studies that were found by the PIann.ing Commission and staff to support the conclusions of the F.TR. ThF comment letter has not raised any new water quality impact i.nforma.tiuri that was omitted from the EiR. Further,speculation over information that may be derived from future and on-going studies does not render present and accountable water giiality studies inadequate. In addition to offering empirically suspect information, most of the cnmi-nents sct forth in the O'Brien letter simply urge the City to take a different scientific approach in tiie analysis of potential ocean . water quality impacts already addressed in the EIR. Because of the exhaustive and careful review completed by Poseidon's expert, Dr. Scott Jenkins, the City's expert, Charles Mitchell, and the independent expert, Dr. Stanley Cr-ant. the scientific approach undertaken in. the EIR remains clearly adequate and supportable and is therefore entitled to deference under CEQA. (.Berkeley keep,Iefs Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners(2001)91 Cal. App.4th 1344, 1356,quoting Laurel Heighis 1, 47 Cal. 3d at 409.) Some tray call for more time and further studies. But it is clear under CEQA that City does not need to"conduct every test and perform all research, study,and experimentation recommended to it"by interested.pa.rties_ (:4nrirry far('.alitirr�iaArchaeolo �v. C.'r�z,nt}�Of BLirrc'(I 977)G5 Cal.!�p}�3d$32,838.) On. Monday, November 17, 2003, Poseidon's representatives twill. be available to you to answer any questions you may have about late comments that have been received. Because 1.recognize that the Final EIR,including the supporting technical.studies,the stal'l'reports, the comments and responses to comments, and the numerous other documents now before your Council are voluminous, I have attempted to keep this letter short and to the point. Please recognize that your City staff.the C:ity's experts, the Poseidon team of scientist and consultants, and the interested citizenry have all invested signi.fica.nt tune in examining the potential environmental impacts of this important project. Please do not hesitatc to call un me utr Munduy ldgjil if' i can be of assistance in assisting your understanding of the evidence or the application of CF_.QA your determinations. Very truly yours. Van Blarconi, .Leibo M$ona 8c r� ByA. an Blarcom cc: B. Ow'ens Sep 09 03 12: 12p Poseidon Resources 562-490-2403 p. 2 ` Page 1 off 3 CI rY TY�OF Et ,- alo CU HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. From: JonV3@aol.com 1003 NOV I I A 10: 21 Sent: Monday,September 08, 2003 12:56 AM To: JonV3@aol.com;sehbna@yahoogroups.com: oceanoutfaligroup@yahoogroups.com; hbdac@hotmail.com;DSULLIVAN@socal.rr.com; BoardmaC@surfcity-hb.org; CBoardBCLT@aol.com; Hbmissjill@aol.com;glcoerpl@gte.net;CB4Council@aol.com; cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org;jhardy@surfcity-hb.org;phouchen@surfcity- hb.org;dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org:PPcgreen@aol.com:contact-pro@mindspring.com; rkokal@juno.com;Tom NeilLivengood@aol.com: rdd@socal.rr.com; steveray4surfcity@hotmail.com;shomaker@att.net;jdscandura@earthlink.net Subject: OOG et at:AES CEC Study,HB Planning Commission Tuesday, 7 PM September 8,2003 Re: Poseidon CUP,HB Planning Commission,September 9,2003 Dear Huntington Beach City Council and Planning Commissioners: This is part of my ongoing analysis of the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station Surf Zone Water Quality Study, Final Draft,prepared for the California Energy Commission,prepared by Komex H2O Science Inc, dated August 4,2003.After spending some 20 hours reading and rereading this report,these are my recommendations and findings for the Poseidon EIR,CUP,and further AES proceedings: Recommendations: 1. Because the AES CEC report shows that bacteria from the AES operations are discharged into the ocean and come back to shore via the AES plume,this whole report should be included in the Poseidon Desalination EIR,as a Supplemental EIR,because the findings in this report were not considered in the Poseidon Desalination EIR, and Poseidon will alter the AES discharge by virtue of concentration and addition. 2.The Conditional Use Permit for the Poseidon Desalination Project should contain requirements that: 1.All freshwater discharges from AES into the Discharge Vault of AES should be diverted to the OCSD for further treatment and not be allowed to enter either the Poseidon intake pipes or the AES discharge pipe.2.The brine concentrate from Poseidon should be diverted to OCSD for further treatment,similar to the treatment of the brine concentrate from the GWRS system. 3. Blackford's Ditch has characteristics of a wetland and should be considered as such in terms of enclosing it in a box culvert as part of the widening of Newland.4. Internal practices by AES that resulted in lower bacterial counts in 2002 than in 2001 should be identified and required for future practices to prevent backsliding. These recommendations are based on the following findings,with page numbers referring to the AES GEC Report: 1.The AES discharge plume into the ocean 1200 feet from the shoreline comes back through the surf zone and affects the beach,as proven by the August 2002 dye study.The plume reached the beach first at Station 12 North, and then appeared on the beach to the south(p.116-118)(plates 4-18,4-19b). 2.The discharge plume goes straight up to the surface of the ocean,without dilution,from the AES discharge port,which is 19 feet wide and only 11 feet below the surface of the ocean,at a distance of 1200 feet from the shoreline.At the surface of the ocean,the plume is diluted by 6 to 1, reaches the surf zone at 24 to 1,then the beach at a minimum of 36 to 1 dilution(p. 123). 3.The discharge plume, as evidenced by the-dye study,can reach the intake port some 700 feet away from the discharge port,at a dilution of 24 to 1 at 600 feet(p. 117).and the plume fills the entire water column(p.126). Komex did no measurements of dye inside of the intake pipe, however. 4.The bacteria from the discharge pipe get on the beach,contributing total coliforms,fecal coliforms,and 9/9/2003 Sep 09 03 12: 12p Poseidon Resources 562-490-2403 p. 3 Page 2 of 3 enterococci to the beach bacteria. Komex estimates that up to 16%of the Enterococci bacteria on the beach come from the AES discharge(p. 134). 5. Komex fails to consider the influence of beach sand acting as a reservoir and sink for continuous bacterial buildup and propagation from the AES discharge,although it does give an analysis of how bacteria survive and enhance in a saline environment(p.178-183).The independent peer review panel evaluating the OCSD Phase 2 investigation first proposed the role of beach sand acting as a reservoir.However,OCSD consistently denies that bacteria from its outfall ever reach the beach.On the other hand, Komex has shown in this report that bacteria from the AES outfall consistently reach the beach. 6.The intake vault contains high bacteria levels that Komex blames on a contaminated ocean(p. 107). However, Komex did not do any studies of the ocean bacteria at the intake port or the discharge port. If the ocean is contaminated at the intake port,this would be the first evidence that the ocean is contaminated with measurable levels of indicator bacteria at 1500 feet out from the shoreline,where the intake port is located 23 feet below the surface of the ocean. (p.17). 7. Intake Forebay bacterial concentrations between May 30 and September 28,2001,ranged up to 12,997 MPN/100 cc Enterococci(AB 411 standard is 104 CFU/100cc for a single water sample)(p.42). 8. Intake Vault bacterial concentrations in the summer of 2002 between July 12 and October 5,2002,would have caused 4 exceedances of AB 411 if collected in the surf zone(p.80). 9. Discharge Vault bacterial concentrations ranged up to total coliforms>24,192 MPN/100cc,fecal coliforms up to 1,296 MPN/100cc,and Enterococci to 1,694 MPN/100cc between May 30 and September 28,2001 (p.42)(AB 411 standards are a maximum of 10,000 Total Coliforms,400 Fecal Coliforms MPN/100cc,or 104 Enterococcus CFU/100cc in a single water sample)_Note that values>24, 192 exceeded the instrument's capacity;therefore the actual numbers are higher,maybe much higher. 10. Discharge Vault concentrations in the summer of 2002 would have caused a total of 6 exceedances of AB 411 standards if the samples were collected in the surf zone. 11.Bacterial concentrations at the intake and discharge vaults exceeded AB 41121 times if the samples had been collected in the surf zone(Table 5.1). Of these exceedances nine were observed in the intake value and therefore represent an import of contamination from the ocean. (p. 107) 12.A considerable amount of bacteria comes into the discharge vault of the AES plant from on-site fresh water sources."The source of the bacterial contamination within the discharge vault is most likely a freshwater source"(p. 107).These on-site sources include the General Purpose Retention Basin,receiving water from yard and in-plant drains (p.20),the Boiler Fireside Wash,the Boiler Sump Wash,the Storm Water Sump,and Blackford's Ditch on Newland.The discharge from the General Purpose Retention Basin goes into the discharge vault at a rate of up to 230,000 gallons a day. (p. 121). Indicator bacteria concentrations from these sources added up to 644 exceedances of AB 411 standards if the samples had been collected from the surf zone(p. 82 to 84). 13.Ammonia levels are very high within the system at both intake and discharge vaults,without adequate explanation.Only surmises are offered to explain high ammonia levels, including the highly questionable contention that bivalve biofouling occurs at an arbitrary density of 500,000 bivalves(mussels,clams)per square meter lining the intake pipe surface(p.112),despite procedures to prevent biofouling such as reverse flow heat treatments(p.19)and removal by divers.This would equate to a diameter of a bivalve being .003 of an inch,or 323 bivalves per square inch.The other explanation questions the accuracy and sensitivity of the EPA methodology,as Komex could not explain consistently high ammonia levels above 1.0 mg/1 in both intake and discharge vaults(p.112). 14. Data is thrown out if Komex could not explain it,such as low salinities on CTD Cast ft1.These salinities were thought to be not possible,so the salinity values were not included in the subsequent analyses(p.97). 15. Data had to be"rectified"or altered to match the data from other studies,including adjusted temperature data that was used to calculate adjusted salinities. (p.95) 16.The Grant hypothesis of entrainment of OCSD discharge could not be dismissed,and evidence of cold subthermocline water in the intake vault was found (P.138). 9/9/2003 Sep 09 03 12: 12p Poseidon Resources 562-490-2403 p. 4 • Page 3 of 3 f 17.An alternate hypothesis of entrainment of water and bacteria from the San Gabriel, Los Angeles,or Santa Ana River,by the AES plume is suggested.(P.141). 18.The computer model of the plume discharge did not match the actual observations of the dye study until far field distance.The near field and intermediate field were not accurately depicted by the UM computer model (p.127). 19. Blackford's Ditch along Newland qualifies as a wetland. It is called a creek(p.58)."Approximately 100 feet of the creek has water present to a depth of two feet.The presence of adapted plants and small fish observed in the creek suggests that the creek is a standing body of water for long periods" ..."The creek is hydraulically connected to the discharge vault and,at high tides;ocean water from the discharge vault may be forced up into the creek.'(p.58).Also,salinity concentrations were approximately 2/3 of ocean water and decreased along the length of the ditch from the pump house to the dry inlet(p. 93).Also,tolytriazole, a corrosion inhibitor used in the AES plant,was found in the ditch(p.93). Blackford's Ditch is also called a creek,with poor water quality and high concentrations of indicator bacteria(p.108). 20. Internal practices in the AES plant improved high bacterial counts in the discharge vaults and other locations in 2002 compared to 2001 (p. 136). No mention of what these"internal practices"actually were. If verified,these practices should be codified. 21. In-Plant Water Quality Measurements included the following high values: Intake Vault. Enterococcus to 590 cfu/100 cc(AB 411 is maximum 104)(p.80) Discharge Vault: Enterococcus to 610 cfu/100cc(p.81) Blackford's Ditch:Total Coliforms up to 370,000 cfu/100cc(AB 411 is 10,000) Fecal Coliforms to 31.000 cfu/100cc(AB 411 is 400), Enterococcus to 62;000 cfu/100cc(AB 411 is 194)(p.82) Boiler Fireside Wash:Total Coliforms to 68,000,Fecal Coliforms to 4,300, Enterococcus to 160,000 cfu/100cc(p.82) Boiler Sump Wash: Total Coliforms 21,000, Fecal Coliforms 3,800,Enterococcus to 11,000(p.83) Storm Water Sump:Total Coliforms to 11,000,Fecal Coliforms to 1,400, Enterococcus to 2,200(p.83) General Purpose Retention Basin:Total Coliforms to 32,000, Fecal Coliforms to 9,400,Enterococcus to 700(p.84) These all show high numbers of indicator bacteria that get discharged into the Discharge Vault and ultimately out into the ocean,where they come back to shore. The Poseidon desalination operations may act to concentrate these bacteria and other freshwater toxics such as corrosion inhibitor,and therefore all freshwater inputs to the discharge vault should be diverted to OCSD,where the toxics can be regulated under OCSD's source control program. In addition,whatever toxics and bacteria that are concentrated after Poseidon's operations should be sent to OCSD for further treatment similar to the GWRS program. Respectfully submitted, Jan D.Vandersloot, MD 2221 East 16th Street Newport Beach,CA 92663 (949)548-6326 9/9/2003 i / - 1 10 November 2003 Mz. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, Tod. Floor Huntington Beach, CA.,92648 Subject:Poseidon Project There are three important considerations that should be included in the environmental report if they have not already been included;they are #1. During reverse osmosis the input is divided into two fractions: one the fresh water fraction and the second a fraction containing the minerals,organic materials including bacteria and viruses. This second fraction comprises the effluent and may be too concentrated to support sea life. 0 #2. During the 1950' the writer experimented with some applications of osmosis and reverse osmosis. One observation was that these processes were heat sensitive. Since the desalination plant is being built near the power plant they should consider using the power plants waste heat if they have not already done so. This will be beneficial to the ecology as well as improve the plants efficiency. #3. This writer has heard that some surfers are experiencing rashes while surfing at Huntington Beach. If this is indeed true then the culprit may be alkalinity brought about by the use of chlor-alkali by the sewage disposal plant. If the water is indeed excessively alkalin this could pose problems for the desalination plant. The filters and some metal parts may be damaged by the caustic water. /Res �,}r� eorge E. pp 431 Lomond Huntington Beach,CA.,92646 x o C o Z W � Z � � y C`7--i r:• � JI W c") o � 11/U7/LUUS 1t3:�Ull WJuuc STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS.Govemor CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1513 NINTH STREET s SACAAMENTO.CA 96814-5612 November 7, 2003 Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r � RE: Comments on the City of Huntington Beach EIR for the Proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant The California Energy Commission was the lead agency for the recent retooling of the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS) Units 3&4. Accordingly, the Energy Commission has an interest in projects that have the potential to affect the i power plant's operation, facilities or existing permits. The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant (SDP) currently before the City is such a project. Recently, the Energy Commission staff received several comments on the Final Draft Surfzone Study for Huntington Beach which references the Poseidon EIR. After reviewing the EIR, staff realized that many of the baseline environmental assumptions used in the SDP EIR are based on inaccurate assumptions about HBGS operations including overly optimistic future operations. The Energy Commission recommends that the City not certify the EIR for the Poseidon SDP or approve the project until the EIR is corrected and complete. Energy Commission staff have participated in the state's Desalination Task Force. The Task Force was composed of representatives from federal, state, and local agencies, industry, and environmental groups. The Task Force: 1) helped evaluate the potential benefits and impacts of developing facilities to desalinate seawater or brackish water to create new drinking water supplies; 2) found that economically and environmentally i acceptable desalination should be considered as part of a balanced water portfolio to help meet California's existing and future water supply and environmental needs; and 3) emphasized that desalination projects must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine which projects are economically and environmentally acceptable. Because each facility is essentially unique, and given local water supply and reliability needs, site-specific environmental conditions, project objectives, and proposed technologies, case-by-case analyses are essential. Energy Commission staff support the general Task Force findings and recommendations. However, staff has concerns that the EIR developed for the SDP project does not provide adequate consideration of the current operation of the HBGS that forms a key part of the environmental baseline required for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis for the SDP facility. The EIR also fails to adequately consider the foreseeable effects that the operation of the SDP would have on the environmental impacts of the HBGS. The attached comments highlight our concerns. 11/07/2003 16:00 FAX wJuU� Page 2 Planning Director Zelefsky November 7, 2003 We are also reviewing changes, if any, to the design, operation, and/or performance requirements of the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station Units 3 and 4 that may result from the proposed SDP. The purpose of this review is to determine if the AES HBGS Units 3 and 4 project will be modified. Modifications to the HBGS Units 3 and 4 will require Commission approval. We look forward to assisting the City in any way we can. If you have questions regarding these comments or need additional information, please contact me at (916) 654-3924. �Sincerely, Terrence O'Brien, Deputy Director Systems Assessment and Facilities Siting enclosure cc: Huntington Beach City Council —Connie Boardman, Mayor Cathy Green Gil Cooper Debbie Cook Jill Hardy Pam Houchen Dave Sullivan AES HBGS— Rick Tripp Poseidon Resources—Andy Shea California Coastal Commission—Tom Luster Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board—Mark Adelson State Clearinghouse 11/07/2003 16:00 FAX „_, Vuy California Energy Commission Comments City of Huntington Beach Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant The California Energy Commission has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant(SDP), which would be located at the Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS). The Energy Commission was the lead agency for the recent retooling of HBGS Units 3 &4. Accordingly, the Energy Commission has current knowledge of the HBGS operation and impacts, and an interest in projects that have the potential to affect the power plant's operation, facilities or existing permits. Recently the i Energy Commission staff received comments on the Final Draft Surfzone Study, for Huntington Beach which references the Poseidon EIR. In reviewing the EIR, staff realized that many of the baseline environmental assumptions used in the Poseidon EIR are based on inaccurate assumptions about HBGS operations including overly optimistic future operations. The Energy Commission is providing the following comments to the City of Huntington Beach detailing our concerns about the EIR.The Energy Commission recommends that the City not certify the EIR for the Poseidon SDP or approve the project until the EIR is corrected and complete. RELEvAw AES HBGS BACKGROUND Based on the California Energy Commission's approval (00-AFC-13, May 2001) AES retooled its Units 3 and 4 (rated 225 MW each), both taken out of service in 1995. Prior to being retired these units were operated sparingly. In addition to Units 3 and 4, two other units are operational at the power plant, namely Units 11 and 2. The power plant operation varies depending on electricity demand and remains below permitted levels. The existing intake and outfall structures (constructed in the late 1960s) serve Units 1 through 4. The existing circulating cooling water system consists of a 14 foot diameter intake structure, intake and traveling screens, pumps, and a 21-foot diameter discharge pipe. Located approximately 1,650 feet offshore in roughly 27 feet of water(mean low low water), the intake structure rises 15.8 feet above the ocean floor and is equipped with a velocity cap. Maximum.mean velocity specified in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit: at the intake is 2.0 feet per second.With two units operating, the discharge velocity is 1.1 f/s. The discharge structure is located approximately 1,500 feet off shore in water 25 feet deep, about 350 feet from the intake structure. The discharge pipe rises approximately 15 feet above the ocean floor directing flows to the ocean surface. Eight cooling water circulator pumps (two per generating unit) deliver up to 44,000 gpm (63 mgd) each for a total capacity of 352,000 gpm (507 mgd). 1 11/07/2003 1U:UU FAA W.-J Pump operation is dependent on power generation and system requirements, which varies seasonally. Based on monitoring reports from recent years, only two pumps operate during most of the winter months and only four pumps operate most of the summer months, 'Cooling Water ump Operation for AES HBGS 1997-2001 Year 0-3 pumps 4 Pumps 5-6 pumps 7-8 pumps 1997 284 da s/78 % 81 days/22 % 0 0 1998 276 days/76 % 89 days/24 % 0 0 1999 279 days/76 % 86 days/24 % 0 0 2000 1207 days/57 0/1 158 days/43 % 0 0 % 1 2001 183 days/5017da s/32% 65da s/ 18 % 10 On June 30, 2000 the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board re-issued NPDES Permit No. CA0001163, Order No. 00-5 for HBGS' ocean intake, industrial waste discharges and stormwater discharges. This permit is based on the designed capacity of the entire plant, not just the retooled generating units, and is valid for five years. Several constituent concentration limits are established for the waste discharge to the outfall (Discharge Serial No. 001) and are contained in the NPDES permit. Residual chlorine concentrations in excess of 0.2 milligrams per liter are prohibited and measured pH levels must be within 6.0 and 9.0. Maximum wastewater flow is 516 mgd. Water from the Pacific Ocean is carried through a concrete conduit from the Intake point into a screening facility. The initial screen system is designed to remove large marine life and debris, while the traveling screens remove smaller debris and marine organisms. Chemical treatment of water supplies is required for use in the HBGS processes. Sodium hypochlorite is added to the cooling water to control biological growth in the generating unit condensers. Periodically, heat treatment is also used to remove marine growth in the plant's cooling water system. Other chemicals are used to control pH, corrosion and scale in the cooling system. Added chemicals are discharged with the plant's cooling wastewater effluent to the outfall in accordance with the HBGS' NPDES permit. Other waste streams currently permitted to be discharged with the cooling water include metal chemical wash water, boiler blowdown, reverse osmosis/deioniaation brines, laboratory and sampling streams, water softener regeneration brines, yard and in-plant drains and stormwater. The existing NPDES permit specifies wastewater thermal discharge is not to exceed 30 degrees F above the natural temperature of the receiving waters with allowance for the waste discharge to not exceed 125 degrees F during adjustment of the re-circulation gate (heat treatment for bio-fouling control). Thermal limits also include increases of no more than 4 degree F at the shoreline,the surface of any ocean substrate and the ocean surface beyond 1,000 feet from the discharge point maintained at least 50 percent of the duration of any complete tidal cycle, According to the NPDES Monitoring Reports for 2 11/U7/GUUJ 1V:U1 FAA 1996 to 2000, the differences in discharge temperature and that of the intake waters ranged from 8.4 degrees F to 24.7 degrees F. Tides are semi-diumal (two high and two low tides during the tidal period), with a mean tidal range of 3.7 feet. Flood tides flow upcoast; ebb tides flow downcoast. From February to October, northeasterly winds produce upwelling that brings colder, more saline water with less oxygen and high nutrient levels to the surface. Ocean water temperatures typically ranges from 55°F in the winter to 67OF in the summer. During the Commission's license proceeding, the City of Huntington Beach I raised concerns that increasing the water volume intake from and discharge to the ocean by HBGS may result in further surf zone water quality impairment and beach closures. Since 1999, Huntington Beaches (both state and city) have been closed on many occasions because indicator bacteria levels in the surrounding surf zone have exceeded state standards. Studies at that time suggested that the power plants intake and discharge facilities caused an upwelling of the bacteria from sub-thermocline waters transporting the bacteria to the near-shore region. Staff's draft report analyzing AES HBGS'potential impacts on the surfzone water quality was issued in May 2003 and a final report will be issued prior to the end of this year. I Entrainment and impingement studies for most California's coastal power plants are quite old, of little value. or nonexistent. These old studies that exist are of little value to determine existing and ongoing impacts caused by the once- through cooling systems. For those coastal power plants where recent entrainment and impingement analyses have been completed (e.g. Moss Landing, San Onof re, Diablo Canyon, and Morro Bay), all show these systems to cause significant impacts to marine biological resources. Staff currently is conducting an entrainment and Impingement study of the AES HBGS cooling system. The final study results are expected to be available by the end of 2004. ; GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE CITY OF HUN7nNGTON BEACH EIR No.00-02: 1. The EIR should incomorate accurate information regarding the power plant's actual and expected operation, physical structures and processes._ HBGS has not operated at permitted levels for several years, certainly not in the last decade. As a result,to assume that existing baseline conditions for purposes of defining the SDP's impacts for purposes of CEOA analysis are the HBGS' permitted levels Is incorrect. Rather actual operating levels, emission rates, flow rates, heat loading, discharge levels and quality over the last decade need to be used to define current environmental conditions to evaluate changes that will be caused by the Poseidon SDP and to define the associated impacts - direct, indirect and cumulatively. In addition,the CEOA analysis needs to Incorporate the realistic fife expectancy of the AES HBGS. The EIR analysis of potential impacts associated with the Poseidon SDP assumes maximal flow rates and operational conditions of the power plant. 3 11/07/2003 16:01 FAX WJ uui These assumptions mischaracterize the existing environmental conditions. In order to meet Poseidon's water production objectives, the desalination facility will need to operate at full capacity, 24 hours a day over 90 percent of the time. In contrast, the AES power plant cooling system frequently runs at 25 percent generating capacity and is subject to seasonal variations in energy demand. Power plants can be shut down for various lengths of time due to maintenance and market conditions. A complete analysis of the desalination facility addition at HBGS must also include a description of how the power plant and desalination facility operations will be coordinated. Information on historical and future power plant operation and the changes in its operation that would be required to meet the objectives of the Poseidon facility must be incorporated into the analysis of the SDP's potential environmental impacts. A desalination facility that continues to operate when the power plant is not operating will cause impingement and entrainment of marine biological resources as well as water quality impacts that would otherwise not occur. Incorrect data and assumptions related to the intake and discharge structures and plant treatment processes was used in the modeling analysis. As mentioned above the actual location of the 14-foot diameter intake structure is 1,650 feet offshore in roughly 27 feet of water(mean low low water), rising 15.8 feet above the ocean floor equipped with a velocity cap. The 21400t diameter discharge structure is located approximately 1,500 feet off shore in water 25 feet deep, about 350 feet from the intake structure. The discharge pipe rises approximately 15 feet above the ocean floor directing flows to the ocean surface. In addition, raw ocean water will not be diverted to the desalination plant, but rather ocean water treated for use in cooling the power plant systems as described above. 2. The Citv's CEQA analysis should incorporate current information being generated regarding the bower plant's baseline environmental impacts. As part of the power plant's NPDES requirements, regular sampling and monitoring reports must be submitted to the regional board that provide valuable information on the HBGS' operation and environmental impacts. In addition, the Energy Commission conducted a review of the HBGS retooling and its potential impacts as part of the Commission's licensing proceeding. The Commission's decision approving the retooling of AES HBGS' Units 3 and 4 requires two additional studies to assess the power plant's impact on aquatic resources and surfzone water quality. A draft final of the surfzone study was released in May 2003. The aquatic resources study is underway. The EIR analysis should Incorporate the information from the available reports regarding the baseline environmental impacts of the AES HBGS to determine the SDP's cumulative impacts. 3. A comprehensive entrainment and impingement study should be conducted to determine Poseidon's SDP impacts on aquatic resources and this information included in the EIR. Co-locating a desalination facility with a coastal power plant may justify the continued use.of once-through cooling at the power plant. However, once-through cooling technology has well-documented impingement 4 11/07/2003 16:01 FAX wJVV0 and entrainment impacts to marine biological resources. As recently as October 2003, the Desalination Task Force indicated in the Department of Water Resources report, Water Desalination—Findings and Recommendations, that the siting of a new desalination facility, which utilizes a new or existing open water feedwater intake, will require a current assessment of entrainment and impingement impacts as part of the environmental review and permitting process. Unfortunately, none of the City of Huntington Beach or consultant documents contains any analysis of the impingement and entrainment impacts of the existing AES Huntington Beach power plant and whether the proposed Poseidon facility would cause a significant increase of these impacts. The impingement and entrainment analysis for the existing retooled AES HBGS is currently underway, and final results of the yearlong study are unlikely to be available until fall 2004. 1 Although staffs analysis is not yet complete, it Is clear, however, from the i information contained in the EIR that the addition�of a desalination facility will ! likely increase the volume of ocean water flows and,thus, impingement and entrainment impacts. 4. New EPA Rules will address once-through cooling systems and should be noted. In February 2004,the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to update the Clean Water Act rules regarding impacts of once-through cooling facilities. These rules may require significant changes to existing power plants, such as HBGS, to decrease impingement and entrainment impacts, or require significant mitigation. Changes to these federal Clean Water Act rules have the potential to affect the design and operation of the'Poseidon SDP and would best be taken into account prior to any decisions about the proposed desalination facility. Based on available data, addition of the Poseidon SDP would require increases in the pump operation and ocean water flow rates at certain times of the year that are two to three times the intake volumes needed by the power plant. 5. Analysis Regarding Impacts to Source Water is Incomplete. The source water contamination analysis did not account for chemical treatment of cooling water by the power plant that occurs prior to the diversion point for the desalination facility. Nor did the analysis fully recognize current information on the power plant's baseline discharge plume. To achieve a valid impact assessment, this information must be included to;address additional pre- treatment requirements for the cooling-source water that may be needed prior to . use by the desalination facility. It is also important to address potential impacts to intake water that may result from the altered characteristics (thermal and chemical) of the discharge plume that are caused by SDP operation under various power plant operation scenarios. It must'be noted that the SDP analysis assumes a distance between the intake and discharge structures that is more than twice the actual distance. 5 i 11/07/2003 16:01 FAX WJ UV If 6. The EIR Should Include a Thermal Plume and Dispersion Analysis for Cumulative Impacts and Compliance with Applicable Regulations. Information in the EIR suggests that the proposed project has the potential to significantly change the power plant's discharge plume characteristics (physical and chemical) and these changes are heavily dependent on actual power plant operation. The salinity analysis does not adequately characterize these changes to the environment likely to occur from operating the SDP. The worst case defined for analyzing salinity effects makes several assumptions about plant operation and the frequency with which a worse case condition would occur(DEIR, p. 4.3-12). The power plant operation, however,varies seasonally and frequently operates with fewer than four pumps running. In addition, variations in oceanographic conditions are well documented in several recent studies and should be reflected. It is unclear if the analysis accurately accounted for the plume characteristics of the AES discharge and the changes that would occur. Currently the power plant's heated effluent discharge results in a plume that remains near the ocean surface as it dissipates. Based on recent studies conducted of this discharge plume, dilution and mixing of the plume are not as vigorous as originally expected, but rather may have areas of prolonged, poor mixing that conveys concentrated discharge to the shore (see Draft Final, AES HBGS Surf Zone Water Quality Study:) It is unclear from the analysis performed and information provided what assumptions were,used in the EIR to determine what would be the actual temperature and chemical characteristics of the combined AES HBGS/Poseidon Desalination effluent. The EIR should include a plume analysis for the combined discharge to determine potential impacts under several scenarios including anticipated SDP operation (50 mgd) and various power plant operational conditions (zero, two and:four units running), flow velocities and seasonal oceanographic conditions in the vicinity. In addition, the modeled salinity levels and the amount of acreage expected to be affected by the increased salinity may be in violation of the current NPDES permit requirements. Specifically, the Regional Water Quality Control Board may determine that the Increased salinity and the anticipated impacts to the marine species at the location of the outfall do not meet the Clean Water Act Section 316(a) requirement that the discharge provide for"adequate protection to the beneficial uses (including the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous community of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is made)." 7. The Assessment of Potential Impacts to Water Quality in the EIR is Incomplete and Underestimates SDP's Potential Impacts. The impact assessment associated with the SDP waste stream discharges underestimates potential impacts to water quality and overestimates dilution rates of the waste stream. The EIR incorrectly describes a "typical day" for the power plant and relies on maximum cooling system pumping rates (507 mgd)to calculate dilution of the waste streams. As can be seen in historical records of plant operation, peak 6 11/07/2003 16:01 FAX yJvau pumping has not occurred for the last several years. "Typical"summer flow rates are frequently no more than 253.44 mgd and winter flow rates are 126.72 mgd. Based on this data, the applicant's projected dilution of the Poseidon desalination wastes (cleaning wastes, filter backwash, concentrated brine) by AES' cooling water are significantly over-estimated. In addition, the analysis considered each desalination project waste stream separately, not the project's combined waste stream, or in combination with the AES waste stream discharge. The EIR analysis also lacks consideration of season variability in oceanographic conditions. This has the effect of underestimating the direct and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the SDP operation. +� Additional considerations that need to be reflected in the water quality analysis include the periodic heat treatments performed by the power plant to maintain the cooling system and compliance of the combined discharge with EPA's Effluent 1, Guidelines and Standards for"Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category'. A complete chemical and water quality analysis is needed to determine the realistic change in discharge water quality from the combined AES and Poseidorj wastes to determine what the dilution rates are likely to be and what potential impacts may occur from Poseidon's combined waste discharges. Quantitative discharge chemistry analyses are needed to determine If the addition of the 'first. flush" and other desalination wastes will react with the waste discharges of AES HBGS and what the potential effluent constituents will actually be under average and minimal dilution rates (not maximum). 8. Impacts to Sediments from the Combined Effluent must be addressed in the EIR. If it is determined that discharge salinity concentrations result in the sinking of the discharge plume, an analysis of potential impacts to sediments and benthic organisms that occur there is needed considering the various process waste streams, including metal cleaning waste, that will cumulatively be discharged by these facilities. According to AES's current NPDES permit, discharge of settleable material or substances that may form sediments which will degrade benthic communities or other aquatic life is prohibited. The EIR should include a cumulative impacts analysis that clearly identifies all chemical constituents that may result from the SDP operation at HBGS. 9. Poseidon's potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts must be more fully assessed and the impacts associated with this new coastal development mitigated. Based on information provided in the EIR, the Poseidon SDP has the potential to cause a significant change in the operation of the AES HBGS' cooling system irrespective of the power plant's operation. In addition, the life of the Poseidon project has the potential to greatly exceed that of the AES power plant. Since this is a new coastal development, appropriate design modifications to upgrade the intake and discharge structures should be considered to ensure compliance of the Poseidon project with requirements for new coastal facilities 7 11/07/2003 16:02 FAX WJ U11 using marine intake and discharge structures absent the power plant. However, if upgrades to the AES facility are required to ensure the efficient operation of the SDP, the EIR needs to include a cumulative assessment of expanded power plant operation and needed upgrades. This analysis should include bringing the intake and discharge structures and effluent discharges up to current standards for protection of marine resources and to extend life of HBGS so as to ensure delivery of heated water for desalinization. 10. The CEQA Analysis should include Health Risk Assessments for the Proposed Project Emissions. The off-site underground booster pump station will include two diesel powered emergency electrical generators (p. 4.4-12). The EIR notes that sensitive receptors exist within the vicinity of the underground pump station (pp. 4.4-9, 15). A health risk assessment should be done for emissions from periodic testing of the diesel generators. The EIR should describe applicable SCAQMD emissions requirements for such engines and note intended conformance. A listing and locations of sensitive receptors near the project site and pump station should be provided for informational purposes. In addition, the EIR should explicitly state if there are emissions of toxic air contaminants anticipated during routine facility operation. If so, a health risk assessment should be provided that conforms to the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Guidelines. The EIR notes that fine particulate matter(PM10) emissions from demolition, remediation, and construction activities does not exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold (Table 4.9-8), so PM10 impacts are not considered significant (p. 4.9- 15). This type of analysis does not consider the specific potential health effects from diesel exhaust particulate matter, a carcinogen and toxic air contaminant. A health risk analysis should therefore be presented for exposure to diesel PM (see related recommendations pertaining to the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel). 11. The EIR Construction-Related Impacts Analysis needs to be expanded. The EIR determined that short-term construction impacts for ROG, NOx, and CO would be unavoidable and significant (p. 4.9-15)..As such, CEQA requires all feasible mitigation measures to be recommended. The EIR should discuss requiring all construction diesel engines to meet, at a minimum, the Tier 1 California Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines as specified in Calffomia Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2423(b)(1) unless such engine is not available for a particular item of equipment. In addition,the use of widely available ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel,(15 ppm) should be required, rather than low-sulfur (50 ppm) diesel fuel as mentioned in CON-9 (p. 4.9-25),to reduce health-related impacts from diesel particulate matter. 12. The Waste Management Analysis in the EIR is incomplete and should include appropriate classification information. Information pertaining to sampling%management/disposaVrecycle options for the following materials should 8 11/07/2003 16:02 FAX wj uiz be provided, as well as their classification as hazardous or non-hazardous, if determined to be a waste: e 2,000 cubic yards of containment berm soil (p. 4.9-2) a 380,000 gallons of fuel and distillate oil(Id.) e 20 tons of storage tank insulation (Id.) a 100 tons of external storage tank shell material (ld.) e 2,000 cubic yards of concrete footings or piles (Id.) a 60,000 cubic yards of excavated soil for the underground product water i storage tank (p.4.9-4) e large quantities (should be specified) of slurry from directional drilling (p. 4.9-7) 8,800 cubic yards of soil, including 1,600 from remediation activities, from pipeline construction (Table 4.9-5) e 16,000 cubic yards of excavated soil from booster pump station construction A description, including quantities, classification, and proposed management I methods, should be provided for all solid wastes to be generated during routine operation of the desalination facility. s 93 Surfrider Foundation November 5, 2003 Huntington Beach City Council City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Poseidon Desalination EIR Appeal Dear Mayor Boardman and Council Members: I am writing as a representative of the Surfrider Foundation and our more than 37,000 members in regards to the City Council's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to certify the Poseidon Desalination Facility Environmental Impact Report(EIR). First I would like to thank the City Council for carefully scrutinizing this EIR and ensuring that all.the potential environmental impacts are thoroughly documented. The City Council is providing an invaluable public service by ensuring full compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. . As you may know; the Surfrider Foundation, several other environmental organizations, and numerous concerned citizens have submitted comments to the Huntington Beach. Planning.Commission during the public review of this proposal. We believe the public cominent period uncovered,numerous issues and concerns that are appropriate for inclusion in the EIR. Unfortunately, the issues raised in written comments,public testimony,and by Planning Commissioners were.occasionally recognized as significant, yet were not analyzed in an amended EIR. Furthermore, given that the issues raised were not documented and analyzed-.by the consultants who prepared the EIR, the.public has not been given the opportunity to comment on the City's treatment of those issues. Therefore, we request that the City Council thoroughly review not only the written comments submitted to the Planning-Commission,but the public testimony as well. Furthermore, we request the City Council deny certification of this EIR until all the reasonably foreseeable impacts are documented and analyzed. Only then will it.be appropriate to consider the permits necessary for the construction of this facility. For your convenience, we are attaching below a condensed list of some of the major concerns we raised during the public review period. This list was submitted to the Planning Commission in our August 5, 2003 letter to the Planning Commission. This is NATIONAL OFFICE • P.O. BOX 6010 • SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674-6010 (949)492-8170 s FAX (949)492-8142 • www.surfrider.org • E-MAIL info@surfrider:o.rg f a merrbr r Earth Snare.. not an exhaustive list and, as we said.above;we hope the City Council will thoroughly review all,the public comments before making your decision on the EIR. Once again,thank you for your consideration and for the invaluable service you are providing.by ensuring a thorough and concise.EIR. Examples.of Unresolved Inadequacies in Huntington-Poseidon EIR 1) Proiect Description First,the project,is too narrowly defined to allow a thorough'review of alternatives that will fulfill the purpose of supplying additional drinking water for as growing Population. The project description characterizes the desalination product water as a. "local source of water for the region and contrasts that with-"existing import"::supplies. Responses to comments in this regard_conclude:that alternatives.such as wastewater reclamation and conservation do not meet the project description and-purpose because they are still reliant on imports and, in the case'of water reclamation, do not supply.water. approved for..drinking. This narrow description precludes the analysis and documentation of alternatives that would potentially serve the more accurate,yet unstated,purpose of supplying water.(in general).to the region. For example, supplying water from reclamation for the limited purpose of irrigation would still have the indirect affect of conserving more water for drinking. Plus,water conservation is a proven method for meeting the increased drinking water demands of the past decade—and there are.plenty of conservation efforts still left to initiate. This inherent flaw in the EIR has.disallowed the comparison of supplying water to the region through expanded efforts at waste water reclamation and water-conservation.. In 'a region that is plagued with problems of non-point source pollution and limited sewage-.. treatment capacity,the flawed project characterization.has precluded alternatives that.are. arguably moire environmentally sound and economically preferable. Therefore, the ED? should be revised to describe the project in a manner that allows thorough analysis of alternatives that serve the purpose.of responding to our currently unsustainable use groundwater.and imported water, Furthermore,the project proponents suggest that the "new"water product will offset. the region's"current use of groundwater and imports—thereby creating environmental benefits in the form of-water left in the.aquifers,rivers and.Sacramento:Delta: .However, there is no documentation or analysis of how this claim will be assured success. In fact, it is reasonable to assume,that if the water product from this project"goes to induce immediate population growth and development in the region;than we will be just as reliant on,imports and groundwater after the project is complete as we are now.. Therefore; the EIR should be revised to either substantiate the-claim that the desalination water product will in fact offset our unsustainable reliance on other`. - Sources,.or inform the public that there are no assurances where, when or how this water will be used This is sign ficant information that thepublic and decision makers a should be aware of, and the EIR should be revised to eliminate any misleading . statements to,the contrary. 2). Treatment of Entrainment/Impingement The EIR argues that the addition of the desalination facility to the AES generator facility will not.create "additional"marine-life mortality from,entrainment and impingement: This is a significant issue that deserves thorough analysis and•public review. Recent concerns and actions by both state and federal fisheries management authorities have highlighted threats to numerous species of marine life and healthy marine ecosystems, as well as the'pending collapse of commercial and recreational fisheries that are apart of the fabric of our coastal communities and economies. While we believe that the current.entrainment and.impingement rates are illegal and need to be eliminated,there are several issues that potentially undermine the assumption that the desalination facility will not create"additional"marine life mortality: Issues of concern uncovered.during the public comrnent.period, as well as during public'testimony include: discrepancies between the energy industry's.public comments.to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Poseidon's comments to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission. Briefly,the.energy industry has argued that their once-through cooling practices do not kill all marine life that.is:impinged or entrained in the process--while Poseidon argues just the opposite. - testimony by the consultant to AES, Chuck Mitchell from MBC,that some species of marine life will.likely survive the cooling water process: questions raised by Commissioner Davis about the interaction of supply water from the generator during shut-downs and the concentration of brine. Will AES have an incentive to run its cooling water pumps at an.elevated capacity during :maintenance shut downs and low.demand periods; only to supply sufficient amounts of water.for the desalination-facility(including enough pass-through water to.dilute the brine.discharge)? More on point, does the cooling water . system continue to kill marine life at the assumed 100%mortality rate when the . generator is not operating=and if not,"does the desalination facility then become liable for"additional"marine life mortality? - discussion about the inapplicability of-the Clean.Water Act Section 316(b) studies to the.question of"additional".marine life mortality. As the Commission heard, the 316(b)studies assume 100%mortality as a precautionary approach to: recording the impact of cooling water intakes. This assumption is not applicable to the question of"actual" survival rates after the.generator. In order to test for.. marine life mortality from' the desalination facility,the precautionary assumption would be reversed and we would assume the greatest potential survival rate from the generator and 100%.mortality.at the reverse osmosis filters. .the question of whether the additional load on existing_electrical supply;:caused by the desalination facility,will cause the:generator to run.at times it would otherwise be shut down. This.concern is arguably exacerbated, and also taking on regional implications,as news reports uncover plans to build desalination.- facilities in at least 6 or 7 other locations in the Southern California Bight 1 (Oxnard,El.Segundo,Long Beach, San Onofre, Carlsbad and San Diego)..The cumulative energy demand for these numerous desalination facilities;and'the . accompanying additional marine life mortality, demands more in-depth analysis of the contractual:agreements for energy supply, as well as analysis of the true technical aspects.of delivering electricity to the desalination facilities.•In other words, do the desalination facilities actually draw energy from the co-located generator(thereby taking.advantage of the diminished transmission costs), or are the energy demands.met by.foreign generators-supplying electricity through the grid? If the issue of"additional"marine life mortality is.deferred to reliance on the grid, and the supply market,.how will the cumulative energy demands of numerous desalination plants affect the regional operations of coastal generators?.` What is the pattern of coastal generators' operation during"peak. demand"_which will arguably occur more frequently with the addition of desalination facilities—and how does this impact manne.life populations and ecosystems in the Southern California Bight? It is inadequate for the EIR to simply state without support that the desalination plant will not create additional marine life mortality. Therefore, the EIR should be revised to. document these-issues and analyze the impact of the Huntington Poseidon facility,.and any foreseeable future facilities,for cumulative impacts on marine life and healthy marine ecosystems .3) Documentation of"End Users"and-Effect on Regional Water Supply The EIR.inappropriately dismisses the need to document the-"end user"(or delivery point)-of the desalination product.water. .As noted above; instead the EIR makes general statements about the water being delivered to the region to offset.the need for imported water to supply'a growth rate predicted for the year-2020.. Nonetheless, during the public testimony period of comment,Poseidon was pressured to admit that 25 million gallons a day of the product water was to be delivered to the Santa Margarita Water District" Since then,there has been much debate about whether or not this water will remain available for offsetting population growth in the region beyond the dramatic development proposed for the Rancho Santa Margarita area.:This has only highlighted the need for full disclosure of the"end users"of the.product water. Furthermore, this last minute "significant"disclosure only accounts for the delivery of one-half of the planned water product. This EIR,at its core, is about full disclosure of information and analyses so that decision makers can make informed decisions; and the public can scrutinize their care for' the environment Therefore, certification of the EIR should be denied until the project proponent can identify the end user.of the full amount of water product Furthermore, the contract ; with Santa Margarita Water District should be documented in the EIR and the foreseeable impacts from the delivery of 25 million gallons a day to this area,fully. analyzed(Le.,potential increased urban run-off problems, and the potential need for expanding sewage treatment capacity). Alternatively, the EIR could be amended to state that there are no assurances that any of the water supplied by this project will be reserved to offset currently unsustainable reliance on groundwater and imports This is . 4 a critical element of the public's understanding of the purpose of this project and the EIR should be perfectly clear on this point CONCLUSION The issues raised above are.simply examples of the numerous inadequacies in the current EIR. We remain concerned about the thoroughness of thus EIR not only for the direct implications of the project at the local level,but for the precedent it may set for the evaluation of future desalination projects, as well as the cumulative impacts as-more and more desalination facilities are proposed for the region. We understand and appreciate the difficulties this responsibility creates for the Huntington Beach City'Council and staff. Nonetheless,it is the duty imposed by CEQA.that the EIR adequately- inform the public about foreseeable impacts from projects like the Huntington-Poseidon Desalination Facility:: We look forward to further debate. Please feel:free to contact me at any time to discuss this comment letter. Sincerel r7� o Ge ver So rn California Regional Manager Surfrider Foundation PO Box 60.10 San Clemente;CA 92674-6010 (3.10)410-2890 or,i•_eeverc usti? _'•er.Cyr v Cc: icki Ramos,Planning Commission Staff N_ _11A� (,;I'FYr CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA October 31', 2003 2003 NOV -b P 4: 2 8 Honorable Connie Boardman NOV — 5 2003 Mayor City of Huntington Beach 200 Main Street - - Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Honorable Mayor: My name is Tanveer Rao, and I am a resident of Huntington Beach at 18606 Park Ridge Lane, Huntington Beach for the past 5 years. I have seen our City grow significantly in these past 5 years and am excited about what our City is doing for our future plans. The City offers so many amenities that make it a great place to live. Our reliability of water is becoming more and more critical for our future growth. I have been following the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project during the past year. As a resident I am in complete•support of this project for several reasons: - It reduces our reliability on Metropolitan Water District(MWD) of Southern California as the only source of imported water for our City's needs. - It helps create additional water supplies that are not presently available at a competitive price. - It introduces competition to MWD of Southern California that will help us obtain better water rates in the future as we increase our need for additional supplies. - It provides a state-of-the-art technology resource that will have a long life span for our future generations to take maximum advantage of. In light of these excellent reasons, I would like to request that for the benefit of our Huntington Beach community and its future, you consider the approval of this project seriously. The implementation of this project offers many community benefits. As a Civil Engineer with more than 20 years of experience, and having a solid understanding of water issues in Southern California I can sincerely submit that a new water source from the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will be a major benefit to our community. Res ectfully, Tanveer Rao. PE / d' C 'ERK CITY Or November 4, 2003 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 1003 NOV -b P 4: 28 Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. i N10 V 6 2002 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT Dear Mayor Boardman, My name is Gino R apagna. I have been a resident and homeowner in Huntington Beach since July 1995 (over 8 years). I am proud to be part of this community; I'm sure in part due to the lifestyle that our City Council has helped to develop. I write to you today in strong support of the seawater desalination project which is under council consideration. Being a registered civil engineer for over 10 years, specialized in environmental, water treatment and civil infrastructure, I have significant understanding of the issues surrounding this project. Although I am in not professionally associated with the project, I feel that it would be quite beneficial to our great city to allow the project to be implemented as proposed. Please consider the following: Huntington Beach is an environmentally conscious community. • Seawater desalination is environmentally friendly. • Close proximity to AES power plant provides opportunity for environmentally friendly design. • This project reduces reliance on other environmentally-UNfriendly means of water supply, such as groundwater, Colorado River water or surface water from other MWD sources. The HB community will have a new high quality water supply. Water quality will be better than the current supply. Moving forward provides opportunity for leadership, education and advancement In dealing with water supply issues that have impacted Southern California for many years. Success is achieved by teaming with industry experts, like Poseidon Resources. All project issues, including those related to environmental, aesthetics, noise, safety, construction, etc., can be appropriately managed by teams with experience in construction of seawater desalination plants. The answer is in effective project implementation, not project avoidance. My home stands less than one mile from the project site. I am in total support of this very important project. Sincerely, fino Rapagna Homeowner and Taxpayer 8132 Pawtucket Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 i -ockway, City Clerk iuntington Beach �� Arc U.s -)f the City Clerk c �L �A r �. Box 190 �; t 'i, _3 Ell i Beach, CA 92648 a Y H tit R 5 6 2 -o ro 114 150 50 STATE OF CALIF DEPT OF PUBLIC r ,SINGTp 21643 Pacific Coast Hwy - Hwatin-ton Beach,CA 92646 8y — 7103 INTr "1`f_EGAL�NOTICE - PU LIC H iING t A5 iJiiC= JLD � Qss� £a 11�I�I1�11�11�1,i1,Il f�l11�,,1JII It fi�It1,11t111111111i1 -ockway, City Clerk iuntington Beach - ' - :of the City Clerk ^r > O. Box 190 -:_ _• . n Beach, CA 92648 N ,�,E _F,5 6:,` ; 0 b 11415072 ► INGtp OCCUPANT �f'� 21851 Newland St#35 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 YNTV LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC'HEARING-E R ': - H_ r�� ti;<��-- $i+; 11,11,1,11111111III lilt 11,1111 lilt i11�1111111,f11tillIII1►1111 ockway,City Clerk !untington Beach *i Athe City Clerk �a � � � - ��', o t. �s I i Beach, CA92648 ' H.M,;7E2s6`Z! 7a � yK L � J��J J J I J•J 'J 114 150 72 OCCUPANT :�IN6T0�, 21851 Newland St A210 AMR p+,,,o B�. HuatingtonBeach,CA 92646 r v Smar L f \ T 0 INTI �a LEGAL NOTICE- 11BE .; OWN , il�l�,��l�l�{I� �Iti,II»l�il�►s,�,fll�Isdlt,�1,1,111,«lii141 i :ockway,"City, Clerk luntington Beach of the City Clerk O. Box 190 =� t' "i�:'_, ` %; ;� n Beach,CA 92648 H M,-7ER5b Z.,i �I 114 1zU 7'L n Or✓� 7 OCCTj-PANT ` �a JIN6T 21851 Newland St�`1 / 3 O,y� Huntington Beach, CA 92646 ,w.ral,►� M -0 �AT��' LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC IN ��UN�.vp III III till III III I III IIIIIIII,IIIIIliIIIII III if1111 I luntington Bpach )f the.City Clerk I Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 114 150 72 (I N6Tp OCCUPANT. US PU44 ?f-,, 21851 Newland St*170 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 ----- TO - ------ rTr �;LEGALNQTIM-EPUB1 L S p D -1 JaING D tf� SQ:26 11 it's I list I I I I III JII 11 1 11 11111111111 11 11 111 If I I I I I I I I I I I -Z :)ckway, City Clerkrr untington Beach cn I 0 if the City Clerk z L;I j : "- - I BOX 190 Beach, CA 92648 Fj M ETJ ER.S-6 2 2 7 0 114 1:50 72 OCCUPANT MGT- 21851 Newland St X I-,-o 111171 V Huntington Beach, CA 92646 L y %N1 NTI B LEGAL NOTICE- PU U )f the City Cleri I Box 190 1 Beach,CA 92648 F. i'Ail': Ei-2 11415072 ,TIN6TOp OC21851 NCUPANT 7142 ewland St#158 .ON 4, Huntington Beach,CA 92646 LEGAL NOTICE'_'PUOUT-HEAB& untington Beach )f the.City Clerk I Box 190 w.,-j i Beach, CA 92648 C LN 114 150 72 occUPANT N6 L 7 r; A 6 1-4 - 21851 Newland St-9 7; A! Hundngton Beach,CA 92646 p LEGAL NOTICE-RUpp�ABVfA-- M- ockway, City Clerk -T 0 A" U.S, POSTALF !untington Beach )f the City Clerk 71 yyyy I Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 r T E 5 6 2 21 7 0 /* 4e 11415072. OCCUPANT AO( �(I n�r- 21851 Newland S.tg bog Huntington Beach, CA 92646 J LEGAL NOR GE, ?V13 III 1111fliIIIII MULL fill 111fil 111111111111 luntington Beach )f the City Clerk —3 D. Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 F1 iMETZF.5-:-22 1141S072 OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St i285 HuadVon Beach, CA 92646 14 ft.'s N fT Vi ockway, City Clerk luntington Beach -, A the City Clerk J. Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 wv `'' -.� -a 1 TING Tp�, HARNEK S BRAR p„p.�,�o B�• OR " CURRENT RES I DENT. 21591 SURVEYOR CIR � rrT1417 M;TON BEACH .92646 NYC `EGAL NOTICE- 0 1{t11Et,I11 lilt!I{ICI{ ,111{ {{t,,,t{,l{ :•r�r �D ..)ckway, City Clerk untington Beach )f the City Clerk ^� 111 s� r —+ +1 I Box 190 L,� �:� Iu'J'-J i Beach, CA 92648 a '- `' % - s -A— 11415072 �-02 ICJ �IN6Tpy OCCUPANT ap•,►., ��9 21851 Newland St'454 s Huntington Beach, CA 92646 AT LEGAL NOTICE SARI Y J "4 6 - 1{t�lliill{i{{111{il{Iil{1{Itl lilt {1{i{Ii{{Itilt{11{ltiEti{tl� (— )t the City Clerk 0. Box 190 W`-•J 'tr i Beach, CA 92648 • 1 114 150 72 i. JIN6Tp OCCUPANT w•ro..,,y�F 2ISSI•Newland St#190 =_ 9y Huntington Beach,CA 92646 )ckway, City Clerk T ,,, U.S.ntington Beach ,� - c .s.Po''" ` I the City Clerk r� 4 f1 __ -� ,' ). Box 190 ':i n� "�%' w o, Beach CA 92648 x a y . H METER-56 ] wam, it 939 480 06 OCCUPA T 21591 Surveyor Cir#3 A iIN6Tp Huntington Beach,CA 92646177 n c� IkT`F' `"EEML NOTI .�E- PU13�1�&pffi�'o 2: 111i1111i lilt 1111ii ils III ItIiild, A the City Clerk - J. Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 aL ` C H y;Erg=gSi6-Z PA 114150 72 tlJ- 7.�� OCCUPANT ,TIN6T 2I851 Newland St#281 pyd Huntington Beach,CA 92640 �t uoo.►9 `CEO f•i� � �1.� - --- — �-• ----'�.:?!=• -'-, ATV LEGAL NOTICE- PUB 0 i "I A. t 46IIIIIIlilliiiltIlli_. ^f. � iuntingtor Beach d w \ c A the City Clerk C J : `T ! J. Box 190 1 Beach, CA 92648 PA ETEf 70 x-I 114 150 72 OCCUPANT ,TING Tp 21851 Newland St A a� - �'� Huntington Beach,CA 92646 ,�f 03 ockway, City Clerk luntington Beach u''' T A the City Clerk73 3. Box 190 d i Beach, CA 92648 H METE'!552Z!10 114 150 72 OCCUPANT tIN6Tp,�, 21851 Newland St#231 - + } Huntington Beach,CA 92646 s - it its NTI a c TEGAL-NOME--PU U `R 4 411,I.,..1,1,1I���i„11► {III,,,,�,lll,I,JI„�i�l„li�„��I,II ckway, City Clerk intington Beach " °'N` ~� i the City Clerk Box 190 W � n� � ! Beach,CA 92648 H is rR S622 148 121 22 OCCUPANT I NGTp 9521 Edison Ave H� ..ro•,,,, � Huating-tonBeach,CA 92646 - a c LEGAL NOTICE =.PU EARIU6694 )ckway, City Clerk U.S.POSTAGE untington Beach *S J the City Clerk is � x�+ ). Box 190 1 Beach, CA 92648 y H b'ETE �62270 *. 114 150 72OCCUPANT (IN6Tp 2I851 NewlandSt Huntington Beach, CA 92646 -ockWay, City Clerk r- iuntington Beach )f the City Clerk 0. Box 190 - i Beach, CA 92648 = V1. S1N6Tpy lOC/�1U5P0 A772�7�}. '/7• "10'"•0 ��y 21851 Newland St�174 ~' s Huntington Beach,CA 92646 NT '=LEGAL 10T1 €E SUB I R C p 11►i„I fill III II III IIIIIIII[„„»illill�{!�„1,(�,II�„111111 D ockway, City Clerk untington Beach = t )f the City Clerk I Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 i1M6T 11415072 OCCL�ANT f� Fy 21951 Newland St 1100 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 L GAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARIN r f ii�1����1�1�(!„�!►�tf �t�it���;��il!►l,�IL��l�t►Jt�����l�ii glib, %-w )ckway, City Clerk :,r �GY ol,,�. untington Beach f the City Clerk `J ). Box 190 L� Beach, CA 92648 ay N 143 121 17 — /�/ 03 OCCUPANT i IN6 8641 Edison Ave ,ockway, City Clerk luntington Beach )f the City Clerk 0. Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 C 'i M,E 'K!S"3 1 U711. H NIE U115�t2; T INGTpy RESIDENT 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #2 A ,� —;2 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 /7 41 T 0 --A-T n Q Nk- 1 '7 R, NTY LEGAL NOT�U-t rPIBIG3 c 1 0 47� r- fill'. IIIIIIIII III 7 )ckway, City Clerk En intington Beach (a 0.15. POST"'.." f the City Clerk < iz� r%%/ X� Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 wn 114 imu IL OCCUPANT 21s5i Newland St 0273 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 -_ 9y � �� /7/03 LEGAL NOTICE PUB .&WC4 fill I I I I Ill I limll Ill IdIll I fit tl I IIIII ckway, City Clerk -ntington Beach the City Clerk Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 H M ETE 5 2 2 0 ,q%,lztL-�Ij 114 150 72 OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 9,B&I .1---- --- -----t- I A^,f A Z ING /2 :)cKway, City Clerk untington Beach )f the City Clerk I Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 P. METE 5 6 2 Z!7 C "MIM-M 114 150 82 OCCUPANT L,A IZ 21752New1and St Huntington Beach,CA 92646 fW NAY a GAL NOTICE.- PUJ3UC&WQaQ92i 111111,11.111 df III fill 111 11 rodkW—ay, City Clerk luntington Beach of the City Clerk 0. Box 190 -_Beach, CA 92648 WOVIM r 1.3 .is MISS I I •10/ 14 I50-7-2 OCCLIPANT 21851 Newland St A -2.e 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 -z'. NT LEGAL NOTICE- PUBY ;rockway, City Clerk Huntington Beach C U.S.POSTIA.!E of the City Clerk .0. Box 190 Z! n m Beach, CA 92648 H 114 150 72 OCCUPANT 2 1851 Newland St#-2-is MNG Huntington Beach,CA 92646 13 ckway, City Clerk intington Beach the City Clerk Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 C r\ H M 11NI occUPANT 21 SS 1 Newland St 426.7 . ING Huntington Beach, CA 92646 S k, -A G nL LIV6 MGGALN ICE - PUB 4 ."KG.1...,. . f', S ED luntington Beach of the City Clerk O. Box 190 n r n Beach, CA 92648 H IN 1 E TE R S 6 2 2 pp C 11415o72 OCCUPANT 22� 21851 Newland St:4 2-q Hun tingt0n Beach,CA 92646 VTY A n- LEGAL NOTICE- PUB 7 ,ockway, City Clerk iuntington Beach 511 )f the City Clerk 7 D. Box 190 L.'13 i Beach,CA 92648 t 4 M,E TEE R'S -22 7 C-1\ A- M.,B T-11 114 130 53 OCCUPATNT 2175224APadflcCo=Hwy Huntington Beach,CA 92646 /0/-// _ ////��Q� 'kway, City Clerk n. ntington Beach the City Clerk Box 190 3each, CA 92648 114-150-26,51,55 10 State of CA,Dept.of Public Works 1025 P Street /7 I UPG Sacramento,CA 95814 LE L NOTICE- PUBk1,%VEARIN4 ri—A A Es 14 :)ckway, City Clerk U3.FO57 untington Beach if the City Clerk Box 190 ' 22 Beachi. CA 92648 H ME EF%56 , 11415053 STATE OF CALIF DEPT OF PUBLIC IMsroy 1025 P St Sacramento,CA 95814 in OTICE- PUBLIG V. RINq:.rr A71 V.E 14 ockway, City Clerk .untington Beach 3 )f the City Clerk I Box 190 WX H PI; Beach,CA 92648 FIRED I GRIMES 7,0000-1 OR CURRENT pPSIDENT q022 RHODESIA DR MNTINGTION BEACH 926 - 0 )ckway, City Clerk untington Beach if the City Clerk Box 190 Beach,CA 92648 H M,ETER 5 6 2 2 0 1114 LaV ZU OCCTJPAN1T 21643 Pacific Coast Hwy FMORA Huntinzon Beach,CA 92646 i. 'GAII It WMICE 6�YPRM-VAi63,-j '!AS ADDRESSED Hp ADDRESSED ,ckway, City Clerk U.S.P 071 Ac. intington Beach M7 f the City Clerk j'j�1 Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 A ET f L Q ITI li�l a /0 114 150 28 FLOOD CONTROL 1�j OPLANGE COtj 71e P& DISTRICT AP"044 4v_ 21621 Magnolia Ave Huntington Beach,CA 4 ;X"Sol VTI LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC. HWJW1 )cKway, City Clerk untington Beach if the City Clerk Box 190 _7v Beach, CA 92648 n ,P—.214 US yuh&WUdffe Service ��/ - ///�'���.3 er Avenue West ING 2730 Lok Ca d&ad CA 92009 USF1720 qaoo82518 1A02 58 11/13/03 )ckway, City Clerk intington Beach f the City Clerk Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 H fi ME:P 1-1i 149-031-18 ROBIN J NAIKATSUKA 9081 BOBBIE CIR h7JNTINGTON BEACH 92646 /-/7 zi 0'/ 0& 55-7 NAKA081 9-06463024 1703 46 11/12/03 RETURN TO SENDER NAKATSUKA s=f=1r . N 1% r% AnnRESS - URABEE' to FORWARD LEGAL NOTICE — PUB LIq .k#ING )ckway, City Clerk untington Beach )f the City Clerk Box 190 Beach, CA 92648. 149-031-29 4 1 VILLA JOHN p & SONIA .9062 BOBBIE CIR - HUIVTINGTON BEACH 92646 ////71PJ lama,,' VILL06R 9a6463024 1902 46 11112103 .FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND VILLA EO 40,! 47 5PO�LLOW 5PRINGS RD - EONA VALLEY CA 93551-7aBS LEGAL NOTICE— PUB$',I ,WING %SID 9 11111111111 1 list 1111111111111 it 1111111 1 11111#111 it 111111111111 ockway, City Clerk !untington Beach )f the City Clerk Box 190 71 1 Beach, CA 92648 H !L.�E-i"T,'SL72 Z! 149 -024-Ub RAFAEL B RODRIGUEZ 9 0 7 2 KAPA-k DR H=INGTON BEACH 92646 <-A --) vay, City Clerk ngton Beach 3 City Clerk 3x i90 ach, CA 92648 Z:2 7 14 9.-0 3 1-2 0 TEDDY J & KAMN POBU 9061 BOBBIE CIR �� ���/�,�d� Oy H=INGTON BEACH 92646 FORPOBWAUORD&I*TIME 926EXP46302RTN4 IATO SE02 46 ND11/12/03 POBUD 'TED -rn WAY p` _— APPLE VALLEY CA 92306-6748 LEGAL NOTICE- PUBL I m WING .y, City Clerk 1ton Beach -pity Clerk V, 190 :h, CA 92648 J 149-0 24-13 0 MARCELLA' V GRAHAM 916 2 yAPAA DR HuNTJINGTON BEACH 92646 LEGAL NOTICE - PUBUC UW IN -pity Clerk 190 ,,h, CA 92648 F M F TJ'_: :3b 70 114 150 72 OCCUPANT 21351 Newland St dF Huntington Beach,CA 92646 )ckway, City Clerk 14 untington Beach ,f the City Clerk , - "� I Box 190 � �,-, . % - �l �' _ ." • =� i Beach, CA 92648 IV% L.t.. S1/s�1�4? i v!d vs NB ve �� �7 pfIN6Tp, A 90743 / 9 NTr ca - LEGAL NOTICE- PU SM III till,III Ill, i,l„!I„:„I,II ockway, City Clerk untington Beach L )f the City Clerk �. Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 ,_:- `�l `; t (l.:r - _ - - !u•�'4{jk"-�^'F.it' !'s rJr/�ir�r� -as r{�Ii~i i. .r... .:�'!. L3: r.. �__.r.r i l!v •ram v 149-032-04 JUDY M HOHL 9141 REGATTA DR .TING Tpy TnMTINGTON BEACH 9264E s HOML141* 926463024 1802 46 11/12/03 Q FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND i. 1-OHL 'JUDY M B70Q AI 5 ITTFP+_: WAY iL ►� `�O� _ COEUR D ALENE ID 83815—R140 NTr LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC. . �6AANG �z��►a- ;kway,City Clerk ntington Beach the City Clerk Box 190 3each,CA 92648 v iq'�L�•i{irL�k° { T°.tf,'r]1 + + fti r{:i i 149-031-07 !�{� �._. . ... _. �!t.r j ROBERT L WILSON Z�14 9021 REGATTA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 /-/� y/�� �16Tpp, ockWay, City Clerk luntington Beach :n )f the City Clerk 0. Box 190 J i Beach, CA 92648 LLIZ Cam' s H "A ETER-c-'6 2'17 114-481-10. �zIN6Tp Gerald Railey 22042 Hula Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 RETURN LEGAL NOTICE- PUB M E CB -I)lilt 11111111111 lt li 11111111111111111 :)ckway, City Clerk untington Beach J the City Clerk Box 190 Luff.) Beach, CA 92648 iz 6 2! �-�/f I� -71 114-482-18 IAN M J.A1qES MASTERSON 9102 PLAYA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 IRETURN ITI E R woc I!- I .. EARI%at�a646 ckway, City Clerk intington Beach :n the City Clerk Not DelnraW As Addressed Box 190 Unable To Forward 103 Insufficient Address Beach, CA 92648 13 Moved,Left No Address 7- 13 Uncialmed 0 Refused C1 Attempted-W Known 0 J'-.'o S0 Street 13 Number ir- esail M IMNS EN P �mS � r FG-Y, L pnct o n.a 90720 rockway, City Clerk -iuntington Beach of the City Clerk O. Box 190 n Beach, CA 92648 '� H METER56.22 7o fi; - - / �TIN6TQ,y 114 482 07 ,ta•ro.,,,e d�. Ca J JOHNSTON 22092 SUSAN IN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 : LEGAL NOTICE-PU ,LCIEARI � 32846-Q% i:4£.. ___: }k►{ ,,►Yilrli_�i�l,rl}t{ltllt,r:t„i}I,lr�il>� }�{��ilrt,,�{�}i ockway, City Clerk luntington Beach )f the City Clerk4 ' 0. Box 190 ' I i;� ' S n� r f, '� f i Beach,CA 92648 H M T L,' 73 x ---- 149-041-24 a 940 422 BILLY E STEVENSON iIM 6Tp�, 9092 ADELIA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92 64 6 RETURN, R E T U R h -- MTY ca LEGAL NO SrARI {�t�rsss�tltltrrlI'd l•iEJutJtTressll}s1s�}�ttt•}r}sr�r.ttif}t�� — -ockway, City Clerk iuntington Beach j �•. ^� �1 )f the City Clerk J. Box 190 .i Beach, CA 92648 Z &RIA_N W LINDSEY `D j1 � 11/� �3 yzzz:z 212 8 Z YARMCUTT; TAT ' 7 TIYw-V. ockwey, City Clerk :untington Beach A the City Clerk D. Box 190 i.Beach, CA 92648 M RGARET E LOUR7 IR C .;j . S IDENT RENT RE .;z CURRI - JIN6Tp 22001. ilTJLA, CIR""44 t 9 2 6 .""44 V=TtXGT0W BEAC12 7N LEGAL k�NOTICE-,.P.Uj "fill I,�EARIN�1_2 Jim . 11fildill-1111 ,ockway, City Clerk iuntington Beach PC;-5j.-­--T-: _)f the City Clerk n r! D. Box 190 f i Beach, CA 92648 C H.METER5622.?3. NING 114-482-08 FRIEDA KNERR 9061 CHRISTINE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 RETURN RETURN NTY LEGAL NOTICE - P i� , 11 * dti I111s4II 1l, ill III ockway, City Clerk luntington Beach )f.the City Clerk D. Box 190 - i Beach, CA 92648 H NIETER 22 70 94 ,tl2222->_ 3Q NG] 114-481-17 J EFF REY A NELSON )ckway, City Clerk intington Beach f the City Clerk Z Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 H Ni ETZ IR E-;6 2 2 7 0 149-011-01 ,362flNGjpy BILL MALAV.AS 1 9001 BERMUDA DR, HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 , 11 ETUR',1 D E.R1 itoo LEGAL NOTIC-E-:B LIBL�ICEARIN I untington Beach of the City Clerk 0. Box 190 'k n Beach, CA 92648 n n H ME ER56 Z! 70 fj7f l 149-023 -01 - --- al LEE N HUpp 21841 KIOWA LN ING HUNTINGTON BEACH 92 64 6 T U P,t, FR' 'NTY y TO LEGAL NOTICE Py Wg�"NG untington Be-Ach ,f the City Clerk Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 :s 2 -0 F! METE5 V Ir CLIFFORD & PHYLLIS HALL r I I C�'- 9111 CHRISTINE DR p. r HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 3rockway, City Clerk Huntington Beach of the City Clerk �0.!'Box 190 on Beach, CA 92648 11415075 �hTIN6Tp�, OCCUPAN fc 21621 Ntapaga.St lef7tAdc/, on Beach,CA tfer)7 Ch Huntington 0 S Wed Unknown Ll r7kt7ovvn/V mbar 9UNTI 6A LEGAL NOTICE -'PUBLIC'HF'J ' )ckway, City Clerk untington Beach )f the City Clerk LD I Box 190 13. Beach, CA 92648 p 9 71 149-041-09 UNG Thomas&Athena Guije 9091 Adelia Cir 95 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 MfN N RETUR�i Nli iGIL-NdTj .P I F�6"9264 6 H 149-041-09 2z4;1 Thomas and Athena Guije 9091 Adefla Cir Huntington Beach,CA 926406 'LEGALA OTICE - PUBLIC HEARING - :)ckway, City Clerk 2. untihgton Beach )f the City Clerk Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 IFF H M EU 5 2 2 ful "rn :1. 114-495-01 HELEN :T VIALA 9272 CHRISTINE DR '-,40 CV 14 9( HUNTINGTON B.EACH 92646 ?Z4 9r 03 PETURN TO -LEGAL NOTICE PU%0 gWNG LF; r SZE. vw -ockway, City Clerk luntington Beach :)f the City Clerk jj D. Box 190 LU Co i Beach, CA 92648 Q`= A 7 �11_ L H METER-9622 C-4 MMY-11 1 1 f f1fl:f V111 11 149-033-05 MARJORIE 'M BENDEES 'Z9_ 9132 REGATTA DR JING HUNTINGTON BEACH. 92646 IRE T!J - PUB L AL NOTICE ING Ill 11111 fill 1111i 4" . S2( )n Beach, bA­4i648_ H METER-96-2274 sz sS3 twnwin, I NSTpp, Taylor&Dan McGinnis 21 752 Pacific Coast Highway 14 0 1'771 3 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 U R.11 ockway, City Clerk (untington Beach )f the City Clerk J. B6,x i go Lu F13 0— i Beach, CA 92648 J. H M;72TEEP, rV*j 14 9-0 14-10 FLU LARRY S POE 9142 KAHULUI DR 71 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 ---A IR 11 T R FNT! -IEGAL:: TICE- �ffigMING 9 -ockway, City Clerk iuntington Beach 3f the City Clerk O. Box 190 117, W.3 i Beach, CA 92648 --'5 1� to H M.EE T E.Ti'5 6 2 7 0 149-011-13 0//.- 11171g?3 JODY R RODGERS 9151 BERMUDA DR ING HUNT INGTON BEACH 92646 4-7-7 TU R N FTLn—c-CA YTO SENDEI-Rt;�-,— INTI LEGAL NOTICE- R I .N2 2644 Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 F! IM ZETE.93 5 2 Z! 7 0 149-042-03 THOMAS L NICHIOLS 21642 POLYNESIAN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 NICH64a RETU q264RN6TOL1003ENDER 1803 44 11/i,4/05 NICHOLS MOVED LEFT No ADDRESS UNA61-ff TO FORWARD Ix lots. ---RETUAN_T0_5ENDEq RCA ROUTING SHEET 4'. INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 Poseidon COUNCIL MEETING DATE: RCA ATTAC H M E NT;S STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attome Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attome Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over$5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENT$ REVIEWED RETURNED FO DED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial Q� City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEMICM (Below • . For Only) RCA Author: HZ:SH:MBB:RR MEETING ASSISTANCE NOTICE -AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act the following services are available-to members of our community who require special assistance to participate in City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings. If you require, American Sign Language interpreters, a reader during the meeting, and/or large print agendas, to make arrangements, please call: Office of the City Clerk(714) 536-5227. To make arrangements for an assisted listening system (ALD)for the hearing impaired, please contact: the Sergeant at Arms (714)536-5693 or the Gity Clerk(714) 536-5227. 72 hours prior notification will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to a meeting. ACTION AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL'MEETING AGENDA AND REGULAR MEETING AGENDA of the CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 j *4:00-P.M. - Room B-8— Public Comments, Study Session/Closed Session Items i Approx 5:00 P.M. — Room B-8 -Study Session/Closed Session Items 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington.Beach, California 9264.8 4:00-5:00 P.M. Room B-8 Call City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting to Order Roll Call Sullivan, Coerper, Green, Boardman, Cook, Houchen, Hardy Present(Sullivan arrived at 4:01 p.m., Hardy at 4:02 p.m., Houchen at 4:05 p.m.) * On October 22, 2003, the City Council adjourned to this November 3, 2003 meeting at 4 p.m. for an Adjourned Regular Meeting to discuss the Study Session. Tentative schedule is to recess to Closed Session Items prior to the 5:00 p.m. regular meeting. Approximately 4:00 P.M. - Public Comments - Restricted to Study Session and Closed Session Items Only(See Pages 2, 3, and 4 for Study Session and Closed Session Items) 1. Speaker presented reasons why Council should not approve Poseidon due to problems he believes are at plant in the state of Florida and Clean Water Act as it pertains to the AES Plant. COMPUTER/NTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS http.-Ilwww.surfcity-hb.org r (2) November 3, 2003 -Council/Agency-Agenda=Fage 2 2. Speaker request that subject matter of closed session be discussed and described to better inform public. He stated that a well written example is Closed Session #6 on this agenda. 3. Speaker requested that Council not separate AES from Poseidon as was done at the Planning Commission meeting. 4. Speaker urged disapproval of Poseidon Project. He presented three handouts—(1) a letter from.the Coastal Commission, (2) E-Mail of 111112003 titled "Poseidon Study Session at 4 PM not 5 PM"(3) E-Mail of 111112003 titled "Clarification of HB Planning Commission Poseidon CUP Vote". He spoke re: intake pipes and the subject of discharge. 5. Speaker referred to document from Metropolitan Water District as it pertains to salt water. 6. Speaker stated this project will benefit the community. 7. Speaker stated reasons why he believes if the project is so beneficial why isn't it done more often. He stated that he believes that unless it can be shown that it will not be an undue benefit to developers that the project should be denied. Pursuant to the Brown (Open Meetings) Act the City Clerk Announces Late Communications Received by Her Office Which Pertain to Items on the Agenda (1)The Brown (Open Meetings) Act requires that copies of late communications submitted by City Councilmembers or City Departments are to be made available to the public at the City Council meeting. (2) Late communications submitted by members of the public are to be made available to the public at the City Clerk's Office the morning after the Council meeting. (Late Communications are communications,regarding agenda items that have been received by the City Clerk's Office following distribution of the agenda packet.) Late Communications re: Closed Session #8. (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) Study Session Presentation by the Planning Department Re: Overview of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 00-02 and Conceptual Plans - Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 02- 04/Coastal Development Permit(CDP) No. 02-05 for AES Power Plant Located at 21730 Newland Street ( ) Planning Department staff will provide an overview of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Environmental Impact Report and conceptual plans. ** Communication titled Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant Environmental Impact Report dated November 3, 2003 is included in the agenda packet. ** Communication titled.Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit dated November 3, 2003 is included in the agenda packet. Late Communications distributed by a speaker during the public comments portion of the meeting. Communication re:study session item on Poseidon—a letter to Ricky Ramos, City Planner from the California Coastal Commission titled "Coastal Commission Staff Review of City's Response to Comments to Proposed Seawater Desalination Project Draft Environmental Impact Report" F a (3) November 3, 2003 -Council/Agency Agenda= P6ge 3 Planning Director Howard Zelefsky reported and introduced Principal Planner Mary Beth Broeron, who presented brief staff report. u, Presentation by Billy Owens Vice President, Project Development, Poseidon sources Corp. Power Point Presentation.by Scott Jenkins PHD,.Senior Engineer, Scripps Institution of Oceanography(Copy of Power Point Report to be made available to City Clerk's Office this week) Power Point Presentation by Elaine Archibald Consultant, Archibald& Wallberg Consultants (Copy of her bound report to be made available to City Clerk's Office this week) Power Point Presentation by Jeffrey Graham PHD, Scripps Institution.of Oceanography Various questions presented by Councilmembers. Developer and staff to report back on questions presented by Councilmember Cathy Green. 5.00 P.M. — Room B-8 At 5 p.m. the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting will adjourn and the Regular City .Council/Redevelopment Agency Meetings will commence with all members who were present at the Adjourned Regular Meeting roll call. (4) November 3, 2003 -Council/Agency Agenda -Page 4 Call Closed Session of City Councii/Redevelopment,Agency Recommended Action: Motion to recess to Closed Session on the following items-!-�- Approved 7- 0 1. (City Council) Closed Session-Pursuant to Government Code Section `Section 54956:9(a) to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the agency is a party. The title of the litigation is G. Brett Morehead v. City of Huntington Beach;WCAB Case No. ANA 0343051; Claim No. COHB-01-0136. Subject: Morehead v. City of Huntington Beach. (120.80) 2. (Redevelopment Agency) Closed Session — Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the agency is a party. The title of the litigation is Mulligan v. Redevelopment Agency; Orange County Superior Court Case No. 740099; Court of Appeal No. G028980. Subject: Mulligan v. Redevelopment Agency (400.50) 3. (City Council) Closed Session— Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and.to which the city is a party. The title of the litigation is City of Huntington Beach V. Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association; United,States District Court, Case No. SA 01-1125 GLT. Subject: City of Huntington Beach v. HBPOA(Gun Range) (120.80) 4. (City Council) Closed Session—Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the city is a party. The title of the litigation is Huntington Beach City Council v. Scott Baugh, and Connie Brockway, City Clerk, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 02CC14276. Subject: Huntington Beach City Council v. Scott Baugh, and Connie Brockway, City Clerk. (120.80) Approved 7-0 5. (City Council) Closed Session - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the city is a party. The title of the litigation is Peter Leiby, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.;-Orange County Superior Court Case No. 693484. Subject: Peter Leiby, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. (120.80) 6. (City Council) Closed Session - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(3)(B). (Facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, an accident, disaster, incident, or transactional occurrence that might result in litigation against the agency and that are I� known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts or circumstances shall be publicly stated on the agenda or announced.) Southern California Water Company has notified the City it intends to purchase or condemn an easement in order to provide water service to Bolsa Chica Mesa. Subject: Potential Eminent Domain Action by Southern California Water Company against City of Huntington Beach. (120.80) (Closed Session Items 7 & 8 continued on the next page) i { I l l Nov. 3, 2003 Study Session/4:00 Planning Department staff will provide an overview of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Environmental Impact Report and conceptual plans. Ray Silv r a Cz y N _-z:-,< Q r-- 7D � a 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION z _o c Poseidon Seawater°Desalination Plant cp Environmental Impact Report IV O-i- November 3,'2003 T A. ENTITLEMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 NO B. PROJECT DETAILS: Construction of a 50 million gallons per day reverse osmosis seawater desalination plant; water transmission lines to connect to existing regional transmission system; and two off-site underground booster pump stations in Irvine and unincorporated portion of Orange County C. LOCATION: 11 acre lease area on AES generating station site at 21730 Newland D. EIR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: ■ Notice of Preparation of an EIR available for 30-day public review May 17 to June 15, 2001 • Public scoping meeting held on June 6, 2001 at Edison Community Center ■ Draft EIR available for 45-day public review September 19 to November 4, 2002 ■ Response to comments distributed to Planning Commission and commenting parties on March 21, 2003 ■ Planning Commission public hearings May 27, June 3, July 8, and August 12, 2003 E. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ■ July 8, 2003 — Planning Commission certified the EIR ■ July 22, 2003 — Planning Commission voted to reconsider the EIR at the next meeting and for staff to prepare responses to the following issues: 1) Independent review of the hydrodynamic modeling for concentrated seawater dilution; 2) Independent review of the hydrodynamic modeling for source water quality; 3) Additional information on elevated salinity impacts on marine life in the Southern California bight; and 4) Clarification on the historical flow of the AES Generating Station • August 12, 2003 -, Planning Commission certified the EIR F. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS: Studies Conducted: ■ Marine Biological Analysis, Source Water Analysis, Receiving. Water Analysis, Watershed Sanitary Survey, Preliminary Review of Geotechnical Constraints and Geologic Hazards, Preliminary Seismic Assessment, Air Quality Analysis ■ Hydrodynamic modeling prepared by Dr. Scott Jenkins, Scripps Institute, was reviewed and validated by Dr. Stanley Grant, UCI G:\RAMOS\Poseidon\StudySessionEIRNov3(City Councii).&c <SA-Ni , s L,—" ,�003 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 0. Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant Environmental Impact Report November 3; 2003 M Ay , ''yx 1f'Qx" E.N''' � Di T ..,✓ .yIS`c M% v A ,zYs h rev c 8^+ 'v;" Y > k 34 ? k4 ?§iM "F'S,A, -"'N' z Novi r act �, q�aress ThatSa ��ficantl.ess"Ta»SE plf�cant iUnroicaieS� �i�f�cat OWNF �.Rf ' . ,`,, r pry'y't avi y .r,. _ -s `�` * ."f 'x" : 'P``, X•3r �' r ',z r'Al -r'"t`�r y1'{ ' y^`,r.w�x14 "` "Q,tF Y�$�. - Relevant - Land Use - Wind/Water Erosion - Construction Related Planning -Topography - Geology/Soils Impacts (Air Quality) -Water Quality Impacts to - Seismicity/Faulting Local Marine/Coastal - Liquefaction Potential Environment - Long-Term Water Quality -Air Quality Impacts - Public Services and - Noise Utilities (Fire, Police, - Public Services and Libraries, Parks and Utilities (Schools, Recreation, Electricity, Roadway Maintenance, Gas, Telephone) Wastewater, Stormwater - Hazards and Hazardous Drainage, Water Supply, Materials Solid Waste) - Aesthetics(Site Character, Light and Glare) - Construction Related Impacts (except Air Quality) If the City Council decides to approve the project the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) because the Final EIR identifies unavoidable significant impacts relating to air quality due to the construction process. An SOC is a determination that the expected benefits of the proposed project (economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits) outweigh the unavoidable significant impacts of the project that are identified in the. Final EIR. The City Council must state in writing its specific reasons for approving the project (called Findings of Fact) which must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. RBF Consulting and staff prepared the SOC and Findings of Fact in the event the City Council decides to approve the project. ATTACHMENT: CEQA Process—EIR Flow Chart G:\RAMOS\Poseidon\StudySessionEIRNov3(City Council).doc , CEQA Process: CEQA E31- > Initial Study! i'�'�=' Notice :h!r• of Preparation Opp ortunity Initial Study rid: !°r r Notice of Public Comment Preoration P - € Corn ��ment Period OPPartunity p• 9. , for Meetingg Public Comment d (opt ional) :�s •; .. t:, ;- Draft EIR :.: Opportunity` Draft EIR w ' for Public Comment Comment Period �r::�� ��•_ . ait State Clearinghouse eview r�;.k�i;,,,,' R '''' I .n ";�`•:...: ..; :�•', i.�` Fine EIR•! Responses to Comments Review of Res onses b '" P Y C '- omm entt n 9 Public Agenciests;:": -." '�>' '".• .+z,4.i,-.;:Ty;•y.u,F• d111�S;y"+sr^+'l'�'��.:•. Opportunity for 'r"r° Certification of Public Comment "' q Final EIR .f:+�,'ja`.•ft�r?i•t .�NA. :?,�i'stii': ;"?il fp Approval of Prolect, Adoption of Findings, . Opportunity Mitigation Monitoring : '�. . . for Plan.&Statement a.. Public Comment :;;_w of overriding .`. •. Considerations (If Applicable) .. •••.. :a:L"rtitb0�Vl:.�u;r'�l.r::5i�•`: ti:'��.. . t 1'•.v <?'-iy4aiA �w�t��i - M`..,r. .a...:n CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY:COUNCIL STUDY SESSION. . PoBeidon Seawater.Desalination Plant Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Peru er 3, 2003 . c Novemb - A. ENTITLEMENT: Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit:No. 'L= B. LOCATION: 11 acre lease area on AES generating station site at 21730 Newlan&- C. GENERAL PLAN: P (Public) C-, D. ZONING: PS-O-CZ-FP2 (Public-Semipublic— Oil Production Overlay— Coastal Zlone''Overlay -- Floodplain Overlay) .E. REQUEST: Proposal to construct: 1. A 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant including an administration building, reverse osmosis building, product water storage tank, and other miscellaneous accessory structures; (see Attachment No. 3) 2. Perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland and Edison frontages;.and 3. Water transmission lines (up to four.miles in Huntington Beach) to connect to an existing regional transmission system (see Attachment No. 2). 4. As conditioned, the project would dedicate and improve property along the project's Newland St. (10 feet) and Edison Ave. (12 feet) street frontages. F. KEY ISSUES: The following are the primary planning issues: 1. Land Use Compatibility ■ Consistent with the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations ■ Compatible with surrounding uses ■ Adequately buffered from residential and other sensitive uses 2. Aesthetics/Architecture ■ Improves appearance of the area by demolishing three existing 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures ■ Design is in keeping with the Urban Design Guidelines ■ Design Review Board has reviewed and recommends approval of the design, colors, and materials of the project with minor modifications G. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On September 23, 2003 the Planning Commission voted to: 1) refer Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02- 05 to the City Council with no recommendation; 2) forward the recommended conditions of approval reviewed and approved by straw votes; and 3) forward the findings for denial that were considered. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Key Site Plans and Elevations 2. Conceptual Pipeline Alignments 3. List of Proposed Structures 4. Aerial G:\RAMOS\Poseidon\StudySessionCUPNov3(City Council).doc +Aaor\ta,e\rdruM1.w\mlea�oro rtaw)o�rM.na.t\w anI N7 a� aeN IDenr xmae.r m.,.M.rae!rurtr r��romroer Nen!ur-nme•a..ar eae-er�.r we-ron.,�ux,aoF•nr narrt..en� fv ion - -erl„�/ .:�•.. 'J /e, r ,., + i:.: ,• II f .II lll ' /�'' .Lo. �;(:�ri��i /��♦, �,lfi'/'° �.� :7 ,.B .� ��, r �Ipmor` ^,b 5� ,Ii ' � � -err'`i•i l %i ��/�f �.'����•;.���f� � .. \\� {r •t=elf, � � Y ��) �I i�! � i" ,tS�<� yE" ^'1 iL�-,.I� ;�T 7 iG''•��f �Ji'✓'•� Yi��U� 4.� /'r� - ��I'I� rc..� i(t�(�i c �'\\\ A1\ tr)� v'l;f( e�;^'' �JiiJ � '� //f'`�i�J �� II'VI _� _f j!����j�z.•r-�'11 F ! I n p,tl q C3 ��\ �:.;p•�•`;_ � p• / rr /i,�..`.•f♦•\,\i i� „`�i�ht � O � �Y,,F 'r��-.�L_':_=_ _'' i [i I.� !�1 i�l �' �. f:\ .n♦\♦� � � �..ff.�'•i,�\`r'�/ ���� .N", r I II tiir�= •� �j�c_y r-e. �i� � . 0 11 �,•�, ;6Y `C`i /'\J� ii� '\\ �'• �f'y�:'.':' 1...�_._.�i��::,::;,..I_.;i ir�:�.._r a' :�_-.-.ro''ItI P��t i y .l;`\\� 'li Jj... F>.1/, ,/.'.'•v�`�" r" r; 'r�: `� �,s_t`,. �! .,.�i�-• rf '�':.i�l 7i{ iI Q � �9 '.!r S\t'•,\^�` ��ti //r.- - `�♦h� � / U61Y •`���v W>n,[3Cf�:'a F' r' � �+ H �C � .i. �`.t,` ---�'�--•yals..y ^ .ICI i� ../,,•..- ,� I .�%+^wrii�.. 't i!. iA !Z't ij;(7 ri ro N �~+,}`�.�,\C; ./%• �r. !! 1i �i s iii+y / pit. t J1F+ P" 1 r:: '' �� �'tw!",'.,!'�/ .•I�;r'r •� 4 r tl�♦ / ,'_-/ '" Y w:..� ir,,.�• a„ "°\ zz, n ._ r y �� �t.�... �:�- ��._wb•.r�=. .v+?, Y _- _ _.arts____-- , rlt ••� .ifs J �.:� a ._•i '�• d 7` �'/ ;_ , _ai. �y`?awl;,''� {' �+� '!� I IPA, p•.c — ♦4!Y� c,:, iil{ lid (lj,� IN CA nz cn - � a � s ,rI"• t ]tlNaaC COnFepYWfF YQtlaf _.ADNINM9TRAifOfl- upte SOUDS ry bU�G' �ansA ua BU4DIFIG�r�i PI I&EN6 / { CH- I - -area wa USEocs p�PFKkMXXMM _ _ •,,.,•.:. _...---..__..--_ •sFERIATIM ue om�s,m,no�eati _ e .!;•," _ .. 'O'J•dO'D NTA E ,- ,F' b I�;i� /_� ;=4�•t. "r1 _ ___. w-:�'.i.�.:^.""•]—"�C_= �: ( �_� :' mr.vm wv tar tss 1 1 (1� `� '�;�'t`• _ tl.*' __. ___— _�...-�.=�� .�__ =�= - �� 9 /-", _ ••, _`';}�1;! a to ,ta i t -b I r :•1. - y. ata tA:cm W r'�, `.'' =✓f ii t �t I ' RD BUILDING k " sr .i 1 - i '_•._.� a"nvxl .a. I i It ! 1 - _J, 1 m's_ :';A' '`•!r, t RumvTJ p/A tth J ) - >' = PUMP STATION sonar ar uusr OJT �r /) r��;/,;•:7 1�/��� � .,\` t ! tlt .. 1 k�:- m •/ i .,�':i%1 l-��/ t ! __ j �'' ,'1 1 I _ N Y f/' �i.._ !.n1 2•�`` Sr as -an J3 NO WW f f t�1 LOADING I i -i 1 '° t( .'•+y.i aJ�` -1 �'`4~t., o o n5_n. f I 1'u t t• i�t - ' ZONE t i l �� v },•�, ` i' r7 t "S ,•2CYX/ `:t i\�j,' `� m a .ama `�'mF�sr Z7- FEEJ) UNE. IMES rump Ix `_,�' as ' !wu mi" ,B nsr rAcs f" 1 iif:' L'�� m .. u _.�-- - -, !� ' - •� \� t"_3 L tar ax TRASN '.i iEN«.OSUIg:- /1;; �`., �•, i ; .� ``JiL.• t•I /W 6TER"' �J j' ` `�:_ 1,>?. .T .�., 1,�`:';� ':w`^ •-�- � �, 3' •�rANK45'�T� ,/% �" .s,;l � ` � iw� { --_- .17:_I Y.r%;.•!'= 4 _r tie.<;�.r`� �" -_._ ?�.i' _ ,f121st T�NK /..:'i '!ja ",� ���h' 1 ,y;t� •• +�)` =:.� - _ - 4:.;'I.. ;J3� EPA tmm um�me�.nsr Aaca uAras- LAN JNG `'�- It -'- ¢.'`,�{..*� _ ..`'J' •� S/^ �;,. 'i ''s '/� < . �> ` •,• s - -- tl ! 1>tfTS_• / ..• 1' 'A�LLEE /, v •_. r \ P. ;® --- - ! I I! W _• _ tl:! ! - •`4�'� �•-�� . 3oe-STAT)ON ���%;�; �;.^ �/. ` <. `) saws pWmam tam taanuro...._."__T.sw SF_ WATER `�1'� % �' i�%^`t :t,`' 'tt0.1711 S.F. ;�': � I _ '� ,f < n),v1, � /`�: ' -r •�(.� ' �� �MG"•,tt�raoa._'�.��__Y�� StDrLiA��(-a M6m_--"` b �; I ` C ^_✓ '1•j j ' C+✓✓/: ; �Er9,4; j1 :i' i / j,. > �'.` •`i., oSUIRWAL _..,. r , I( TANK c6. O 7 OIA`( +t , c / x 1 ;J,r ReuNYr PUMP sumQN___ 1.880 S.F. ( 1 _AfNED)--'_ _. ilk!^ I I�I,.` PRODUCT PLATER t J�� ^.i, ~oy ''' .,�;f•'?,f Id �aJ, , •,. / Ptamt'wTYort rut7r snacrws...-.....� si JJ I PR T WATER ( b Iy;t I j STORAGE TANK g ;r ;„/,f WASH WAFER TAY!cs__y._—_i po Sr. /.... ,- FLU91 TNpL--.�--..._-�.�-.a91 SF. STATION � / � ,� .'► p PRPROOMT w�sra+x�Tira`. P1i0DUC7 t T i '� ;,`� �• .j`.,'��' j ` y�} �y �r AYNONA STORAGE TAfIK..�..........._�_._...xp S.F. f:00 v 'vt� ' !rtf f 2 Ci /¢Q• - �g� Sr. �� _ A F'�;. :\ o ca', s <5 y^, , ' )/;;"'•' ' ermJwGs Apo srtucTtmFs .tv,.wz sF 447 �r1L'yq�O���` !I .. _:_i !t ( T I1 C lJJJ\• \+a1�+J1• �l f- ,A,(•' 2S'r �`' `•` ,, ..,l•'••�J Plp]PCRK OM COR l i N LINK.,_ 7 N;• ~�11ji ,F =( NTAINED).':7�� P- 7E}i/.}�i` / n^`t.:"i v %) ; /i., )i J x�li]O eRwvmsmEET it` l.r ^:: ff �/ HUNFIN Y eual CNaaaaA stare nt 'i i' b•- '+ A •� 7 I r I! t �� • :: �' \- /��}' /'l,O" .\' ^;: .�jF.., ` j-J..ri A s/ram (Ira)374-1481 S ` 1 L fie_ _^I. �� •7,�q S '.� •� :� : r 't' - { t. _ ,e o-s�•:_,('.?�y w '� . t~ ,a+,>/ / I'`t` 1 a '�. mr ANWO .A`�P sm°ru�!waa •6 .. .'4z•;v .\ �� S �, , � `, .- •'" i.-�. / APPIC/NT LWO BFbG CNYORIIA 90665 (sax)4e8-71)(13 .: tm SO weaAND n,ws sou aaOM O S. it 1 �� �` a ® "�: .�:P •r``� ��-, �`�``c•^' ;'; 1,%+`.i+"\ sosvtc AND sm!TerupAt emma tmrs. .�I i��" `�.;.���_ "�l.c::}�'" �• (~ i :',''i� .•/ �� � ,r' ref :.- - DRAWINGS PRE PA BY: DRAWINGS PREPARED FOR: PROJF_CI': Poseidon GENERAL CQr "im P O S E I D O N RESOURCES Seawater Desalination Project SITE PLAN e n s k n e e r s ,.. H,mrington lead!,Cali(omu - i !_,T �,•t Yti - j .='_ ri°�-_ - ...�. ""~' yi�'-. t i �C�' KEY NOTES RV SGIE 8V .4 :. s o.'c.- ^"' >'J=' +" 'vim=:"•✓f"r /`,i. i'•,t /rY.�-, �=-4' ' a{f O ImE DW no fOIW MON 'tom_-. �•.T. �-" a `e.��' _.�-. I/ Cum T_:..- �i-.Jc ="-' u'" �ei__•�` Oa Rmm NPEIRB: ! (� _- _ _ E S 86 suaw mmu ✓� .i : E; p .e r'�.•t^'''.k --� _, r / -r -► / 1 / ermua auvaus m wee wwMc nrE Rmeeu MOW a -SEE a w —SUM un,.,mrs .14 r 43>im AaAm a wL ii1ll}LL .,,/l�y y :ti r fy kt" E • s '�� _�lFi, f 0;. .d "�?'�6:341` �J• aO EIuw1E m cwNE AT eEisl WE 9DPE FJffitvATEO B%X `� i lv•'• ! �f11 t, '';� 1'� ;` ! 7 ai �� ifs. •,1 �l, � � '�,�:��^•.?"��k,�_ Bey �� '1,.., - - - � '•�. ! � •l'`=':�{` J! a.�r� a"-'�i-� �.A ' !`sT� ^l '�*,-.:-. �`^n,,` -.'S '�`�; /, ' i � i !�'.::3�.'.�_ll�. f'_"�,n,"d_. \ •� �� S !!'•_e-.-.--., J i ,_E._ __ _/ ��'I 14 /i``-��` t`..'})!,S - `.!!! !j i "'� "S' ��'�`-•--""`„ram 4 .;I -1� ;�7 C ;: � r-��.i,4•,FS."-•J f•dt' ��:i.�; ir,"'\ �lit ``ilia _ : -• a//`ru, a .r..`.ur. - ,'fr i':/C`` j)"�6 f - �" T:c, y` (.+:'.� � !8�� 'ai(�'c '� i t._��'.'. �"'�xu �.���_I -i'''Ij, �i�� r J r•' y - �.` � y,' v %�. }\ :,,� 1 � � irk 1 v �'-s f �i �r .-�+t t���l I"• f�f� a �_���' �� �.-, 1 j r"J/ - ••� � ��\ � �'Tk J •x�, / \ i''c\�",��.', j.il S }�� /�.J' (I ' �� 1' ,'� b;i�� � ""sL� _ f� I�'!'� _ (� a,_ iil �`�r=' �%'''%. �/� '� `i>��f�.:<��`^�'�'-j',`.i� �Ei'i=; l.i ice• ' Q i i' '� u:Si'-�_-_ 1t�s '�v �;s ��`'."e--aA �• i �i "'.%Pi�' �' y• �`!:,�J�•, v3Tn`"r ../��d•"` �__ ' 'y�� v^ - 6 i�� !,+( •-e' [:r,'1 r.,�}•�_.6.�.��_ ����t��a-�1Ly�° ��_M hg{.'R�k,'�s✓. <.��:`y�/ ,;�`;. .�,� ( \�..� V`.-'�:ai_ � :(.\i.` U- 11.,-•F= a^'-`!•�!�".'� �J/ �. ,/i, �i�, ` �/�i:%.:��r, g •yr t`�•+i•'. FJ tea•t\.`. V •�' i (�! 1 Imo. l- �: � ;�A 'F;' •e w:: J•j.�. ,/ •� �� ���• si,. �\!� �:'• L '. i �~Z!�.� �\�. ft �x s'v s-a a I I ��� ja..,'s- @ ,._ a 1- ', sJ-•/ f i �� . :::.` s/,,�./ �. >t0 r. r`3-g. !�"�\h y { 'y i+�.. '�:'• F/i ?//<�` .), .i...,a' �:�; - (! §11: :� l_� / d1 `/'�• f+i a �, �y.c ri�ti ✓/�' / '.y �a 'N J.L./ ''l'� f� a l 1 7 � ,;7•� ,�;�i//'%'a� !/ ^yr' ••fi'�'" /(.,k�', / `�a� �:1;•y`�j_I '�.���e / �;� �i� � � ! � �` �( 1�-. .yr;; �A,� � �;�� `,;. � ``• ....:;• 'y%' �%�' i ` (._ ,�'°[ I .i e `ti._' /'4 ej?i`` r 4 �' '•/^?./^ j `.ri J-J (!� }I� _....-- ��'!�'� l ? � !�.`� J '•=tom •�,. ,Il i /C`:,S :\ - 'y� C3 + I 1 I i��7_'fi]""1�i� it'( �t'7 Y-�',i. � .�` /r a[._ ''i.�:���•,'�. `' •.,�� `.� S ,,�lVi�'i�` .,� it I -P—=1, 31' i @ ' I _ s`_ Jam'\,� `'`-al.'ir;:,`.'' x J r � /i,''��•:.\ li .. e )� ,`F-t r: i 1- itlfi{+; 1 •--..__ ./I.1__'� r,.'1 )i , �,-,,�>\• "_ -.:•..• //�-y� < j a `,�.;f'f 1:f Sr% a \��f �I . X fl I i i r I ��41. 1�� � ,ct �. _- a^-i`i. a� i 'ter, 'i •`}I'1./.�� / .�:� ' ( "i �1 I1 1• t 2w2"'ri—"-"-?'�� _ �i: �Y•F; .•d� \�.' R,�.',e�;)�� t' - r/i y� �' :a" ■ l l i w �J .•�I —_'°.— _ ,FL:�rK" ''e'a,�•y-`%, - \ I. •!•' S l(�j'' 11 Y/ c .�_: �, -- 11'_;ex L'+=...�.r�i+�-•�-�+. aAT%T-a't _ j Z,•, ,�.`�P� •%c ( 1•i:�1 l -'� DRAWINGS PRL•PARF.D BY: DRAWINGS PREPARED FOR: PROJECT: Poseidon GENERAL sf ,"" .. Ce n 3rCn aL eL r0 POSD,.,O.,ra,.e,R Ee.,S OURCEJ � Seawater Desalination Project SITE DEMO PLAN a.�....n....r:..r>e.u. Himtingam Bock,Qdifoaua , V_' KEYNaM 7 ty- 3 i .evi.ml•�naw. a 1 C �� � s 1 `.`\ , -!./.-1� r r y1 NORTH ELEVATION p FIMSM - O - mrvee�m p. mmammCmmlmcam WOMB Dena t _ - 77 - �lk ©l.armr.elriwwerw+..cr _ :1 6 7 ... .:•.. .. -. .. .-. FEF .. 1 r.rn. .. . 1 .l . 1 .- . 1 SOUTH ELEVATION - _ .ssr Yw,{F_ .7d - ::::'. �yl.._ .ITS . r .: r.rrP. . r .t WEST ELEVATION .. . 1 ., r,rm. .1 ,, . 1 EAST ELEVATION N f-1J-1 0 4' B' le SCALE-I/V-r4r DRAWINGS PREPAREDBY. DRAWINGS PREPARED FOR PROJECT: -�- J#CCffC3LL0 POSEIDON RESOURCES Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project ADMINISTRATION BUILDING s n a 1 n u a r i .. � Hae�mll Ee+a,CJff=i2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I c 1• e.tN! i s _ Y 1. A. r--__ He'd Mai w '' mmoom - °` NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION N.. -_... 'aIT$FF -_ -:..�-. .:, ... ..:. -. .•.. -, ::' �-.J:� ....:. : ,r'_ � ,..'Yt ..�.I.Y:. :.17aFF. SOUTH ELEVATION W EST ELEVATION KEYNOTES ❑RM%4ES 1. cmM4ETFmMryUeB,rwLLp iaw./wm.cu°w:aAnmllx+°s °o- ,rlv s.®canees�mc x mro�cum.o,ueumw°ssu p. weca,rcanam.M mi.noe I,imSGPpnANle+F61„iMMME 'a,rrolM6n•oEim murmirdin aewlM°n, 1. p s,®.tmua W,°R°uw®rwms i. iW NETKIMIE]HIM,M IDIwceM,ia91 nueroeue s srtacmur n(H) vault rAl°C ru°c rwMM rw,a 1. M°AII°MlR 9IF8 CAPArw9(OBH! 6 c 6 91®.fl1MMI0ATm9M0 1 SIEACAY°PiNwIB1e1 m rwMc TANG TANK tANf: TAM[ TANK Twill[ Imp N x SCAL�C-1v e .. PLAN 1 DRAWINGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGS PREPARED FOR: PROXM, Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project CHEMICAL STORAGE `_ Ta �",.,,�= 1,#r"CLAA3 P O S E I D O N RESOURCES 1 FLOOR PLAN & .n w i n m e r s 1 � HuntingmnBndtiGtifo®i EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS i �: cst KEYNOTES a f1ATIE/AL WILI{M8 - - .17•P NORTH ELEVATION FlmsNes io Q wancaoa:mna.EDY.NRSSWS9fOIEe - - - -'�. sPm p W OE31.AMEAICULOW.MROEOMID9IUMNOW s.rn. e s .. .i SOUTH ELEVATION Qe Jau owxm.wmsvccm cease �. f r <. QW-7 t _ 3.nr. .. ., •i EAST ELEVATION a I s.,,*. •s WESTELEVATION - N f-9 0 1& 37 s SCALE-1/16"-r4r DRAWINGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGS PREPARED FM- PROIELTo PRETREATMENT FILTER Ceff'QLALQ P O S E I D O N RESOURCES Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project STRUCTURE Dim W n m 1 n•a r i �•��w H4"b� �`��069' EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS i _ 4 i KEYMCM .1-- 4 69 1 1 IETKIdIVFI131®•Mgl - 1 IEi11LfAM¢MPQQ// - -;1 l YEfNINIC00f1 - s •Qaauwrsoao .tra' s nes •• •• <• Naw@W Elevation •rLP .7r-P - .72'-1P _ r FINISIMS -_z • " �. eamwaancanrt wum•ame srnssco•terip® p , East Elevation .. , West Elevation ��. Dum BrffOMw®"@31Q _ .. 77 ,. ., t• t. •• &OJ South Elevation uav ,.y N .JL r —fLAJ 0 4 8 16 SCAI8-1/0 r4F Plan DRAWINGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGS PREPARED FOR PROJECT. SOLIDS HANDLING P O S E I D O N RESOURCES Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project ' gM -M ,9 J* mnainmerm OtO BUILDING PLAN & EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS V s 1 KEYPICyI'ES 2 .ETK 1O1M1 _ h > F,TP. 1 - •]Td w 6 blE6 GNFI./ l YE.FK r ti ' i. 6ELTCIGLRoult9mw.owleq 1:: 1 •Rd FF. NORTH ELEVATION ❑FINISHES p vauxonenminrtlFFam.amasi+� mrr[e� �. b1YOM0.C[EIPCOlOL01OFIFDKMFl9 _:.S tl - �- �. - ; amoxva�•oenFi - � � ©1@ra KN:BlT taLmm MNbYm9 Jul®• i .ID'd .. ..M. .r ,. ,, F. SOUTH ELEVATION i f H0'd - .. .7F:7 - -9 •NPd FF. 1 � H7d FF. _ ., r ,g ,MJ ,rlJ EAST ELEVATION ,r , ,, , WEST ELEVATION - N 0 v 1B 32 SCALE—1/16°-F-M DRAWINGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGS PREPARED FOR: PROJEM. _ SPoseidon Seawater Desalination Project R.O. BUILDING :'• �- � POSEIDON RESOURCES 1ll$ CWCLLO.n o i n..r. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS � tA L •1 c S .1 c 7.M. .,M. a 6,M. Nr.P / nil TSTA7 as / yP{ ,o- a— 1 HM 7 I I ' .ra L----------------- ENLARGED ELEVATION ° IRYNOPES ❑PINISNF_9 l 16dUWlIFJI.RdNOHOP4M9BE Q S�TgO[W104 LOol EOFagpBSOlIg11F�0E861 LOrrOY RA'�OMmUU961�iN4 Q IEUlPIY1El COtpft OfYVf•�F61LLlSSOdi9C 1 RRIQKPII®BLFMIE[IIY®ISbI ©SPH OQILRCOIDRgpmMPIDlMfS®pETa 1 60®.COLWI l /drt.u11.PM6MEt - 1 ImnlmllnLsrmcrPR PLAN L SMFRAMM90FOM 1. LI�GYIOPIR09LR . L PFOPBRTIS@ SMl LAR=3ZVA= L FSO MM m wmvawr r_ r •..sr 7> _{'"{,.�' y_ a.. - 1 - za lift m� 1 •; N 1 .rd L— -- ———————— -------------J I—L(-1 --------� -- ' 0 10 20 a OVERALL ELEVATION •.:: SCAIEaP-SPO DRAWINGS PR6PAREDBY: DRAWINGS PBEPABEDFOIL PBD]fiC1: PRODUCT WATER STORAGE P O S E I D O N RESOURCES Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RM Lw ll$ CCIMLA.0 .�...1.......�... H, „B.,d, TANK PLANS& a EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS �9 ❑FlNMES KEYNOTES �. ,e<wwwticClA1:W1.IGIWOa t ,uv1En•.w.•aswmmlu®tm, a ssacwar �ct�sm• a simc•u1. a vomnwr .p rceerteaale oll.� a �rarn•arorn�a ,a acww., - . a,rtan��•m ©sl�cauw,cwvaouamr•w•a a mmmara sc�wtale�H, wccer�a„i a mminlemo,vanaaa; f SIMAC6SUDVM 1. "EMf 'F 1 -- ar PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN NP9•- War •IPrll#' _ - 1. + L t ••'- AMMONIAOaVRAGE. 'i us It ♦ t #ad Y t maFs" z .aw►a' z j 4 ]r f s 1• • f r r. 1 . /• �a fe -f e 7• q1 '�:'- a '�`^/ to 1 1 s � �• FLUSHTANK : LIMBSIIABa WASHWAT6RTANK 0 1Dr 21 40 a DRAWINGS PREPARED BY: DRAWINGSPRFiPAREDFM PROJEM TANS PLANS& I GO'OLLO P O S E I D O N RE S O U R C E S Poseidon Seawater Desalination Ptoject • a i n �• H1> .� EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I i a..�{it 7N me'--eL•ah'-u , q _.:,E - t ! J _ :�y ;tp+ .r ' r ._ - ..P r�^ -il•_.,,:,2..____..__.�.;�._..._-:.-£t--:- - :�F7A--` - � - _ ❑c -- - ___ ITT .x>il" 9�i,� [-:>. , ;}!I•■.- -� j;:^^ _ I „ ;-t _ �J.� i[� tu°}��z� �' �..� .-e �`' .:�::� / LCm°.-'.emu ``_i,�i- ,f: �: ;r is „ k-:Z $�� _--'a�� F� c`Ij-I f .:Laa,y t`'-^�1_ -1 t✓c'`'Ts%'-,i �� �'DI��'�',: .- .;�.. - 'Lc.=��' I •-_ -:.i r . �%mot !�:-_..-"L_L-t�� - -1i� -.'le �rit?�_r. ,`•!h< ���if r r�� � • .' s• :� 1 .,_„-y£. 11 I - 41v>d -_ MecrVa a •ryi -_a a ' �.: ■-•�R e. E j-i• '1�_• ° eLM� .�•"!, 7' _._a ■ t l � :-r` � -:ee I� •91 ���+ Ah aas �I 1 I 1 u �_ �1 �-. ■■— 1 �Y�IL' � .�} s.>�•_ ,:�_ � _ ••i_ I•: ,-�:.: -1_�•3�.hhad.■ 11=':��.., .;i' ':s<h1• �uF �f- ~�: `- .`-3'r°I .:�t g"•-J'�6-a-r -Pi.{�auu �- •i`- Kr.: T 1 -, sdss�'. ..'aF[9'• 1: - _ .'� `� .�: •ll_ �. a. J: r'^ r s - L iI--��G. ---a e•. � _: W. ■` Rj..AR 1 '_ �� '�,s��..� rry. .�-•e-•+1.-�..-+ i '° - _ ;■ �rv■',.r•.It � •.Er•..'T --• t. L �f`-'O—;,.;i_ ._ 9EE r..( .;�1y "I 4G•4V - b .z Y ' ` 7-I- II - ;� i • "� ' F 1- u'��•�• ';`, N.-�7_• '_i _ .i•�i. IF Y - ItISh Seh +TE irl,(_C� kOS. DIAMETER : ! ' c t]''' 1 � M. _ :1••A._ -13'.lL-�,.,. I I..y.- 11:;•. EQl.F ";�y._ j ': • ' - f - f:tom -_ -�_ I,'I t -;.t S-4 ieJ 1i-�. ,,..c.:■,,,.• a I �.—z - t1_ is I• '..��sb :.I.(.C;,h--.p•o-�--� ...���'. ]l--n, I.5:•,_ 0pp� ��: .L;�.'�_'•N."A._ c �I f:_�_- �(.FIRv_Itc�V ..��r rr■■����®��'�-lr�ir,r_�Ip�� l.en<sep�� �•~11r-�w_J:.-�\\-�•r� �'�.6• �. _ i- •-i.+•.F--�',I_4^ E1.,F�..;l �;:'° ��: - -a'_ -j'i -_ y� „ .•_,c. ''���R �.,Q — i I C �---gg •ii-iLi- _ i.,h ?� .7- - , l. .�f _ - a ';s� •s•_.•r'>' 'cr'_I,�•JA<0°�.,.�R3. 'v < fo:r ..t-. .2 -... - _ .7. :. �� I VI N —"->-.°� - :g>--.'sa.+r —e COVNTV�.- 1-AIRuROVNOS -•.G: :'l,SsnU r L ` Aid , pp �_ _ - L b l - .>_ 8 p_�'. Lf•- + _ o - -.. fn fl E 'ye --� ,a- I` fL, _ 6tz;{Ilb. p _ ____ S:_ ors:- d- 7_ �o•-!- _.1 I i"�.: t' SMTc MOSVITALa11 --v y �-1�..-. F t• • -g -i _ q p-1 'I'T ` z•. u " _ .�tIMARY'- =oR1Y4-C - 1 �tY 1'� _ �t�,Y A, r5t4U I ,4 - 1■-j iYk!'r�s'�ew-•r�•• > cf- _�` fs :}� ..l 1!.: of tT` ji �o �,f V'�. �`5 .._� -'�� M. i'� ■d._.�- :• ,,sy � +a'�' _1 �:1 _�:�y ,'I rl_ U '.I,����� r♦;Ir±.�B- T � c '"i��a°-l- 1 t '�=3-e■ ��% : 4'� 4 �'a. z Ct 9 - f. .B Ti :r ° L. :_t � /n3 1 1 ,) h T-5 42 r@-_� 1 �- #E R [--FT;-I?i "' w!_ ;� _ �. ■■ slmow .'.,a ' ,.�Q'•'- I Y/.i v': 5�f�M t't ■, `. I r I' :® `i •ss CST 1 1 s-':Y" �. .I ' t• _ =:x r=_-- i : DIAMETER t" M. 1_1 man _ •t nsu-- ON w POSEIDON RESOURCES CORP. ' SEA WATER DESALINATION PLANT �--�. _-"�, t. .■. .. � cam-•-� - _:I, .t;;"" -� t�0 .� yV�l _1 )r .` � �: .. .):. .� �4• anM■ a�4.h-_ .. .. "�7l{SY n' ,p�a s- _ ..- .J� 1 ��, ,,� . � -.. j�� � �' 6' �.-d ��a fti[f1Y_' � - �i :y - �r iC �__ b a•S•b �c\1 '1`:. o �* .j��7Sr�:. y'�.: s •� 1 .�:- / .; -� -: � r,.:. ( :$�F,� o_�,�4.��_YR,_ rao•: -`_ ,•!• •� -!"4" c'< �°wt�. I �_�l�.l,��k 1�,3•�, s' F�,e �- ;1 -r% �`�. oedlMd a, �� :,'s�T, y� a,(� AES HUNTINGTON BEACH �' a: _ `_=s`E•-,: .I�s 1 I r : ,' '`ht I•.,�ayly c\• GENERATION FACILITY .f � k ,,��[��•r�.iE;._.-��::- � �- - ��'�'`�1�:- '-�,r„�;>;� �- .. A• .�,.'��!��" a r.:._. .-y,w. � '[Y.. � �J Lear L' ku. 9 _ J: a l-:? Pti. Source:Carollo Engineers,August 2002.ILI t POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROIEQ Conceptual Pipeline-Alignments ' Ft S •1 • �� ;.-a- f ,r •s x. •� i -ti- - ^>, i ?Jx_ <: � _-,� •('• - a■�yyri S�■ {4 ��' --- _ - -s, r :i<Y - - - <.� s. ;Isd. -`.f- -.K .,•rr•. "Y .r} �•s 4 �.:: s�-. _ � ...91-• h .{�• .iC3-:✓}�T.±C � •fir .A 4 .i.-. - ' y d��F-� - �}Y;• e..P,J%-nYY�,.u'�. r�..df':c�__ _ �..+^-aT�4r_. r:";#-� .., ,-'. - .i,�,,.�=��-- -_.-_ __ �. ..�..? _'�''•="E. zr .ti'y-.xi.•,avr.., �. .c�+_��=...�.K_ _ ._d„_ t,f3,;- _.._,�--�e£`..� � yui��.� .ca��.3��°`etc.-.�fit � .:^.�=�"`��r ��`` . 3ed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach Table 1 — Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant in Huntington Beach Facilities Description Building Name (Ara Height(ft) Type of Construction Notes sq RO Building 38,090 25'—0" Type II—EFIS Houses RO Membrane Equipment and Pumps Pretreatment Filters 38,270 16'—0" Cast-in-Place Concrete Open-air structure.that houses gravity media filters similar to a conventional water treatment plant Administration Building 10,120 1&—0" Type II—EFIS Multi-function building that houses administrative offices, maintenance shot, electrical room, lockers, control room, and a water quality laboratory Solids Handling Building 7,590 21'—0" Type II—EFIS Houses bell filter presses and chemical feed equipment used to treat solids removed in the pretreatment process Electrical Building and Sub- 1,800 12'-0" Type II—EFIS Houses main plant transformer and switch gear Station Chemical Storage 4,368 23'—0" Type II—EFIS Canopy Houses bulk water treatment chemical tanks Lime Storage Area 4,560 26'—0" Welded Steel Open-air structure for lime silos Ammonia Tank 28 6'—0" High density polyethylene or 1,000 gallon ammonia storage tank fiberglass reinforced polyester Washwater Tank 1,590 19,—0" Welded Steel Process water storage tank Flush Tank 491 29'—0" Welded Steel Process water storage tank Influent Pump Station 1,880 Below grade Cast-In-Place Concrete Location of the influent pumps and wet well.The pumps, piping, and other mechanical equipment are above grade T; Product Water Pump Station 650 Below Grade Cast-in-Place Concrete Location of the product water pumps.The pumps, .g piping and other mechanical equipment are above grade Product Water Storage Tank 36,305 30'above grade, Cast-In-Place Concrete 10-MG water storage tank. 10' below grade 5. W � s' � J f ♦Y � +$�'# �' N�•1�if4v4 Y;?r.`.ki`�' ! s� r~� ? s �s '�Si s r�✓�+,f+�N 1 R �[,-r7� '?.Y• '�•s SF a � !fir°' C ' f td.,•f V�'; f 6 t Yadr� .k�.,, na .� _r�'iCqq��f,,.¢.�t'''"'s' .R�. ,r � +' . p .li.`f s r.diI f �1L t Er r"l•h1s 'fnR:Z.'hj''lk`r rr' $!. r u a ,t� �.F �� ,�r'," ���' t�{��°> �� •#1 fjr P' cz L n�Y ,�1--- `ad �+0 co i t f r it tir �y��, k ��y J t ' 5� i C '�6 s e t r + `s��� �,� � ��rr' rT st. 1 �• �v' t.., tt 9 I ��{k\�K r 7��J'�`5��.��%9}vd rb�k �'' e' sr�s,J�SPr,J. r ` a) �,k, ,�j,�� �' Y+r ��],F��J:� `0.--va�� 5i:; 7 4 r� frP a• <,`',{ '1 S:r�1 rs, /�✓ s� ! r w., ' � 1 � rk,�x,y Jessy, � G r t �; �� , ��s�Y F?�nt . 1 ��� �u...t�$ ,� '�`T G ,.f'�r1\�d'•�k�<��+ a O atr.._ f 1�Rf.A 1 ��"�"i]{�.,1eb � �\�. 5 R� ' r,�' :.� , � ��„� � r f ur �F'� �-• ;5 ✓ a{.`J r '< �'�!�^"`3T�w .�r vy's., ,arT fir, t�;Et � 3 S �• rl�+$rd '� f } !i• '''S ii �E• �t}�L t k N'�x a��' rah srz4F" tW'. ' r;•c i �"r 3 �.r Tx f� '�d l� 1� 7 s�r'F� '�rr "a .J' ' �K`' ■� ..r '� a ..t a s m>-., !� ,� Ix� f�•r'i r �^ glF�}}'S y,,,d� � �� a'� ,rs�i�S�p.fi� � .'."' ��:. SE. �L F.r �r �� r*�` �Jr4l,�µ' �l�r. ,!.�`'� .✓�' p„�ir' ,'�x.i�T-�s�i � t j. """sr.' , -u" ?rrt r< E� �'�4•c�� .6+�".' f. r'N ;f' t 1�r `�err 55��s�"C�i 'a 4.r.'�� a O '`� :�f� T i.tt,H�A�.wS", t , _ ✓ ' F�^(�s}y,eZ�SE•1 �ys. ;Y4 x� FF,�� ,A ;r � �r__,o '' � �� u �` � � 3 }2 H- rs✓r' ��i7rtu •��rj,�r f�.•• I�rlir�"r'�I �,� 2�, F 1. r r 7 'Jf ram, 4[ -�t�5'3u'�t'"r', ! �`Ls� ��,may>+l a '�r yf•fit� w„ f r f r !^�1�>.x: '�r a"3 t k' J t\ a t t �.•f. �S'NS'� J *' M n J�,I„' � �, , f as f„h R•tC� -rjd r}y'""tt g; s 9>; er i, '_i 7z /'F�23 nk•,y �Mi i.ft :k i+ < �,E.i�'1 I �ik,i aY}� ��kuu��;•' i�/y �-!{ 3 ' �� Zq� F'y �yAa�. f �r it�.,r Wf�Pq'fa �y �'iSi �� /�� MAN: t .0 r I F E t iJ F ' r 1'.f'; rrYF. t* { •}f : �J+.A ''•.�' ` 1 j; Y � .. t: t {1r�• �� 1'yF!' �J,d'7 ,. ®_t , ,.r f u•r,,.:.i'. ..{•y.� t a ,,,, } ':IJl �ffi'.i CK�e � YYAt,r,{� ,� � 'r` e '�T� 3•` +�. x , `axe. '+Niel MEfR i•u• S t�]stt�k"c�`� � i ��7? a1 A P r a,VR•a ._ } y•'3VP d a"'�` ' f�'A`r a ` ' Ji; e r ♦� t• d L Ski s. ,A C < a t r 7 f } n '� /�1( F �� N yn LM .}I. t•�6NU„t.]�' P � f. p.! fi�i f� u 4 ); , Ra$I�S� � ��rf+t� ■� ,�y{t$ .,:��{w.}a99N':LA°t,< �• - j_,,,,�,�;p��',° � ��a�rY�r" r��F,,�� `� �� �'�yv�t• �^. {•'��. ,:!� .� ,+�)'$1�*"tc�`t.ao-,, ATE � � tl ��,v 'sSi'l••� , r. � .,�J} _ �r?. 'fir r $••fys} Sx., 4 "rN��.,•r ui L1, ! , iri �< r ,� ei t. 4.P v Per�>xy"yG qr" � f e f • �.a.S? ca 4 } N ! t` t !-1' i F" f 1 i l�. E �i oGk �r i• �', CO) �— t co �, �: H:`4 '.v�war'`'�`s•�-r-r rd ti a' y r ,M (5) August 4, 2003 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 5 9. Speaker re: Closed Session Item #2 spoke regarding the Council decision that the Fair District Initiative is to be placed on the ballot. 10. Speaker in support of Agenda Item E-14 stated he believed Environmental Impact Report(E/R) on Poseidon Desalinization Plant is not adequate; however if plant approved he requested Council to be sure financial aspects are taken care of. (400.10) 11. Representative of the (O.C. Regional Airport Authority distributed photos and requested Council to ask staff to review City of Long Beach Plan in order to see if it would be detrimental to City of Huntington Beach. 12. Speaker opposed to school district actions which caused to bring about settlement on behalf of children;stated that current Council was not responsible for a property tax lawsuit. I C-1. Council Committee/Council Liaison Reports Mayor Pro Tem Green stated that she wished to extend her appreciation to all The volunteers in the City who recently exceeded 3500 hours of volunteering their time and work to the City. (110.30) C-2. City Administrator's Report -None C-3. City Treasurer's Report C-3a. (City Council) Review and Accept Shari Freidenrich, City Treasurer's June 2003 Report Titled City of Huntington Beach Summary of City Investment Portfolio, Bond Proceeds, and Deferred Compensation Activity (310.20) Communication from City Treasurer Shari Freidenrich transmitting the Monthly Investment Report for June 2003. Recommended Action: Motion to: Review and accept the monthly report. Following review of the report, by motion of Council, accept the Monthly Investment Report Summary of Investment Portfolio, Bond Proceeds, and Deferred Compensation Activity forJune 2003, pursuant to Section 17.0 of the Investment Policy of the City of Huntington Beach. Recommended,Action -Approved 6-0-1 (Houchen out of room) (15) August 4, 2003 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 15 H-2a. Submitted By Councilmember Sullivan (City Council) Adopt an Amendment to Resolution No. 2003-51 (Adopted at the July 7. 2003 Council Meeting) Revising the City's Code of Ethics and Amend the City Council Manual (110.40) Communication from Councilmember Dave Sullivan transmitting the following Statement of Issue: At the July 7, 2003, City Council meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution 2003-51 revising the City's Code of Ethics and amending the City Council Manual. On July 21, 2003, a motion to reconsider-that amendment was approved. While I am in agreement with removing the reference to gifts to be consistent with State law (Legislative Draft- Item 4, Section C), I would like to recommend that the time period deletion as shown on the Legislative Draft (Item 7) be reinserted, but changed to a one year time period. Although these limitations are not required by the State, I believe it is appropriate to call ourselves and other city officials to this higher standard, albeit two years seems too strict. Therefore, I am recommending that Resolution 2003-51 - "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Revising the City's Code of Ethics and Amending the City Council Manual"be adopted and amended as shown below. Recommended Action: Motion to: Adopt Resolution 2003-51 as amended revising the city's Code of Ethics and amending the City Council Manual, including the following language: Seventh: Except for persons appointed to boards, commissions, and committees, officials shall not lobby for remuneration on behalf of any other individual or entity other than themselves to City staff or before the City Council or any City board, commission, or committee for a period of one year after their date of severance from the City. And include 116103 Council motion as follows: To require that each person sign acknowledging that they understand the Code of Ethics as adopted at the January 6, 2003 council meeting to approve the recommended action as amended to require that each person sign acknowledging that they understand the Code of Ethics (Elected Officers, all employees, Board, Commission and Committee members) and to direct the City Clerk to record in the official minutes that the Code of Ethics was presented to the City Council, the City Administrator, Chairpersons, and City Department Directors for review and distribution as required. Adopted as amended 7-0 H-2b Submitted By Councilmember Sullivan (City Council) Direct Staff to Present a Plan to Maintain Equivalent of Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment if Poseidon Seawater Desalinization Project is Approved and Later Sold to a Public Agency (400.10) Communication from Councilmember Dave Sullivan transmitting the following Statement of Issue: If the Poseidon Seawater Desalination project is approved and later sold to a public agency, the Redevelopment Agency would lose the tax increment. There may be a way to insure continuation of the equivalent of the tax increment in this circumstance via an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. (Continued on the Next Page) (16) August 4, 2003 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 16 Recommended Action: Motion to: Move that the Economic Development Director and the City Attorney present the City Council by August 31 with a plan to maintain the equivalent of the tax increment from the Poseidon project in the event it is sold to a public agency and amended to study research on utility tax issue. Discussion held between Council, City Attorney and Economic Development Director. Approved as amended 6-1 (Boardman-NO) Council Comments - (Not Agendized) At this time Councilmembers may report on items not specifically described on the agenda which are of interest to the community. No action or discussion may be taken except to provide staff direction to report back or to place the item on a future agenda. Councilmember Dave Sullivan and Gil Coerper reported re: Community Meeting on Airport held at Library and the large turnout of citizens showing their concern re: the increased noise from flight path. (600.10) Councilmember Gil Corper announced Fire Captain George Shinrock has returned to duty from his service as a Marine in Iraq. (110.30) Councilmember Gil Coerper reported on Police Officers Paholski and Reed who received the 2003 Air Crew Award for the apprehension of suspects in a brutal attack on citizens. (110.30) Mayor Boardman and Councilmembers Cook and Houchen reported on their trip aboard US carrier and them meeting a young Huntington Beach serviceman, Jonathan Greathouse. Council/Aaencv Adjournment to Monday, August 11, 2003, at 4:00 p.m., in Council Chambers, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. Council/Agency Agendas and Minutes are Available at No Charge to the Public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City's Website, Via Email, and Through Paid Subscription. Complete Agenda Packets are Available at the Central Library and Library Branches on Friday Prior to Meetings. Videotapes of Council Meetings are Available for Checkout at the Central Library at No Charge. CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street - Second Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 Internet: http://www.surfcity-hb.org +DDo 1© t / G, L4 2-003 f 2 t ICUhf� kt J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH InterOffice Communication Economic Development Department r�►0A RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE ,} COUNCIL MEETING OF TO: COuncilmember Dave Sullivan OFFICE O THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development DATE: May 15, 2003 SUBJECT: _ PROPOSED POSEDIAN PLANT AND PUBLIC REVENUES You recently expressed a concern that if the proposed Poseidon plant is approved and built, some of the public financial benefits being promised by the applicant may not be on-going if the plant is ultimately sold to a public entity like the Orange County Water District. Property owned by public agencies and certain types of non-profits could be exempt from property taxes. The proposed Poseidon plant is located in.the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Project Area, and would generate substantial property tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency if built. While our redevelopment program has not assumed any revenues from the Poseidon plant, this revenue if it materializes would be invested back into the area to improve the infrastructure and physical appearance of the area. After consultation with the City Attorney's Office, it is my understanding that there is no vehicle for the City to address this issue through the entitlement process. However, if the project were ultimately approved through the City's entitlement process, the Redevelopment Agency would have an ability to ensure receipt of its property tax increment from the initial property owner or any future property owner. The Redevelopment Agency's Special Counsel Murray Kane has suggested that if the project is entitled, the Redevelopment Agency could subsequently. enter into an Owner Participation Agreement which would provide for the Redevelopment Agency's approval of the project and a certification that it complies with the redevelopment plan for the area. In exchange for this project approval by the Redevelopment Agency, the project developer would agree to a binding contractual commitment or covenant which would run with the land, for at least the duration of the redevelopment plan, requiring this and any future property owner to pay property taxes or an equivalent property tax in-lieu payment to the Redevelopment Agency. (15) August 4, 2003 -Cour,,;il/Agency Agenda -Page 15 H-2a. Submitted By Councilmember Sullivan (City Council) Adopt an Amendment to Resolution No. 2003-51 (Adopted at the July 7, 2003 Council Meeting) Revising the City's Code of Ethics and Amend the City Council Manual ( ) Communication from Councilmember Dave. Sullivan transmitting the following Statement of Issue: At the July 7, 2003, City Council meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution 2003-51 revising the City's Code of Ethics and amending the City Council Manual. On July 21, 2003, a motion to reconsider that amendment was approved. While I am in agreement with removing the reference to gifts to be consistent with State law (Legislative Draft- Item 4, Section C), I would like to recommend that the time period deletion as shown on the Legislative Draft (Item 7) be reinserted, but changed to a one year time period. Although these limitations are not required by the State, I believe it is appropriate to call ourselves and other city officials to this higher standard, albeit two years seems too strict. Therefore, I am recommending that Resolution 2003-51 - "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Revising the City's Code of Ethics and Amending the City Council Manual"be adopted and amended as shown below. Recommended Action: Motion to: Adopt Resolution 2003-51 as amended revising the city's Code of Ethics and amending the City Council Manual, including the following language: Seventh: Except for persons appointed to boards, commissions, and committees, officials shall not lobby for remuneration on behalf of any other individual or entity other than themselves to City staff or before the City Council or any City board, commission, or committee for a period of one year after their date of severance from the City. And include 116103 Council motion as follows: To require that each person sign acknowledging that they understand the Code of Ethics as adopted at the January 6, 2003 council meeting to approve the recommended action as amended to require that each person sign acknowledging that they understand the Code of Ethics (Elected Officers, all employees, Board, Commission and Committee members) and to direct the City Clerk to record in the official minutes that the Code of Ethics was presented to the City Council, the City Administrator, Chairpersons, and City Department Directors for review and distribution as required. Adopted as amended 7-0 H-2b Submitted By Councilmember Sullivan (City Council) Direct Staff to Present a Plan to Maintain Equivalent of Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment if Poseidon Seawater Desalinization Project is Approved and Later Sold to a Public Agency ( . ) Communication from Councilmember Dave Sullivan transmitting the following Statement of Issue: If the Poseidon Seawater Desalination project is approved and later sold to a public agency, the Redevelopment Agency would lose the tax increment. There may be a way to insure continuation of the equivalent of the tax increment in this circumstance via an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. (Continued on the Next Page) (16) August 4, 2003 -Coui.-il/Agency Agenda - Page 16 Recommended Action: Motion to: Move that the Economic Development Director and the City Attorney present the City Council by August 31 with a plan to maintain the equivalent of the tax increment from the Poseidon project in the event it is sold to a public agency and amended to study research on utility tax issue. Discussion held between Council, City Attorney and Economic Development Director.. Approved as amended 6-1 (Boardman-NO) Council Comments - (Not Agendized) At this time Councilmembers may report on items not specifically described on the agenda which are of interest to the community. No action or discussion may be taken except to provide staff direction to report back or to place the item on a future agenda. Councilmember Dave Sullivan and Gil Coerper reported re: Community Meeting on Airport held at Library and the large turnout of citizens showing their concern re: the increased noise from flight path. Councilmember Gil Corper announced Fire Captain George Shinrock has returned to duty from his service as a Marine in Iraq. Councilmember Gil Coerper reported on Police Officers Paholski and Reed who received the 2003 Air Crew Award for the apprehension of suspects in a brutal attack on citizens. Mayor Boardman and Councilmembers Cook and Houchen reported'on their trip aboard US carrier and them meeting a young Huntington Beach serviceman, Jonathan Greathouse. Council/Aaency Adjournment to Monday, August 11, 2003, at 4:00 p.m., in Council Chambers, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. Council/Agency Agendas and Minutes are Available at No Charge to the Public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City's Website, Via Email, and Through Paid Subscription. Complete Agenda Packets are Available at the Central Library and Library Branches on Friday Prior to Meetings. Videotapes of Council Meetings are Available for Checkout at the Central Library at No Charge. CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street - Second Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 Internet: http:/twww.surfcity-hb.org CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH _ City Council Interoffice Communication To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Dave Sullivan; City Council Member Date: July 28, 2003 Subject: "H"ITEM FOR AUGUST 4, 2003, CITY COUNCIL MEETING— POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT Statement of Issue: If the Poseidon Seawater Desalination project is approved and later sold to a public agency, the Redevelopment Agency would lose the tax increment. There may be a way to insure continuation of the equivalent of the tax increment in this circumstance via an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. Recommended Action: Move that the Economic Development Director and the City Attorney present the City Council by August 31 with a plan to maintain the equivalent of the tax increment from the Poseidon project in the event it is sold to a public agency. DS:cf — G _ xc: Ray Silver _ Bill Workman David Biggs r� Connie Brockway TT—a � -a� , �o�� � �p� �q ����� ' �- .�?a�,,,�, Srx,,c,: N 4 � ---. (5) July 21, 2003 -Council/Agency Agenda -.Page 5 B. PUBLIC COMMENTS Hello and welcome to the Huntington Beach City Council meeting. If you would like to address the Council please fill out the pink public comment sheet attached to this agenda. After completing the form, hand it to the Sergeant at Arms and he will give it to the City Clerk. Council members strive to treat members of the public with respect and we ask that you also express your concerns and opinions in a civil and respectful manner. Due to the Brown (Open Meeting)Act, the City Council may not discuss items unless they are on our agenda. So if you are speaking on an item not on the agenda, we cannot discuss the issue with you at this meeting. However, if you wish to meet with any of us please call the Council's Secretary at 714-536-5553. Thank you for taking the time to come to the council meeting to address the council. This is the time to address Council regarding items of interest or on agenda items OTHER than Public Hearings. 3 minutes per person,time may not be donated to others. No action can be taken by Council/Agency on this date unless agendized. Complete the attached pink form and give to the Sergeant-At-Arms located near the speaker's podium Public Comments: 1. Speaker presented reasons why he believes the proposed Poseidon desalinization plant will be destructive to the ocean. He spoke re: the detrimental effect of the AES Power generating plant and the detrimental effect he believes the combination will have. 2. Speaker offered prayer due to the absence of the Invocation. 3. Speaker re:Agenda item E-4 Disc Golf contract.removal from the agenda, stating he believes it is subsidized$25,000, is misused by some participants and questions as to whether there is a yearly audit and other questions he believes need answered. 4. Speaker presented overhead slide and reported on what he believes will be the detrimental effects of the desalinization plant on the ocean and why he believes it will result in the continued presence forever of the AES power generating plant. 5. Kelly Shanley expressed her appreciation to each City Councilmember as she leaves her position;speaking re: her duties, which included Council presentations and proclamations; instructing Boy Scout and Girl Scouts flag ceremonies; and taking photographs for HBTV--3. (Kelly has assumed the position of Field Representative for the Water Division of the Public Works Department.) 6. Speaker spoke in opposition to low-flying banner-towing aircraft; the budget crisis; and what he believes to be'a waste of water resources for median landscaping. (4) June 2, 2003 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 4 B. PUBLIC COMMENTS Hello and welcome to the Huntington Beach City Council meeting. If you would like to address the Council please fill out the pink public comment sheet attached to this agenda. After completing the form, hand it to the Sergeant at Arms and he will give it to the City Clerk. Council members strive to treat members of the public with respect and we ask that you also express your concerns and opinions in a civil and respectful manner. Due to the Brown (Open Meeting)Act, the City Council may not discuss items unless they are on our agenda. So if you are speaking on an item not on the agenda,we cannot discuss the issue with you at this meeting. However, if you wish to meet with any of us please call the Council's Secretary at 714-536-5553. Thank you for taking the time to come to the council meeting to address the council. This is the time to address Council regarding items of interest or on agenda items OTHER than Public Hearings. 3 minutes per person, time may not be donated to others. No action can be taken by Council/Agency on this date unless agendized. Complete the attached pink form and give to the Sergeant-At-Arms located near the speaker's podium Public Comments: 1. Speaker in opposition to Agenda Item F-2 re: increase in fees and recommending approval of alternative action in staff report. 2. Speakers in support of Agenda Item H-1 a urging Council not to support the Harbour contract. Photographs submitted by the first of two speakers. 3. Speakers in opposition to Agenda Item F-3 relative to the HCP(Huntington Central Park) Sports Complex proposed parking, as adversely impacting Library users. 4. Speaker in opposition to the absence of the Invocation from the Agenda and offering a prayer. 5. Speaker rebutting alleged conflict of interest claims lodged against him and offering an explanation also available at his website: keithbohr@aol.com. 6. Speaker in favor of the D.A.R.E., and requesting Council reconsideration for funding for the anti-drug abuse program. 7. Speaker stating hazardous condition of curbside on Gothard Avenue near Centeral Library. Also inquired re: Rainbow Disposal fees and spoke in favor of Poseidon and desalinization process for water. C-1. Council Committee/Council Liaison Reports -None C-2. City Administrator's Report—None D. Public Hearings - None �(8) April 7, 2003 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 8 E-5. (City Council) Accept Bid and Award Construction Contract to Elite Bobcat Service, Inc. for Speer Avenue and Liberty Avenue Street Improvement Project: CC-1142 -Oak View Neiahborhood Enhancement Area (Street Widenina, Curb and Gutter, Sidewalk and Landscaping) (600.50)— 1. Accept the lowest responsive/responsible bid submitted Ty Elite Bobcat Service, Inc. in the amount of$249,480 for the Speer Avenue and Liberty Avenue Street Improvement Project, CC-1142; and 2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a construction contract with Elite Bobcat Service, Inc. in substantially the same form as the attached sample construction contract. Submitted by the Economic Development Director and the Public Works Director. Funding Source: CDBG Fiscal Year 1999-2000, Street Improvements Account and Measure M, Miscellaneous Streets Account. Approved 6-0-1 (Sullivan absent) E-6. (City Council) Accept Huntington Beach Grammar School Grant Deed for the State Funded Safe Routes to School, Second Cycle Project, CC-1210 for Design and Construction of Street Improvements and Signal Poles e/o 17th Street and Palm Avenue (650.80)—Authorize the City Clerk to accept, record and file the Huntington Beach Grammar School District Grant Deed. Submitted by the Public Works Director. Funding Source: Not required. Approved 6-0-1 (Sullivan absent) E-7. (City Council) Approve Special Utility Easement Agreements and Authorize Public Works Director to Execute Re: Pipeline Repairs, Replacement and Surface Uses for All Applicable Future Developments (600.10) -Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute Special Utility Easement Agreements for all applicable future developments, in substantially the same form as the attached agreement, which has been approved as to form by the Office of the City Attorney. Submitted by the Public Works Director. Funding Source: Not applicable. Approved 6-0-1 (Sullivan absent) E-8. (City Council) Approve Correction Per Reimbursement Agreement to Transfer Funds into Planning Department Account for Payment of Environmental Impact Report(EIR) Prepared by RBF Consultina Relative to Poseidon Resources Corporation Seawater Desalination Plant Proposed on AES, Huntington Beach Property at Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Street (600.10)—Authorize the Director of Administrative Services to appropriate funds in the amount of$51,173 from the City's General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balances into the Planning Department's Contractual Services Account Number 10060201.69365. Submitted by the Planninq Director. Approved 6-0-1 (Sullivan absent) E-9. (City Council) Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement of Bids for the Beach Outlet Storm Water Treatment Project, CC-1179 (600.75)— Approve the project plans and specifications and authorize the Director of Public Works to request bids for Beach Outlet Storm Water Treatment Project, CC-1179. Submitted by the Public Works Director. Funding Source: Proposition 13, 2000 Water Bond Act Grant. Engineer's cost estimate - $1,000,000. Approved 6-0-1 (Sullivan absent) (�i D-S- Rotfy-)C� Council/Agency Meeting Held: Y- 7-0 3 Deferred/Continued to: KApproved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signatur Council Meeting Date: April 7, 2003 Department ID Number: PL03-10 } 6—�� �Sr/bwlw AZjra►� 1 a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION : - SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator am-X PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE ACCOUNT CORRECTION FOR POSEIDON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REIMBURSEMENT Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: In March 2001 the City Council approved a professional services contract with . RBF Consulting for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Poseidon seawater desalination plant proposed on a portion of the AES property at PCH and Newland Street. In January 2002 Poseidon Resources Corporation paid the City $51,173 as part of the reimbursement agreement to cover the cost of the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report by RBF Consulting. This amount was deposited into the General Fund and was not I subsequently transferred to the Planning Department's Contractual Services Account. Transmitted for your consideration is a request by the Planning Department to appropriate funds in the amount of $51,173 from the City's General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balances into the Planning Department's Contractual Services Account Number 10060201.69365 for use in payment to RBF Consulting for services provided. Staff recommends approval of the request. Funding Source: Appropriation of funds in the amount of $51,173 from the City's General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balances into the Planning Department's Contractual Services Account Number 10060201.69365. Recommended Action: Motion to: "Authorize the Director of Administrative Services to appropriate funds in the amount of $51,173 from the City's General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balances into the Planning Department's Contractual Services Account Number 10060201.69365." REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: April 7, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-10 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): "Continue the item and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. BACKGROUND: In March 2001 the City Council approved a professional services contract with RBF Consulting for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Poseidon seawater desalination plant proposed on a portion of the AES property at PCH and Newland Street. In January 2002 entitlement applications to construct the desalination plant were submitted to the Planning Department. The Planning Department continues to process the entitlements and environmental documentation for the project. In January 2002 Poseidon Resources Corporation paid the City $51,173 as part of the reimbursement agreement to cover the cost of the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report by RBF Consulting. This amount was deposited into the General Fund and was not subsequently transferred to the Planning Department's Contractual Services Account. Transmitted for your consideration is a request by the Planning Department to appropriate funds paid by Poseidon Resources in the amount of $51,173 from the City's General Fund Unappropriated Fund Balances into the Planning Department's Contractual Services Account Number 10060201.69365 for use in payment to RBF Consulting for services provided. Staff recommends approval of the request. Environmental Status: Projects over which public agencies exercise only ministerial authority, such as this request to appropriate funds from one account to another, are categorically exempt from the California.Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15300.01 Attachment(s): City Clerk's . - Number No. Description Fiscal Impact Statement RCA Author: R. Ramos/S. Hess PL03-10 -2- 3/20/2003 2:34 PM - R s� E s � J � T S ity ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES H 2 INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION To: Ray Silver, City Administrator From: Clay Martin, Director Of Administrative Services Subject: FIS 2003-24 Approve Account Correction for Poseidon Environmental Impact Report Reimbursement Date: March 21, 2003 As required by Resolution 4832, this Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared for "Approve Account Correction for . Poseidon Environmental Impact Report Reimbursement". If the City Council approves this request (total appropriation $51 ,176), the estimated unreserved, General Fund Balance at September 30, 2002 will be reduced to $3,144,000. Clay Martin Director Administrative Services RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE ACCOUNT CORRECTION FOR POSEIDON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REIMBURSEMENT COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April .7, 2003 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorne ) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attome Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorne ) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Attached Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (if applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED:. Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: t Only)(Below Space For-City Clerk's Use RCA Author: HZ:SH:RR