Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 2 of 3 - Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Plant C F` (4) January 5, 2004 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 4 B. PUBLIC COMMENTS Hello and welcome to the Huntington Beach City Council meeting. If you would like to address kthe 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. Pursuant 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: Speakers spoke in opposition to the Poseidon desalination plant and the AES Power generating Plant in the Southeast Huntington Beach neighborhood. Speaker distributed Late Communication urging opposition to desalination plant. Speaker spoke in opposition to Measure E, the Districting Initiative on the March 2, 2004 election ballot giving web site of www.Nodistricts.or_g. Speaker spoke re the "public trust doctrine"in relation to water resources, stating that it should be adhered to for accountability and spoke in opposition to desalination. Speaker stated a walkway with overgrown vegetation in the area of Saddleback up to Discovery Park and Summit Street, requesting Council assistance. Mayor Green requested speaker to turn in a blue contact form to the Sergeant-at-Arms. Speaker presented Power Point in opposition to Measure E Districting Initiative on the March 2, 2004 election ballot. (Councilmember Boardman announced Wes Bannister is the City's representative on the OC Water Board to be contacted for any questions.) Speaker spoke supporting agenda item G-lb and requested a "sunset clause"to be placed on Agenda item G-lb so it can be revisited at a later time. Speaker spoke re agenda item C-lb and in opposition of Districting Measure. 'ii Y:i'`T:�;°,i. .c_ :: T: HE h'L s c C ;-Y CLERK Agenda Item# OITY CLERK c- ' *1. Item 30, December 17, 2003 (Revised) Recommended changes to Request for Expressions of Interest document REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST OCEAN WATER DESALINATION PROGRAM The Orange county Water District (OCWD)is requesting Expressions of Interest (EOI) from interested companies/consortiums to provide the cost information for a potential ocean water desalination plant in Huntington Beach, California. BACKGROUND OCWD recently completed a Concept Development Paper(Concept Paper) on a potential Ocean Water Desalination Program (attached). The OCWD Board of Directors has instructed staff to obtain additional information on the costs of such a program. OBJECTIVE The objective of this Request for EOI is to determine the range of unit water costs and implementation schedule duration for a potential Ocean Water Desalination Plant (OWDP)in Huntington Beach, California. Approximate costs have been discussed in the Concept Paper;however,more precise costs and information are requested from companies/consortiums who are actively involved in developing such plants. This EOI is not intended to result in a commitment for OCWD or for the companies/consortiums participating. It is not to be considered a commitment from OCWD to purchase water from that plant prior to any agreements reached at a later date. The information will be used to determine if there is sufficient economic viability and interest to justify additional technical and institutional investigations of the OWDP. OCWD reserves the right to reject any and all EOI submittals,waive any EOI formalities, and modify or postpone activities on the potential project at its sole discretion. CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS The following criteria and assumptions should form the basis for the cost estimates to be submitted by the EOI: Criteria 1. Costs are to include all components of the design/build/finance project delivery method. (Note that this approach is different than discussed in the Dr�Binals �rarn, Co�nwl �ievlit-y . coprm fvr Minu� Concept Paper). OCWD intends to purchase and take over operation of the facility at completion subject to acceptance of all performance requirements. OCWD will be responsible for all infrastructure construction outside of the fence at the facility. 2. The plant costs are to be based on a facility capable of producing from 30,000 to 50,000 acre feet per year(afy)of product water while the facility is operating at 90 percent operating level (plant utilization factor [PUF],with product water capacity at 30 to 50 million gallons per day [mgd]). 3. It is anticipated that the PWPD will be located at a site in Huntington Beach adjacent to the current power facility operated by AES. It is also anticipated that the current intake and outfall facilities of that plant would be available for the production plant. EOI should included costs for obtaining necessary agreements from AES for placement of the facility at this location. 4. In order to assume operational success and regulatory approval, costs should be based on the following minimum process train: a. Membrane pre-treatment(ultra filtration or microfiltration); b. Cartridge filtration; c. Single-pass reverse osmosis; d. Post-treatment for chemical stabilization; and e. Disinfection. 5. Product water quality maximum levels are: TDS = '4O 1 - Sodium= 100 mg/L Chloride= 150 mg/L 6. Product water quality minimum levels are: Hardness= 100mgfL(as CaCO3) Alkalinity= 100 mg/L(as CaCO3) 7. Cost estimates should not include federal, state, or regional grants. 8. Delivery Pressure: Compatible to adjacent delivery systems. Z Assumptions 1. Product water operations would be provided by OCWD and water would be sold to retail water agencies. 2. OCWD would provide assistance and lead in permitting and agency approvals,costs to be included in EOI. 3. Offsite system integration facilities and costs would be handled by others (EOI costs should include all capital and annual operating costs within the treatment plant site and all raw water intake and reject disposal facilities). ELEMENTS OF SUBMITTAL Please include the following in your submittal: 1. Cover letter 2. Unit cost of product water($/af) a. Total unit cost of capital recovery and annual O&M costs, b. Total unit cost for initial year of operation and 2&year of operation, c. Unit cost components fixed portion(including all treatment facilities, buildings, site developments,pumping, conveyance,yard piping, power, instrumentation, controls, energy recovery and engineering) and variable portion(including all power, labor,membrane replacement, chemicals and maintenance) d. List of items included in unit costs e. List of items excluded from unit costs (if any) ! f. Assumed power demand rate(kWh/af) i g. Total capital costs(including all components listed above). 3. Potential project development implementation schedule(design, construction duration, operational date(completion of acceptance testing), 4. Summary of similar operating projects, including project details and agency references(ocean or sea water membrane desalination plants,other membrane treatment plants), 3 � a .t 5. Statement of the company/consortium stating reasons why you should be considered, 6. Please keep you submittal brief(10 pages of text) exclusive of cover letter and preprinted material (project abstracts,brochures),with font six no smaller than 12 point. EOI Submittals are due no later than 9:00 AM on January 30, 2004. Provide six(6) copies of the submittal,addressed as follows: Orange County Water District Attn: Bill Everest,Principal Engineer 10500 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 e-mail: beverest @-OCWD.com Fax: (714)378-3381 All requests for additional information should be made to the above in writing(e-mail or fax acceptable). No oral modifications of the Request for EOI shall be valid. Any modifications should be provided to all by written addendum. Attachment: Ocean Water Desalination Program—Concept Development Paper(October 2003) �f Chapter 5-System Analysis Table 5-3. Summary of Storage/Supply Analysis (Without Bolsa Chica) Emergency Emergency Emergency Storage or Supply Condition I Condition Condition Entire Water System(MG) No. i Reauued. Katy; Operational 13.5 13.5 13.5 . Fine r #;3 3.0 3.0 3.0 Eu>te 33.4 1 187.0 187.0 Total Re uu ed .r �� 49.9 203.5 203.5 rag Sto ' 49.0 49.0 49.0 Y�,i'f#'F��tE4M�a7 dr4ra f k �.s�`g��.i Well5u `1 �� _ �� - NA 229.6 164.5 SubtotaAvailable z 49.0 278.6 213.5 Subtotalb ' liis or' efccit ,� (0.9) 75.1 10.0 Pro S r `dale°Reservoir; 9.0 9.0 9.0 aa`n- .64'`d TotalAvaila#ble ;� N 58.0 287.6 222.5 Total Sur lus_or. fic><t ., �, 8.1 84.1 19.0 (a) Emergency Storage equivalent to one day of average system demand. (b) Emergency storage/supply sufficient to cover a seven-day outage of the imported water supply. (c) Emergency storage/supply sufficient to cover a seven-day outage of the imported water supply combined with complete loss of electric power. A summary of the system storage analysis without a Bolsa Chica annexation that includes Emergency Condition No. 2 is shown in Table 5-3. The available storage/supply is sufficient to provide for all of the storage/supply requirements with a 75.1-MG surplus. Construction of the proposed 9.0-MG Springdale Reservoir would increase this surplus`..to 84.1 MG. Emergency Condition No. 3 is emergency storage/supply sufficient to cover a seven-day outage of the imported water supply combined with a complete loss of electric power. As shown in Table 5-4, 23.5 mgd of gas-driven well supply would be available assuming Well No. 7 to be out of service for repair or supply. This well supply equates to 164.5 MG over 7 days. TETRA TECH ASL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Water Master Plan 5 -8 T i�•/e�f,,�, �--��`"�'"d.�'i C rid''?l C.� "`�..�" CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION Connie Brockway, City Clerk Office of the City Clerk TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk DATE: January 5, 2004 SUBJECT: LATE COMMUNICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE JANUARY 5, 2004 COUNCIL MEETING Attached is a Late Communication to the City Council received after distribution of the Agenda Packets: C-ld Communication submitted by the City Clerk's Office correcting a typographical error on Agenda Item C-1d. G:Agendas/Agmisc/Latecomm"2003" (6) January 5, 2004 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 6 Revised Page Included here is the November 25, 2003 staff report (without attachments) to the Beautification, Landscape and Tree Committee on this issue (see Attachment 2 included in the agenda packet). Recommended Action: Motion to: Direct the Director of Public Works to allow removal and replacement of parkway trees, including necessary sidewalk, curb, and/or gutter repair, all at the expense of the property owner, without the location necessarily being on the Petition list. All other conditions of the current City Tree Removal/Replacement Policy will remain in effect. C-1c. (City Council) Announcement by Mayor Cathy Green of Individual Appointments of(1) Dick Harlow to the Public Works Commission: (2) Don Hansen to the Finance Board; and (3) Ed Bush to the Investment Advisory Board ( ) Mayor Cathy Green will announce the following individual appointments. Recommended Action: Motion to: Direct the City Clerk to make record in the minutes to reflect the individual appointments by Mayor Cathy Green of(1) Dick Harlow to the Public Works Commission; (2) Don Hansen to the Finance Board; and (3) Ed Bush to the Investment Advisory Board. C-1d. (City Council) Approve Appointments of Randy Fuhrman and Don Rice to the ' Environmental Board ( ) Communication from Mayor Pro Tern Jill Hardy and Councilmember Connie Boardman, ^' Liaisons to the Environmental Board, transmitting the following Statement of Issue: Currently, there are two vacancies on the Environmental Board due to unexpired terms. Recommended Action: We are requesting Council approval of the following appointments to the Environmental Board: ■ Randy Fuhrman to fill the term of Joan Prijatel that expires on June 30, 2004. • Don Rice to fill the term of Carrie Thomas that expires on June 30, 2007. C-2. City Administrator's Report (10) December 15, 2003 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 10 D-2a. (City Council) Part 1 of 2 Parts of Public Hearing Opened and Continued Open from November 17, 2003: (1.) Consider Appeal Filed by Mayor Connie Boardman of the Plannina Commission's Certification of Environmental Impact Report(EIR) No. 00-02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant Located at 21730 Newland Street, east side, south of Edison Avenue) -Application Filed by Poseidon Resources Corporation —Approve Resolution No. 2003-82 and (2.) For Part 2 -See Agenda Item to Follow ( ) Communication from the Planning Director. Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Appellant: Mayor Connie Boardman Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of a proposed 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday November 13,2003. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk 1. Staff report 2. -City Council discussion 3. Open public hearing on this and the following agenda item 4. Following public input,close public hearing "PowerPoint presentation titled Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02-Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant is included in the agenda packet. ** Communication from Patti Sexton dated November 12, 2003 titled Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project in support of the project. '* Communication from Tom Livengood dated 11-19-2003 titled What is Normal?regarding the California Energy Commission 11-7-03 comment letter. "* Communication from Scott Szymborski dated 11-12-2003 titled Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project in support of the project. Communication from California Coastal Commission dated 12-8-2003 titled Comments on the City of Huntington Beach Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the Proposed Poseidon Desalination Facility recommending the City not certify at this time. (11) December 15, 2003 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 11 Recommended Action: Motion to: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) requirements by approving Resolution No. 2003- 82 - "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02(SCH#2001051092) for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project." Motion To: Deny certification Passed 4-3 (Sullivan, Coerper, Green -No) D-2b. (City Council) Part 2 of 2 Parts of Public Hearin- Opened and Continued Open from November 17. 2003: (1.) For Part 1 —See Preceding Agenda Item and (2.) Approve Conditional Use Permit(CUP) No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant Located at 21730 Newland (e/s, s/o Edison Avenue) —Approve CEQA(California Environmental Quality Act) Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations— Approve Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( ) Communication from the Planning Director A licant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Re guest: 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) Notice is hereby given that this Agenda item is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 filed on January 22, 2002, in conjunction with the above request. Environmental Status: Notice is hereby given that the Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and action. The City Council's action on this item may be appealed to the Coastal Commission within ten. (10)working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable. The Coastal Commission address is South Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802- 4302, phone number: (310) 570-5071. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday November 13,2003. y (12) December 15, 2003 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 12 ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk 1. Staff report 2. City Council discussion 3. Open public hearing on this and the preceding agenda item 4. Following public input,close public hearing *" PowerPoint presentation titled CUP No. 02-04/CDP No. 02-05 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant is included in the agenda packet. Recommended Action: Motion to: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. Approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 02-05 to permit Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant with staff recommended findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1); and 2. Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 7); and 3. Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment No. 8). No Action Required as Environmental Impact Report(E/R) Certification Denied (17) December 15, 2003 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 17 E-9. (City Council) Adopt Resolution No. 2003-94 Designating Authority to the City Administrator, Assistant City Administrator and the Economic Development Director as the Authorized Officials to Execute Administrative Documents for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Programs (630.50)—Adopt Resolution No. 2003-94—"A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Designating the City Administrator, the Assistant City Administrator and the Director of Economic Development as Authorized Officials to Sign Documents Related to the Administration of the City's Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnership Programs. Submitted by the Economic Development Director. Funding Source: Not Applicable. Adopted 7-0 E-10. (City Council) Approve Reimbursement - Planning Agreement between the City and Poseidon Resources Corporation for Planning Services to Complete Environmental Documentation for the Poseidon Desalination Plant (600.10)— Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Reimbursement— Planning Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Poseidon Resources Corporation for Costs Incurred for Preparation of Environmental Documentation for Poseidon Desalination Project. Submitted by the Planning Director. Funding Source: Not Applicable. Approved 7-0 E-11. (City Council) Approve Professional Services Contract between the City and Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. for Plan Checking and Development Processing Staff for the Public Works Department (600.10)— Approve the Professional Services Contract between the City of Huntington Beach and Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. for Plan Check and Development Processing Services and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same. Submitted by the Public Works Director. Funding Source: $200,000— Fiscal Year 2003/04 - General Fund, Professional Services Account. Fee-based revenues supported entirely by developer payments. Approved 7-0 E-12. (City Council) Approve Additional Funds for Speer and Liberty Streets Rehabilitation Project; CC-1142 -Change Orders (600.50)—Authorize an additional $40,000.00 to cover the additional change orders for Speer and Liberty Streets Rehabilitation Project; CC-1142. Submitted by the Public Works Director. Funding Source: $40,000— Measure M, Minor Street Improvements Account. Approved 7-0 E-13. (City Council) Accept Bid and Award Construction Contract to SRD Engineering, Inc. for the Ellis Avenue Drainage and Street Improvement Project; CC-1220 (600.60 — 1. Accept the lowest, responsive and responsible bid submitted by SRD'Engineering, Inc., in the amount of$74,333.00 for the Ellis Avenue Drainage and Street Improvement Project; CC- 1220; and 2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a construction contract in substantially the same form as the attached sample contract. Submitted by the Public Works Director. Funding Source: Sufficient Measure M fund, Minor Street Improvements Account. Engineer's estimate - $75,000.00. Approved 7-0 Page 1 of 1 Fikes, Cathy From: Steve Goltra [sgoltra@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 8:30 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Poseidon Desalination Plant Importance: High I want you to know that you have our support for this plant, that will be built in our area of Huntington Beach. Sincerely, Steffen L. Goltra Tanis J. Goltra 9432 Keoki Circle z Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 0 (714)963-7626 o crn-) o Cn -<n wo M .: -0 s c.n c' N Zi '--DI 12/15/2003 Jones, Dale z o c From: Brockway, Connie o _ Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 1:53 PM � ? To: Jones, Dale Subject: FW: Late Communication for 12/15/03 CC Meeting Cn ZZ7 c O -----Original Message----- O From: Norm Westwell [mailto:normw@truwest.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12 :49 PM To: cbrockway@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Late Communication for 12/15/03 CC Meeting In the best interests of HB citizens, I Norm "Firecracker" Westwell urge the council to adopt the following agenda items with staff recommendations: Clb D2a D2b H-2a. In the best interests of HB citizens, I Norm "Firecracker Westwell urge the council to NOT adopt the following agenda items: D4 G-la 4 Happy Holidays, --------------- --------------- Norm Westwell Sales & Operations normw@truwest.com www.truwest.com 800.322 .3669 1 Jones, Dale From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:02 PM To: Jones, Dale Subject: FW: Please Oppose Poseidon EIR and CUP o w 1 rn rn C-1) -----Original Message----- i, co r— From: Laura Curran [mailto:lauracurranQmac.com] r, AFT-, Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 8:55 AM D To: lauracurran@mac.com N `? Subject: Please Oppose Poseidon EIR and CUP _ Co D Subject: Agenda Item D-2a, D2-b, Please Oppose Poseidon EIR and CUP Dear Mayor Green and City Councilmembers, I am writing to ask that you please oppose certification of the EIR and CUP for the Poseidon Desalination Plant proposal. In addition to the concerns stated below, I submit that much of the need for new water sources could be achieved through savings from a citywide program encouraging use of native and drought- tolerant plants and replacement of lawns, through voter education and water rates which favor citizens who conserve, and punish citizens who do not. Several years ago when IRWD banned watering of lawns, water consumption dropped significantly. This plant represents an effort to solve a water shortage with a technical solution. You have the opportunity to take a courageous step and set an example by working with citizens and businesses to understand the impacts of water consumption and how to reduce it. This would be a lower cost option than building a desal plant, which will cost millions to get up and running, without even taking into account the costs of potential legal action from many sides opposed to it, which the project proponents and eventually residents would have to pay for. As indicated by recent letters from staff from three state agencies: the California Coastal Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the EIR for the Poseidon project is incomplete and should not be certified. Without certifying the EIR, the CUP should not be approved either. This issue is of utmost importance to the City of Huntington Beach, including the health of its ocean and beaches, its tourist- based economy, and the welfare of the neighboring residential community. 1 The Poseidon Desalination Plant project has the potential to degrade the ocean, the beaches, the wetlands, the economy, and the residential neighborhood quality of life. The EIR has not satisfied necessary requirements to identify and mitigate potential harmful effects, and therefore should be rejected. The beaches generated $25 million in sales tax revenue to the Huntington Beach economy in 1998. This economic engine should not be jeopardized by a desalination plant tied into a power plant that has been suspected as a factor in pollution of the adjacent beach. As stated by the State Parks Department in its November 17, 2003 letter to the City: "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. " I ask that you honor this request and not approve the EIR for the Poseidon project until it is complete. Thank you. Sincerely, Laura Curran 437 Dahlia Corona del Mar, CA 92625 2 [�ti Coy nc,L CITY CLEN'K ivA..&O, CITY OF FOKIMMU . S HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA ' Huntington Beach/Sea]Beach Chapter 1003 DEC I I A $= 11 December 9,2003 The Honorable Councilmember Dave Sullivan The Honorable Councilmember Jill Hardy City Council/Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,California Dear Council Members Thanks for the opportunity to meet with both of you this afternoon to discuss our concerns regarding the Huntington Beach/AES Poseidon Desalination Environmental Impact Report(EIR). Our Surfrider .Foundation, Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter commends both the City Planning Commission Staff, and Board Council Members for expending the extra effort, and performing their duties with due diligence with regard to studying these very complex issues before rendering a final decision. During extended drought periods, desalination plants,together with water conservation and water reclamation, are certainly worthy of serious consideration in order to continue to maintain a safe and reliable source of drinking water for our residents. However,as we have stated in previous testimony and written communications, we believe that the present EIR is both deficient and inadequate in several important areas of concern,and should be denied. Huntington Beach is "surf city" to many of our world-wide organization membership because of its reputation for consistently good waves and clean and healthy beaches. Frequent beach postings and closures, particularly in the surf zone directly in front of the AES power generating plant (3N 6I) are not only a threat to public health, but also impose a negative impact on the City, County, and State economy. Despise the millions of dollars that have been spent by the Agencies, OCSD, and the Regional Water Quality Control.Board,to address this problem, no source has yet been ldendfled as the d#nidve cause for these chronic postings Despite this fact, this is the precise location and power generating facility that Poseidon has proposed to use for the construction of. a "safe" drinking water desalination plant. The cautionary principle suggests that prior to considering a desalination plant at this location,the source of this seawater contamination be identified,and eliminated. We hope that you agree. Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments, and please feel free to contact the rsigned for any further information on these issues. n chu ` Executive Committee Surfrider Foundation Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter �-� Co m In v A I C 4- 0;�q I = o3 PC Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 4 Paul Cross, Pacific ity Action Coalition, requested that his time be donated to Gaye Churchin. Gaye Churchin, Seabreez�e Drive, spoke regarding Study Session Item No. A-2 (Pacific City) and voiced concerns aboutsoil and groundwater contamination, incomplete disclosure of information by the developer',a the associated negative impacts to neighboring residents by large developers. The Commission acknowledged are ion the Pacific City site that publicly displayed signage that described the area as environmentally sensitive, and suggested that the property owner increase the number of signs to promote safety and public awareness. z C c c 6:30 P.M. —RECESS FOR DINNER a a 7:00 P.M. -COUNCIL CHAMBERS c� o=-+�� -f wow= PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE D D ',1c !. P P P A P ROLL CALL: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Shomaker, Dingw U, Livengood co D AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO MOVE AGENDA ITEM E-3. DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS TO ITEM E-1. AND RENUMBER ACCORDINGLY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE LISTED IN THEIR ORIGINAL ORDER A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mark Bixby, Hillgate Lane, spoke regarding the wetland characteristics (ponding, vegetation) of the Pacific City site, and voiced concerns about suspicious grading activity on the site. Ronald Satterfield, Huntington Street, spoke in support of the Public Hearing Subcommittee's proposed changes to the public hearing process. Mary Jo Baretich, Cabrillo Mobile Home Park PAC, spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). M � CA'0 � (03pcm0923) �'0-� PC Minutes September 23,2003 Page 5 John McGregor, Cabrillo Mobile Home Park PAC, spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), voicing concerns about an Edison Plant spillway that is deteriorating, and identifying other failed locations for similar requests. Jeff Ackley, Cabrillo Mobile Home Park, spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 02- 04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), asking if initial project approval can be changed or denied at a later date. Marty Eariabaugh, Mermaid Circle, spoke in support of Conditional Use Permit No. 02- 04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), discussing zoning, landscaping, and demolition of the existing water tanks on the'proposed project site. Karen Keene, Silent Harbor, spoke in support of Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), stating that the project is compatible with surrounding uses, and promotes future growth. Aaron Felein,WE VOTE, spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), and in support of increased public input relating to the public hearing process. Michele Revelle, Feather Drive, spoke in support of Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) because its revenue projections provide economical assistance to the City. Sara Beebe, WE VOTE, spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No..02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), and in support of increased public input relating to the public hearing process. She voiced concerns about beach pollution. Joey Racano, WE VOTE, spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), and in support of increased public input relating to the public hearing process. He discussed sea life mortality and AES compliance with the California Clean Water Act. David Carlberg, Lido Lane, spoke in support of Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). He identified himself as a scientist, and urged the Commission not to make a decision based on bad science. Gaye Churchin, Seabreeze Lane, spoke regarding proper disclosure of harmful soil and groundwater contaminants related to the Pacific City project. She also discussed density issues related to the project. Dean Albright, Breda Lane, spoke regarding soil remediation and grading activity on the Pacific City site. Merilee Madrigal, Huntington Beach Santa Ana River resident, spoke regarding illegal dumping, landfilling and grading of the grassy lowlands within the Edison Corridors immediately adjacent to the Santa Ana River behind the residential communities of Meredith Gardens, Suburbia and Shore Crest East. She distributed a handout with related information to the Commission. (03p=0923) PC Minutes September 23,2003 Page 8 Billy Owens, Poseidon Resources, spoke in support of Conditional Use Permit No. 02- 04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), urging the Commission to consider carefully the financial and community enhancements associated with the proposed project. 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 SEPTEMBER 9, 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 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"; C) "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program." Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, outlined the revisions made to the conditions of approval following the September 9, 2003 meeting, and information received and provided as late communication. The Commission discussed review and action by straw vote motion prior to making a recommendation to approve or deny the request. The consensus was to proceed with straw vote motions. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA TO STRIKE THE LANGUAGE "PIPED" FROM CONDITION OF APPROVAL 4.M.12. ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.9 OF THE STAFF REPORT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: Scandura ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0923) PC Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 7 Fire Chief Burney explained the standard soil remediation language found in condition of approval no. 4.s. on Attachment 1.10 of the staff report. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY RAY, TO STRIKE THE LANGUAGE "ANY AND ALL HARMFUL SOIL CONTAMINATION ON SITE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE CITY" FROM CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 4.S. ON ATTACHMENT 1.10 OF THE STAFF REPORT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None. MOTION PASSED Discussion ensued regarding Condition of Approval No. 4.u. regarding the applicant's responsibility to publicly notify property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to grading. Discussion ensued regarding Condition of Approval No. 4.x. regarding preliminary or precise grading permits. Discussion ensued regarding Condition of Approval No. 4.z. grading or building permits and wetland protection "to the maximum extent feasible". Discussion ensued regarding adding the term "immediately" to Condition of Approval No. 4.ee.5) relating to debris removal from streets, check berms and basins after a rainstorm. Staff provided jurisdiction/enforcement information on the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board (SARWQB). A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY DINGWALL TO STRIKE THE TERM "MAY" FOLLOWING "SUCH MEASURES"AND. REPLACE WITH "SHALL" FROM CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 4.HH. ON ATTACHMENT 1.14 OF THE STAFF REPORT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Ray, Dingwall NOES: Davis, Livengood, Scandura ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA TO STRIKE CERTAIN LANGUAGE RELATED TO WATER DIVERSION INCLUDED IN CONDITION OF APPROVAL 4.LL. ON ATTACHMENT 1.15 OF THE STAFF REPORT. WITH NO SECOND,THE MOTION FAILED. Staff reminded the Commission of its recommended language for condition of approval 4.11. presented during late communication. Commissioner Davis read the recommended language. (03p=0923) PC Minutes September 23,2003 Page 8 Discussion ensued regarding EIR-imposed conditions. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO STRIKE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 4.LL. ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.15 OF THE STAFF REPORT AND REPLACE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 4.LL. AS PRESENTED THROUGH LATE COMMUNICATION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Ray NOES: Scandura, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Discussion ensued regarding responsibility issues by the applicant and/or property owner. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY RAY, TO STRIKE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 6.C. ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.16 OF THE STAFF REPORT AND REPLACE WITH COMMISSIONER RAY'S SUGGESTED CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 6.C. PRESENTED DURING,LATE COMMUNICATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Livengood NOES: Dingwall ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO STRIKE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 8.C. ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.20 OF THE STAFF REPORT AND REPLACE WITH COMMISSIONER RAY'S SUGGESTED CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 8.C. PRESENTED DURING LATE COMMUNICATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Discussion ensued regarding the intent behind Commissioner Ray's recommended condition of approval 8.q. relating to haul truck operations and routing. (03p=0923) PC Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 9 A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO MODIFY CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 8.L. ON ATTACHMENT 1.21 OF THE STAFF REPORT BY ADDING THE TERM "DIESEL" TO DESCRIBE ALL EQUIPMENT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DAVIS TO ACCEPT COMMISSIONER RAY'S SUGGESTED CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 8.U. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Livengood, Dingwall NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SCANDURA TO ACCEPT COMMISSIONER RAY'S SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOS. 8.C, 8.U., 82., 8.JJ., 18 AND 20, AND INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS ITEM NO. 18., 20. AND 21. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Livengood NOES: Dingwall ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD TO MODIFY STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 11 LISTED ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.23 OF THE STAFF REPORT BY DELETING "IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED WATER DELIVERY COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT" AND INCLUDING THE LANGUAGE "ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS" BY THE FOLLOWING: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0923) PC Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 10 A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY DINGWALL TO MODIFY CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 18 AS LISTED ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.25 OF THE STAFF REPORT BY ADDING THE TERMS "ORIGINAL, UNDEVELOPED" PRIOR TO THE TERM "CONDITION" BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY RAY TO RELOCATE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 18 AS LISTED ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.25 OF THE STAFF REPORT TO CONDITIONAL OF APPROVAL NO. 4MM BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Ray's recommended wording "adjudication authority" and storage tank removal as discussed in condition of approval 17. on Attachment 1.25 of the staff report. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO ACCEPT STAFFS RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 17 AS LISTED ON ATTACHEMENT NO. 1.25 OF THE STAFF REPORT. The Commission discussed changing the number of months given to remove the storage tanks from the site. Billy Owens, applicant, addressed the Commission requesting that the 18 month number identified within the condition remain unchanged, stating that a 6 month timeline for storage tank removal may be too restrictive. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO AMEND THE MOTION BY STRIKING THE LANGUAGE "BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION" AND ADDING THE LANGUAGE "OF CITY BUILDING PERMITS AND AGREEMENTS", BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Livengood NOES: Davis, Dingwall ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0923) PC Minutes September 23,2003 Page 11 A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO MODIFY HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION TO 6:00 P.M. IDENTIFIED IN ITEM NO. 5 LISTED UNDER INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.26, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY DAVIS TO REMOVE THE TERMS "LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE" FROM ITEM NO. 19 LISTED UNDER INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS AS PRESENTED ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.27 OF THE STAFF REPORT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Discussion ensued regarding underground storage tanks. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY DINGWALL TO STRIKE THE TERM "THE" AND REPLACE WITH "ANY" IDENTIFIED IN ITEM NO. 12 LISTED UNDER INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS AS PRESENTED ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.26 OF THE STAFF REPORT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall NOES: Livengood ABSENT: . Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD TO REMOVE THE TERMS "LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE" IDENTIFIED IN ITEM NO. 20 LISTED UNDER INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS AS PRESENTED ON ATTACHMENT NO. 1.27 OF THE STAFF REPORT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03pan0923) PC Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 12 Discussion ensued regarding the need for 4 affirmative votes to approve or deny a request. The Commission discussed the findings for denial, suggesting that they may be inadequate. The Commission also discussed the unnecessary conditions relating to salinity impacts not found to be significant within the EIR. The Commission provided reasons for their vote to approve or deny the request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY RAY, TO DENY WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD MINUTE ACTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE. AYES: Ray, Davis, Dingwall NOES: Scandura, Livengood ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL TO FORWARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COSTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) WITHOUT A FORMAL DECISION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE. AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED , A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL TO FORWARD BY MINUTE ACTION THE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STRAW VOTES AND REVISIONS TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COSTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE. AYES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0923) 1L/ 11/ VV 111V 1V1V l":1.1 uULTJV LTVV IVJLi1LV1 1\L:UV Vl\V1iJ �VVL 5 December 2003 Honorable Jill Hardy Councilmember City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 T ^1 C 0 Z RE: Wind data for the Poseidon Desalination Project at Huntington Beach o rn --I M ±± ; o--i-< Ms. Hardy, o 1_7 This memorandum provides clarifying information and addresses the question you raised at the-4-1ovember 2003 hearing about the power point slide that contains they,,, � wind data. In short,you were correct,-the-wind-data in-the-figure-aree-indeed repeated at 6-year intervals. Since I hadn't worked with the wind data in some time, I couldn't recall all the details necessary to directly answer your question from the podium that night. As I had indicated,the base data shown in the power point slide was derived from daily averages of surface winds measured at local airports.These airports included John Wayne/Orange County(SNA), Long Beach/Daugherty(LGB),and Los Alamitos AFB. By FAA mandate, airports no longer maintain archival records of the meteorological data they monitor; (this is to avoid the cost and work load associated with responding to data requests). Instead, airport meteorological data is passed in real time through the Automated Surface Observing System(ASOS)to the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research(UCAR)in Boulder Colorado where it is archived. This data protocol was implemented in stages between 1993 and 1995,and was not functional at the local airports near Huntington Beach until 1994. Consequently,the longest continuous record of daily observations we could obtain for these local airports at the time we began the EIR analysis was 6 years(from July of 1994 through July of 2000). The power point slide showing the natural variability in waves,ocean currents and winds is not contained in the Draft EIR,but it was assembled for my presentation at the 3 November workshop from databases used in the EIR. I prepared the power point slide so that people could get a visual perspective on the range of natural variability for three of the variables(waves, ocean currents and winds)that control the rate of mixing of the combined discharges from the power plant and desalination plant. (Other important input parameters include plant flow rate,ocean salinity,ocean temperature and ocean water levels.) In particular,I hopied the power point slide would help people understand that: A)there is a large range of variability in the local waves,currents and winds,B) these forcing functions are constantly changing, and C)the values chosen for the worst- case scenario are exceedingly small and very short lived in Nature. The 6-year periodicity you spotted in the wind graph was due to repeating (looping)the original airport observations in order to achieve something that could be �. 1Z/11/U3 THU 1U:16 VAA bbZ49UZ4U3 PUSEIDUN RESUUKGLS 10 003 r compared visually with the longer unbroken wave and ocean current records. The six years of uninterrupted observations of local airport winds represent 2,193 measurements and cover a sufficient length of time to resolve both the seasonal and El Nino-Southern Oscillation(ENSO)periodicities that I remarked about from the podium on 17 November. In his 4 August 2003 independent peer review of the modeling,Dr. Stanley B. Grant confirmed that all of our input data was"reasonable." Although we would always prefer more data,both the peer reviewers and I believe that 2,193 independent measurements were adequate to define the minimum daily mean winds for the worst case scenario (0 knots), and the long term mean for the average case scenario(5 knots). The worst-case scenario presented in the EIR is based on the minimum historic values of the controlling variables because those conditions provide minimal mixing (stirring)rates and the slowest assimilation of the sea salts from desalination by the receiving water. The worst-case scenario is not an historic event. It is a hypothetical scenario whose conditions are derived from the statistical extremes of long-term databases. These extremes are then perpetuated in the model for periods as long as 30 days to determine if a steady state can be achieved or, alternatively, if progressive cumulative effects occur. In a similar manner the average case scenario in the EIR was posed from the long-term means of the databases, and also perpetuated in simulation for 30 days to assess potential cumulative effects. The average case scenario is likewise a construct of the statistics of the long-term databases rather than a specific historic event. Inspection of the time series in the power point slide reveals that even the mean values of each forcing function do not persist continuously for periods as long as a month. As promised,I've included(in digital form on a CD)a 2-column text file of the spliced data that appeared in the power point slide; (Column-A is decimal year separated by a tab from Column-B giving daily mean wind speed in knots). I thought you might also be interested in the histogram and cumulative probability derived from these measurements, so I've included that as well(see enclosed). Sincerely, Imo--�� , Dr. Scott Jenkins Senior Engineer cc: Huntington Beach City Council Cathy Green,Mayor Connie Boardman Gil Cooper ec vP�.7 Debbie Cook Pam Houchen }�Ih,,)n.«-� Dave Sullivan Dept �IAw/w 141 �pT 2 le 1L�111 VJ lnU 1V.1/ r.,%A UUG4.7UG'!VJ rvazl11U:N Rr,JVunur'a UV4 f 10 100 8 � 2193 Observations 6 Mean of record=5 knots 60 Ca � o a o 4 40 E 0 (U 2 20 0 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 Daily Mean Wind Speed,knots Histogram of repeated 6 year block of measured daily mean wind speed from local airports near Huntington Beach. 3 12/11/2003 14:26 7146397212 VAN BLARCOM PAGE 02/04 r7 - G,ao-� VAN BLARCOM t _ '(z� RONA1-,D A_ VAN OLARCOM LfiIiBOLD Direct Phone: 714-639-6700 MCCLENDON I- 1c Direct Fax: 714-639-7212 l uiRu}CEi�n.com �+� 23422 MILT.CREEK DR[vr.. Surre 1o5 - LAGUNA Hjv 5,CALiFORNlA 92653 C3 MANN TrL 949.457.6300 FAX 949,457.6305 A Poor.... C, n ....... I H C o Z 0 O � rn ti n --i December 11, 2003 m o r, -D :> Honorable Mayor N y Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach, Califomia Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's C'ertifcation of Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 (Tosefdon Seawater Desalination Report.) Dear Mayor and Councihmembcrs: This is a follow-up to my letter dated November 1.4,2003. Our firni has completed a review of all of the late communications submitted to the City of F4unlington Leach (the. "City") pertaining to environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant)(tbe"ElI ), including the December 8, 2003 letter received from.Mr. Tom Luster of the Coastal Commission stai'F No new issues have been raised in any of the late communications. For this reason—and because the EIR meets all of the legal requirements imposed under CEQA —we continue to maintain that the EIR should be certified by the City Council, The concerns raised by EIR commentators who submitted late communications to the City Council are the same concerns raised during the extensive hearings held on the EIR by the Planning Commission. While those opposed to the project may disagree witl.i tlic maivrt takcrt by the Planning Commission when It certified the EIR,no commentator has argued that there was insufficient time or opportunii.y to submit their concerns. The Planning Commission heard all of the same comments a.nd concerns ca.rlicr. Thco it specifically found (as slated in Planning Commission.Resolution No. 1582)that no"substantial evidence" had been presented to it which would call into quetition the facts and conch ision,s .in the Final EIR. 0) 12/11/2003 14: 26 7146397212 VAN BLARCOM PAGE 03/04 Poseidon Position Statement on FIR Appeal December 11, 2003 Page 2 Those whose comments were previously responded to and rejected by the Planning Commission include:: • Jan Vandersloot (who simply resubmitted his letter to the Planning Commission dated September 8. 2003 along with other intbrmation he previously submitted); • 1Vlikc Tope of ilic Statc Department of Parks and Recreation staff(his November 17,2003 letter did no more than repeat one of the four comments made by his agency during the Draft EIR cornment peri.od on Novcmber 4, 2002); • The Cabl:ornia Earth Corps (their letter dated. November 17, 2003 stated till page 1 that they v,,ouJd "fibrego repetition" of their testimony before the Planning Commission, but then repeated al l of'their previous comments n„ rages 3 through 5); • The Surfrider Foundation(their November 5.2003 letter dnnc nnthing more than resubmit a list of concerns that "was submitted to the Planning Commission in [their) August 5, 2003 letter"); and • Tom Luster of the Coastal Commission staff(his latest letter dated December 8. 2003 comirenting on the Planning Department's November 17, 2003 response to concern.. raised by the Califomia Energy Commission admits that"we raised similar concerns in. several comment letters we sent earlier during the EIR process"betbre he retreads the saine well worn issues). New commentators who submitted letters included fonner Planning Commissioner Kandy Kolcal (who submitted a letter dated November 14, 2003 listing reasons why he opposed the project) and Caiiffornia Energy Commission staffmcmber,Terrence O'Brien(who on NOVemher 17,200 3 essentially retracted his extensive November 7.2003 comment letter and affirmed thatthe C'F.C'"staff is s„rrnrtivr of desalination facilities"and that CEC"staff is supportive of seeing this project proceed expeditiously"). In addition. several individuals signed opposition letters that were verbatim copies of the same letter. City staff has painstakingly responded to every i55ue that was raised before the: Planning. Commission and that has been re-raised in the late communications, At every niecting, City staff has recommended that the EIR be certi fled. Staff s.recom.menclation has not changed for the December 15, 2003 meeting. I encourage the City Council to respect:the work product of the C.:ity sta;tt and the City EIR consultants. 12/11/2003 14: 26 7146397212 VAN BLARCOM PAGE 04/04 Poseidon Position Statern.ent on EIR Appeal December 11, 2003 Page 3 I will also be available at your December 1.5,2003 meeting to answer arty ducsti.ous you may have -vi.t►a respect to certification of the F.TR. Very truly yOxu's, Van Blaiuum, Lcibold, McClci i & . a ley: Ronald Van Ala.rcom cc: B. Owens 12/11/2003 14:26 7146397212 VAN BLARCOM PAGE 01/04 L.U CITY CLERK VAN BLARC'OM.. C.ITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA FAX COVER SHEET LEI13OLD 2003 DEC I I P 2: 3 3 M CC:L�ENDON & MA 1 r N 23422 MILL Cum,,I.)RwE,SUITE I Q$ LAGUNA CALIFORNIA 92653 A PROFESSIONIAT. CORPORATION TEL 714.639.6700 F X 714,639.7212 Date: December 11, 2003 THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IS 4 PAGES. PLEASE DELIVER TO: AT FAX NO. City Clerk 374-1557 FROM: .Ronald A. Van Blarcom RE: Communication pertaining to Agenda Item D-2a for the December 15, 2003 City Council Meeting. MESSAGE: Please see attached. ,If any of these pages are not legible, or you do not receive all of the pages, please call(714) 639-6700. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE 7111S MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOP. TFTF USE Of THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED.AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED.CONFIDENTIAL ANT)FNEMPTFROM DI5CI.0S1JRIi UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT TIIF., IN ENDED RECIPIF.;NT,YOU AR.P.,I-TT.Rf:BY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINA I(ON,UIti I KI13LU IIUN UK(:OI'YIN(i OF 1'1•IIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU I4AVE RECEIVED TIIIS COMMUNICATTON IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE,AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT Tl•IF ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE UNTTE D�I .I ES FO!S AL SE:KVIC:E', TI4ANK YOU. LATE COMUNICATION RE: DESALINATION PLANT RECEIVED 1.0 December 2003 C C DEC 1 1 2003 W Huntington Beach City Council o c. 2000 Main St. City of Huntington Beach — Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City Council Office -U > Dear Huntington Beach City Council members, I am unable to attend the hearing on December 15t'regarding the approval of the o n desalination plant installation at the Huntington Beach power plant. However, I would-' like my voice to be heard on this important matter. I am not in favor of the proposed desalination plant for three main reasons: Uncontrolled& Unmanaged Growth Allowing this desalination plant will set a dangerous precedent for enabling unmitigated and unmanaged development in the Southern California region. As you are probably well aware,the artificial water supply provided by this desal plant will be used to support an, as yet un-built, housing development in south Orange County. Current rules require that developers secure a source of drinking water before they are allowed to build. Since there are no more viable water sources left in the Southern California region, e.g., aquifers, rivers, reservoirs,desalination is the only means by which development can continue. There is already tremendous population pressure in the region as a result of several decades of rapid, unplanned development. The freeways are jammed,pollution worsens, and quality of life is diminished. The only ones benefiting from the unmitigated and unmanaged growth are the developers. Limitation on water supply is an unbiased metric by which to determine how much growth is too much growth. If the line is not drawn here,where will it be? Damage to Ocean Environment Desalination plants will perpetuate the damage to the local ocean environment. As you may know,there is a 100%mortality rate of ocean life entrained in the ocean water used as the source for desalination—for this plant, a 2-mile radius around the intake pipe. There are claims that the damage will be minimized as the desalination plant will piggy- back on the existing water intake from the power plant that draws in ocean water for cooling. However,that method of cooling(single-pass)has been outlawed under the Clean Water Act specifically because of the damage done to ocean life. We should not condone this illegal behavior by encouraging installation of a new technology that perpetuates the illegal behavior. Furthermore, desalination plants need to be sited near the water source, i.e.,the ocean. These plants will compete for precious coastal land and further reduce the chances of preserving natural coastal areas so valuable to California and its citizenry. �wic LAU CoMnMu A4c a Water Resources Mismanagement is the Real Problem Finally,the real issue is not a lack of water in the Southern California region but an inefficient use of the existing water supply. We need the leadership of regional governments to develop more efficient management of water resources consumed by the agricultural industry. Agriculture represents more than 60%of the region's water consumption, compared to less than 10% for residents. Often these resources are used very inefficiently and there is lots of room for improvement that would effectively increase the available water supply. For example, create tax incentives to encourage farmers to install water reduction technology such as drip irrigation, develop rules to discourage farmers from growing crops that require large amounts of water, e.g., rice, and increase the cost of water to farmers to reflect the true cost of water resources to financially incent them eliminate waste. Please don't place the burden and cost of the problem on the shoulders of your citizenry, tackle the tough problem but the right solution. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. I trust you that you will do the right thing for the future of Southern California. Sincerely Nicola Peill 5036 East Atherton St. Long Beach,CA 90815 112 Page 1 of 3 CITY CLERK Bazant, Denise CITY OF ► From: Fikes, Cathy Q+J k4� 1003 DEC 12 P U: 0 . Sent: Thursday, December 11,2003 12:54 PM To: Bazant, Denise J Subject: FW: Posideon Desal EIR comments -----Original Message----- From: Gregory Helms [mailto:ghelms@psinet.com) Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 12:25 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Posideon Desal EIR comments The Ocean Conservancy Pacific Regional Office 116 New Montgomery St.Suite 810 San Francisco,CA 94615 Santa Barbara Field Office 714 Bond Avenue Santa Barbara CA 93103 tel(805)687-2322 fax(805)687-5635 www.oceanconservancy.org December 11,2003 Members,Huntington Beach City Council via email citv.council( surfeit, hb.org Re: Certification of Environmental Document.Huntington-Poseidon Desalination Dear Mayor Boardman and Members of Council: The Ocean Conservancy is a non-profit,member-supported organization that seeks to protect and restore the nation's ocean and coastal resources. We submit these comments on behalf of our 25.000 California members. The Ocean Conservancy has followed with interest the numerous California proposals to supplement potable water supply with ocean water desalination technology. We believe there are several significant concerns regarding the 19 proposed facilities potential impacts on the marine and coastal environment. Given the statewide ramifications of your deliberation over the Huntington/Poseidon facility,we appreciate your Council's step of appealing the EIR so that a more careful review can be conducted. Although each desalination proposal has unique characteristics,they all raise similar concerns as the 12/11/2003 pwbl,G �Q r I��I5• o - a Comm u K, d (� I� .� I�� Page 2 of 3 proposal under your review. Thus,it is critical that the Huntington proposal be reviewed thoroughly and its environmental document be completed exhaustively. The experience of the City of Tamp Bay with its desalination facility only underscores the importance of Huntington Beach's planning process as a template for such projects statewide. We note that in Long Beach, a testing and research facility, is moving forward and will yield highly useful information about the performance and impacts of this technology. We support this facility because it is likely to illuminate many of these issues--ideally before major investments are made in this unproven technology. Given our concerns about probable impacts to the marine and coastal environment from the Huntington project; and the likelihood of other projects relying on the planning process used in Huntington Beach,we wish to draw attention to several specific shortcomings in the draft Environmental Impact Report for Huntington/Poseidon: • The document improperly assigns impacts from resource impingement/entrainment to the Huntington Beach Generating Plant in that HBGP operations dedicated to operating the desalination plant are not identified and separated from the impacts of power generation water intake. We believe--and the Coastal Commission and Energy Commission agree --that the proposed desalination plant will cause its own entrainment/impingement mortality which must be identified and mitigated. Ocean water intake in California constitutes an enormous impact to coastal fisheries and ecosystems,and evaluation of additional impacts from desalination is a critical part of evaluating any ocean water desalination project • Evaluation of the impacts of the proposed project on growth--clearly the major source of marine and coastal degradation in California--is thwarted by the draft E1R's failure to identify the eventual user of product water. Your Council should have the opportunity to consider the end use of new potable supply,the opportunity to consider whether providing for new development is appropriate in a time of increasing concern about potential supply shortfalls for existing users,and to consider the potential impacts of any new development induced by the availability of new potable supply from desalination. • The Draft EIR fails to fully address the persistent problem of ocean water contamination in Huntington Beach and in nearby communities. In addition to desalination brine waste diseharee.new ocean water desalination will increase flows through already unsatisfactory wastewater systems,potentially exacerbating coastal water pollution and hindering progress towards solving this critical problem. Further,this deficiency, undermines the quality of the document's analysis of alternative sources of water supply such as conservation and enhancing Huntington Beach's effective water reclamation efforts. These and other defects in the Huntington/Poseidon desal project set too low of a standard of review for this large and precedent-setting proposal . We encourage and appreciate your through process to improve the environmental documentation of the project,and urge you to deny certification of the document until significant changes are made. Sincerely Gregory Helms Manager,Santa Barbara Field Office The Ocean Conservancy 12/11/2003 Page 3 of 3 ************************************************ Gregory Helms Santa Barbara Field Office The Ocean Conservancy (805)687-2322 FAX(805)687-5635 www.oceanconservanev.or ************************************************ Gregory IIelms Santa Barbara Field Office The Ocean Conservancy (805)687-2322 FAX(805)687-5635 www.oceanconsen,,ancv.org 12/11/2003 1� Bazant, Denise From: Fikes, Cathy r Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 12:54 PM (l To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Huntington-Poseidon Desalination EIR: Surfrider Foundation Comments ti w � Huntington-Poseido n comment It... _ o-r N z-<c- U3 C:) -----Original Message----- -� DT !;� C--) From: Joe Geever [mailto:jgeever@surfrider.org] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 12:37 PM o n To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Huntington-Poseidon Desalination EIR: Surfrider Foundation Comments Dear City Council Members: Please accept the attached comments on the Huntington-Poseidon Desalination Environmental Impact Report submitted on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation's national headquarters. We are very grateful for your thorough review of this EIR as we believe your decision will set the threshold for at least 18 other desalination proposals along the California coast. The potential environmental impacts from these individual facilities, not to mention the cumulative impacts from the large number of proposals, warrants careful and exhaustive scrutiny. We also want to endorse and incorporate the comments of our local Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter on this issue. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Joe Geever PS. Please feel free to respond to this e-mail or call me at (310) 410-2890 with any questions or concerns you might have about the attached letter. Joe Geever Surfrider Foundation Southern California Regional Manager PO Box 6010 San Clemente, CA 92674-6010 (949) 492-8170 or (310) 410-2890 Please help our Mother Ocean by becoming a Surfrider Foundation member! www.surfrider.org/join i G 1 �"I wV� horl I�: 7 TO: Huntington Beach City Council FROM: Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation National Headquarters DATE: December 11, 2003 RE: Huntington-Poseidon Desalination EIR VIA e-mail attachment Dear City Council Members: We are writing to express our deep gratitude for your review of the Huntington-Poseidon Desalination Environmental Impact Report (EIR). As we are certain you are now aware, the notion of desalination as a source of fresh water for the state is creating great public discourse -- and several state agencies are currently reviewing the technical and policy questions surrounding its use. The Surfrider Foundation is not at this time opposed to desalination per se. We, like so many others, are still in the process of deliberating if, and maybe more importantly how, desalination should fit into the portfolio of options to provide the state with water. We have been supportive of efforts by the City of Long Beach to implement a research facility to experiment with different technologies to improve the efficiency of"reverse osmosis" filtration. We are also encouraged by Long Beach's public statements that they will also be researching methods for reducing the adverse environmental impacts associated with some methods of supplying saltwater for these facilities and discharging the brine concentrate. With this in mind,we join the Coastal Commission staff,the California Energy Commission staff, and the California Parks and Recreation Department in urging you to deny certification of the EIR as having failed to adequately analyze important potential environmental impacts. We are concerned that decision makers and the public cannot make fully informed decisions about permits for this project without additional information that is currently missing from.the EIR. Equally important, we are concerned that the current EIR will set a very low standard of review for the numerous other desalination facilities that are currently in some stage of planning up and down the coast. Again, thank you for your careful review of this very important issue. Please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone if you have any questions. Sincerely, Joe Geever Southern California Regional Manager Surfrider Foundation PO Box 6010, San Clemente, CA, 92674-6010 (310) 410-2890 origeever@surfiider.org 1 Introduction A lead agency needs only to find a single deficiency in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to reject its certification. The Huntington Beach Planning Commission raised several concerns that constitute significant deficiencies in the current Huntington ' Poseidon EIR that have yet to be resolved. In fact, as time has passed, more of the state's responsible agencies have echoed and substantiated concerns raised by the public in the early stages of the Commission's deliberations. Keeping in mind that an EIR needs to be flawed in only one aspect to be denied certification, we are submitting several inadequacies below. 1)Project Description Precludes Reasonable Alternatives Analysis The description of this project in the EIR is so narrow that it precludes reviewing alternatives for the supply of freshwater to the,region. The EIR, in the "project purpose," characterizes the product water as a"local" source. This effectively precludes analyzing whether or not reclamation and/or conservation efforts would fulfill the broader purpose of meeting freshwater demand in the region. The public has requested an analysis of reclamation and conservation as alternatives,but the response has been that these sources still rely on imports, and are therefore not"local" supplies. This narrow project description, and the absence of reasonable alternatives, makes the EIR inadequate. Poseidon has also commented that reclamation does not supply potable water. However, had the EIR reviewed reclamation, it would likely conclude that delivery of reclaimed water for irrigation would reduce the demand for imported water and groundwater(and that this"saved"water could be used for increased drinking water demand). Furthermore, Orange County has one of the more progressive reclamation programs in the state. This should be applauded and pursued to its fullest before the county considers projects like massive desalination facilities with so many unresolved questions about adverse environmental impacts. Finally,had the EIR reviewed conservation and reclamation as reasonable alternatives to desalination, the public would be made aware of the environmental benefits from these alternatives. In a city plagued with nearshore water quality problems, it is important to inform the public that reclamation has the added benefit of diminishing, if not altogether removing, treated sewage discharges to the ocean -- and that conservation has the added benefit of reducing, if not eliminating, difficult problems of urban runoff. Furthermore, future reclamation of stormwater runoff would also remove a major source of nearshore contaminants, as well as help meet the City's Clean Water Act responsibilities. In stark contrast, the introduction of new water into the region will likely exacerbate these on- going problems. 2) Entrainment/Impingement This issue is of the utmost concern. Numerous species of marine life in the Southern California Bight are under extreme pressure and several are estimated to have been depleted to less than ten percent of their historical populations. Others have already been 2 listed as being in danger of extinction. Also, we are disrupting important marine ecosystems and predator/prey relationships by the indiscriminate destruction of marine life through current"once-through" cooling of coastal generators like the AES plant. This dramatic loss of marine life and bio-diversity cannot be mitigated without reducing the total intact of water at these plants. We simply cannot replace all the species that are lost to this process with man-made hatcheries. The marine ecology is far too complex for man to replicate. The EIR concludes,without careful consideration, that the addition of a desalination facility to the existing Huntington Beach Generating Station(HBGS)will not create additional marine life mortality(based on the fact that 316(b) studies assume 100% mortality in the cooling water process and that the desalination facility will not alter existing cooling water intakes). The basis for this conclusion is flawed and it avoids documenting the potential cumulative impacts from these two distinct facilities. It also avoids an analysis of alternative"feed water"intakes for the desalination plant (e.g., beach wells and/or galleries). Furthermore, while the HBGS entrainment/impingement rates are not directly in question in this EIR, it is reasonable to consider how the contract with HBGS to deliver"source water"to the desalination facility will complicate their future compliance with CWA §316(b)regulations that will require reducing entrainment rates by 60 to 90 percent and reduce impingement rates by 80-95 percent. The 316(b) studies assume 100%mortality for entrained species as a"precautionary" assumption for the operation of the generator—not the desalination facility. Also, the EIR does not use"actual' cooling water intakes as the baseline for analysis, instead it relies on fully permitted capacity(i.e., 517mgd, 365 days/yr, 24 hrs/day). See: Comment letters from California Energy Commission staff(Nov 17, 2003) and Coastal Commission staff (Dec 8, 2003).Given these assumptions and operating permits, the EIR concludes that the desalination facility will not add to mortality of marine life—and therefore-the EIR does not analyze the addition of the desalination facility for cumulative impacts. These assumptions do not accurately reflect"actual'mortality. Therefore, relying on these assumptions effectively allows the project proponent to evade analyzing potential additional marine life mortality. Relying on these assumptions also turns the "precautionary principle" on its head. The Planning Department, in responding to the California Energy Commission staff letter of November 7, 2003, relied on the judicial decision in Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura for the argument that"full permitted capacity"is the proper baseline for determining potential cumulative impacts. However,Fairview is distinguishable from the present case because assuming full operation of the facility in that case (a mining operation and the impact from associated"daily truck trips")was, in effect, assuming the "worst case scenario" (in other words, applying the precautionary principle). In the present case, the baseline of"full permitted capacity" for HBGS has just the opposite effect. This baseline allows the project proponent to avoid looking at the effect of adding a desalination facility to the existing generator and what cumulative effects might result from this co-location. 3 The Planning Department responded that the EIR also analyzed a"worst case scenario" of 126 million gallons a day(mgd). However, that scenario was in connection with the brine discharge concentration. This same scenario should be applied to the current operating conditions and analyzed for what additional marine life mortality results from operating the generators at a higher capacity during these times to supply power to the desalination plant. Furthermore, the Planning Department has confused a permit for a change in the operation of the generator itself with the addition of a distinct facility that can have an impact on the operation of the generator. HBGS is currently operating far below their permitted rates—even though the NPDES permit for the plant assumed full capacity operations. The EIR should consider a baseline of"actual"operating rates at HBGS, and then analyze the addition of the desalination facility at the desalination facility's "full permitted capacity." This is the logical approach to estimating cumulative impacts and is entirely consistent with the court's ruling in Fairview. In other words, if the addition of the desalination facility causes the generator to run at times it otherwise wouldn't, or at least run their cooling water pumps at times they otherwise wouldn't, then the desalination facility is adding to the cumulative destruction of marine life. Regardless of the extent of that additional destruction, it must be analyzed before the EIR can be certified as "adequate." Given the energy intensive nature of desalination and the co-location of this plant with a generator, it is safe to assume HBGS will run beyond its current output to supply electricity to the desalination facility. The EIR has stated that the desalination facility will utilize electricity from HBGS in combination with electricity from the grid, and that it will rely on HBGS for emergency back-up power. The desalination plant would use the idle time when the HBGS peaking plant would not normally operate to generate additional power, thus creating"new" entrainment. Finally, the EIR has been amended to state that the HBGS will run cooling water pumps to supply 126 mgd regardless of whether the plant is generating electricity. This is inconsistent with the draft 316(b)regulations that will require reducing marine life mortality—whether or not this is the current HBGS practice. It is also inconsistent with earlier statements by the project proponent that the desalination facility would not operate during times when the generators were not operating. Furthermore, the precautionary principle, as applied to the"once through"cooling and the 316(b) studies, assumes 100%mortality so that it does not underestimate mortality rates. This precautionary approach would be just the opposite when the study results are applied to the desalination facility. That is, to deal with the uncertainty of whether or not marine life survives entrainment, the EIR should assume that some species or individuals WOULD survive the cooling water process-- and then assume 100%mortality of those species and individuals at the desalination process. In short, current 316(b) studies are not the proper protocol for determining survival rates after the entrainment process (as noted in the EIR Response to Comments). Therefore, reliance on these assumptions in the EIR makes the conclusions inadequate. 3) Growth Inducement—Long-term"Natural" Growth or Overnight Development? 4 Many argue that population growth is neither good nor bad—it is simply an accepted fact of life in Orange County. However, there are the inherent impacts that are associated with population growth, such as the need for improved sewage treatment capacity and improved responses to polluted stormwater runoff. These persistent water quality problems are especially apparent in several places in Orange County. Some areas, like Huntington Beach and Doheny Beach suffer from persistent beach closures. Other watersheds, like San Mateo Creek and Trestles Beach, enjoy some of the last remnants of relatively undisturbed water quality. Therefore, the location of growth will have a dramatic influence on the type of responses that will be necessary to accommodate new sources.of sewage and urban runoff. This fact alone argues for, at a minimum, identifying the areas that will receive the product water from this desalination project. The EIR is inadequate if it does not provide the public with the information necessary to analyze potential impacts from the distribution of the product water—that is, who is the intended "end user." Furthermore, the EIR states that the product water will supply water for growth projections to the year 2020. Project proponents have also publicly stated that this is not "growth inducement," for the most part,but rather responding to natural population growth from a larger future generation of current residents. This argument is inherently flawed. The economics of this project would suggest that the only interested purchasers of this water would be areas where dramatic developments are prohibited only by the lack of an identifiable source of water(i.e., the Kuehl Act prohibited developments of more than 500 homes without identifying the needed water). This water will be approximately twice the price of current sources, and we can only assume that the increased costs will be absorbed in the profit from planned development projects or passed on to the purchasers of the property, or to OCMWD users as a group. Both cases must be evaluated in the EIR to allow a reasonable basis for decision that protects the interests of the Public. Also, this price difference and most likely customers will certainly induce immediate growth in the region, and it is safe to assume that current residents will be left just as reliant on current water sources as we are today. These assumptions and predictions are fortified by the project proponent's recent admissions that the only conditional contract for delivery of this water is with Santa Margarita Water District—an area with huge development proposals that are stalled from the lack of water supplies. Nonetheless,the EIR has not been amended to include these latest public disclosures, nor has the EIR suggested any foreseeable potential impacts. 4) What's the Deal with Tampa Bay—and How Does that Guide Us? The Tampa Bay desalination facility under construction has raised a couple questions that caution against racing into reliance on desalination: the fiscal quagmire, and the technical failures. On the fiscal side, the construction contracts and projected operations are proving to have dramatically underestimated development and production costs. It is possible the Huntington proposal may actually experience greater costs than the plant in Tampa Bay. 5 Electricity rates here are much higher and the higher salinity of the"source water" nearshore in Huntington Beach will demand more energy use. The Huntington-Poseidon EIR states that electricity for the desalination facility will be supplied, in part, from the grid. This makes it effectively impossible to receive any rate reductions because: 1) it eliminates the technical efficiencies of lowering transmission losses (from line resistance), and 2) it eliminates the potential regulatory price reductions for"within the fence" supplies. Add to this the fact that salinity in these waters is higher than those in Tampa Bay, and the costs for production are compounded. As noted above, only water agencies from areas with major development proposals,held up only by the lack of a dedicated water source, will have any economic incentive to purchase this water. This would mean that this new water source will go to the demand created by immediate growth—not the natural growth predictions for the year 2020. On the technical side, Poseidon has yet to explain how the project in Huntington differs from the failed attempt in Tampa Bay. The Tampa facility has experienced unforeseen difficulties with their filtration systems and the resulting reliance on chemicals to keep the filters clean. This unexpected but dramatically greater reliance on chemicals to keep the filters clean has added the difficulty of disposing of the chemicals—a consequence that is not fully explored in the Huntington-Poseidon EIR,but has required the Tampa plant to shut down. Poseidon has brought a member of the Tampa Planning Commission to California to explain that the contract disputes did not arise until after Poseidon was "bought out" and no longer in control of the construction. But, regardless of who is at fault for the Tampa Bay failure, the decision-makers there have scrapped several future desalination projects and have returned to emphasizing conservation and reclamation. Conservation and reclamation do not create the same environmental impacts as disposing of the chemicals used to flush the filters at an apparently unforeseeable rate. As noted above, conservation and reclamation have not been considered alternatives for desalination in this EIR. However,these are the alternatives that are being currently pursued by the Tampa Bay area—the only place we can turn to for experience with desalination on this scale. The experience of Tampa Bay only underscores the importance of including conservation and reclamation as alternative means of meeting the goals of this EIR. These alternatives are not only more fiscally responsible and rely on more thoroughly proven technology—they are environmentally preferable because they reduce sewage discharges and polluted runoff into our nearshore marine waters. CONCLUSION In conclusion, as noted above, an EIR should not be certified as "adequate" if there are ANY deficiencies. We have offered several of the more glaring deficiencies in the current draft. This is not an exhaustive list. 6 Therefore, we request that the City Council deny certification of this EIR and include our concerns in your direction to staff. 7 Jones, Dale 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 s utib image.pdf 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. 1 Tom Luster California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont St. , Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 904-5248 «image.pdf>> 2 , C-JM Jones, Dale From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:04 PM To: Jones, Dale = Subject: FW: Poseidon o Z O � O_{K. -----Original Message----- p Dr- From: Karl Tahti [mailto:hbtahti@yahoo.com] M�r' i- Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 8:54 AM cn-) _D To: Connie Boardman; CB4Council@aol.com; cbrockway@surfcity- N T hb.org; — D city.council@surfcity-hb.org; Gil Coerper; gcoerper@surfcity-co hb.org; Cathy Green; Jill Hardy; hbdac@hotmail.com; Hbmissjill@aol.com; Pam Houchen; ppcgreen@aol.com; Dave Sullivan; Dave Sullivan Subject: Dear Mayor Green and City Councilmembers, Please oppose certification of the EIR and CUP for the Poseidon Desalination Plant proposal. As indicated by recent letters from staff from three state agencies: the California Coastal Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the EIR for the Poseidon project is incomplete and should not be certified. Without certifying the EIR, the CUP should not be approved either. This issue is of utmost importance to the City of Huntington Beach, including the health of its ocean and beaches, its tourist-based economy, and the welfare of the neighboring residential community. The Poseidon Desalination Plant project has the ' potential to degrade the ocean, the beaches, the wetlands, the economy, and the residential neighborhood quality of life. The EIR has not satisfied necessary requirements to identify and mitigate potential harmful effects, and therefore should be rejected. The beaches generated $25 million in sales tax revenue to the Huntington Beach economy in 1998. This economic engine should not be jeopardized by a desalination plant tied into a power plant that has been suspected as a factor in pollution of the adjacent beach. As stated by the State Parks Department in its 1 November 17, 2003 letter to the City: "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. " I ask that you honor this request and not approve the EIR for the Poseidon project until it is complete. As stated by the Los Angeles Times editorial November 30, 2003 : "A thirst for good information is just as important as a thirst for water. " Thank you. Sincerely, Karl and Heidi Tahti 9071 Regatta Drive 714-964-2004 Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ 2 Poseidon EIR and CUP Page 1 of 2 GE,- Jones, Dale , From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:01 PM N o z To: Jones, Dale — Subject: FW: Poseidon EIR and CUP � o - - -----Original Message----- �T From: Neil Tsutsui [mailto:ntsutsui@uci.edu] ,� T Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:01 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; hbdac@hotmail.com; DSULLIVAN@socal.rr.com; cboardman@suEity-g.org; Hbmissjill@aol.com; gicoerpi@gte.net; CB4Council@aol.com; cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org; jhardy@surfcity-hb.org; phouchen@surfcity-hb.org; dsuliivan@surfcity-hb.org; ppcgreen@aol.com; cbrockway@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Poseidon EIR and CUP Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, am a resident of Irvine, and a professor at the University of California, Irvine. My wife and I are also frequent visitors to Huntington Beach, where we enjoy running, swimming, and walking on the beach. I am writing to ask that you please oppose certification of the EIR and CUP for the Poseidon Desalination Plant proposal. I am concerned that this plant threatens the most economically important resources of Huntington Beach, and will significantly degrade the quality of life for residents, visitors, and tourists. In my opinion (and in the opinion of other individuals and agencies), the EIR has not successfully addressed concerns about local water quality and, in the absence of knowledge, we must adopt the most conservative approach to protecting our resources and quality of life. As indicated by recent letters from staff from three state agencies (the California Coastal Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation) the EIR for the Poseidon project is not and should not be certified. 12/15/2003 Poseidon EIR and CUP Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your efforts to protect the welfare of citizens and visitors by opposing the EIR and CUP for this plant. Sincerely, Neil D. Tsutsui 2005 D Los Trancos Drive Irvine CA 92612 (H) 949-725-1143 (W) 949-824-7525 Neil D. Tsutsui, Ph.D. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of California, Irvine 321 Steinhaus Hall Irvine, CA 92697-2525 tsutsuilab.bio.uci.edu ntsutsui@uci.edu 12/15/2003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION VeP OA- 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 -� SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 per. VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904.5400 -- - December 8, 2003 0 o Mr. Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director o City of Huntington Beach — z-< C11 CO 200 Main Street f r, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -0 D N _ RE: Comments on the City of Huntington Beach Environmental Impact Report(EdR) 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. Comment letter to City of Huntington Beach re:EIR for proposed desalination facility December 8, 2003 Page 2 of 5 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 A 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 E1Rs 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 'Fromp.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-malting 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. Comment letter to City of Huntington Beach re:EIR for proposed desalination facility December 8, 2003 Page 3 of S 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 S 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. s 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. Terry 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.cfrn "'/jIn•/jII 7eIt�isky-PlAq. CITY CLERKe•� n ly CITY OF i y �tGtf�Uti. December 12, 2003 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Mayor Cathy Green & City Council Members 2003 DEC 12 P 2: 0u City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Green & City Council; We are writing to urge a NO vote on the DESAL plant. The City of Huntington Beach's crown jewel is the beach. Many people come from all over the country and the world to come to our beach. There were days in the past that the beach was closed to pollution. It was on TV for all the world to see our beach closed due to pollution. This was during::a most critical time during the summer season. That meant no swimming, surfing 6f fishing. The smell was just awful and people stayed away. The city lost millions in revenue and .had to pay millions in fines. We have the AES plant which pollutes the ocean? and the OC San plant which also pollutes water and kills marine life. We the City of Huntington Beach do not need a third ocean polluting plant in our city. This issue is like baseball. Three strikes and your out. With AES, OC SAN and a Desal plant we would be out. Out of tourists, out of jobs and out of residents going -to the beach, shopping in town and not wanting to life in a city with a polluted and closed beach. Without our beach our name would be Huntington and not Huntington Beach. Also deal fairly with the city employees. They are the ones who really run the City of Huntington Beach and our a part of the citizens daily lives. Without them to provide the services we would not be Surf City we would be Slum City. Please don't let our beloved Huntington Beach go down the river. We want a city to be proud of not one to be ashamed of. i Thank You. f I Merry Christmas & Happy New Year. Sincerely, I Patrick Coponiti Maria Coponiti f Patricia Coponiti Page 1 of 1 c i Y b ERK Bazant, Denise oil CITY OF C� From: Fikes, Cathy pppp 4= WMA . Sent: Wednesday, December 10,2003 3:51 P003 DECOCC I 2 To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Desalinization Plant-No Need! -----Original Message----- From: Charles&Maryann Rozzelle[mailto:crozzelle@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:16 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Desalinization Plant-No Need! Honorable City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California Dear Council Members, As long time residents of this city,we strongly oppose the establishment of any form of a desalinization plant, as currently proposed, and urge that the council disapprove this project in its entirety. The city should be applauded for its efforts in promoting and encouraging"Surf City"as a world class tourist destination and, as evidenced by the development of the several attractive luxury hotels in the immediate area,we have come a long way in accomplishing this goal. Aside from the very major issue of existing and potentially worsening ocean and beach contamination,the introduction of an additional industrial activity less than a mile from luxury beach oriented tourist destinations, would constitute a significantly negative land use impact and a step backward.The existing power plant itself is grossly incompatible with the emerging pattern of development along this segment of our coastline and, ideally and hopefully,the plant will have a city designated limited future life at its current location. No additional industrial activity in this area is needed or justified. Please disapprove the desalinization project!! Sincerely, Charles and Maryann Rozzelle 9402 Daytona Circle Huntington Beach,92646 12/10/2003 Iltivt`1 I Page 1 of 2 CITY CLERK � ' �- � Q,��.���y , Pia��,l� Bazan% Denise CITY OF From: Fikes, Cathy 1003 DEC 12 P 4: p kwyw,A . Sent: Wednesday, December 10,2003 3:54 PM I To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: Proposed Poseiden Desalination Plant -----Original Message----- From: David [mailto:david@santiki.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 1:05 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Proposed Poseiden Desalination Plant December 10,2004 RE: Proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant Dear Council: I am opposed to approving this project for the following reason: -Pollution, Pollution, Pollution- Regardless of the testimony in numerous reports supplied by Poseidon,this plant will be a detriment to the beach and will add to the already extremely poor water quality in the Newland/Magnolia area. 50,000,000 gallons(or 1.825 trillion gallon per year)of rejected water per day is to be DUMPED into the ocean. This water will contain pollutants and highly concentrated salt. No matter how you slice this, it will not be good for the water quality, beach or sea life. -Huntington Beach is a tourist destination. Tourism drives the economy in Huntington Beach not industry. Currently,we do not have a handle on the water quality issues without this project. Allowing this type of industry in our backyard will only exacerbate the poor water quality and increase beach posting and closure. It will increase sickness to swimmer(which is already a problem without this plant)and create health concems to all who use the beach. No person in their right mind could say that this plant will have no effect water quality. Our water quality is bad now and will only get worse with approval of this project.This is not good for the long term image of the city, not good for tourism and not good for residents. -Poseidon does not have a good track record of building long term operable desalination plants. Their previous project in Tampa is having major problems. Of course, Poseidon reportedly has denied any responsibility. Please! -Is any of the proposed water supplied by the plant is even earmarked for Huntington Beach? Why are they not disclosing the buyer/users of the water? If we are not getting any of the water,why do we need this plant. -Environmental impact of sea life will definitely be negative. -Whatever revenue generated by the plant very well could be offset when the plant causes water quality issues, decline in tourism,increased beach closure. We do not need this plant in Huntington Beach, and we do not want it. Please look beyond the city coffers and do what is in the best interest of the citizen and the city of Huntington Beach. In your hearts,you have to know this is not good for the beaches. Please vote no on this proposal. David Wagester Sincerely, ,/ In 9012 Christine Drive 5i 0� Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 12/10/2003 M 1AA,A N r�' 0 Y Ph. 714 963 7444 1'V WW 11 t'w, �" is II V D-1 12/15/2003 11:01 7145367262 PAGE 01 (E�-I D11:3 � p9.o.,Y•rw,,.� o � .December 15, 2003 ,o o�-,.� Dear Mayor Green and City Councllmembers, o�- D Please oppose certification of the EIR and CUP for the Poseidon Desalination Plant proposal, � i As indicated by recent letters from staff from three state agencies; the California Coastal 00 A Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the EIR for the Poseidon project is incomplete and should not be certified. Without certifying the EIR, the CUP should not be approved either. This issue is of utmost importance to the City of Huntington Beach, including the health of its ocean and beaches, its tourist-based economy, and the welfare of the neighboring residential community. The Poseidon Desalination Plant project has the potential to degrade the ocean, the beaches, the wetlands, the economy, and the residential neighborhood quality of life. The EIR has not satisfied necessary requirements to identify and mitigate potential harmful effects, and therefore should be rejected. The beaches generated $25 million in sales tax revenue to the Huntington Beach economy in 1998. This economic engine should not be jeopardized by a desalination plant tied into a power plant that has been suspected as a factor in pollution of the adjacent beach. As stated by the State Parks Department In its November 17, 2003 letter to the City; "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." I ask that you honor this request and not approve the EIR for the Poseidon project until it is complete. Thank you. Si I ,organ Flos ie 207 21" Street Huntington Beach, Calif. � c December 15. 2003 w c z Huntington Beach City Council C-1) City Hall n z Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Co o D D��'C. RE: Agenda Item D-2a, D2-b, Please Oppose Poseidon EIR and CUP o T w � Dear Mayor Green and City Council members; COn As a concerned resident of Huntington Beach, 1 have been following this important issue very closely and would like to voice a few concerns: l. Our beautiful coastline is already suffering the effects of unhealthy levels of bacteria and pollution especially around Magnolia St. The cause of the pollution has not been determined but appears to be tied to the existing AES power plant located at Newland St. & PCH. If you approve the proposed Desalination Plant, these dangerous conditions will only increase. 2. The annual tax benefits (approx. $2.0 million) are obviously a short-term gain for our citizens but are only projected, What is known is that in the long run, if these unhealthy water conditions continue unabated, the tourist traffic and vacation money spent in our city will drop significantly as shown in the past when beaches were closed. 3. The environmental effects have not been addressed in a complete manner due to the lack of information available. In addition, the only plant utilizing this process has not been successful financially in Florida. The environmental effects upon the living creatures off our coast would be the most unfortunate result of this proposed plant with increased brine levels and the horrible side effects of filtering and churning 100 million gallons of seawater per day. I strongly oppose this plant. Our city does not need to obtain drinking water fi•om this source and resent the fact that it will be used in Southern Orange County to provide water for new developments. Vote no on Desalination and Poseidon and listen to your constituents who have nothing to gain from this move to profit from a natural resource. Sincer y, r L da A. He andez 8232 Munster Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 646 te •d Wo ZZ: To £00Z-9T_3Ba a _ Page 1 of 1 Jones, Dale From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:00 PM o To: Jones, Dale o a Subject: FW:Agenda Item D-2a, D2-b, Please Oppose Poseidon EIR and CUP -----Original Message----- _ o From: Jeff Stevens [mailto:jeffstevens@adelphia.net] '" ? Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 5:00 AM — To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org -' n Cc: hbdac@hotmail.com; DSULLIVAN@socal.rr.com; cboardman@surfcity-hb.org; CB4Council@aol.com; cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org;jhardy@surfcity-hb.org; phouchen@surfcity-hb.org; dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org; dsullivan@surfcityhb.org; ppcgreen@aol.com; cbrockway@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Agenda Item D-2a, D2-b, Please Oppose Poseidon EIR and CUP Dear Mayor Green and City Councilmembers, Please oppose certification of the EIR and CUP for the Poseidon Desalination Plant proposal. As indicated by recent letters from staff from three state agencies: the California Coastal Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the EIR for the Poseidon project is incomplete and should not be certified. Without certifying the EIR, the CUP should not be approved either. This issue is of utmost importance to the City of Huntington Beach, including the health of its ocean and beaches, its tourist-based economy, and the welfare of the neighboring residential community. The Poseidon Desalination Plant project has the potential to degrade the ocean, the beaches, the wetlands, the economy, and the residential neighborhood quality of life. The EIR has not satisfied necessary requirements to identify and mitigate potential harmful effects, and therefore should be rejected. The beaches generated$25 million in sales tax revenue to the Huntington Beach economy in 1998. This economic engine should not be jeopardized by a desalination plant tied into a power plant that has been suspected as a factor in pollution of the adjacent beach. As stated by the State Parks Department in its November 17, 2003 letter to the City: "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." I ask that you honor this request and not approve the EIR for the Poseidon project until it is complete. As stated by the Los Angeles Times editorial November 30, 2003: "A thirst for good information is just as important as a thirst for water." Thank you. Sincerely, Jeff Stevens Newport Beach, CA 92663 949-650-1826 12/15/2003 �-- � Page 1 of 1 Jones, Dale �N ^�- From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:01 PM To: Jones, Dale Subject: FW: Poseidon Plant ;�, S o C o Z w _...i O � -----Original Message----- c� From: W/MR Malkin [mailto:bsmsculptor@socal.rr.com] — CD--- Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:56 AM To: DSULLIVAN@socal.rr.com; cboardman@surfciy-hb.org; cbrockway@surfcity-hb.org; ppcgreenaurf � hb.org;jhardy@surfcity-hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org; cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; CB4Council@qrd.coe Subject: Poseidon Plant J � Dear Mayor Green and City Councilmembers: I am writing to request that you oppose certification of the RIR and CUP for the Poseidon Desalination Plan proposal. At this time, the EIR is incomplete and should not be approved. Surf City cannot afford the possible degradation of our ocean, beaches, wetlands, etc.that premature certification to which premature certification will expose us. The high bacteria levels at our beaches have already shown us what it can do to our tourist trade. With certification of this plant project, it can only get worse. We need to protect our city. PLEASE DO YOUR DUTY AND PROTECT OUR CITY. Thank you. Bernice S. Malkin 12/15/2003 —� Page 1 of 1 Jones, Dale '' From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:04 PM To: Jones, Dale o z Subject: FW: Agenda Item D-2a, D2-b, Please Oppose Poseidon EIR and CUP rnn n CD ----Original Message----- m n From: lonV3@aol.com [mailto:lonV3@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 10:28 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; hbdac@hotmail.com; DSULLIVAN@socal.rr.com; cboardman@su.ty-4.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; cbrockway@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Agenda Item D-2a, D2-b, Please Oppose Poseidon EIR and CUP Dear Mayor Green and City Councilmembers, Please oppose certification of the EIR and CUP for the Poseidon Desalination Plant proposal. As indicated by recent letters from staff from three state agencies: the California Coastal Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the EIR for the Poseidon project is incomplete and should not be certified. Without certifying the EIR, the CUP should not be approved either. This issue is of utmost importance to the City of Huntington Beach, including the health of its ocean and beaches, its tourist-based economy, and the welfare of the neighboring residential community. The Poseidon Desalination Plant project has the potential to degrade the ocean, the beaches, the wetlands, the economy, and the residential neighborhood quality of life. The EIR has not satisfied necessary requirements to identify and mitigate potential harmful effects, and therefore should be rejected. The beaches generated $25 million in sales tax revenue to the Huntington Beach economy in 1998. This economic engine should not be jeopardized by a desalination plant tied into a power plant that has been suspected as a factor in pollution of the adjacent beach. As stated by the State Parks Department in its November 17, 2003 letter to the City: "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." I ask that you honor this request and not approve the EIR for the Poseidon project until it is complete. As stated by the Los Angeles Times editorial November 30, 2003: "A thirst for good information is just as important as a thirst for water." Thank you. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 8101 Newman Ave. Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 714-848-0770 12/15/2003 l� ,r Page 1 of 1 Jones, Dale c,,:D ' From: Brockway, Connie Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:00 PM To: Jones, Dale Subject: FW: Poseidon item on agenda for Dec.15th •� c Dale, Please add to late communications, please reply that you got this. Thanks, Connie W z -----Original Message----- o M From: Murphyeile@aol.com [mailto:Murphyeile@aol.com] C-,) Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:36 AM — o -<`~ To: brockwac@surfcity-hb.org o r Y Subject: Poseidon item on agenda for Dec.15th -0 D,''rn,- n !• N Please vote no on the Poseidon item tonight. J D There are many reasons to vote no but just to name a few: 1. Poseidon gets its water from the AES plant. That water is contaminated most of the year at this site. That site had postings in 2000-36. 2001-38 2002-42 2003 not reported yet "County of Orange HCA/Environmental Health" 2. Poseidon claims to have been successful at Tampa Bay After being forced out of at this plant. New management took over and made no changes in the process Poseidon had established. Councilman Coerper asked the man from Tampa"How much water is the plant producing today?" His answer as you remember was"None" This is after the taxpayers in Tampa paid over 1 million dollars 3. Poseidon needs the water from AES 98% of the time.AES runs 27% of the time. What is the agreement Poseidon has with AES? Has the agreement been seen by the council? 4. The Poseidon use of AES permits which expire in 2005. This gives AES a reason to ask for another permit. The AES plant is antiquated and should be closed down. Please Vote"NO"tonight. Eileen Murphy 201 21 st Street HB CA 92648 12/15/2003 (1—C-v"D MWD copY METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA o _ 0 w -r Q � October 28,2002 �- Mr. Ricky Ramos D > c City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street D Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Mr. Ramos: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(Metropolitan)has received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(Draft EIR)for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. The proposed project entails the construction and operation of a 50-million gallons per day seawater desalination facility within the city of Huntington Beach(City). The facility would consist of seawater intake pretreatment facilities,a seawater desalination plant utilizing reverse osmosis technology,product water storage,two pump stations,materials storage tanks,and 42- to 48-inch diameter product water transmission pipelines up to ten miles in length in Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. The facility would utilize existing seawater intake and outfall pipelines for operations. The proposed desalination facility would be located on seven acres of the existing 22-acre AES Huntington Beach Generating Plant located at 21730 Newland Street,off Pacific Coast Highway. The proposed project includes construction of an underground pump station in a portion of unincorporated Orange County, south of Bonita Canyon Drive,near the eastern border of the city of Newport Beach. Both Metropolitan and its member agencies have a responsibility to provide adequate,reliable, high quality water supplies to meet current and projected water demands in Southern California. To that end,alternative water supplies must be explored beyond the additional development of current imported supplies. Over the past several decades,Metropolitan has explored the potential of seawater desalination as a water resource alternative for Southern California. More recently,.Metropolitan's Board of Directors adopted policy principles in February 2001,which define a strategy for the development of brackish and seawater desalination. These policy principles will serve as guidelines in defining the future direction of seawater desalination development through strategic planning processes. This letter contains Metropolitan's views,as a potentially affected public agency,on the scope and content of the Draft EIR. General comments are contained within the following paragraphs; specific comments to the Draft EIR are contained within a separate section following the general comments. Mr. Ricky Ramos Page 2 October 28,2002 Our review of the Draft EIR indicates that Metropolitan has no facilities in the vicinity of the proposed desalination plant. However,Metropolitan owns and operates facilities in the vicinity of the off-site proposed underground booster pump station location. The Irvine Cross Feeder and the East Orange County Feeder No.2 are within the proposed location for the underground booster pump station. The underground booster pump station is proposed to be located at the convergence of the East Orange County Feeder No. 2 and.the Irvine Cross Feeder. According to the Draft EIR,this proposed location is within the Orange County Resource Preservation Easement. The booster pump station is proposed to connect to Metropolitan's Service Connection OC-44 of the East Orange County Feeder No. 2,which is owned and operated by Metropolitan. Metropolitan is concerned with potential impacts to the East Orange County Feeder No.2,the Irvine Cross Feeder,and Service Connection OC-44 as a result of the construction of the proposed booster pump station. Metropolitan requests that the City consider Metropolitan's facilities in its project planning and identify potential impacts to these facilities as a result of project implementation. Service Connection OC-44 is owned and operated by Metropolitan and, therefore,coordination with Metropolitan should occur prior to project implementation. Further,Metropolitan requests that the City address operational impacts and mitigation measures, if any,related to the introduction of desalinated seawater into Metropolitan's regional distribution system. More specifically,Metropolitan recommends that the City conduct a hydraulic analysis that supports the operational feasibility of connecting to Service Connection OC-44,the East Orange County Feeder No.2,and the Irvine Cross Feeder. Based on preliminary evaluation of the proposed introduction of desalinated seawater into Metropolitan's regional distribution system,hydraulic conditions would exceed the design gradients of the Irvine Cross Feeder and the reach from Service Connection OC-44 turnout to Coastal Junction Pressure Control Structure at the East Orange County Feeder No.2. In order to avoid potential conflicts with Metropolitan's rights-of-way and because the booster pump station is proposed to connect to Service Connection OC44,we require that design plans for any activity in the area of Metropolitan's pipelines or facilities be submitted for our review and written approval. In addition,Metropolitan must also be allowed to maintain its right-of-way and access to our facilities at all times in order to repair and maintain the current condition of those facilities. The City may obtain detailed prints of drawings of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way by calling Metropolitan's Substructures Information Line at(213)217-6564. To assist the City in preparing plans that are compatible with Metropolitan's facilities and easements,we have enclosed a copy of the "Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities,Fee Properties, and/or Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." Please note that all submitted designs or plans must clearly identify Metropolitan's facilities and rights-of-way. Mr.Ricky Ramos Page 3 October 28,2002 Metropolitan believes that the general discussion of seawater desalination in the Draft EIR should convey the message that desalination is necessary to ensure future water supply reliability. In addition,Metropolitan requests that an expanded discussion of water quality impacts and benefits,as a result of the seawater desalination project,be added to the Draft EIR. Metropolitan does not believe that the issue of potential water quality impacts of blending desalinated water supplies with imported water supplies has been addressed adequately. It is unclear how backwash solids will be treated prior to discharge. The chemicals ferric chloride and polymer were described to treat the influent water,however,it is not clear how residual solids would be removed. Page 4.3-9 describes clarifiers,but these clarifiers are not described in the project description or on schematics(note Exhibit No. 6). An expanded discussion is necessary. Metropolitan requests that the effect of blending water sources with differing temperatures be discussed in the Draft EIR. The report should also demonstrate that blending desalted water with other sources produces an aesthetically-acceptable end product. Additionally,the report should also demonstrate that the delivered water must be acceptable to all downstream users for its aesthetic qualities,temperature,and all regulated and unregulated constituents. It appears that few of the downstream users have been consulted in this regard. Specific Comments: Section 3.4(Project Characteristics),page 3-20: In the Water Delivery subsection,no information was provided to support the statement that delivery reliability would be improved by the proposed project. Delivery reliability depends on numerous factors such as storage,multiple pipelines,and multiple power sources(and backup power supplies). Though the project would add additional treatment capacity,the lack of significant storage may limit the improvement in reliability. Additionally,on page 3-16,the report states that the desalination facility output may be reduced for electricity conservation. It is unknown how this would be implemented. That is, would the power source be interruptible by the electricity provider? Would flow reductions for electricity conservation be offset by other regional water supplies? Adequate storage for a new supply is integral to improving reliability. Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-20, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: The phrase "(except in times of extreme drought)"implies that there were numerous occasions where the imported water system did not meet all of the region's supplemental water supply needs. However,March 1991 to March 1992 was the only one-year period that all of the region's supplement water supply needs were not met. This was the last year of a six-year drought. Metropolitan requests that this statement be revised to more accurately reflect that there was only one year where all of the region's supplemental water supply needs were not met. Mr. Ricky Ramos Page 4 October 28,2002 Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: Revise this sentence to read,"Solutions to potential water shortage and reliability problems include water management programs on imported water systems as well as an increased reliance on many different sources of water supply and a continued emphasis on water conservation through implementation of State-approved Best Management Practices(BMPs)." Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: No offset is needed according to Metropolitan's plan. Additional supplies are necessary to accommodate expected increases in population and economic activity. A report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies,dated February 11,2002 is provided for your information. Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 3rd paragraph, 5th sentence: Revise the fifth sentence to read,"Depending upon technological advancements and economic constraints, the IRP projected that as much as 800,000 acre feet of recycled water could be made available to the region by year 2020." Section 3.5 (Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 3rd paragraph, 6th sentence: Revise the sixth sentence to read,"Recycled water projects will certainly be relied upon to help meet projected growth in the region. Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: Revise the second sentence to read,"Consequently,seawater desalination was also one of several potential resource options identified in the 1996 IRP." Section 3.5 (Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 4th paragraph, 4th sentence: Revise the fourth sentence to read"The IRP stated that based on feasibility studies on potential projects, about 200,000 acre-feet per year(of desalinated ocean water)could be developed by 2010(p.3- 12)." Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 4th paragraph, Sth sentence: Revise the fifth sentence to read,"The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project represents an opportunity to develop approximately 56,000 acre-feet per year,or approximately one-fourth of the potential for seawater desalination development identified by the 1996 IRP." Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-22, Ist paragraph, last sentence: Metropolitan disagrees with the statement,"In general,anticipated statewide shortages can be expected to translate to equivalent local and regional shortages,with similar economic and environmental effects." Senate Bill(SB)221 and SB 610 require demonstration of water supply reliability prior to development. Revise the text to include the statement referenced above and include the information provided in the comment regarding SB 221 and 610. Mr.Ricky Ramos Page 5 October 28,2002 Section 3.5 (Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-23, Table 3-2: Table 3-2 does not include planned projects and Metropolitan does not believe that this table should be used as the basis for developing conclusions related to future water supply needs. Metropolitan requests that Table 3- 2 and the paragraph on page 3-22 that references the table be deleted. Section 3.7(Agreement, Permits, and Approvals Required),page 3-25. Add Metropolitan as a responsible agency for access to its rights-of-way. Section 4.6(Public Services and Utilities),page 4.6-11: In the Water Compatibility subsection, the report states,"...MWD water would most likely have a slightly higher level of organic carbon content and disinfection by-products...",but offers no evidence for this statement. Metropolitan requests supporting evidence. Section 4.6(Public Services and Utilities), Table 4.6-1,pages 4.6-12—4.6-16: Table 4.6-1 describes product water qualities from the proposed project and other sources. Certain constituents such as chloride and sodium are substantially greater than from other sources. (Bromide would also be greater,though it in not described in this table). Though chloride, sodium,and bromide do not have direct public health significance,their impact on either reuse (basin-wide chloride objectives)or the formation of disinfection by-products(bromide)should be explored. Section 4.6(Public Services and Utilities),page 4.6-17. In the Water Compatibility subsection, the report states,"Impacts in regards to water compatibility are not anticipated to be significant." No data or reports were described to support this statement. Proposed bench-and pilot-scale studies completed during the design phase may be too late to adequately address concerns regarding water compatibility. The compatibility issue must be further investigated. Section 4.6(Public Services and Utilities),page 4.6-17. In the first sentence of the Water Quality subsection,the report states,"The final product water will be disinfected at the proposed desalination facility with free chlorine using sodium hypochlorite to meet the Department of Health Services(DHS)treatment technique requirements for potable water disinfection of a surface water source." More information is needed on this process. For example,what are the expected disinfection by-products formed by this process? How will chlorine residual be measured,particularly in the presence of relatively high(A.5 mg(L)bromide concentrations? [Chlorination of water with high bromide results in the formation of bromine,which may complicate the measurement of and disinfection by free chlorine]. Mr.Ricky Ramos Page 6 October 28,2002 We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and we look forward to receiving future environmental documentation on this project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact me at(213)217-6364. Very truly yours, Original Signed By Marty Melsler Marty Meisler Interim Manager, Environmental Planning Team JAWrdl (Public Folders/EPU/Ltaers/28-OCT-02.doc—Ricky Ramos) Enclosures: Planning Guidelines Copy of"Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies"(February 11,2002) MWD METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Executive Office ti = o c E i m z co F-Cn .-:- December 12,2003 D D c7 �. = z City Council Members _ c7 City of Huntington Beach or- n 2000 Main Street,0 Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear City Council Members: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Metropolitan's Integrated Resources Plan(IRP)identifies goals for a diverse mix of local and imported water resource elements to achieve water supply reliability in a cost-effective manner_ A draft IRP Update is scheduled for release in January 2004. Seawater desalination,which is anticipated to be a viable part of Southern California's water resource portfolio over the next 20 years,will be included as an element of the updated plan along with other resources such as conservation,water recycling, groundwater recovery and groundwater conjunctive use to help meet the region's future water demands. In October 2002,The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(Metropolitan) provided comments to the draft environmental impact report for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project(copy attached). In our letter,we expressed concern with potential impacts to the East Orange County Feeder No.2,the Irvine Cross Feeder and Service Connection OC-44 as a result of the construction of a booster pump station as part of the project. We also recommended that the City of Huntington Beach conduct a hydraulic analysis to support the operational feasibility of connecting to the facilities mentioned above, and address operational impacts and mitigation measures related to the introduction of desalinated seawater into Metropolitan's regional distribution system. Since our October 2002 comment letter,we have reviewed the responses to our comments that are contained within your March 21,2003 "Responses to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project." Additionally,we have met with Poseidon Resources staff and,per their request, submitted information to their consultant to perform an analysis to assess hydraulic impacts to Metropolitan's facilities. To date we have not received the results of that analysis. 700 N.Alameda Street,Los Angeles,California 90012•Mailing Address:Box 54153,Los Angeles,California 90054-0153 9 Telephone(213)217-6000 City Council Members Page 2 December 12,2003 Upon receipt of those results,Metropolitan will need to evaluate the potential environmental and operational impacts from the proposed project on Metropolitan's drinking water system. We appreciate this opportunity to inform you of our continuing concerns. If you have any questions,please contact Mr.B.Anatole Falagan at(213)217-6830 or via email at bfalagan(@mwdh2o.com. com. Very truly yours, (} a J. Simonek Manager,Enviro ental Planning Team JAH/rdl (Public Foldera/EPU/Leaers/12-DEC-03A.doc—City of Huntington Beach) cc: The Honorable Cathy Green,Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,Fourth Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 + i t MWD CITY OF METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORkA ( ►i f' i fa) 0l� F.`E A C H. CA 1003 OEC 15 P 2, S U Executive Office December 12, 2003 City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 4th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear City Council Members: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Metropolitan's Integrated Resources Plan (IR-P) identifies goals for a diverse mix of local and imported water resource elements to achieve water supply reliability in a cost-,effective manner. A draft IRP Update is scheduled for release in January 2004. Seawater desalination, which is anticipated to be a viable part of Southern California's water resource portfolio over the next 20 years, will be included as an element of the updated plan along with other resources such as conservation, water recycling, groundwater recovery and groundwater conjunctive use to help meet the region's future water demands. In October 2002, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) provided comments to the draft environmental impact report for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project (copy attached). In our letter, we expressed concern with potential impacts to the East Orange County Feeder No. 2, the Irvine Cross Feeder and Service Connection OC-44 as a result of the construction of a booster pump station as part of the project. We also recommended that the City of Huntington Beach conduct a hydraulic analysis to support the operational feasibility of connecting to the facilities mentioned above, and address operational impacts and mitigation measures related to the introduction of desalinated seawater into Metropolitan's regional distribution system. Since our October 2002 comment letter, we have reviewed the responses to our comments that are contained within your March 21, 2003 "Responses to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project." Additionally, we have met with Poseidon Resources staff and, per their request, submitted information to their consultant to perform an analysis to assess hydraulic impacts to Metropolitan's facilities. To date we have not received the results of that analysis. Upon receipt of those results, Metropolitan will need to evaluate the potential environmental and operational impacts from the proposed project on Metropolitan's drinking water system. 700 N.Alameda Street,Los Angeles,California 90012•Mailing Address:Box 54153, Los Angeles,California 90054-0153 9 Telephone(213)217-6000 City Council Members Page 2 December 12, 2003 Upon receipt of those results, Metropolitan will need to evaluate the potential environmental and operational impacts from the proposed project on Metropolitan's drinking water system. We appreciate this opportunity to inform you of our continuing concerns. If you have any questions,please contact Mr. B. Anatole Falagan at(213) 217-6830 or via email at bfalanan(o-)mwdh2o.com. Very truly yours, Qp L ra J. Simonek Manager, Enviro ental Planning Team JAH/rdl (Public Folders/EPU/Letters/12-DEC-03A.doc—City of Huntington Beach) cc: The Honorable Cathy Green,Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,Fourth Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 I MWD COPY k METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA October 28,2002 Mr. Ricky Ramos City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr.Ramos: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(Metropolitan)has received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(Draft EIR)for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. The proposed project entails the construction and operation of a 50-million gallons per day seawater desalination facility within the city of Huntington Beach(City). The facility would consist of seawater intake pretreatment facilities,a seawater desalination plant utilizing reverse osmosis technology,product water storage,two pump stations,materials storage tanks,and 42- to 48-inch diameter product water transmission pipelines up to ten miles in length in Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. The facility would utilize existing seawater intake and outfall pipelines for operations. The proposed desalination facility would be located on seven acres of the existing 22-acre AES Huntington Beach Generating Plant located at 21730 Newland Street,off Pacific Coast Highway. The proposed project includes construction of an underground pump station in a portion of unincorporated Orange County, south of Bonita Canyon Drive,near the eastern border of the city of Newport Beach. Both Metropolitan and its member agencies have a responsibility to provide adequate,reliable, high quality water supplies to meet current and projected water demands in Southern California. To that end,alternative water supplies must be explored beyond the additional development of current imported supplies. Over the past several decades,Metropolitan has explored the potential of seawater desalination as a water resource alternative for Southern California. More recently,Metropolitan's Board of Directors adopted policy principles in February 2001,which define a strategy for the development of brackish and seawater desalination. These policy principles will serve as guidelines in defining the future direction of seawater desalination development through strategic planning processes. This letter contains Metropolitan's views,as a potentially affected public agency,on the scope and content of the Draft EIR. General comments are contained within the following paragraphs;specific comments to the Draft EIR are contained within a separate section following the general comments. Mr. Ricky Ramos Page 2 October 28,2002 Our review of the Draft EIR indicates that Metropolitan has no facilities in the vicinity of the proposed desalination plant. However,Metropolitan owns and operates facilities in the vicinity of the off-site proposed underground booster pump station location. The Irvine Cross Feeder and the East Orange County Feeder No. 2 are within the proposed location for the underground booster pump station. The underground booster pump station is proposed to be located at the convergence of the East Orange County Feeder No.2 and the Irvine Cross Feeder. According to the Draft EIR,this proposed location is within the Orange County Resource Preservation Easement. The booster pump station is proposed to connect to Metropolitan's Service Connection OC-44 of the East Orange County Feeder No.2,which is owned and operated by Metropolitan. Metropolitan is concerned with potential impacts to the East Orange County Feeder No.2,the Irvine Cross Feeder,and Service Connection OC-44 as a result of the construction of the proposed booster pump station. Metropolitan requests that the City consider Metropolitan's facilities in its project planning and identify potential impacts to these facilities as a result of project implementation. Service Connection OC-44 is owned and operated by Metropolitan and, therefore,coordination with Metropolitan should occur prior to project implementation. Further,Metropolitan requests that the City address operational impacts and mitigation measures, if any,related to the introduction of desalinated seawater into Metropolitan's regional distribution system. More specifically,Metropolitan recommends that the City conduct a hydraulic analysis that supports the operational feasibility of connecting to Service Connection OC-44,the East Orange County Feeder No.2,and the Irvine Cross Feeder. Based on preliminary evaluation of the proposed introduction of desalinated seawater into Metropolitan's regional distribution system,hydraulic conditions would exceed the design gradients of the Irvine Cross Feeder and the reach from Service Connection OC-44 turnout to Coastal Junction Pressure Control Structure at the East Orange County Feeder No.2. In order to avoid potential conflicts with Metropolitan's rights-of-way and because the booster pump station is proposed to connect to Service Connection OC-44,we require that design plans for any activity in the area of Metropolitan's pipelines or facilities be submitted for our review and written approval. In addition,Metropolitan must also be allowed to maintain its right-of-way and access to our facilities at all times in order to repair and maintain the current condition of those facilities. The City may obtain detailed prints of drawings of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way by calling Metropolitan's Substructures Information Line at(213)217-6564. To assist the City in preparing plans that are compatible with Metropolitan's facilities and easements,we have enclosed a copy of the "Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities,Fee Properties, and/or Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." Please note that all submitted designs or plans must clearly identify Metropolitan's facilities and rights-of-way. Mr.Ricky Ramos Page 3 October 28,2002 Metropolitan believes that the general discussion of seawater desalination in the Draft EIR should convey the message that desalination is necessary to ensure future water supply reliability. In addition,Metropolitan requests that an expanded discussion of water quality impacts and benefits,as a result of the seawater desalination project,be added to the Draft EIR. Metropolitan does not believe that the issue of potential water quality impacts of blending desalinated water supplies with imported water supplies has been addressed adequately. It is unclear how backwash solids will be treated prior to discharge. The chemicals ferric chloride and polymer were described to treat the influent water,however,it is not clear how residual solids would be removed. Page 4.3-9 describes clarifiers,but these clarifiers are not described in the project description or on schematics(note Exhibit No.6). An expanded discussion is necessary. Metropolitan requests that the effect of blending water sources with differing temperatures be discussed in the Draft EIR. The report should also demonstrate that blending desalted water with other sources produces an aesthetically-acceptable end product. Additionally,the report should also demonstrate that the delivered water must be acceptable to all downstream users for its aesthetic qualities,temperature,and all regulated and unregulated constituents. It appears that few of the downstream users have been consulted in this regard. Specific Comments: Section 3.4(Project Characteristics),page 3-20: In the Water Delivery subsection,no information was provided to support the statement that delivery reliability would be improved by the proposed project. Delivery reliability depends on numerous factors such as storage,multiple pipelines,and multiple power sources(and backup power supplies). Though the project would add additional treatment capacity,the lack of significant storage may limit the improvement in reliability. Additionally,on page 3-16,the report states that the desalination facility output may be reduced for electricity conservation. It is unknown how this would be implemented. That is, would the power source be interruptible by the electricity provider? Would flow reductions for electricity conservation be offset by other regional water supplies? Adequate storage for a new supply is integral to improving reliability. Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-20, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: The phrase "(except in times of extreme drought)"implies that there were numerous occasions where the imported water system did not meet all of the region's supplemental water supply needs. However,March 1991 to March 1992 was the only one-year period that all of the region's supplement water supply needs were not met. This was the last year of a six-year drought. Metropolitan requests that this statement be revised to more accurately reflect that there was only one year where all of the region's supplemental water supply needs were not met. Mr. Ricky Ramos Page 4 October 28,2002 Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: Revise this sentence to read,"Solutions to potential water shortage and reliability problems include water management programs on imported water systems as well as an increased reliance on many different sources of water supply and a continued emphasis on water conservation through implementation of State-approved Best Management Practices(BMPs)." Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: No offset is needed according to Metropolitan's plan. Additional supplies are necessary to accommodate expected increases in population and economic activity. A report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies,dated February 11,2002 is provided for your information. Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 3rd paragraph, 5th sentence: Revise the fifth sentence to read,"Depending upon technological advancements and economic constraints, the IRP projected that as much as 800,000 acre feet of recycled water could be made available to the region by year 2020." Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 3rd paragraph, 6th sentence: Revise the sixth sentence to read,"Recycled water projects will certainly be relied upon to help meet projected growth in the region. Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: Revise the second sentence to read,"Consequently,seawater desalination was also one of several potential resource options identified in the 1996 IRP." Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 4th paragraph, 4th sentence: Revise the fourth sentence to read"The IRP stated that based on feasibility studies on potential projects, about 200,000 acre-feet per year(of desalinated ocean water)could be developed by 2010(p.3- 12)." Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-21, 4th paragraph, 5th sentence: Revise the fifth sentence to read,"The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project represents an opportunity to develop approximately 56,000 acre-feet per year,or approximately one-fourth of the potential for seawater desalination development identified by the 1996 IRP." Section 3.5(Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-22, 1st paragraph, last sentence: Metropolitan disagrees with the statement,"In general,anticipated statewide shortages can be expected to translate to equivalent local and regional shortages,with similar economic and environmental effects." Senate Bill(SB)221 and SB 610 require demonstration of water supply reliability prior to development. Revise the text to include the statement referenced above and include the information provided in the comment regarding SB 221 and 610. Mr.Ricky Ramos Page 5 October 28,2002 Section 3.5 (Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-23, Table 3-2: Table 3-2 does not include'° planned projects and Metropolitan does not believe that this table should be used as the basis for developing conclusions related to future water supply needs. Metropolitan requests that Table 3- 2 and the paragraph on page 3-22 that references the table be deleted. Section 3.7(Agreement, Permits, and Approvals Required),page 3-25. Add Metropolitan as a responsible agency for access to its rights-of-way. Section 4.6(Public Services and Utilities),page 4.6-11: In the Water Compatibility subsection, the report states,"...MWD water would most likely have a slightly higher level of organic carbon content and disinfection by-products...",but offers no evidence for this statement. Metropolitan requests supporting evidence. Section 4.6(Public Services and Utilities), Table 4.6-1,pages 4.6-12—4.6-16. Table 4.6-1 describes product water qualities from the proposed project and other sources. Certain constituents such as chloride and sodium are substantially greater than from other sources. (Bromide would also be greater,though it in not described in this table). Though chloride, sodium,and bromide do not have direct public health significance,their impact on either reuse (basin-wide chloride objectives)or the formation of disinfection by-products(bromide)should be explored. Section 4.6(Public Services and Utilities),page 4.6-17. In the Water Compatibility subsection, the report states,"Impacts in regards to water compatibility are not anticipated to be significant." No data or reports were described to support this statement. Proposed bench-and pilot-scale studies completed during the design phase may be too late to adequately address concerns regarding water compatibility. The compatibility issue must be further investigated. Section 4.6(Public Services and Utilities),page 4.6-17. In the first sentence of the Water Quality subsection,the report states,"The final product water will be disinfected at the proposed desalination facility with free chlorine using sodium hypochlorite to meet the Department of Health Services(DHS)treatment technique requirements for potable water disinfection of a surface water source." More information is needed on this process. For example,what are the expected disinfection by-products formed by this process? How will chlorine residual be measured,particularly in the presence of relatively high(-0.5 mg/L)bromide concentrations? [Chlorination of water with high bromide results in the formation of bromine,which may complicate the measurement of and disinfection by free chlorine]. Mr.Ricky Ramos Page 5 October 28,2002 Section 3.5 (Project Needs and Objectives),page 3-23, Table 3-2: Table 3-2 does not include planned projects and Metropolitan does not believe that this table should be used as the basis for developing conclusions related to future water supply needs. Metropolitan requests that Table 3- 2 and the paragraph on page 3-22 that references the table be deleted. Section 3.7(Agreement, Permits, and Approvals Required),page 3-25. Add Metropolitan as a responsible agency for access to its rights-of-way. Section 4.6(Public Services and Utilities),page 4.6-11: In the Water Compatibility subsection, the report states,"...MWD water would most likely have a slightly higher level of organic carbon content and disinfection by products...",but offers no evidence for this statement. Metropolitan requests supporting evidence. Section 4.6(Public Services and Utilities), Table 4.61,pages 4.6-12—4.6-16. Table 4.6-1 describes product water qualities from the proposed project and other sources. Certain constituents such as chloride and sodium are substantially greater than from other sources. (Bromide would also be greater,though it in not described in this table). Though chloride, sodium,and bromide do not have direct public health significance,their impact on either reuse (basin-wide chloride objectives)or the formation of disinfection by-products(bromide)should be explored. Section 4.6(Public Services and Utilities),page 4.6-17. In the Water Compatibility subsection, the report states,"Impacts in regards to water compatibility are not anticipated to be significant." No data or reports were described to support this statement. Proposed bench-and pilot-scale studies completed during the design phase may be too late to adequately address concerns regarding water compatibility. The compatibility issue must be further investigated. Section 4.6(Public Services and Utilities),page 4.6-17: In the first sentence of the Water Quality subsection,the report states,"The final product water will be disinfected at the proposed desalination facility with free chlorine using sodium hypochlorite to meet the Department of Health Services(DHS)treatment technique requirements for potable water disinfection of a surface water source." More information is needed on this process. For example,what are the expected disinfection by-products formed by this process? How will chlorine residual be measured,particularly in the presence of relatively high(--0.5 mg/L)bromide concentrations? [Chlorination of water with high bromide results in the formation of bromine,which may complicate the measurement of and disinfection by free chlorine]. Mr. Ricky Ramos Page 6 October 28,2002 We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and we look forward to receiving future environmental documentation on this project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact me at(213)217-6364. Very truly yours, Original Signed By Marty Meisler Marty Meisler Interim Manager, Environmental Planning Team JAH/rdl (Public Folders/EPU/l eners/18.00r-02.doc—Ricky Ramos) Enclosures: Planning Guidelines Copy of"Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies"(February 11,2002) Page 1 of 1 CITY CLERK `'�`•.► Fikes, Cathy CITY OF From: Craig Shuman [cshuman@healthebay.org] 1003 oEc 15 P ]: s Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 3:04 PM j To: 'city.council@surfcity-hb.org' Subject: Huntington-Poseidon Desalination EIR Dear Council Members, Please see the attached document detailing our comments on the Poseidon Desalination EIR. We are deeply concerned by various inadequacies in the EIR to accurately assess all potential impacts to marine life. Given these concerns,we join the Coastal Commission staff, the California Energy Commission staff, California Department of Parks and Recreation, and Surfrider Foundation in urging you to deny certification of the EIR for its failure to adequately analyze important potential environmental impacts. Thank you, Craig Shuman, D.Env. Staff Scientist Heal the Bay 3220 Nebraska Ave Santa Monica CA 90404 Phone: (310)453-0395 x144 Fax:(310)453-7927 cshuman@healthebay.org 12/15/2003 December 12, 2003 Page 1 of 3 Jones, Dale From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 2:46 PM To: Jones, Dale Subject: Heal the Bay HB Poseidon EIR Comments December 12, 2003 City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 RE: Comments on the City of Huntington Beach EIR for the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant Dear City Council Members: Heal the Bay is a nonprofit environmental organization with over 10,000 members dedicated to making the coastal waters of Southern California safe and healthy for people and marine life. We have been actively coordinating with the environmental representatives of the state's Desalination Task force and currently participate on the 316(b)working group of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. We have reviewed the EIR and find the project applicant has not complied with substantive and procedural CEQA requirements. The project applicant has not provided the information necessary for responsible agencies and the public to determine the full range of environmental impacts, especially those relating to the impingement and entrainment of marine species. Based on these findings, we join the Coastal Commission staff, the California Energy Commission staff, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Surfrider Foundation to urge the City Council to deny certification of the EIR. Heal the Bay submits the following comments and concerns regarding the EIR for the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant: 1. The EIR does not accurately reflect baseline conditions to establish existing marine biology conditions at the site. The EIR bases its analysis and determination of no significant adverse impacts to marine biology and water quality on a RWQCB 1983 entrainment study used as basis for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit renewal. The 1983 study has recently been found to be out-of-date by the California Energy Commission and the power plant owner has L] been required to perform a new entrainment study . The new entrainment study, expected to be 12/15/2003 December 12, 2003 Page 2 of 3 L] completed by Fall 2004 will provide more current and accurate data on entrainment impacts associated with the Huntington Beach Generating Station(HBGS). The updated entrainment study would be more consistent with the needs of the City's CEQA review in that it would allow for the accurate determination of the potential impacts of the proposed project by incorporating relevant and necessary information about the existing conditions of the project. Use of the outdated 316(b) study would likely result in the mischaracterization of the impacts of the project thereby providing inadequate information for decision-makers and members of the public. 2. The EIR does not consider accurate information regarding the power plant's actual and expected operation. The EIR concludes that the addition of a desalination facility to the existing HBGS will not create additional marine life mortality because the power plant is already causing 100% entrainment mortality and operating at maximum capacity by itself(the EIR concluded that the maximum allowable flow permitted in the power plant's NPDES permit was a suitable baseline, and accordingly the EIR adopted the assumption of 100%mortality of the previous 316(b) study).However, this conclusion is incorrect because the power plant is not currently operating at maximum flow, thus the actual level of entrainment is considerably less than provided in the 316(b) study. In reality, average flows from current operations are approximately half that of the U maximum permitted flows (250 MGD and 517 MGD, respectively) Because we believe the addition of a desalination plant will increase energy demands, and thus intake and discharge flows, we feel the EIR must consider the impact of increased entrainment/impingement. The EIR does not directly address how the desalination facility operations will affect power plant operations, but we believe that a desalination plant will increase flows, and thus entrainment/impingement mortality. It is probable that the power plant would be required to increase its output to meet the high energy demands of the proposed desalination project. Any increases in power plant operations directly related to the proposed project would constitute additional impingement and entrainment impacts that should be addressed by the EIR. Furthermore, the EIR should address marine impacts resulting from both water intake as well as water discharge. As noted in the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department's responses to comments, a"worst case scenario" of 126 MGD was addressed,but this scenario was only addressed with respect to the discharge from the proposed project and the impact on the concentration of brine constituents. The EIR should also analyze water intake to accurately assess the impacts to marine life mortality during those conditions when HBGS generators are run at higher capacity to supply power to the desalination plant. In conclusion, assumptions of larval mortality based on full permitted capacity of HBGS do not reflect actual current conditions. Given these flawed assumptions, the EIR does not adequately address all potential impacts to marine life caused by the proposed project. 3. New US EPA rules addressing once-through cooling systems should be addressed. The US EPA is in the process of finalizing new rules to update the Clean Water Act regulations regarding impacts of once-through cooling facilities. These new rules will require significant changes to existing power plant operations to decrease entrainment and impingement, or require 12/15/2003 December 12, 2003 Page 3 of 3 significant mitigation. Changes to plant operations may include the installation of new technologies or even the conversion of plants to recycled cooling systems. The association of HBGS with the proposed desalination project would prohibit the possible conversion of this plant to a recycled system. The EIR does not address this potential scenario and therefore does not adequately state all potential impacts. In conclusion, Heal the Bay strongly recommends City Council deny certification of this EIR. We find the EIR to be wholly inadequate in its assessment of the potential impacts to marine life. Given that this is the first of many future projects concerning desalination in the and climate of Southern California, we feel the City of Huntington Beach is obligated to set a precedent to ensure all future desalination projects are held to the highest environmental standards. Certification of this EIR by the City of Huntington Beach would set a poor precedent and allow for the continued degradation of our precious marine resources. Sincerely, Craig Shuman Staff Scientist LU California Energy Commission(2001).Commission Decision,Huntington Beach Generation Station Retool Project. Application for Certification 00-AFC-13,Orange County. U See continent letter from Energy Commission Staff,November 17,2003 U See comment letters from Energy Commission,November 17 2003 and Coastal Commission Staff,December 8,2003 12/15/2003 Page 1 of 1 1�i� rl,— casv� CLtkK -, Fikes, Cathy CITY OF HdNTINGTON BEACH, CA From: Annie Jelnick [anniejinsb@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:47 PM 1003 DEC 15 P 1: 5 3 To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Subject: poseidon development To City Council; I am a resident of Huntington Beach now and in fact was born here many years ago. In the interim I have lived in other beach cities in Southern California including Santa Barbara. There is a general acknowledgement that our beautiful coast in California is a valuable asset. This is due to the recreational aspects for residents as well as the tourism that many cities bring. It would be presumptuous of me to say what the best use for our beach area properties are long-term. I know there are many ideas that include environmental uses such as wetlands set-asides, commercial uses such as hotels and other tourism-related development, or,just simply, more homes. All have their points. It would seem to me however that the worse use would be industrial development, which would seem to be short-sighted for this valuable and valued landscape. Before making any decisions I would urge you to hesitate and give this project due deliberation for the short and the long-term implications contained therein. Thank you, Annie Jelnick 22031 Capistrano Lane Huntington Beach 12/15/2003 0� > CITY COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATION ' Citizen Inquiry 2003 DATE RECEIVED December 2003 0 Comment/Opinion INQUIRY # 855 ❑ Mayor's Response Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name: Last Name: various Title: Organization: Address: City: Huntington Beach State: CA Zip: Phone: Contact Type: E-mail Qty: 2 EMail• Subject: Opposes Poseidon Desalination Plant Referred To: ' Department Date Referred #Days Rec/Ref Date Closed #Days Ref/Cls Total Days City Clerk 12/10/2003 0 12/10/2003 0 .0 Topic: Desalination Plant Assignment: None-Comments-Agenda Item Action: No action taken Department Date Referred #Days Rec/Ref Date Closed #Days Ref/Cls Total Days Planning 12/10/2003 0 12/10/2003 0 0 Topic: Desalination Plant Assignment. None Comments Action: None -r c o z 0 CPI Wor-_� D a r, z -C-) LA; D Date Closed December 10, 2003 (blank field indicates open file) PLEASE FORWARD A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATION DENISE BAZANT -t Bazant, Denise From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 6:23 PM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: no on the desalination plant -----Original Message From: Hbsac@aol.com [mailto:Hbsac@aol.comj Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:09 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: no on the desalination plant We the people living in the neighborhood that would have to look at and hear the desalination plant, say NO! We already have a 40 year old power plant to look at! The beach has suffered to many closures (all summer). We do not need to add more problems to a sick beach. Say no to the Poseidon Plant! Debbie & Steve Clark 9021 Bobbie Cir H B, Ca 92646 - o � o z 1`l - n n C? me D 1 Page 1 of 1 i Bazant, Denise From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:41 PM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: -----Original Message----- From: Steve&]ill Tyler[mailto:styler@cyberhotline.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 10:46 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Subject: Poseidon vote Dec. 15th. Please vote with your hearts and what is environmentally correct. I am asking you to vote down the proposal. Please say NO. Jill Tyler styler@cyberhotline.com ti C o � � O 2 0---iCn CD - r".� D n c-> w y' 12/9/2003 1 CQ Fikes, CathyI; % ►' P� �' '` `� w I ULLrVA From: Laura Curran [lauracurran@mac.com] CITY OF Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 8:52 AM HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA To: laura.curran@mac.com Subject: Please Oppose Poseidon EIR and CUP 1003 DEC 15 P 1: S U Subject: Agenda Item D-2a, D2-b, Please Oppose Poseidon EIR and CUP Dear Mayor Green and City Councilmembers, I am writing to ask that you please oppose certification of the EIR and CUP for the Poseidon Desalination Plant proposal. In addition to the concerns stated below, I submit that much of the need for new water sources could be achieved through savings from a citywide program encouraging use of native and drought-tolerant plants and replacement of lawns, through voter education and water rates which favor citizens who conserve, and punish citizens who do not. Several years ago when IRWD banned watering of lawns, water consumption dropped significantly. This plant represents an effort to solve a water shortage with a technical solution. You have the opportunity to take a courageous step and set an example by working with citizens and businesses to understand the impacts of water consumption and how to reduce it. This would be a lower cost option than building a desal plant, which will cost millions to get up and running, without even taking into account the costs of potential legal action from many sides opposed to it, which the project proponents and eventually residents would have to pay for. As indicated by recent letters from staff from three state agencies: the California Coastal Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the EIR for the Poseidon project is incomplete and should not be certified. Without certifying the EIR, the CUP should not be approved either. This issue is of utmost importance to the City of Huntington Beach, including the health of its ocean and beaches, its tourist-based economy, and the welfare of the neighboring residential community. The Poseidon Desalination Plant project has the potential to degrade the ocean, the beaches, the wetlands, the economy, and the residential neighborhood quality of life. The EIR has not satisfied necessary requirements to identify and mitigate potential harmful effects, and therefore should be rejected. The beaches generated $25 million in sales tax revenue to the Huntington Beach economy in 1998. This economic engine should not be jeopardized by a desalination plant tied into a power plant that has been suspected as a factor in pollution of the adjacent beach. As stated by the State Parks Department in ,its November 17, 2003 letter to the City: "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 tfo the existing collection/discharge regime as proposed by Poseidon. " I ask that you honor this request and not approve the EIR for the Poseidon project until it is complete. Thank you. Sincerely, Laura Curran 437 Dahlia 1 1 f Corona. Al Mar, CA 92625 2 v ' l Fikes, Cathy �pN,w� From: Karl Tahti [hbtahti@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 8:54 AM To: Connie Boardman; CB4Council@aol.com; cbrockway@surfcity-hb.org; city.council@surfcity- hb.org; Gil Coerper; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org; Cathy Green; Jill Hardy; hbdac@hotmail.com; Hbmissjill@aol.com; Pam Houchen; ppcgreen@aol.com; Dave Sullivan; Dave Sullivan Dear Mayor Green and City Councilmembers, Please oppose certification of the EIR and CUP for the Poseidon Desalination Plant proposal. As indicated by recent letters from staff from three state agencies: the California Coastal Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the EIR for the Poseidon project is incomplete and should not be w ? certified. Without certifying the EIR, the CUP should o z not be approved either. M c-� This issue is of utmost importance to the City of cn a-�n Huntington Beach, including the health of its ocean W and beaches, its tourist-based economy, and the D z welfare of the neighboring residential community. T The Poseidon Desalination Plant project has the Cn v potential to degrade the ocean, the beaches, the wetlands, the economy, and the residential neighborhood quality of life. The EIR has not satisfied necessary requirements to identify and mitigate potential harmful effects, and therefore should be rejected. The beaches generated $25 million in sales tax revenue to the Huntington Beach economy in 1998. This economic engine should not be jeopardized by a desalination plant tied into a power plant that has been suspected as a factor in pollution of the adjacent beach. As stated by the State Parks Department in its November 17, 2003 letter to the City: "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. " I ask that you honor this request and not approve the EIR for the Poseidon project until it is complete. As stated by the Los Angeles Times editorial November 30, 2003 : "A thirst for good information is just as important as a thirst for water. " Thank you. Sincerely, 1 J 4-'karl and Heidi Tahti 9071 Regatta Drive 714-964-2004 Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ 2 - Page 1 of 2 r Fikes, Cathy CITY OF Q a.J LY.l From: Susan Jordan [sjordan@coastaladvocates.com] C Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 3:43 PM 1003 OEC I S P I' S 3 To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: RE: Request for Denial of Certification of Poseidon Desalination Environmental Document December 12, 2003 TO: Members, Huntington Beach City Council VIA EMAIL FROM: California Coastal Protection Network RE: Request for Denial of Certification of Huntington-Poseidon Desalination Environmental Document Dear Mayor Boardman and Councilmembers, I am writing on behalf of the California Coastal Protection Network(CCPN) , a non-profit, statewide organization dedicated to protection of the California Coast. CCPN is a participant in a working group comprised of over 15 environmental organizations analyzing -the impacts of desalination facilities along the California Coast. Our concerns about desalination range from the issue of the privitization of a public trust resource (water)to the specific environmental impacts that desalination will have on coastal resources. As we monitor the advance of 19 proposed facilities along the California coast, we are deeply concerned with the lack of a statewide planning mechanism and cumulative impacts analysis. As one of the first proposed projects in the pipeline, the Huntington Beach-Poseidon project will set the tone for the other desalination projects that come after it. As such, it is imperative that the strictest standards of review and analysis are employed. Members of the working group have reviewed the environmental document and have expressed significant concerns with the following elements: 1. Impingement/Entrainment: The analysis fails to separate out the entrainment and impingement impacts for the Huntington Beach Generating Plant vs. the Poseidon Desalination Plant. CCPN has long been concerned with the devastating impacts of ocean water intake on coastal resources and believes that restoration of coastal fisheries will be partly dependent on a shift from ocean intake to dry cooling - whenever possible. That said, this document must quantify the 'additional' impacts that are likely to occur and mitigate for them. 12/15/2003 Page 2 of 2 2. Growth Inducement: Unless regulated properly, desalination has the potential to fuel additional growth in areas that would not normally sustain it due to lack of available water supplies. Creating additional water for existing users must be separated out from creating increased water supplies to facilitate development. Given that development has been identified by the Pew Ocean Commission as one of the major factors in ocean pollution, it is critical that this environmental document analyze and account for the impacts of additional development. 3. Existing Ocean Contamination: Huntington Beach has struggled with persistent ocean contamination for years. It would be foolhardy to ignore the impacts that desalination is likely to have on an already compromised offshore ecosystem. Thus, the identification of additional water sources through conservation and reclamation that would not further compromise the offshore environment should be given priority. We respectfully request that Huntington Beach deny certification of this environmental document in its current form and direct that the existing defects be corrected. Sincerely, Susan Jordan, Director California Coastal Protection Network 906 Garden Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 12/15/2003 Page 1 of 2 G D Fikes, Cathy _ P s G—�— From: Greg Dillon [gdillon@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 10:37 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Fw: Letter to council re Poseidon = N C o � O Z Greg & Donna Dillon '-'-''--,--, --i— . ;. -----Original Message----- _ CD <`-: From: Greq Dillon g �-- CO o ':.. To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org m-,��`.. Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 10:34 AM Subject: Letter to council re Poseidon - ? c n r' iV D December 15, 2003 Honorable Mayor Green and Distinguished City Council Members, As a 30 year resident of Southeast Huntington Beach, I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant project on the City Council agenda Monday night, December 15, 2003. 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. 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 is very disturbing to me. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project 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, 12/15/2003 Page 2 of 2 Gregory N. Dillon 22102 Jonesport Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646 12/15/2003 ;r Page 1 of 8 {� l-C4rv• ED 1 _. CITxi CLERK Fikes, Cathy CITY OF From: JonV3@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:17 AM 1003 DEC 15 P 1: 5.2 i To: silverr@surfcity-hb.org Cc: hbdac@hotmail.com; DSULLIVAN@socal.rr.com; cboardman@surfcity-hb.org; CBoardBCLT@aol.com; Hbmissjill@aol.com; glcoerp1 @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; city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Poseidon versus HB Staff Reports dated November 17 re: Nov 7 CEC Letter Hi Ray, Jan Vandersloot here. I am wondering if you can help me with an issue I have been trying to understand concerning two reports I read after the November 17 City Council meeting regarding the Poseidon Desalination Project. I have called Howard Zelevsky, but have not been able to speak with him directly. Mary Beth Broeren and Ricky Ramos called me about the issue and we discussed it, but I am not satisfied with the answers and I asked that I talk to Howard directly. However, I have not been able to make contact, so I am emailing you instead. The problem I see is that the responses made to the California Energy Commission's November 7, 2003 Comment letter from both the City Staff to the City Council via your office, dated November 17, and the letter to the City Council from Poseidon Resources Corporation, also dated November 17, 2003, are identical. In particular, the specific remarks addressing the CEC's arguments under the Poseidon letterhead, are the identical responses to the CEC letter under the City of Huntington Beach letterhead, from Howard Zelevsky, Director of Planning. Please compare the following two documents: 1. The November 17, 2003 City of Huntington Beach Inter Office Communication from Howard Zelevsky, Director of Planning, to Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Subject: Environmental Impact Report No.00-02 (Poseidon Desalination Plant)- Response to California Energy Commission Letter Dated November 7, 2003. Please start reading from the second paragraph titled "Relevant AES HBGS Background"and follow the comments over the next several pages from General Comment No.1 to General Comment No. 12, ending with the paragraph on the quantity of slurry materials. 2. The Poseidon letter dated November 17 to the Honorable Connie Boardman, Mayor, from Billy Owens, Sr. Vice President for Poseidon, Re: CEC Letter dated November 7, 2003-EIR for Poseidon Resources Seawater Desalination Project, included in the packet of Late Communications from the City Clerk. Mr. Owens's last sentence stated: "More specific remarks are enclosed to address many of the letters arguments" These remarks, stapled to the letter, and under the Poseidon Resources letterhead are numbered pages 1 to 10, and include the exact language as the HB Inter Office Communication starting from"Relevant AES HBGS Background"over the next 10 pages including General Comments 1 through 12, ending with the paragraph on quantity of slurry materials. From the above two sources, it appears to me that HB City staff has copied and pasted, taken word-for-word, or plagiarized the entire Poseidon letter and sent it to the Mayor and City Council as if it were a staff review of the CEC letter. In fact, the staff report appears to be the exact same Poseidon review of the CEC letter. In my 23 years of citizen participation in local government in Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach, I have never seen such blatant use of a developer's paid consultant's remarks to be inserted as staffs remarks. 12/15/2003 Page 2 of 8 The clear implication is that Poseidon wrote the staff report, not the staff. Poseidon has a clear self-interest in attacking a state agency's letter criticizing the EIR, because Poseidon wants its project passed by the City Council. Its consultants will do what's best for Poseidon. On the other hand, the City staff has an obligation to give decision makers an unbiased evaluation in order to do what's best for the people of Huntington Beach, not what's best for Poseidon. Poseidon's self interest may not be what's best for the City. This separation of City staffs opinion and evaluation from Poseidon's opinion and evaluation is missing from this case. It appears that Poseidon's evaluation and opinion is the staffs evaluation and opinion. The staff is appearing to represent the developer, rather than representing the citizens of the City of Huntington Beach. Something appears very wrong to me with this scenario, and I ask for your help in sorting out what happened prior to the City Council meeting on Monday, and whether what happened is proper and correct under the policies of the City and the relationship between the City and the employed consultants for Poseidon. Please call me at my home, 949-548-6326, or work, 714-848-0770, to discuss this issue. My apologies to City staff if this example is considered normal staff procedure and City policy. If not, I suggest corrective measures be taken to ensure the staff gives decision makers unbiased, independent evaluations of state agency letters and EIR's prepared for the City, and not adopt the developer's paid consultants' remarks as their own. The people of Huntington Beach deserve no less. Thank you. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 12/15/2003 Poseidon EIR and CUP Page 1 of 2 1r1r — Fikes, Cathy � ICITYCOFHun K From: Neil Tsutsui [ntsutsui@uci.edu] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:01 PM 1003 DEC 15 P ► 5 2 To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; hbdac@hotmail.com; DSULLIVAN@socal.rr.com; cboardman@surfcity-hb.org; Hbmissjill@aol.com; glcoerp1 @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; cbrockway@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Poseidon EIR and CUP Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am a resident of Irvine, and a professor at the University of California, Irvine. My wife and I are also frequent visitors to Huntington Beach, where we enjoy running, swimming, and walking on the beach. I am writing to ask that you please oppose certification of the EIR and CUP for the Poseidon Desalination Plant proposal. I am concerned that this plant threatens the most economically important resources of Huntington Beach, and will significantly degrade the quality of life for residents, visitors, and tourists. In my opinion (and in the opinion of other individuals and agencies), the EIR has not successfully addressed concerns about local water quality and, in the absence of knowledge, we must adopt the most conservative approach to protecting our resources and quality of life. As indicated by recent letters from staff from three state agencies (the California Coastal Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation) the EIR for the. Poseidon project is not and should not be certified. Thank you for your efforts to protect the welfare of citizens and visitors by opposing the EIR and CUP for this plant. 12/15/2003 Poseidon EIR and CUP Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Neil D. Tsutsui 2005 D Los Trancos Drive Irvine CA 92612 (H) 949-725-1143 (W) 949-824-7525 Neil D. Tsutsui, Ph.D. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of California, Irvine 321 Steinhaus Hall Irvine, CA 92697-2525 tsutsuilab.bio.uci.edu ntsutsui@uci.edu 12/15/2003 Page 1 of 1 Fikes, Cathy From: Tandemrob1@aol.com Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:27 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant My wife and I and our three chlidren live at 9152 Playa DR. We used to be able to walk to the beach. Now with the frequent beach closures between Magnolia and Newland we are afraid to use the local beaches. We respectfully ask that you deny the request by Poseidon to add more heavy industry this area until the cause of the current beach pollution is determined. The AES.company has won a reduction in the tax that the city council and citizens of Huntington Beach counted on to mitigate the negative effects of the power plant. I don't believe they will be any better neighbors when partnered with Poseidon. Please protect our beaches and the people and wildlife that frequent them. Thank You, Robert and Karla Thomas Timothy Joey and Mary o C' o � 0 M r-n CO C)% D� ��. c-) Cn n • _ D 12/15/2003 Fikes, Cathy From: SeasideArt@aol.com Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:58 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Subject: No on Poseidon Dear City Council, Please vote no on the proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant. There are so many reasons not to build the plant in Huntington Beach. The biggest asset Surf City has are our beaches. Flanked by a sewage treatment plant and a power plant, there is already a great deal of heavy industry in Southeast Huntington Beach. The city has been working for years to make HB a destination for tourism and has developed in that direction. The industrial area between Beach Blvd. and Newland is incompatible with tourism and incompatible with the surrounding residential area. In a different part of Southern California another 40-year old power plant will be dismantled soon. There is hope that the same thing can happen here. Adding a parasitic use to the existing plant could affect this possibility. Some of our beaches were closed during the entire months of July and August last year. The cause of these beach closures is still not known. Until the true cause of the beach closures is found, adding a plant that will affect the ocean in the same area where the beach was closed is unwise. Please vote no on the proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant. Lori Costigan S C= C o � 0 W �{ X n_ n MC- CD Q Q d -D D� '� n � c-) _ D 1 Fikes, Cathy From: Steve Homer[stevehomer@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:40 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Please VOTE NO on Poseidon Dear Mayor Green and Council members, My name is Steve Homer and I am resident of southeast Huntington Beach. It is my belief that a desalination plant at our beach built by Poseidon Resources is wrong for Huntington Beach at this time for the following reasons: 1. Poseidon's lack of a successful track record in this business. Without this experience the majority of their claims are based on projections and models not fact. 2 . The long term relationship between AES and Poseidon will no doubt lengthen the time we will be saddled with that outdated power plant in its present configuration. 3. The possibility of increased water pollution at an already polluted beach. This will hurt future tourism. 4. While the 35 megawatt (a Poseidon projection) power demand for this plant will come from the grid they must contract this power from some supplier. We have no idea if it will be from AES HB because Poseidon refuses to make any of these agreements public. The possibility of increased air pollution could also effect tourism. 5. The price for this water is so high that the taxpayers will be forced to subsidize it to even come close to making it affordable. 6. Southeast Huntington Beach has more than its share of the industrial burden for our neighboring cities in the county. We need a broader vision for this area. We need to find a way to eventually tie the newly refurbished downtown area in with Southeast and somehow achieve continuity between the two. A vision of a beautiful unique coastline from the Santa Ana River to Seal Beach. Steve Homer 22181 Luau Lane Huntington Beach 714-968-9545 S C C c Z o z M �� o__,-<� cn C O CD rn�Nr•: D � n Ln n _ D 1 Page 1 of 1 Fikes, Cathy From: Blmiller@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:22 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: SEHB To all council members. As a resident of South East HB I wish to express my strong opposition to the Poesidon Plant.We have the sewer plant and Edison already. This is prime real estate and a wonderful place to live. Let's develope it in such a way that makes it pleasant for residents and tourists. I would like to see more tourists dollars come into the city. Bobbie Miller 9332 Tahiti Circle o � o a o a Cn cn z-���, Go D�'7 n - S U1 n D 12/15/2003 Merrilee Madrigal 10231 Cliff Drive Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 c I CLERK Tel: 714 317-1279 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA December 15, 2003 1003 OEC 15 P 1: 51 Subject: Agenda Item D-2a, D2-b, Please oppose Poseidon EIR and CUP Dear Mayor Green and City Council Members, The California Energy Commission believes the EIR prepared by the City of Huntington Beach for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project does not provide adequate consideration for the environment and fails to meet the baselines criteria under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Coastal Commission believes further assessment is needed as well. Therefore, the City of Huntington Beach would be wise to act upon of their recommendations. A project like this should not be approved without adequate consideration for the environment. Environmental Impact Reports are supposed to protect the people. The City of Huntington Beach, in my opinion,would have another violation to the California Environmental Quality Act on their hands, the issues of land filling adjacent the Santa Ana River and diverting 20 acres of corridor storm waters into the Santa Ana River Residential Communities as well. The Huntington Beach Planning Department favors project applicants and is not environmental friendly. The Planning Department will continue to recommend approval of inadequate Environmental Impact Reports. They will continue to ignore enforcement responsibilities when violations occur. The Planning Department will not effect environmental compliance and will continue to fail to provide adequate environmental protections to the people of Huntington Beach. We have a fine Planning Department, however, our current planning process is applicant driven. Therefore, it is often a fundamental conflict of interest to plan commercial projects and protect the environment. It is time we get smart and remove environmental representation and enforcement responsibilities from the Planning Department and create a separate Environmental Protection Department with authority at par with Planning Department's representation of project planning and permitting. The City of Huntington Beach has the Pacific Ocean, Wetlands, Harbors, Rivers, Runoff from the urban inland empire and their Sewage as well. Environmental issues and problems will continue to plague upon the people of Huntington Beach. It is time we establish an improved mechanism of environmental protection and enforcement procedures. It will save us a lot of time, money and hardship in the future. In the meantime, I urge you to deny the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project on the basis the EIR is inadequate, and the environmental protections available at this time fail to adequately protect the people who live here, the health of the ocean life, and the health and safety of the tourists. Our ocean water is too often below health and safety standards. We should improve our ocean water quality and meet ocean water quality standards before we permit this project. Thank you, Merrilee Madrigal HB Santa Ana River Resident Page 1 of 1 Fikes, Cathy — P_-c-eJ X � From: Greg Dillon [gdillon@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 10:35 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Letter to council re Poseidon cm 0 � December 15, 2003 _- CD <C. cnor' rrt-� n -0 n r) - .' z Honorable Mayor Green and Distinguished City Council Members, C n , N D As a 30 year resident of Southeast Huntington Beach, I am writing to ask that you oppose the Poseidon desalination plant project on the City Council agenda Monday night, December 15, 2003. 1 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. 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 is very disturbing to me. I believe this project will have a negative impact on our residential neighborhood and the wetlands that are adjacent to the project. While desalination as a source of water for future generations has certain benefits, the current Poseidon project 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, Donna Dillon 22102 Jonesport Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646 12/15/2003 Page 1 of 1 Fikes, Cathy From: BrianREsq@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 7:48 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; vespa7@socal.rr.com Subject: 12/15/03 Poseidon meeting dear sirs, the proposed Poseidon plant will detrimentally effect the quality of life in this area... the power plant and sewage treatment plants already affect the water and air... adding another industrial use to this predominently residential area is not wise planning, especially with the big plans for tourism and further residential uses along pacific coast highway... please vote no! brian reiss, esq. 22071 capistrano lane huntington beach, ca 92646 1-800-624-6850 oC= c g O Z n �C7 Jam. Cn r -0 DoM�. C S U1 n N D 12/15/2003 Fikes, Cathy - From: Ron Smith [esgi@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:44 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Water Treatment Plant near AES Honorable Council Members, _ I would like to let all of you know that I am opposed o c to the water treatment plant near AES that you will be w considering. I'm sure that you already know the o numerous reasons why most people are against it. The bottom line for residents who live in southeast HB is that enough is enough. Thank you for your CO �- consideration. m o m Yours truly, � M�_ Ronald Smith 21842 Seaside Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 N D Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ 1 Page 1 of 1 Fikes Cath l*1El,L ,/LU .JTY CLERK L CITY OF From: Queenbelevitbee@aol.com HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 10:54 AM 1003 DEC 15 P 1: 5 2 To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: PLEASE VOTE NO.... on the Poseidon Plant...especially, since we already have unresolved problems at our beaches....Thank you....Mary Hill 12/15/2003 Page 1 of 1 Fikes, Cathy From: Bill Wetzel [wwetzel@socal.rr.com) Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:17 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: BILL Subject: poseidon PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE POSE IDON ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! o g M��rr o a-< ,= u� Co o Ln n w D 12/15/2003 Page 1 of 1 CITY CLERK _ Fikes, Cathy C.ITY OF husT.,=H BEACN:CA pg¢ "'�`'141 From: Craig Wagner[cwagner1 @socal.rr.com] p 53 Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:38 PM 1003 DEC 15 1 To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Poseidon Dear City Council Members, I am opposed to the desalination plant. The studies on the plant are inconclusive. We are still dealing with beach closures in the same area. This plant will definately affect the ocean water quality. H.B. is supposed to be a tourist destination. Lousy ocean water will not help this. Please vote no. Thank you, Craig Wagner 12/15/2003 Page 1 of 1 t - � Fikes, Cathy CITY OFF s From: HndySndy@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 7:35 PM 1001 DEC 15 P I- S j. To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Poseidon Dear City Council persons: I would like to let you know that I am against the Poseidon Plant in SEHB. Ten years ago, when I first moved to Hamilton and Magnolia, I could lie in bed at night in the summer and hear crickets and frogs and sometimes coyotes. Now, all we ever hear is the roar of the power plant. Some days it is so loud, it is impossible to keep the upstairs windows open. I believe that another industrial facility will only add to that noise pollution, negatively affecting all that live in this area, and those tourists who will come to stay here. Noise pollution is just one more type of pollution that we should not add to our environment. Sincerely, Sandra Fazio, OC 12/15/2003 Page 1 of 1 t_� TY Fikes, Cathy ` �hTYLOF From: Mike [skyking965@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 1:57 PM 1003 DEC 15 P 1- S 3 To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Subject: The Proposed Poseidon Plant Dear City Council -This note is to register my concern about the Poseidon plant that is being proposed in my neighborhood -South East Huntington Beach. As a member of the SEHBNA Organization and 30-plus year home owner in this area, I am strongly opposed to any additional industry in "my back yard.". Moreover, our wonderful beaches cannot stand another intrusion of this type. Also, as I understand it, the proposed design has, to say the least, a questionable operational history. Please vote"NO"on this measure. Respectfully, Michael Callison 21972 Summerwind Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 12/15/2003 Page 1 of 1 GK) CITY CLERK _ Fikes, Cathy CITY-OFHUNTINGTON BEACH. CA From: David Gordon [dgordon1 @socal.rr.com] 1003 DEC 15 P I. 5 Ll Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 9:53 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: sehbna@sehbna.org Subject:.Proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant Dear Council Members: I am writing to you regarding the proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant which is to be considered by the City Council on December 15, 2003. My wife and I urge that you NOT approve the proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant. The reasons we believe the desalination plant should not be approved for construction in Huntington Beach include the following: 1. From the information provided to us, Poseidon does not have a track record of successfully developing and delivering/selling a reliable, fully operable desalination plant. Their last project in Tampa Bay, Florida has not operated effectively and suffers from clogging filters which have yet to be resolved to allow consistent, successful operation. Our City should not put itself in the position of potentially having to pay for a plant which may never operate successfully, which may occur if the proposed project is not completed as contracted. 2. Based on the relatively recent developments of the Hilton Hotel and Hyatt Hotel projects along Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach, our City has made a conscious decision to become an upscale destination resort. As I understand it, the proposed desalination plant site is the power plant site at Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Street. Establishment of an industrial desalination plant in close proximity to the resort projects that the City has allowed to be developed would be counter-productive to obtaining the best economic results from those resort projects. 3. In the past 3 years, our beaches have had problems with pollution affecting health, particularly in the summer months. The proposed desalination project poses additional risks of harming the quality of our beaches, by increasing the concentrations of salinity and pollutants discharged by the proposed plant after the desalination process. In addition to potential health risks for our residents and visitors, the attendant publicity of increased pollution would also adversely affect the desired image as a destination resort. Please do NOT approve the proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant in Huntington Beach. There is too much risk and not enough benefit for us to have this project in our community. Sincerely, David Gordon 22071 Rockport Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 12/15/2003 Page 1 of 1 CITY CLERK Fikes, Cathy CITY OF From: JonV3@aol.com Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 10:28 PM 1003 DEC 15 P I S 1-1 To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; hbdac@hotmail.com; DSULLIVAN@socal.rr.com; cboardman@surfcity-hb.org; CBoardBCLT@aol.com;.Hbmissjill@aol.com; glcoerp1@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; cbrockway@surfcity- hb.org Subject: Agenda Item D-2a, D2-b, Please Oppose Poseidon EIR and CUP Dear Mayor Green and City Councilmembers, Please oppose certification of the EIR and CUP for the Poseidon Desalination Plant proposal. As indicated by recent letters from staff from three state agencies: the California Coastal Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the EIR for the Poseidon project is incomplete and should not be certified. Without certifying the EIR, the CUP should not be approved either. This issue is of utmost importance to the City of Huntington Beach, including the health of its ocean and beaches, its tourist-based economy, and the welfare of the neighboring residential community. The Poseidon Desalination Plant project has the potential to degrade the ocean, the beaches, the wetlands, the economy, and the residential neighborhood quality of life. The EIR has not satisfied necessary requirements to identify and mitigate potential harmful effects, and therefore should be rejected. The beaches generated $25 million in sales tax revenue to the Huntington Beach economy in 1998. This economic engine should not be jeopardized by a desalination plant tied into a power plant that has been suspected as a factor in pollution of the adjacent beach. As stated by the State Parks Department in its November 17, 2003 letter to the City: "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." I ask that you honor this request and not approve the EIR for the Poseidon project until it is complete. As stated by the Los Angeles Times editorial November 30, 2003: "A thirst for good information is just as important as a thirst for water." Thank you. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 8101 Newman Ave. Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 714-848-0770 I 12/15/2003 Page 1 of 1 Fikes, Cathy CIT Y CEERK ,r_9-0 � CITY OF t From: Jeff Stevens Ueffstevens@adelphia.net] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 5:00 AM 1003 DEC IS P j: 5 Q To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: hbdac@hotmail.com; DSULLIVAN@socal.rr.com; cboardman@surfcity-hb.org; CB4Council@aol.com; cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org;jhardy@surfcity-hb.org; phouchen@surfcity-hb.org; dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org; dsullivan@surfcityhb.org; ppcgreen@aol.com; cbrockway@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Agenda Item D-2a, D2-b, Please Oppose Poseidon EIR and CUP Dear Mayor Green and City Councilmembers, Please oppose certification of the EIR and CUP for the Poseidon Desalination Plant proposal. As indicated by recent letters from staff from three state agencies: the California Coastal Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the EIR for the Poseidon project is incomplete and should not be certified. Without certifying the EIR,the CUP should not be approved either. This issue is of utmost importance to the City of Huntington Beach, including the health of its ocean and beaches, its tourist-based economy, and the welfare of the neighboring residential community. The Poseidon Desalination Plant project has the potential to degrade the ocean, the beaches, the wetlands, the economy, and the residential neighborhood quality of life. The EIR has not satisfied necessary requirements to identify and mitigate potential harmful effects, and therefore should be rejected. The beaches generated$25 million in sales tax revenue to the Huntington Beach economy in 1998. This economic engine should not be jeopardized by a desalination plant tied into a power plant that has been suspected as a factor in pollution of the adjacent beach. As stated by the State Parks Department in its November 17, 2003 letter to the City: "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." I ask that you honor this request and not approve the EIR for the Poseidon project until it is complete. As stated by the Los Angeles Times editorial November 30, 2003: "A thirst for good information is just as important as a thirst for water." Thank you. Sincerely, Jeff Stevens Newport Beach, CA 92663 949-650-1826 12/15/2003 r kk Economi* cs t3#` r' *California beaches, 1998 *generated $ 14 billion ayear of direct revenue . t *contributed $73 billion to national. economy "fi *generated $2 .6 billion. direct federal tax revenues • enerated 883 ,000 jobs across the United states • H.untin ton 'Beach, 1998 • %2 o.f_ all spending on beach. activities occurred p � outside the city *beaches generated $ 135 million in .federal tax revenues *beaches generated $25 million in sales tax revenues ti Executive summary of 1.999 Deport on: The Fiscal Impact of Leaches by Philip King, Phil Prepared -for the California Lie artment of Boatin�Y and waterwa s 22 .-} ~ ` ! 1 1-17-203 3:33P•1 FROM P. 2 State of California.The Resources Agency Arnold Schwarzenegger,Governor """"_• DEPARTMENT Of PARKS AND RECREATION Ci 7 Y 0; Ruth G.Coleman,Director A Orange Coast District NUNTINGTGN 'EACH, CA 3030 Avenida del Presidente 1UU3 NOV i 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. 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 •R ED FROM EOR A THEdIMAAIRNTofT , a�t `:?t ON tll t ;C:V i6g QP THE CI r,l �+�NNIF�R@GKWAY, CL K r CITY CLERK u • • • • ination Project 0 A F ington Beach V. t ber 15, 2003 p RESOURCES v I Introduction Y ➢ Environmental Protection c top priority , i ➢ Clean water and clean ;w beaches are key to HB ➢ Poseidon selected this site f With care — several were evaluated ""In \ ri ➢ Two years of analysis • Best Marine Biologists • Best Water Quality Experts Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington eacIAR W . / ➢ 50 Million Gallons Per Day , a6 , Potable Water ➢ Co-located with power plant per coastal act x h 34 \y _ ➢ Using Existing Intake/Outfall E E ➢ Sales to Orange County � Water Agencies , � E ➢ Tallest Structure is 35 feet " Tallest Structure is 35 feet 1:2-- F -%W NT ` IJIM - %_ '�v .-.:i>-�- i :..as.,•':{.. +42-T 10 TO.TANK a +20-0' c c TO.BERM < - -- s +12-0'F.F. s ApprovedDesign Review Board • Key 5 � ➢ Environmentally Sensitive to Locale ' . ➢ No Risk to Cityz ➢ Local Benefits ,�; ' ➢ Private Funds for Public Benefit ELM s:: . Overview ., tier, 721,11 ➢ Desal is our only new viable water source � 3 ➢ Location zoned for water treatment facility 35 y ➢ Science is SoundMm 6 . ' . �- N ilgl M iyiil F�1 ➢ "Bottled Water on Tap" ' ➢ 16,000 desal facilities operating worldwide. We . Need q ➢ Imported Water Reduced .. ➢ OC Aquifer Seriously y f m { F Over Drafted by Drought htJ ➢ Desalination is part of Supply Plans for MWD r s 3 and Orange County ��� �E Y z^ w 3 yj E �y F � ��4 Water serves Orange County ,zF H _ V, k. y. x. �I t1 a •• v�a yv�a� \t- , \„ Why Huntington Beach? a / ✓ Intake and outfall infrastructure already in place FW ,.. w s Access to seawater t d �� �' ✓ Cal tl t� / i 'forma Coss, a Ac x 11T1 Ap / licy encouragesthe use f £ of existing infrastructure - a y2 and co-locate on z B �' ✓ 1996 General Plan . ✓ •� . s Zoned Public Service y � (PS) which in cludes water S Ow . . ...... treatment plants E ✓ Access to ti R F g AV re Tonal water distribution system € t / � as • How Co-Location Works 177 � ` / � Desal plant incoming water taken from power plant discharge ? Discharge from decal plant 1 -;� Di scharge " Discharge pipe The Orange County Register Atea.impxtedDy_ Reprinted with permission tn�discharyeof_ water wRh _� � from the Orange County Increased salinity' __ Register Artist: Scott Brown 02003 Desalis Environmentally Safe ➢ No significant impacts to coastal environment ➢ No effect on beach health Desalination Plant r 1 F ➢ Independent analysis and w p Y confirmation by multiple t scientific experts F °dam \ ,im f ➢ All cleaning chemicals and a � solvents sent to OCSD ➢ �� Ocean is source water a ; off! NEW MWASDesalination Plata j x Rag Y"kE.,, R EGA // / / 1 4MW C R `, +f aft ` ,e5� R ,5 f I1� ,RR. t ng G fa Y \•` s ar Spa a „"// t %/� 1� L�€•r, yr �20 R 4.. Mal o Mg" R\ y s y Eli /% // , eMUWN a t, d�s o ow ITT N lips \ . t OR oo Nil 10 710 so SAW MON h Me l _21eaf on. a •� J �� '\\�1� � R e .. , %% // a 0 :s,: Oman '�i a i R R l ,f s,u 'R • Poseidon has been held accountable ➢ City is Lead Agency ➢ Independent Scientific Review ➢ Extensive Planning Commission Record during a six- month hearing process ➢ Compliance with all city codes & ordinances- Science has been analyzed and reanalyzed ➢ No scientifically valid opposition i a 3 � t S d. Public Benefits Removing old oil tanks to build lower profile Water Facilities Improved landscaping Newland and Edison street Improvements; participation in widening, paving and street lights Opportunity to Drought-proof, local water supply for City Continuous testing of ocean source water Direct Economic Benefits to HB HB will receive approximately $1.8 million annually in tax revenue from Poseidon. Poseidon will build a 10 million gallon water storage tank for the City — estimated $10 million plus value HB will receive annual franchise payments for using City streets for pipeline installation and operation. Poseidon will guarantee equivalent tag revenue through an "in-lieu" development agreement / WS JAV /ZZ go y / \. MG a A z.a/ '.�'*� ✓/✓/,���/ 3" \'v. f %/�/' is :. ���� f / ,l srpz�q '� ���: �.�� f R.3�•:� x_ 2 r y ti/ t \\.�. & •� f T aSaws ARM fix. x `y.� �. ��� a€` �nE, §•s�,s.s syy �.�� « uw, ..; , - At. y \ olms MW Ml PROP r; t t r f� * . \\z N ' s \ y W N N 40M, 00 2 f MIS OtIN An iW loll r. .w �m y /.: p 1n ___ �� ,. -,._ - � - -,,, _.. �� _._. ...,.... .r.. ;Er ....... ...... �_„m7,,,.. .,,,...._,,,....., n��,. ��.�. ..,,,A� ,�Ir ��3 �ti, n r i � a �'"•, � � ......,.. F. .. .. ...... .. � �. '' 3 -..; .......... S' �� / �.. }y� g� �Q $��Y ���� ��r ��' �'..\ �� ^F 7 a � 10 IS j g mom ina An US, WWI YEj E a d P `REF f ME J,_ WAS 0 Cl ,3"lik �R v/y 1 y_ ^ _. a N t P u : Y) D li NIT lily, / /VIA r 10 IT WASS SKY / jetty r � ,r Oti a '� Desalination Facility +42-0" 10 T.O.TANK + T.O.BERM n . 1 +12A'F.F. is 1 Approved Design Review Board 1 I i 4 I Newland E (Today T,14 Ink :Yi too , NOTO """F as-r ", WT RTinn Qa Er xaF \ s }i c '•..a .✓<,a ..ate , µ 'S woo Ajot IT o. L. i 5 \\ ' r not t3 :.. >-::,.,„ -:,./ �� \ "� �.v\�� •.`�', ..... � ,, ' '. ���:. � ..< - «,�a -fir cam; \�'`°\\��,��� / � ✓i/e%,t,��� � ' „> ......,,.✓,tea <«.<...��:_.�...�,d.:� ,�....,,�F,,,,.. �.r • Newland E (Tomorrow EWAtoo MIN AL, JIM .............11 all, .......................................... ®R ':� .. „ s , E— i Y 6 ny � Magnolia View (Today) C % "s E E3 ............. % ia IFIN ........... ............. x � P \� a Magnolia lew (Tomorrow ':,� E:.�h�,,r € E •1 d '� "� � / / s% ��%���'�%% .. �� � �����•. of �S d �//�%/ '. C - i t` • HB Canal (Today z �� tlaT zc�mql rUS r .yw / r............. JAE.............. k"Wp Wn �r j_ � x5 N ,. �,. its •f:,E. .. • HB Canal (Tomorrow) f \ \ 0 F a a \ v � s i „ _ ate, .k.. . • Poseidon is . . ro . . .quiet, light industry . . .giving back to the city while requiring few city gig` services y N a� �f q &C \ . . .dedicated to protecting ` the coastal environment . . .selling water long term \ to Orange County water � agencies Poseidon is NOT . . . . . . a power plant . . .requesting waivers fir . . .damaging the ocean F . . . extending the life of the p plant lant . ,trading revenue for a, OR -p environmental � ,v 3 mitigation \ Organizations which su port Poseidon' szro osa ....... ....... Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Orange County Business Council Orange County Taxpayers Association Orange County CoastKeeper (with conditions) Community leaders who support desalination Tom Harman Ralph Bauer State Assembly Member Former HB Mayor Wayne Clark Peter Green MWDOC Board President Former HB Mayor Wes Bannister Dr. David Carlberg OCWD Board of Directors Amigos de Bolsa Chica Blending in with I X �,"` R., .•5 ,i .� � ,\,\ Y - ,a ( �•�.p� �„ e+-5 ,i,ar y/ � � :r �� wis a-•,�,;E �� �:. }e3 Marbela — located on the Carboneras - The largest Spanish Riviera (Costa del Sureste, Spain operational RO plant in Sol) 10 MGD Spain 15 MGD 32 MGD Misconceptions n ➢ Beach Health — Current and AW Future k Q � IMd s ➢ OCWD Plans for Desal �[ k ➢ Project Definition ➢ Tampa Bay, Staff Has the Answers ' Please Ask Questions ` "" A Fresh at Desalination" - OC Register December 14 2003 "The region's water agencies, however, are banking on the increased economic appeal of ocean desalination." "Southern California's thirsty homes and businesses demand 3.4 billion gallons of water every day." "We (must) make investments in a wide variety of resources. Seawater desalination is one of those resources." (Anatole Falagan, MWD desalination expert) ". . .(Rancho Mission Viejo) planners say they did not include the desalination plant proposed for Huntington, or any other plant, in their calculation of water supplies." "There will be ocean desalination in Orange County at some point in the future," said (OCWD Board President Denis) Bilodeau. County Poll - OC ReTesri er Dece 15, 2003 IT Should the Huntington Beach City Counil approve a desalination project at the o Id AES plant? ' 96 % s \ Imp, ` ElYe s �a x ,,,� ■ No y „i�/ \ ` s :Al 4 O/o \ � u 'N ; '� 662 total responses If Poseidon is approved a ➢ HB receives environmental and �zy s economic benefits ;N ➢ HB can implementy conditions; Poseidon will post performance bonds ➢ HB receives -p drou ht roof ' Fh g � water insurance water , and water storageF ➢ Lengthy regional and state ur approval process just beginning — City is still involvedw R � 1 a, ¢e e v. r c r F R �% b y� 4 ; > NK ry Proposed Site Location (Today s ' N v w s.. t. t N � # 7 d L i \ " Proposed Site Location (Tomorrow d a 3 ' �W•: � aYl � ,� •rj.« -�� .� # ° �9�r",' ��� "�i�Kid(� r 1' � y � -r n,. k„ 9W'y3y�k Lek\ 4�M � FL kRkr.� j' � 3 \\h1N 14 %i y f \ q l'JHk k } } Ot � a MW- Site Location Without Power Plant ro >.. �• .. �. :... .:. � �t.�' � ":',r. '% ,. ,, ?"ae' \ 3i �y.�.,.t\€ :.;, '°+,a h �. \ \\\\cam�� \.� \ :�u � �i.�.�.,?, ��.. r � ;: ���°'�`�:. S '�,; z y "�?•l•__ 'a,a t � /-%yam. E \ I a nr•3"E :,tom\ s,E.a,. 'r / ...-_ �� - ;�- i.,. _//� ..may., /, : .//, �,. 0. " u / I / �jJ h Via•;,..,.� IEYi ,/; - � a ✓'"N r/;' �,,; - s k r / a s / c -+r �>hq F €F WS Plant Closer View o f Desal • Conclusion ➢ Environmentally Sensitive ➢ Excellent Site Location tE E,r �- r f5� ➢ Science is sound ➢ Complies with all codes ➢ City receives multiples } t - benefits with no risk to the ;c m city ➢ Reliable local water supply for our children and grandchildren .� (5) November 17, 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. Pursuant 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 renardina 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: Speaker announced Ballet Etudes Nutcracker Suite Event at HB High School, 1216 and 1217103. Speakers announced booking of Merry Elves gift pack for Holiday events 714-235-7550. Speaker offered Invocation due to the absence on the agenda. Speakers in opposition to F-2a, Councilmanic Districting but stated preference for Newport Beach Model with 7 members voting at-large. Speakers in favor of 5 Councilmanic Districting. Several Speakers spoke re: lack of left turn signal in the vicinity of the proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse site. Speaker presenting award to Mayor from Earth Resources. Several Speakers in opposition to the approval of the Poseidon Environmental Impact Report(EIR) and Conditional Use/Coastal Development Permits. Speakers in favor of Poseidon EIR. Many MEA (Municipal Employees Association) members in opposition to proposed salary cuts to pay for health benefits. (8) November 17, 2003 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 8 D-2a. (City Council) Part 1 of 2 Parts of Public Hearing: (1.) Consider Appeal Filed by Mayor Connie Boardman of the Planning Commission's Certification of Environmental Impact Report(EIR) No. 00-02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant Located at 21730 Newland Street, east side, south of Edison Avenue) -Application Filed by Poseidon Resources Corporation —Approve Resolution No. 2003-82 and (2.) For Part 2 -See Agenda Item to Follow ( . ) Communication from the Planning Director. Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Appellant: Mayor Connie Boardman Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of a proposed 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday November 13,2003. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk 1. Staff report 2. City Council discussion 3. Open public hearing on this and the following agenda item 4. Following public input,close public hearing **PowerPoint presentation titled Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02-Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant is included in the agenda packet. **Communications in favor received from Tanveer Rao and Gino Rapagna. Communication from Surfrider Foundation in opposition and Communication from California Energy Commission stating concerns regarding the Environmental Impact Report. Communication from George Tripp regarding 3 concerns he believes have not been addressed. Recommended Action: Motion to: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) requirements by approving Resolution No. 2003- 82 - "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 (SCH#2001051092) for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project." (9) November 17, 2003 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 9 Continued Public Hearing open to December 15, 2003 D-2b. (City Council) Part 2 of 2 Parts of Public Hearing: 0.) For Part 1 —See Preceding Agenda Item and (2.) Approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit(CDP) No. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant Located at 21730 Newland (e/s, s/o Edison Avenue) —Approve CEQA(California Environmental Quality Act) Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations— Approve Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( ) Communication from the Planning Director 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) Notice is hereby given that this Agenda item is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 filed on January 22, 2002, in conjunction with the above request. Notice is hereby given that the Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and action. The City Council's action on this item may be appealed to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable. The Coastal Commission address is South Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802-4302, phone number: (310) 570-5071. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday November 13,2003. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk 1. Staff report 2. City Council discussion 3. Open public hearing on this and the preceding agenda item 4. Following public input,close public hearing Pub t � ,5 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, November 17, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the.City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Appellant: Mayor Connie Boardman Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of a proposed 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner ❑ 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL 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) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner ❑ 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 00-02 (LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE): Applicant: Paul Rothenberg, Canyon Consulting. Request: ZMA: To amend the zoning on the 17.4 acre former Rancho View School and existing Ocean View School District Bus Maintenance Facility from Public-Semipublic to General Commercial. Location: Bounded by Warner Avenue on the south, B Street on the west, Roubidoux Drive on the north, and multi-housing units located just west of Minoru Lane on the east. Project Planner: Jane James, Senior Planner v � DADocuments and Settings\jonesd\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK74\03cc1117.DOC � � �\ �e l C � \ �� 1 C/ , i � �`� � � x�, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 for Item No. 2 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item No. 2 would have a significant environmental effect and, therefore, an environmental impact report is warranted. The environmental impact report is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 2 is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 filed on January 22, 2002, in conjunction with the above request. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and action. The City Council's action on Item No. 2 may be appealed to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable. The Coastal Commission address is South Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802-4302, phone number: (310) 570-5071. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 3 is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 00-01, certified as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by the Planning Commission on October 28, 2003. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday November 13, 2003. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 GALEGALWOUNCIL\03\03cc 1117.DOC o MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REQUESTING: Planning EIR 00-02/CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05 Poseidon Project TODAY'S DATE October 30, 2003 VERIFIED BY ADMININSTRATION: 9at APPROVED BY: Ray Silver City Administrator October 30,2003 5:04 PM i CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: -134 P. 00-02(Gip 02-OL4 1 ap? 0 2^4>5' J[� li�l�(o_3 DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE: CO I ACT: PL � PHONE: 'SWJ-4 )S NO Is the notice attached? Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City CounciU;n4r Redevelopment Agency)hearing? o W -I Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? -a o _ o ( If an appeal, 'pp , is the appellant's name included in the notice? ( ) DQ ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appG2 laituage? D Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) ( ) Is a map attached for publication? ( ) O Is.a larger ad required? Size ( ) ( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? W*N! •S H11*10Z �.l C+Aa ¢b•l PWJfi' L MMI&t---twx ILWLA S. ( ) dQ ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) Are the ap ellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? Mozcja� IS � LA.�rr ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Pleas complete the following: • 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications 21 ®0�����&H9D®®9�®BG01B&l�BBDB�09�FfS®AQD78D�0H@,79�®9t!®�fla�®®©®89@®AB®DB06 ED E3 E; Dependable Business Services CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS THE ATTACHED LIST REPRESENTS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN J���FEET OF THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT : , n C APN# 1 L:`j, - l 4 THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM METROSCAN, A DATA SOURCE, UTILIZING THE COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND OTHER DATA SOURCES. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS GENERALLY DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED. 5 DATE: 'DENNIS STOUT DEPENDABLE BUSINESS SERVICES,INC. . 871 N Maplewood St. Orange, CA 92867 (714) 744-2845 Fax (714) 744-5123 Pager (714) 804-2097 Email: dstout@socal,rr.com Web Site: dbsinc.org NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, November 17, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT): Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Appellant: Mayor Connie Boardman Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of a proposed 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL 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) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner ❑ 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 00-02 (LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE): Applicant: Paul Rothenberg, Canyon Consulting. Request: ZMA: To amend the zoning on the 17.4 acre former Rancho View School and existing Ocean View School District Bus Maintenance Facility from Public-Semipublic to General Commercial. Location: Bounded by Warner Avenue on the south, B Street on the west, Roubidoux Drive on the north, and multi-housing units located just west of Minoru Lane on the east. Project Planner: Jane James, Senior Planner GALEGALS\COUNC 1L\03\03cc 1117.DOC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 for Item No. 2 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item No. 2 would have a significant environmental effect and, therefore, an environmental impact report is warranted. The environmental impact report is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 2 is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 filed on January 22, 2002, in conjunction with the above request. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and action. The City Council's action on Item No. 2 may be appealed to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable. The Coastal Commission address is South Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802-4302, phone number: (310) 570-5071. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 3 is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 00-01, certified as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by the Planning Commission on October 28, 2003. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday November 13, 2003. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 GALEGAMCOUNCIL\03\03cc 1117.DOC 939-480-01 939-480-02 939-480-09 Homayoun Daravi Richard Kluth Emil P. Miorelli 21432 Lemontree Lane 19081 Cerro Villa Dr. 18240 Sanmian Ct. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Villa Park, CA 92861 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 939-480-14 939-480-18 939-480-46 Mark D. Lytle Robert Wendt Donald R. Johnson 7281 Murdy Circle 21612 Surveyor Circle 15741 Butterfield Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Westminster, CA 92683 939-480-65 John Ashkarian 8314 Atlanta Ave., #201 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 i I i I I i i POSEIDON 11-17-03 �' 114-15 U-"/S 114-481-1 U 114-482-12 1998 Beach Coast Properties LP Gerald Railey Susan Anderson c/o Signal Mtg. Co. Inc. 22042 Hula Circle 22081 Surfrider Lane P. 0. Box 22623 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Long Beach, CA 90801 114-493-01 114-493-27 114-494-04 Keith E.Piccolo Tom Pearson Frank Walker 22001 Capistrano Lane 22022 Islander Lane 22071 Islander Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 148-012-11 _ 148=043-28 148-043-040` Huntington Beach City School Dist. Avon S. Fairman Alfred A. Exner 20451 Craimer Lane 8462 Hillhead Circle 2666 Sanderling Way Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Pleasanton, CA 94566 148-044-02 148-044-04 148-072-02 Julie A. Tischler Ryan Schomberg Steve Lally 8372 Doncaster Dr. 8392 Doncaster Dr. 21121 Hillsdale Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-073-20 148-081-24 148-083-02 Christopher 0' Gara Harlan C. Erickson Trust Andrew Bray 21351 Breton Lane Paddock, Jones,Morse Inc. 8511 Saint Augustine Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 3300 Irvine Ave., Suite 270 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Newport Beach, CA 92660 149-011-11 149-012-05 149-013-04 .. Kurt Suhr. Robert T.McLin `.Mary Anne Surprenant. .9131 Bermuda Dr. 9082 Bermuda Dr. 21811 Kiowa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-022-22 149-024-21 149-024-22 Peter Canova III Jon Vreeland Alan Walencewicz PO Box 537 9121 Aloha Dr. 91 i I Aloha Dr. Glenbrook,NV 89413 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-031-04 149-031-05 149-031-17 Jerry Gutierrez _ Jennifer Bateman Forrest K. Harrell 9061 Regatta Dr. - 9041 Regatta Dr. 9091 Bobbie Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-031-25 149-031-40 149-033-19 Tom Denman Devin Chase Mario Molina 9002 Bobbie Circle 9001 Niguel Circle 9892 Hot Springs Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-033-21 149-041-43 167-482-17 Steven A. Martin Bernhard Moskalenko Ing Sei Hwang 9171 Haiti Dr. 78136 Hollister Dr. 5712 Highgate Terrace Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Palm Desert,CA 92211 Irvine,CA 92612 POSEIDON 11-17-03 af�o3 Gout-lo� Smooth Feed SheetsT"" Use template for 51600 939-480-28 939-480-29 939-780-032 Linda Tulley . Richard True John Nelson 8304 Atlanta Ave#104 8372 Castilian 8306 Atlanta Ave#101 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 939-480-33 939-480-45 939-480-49 Michael Cole: Julie Ungerleider Paul.Matthew Dovoy 8306 Atlanta Ave#102 8308 Atlanta Ave#205 .8310 Atlanta Ave#102 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 n0 AVERY@ Address Labels ios17DO Laser 5960TM Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 149-041-09 149-041-10 149-041-17 Thomas&Athena Guije Larry J Meyer Lydia D King 9091 Adelia Cir 915 S Camerford Ln 9002 Adelia Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Anaheim, CA 92808 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-041-18 149-041-34 149-042-09 Eric L Dabrowski Fred I Grimes _ David B Malpass.: . -' 24:Melody Hill Ln 153.4 River Land 21701 Bahama Ln Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Santa Ana,CA 92706 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-044-05 939-480-01 93 80-02 Greg J Martin Homayoun Daravi Richar th C- 21682 Kaneohe Ln 21432 Lemontree Ln 8682 Garfiel ve Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, 92649 939-480-04 939-480-25 939-480-36 Richard A Cerruti Brett W Voirol Matthew A Namihas 21571 Surveyor Cir 8304 Atlanta Ave 101 8306 Atlanta Ave 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 939-480-49 939-480-58 939-480-60 Paul M Dovoy Eric Deese Fleming Leo L Campbell III 8310 Atlanta Ave 8312 Atlanta Ave 201 8314 Atlanta Ave 101 Huntington Beach;CA 92648 Huntington Beach; CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 . 939-480-61 114-492-15 148-086-13 Herman F Valenzuela William Simpson Lawrence Beebe 8314 Atlanta Ave 102 9191 Christine Dr 21401 Seaforth Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-086-14 149-021-01 149-021-12 Steven G Williams Becky Hardonniere Peter T Konishi 21421 Seaforth Ln 21842 Kiowa Ln 9171 Mahalo Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-022-26 149-024-08 149-032-11 Michael R Collingwood Donald.L Davidson Bradley D Brown 9071 Kapaa Dr - 9102 Kapaa Dr 21542 Kaneohe Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-041-02 149-041-04 149-041-13 Christopher Moore James P Sullivan Timothy franklin Brogdon 9022 Niguel Cir 9042 Niguel Cir 9041 Adelia Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-041-29 149-041-36 149-041-39 Bruce Barros Robert D Norquist Irene E Iannitti 9041 Rhodesia Dr 9042 Rhodesia Dr 9082 Rhodesia Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 n0 PO AVERYe Address Labels 11-17-03 1�-03 Laser 5960T"' Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 148-073-20 148-074-07 148-081-06 Christopher A.O'Gara Toyoko Wakimoto William Kennedy 21351 Breton Ln 1182 N Michigan Ave 8522 Sandy Hook Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Pasadena, CA 91104 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-082-19 148-082-29 148-084-07 .Gregory Carroty Ali. Malekzadeh Ahmad H Abdelmuti 21302 Antigua Ln 19 Chatfield PI E 101 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Painted Post,NY 14870 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 148-086-02 148-086-13 148-086-26 Llyod G Aanensen Lawrence P Beebe Phillip Apodaca PO Box 4108 21401 Seaforth Ln 8562 Milne Dr Newport Beach, CA 92661 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-086-38 149-011-04 149-011-05 Joseph Frolich Albert J Ashurst Ricky Dale Parks 21282 Sand Dollar Ln 8886 Plumas Cir#1122 C 9061 Bermuda Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-011-07 149-012-08 149-013-04 Tuan Huy Tran Frederick S Waterfall Mary Anne Surprenant 9091 Bermuda Dr. 9112. Bermuda.Dr . 2181.1 Kiowa Ln Huntington Bedch, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-014-06 149-021-04 149-021-06 James Dixon Hearne Lorraine J Evans Maria I Lorente 9102 Kahului 9091 Mahalo Dr 1505 Tahiti Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 149-022-14 149-022-18 1 -022-22 Emil H Pawlik Gary G Chough Peter ova G 11 Avery Cir 5601 Ocean terrace Dr PO Box 5 Jackson,MS 39211 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Bea CA 92646 149-022-23 149-024-02 149-031-39 Donald E Sowrds Kim-Kellner James H Zisch III 9101 Kapaa Dr 21912 Kiowa Ln 9021 Niguel Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-032-03 149-033-07 149-033-10 Ruth M Moore Charles Rutherford Anthony L Nemelka 9131 Regatta Dr 9112 Regatta Dr 270 Bristol St#101-105 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 149-033-18 149-033-19 149-034-08 Robert E Charleton D cKean <_ James David Koubeck 150 Little Bear Rd 9141 Haiti 32 N Chaco Trail Gellatin Gateway, MT 59730 Huntington Bea CA 92646 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 POSEIDON //.� AVERY@ Address Labels 11-17-03 1 acar Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 148-044-02 148-044-04 148-044-06 David Bicknell Ryan V Schomberg Brian J Teague 527 Calle Florencia 8392 Doncaster Dr 8412 Doncaster Dr Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 149-022-14 939-480-54 148-043-43 Emil H Pawlik Ronald Von Freymann. David R&Christina E Oakley. 11 Avery Circle 8310 Atlanta Ave C 03 6251 Moonfield Dr Jackson,MS 39211 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 148-043-34 148-043-22 148-043-31 Stephen C Garcia Due H Michelle C Le Anthony&Joseph Di Virgilio 8471 Doncaster Dr 16339 Farnham St 8492 Hillhead Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-044-25 148-044-22 148-043-36 James P Thies Richard R Hayes Larry A Doran 19872 Deep Harbor Dr 118 10 St 8451 Doncaster Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-160-79-80;-81,-82 114-481-02 114-481-08 Regents of the University of Harry D Howell Ellen S White California �, 55250 Riviera 22072 Hula Cir 1111 Franklin St 6 Fl La Quinta, CA 92253 .Huntington:Beach, CA 92646 Oakland, CA 9460.7 114-481-11 114-481-20 114-482-02 Kathleen A Mooney David S Wagester Samuel H Douglas III 22022 Hula Cir 1760 Monrovia Ave B-2 6303 Elmquist Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Whittier, CA 90601 114-492-13 114=492=16 --- 114-492-17 Louis M Larocco Bank of America TR Natee Chaikumnerd 22142 Capistrano Ln Marjery M Smith 18350 Del Monte Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92646 PO Box 419119 Morgan Hill, CA 95037 _ Kansas City,MO 64141 114-493-01 114-493-03 114-493-07 Keith E Piccolo Marjorie G Lee Brian R Reiss 22001 Capistrano Ln 4651 Woodstock St 22071 Capistrano Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-493-09 114-494-02 114-495-06 Wesley Illing Douglas M O'Donnell Rene John Sussman 22091 Capistrano Ln 154 Pebble PI 9222 Christine Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 San Ramon, CA 94583 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114-495-15 148-071-27 148-072-09 Martin Ageson ; Brian Geisert Lawrence N Olson 9132 Christine Dr 8632 Hatteras Dr 8631 St Augustine Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2AVE1iY@ Address Labels losi?DO laser 5960TM <:i�..y�:vl:i1.99 '3 '::tl,'�atluG�v v':6:?.•.. . ...-.. . w.� r•�v-�� 'k1.'�-$.'1�;.'7iltJdwY;�,Z -:j•- W1096S .Iasel slagel ssaippV Q// 148-044-10 148-044-11 148-044-12 WALTER STOSSIER JAMES S.TSUSAKI DEPT OF VETS AFFAIRS ST OF CAL 8448 DONCASTER DR 8452 DONCASTER DR 8462 DONCASTER DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6906 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6906 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6906 148-044-15 148-044-13 148-044-14 COUNTESS PEASE JEFFRIES : DANIEL W..&MARYANN BARNETT SCO DEF:HILL 8492 DONCASTER DR" 8472 DONCASTER.DR" 8482 ON HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6908 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6906 HUN NGTON BEACH CA 92646-6906 148-044-30 148-044-29 148-044-28 SU HONG TRAN ALEJANDRO &ROSA M.ARRENDONDO DVR8361 LOMOND DR 8371 LOMOND DR 1 RGfNeHUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6911 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9264"911 GN 840-1724 148-044-27 148444-26 148-044-25 DANA JO SIRDENIS RICHARD E-POWERS JAMES P.T tqQ,+2' 8391 LOMOND DR 8401 LOMOND DR 8563 ON RIVER CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6911. HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6912 NTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-5510 148-044-23 148-044-22 148-044-21 GEORGE E.TRIPP TERRI L.TORRENCE 8431 LOMOND DR 8441 DR. r, !l.,i h. 8447 LOMOND DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA:92646-6912 TINGTQN BEACH CA 92648- HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6912 148-044-20 148-044-19 148-044-17 MICHAEL W.&SHARON R.TALBUTT RAYMOND 1.H.KANG JOSE JUAN&CORONA RODRIGUEZ 8451 LOMOND DR 18471 SANTA ISADORA ST 8481 LOMOND DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6912 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-5524 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6912 148-044-16 148-044-24 148-044-18 ALICE LOFTIS DAVID MOLINARI KAREN LEIGHTON 8491 LOMOND DR 8421 LOMOND DR 8471 LOMOND DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6912 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6912 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6912 . POSEIDON mo*Mw a�e�dwa�asn _ _ _ i 1-17-n3 ,..,siaauc oaaa ui00wc ...., PHILIP G.SNOWDEN EUGEN I.&IRMA J.DESMET DAVID R.& A E.OAKLEY 8361 DONCASTER DR _ 8381 DONCASTER DR e3 -ASTER-8R (o2-�-AC—L,1�l1r�_G ; HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6904 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6904 INGTON BEACH CA 92648-6 5 148-043-41 148-043-40 148-043-38 BRYAN M.&MONICA L.PAVALKO ALFR ER C PATRICIA A MARSHALL 8411 DONCASTER DR 8421 DONCAS R 8441 DONCASTER OR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-0903 HUNTINGTON BEAC 92646-6903 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6903 148-043-37 1 -043-36 148-043-34 DEBORAH LYNN HAYES LARRYA DO FEIRNAND ElA 8447 DONCASTER OR (NONE OF RECORD 884 FIS O`IT! ro HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-6903 HUNfINGTON BEACH 2646-5548 148-043-33 148-043-32 148443-42 WILLIAM P.MILLS SZAFIRSKI PATRICK J&CHERYL L T 8481 DONCASTER DR 8491 DONCASTER DR 90 DI D y ==Y,.^Z HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6903 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6903 HUN�j- TON BEACH CA 92846.4637 148-043-39 148-043-35 148-043-17 BEA YNIGUEZ EBBERT JAMES W.GREIG CHRISTOPHER DONATO 8431 DONCASTER OR 8461 DONCASTER OR 8362 HILLHEAD CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6903 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92846-8903 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6908 148-043-18 . .148-043-19 148-043-21 JOSEPH G.DI NAPOLI NAPOLI DONALD A.&:ANNA DOMINGUEZ. CHRISTOPHER&BARBARA KLEIN 6907 MIDNIGHT PASS RD 8382 HILLHEAD CIR' 8402 HILLHEAD CIR SARASOTA FL 34242-2611 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6908 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-6910 148-043-22 148-043-24 148-043-25 DUC H.&M LE NICK &PAIGE CASSON - LARRY DIGIORGIO .. 8412 EAQDR 8432 HILLHEAD CIR 8442 HILLHEAD CIR T 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6910 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-69i0 IN6T N B CH C� 148.)43-26 1484043-27 148443-28 PHILIP D.&BETTY A.HART VANCE &JANAE CARRUTH :ONVIE8448 HILUiEAD CIR 18843 SAN FEUPE ST- 25WROHUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92846-6910 FOUNTAIN.VALLEY CA 92708-7400 AEIM.CA 92804- 148-043-29 148-043-30 148-043-31 WAYNE &MARILYN MEDLER MASAO NISHIMOTO ANTHO H 01 VIRGILIO 8472 HILLHEAD CIR 1561 RIDGECREST ST ,444-84 Z HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6910 MONTEREY PARK CA 91754-4357 HU INGTON BEACH CA 4629 148-043.20 148-043.23 R.MICHAEL&JUUE L.HANSON MATTHEW T.&LILIAN CLARKE 8392 HILLHEAD CIR 8422 HILLHEAD CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646.6908 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-6910 POSEIDON 11-17-n3 W1096S aasel slage3 ssaippd ®A213AHa 140-V•f4-V1 a-r- v . . W. William Alrneida Davi 'cknell e Xuan Van Vu 3375 Marigold Dr. 8372 Donc Dr, 8382 Doncaster Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1724 Huntington Beac A 92646-6905 Huntington Beach, CA 9264- 6905 1 44-04 143-044-05 DavidOak ey C Ernesto.Lucero 8392 Donc r. 8402 Doncaster Dr. - Huntington Beach, A 92646-6905 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-6906 1 148-044-07 148-044-08 148-044-09 Wayne Ekelund Larry Zwart Cecilia Joyce Carter 8422 Doncaster Dr. 8432 Doncaster Dr. 8442 Doncaster Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6906 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-6906 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6906 148-044-10 148-011-02,06,07+ti H-00-0711._ "---------_-____-- Walter Stossier TR Mills Land and Water Co. 8448 Doncaster Dr. PO Box 7108 Huntington Beach, CA.92646-6906 Huntington Beach,CA 92615-7108 148-011-08 148-043-45- ----- - ''` Mills Land and Water Co. Harvey Feinstein PO Box 2128 . 8371 Doncaster DR— Santa Santa Fe Spnngs;CA 90670-0138 Huntington Beach; CA 92646=6904 - "�-" 939-480-54 Ronald Von Freymann 8310 Atlanta Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6161 149-033-05 149-014-10 149-031-28 Occupant/P IMNOEMS-M - Occupant/ -1 PM Christina Pierce TR 9132 Regatta Dr. 9142 Kahului Dr. 9042 Bobbie Cir. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 POSEIDON nnrsrti n,n,rinn,men 11-17-03 So. California Edison 15,16,24&148-231-07 Attn: Mike Kromelow Orange County Flood 2244 Walnut Grove,Room 176 PO Box 4048 Rosemead, CA 91770 Santa Ana, CA 92702 114-150-26,51,55 114-481-08 114-481-14 State of CA,Dept.of Public Works Ellen White Gary Gumbert 1025 P Street 22072 Hula Cir 111 Sudside Ave Sacramento,CA 95814 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Seal Beach,CA 90743 114-492-16 Margery M. Smith Trust ' PO Box 419119 Kansas City,MO 64141 114-492-17 148-071-02 Natee Chaikumnerd Robert Granger 18350 Del Monte Ave 21232 Breton Ln Morgan Hill,CA 95037 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 148-086-38 Joseph Frolich 21282 Sand Dollar Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92646 - 09 49 Paul Strain . 2055 E.Broadway,Unit 206 Long Beach,CA 90803 149-022-18 149-022-27 Gary Chough Donald and Tamara Baker 5601 Ocean Terrace Dr 2914 Cheverny Dr Huntineton Beach,CA 92648 Mckinney,Texas 75070 149-032-03 Ruth Moore 9131 Regatta Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 149-041-09 Thomas and Athena Guije 9091 Adelia Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92646 POSEIDON 11-17-03 POSEIDON 11-17-03 939-48-052 John McCarthy 9192 Kapaa Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Friends of Harbors, Beach Pakks PO Box 9256 - Newport Beabh, CA 92658 Bols a Chica Foundation P 0 Box 1563 ... Huntington Beach, CA 92.6 Surfrider Foundation Bolsa Chica Conservancy HB/Seal Beach Chapter 3842 Warner Ave --PO Box 878 Huntington Beach, CA 926 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 207 21st Street Huntington Beach, CA .926 POSEIDON 11-17-03 ti STACY M NIXON MICHAEL W SELNA RONALD R WILSON OR CUTRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR -CURRENT RESIDENT 21401 SEAFORTH IN 8522 MILNE DR 21332 SAND DOLLAR LN i=INGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH *92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 JOSEPH FROLICH . BERI�T D . TARNUTZER. . OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR DENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 212:82 SAND DOLLAR LN 21 0 T 8570 HAMILTON `AVE '. EIUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 H" TI G ACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 Z CITY',.OF INGTON BEAC _ 'PAUL B SANDGREN - PAUL B SANDGREN. OR SIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 86 1 N VE 8551 EDISON AVE 85-51 EDISON' AVE TINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 ARTHUR BR MLOW NAB IL UZAN NASRE WESL H G Y OR CUR. SIDENT OR Cj J��' IDENT OR RESIDENT 8541 EDI AVE 8521 RDISOMVE 9061 B A DR HUNTINGTO BEACH .92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTING. BEACH 92646 ROBERT J PENGILLY MICFLAEL J MONAGHAN NEAL J RIEFFANAUGH OR-VJRRENT •RES-IDENT -OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 9191 BERMUDA DR 9122 BERMUDA. DR 9061 -KAHULUI DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH .92646• AJIT S GILL LISA ANGELIC! PAUL A STRAIN OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CUPURENT RESIDENT 9131 MAHALO DR 9072 MAHALO, DR 9112 NLAIHALO DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 WILHELM E KEJMEL M_.'kIANNE THOMAS GARY R NICCOLE OR CURRENT 'RBS'IDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 9122 ivlAHAi,O DR 9172 MAHALO DR 9171 -KAPAA DR .•"T n n T?TT1fT T\TrSTr1AT lnv?A ITS w)F 4 6 POSEIDON 11-17703 GERHARD M S CHNUERER GENE T KRAUS DOUGLAS A HILL OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 21532 SURVEYOR CIR - 21542 SURVEYOR CIR 21562 SURVEYOR- CIR =INGTON BEACH 92644 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 EUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 DICKY K YBE DOWER GROUP ASSOCIATES LEITH. T TFCKLENBURG OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 21582 SURVEYOR CIR 2159 2 SURVEYOR CIR 21602 SURVEYOR CIR 3UNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 H=2 1NGTON BEACH 9 264 E CARL W & PEGGY GRODACH STEVEN R HUBBELL RONALD A KORONA OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR. CURRENT RESIDENT 21622 SURVEYOR CIR 830 6 'ATLANTA AVE 201 830 9 ATLANTA AVE 201 iUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH '92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9 2 64 E MITH M GIBElRAg.N RONALD VON FREYMANN OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT _ S310 ATLANTA AVE 833.2 ATLANTA AVE _ HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646, H=INGTON BEACH 92646 POSEIDON 11-17-03 HARK HAKIM-DAVAR JA.MES L MCNERNEY THOMAS & ATHENA GUIDE OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT g161 HAITI DR 21601 KANEOHE IN 9093- - ADELIA CIR UNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON. BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E BALE LYON LYDIA D KING.. EPIC .L DABROWSKL OR CURRENT .RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 41081 ADELIA CIR 9002 ADELIA CIR 9022 ADELIA CIR .UNT INGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 11 UN T INGTON -BEACH 92646 FRED I GRIMES BERNHARD B MOSKALENKO M_n IDA F CHEUNG OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT g022 RHODESIA DR 9132 RHODESIA DR 21682 POLYNESIAN LN [UNT INGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON B EACH . 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 LOUIS A CASSELLE SU-TSO & JUN-JUN CHEN ANITA L JO SON OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR ' N RESIDENT 21701 BAHAMA IN 21632 BAHANIP. LN 216 81 OHE IN .[UNT I NGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH -92646 HUNT INGT BEACH 9*2 6 4 6 ROBER ' F BARON GARY L STUART DOUC-LAS R BARSH ,op CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR .C'I7RRENT:RESIDENT 21531 SURVEYOR. CIR 21521- SURVEYOR CIR 21561 SURVEYOR CIR [UNT I NGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 H RNEK S BRAR - HARNEK S BRAR f EMIL P MIORELLI OR CURRENT RESIDENT. OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 21591 SURVEYOR CIR 21.581 SURVEYOR CIR 21601 SURVEYOR CIR rr7NTTN9T0N BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 POSEIDON 11-17-03 US GARY G CHOUGH ISOLDE L WITTMAN YUNG H PAN . OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 9161 KAPAP_ DR 21861 KIOWA LN 9 0 8 2 KAPAA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92 64 6 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 ..BORIS M ACKERMAN. DENNIS . L PARKER FOR-REST K .HARRELL OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 21852 KANEOHE LN 9172 ALOHA DR 9091 BOBBIE CIR ' HUNTINGTON BEACH 92.646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 CHRISTINA J PIERCE HENRY S WlAEATLEY JAMESV C4LLAGHER OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURXElf RESIDENT 9042 BOBBIE CIR 9082 BOBBIE CIR 21572 OHE LN UNT HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HINGT BEACH 92646 JAMS D PLUNKETT ANTHONY L NEMELKA SU-TSO & JUN-JUN CHEN OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 21612 KANEOHE LN 21582 POLYNE S IAN LN 21592 POLYNES IAN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 ** : 42 Printed .*** - t POSEIDON 11-17703 ROBERT BROWNING VIVIAN M BLACKMORE DANIEL M BRAUN OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 21292 ANTIGUA IN 8521 SAINT AUGUSTINE DR 8601 SAINT AUGUSTINE D„ RUNTINGT0N BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264a- YOSHI & NORMA ADACHT DP_V I D P CHANG LOUI SE W LO OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT ®591 SAINT AUGUSTINE DR 8581 SAINT AUGUSTINE DR 8571 SAINT AUGUSTINE D_ 4-IUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646- Hb-NTINGTON BEACH 9 2 6 E c' KEDAL A ABDELMUTI ERIKA NOLLAU LLOYD G AMENSEN OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 0541 SAINT AUGUSTINE DR 21292 SEAFORTH LN 21291 SEAFORTH IN M NTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E: POSEIDON 11-17-03 sv WESLEY L SMITH PING H OFY SEAnTIRY DEVELOPMENT CO OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR Cif EN RESIDENT OR C:URRFNT RESIDENT 21362 YARMOUTH LN 21372 OUTH LN 21301 BRETON LN MINTINGTON REACH 92646 HUNTINGT BFACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACR. 92646 STEVEN, WAKIMOTO TERESA J LFE RALPH J CARNFVALE OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CUKRFNi RESIDENT 21341 YARMOUTH LN 8572 SANDY HOOK DR 21321 ANTIGUA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 LA V SPENCE OR CURRENT RESIDENT 21281 ANTIGUA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 - i **w 37 Printed *** i i POSEIDON 11-17-03 w409(015 4esnSg sssAppj :;T71Tr OF CALIFORNIA ORANGE Y F1,00D CON STATE .ALTF DEPT OF OR .CURRENT RESIDENTi' OR CUR RESIDENNT OR cumE RESIDENT 21622 COAST HWY 21621 tA AVE 21643 ' vIC COAST HWY HUNTINGTON BEACH 92651 HUNTINGT N .CH 92651 HUMVINGrON BEACH 92646. �;TATE OFF`C LiF DEPT OF MILLS LAND & W71TER CO .' HARRY D HOWELL OR CURREVY4RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 7.7 752 PACI IC COAST HWY 218S1 NHWLAND ST 22021 SUSAN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 KETA C CAGLE KATHLEEN A MOONEY MARGARET E LOURTIE OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 22041 SUSAN LN 22022 HULA C.IR 2 2 0 01 HULA CIR T FJNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 DAVID4 WA ESTER ALIREZA D VAZIRI MARZON S GOLFOS CAR CURVN RESIDENT OR .CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 9012 C TINE DR 9102 CHRISTINE DR 9112 CHRISTINE -DR HUNTINGT BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH' 92646 JACK R & LAURA BYRD ROBERT.H MERRITT THOMAS W .MORTIMER- OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CFJRRENT-RESIDFaNNT OR. CURRENT RESIDENT. 22072 SUSAN LN 22101 SURFRIDER IN 22051 SURFRIDER LN PUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 STEPHEN TODD RUTH E DONOVAN NOSRATOLA D VAZIRI OR CURRENT RESIDENT _ OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR _CURRENT RESIDENT 9201 CHRISTINE, DR 22132 ISLANDER LN 22092 ISLANDER -LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92.646 FOUL C ANDERSEN JAMES K BERNSEN G G WOODS OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 91.22 PLAYA DR 22112 SURFRIDER IN 22102 SURFRIDER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 I�UNTLNGTON.BEACH 9264.6 POUL C ANDERSEN' LUCILLE A BAGNOLI SCHOOL HUNTINGTON BEACH OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT P.2042 SURFRIDER IN 9212 CHRISTINE DR 8750 DORSETT DR IRTNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 DE.NNIS K AUSTIN WILLIAM K GAMBLE RAMON E BOYD OR. CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 21352 BRETON LN 8 7 2 2- HATTERAS DR 8662 SABLE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH .92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTZNGTON BEACH 92646 KENNETH MCKAY LAWRENCE N OLSON DAVID. G & SANDRA SUTTON OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT OR CURRENT RESIDENT 8632 SABIrE DR . 8631 SAINT AUGUSTINE DR 21342' YARMOUTH LN POSEIDON 11-17-03 74� 74 d , �4 7 939-48-037 939-46-038 939-48-039 STEVEN R HUBBELL HEIDI L DAHLIN VICKI A NEWMAN ; 408 11TH ST 8306 ATLANTA AVE 205 8308 -ATLANTA AVE 101 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNT-INGTON BEACH 92646 7 939-48-040 .�0 939-48-041 QSD 939-48. 0 _2 MICHAEL LEWIS KAR.RIE .SYPULT STEPHEN F :KLSKAMP 8308 ATLANTA AVE 102 8308 ATLANTA AVE 103 8308 ATLANTA AVE 104 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 . HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 939-48-043 75/ 939-48-044 792 939-48-045 75 3 . BARBARA C VANCE RONALD A KORONA JULIE E UNGERLEIDER 8308 ATLANTA AVE_ 105 MONZA MI 8308 ATLANTA AVE 205 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 ITALY 20'052 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 939 8-046 754 939-48-047 939-48-048 7s6 JON D JAMES D & GAYLE RASPE RONALD VON FREYMANN 8310 AT AVE 101- 8310 ATLANTA AVE 102 8310 ATLANTA 103 HUNTINGTON B'EhkCH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 -48-0.49 .939.. 48-050 'S 939-48-051 7`� 9PAUL KEITH: M GIBERSON JOSEPH. L JIMENEZ StTlo A �4( 17 `HALFMOON 8 310 ATLANTA AVE NGTON BEACH 9 _ IRVINE CA 92614 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 939-48-052 760 - 939-48-053 710l 939-4MO 762 JO Y ELIZABETH A SHELTON RONEYMANN 831 205 8312 ATLANTA AVE 101 754 NE HUN NGTON B H 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264 6 OL PIA WA 98516 939-48-055 7�s 939-48-056 939-48-057. GEORGE G SOULE - GLENN A DIRADO JAMES C & SHARON GRIM 8312 ATLANTA AVE 1C3 8312 ATLANTA AVE 104 8312 ATLANTA AVE 105 HUNTINGTON BEACH . .92646 . HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 -48-058 939-48-059 9-48-060. C. W'� � syUh N" -Sti- r: RI CHARD B GREENBLATT 8312 TA A 1 8312 ATLANTA AVE 205 83 14 101 INGTON BEACH 92 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 NGTON BE 646 -NQ-48-061 Ndrd�MF1n, y 939-48-062 7 7U 939-48-063 7 7( Ie -0 A DONALD D WELLS JOHN L VARGA 8314 102 8314 ATLANTA AVE 103 8314 ATLANTA AVE 104 NGTON BEACH 46• HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E 939-48-064 7?2 939-4 65 7?2 939-48-066 MARK S TYDELL VINCENT A�TA -201 G STEVEN J GARCIA 8 314 ATLANTA AVE 105 8 314 ATLA 83,14 ATLANTA AVE 205 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTO 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264� POSEIDON 11-17-03 Smooth Feed shests,Nq _ 715 7 7 t9399-48 001 K�OM,ayou - 8 002 t2�tN� 1 939-48-003 -R 0�`�° ��2 " GARY L STUART ;GTON fR � a 3661 OUS '�'`� 10172 THESEUS DR BEACH _6 INGTON BEACH 49 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 7 g -7 72d. 48--004 939-48--0.05 939-4.8-006+00 cam: - M DOUGLAS R BARSH HARNEK S BRAR 2157 CIR PO BOX Q 19502 WOODLANDS LN INGTON BEAC 6 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92648 939-48-008 72 1 937 3 -48-009 722 939-48-010 -723 RAYMOND P BOUCHER EMIL IORELLI G NING YEH 21611 SURVEYOR CIR 9871 HOT INGS DR 21522 SURVEYOR CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON B H . 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 939-48-011 �`"� 939-48-012 �25 i 939-48-013 -72 GERHARD M SCHNUERER GENE T KRAUS DOUGLAS A HILL 6406 W OCEANFRONT FRNT 6502 W OCEANFRONT 21181 HILLSDALE LN . NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 2: -•� 9 8-014 . 939-48-015 �2 939-48-016. SOTEN LLC G DICKY K YEE POWER. GROUP ASSOCIATES 21572 SUR R CIR PO BOX .5757. . 198.81 BUSHARD ST. HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON.BEACH 9261-9 HUNT'T'INGTON BEACH 92646 939-48-017 939-48-018 -7J I 939-48-019 -732 LEITH T TECKLENBURG ROBERT C WENDT _CARL W & PEGGY GRODACH PO BOX 100 21612 SURVEYOR CIR =117 VIA DIJON SUNSET BEACH CA 90742 HUNTINGTON'BEACH 92646 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 -48-025 939-48-026 939-48-027 3� - t'-W_vc KRISTEN A POWELL MOHAMMED SANTINA 8:304 101 8304 ATLANTA 102 8304 ATLANTA 103 INGTON BEAC 6 HUNTINGTON`BEACH 92.646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 -7,97 72.S 939-48-028 /36 939-48-029 939-48-030 LINDA TULLEY RICHARD W & LOLA TRUE DANIEL L CEBALLOS ' 8304 ATLANTA AVE 104 8372 CASTILIAN DR 8304 ATLANTA AVE -201 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 939-48-031 939 _ 740 939-48-033 749 PORNDHEP KALAMBAHETI JO MICHAEL COLE 8304 ATLANTA AVE 205 830fa� AQ 101 8306 ATLANTA AVE 102 HUNTINGTON BEACH .92646 ' HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E 774Z � 3 a - 7 939_48- - _8 034 939-46-035 036 ROSS C THOMPSON NAN H PAIK VI- IHAS 8306 ATLANTA AVE 103 8306 ATLANTA AVE 104 8366 fi 105 T ST T*TT TA;T±T/'1\T n�aru a��a� HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 i INGTON BEACH ^64 - POSEIDON 11-17103 � bs - - 706 707 149-044-03 149-044-04 - aa_05 4eE _ , r., t:: MELVIN M BOWMAN PATRI_CK B MCKEE ..I.S 21662 KANEOHE LN 21672 KANEOHE LN 21 88 �*OHE HUNTINGTON. BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 NGTON BEACH 2646 149-044-06 v 149-044 07 149-044-08 7/6 GISELA RASOE PHILLIP W JONES HAROLD R LIEBMAN 21692 KANEOHE LN .21702 KANEOHE LN 21712 KANEOHE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON- BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON .BEACH 92646 7 // -7/2 I49-231-03 �/J 149-Q44-09 149-044-10 MADELINE J SEYMOUR LARRY L STEARNS SCHOOL HUNTINGTON BEACH 21722 KANEOHE LN 21732 -KANEOHE- LN 10251 YORKTOWN AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 *** 699 Printed *** POSEIDON 11-17-03 5nu cot a Feed SheetSTc„ use ars`a3pid^;tea 5'13POP 75 7b 77 149-042-03 149-042-04 149-042-05 THOMAS L NICHOLS THOMAS M SMITH CHESTER T BURWICK 21642 POLYNESIAN LN 21662 POLYNESIAN LN 21672 POLYNESIAN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 w9 Sa 149-042-06 149 .042-07: 149-042-08: MAIDA F CHEUNG MELVIN E WEBB ODILON C CARDENAS - 14882 DAHLQUIST RD 21692 POLYNESIAN LN 21702 POLYNESIAN LN IRVINE CA 92604 HUNTINGTON. BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 1 2-09 "` 149-042-10 692 149-042-11 Lausg__ ._E abN , JAMES J GILL RICHARD A YOUNG 7 57a zgoi - 216 91 BAHAMA LN 21681 BAHAMA IN O-CUCAMGNG- HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-042-1 2 0� -042-13 � OS 149-042-14 1 4 9 THOMAS B HINKLE RODERICK J MCISAAC GEORGE E MASON 21671 BAHAMA LN 21661 BAHAMA LN 21641 BAHAMA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 83 149-042-15. 149-042.-16 149-043-01 STANLEY E BELITZ GEORGE M & JUDITH% SU-TSO` & JUN-JUN CHEN 21631 BAHAMA LN 21621 BAHAMA LN 218.91 VACATION LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-043-02 149-043-03 149-043-04 SHAWN WERNER HARRY S GANN ADAIR W BENEDICT 21642 BAHAMA LN 21662 BAHAMA LN 21672 BAHAMA LN .HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 , HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 �� - 6 957 149-043-05 149-043-06 149-043-07 JAMES A GARRISON - RICHARD J BRODERICK WILLIAM A STEWART 21682 BAHAMA LN 21692 BAHAMA LN 21702 BAHAMA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON- BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-043-08 149-043-09 149-043-10 FRANK W HILL MARGUERITE D WATSON ANITA L JOHNSON 21701 KANEOHE LN 21691 KANEOHE LN 9121. ATLANTA AVE 232 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149 043-11 149-0.3-12 149-043 -13 -70 ROBERT & JAN MALCZYNSKI MICHAEL D CURTIS DONALD E WILLIAMS 21671 KANEOHE LN 21661 KANEOHE LN • 21641 KANEOHE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 • HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 702 70.3 149-043-14 149-044-01 149-044-02- LAWRENCE K ROGERS JEFFREY A BECICA BARBARA COULTER 21631 KANEOHE LN 21632 KANEOHE LN 216'42 -KANEOHE LN Smooth 11-17--03 S9Y7' oth Feed i1-,,-tSTSVI for 3s3i5`1 &4:5 149-041-21 149-041-22 149-041-23 CAROLYN CROCKETT LENORA J RAIA RICHARD J BASHORE 9062 ADELIA CIR 9072 ADELIA CIR 9082 -ADELIA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92^646 149-041-24 149-041 .25 " 1.49_041`-26 ICJ BILLY E STEVENSON WILLIAM H LACEY CHRIS P OGAWA 9092 ADELIA CIR 9091 RHODESIA DR 9081 RHODESIA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-041-27 (QS� 149-041-28 �52 149-041-29 1�5_7 RALPH S SILVA ROBERT M & PAULA BROWN BRUCE & JULIE BARROS 9071 RHODESIA DR 9061 RHODESIA DR 9041 RHODESIA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-041-30 149-041-31 _ �57 149-041-32 DAVID A ARCHIBALD - ODIE L POWELL - TAD D & NANCY BUCHOZ 9031 RHODESIA DR 9021 RHODESIA DR 9001 RHODESIA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 .149-041-33 -041-34 . 149-041-35 SHIRLEE .J 'EARLEY . FRED JOHN T- MONTOYA 9Q02 RHODESIA DR 9032 RHODESIA-DR HUNTINGTON BEACH . 92646 RT-BEAC-H-CA -926 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-041-36 �+' O - 149-041-37 149-041-38 �°62 ROBERT D MORQUIST SCOTT A & GAIL SWANSON _RICHARD W SMYSER 9042 RHODESIA -DR . 9062 RHODESIA DR _ 9072 RHODESIA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 S 149-041-39 &S 149-041-40 149-041-41 IRENE E LANNITTI _ GORDON A WELLS MARK A MC DONNELL 9082 RHODESIA DR 9092 RHODESIA DR 9102 RHODESIA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON .BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-041-42 �. °' 149-041- C- (p 6 149-041-44 EVANGELINE T RENTAS BERNHARD B KALENKO DONALD V & ANNA MAHER 9112 RHODESIA DR 4541 FIR AVE 9142 RHODESIA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 SEAL BEACH CA '90 _ HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-041-45 149-041-46 70 149-041-47 671 MELKON DEMIRJIAN DAVID T & JEANNE HUGHES MARILYN D ELLISON 9152 RHODESIA DR 9162 RHODESIA DR 9182 RHODESIA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E 149-041-48 -12 149-042-01. 673 149-042-02_ 6 GORDON W NEAL RICHARD C & JOY CUBBIN ARLEETA A GREGORY 9192 RHODESIA DR,,/ 21622 POLYNESIAN LN 21632 POLYNESIAN LN TTT TRTT TAY r1T/1M T,-,T„v a,c„ c LTTTTTTTWnTnN ARACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264- POSEIDON 11-17-03 Smooth Feed ShceLpfiSTan 7 1 33-21 149•-033-22 149-034-01 DON AL LEAVEY G GREGORY L MACIAS WALTER E ROST 9171 BAIT R 9181 HAITI DR 21592' B.IHAMA LN HUNTINGTON $ H ..92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 C4'/ 02.0 149-034-02 149-034-03 149-034-04 O HAROLD D ELDRIDGE MARK DIXON FRED E & VICKIE BENNETT 21602 BAHAMA LN 21612 BAHAMA LN 21622 BAHAMA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-034-05 " L l 149-034-06 & 22 la_9-034-07 62S EDWARD J METSCH THOMAS A & CAROL WELCH JAMES L MCNERNEY 21621 KANEOHE LN 21611, KANEOHE IN 1771 CRESTVIEW AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON .BEACH 92646 SEAL BEACH CA 90740 -625 w26 14 4-08 d�Y�t c ,� i<c 149-041-01 1 -9-041-02 S WILLIAM A WALL CHRISTOPHER W MOORE 7�N'42 N c►f. 9002 NIGUEL CIR 9022 NIGUEL CIR ji� TeN--REACR--4646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 62 (02 G� 29 149-041=03 YINGtTOEACH 149-0.41-05 JOHN W OSCHMAN DAVID D CFT.APMAN 9032 NIGUEL CIR IR 9062 NIGUEL CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-041-06 "' 3O - 149-041-07 �J l 149-041-08 (o-32 RAYMOND H ZAJAC JOHN S KAUFMANN MICHAEL G GROSSMAN 9072 NIGUEL CIR 9082 NIGUEL CIR 9092 NIGUEL- CIR HUNTINGTON 'BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 633 �35 41-09 - a -041-10 149-041-11 THOMAS GUIJE. Me, WALTER M & KERRY ROTH 5-�32 04I no i 9071 ADELIA CIR INGTON BEACH 46 FOREST CA 92 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-041-12 �36 04- 1 149 1 3 149_ a a 0 _1_1_ DARWIN D ZIRBEL TIMOTHY F BROGDON PATRICK E BEACHNER 9061 ADELIA CIR 9041 ADELIA CIR 9031 ADELIA CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-041-15 ` 149-041-16 -�o 4 -041-17 / DONALD L CHURCHWARD DONALD SCHWEIGER LYDI tI 9021 ADELIA CIR 9001 ADELIA CIR 22.6`6--- - ' HUNTINGTON BEACH ' 92646 HUNT I NGTON. BEACH 92646 O-CA 1 -04.1-18 2 149-041-19 LO7 - ai _ 149. 0 __ 20- ERIC L KI JERRI I KUNS EDWARD L MOYNAGF: -ten'% 7inVT TT nra gn49 AflrT,TA CTR POSEIDON 11-17-03 t) 07 S85 S S� 149-032-08 149-032-09 149-032-10 RICHARD J BAYLIS WILLIAMS BENNYWORTH BRUCE W MUNN 9191 REGATTA DR. 21522 KANEOHE LN 21532 KANEOHE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 S��, 588�Soo SAD 1a9-032-11 149-032-12+13 149.=032=1-4 : BRADLEY D BROWN -JAMES R :GALLAGHER AUDREY L ANDRADE 21542 KANEOHE LN 21562 KANEOHE LN 21582 KANEOHE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-032-15 149-032-16 S92 149-032-17 Sq3 DONALD S WEINTHAL LEONARD ZUSMAN JAMES D PLUNKETT 21592 KANEOHE LN 21602 KANEOHE LN 11232 HUNTING HORN DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH " 92646 SANTA ANA CA 92705 �149-032-18 S� ( - 149-033-01 S 75 149-033-02 JOAN CLARK LAN N NGUYEN FRANCIS M HOVIS - 21622 KANEOHE LN - 9182 REGATTA "DR 9172 REGATTA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH . 92646 HUNTINGTON- BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-033-03 149-033.-04 149-033-05 S 7 „ GORDON. L. CHILDERS 'CHRISTOPHER CATALDO MARJORIE M BENDEES. . 9162 REGATTA DR 9142 -REGATTA-DR 9132 REGATTA DR HUNTINGTON- BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-033-06 -00 - _ -033-07 / 149-033-08 BENJAMIN E BURLEY CAS ORD DAMES T & VICKI BIRK 9122 REGATTA DR 9112 T ,21562 POLYNESIAN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 INGTON BEACH 646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-033-09 6 03 - 33-10 �� T 149-033-11 &L LEONARD A BOSE ANTHO - SU-TSO & JUN-JUN CHEN 21572 POLYNESIAN LN 1 21891 .VACATION LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 TAIN VALLEY C 92 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 160 -7 149-033-12 D 149-033-13 149-033-14" �� b DIANE C ARGE MICHAEL F ROSS ALAN C HOLST 21602 POLYNESIAN LN 21612 POLYNESIAN LN 21611 BAHAMA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264.6 149-033-15 149-033-16 /a 149-033-17 LAWRENCE PRITCHETT RICHARD M SCHNUR RUTH A BATES 21601 BAHAMA LN 21591 BAHAMA LN 21581 BAHAMA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646' HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E -033-18 � ` t14 33-19 149-033-20 ROBE C ON r� Me.�t MARK HAKIM-DAVAR I 2 8;2 5 LA BAJADA F:T-;1N RRAcu NGTON BEACH 21646 LACUNA NIGUEL CA 9267" POSEIDON 11-17-03 Smooth Feed Shersf-,.TPA a-o 16 .554 149-031-18 149-031-19 14 9-031-20 ROBIN J NAKATSUKA MARY J SINDEL TEDDY J & KAREN POBUD 9081 BOBBIE CIR 9071 BOBBIE CIR 9061- BOBBIE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 55`1 . s'S S ss 14.9-031-21 .149-031-22 149-031-23 EDWARD.VELAZQUEZ HENRY J & TONI- :BAEZ STEVEN A &` DEBRA CLARK.- 9041 BOBBIE CIR 9031 BOBBIE CIR 9021 BOBBIE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-031-24 5&0 14 031-25 S� 149-031-26 S(p2 WARREN M BISCAILUZ WALLA TORKELLS c- JAMES C & SANDRA TYLER 9001 BOBBIE CIR 9002 BOBB CIR 9022 BOBBIE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON B H 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 s � 149-031-27 sCo3 149-03 �o 14 9-031-29 BEVERLY J MARKLE CHRIST J PIERCE VILLA JOHN P & SONIA 9032 BOBBIE CIR 9102 EtGARCI DR 9062 BOBBIE CIR • HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTING ON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 s� 149-.031-.30. �` .� 149.-031-31 S 14 9-031-32 ALBERT J KOZISCHEK HENRY.-S WHEATLEY *312 WILLIAM `E & CAROL .WARD 90.72 BOBBIE CIR 90.0 PACIFIC`COAST HWY ::.:9092 -BOBBIE CIR 6 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92648 HUNTI14GTON BEACH 92646 S 149-031-33 149-031-34 149-031-35 7� THOMAS C BOWLES JOHN & SUSAN SHEEDY SAMUEL J LAFATA 9091 NIGUEL CIR 9081 NIGUEL CIR 9071 NIGUEL CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-031-36 5772 149-031-37 5-73 149-031-38 DARREN MAGOT - ROBERT .G DEMPSEY JAMES R YOUNG 9061 NIGUEL CIR - 9041 NIGUEL CIR 9033. NIGUEL CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH -92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH .92646 S� S -031-39e�HQj'I 1 -031-40 149-032-01 BAD ELD JAME SIMPSON HARRY & LINDA GAYNOR 9021 9001 NIG �BEH 9111 REGATTA DR INGTON2646 HUNTINGTON 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264.6 149-032-02 5�U >9131ATT 3 ` 14 9-032-04 Y 0 0 JOSE N & SERGIO RIVAS E-ElO JUDY M HOHL 9121 REGATTA DR 9141 REGATTA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 • N BEAC e6 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E 149-032-05 149-032-06 5e2 149-032-07 s� CARLOS R STEMEN FLORENCE T RADACK CRAIG T TAYLOR 9161 REGATTA DR 9171 REGATTA DR 9181 REGATTA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E POSEIDON 11-17-03 S 24 SZS �'2 149-025-03 149-025-04 14 9-025-05 PAUL S SANDNESS HOWARD C FRITZSCHE AUGUSTINE R PEPI 21872 KANEOHE LN 21892 KANEOHE LN 21902 KANEOHE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-025-06 . JS� % I49-025-07` J�2 g 14.9-02.5-08 2 MITCHELL: E SLAGLE . KURTIS M... NIT LEONARD S SKOCZEN 21912 KANEOHE LN 21922 KANEOHE. LN 21932 KANEOHE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 i 149-025-09 S3 0 149-025-10 5 3 ' 149-025-11 32 MARK H BOYER NOEL T MARTINEAU PETER & BETTY MANDICH 21942 KANEOHE LN 9202 ALOHA DR 9192 ALOHA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 S3 149-025-12 �J� 149-025-13 s T 149-025-14 5 GREGORY FREEZE DENNIS L PARKER GREGORY D SNYDER 9182 ALOHA DR 9722 MELINDA CIR 9152 ALOHA DR • HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 .149-025-15 149-031-01. . 149-031-02 PAUL & DONNA METZLER CUONG P & KHANH LE MARK &. JANET. BOWMAN 9142 ALOHA DR 9091 REGATTA DR . 9081 REGATTA DR : HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-031-03 `' ✓� _ 149- 1-04 C 1 -031-05 KARL & HE ID I TAH_TI RANDY CK ST MARTIN c' 9071 REGATTA DR 9061 REGAflQkDR. 9041 REG A DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BE H 92646 HUNTINGTON CH 92646 149-031-06 2 149-031-07 � 149-031-08 S�4 LEON T MADNICK - ROBERT L WILSON JAMES L HARRINGTON 9031 REGATTA DR - 9021 REGATTA DR 9001 REGATTA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH .- 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-031-09 5-45 149-031-10 `� 149-031-11 S� / FRANCILE JUHL CECIL E WALLIS GEORGE P JOHNSON 9002 REGATTA DR 9022 REGATTA DR 9032 REGATTA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-031-12 5'�F 149-031-13 ` 149-031-14 �� O KENNETH L CRITES DON A KIM EDMUND S MORENO 9042 REGATTA DR -9062 REGATTA DR 9072 REGATTA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-031-15 5-5 149-031-16 5-52 149- -17 _ SSA ROBERT J LOW BRUCE L SCHECHTER FORREST RELL �. 9082 REGATTA DR 9092 REGATTA DR PO BOX 5051 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92615 POSEIDON 11-177-03 149-023-20 4q4 149-024-01 14az024-02 NEIL- L & LORI WELLS ALAN BRAMLETT K 9122 ALOHA DR 21932 KIOWA LN 219 1 OWA HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 INGTON BEACH 646 149-024-03 . 49.: 02a. 04 149-0.24-05 BRENT C &` JANET KOOIMAN DANIEL L RAWLINS - RAFAEL B. .RODRIGUEZ 21902 KIOWA LN 9062 KAPAA DR 9072 KAPAA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-024-06 �00 149-024-07 50 r 149-024-08 SQ 2 YUNG H PAN ALLEN K WACHI DONALD DAVIDSON PO BOX 6094 9092 KAPAA DR 9102 KAPAA DR HUNTINGTON* BEACH 92615 HUNTINGTON BEACH . 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 Js-- 149-024-09 ��3 149-024-10 50� 149-024-11 OS GEORGE T JENKINS DARLENE J HANSON I JOHN D BARRY 9112 KAPAA DR 9122 KAPAA DR 9142 KAPAA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 I 50 .6 _ - 6 soS 149-024-12 149-024-13 1a9-024-14 ROD.` A.RASMUSSEN MARCELLA V GRAHAM HAROLD S. CORDOVA 9152 KAPAA DR 9162 KAPAA DR .9172 KAPAA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-024-15 S0� 149-024-16 149-024-17 SJ JOHN A MCCARTHY - OLIVER A MINEAR _JOHN T KELENC 9192 KAPAA DR 9191 ALOHA DR _ 9171 ALOHA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTIRGTON BEACH 92646 149-024-18 S12 149-024-19 149-024-20 S l THOMAS G LAMBERT _ NORBERT VILLANYI DOLORES E MILLER 9161 ALOHA DR 9151 ALOHA DR 914 1" ALOHA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH , 9264.6 - HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149- 4-21 _ C 57I5 14 4-2 2 149-024-23 KIRK & THER TOBLER RICH ID CKEE c MAIDA A SEYMOUR 9121 ALOHA 9111 ALOHA 9101 ALOHA DR �BEA92646 HUNTINGTONHUNTINGTON BEAC 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-024-24 `� l 149-024-25 c�l 149-024-26 S.20 JOAN KLUBNIK JERRY A STRONER GEORGE F BULLOCK 9091 ALOHA DR 9081 ALOHA DR 9071 ALOHA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E 149-024-27 s� 149-025-01 5722 14 9-025-02 S23 HENRY .B KERFOOT BORIS M ACKERMAN GORDON E WEAVER 9061 ALOHA DR 73 LINDA ISLE 23.862 KANEOIHE LN """,'.,T,,^T^*, nrtr^v a���� AT_PGTunPT REACH CA 92660 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E POSEIDON 11-17--03 149-022-17 9-022-18 149-022-19 GARY R NICCOLE GAR CHOUG �. JAMES R HOOPER 286 E GREENGATES DR 94q-8-- - IVER-EIR 9151 -KAPAA DR CORONA CA 91709 -- -� TA3N VALLE 2708 HUNTINGTON BEACH /92646 149-022-20 149-022-21 � 1PINGTON -022-22 .(i� DEAN L CORDELL `MORTIMER P SHEA 9141 KAPAA DR 9121 KAPAA DR ^x HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 BEACH _6 -022-23 149-022-24 471 149-022-25 -7772 l ►t, E KENNETH W WHITEHEAD GORDON B EMERSON !71NGTONIBEAC 9091 KAPAA DR 9081 KAPAA DR 646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-022-26 4-7✓? -- 7-1 a - 4 - 1_9 023 01 MICHAEL R COLLINGWOOD DO eel am BAKER LEE N HUPP 9071 KAPAA DR - 906 21841 KIOWA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUN INGTON. BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-.023--02 - 149:-02.3-.03 777 lag-.0.23-.04. . . 7t VINTON .D MARRIOTT ISOLDE L' WITTMAN RICHARD _K SVOBODA 21851 KIOWA LN 4651 W CRESTVIEW .CIR 21871 KIOWA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 TUCSON AZ 85745 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-023-05 �`7"/ _ 149-023-06 So 149-023-07 �g DANIEL E MALLOY MICHELE M ERWIN TERESA J LEE 21881 KIOWA LN 21891 KIOWA LN 21901 KIOWA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-023-08 - 149-023-09 3 149-023-10 _9�19 ANITA. P WELLS _ PAUL S .HOWARD FARES JAHSHAN 21911 KIOWA LN. 21931 KIOWA LN 21941 KIOWA LN -HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 . HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 465 149-023-11 14 9-023-12 149-023-13 DONALD J MCKINNEY RICHARD A & DE KILEKAS MANUEL T URZUA 21961 KIOWA LN 9022 ALOHA DR 9042 ALOHA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-023 . 14 149-023-15 c? 149-023-16 RALPH L OSTERKAMP RICHARD T LEGERE RUTH E MORTON 9052 ALOHA DR 9062 ALOHA DR 9082 ALOHA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH . 92646, HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E 149-023-17 �r 149-023-18 49� a -0 3-19 �9`3 1 _9 2 _ STEPHEN WILLERTH HERMAN P & IRIS CHENIER MARK A & SUSAN SEMON 9092 ALOHA DR 9102 ALOHA DR 9112 ALOHA DR ------------ - - -- --- -�- - - nTe+r.mnrr mr.At'v o1)4a4 TRTTNTTNGTON BEACH 9264E POSEIDON 11-17-03 t a 21 149-015-10 149-021-01 149-021-02 3� ROBERT B BURGER BECKY HARDONNIERE EDWARD W ANDER SON 21842 KANEOHE LN 21842 KIOWA LN 9061 'MAHALO DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-021-03 _ 2) ;04 149-_Q21-05 ROBERT J FRYE DOfi? S HAROLD E LOOMIS 9081 MAHALO DR 9091 9101 MAHALO DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 F INGTON BEA _ 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 14Q,-_021-06 + Q 149-021-07 I 149-021-08 r �� MAR E ROSEMARY PETERSON AJIT S GILL s0'S T � 9121 MAHALO DR 9571 YELLOWSTONE DR TON BEAC 646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646- 149-021-09 149-021-10 149-021-11 FRANK B GOODALE ROBERT J FISHER TIMOTHY C SHIELDS 9141 MAHALO DR 9151 MAHALO DR 9161 MAHALO DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-022-01 149-021-12 149-021-13 PETER T KONISHI JERRY W. WHEELER GUY :R-MARTIN . 9171 MAHALO DR 9191 MAHALO DR 21882 KIOWA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 _ - -- --- Aso 149-022-.02 _ q 149-022-03 149-022-04 _4s/ .CHARLES P PRIDDY DAVID E NELSON -JOHN E & JEANIE ENGH 21872 KIOWA LN 21862 KIOWA LN 9062 MAHALO DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-022-05 �5 2 149-022-06 �S3 149-022-07 LISA ANGELICI JAMES A FAST STEPHEN M BRINKERHOFF 8575 WADE RIVER CIR 9082 MAHALO DR 9092 MAHALO DR FOUNTAIN VALLEY C 92708 ; HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH. 926-46 149-022-08 149-022-09 149-022-10 M D & CLETA KEITH PA WILHELM E KEIMEL 9102 MAHALO DR 200 C F AST HWY 3 518 BARSBY ST NT HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HU NG N BEACH 92648 VISTA CA .92084 149-022-11 4,5 149-022-12 -149-022-13 DOUGLAS M WATLAND LARRY & SUE MC GREGOR HELENA R BOWEN 9142 MAHALO DR 9152 MAHALO DR 9162 MAHALO DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 ,. HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E 4 .16Z 149-022-14 149-022-15 �/ 149-022-16- Ew t VERNON J GUINAN ROBERT K & -CAROLYN LOY 1.050 9192 MAHALO DR 9191 KAPAA DR --- --- - TTTT.TTT1TwTnTr1TT nor nv 0 n c n c trrTnTTTNGTnN BEACH 92 6 c POSEIDON 11-17-03 for 51 ON 149-012-27 149-013-01 149-013-02 NEAL J RIEFFANAUGH CLARENCE F BALLENGER HILDE F GRANTHAM 909 TILLER WAY 21771 KIOWA LN 21781 KIOWA LN CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-013-03 r v 1 -023-04 .149-013 05. Q Nt�Yi.Y G?taA�F LOUIS D KASTORFF LNG �p,�r�, ;� DONALD G HOLMES 21801 KIOWA LN 21821 KI LN 21821 KIOWA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON CH - 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-013-06 � I 149-014-01 I 149-014-02 -%/2 JAMES G & ANNE WRIGHT MICHAEL C STRACNER KEI TH D & AMY SEWARD 21831 KIOWA LN 21822 KIOWA LN 21832 KIOWA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON $EACH 92646 149-014-03 149-014-04 149-014-05 RICHARD B & TROANN LOY WILLARD E TOLLES MARY J KEEFER 9062 KAHULUI DR 9082 KAHULUI DR 9092 KAHULUI DR -HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 014-06 � � 149-014-07 �/� 149-014-08 Z. _ PGTON .l�cr'l;�S �� ROSE :M THURSTON JOHN F & LENORE .KIRKORN 9102U 9112 KAHULUI 912 2 KAHULUI' DR . . . BEACH 646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 �2 149-014-09 149-014-10 4.2 149-014-11 / STEVEN W HANSEN LARRY S POE EDWARD V GARNETT 9132 KAHULUI DR 9142 KAHULUI DR 915 2 KAHULUI DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON- BEACH 92646 149-014-12 g22 149-014-13 ' Z2 149-014-14 HOWARD GEOGHEGAN - DANIEL M BRAUN BRIAN T & PAMELA LEWIS 9162 KAHULUI DR - 9172 KAHULUI DR 9192 KAHULUI DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON. BEACH . 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH . 92646 149-015-01 42.57 149-015-02 12 1 49—01 03 5— /GEORGE & CHRISTINE HIGI BARBARA R GIERHART RONALD P & DILLYS MAHER 21742 KANEOHE LN ' 21752 KANEOHE LN - 21762 KANEOHE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-015-04 42-S 149-015-05 42q - - 930 149 O15 06 GLORIA S MOONEY ROBERT G & SUSAN WELLS NASSER G MUSTAFA 21772 KANEOHE LN 21792 KANEOHE LN 21802 KANEOHE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 . HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-015-07 �3 149-015-08 9J2 149-015-09 ��J SAMUEL T WINES ROBERT T RODENBECK GARY L & SHARON YOUNG 21812 KANEOHE LN 21822 KANEOHE LN 21 B32 KANEOHE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTIINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNT.INGTON BEACH 92641-: POSEIDON 11-17. 03 .3-74 375 3 7b 149-011-13 149-011-14 149-011-15 JODY R RODGERS DANIEL F GAETA ROBERT _J HINES 9151 BERMUDA DR 9161 BERMUDA DR 9171. •BERMUDA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTIINGTON BEACH 92646 149-011-.16 .149-012-01 U 149-012-02 ROBERT J PENGILLY SHELLY GAERTNER ALVA L .BATTENFIELD : 16264 SUMMERSHADE DR 21802 KIOWA LN 21782 KIOWA LN LA MIRADA CA 90638 HUNTINGTON BEACH -92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-012-03 3IS O 149-012-04 + ,14 -012-05 3 DONALD J ZALESKI ROBERT DAYYATT ROBE E AYRER C. 21772 KIOWA LN 9062 BERMUDA DR 9082 BE A DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON- BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON WCH 92646 149-012-06 `� " 149-012-07 3 84 149-012-08 gs SCOTT TRACY DENNIS R MCDONALD . 9092 BERMUDA DR 9102 BERMUDA .DR 9112 EtgaAffF • HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 TON BEACH 9 _ 149-012-09 14.9-012-1.0 149-012-11 MICHAEL J MONAGHAN THOMAS D RIDLEY GEORGE RIVADENEYRA 20542 PAISLEY LN 9132 BERMUDA. DR`. 9142 BERMUDA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH. 92646' 149-012-12 3" q _ 149-012-13 3QO 149-012-14 391 BARBARA R CHRISPIN STEVEN R & TARI SIMON CRAIG R WAGNER 9152 BERMUDA DR 9162 BERMUDA DR -9172 BERMUDA DR . HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-012-15 3v/z 149-012-16 149-012-17 MICHAEL C MCVICKER - HUBERT V ARMSTRONG BRIEN- C BRAUN 9192 BERMUDA DR - 9191 KAHULUI DR 9171 KAHULUI DR HUNTINGTON .BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149 012-18 149 012 19 149-012-20 MAX F LIPPKA GAIL R SUMMERS RANDALL W COCHRAN 9161 KAHULUI DR 9151 KAHULUI DR 9141 KAHULUI DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-012-21 -` u 149-012-22 - �c7 149-012-23 JOHN P MURPHY OLE T OLESON PETER T PARKOVICH 9131 KAHULUI DR 9121 KAHUL,UI DR 9111 KAHULUI DR HUNTINGTON BEACH ,92646 . HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 149-012-24 149-012-25 12 149-0 -26 DONALD L SCHLIETER WALTER R COYLE GREGORY W FINCK 9101 KAHULUI DR 9091 KAHULUI DR 9081 KAHULUI DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E POSEIDON 11-17-03 .smooth Feed s., eats T m 148-086-29 14 8-086-30 148 -086-31 JOSEPH RUBENS JOSEPH D LAGANA JOEL M & SHARY CASS 21372 SAND DOLLAR LN 21362 SAND DOLLAR LN 21352 SAND DOLLAR LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH e92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9�2/646 148486-32 1_8-086-33 148 -086-3 _ YEN-NING WANG RONALD R WILSON BRUCE M PULCINI 21342 SAND DOLLAR IN 20122 GLACIER CIR 21322 SAND DOLLAR IN HUNTINGTON BEACH 9.2646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 35-/ 148-086-35 148-086-36 148 -086-37 JEANIE C BOYNTON THOMAS WITHERBY JILLIAN A FABIAN 21312 SAND DOLLAR IN 21302 SAND DOLLAR LN 21292 SAND DOLLAR LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH_ 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 D;A 086-38 148-121-01 148-121-03 BERNARD B KAPLAN TARNUTZER AR - �►.2 8881 BELLSHIRE DR 1601 DOVE ST 160 HILLS CA- 92653 H=INGTON BEACH 92646 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 3 5 7, 1.48. 1-0:4 148-121-18 148-.121-19 '�24 CITY. .O INGTON BEAC NUBOARD` RECYCLING INC PAUL B SANDGREN. 63 OOOTH 8601 EDISON AVE 3722 HIGHWAY:M HUNTINGTN BC H CA 648 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 CABOOL MO 65689 148-121-21 3s9 148-121-22 Z3 148-12'1-23-- --- 3 62 ARTHUR K BRIMLOW NABIL & SUZAN NASRE _NAB SRE 652 E CULVER AVE 21632 NEWLAND ST = 21632 NE D ST ORANGE CA 92866 HUNTINGTON BEACH - 92646 HUNTINGTON BE 92646 149-011-01 362 149-011-02 365 149-011-03 3 (o " BILL MALAVASI GUY A & VICTORIA ADAMS RONALD C & KAREN JETT 9001 BERMUDA DR,- _ 9021 BERMUDA DR 9031 BERMUDA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON' BEACH 92646 -011-04 `j b 5 -011-05 3 (D 149-011-06 ALB AS GRA �K 0A1.� JAMES R OLSEN 94s- VEROCK 9081 BERMUDA DR NGTON BEACH 9 6 CA 93 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 Y, - , 7 t49-011-07 149-011-08 `��� 149-011-09THERESA J NORTON WILLIAM H STILWELL 1 BE DR 9101 BERMUDA DR 9111 BERMUDA DR GTON% BEA 46 ' HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E 149-011-10 149- -11 3 '2 149-011-12 KENT & KYLE MC GARRIGLE BURRIS R TTON �' KEV�IN M COLEMF?v 9121 BERMUDA DR 9131 BERMUD R 9141 BERMUDA DR tvrrnTrrTWrc'rnt%T nRnru 926a6 HUNTINGTON BEA- 92646 HUNTINGTON BEAC_ 9264E POSEIDON 11-17-03 J 148-085-12 148-085-13 214 148-086-01 315 NORMAN D EHRKE MORRIS B SPELL SCOTT L JOHNSTON 21392 SEAFORTH LN 21402 SEAFORTH LN 21281 SEAFORTH LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 dS-086=02 148-086-03 148-086-0.4 LLO EN WILLIAM P TONIC GARY L. BARTZ 21301 SEAFORTH LN 21311 SEAFORTH LN PORT BEACH CA 9 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 -148-086-05 31 q 148-086-06 320 148-086-07 32) DONALD P CONVERY JAMES J WEEPIE LYDIA K FAHILGA 21321 SEAFORTH LN 21331 SEAFORTH LN 21341 SEAFORTH LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-086-08 148-086-09 32 3 148-086-10 `3 MICHAEL & TRACY TESSI_ER MICHAEL T KADAU MICHAEL M OGAN 21351 SEAFORTH LN 21361 SEAFORTH LN 21371 SEAFORTH LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-08.6-11 J 148-066-12 32� -086-1<BE 2 ? MARTHA H :BAIRD JOSEPH A BUSZEK 21381= SEAFORTH.-LN 21391. SEA:FORTH LN: AHUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON-BEACH 92646 INGTO92.646 148-086-14 v 148-086-15 �2 q 148-086-16 330 STEVEN G WILLIAMS r PHILLIP S DIMENTO DOLORES J ELLISON 21421 SEAFORTH LN 21431 SEAFORTH LN -21441 SEAFORTH LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 =HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 333 148-086-17 33 i 148-086-18 33 -7 148-086-19 JOANN M DICKENS - ANDREW J BUMATAY DONALD E STACK 8561 SANDY HOOK DR - 8551 SANDY HOOK DR 8541 SANDY HOOK DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-086-20 334 146-086-21 3 5 148-086-22 3 �� JERRY WELLS VIRGIL J BUTLER MICHAEL W SELNA 8531 SANDY HOOK DR 8521 SANDY HOOK DR 6284 FORESTER DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 926646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E 148-086-23 .337 148-086-24 0 148-086-25 3 3 MICHAEL 0 DANGOTT PHILLIP & JUDY HOUSEMAN REYNALDO L LOPEZ 8532 MILNE DR 8542 MILNE DR' 8552 MILNE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 . HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E D 341 3�Z t 86-26 148-086-27 148-086-28 JOHN T CLEARY GORDON D AKERS DR 21392 SAND DOLLAR LN 21382 SAND_ DOLLAR LN NGTON BEACH 9 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUN'i'INGTON BEACH 9264- POSEIDON 11-17-03 SMd3o l heed Sc)ep STlfi t?°�;yizit, for 516A C 285 148-082-26 148-082-27 148-082-28 RUDOLPH J FRIENDT DAVID H WILLIAMS GPRY D & CAROLYN SMITH 21321 SAND DOLLAR LN 21331 SAND DOLLAR LN 21341- SAND DOLLAR LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 99.2646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 H-UNTINGTON BEACH 92646 la -082-29 2 0 148-082-30 2 g 148-082-.31 . ALI STEVEN J. WARDLE jERRY D WEBB PIXGnT0N­lEACH a N 21361 SAND DOLLAR LN 21371 SAND DOLLARLN -9 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 H-r'-ITTINGT0N BEACH 92646 148-082-32 26 148-082-33 2qo ?4 83 1 JEAN ICHKHAN EDWARD F .WILLIAMS 1`T_ I 8541 MILNE' DR 8531 MILNE DR E5 1 AI GUSTINE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 F�: IN ON BEACH 92646 148 /_3-02 2 r 148-083-03 2q3 148-084-01 2 ` JEFFRE ANDFORD G - VIVIAN M BLACKMORE D. NIEL .M BRAUN 8511 SAINT XUQqSTINE DR 23442 .VILLENA 9172 KAHULUI DR -HUNTINGTON BEAC 92646 MISSION VIEJO CA 92692 =INGTON BEACH 92646 2 2g 148-084=02 148-084=03 48-08.4704 YOSHI &-.NORMA ADACHI DAVID 'P CHANG LOU ISE W LO 16241 WATSON CIR 6476 SAN ANDRES AVE 2.420 PALM AVE B WESTMINSTER CA 92683 CYPRESS CA 90630 cAN GABRIEL CA 91776 148-084-05 2q +� _ 148-0 - 6 q(q 48-084-07 � Q ROY T SAKAMOTO B G E S ABD I 8561 SAINT AUGUSTINE DR 855 S I tA USTINE DR " 01 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUN N N BEACH 92646 =" NGTON BEA 2648 148-084-08 D 148-085-01 Qz 148-085-0201 VERLAINE M STOREY - JOHN L GALLIGHER ERIKA NOLLAU 8.531 SAINT AUGUSTINE. DR 121282. SEAFORTH LN PO BOX .606. HUNTINGTON .BEACH . 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 KAILUA'-KONA HI 96.745 -- s04 148-0'85-03 148-085-04 148-085-05 JUDITH M SCHROEDER RAYMOND E MILLARD KATHLEEN M HAMBORG 21302 SEAFORTH LN 21312 SEAFORTH LN 21322 SEAFORTH LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 3 Og 148-085-06 3� 7 148-085-07 148-085-08 CONG C DINH STEPHEN STAGNARO DENNIS J KRAUS 21332 SEAFORTH LN 21342 SEAFORTH LN 21352 SEAFORTH LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646. HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 :UNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-085-09 10 148-085-10 '31 148-085-11 -9/2 JUDY A_BOSINOFF TODD L JOHNSTON DAVID C DOMINGUEZ 21362 GEAFORTH LN 21372 SEAFORTH LN 21382 SEAFORTH LN - rl'KTR+TATn'TATT OL'T P'LT G7 Zdr- POSEIDON 11-17703 Sillooth Feed She? S Wit 254 2sc 148-081-10 148-081-11 148-081-12 WALTER P GUNKEL STANLEY H & LISA BRYSON KEITH C BELEW 21431 ANTIGUA LN 21421 ANTIGUA LN 21401. ANTIGUA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 " Q 146-081-13 148- 081-14 148.-081-15:: KERRY E & LORRAINE SHAW STEVEN W KENNEDY DAVID L & PATRICIA BUSH 21391 ANTIGUA LN 21381 ANTIGUA IN 21371 ANTIGUA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON •BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-081-16 25 t 148-081-17 -2&0 148-081-18 -261 DAVID C .LUTHER DONALD P RUSSELL DANIEL R MYERS 21361 ANTIGUA LN 21351 ANTIGUA LN 21341 ANTIGUA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH_ 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92.646 148-081-19 148-081-20 148-081-21 - - i TULL W TAYLOR RALPH J CARNEVALE HARRY F BREMMER 21331 ANTIGUA LN _ 2725 LONG MEADOW DR 21311 ANTIGUA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 TIMBERVILLE VA 22853 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-081=22 _ Z�pS 148-081-23 �"' 14 81-24 C GARY D &."PATTI CRAWFORD CHERYL.S TOGHIA LA V. NCE 21301 ANTIGUA LN 2:1291 .ANTIGUA LN 940 S CO DR 100 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 COSTA MESA 92626 G`148-082-11 �� - 148-082-12 '2�q 148-082-13 2�6 HOANG & AILEEN NGUYEN CHRISTINE M PATTISON JAMES O & DARLENE HAGAI 8521 MILNE DR 21372 ANTIGUA LN .2 1362 ANTIGUA LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E - - z-7 148-082-14 271 148-082-15 2 148-082-16 FREDERICK B SCOTT _ WILLIAM H LAMSON ARTHUR R AZPEITIA 21352 ANTIGUA LN 21342 ANTIGUA LN 21332 ANTIGUA LN HUNTINGTON. BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACh 92646 HUNTINGTON .BEACH 9264: 148-082-17 �� 148-082-18 �� 148-082-19 .2 r AHMET ALIYAZICIOGLU GARY B STARLING 21322 ANTIGUA LN 21312 ANTIGUA LN 2 330 N h . HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 INGTON BEACH 64 148-082-20 .2 7-? 148-082-21 2 -7 g 148-082-22 ROBERT BROWNING DAMON A & JULIE SMYTHE PAUL J GOODWIN 21882 OCEANVIEW,LN 21282 ANTIGUA LN 21281 SAND DOLLAR LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH. 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264 148-082-23 290 148-082-24 291 148-082-25 28 JAMES T BAILEY CRAIG M MORTON MTCHAEL J SUPPLE 21291- SAND DOLLAR LN 21301 SAND DOLLAR LN 21311 SAND DOLLAR LN -•---•-^� *� *+r+** fle+rnv aIca9Z PTTNTTNGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON SEACR 926 POSEIDON 11-17. 03 2Z ePrL.�Y- ,,�: . D AV 224 22 148-073 -19 148- -20 148-073-21 VETERANS AFFAIRS C AIG_R.-- - SN- TaVATT MICHAEL J & ERIN KAR.AL 21361 BRETON IN 21351 BRETO C- 2134 1 BRETON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-0.73-22 .148.-.073-23 2Z. 348-073=24 2� JAN P & BARBARA VARNER ALAN E MCCOY GARY R .TIEDGEN 21331 BRETON LN 21321 BRETON LN 21311 BRETON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 30 231 148-07 ��� 148-073-26 148 -074-01 SEAB VELOPMENT CO STEPHEN R & LATHY. KENT BRIAN W LINDSEY PO BOX 8 . 21291 BRETON LN 21281 YARMOUTH LN NEWPOR B CH CA 92658 HUNTINGTON .BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 233 � 148-074-02 232 148-074-03 148-074-04 JUDITH L WHITNEY DONALD T MILLER JAMES H KAA . 21291 YARMOUTH LN 21301 YARMOUTH IN 21311 YARMOUTH LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH . 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 236- 2 3 & - 23 i 148-0.74=05 148-074-06 8-.074-07 . JOSEPH &; MARY DRUCKER :PATRICK B `TIERNEY O 21921 HARBORBREEZE LN 21331 YARMOUTH LN 1182 ICH AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 P ENA CA 91104 148-074-08 2'319 - 148-074-09 �3 148-074-10 240 MICHAEL K STRUCKHOFF MICHAEL J COOK MICHAEL K BARNETT 21351 YARMOUTH LN 21361 YARMOUTH LN 21371 YARMOUTH LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 -213 148-074-11 148-074-12 242 148-074=13 BILLY E STEVENSON GAREN HANLON BARBARA P HENNESSEY _ 21381 YARMOUTH LN . 21391 YARMOUTH LN 21401 YARMOUTH LN HUNT.INGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNT.INGTON BEACH 92646 148-081-01 241 148-081-02 2 s 148-081-03 -ell TERESA J LEE STEVEN M MCKENDRY LESLIE L JEPSEN 21901 KIOWA LN 8562 SANDY HOOK DR' 8552 SANDY HOOK DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-081-04 148-081-05 249 148-081-06 2�C MARION M FUGET THOMAS M COWGER 8542 SANDY HOOK DR 8532 SANDY HOOK DR 8522 K DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 ; HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 NGTON BEA 92646 148-081-07 2S0 148-081-08 2s/ 148-081-09- WAYNE A LEWIS LAWRENCE H AYERS GAY. A BOYER 8512 SANDY HOOK DR 8502 SANDY HOOK DR 214.41 ANTIGUA LN ••---=.�T**�,++r+,, rnr%hrgT7 n n If A if tST7KTTT7T7r.TnN RF2Ary 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E POSEIDON 11-17-03. 148-072-01 1q3 1 -072-02 � / 148-072-03 /? RAMON E BOYD STE LY c JACK A THOMPSON 9851 HOT SPRINGS DR 8652 SAtl,4 DR 8642 SABLE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON CH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-072 04 � `.. . 148 072 ..05. / . 148.-'.072-06 KENNETH MCKAY RONALD S HODGE JOAN T HARDWOOD 11 CAPE DANBURY 8622 SABLE DR 8612 SABLE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 48-072-07 148-072-08 ZOO _ _ -zoo 1 148 072 09 HARRY T WILSON GLENN W GALLEGLY CE SON 8611 SAINT AUGUSTINE DR 8621 SAINT AUGUSTINE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 BEACH CA 90-- 148-072-10 202 148-072-11 2013 148-072-12 .204 KENNETH R KRENGEL GLENN T ERWIN JERALD C & LAURA IRVING 8641 SAINT AUGUSTINE DR 8651 SAINT AUGUSTINE DR 8661 SAINT AUGUSTINE DR ' HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 . 2 D-- 2D 7 148-073-01 148-073-0 148-073-03 P 2 :ETERSAMSONOV ELT-SA P. -WENTWORTH DON R & <MARTHA ALBRECHT 212 81 BRETON LN 212 8 2 ,YARMOU"TH LN : 21292 YARMOUTH LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-073-04 "200 148-073-05 20q 148-073-06 .210 WILLIAM F SPEICHER FREDRIC M CHASSON DONNA ELLIOTT 21302 YARMOUTH LN 21312 YARMOUTH LN 21322 YARMOUTH LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-073-07 2/ 1 148-073-08 � /� 148-073-09 �13 DAVID T & ELENA HEDLUND DAVID G & SANDRA SUTTON ROBERT J SMITH 21332 YARMOUTH LN 245 -CLIPPER WAY 21352 YARMOUTH LN HUNTINGTON BEACH . 92646- SEAL BEACH,.C:A 90740 HUNT INGTON ,BEACH 92646 148-073-:10 2( 7 148-073-11 - �IS 148-073-12 WESLEY L SMITH PING H OEY JAMES M GRIFFITH 778 W VIA ESPIRITO SANT 32363 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD 213-82 YARMOUTH LN CLAREMONT CA 91711 BONSALL CA 92003 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-073-13 �77 148-.073-14 1 148-073-15 2l MANUEL J CADIZ WILLIAM M MOLINE RONALD E WALTER 21392 YARMOUTH LN . 21402 YARMOUTH LN 21401 BRETON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 .22D 148-073-16 14 8-073-17 148-073-18 22 2 GEORGIA C ZICCARDI LUCIA N FLETCHER BEVERLY J WIESEN 21391 BRETON LN 21381 BRETON LN 213=11 BRETON LN VTTRTTTTTr+'TnAT ❑anr+v CICAC UTMTrTVnTnrT P7nru c7gGg WTTNrrTNC;TnW REACH 92646 POSEIDON 11-17-03 Smooth Feed SheetsTM USA i., n p pate 1'^_?j'y 56 l6 � i6s 148- 2-11 14 -0 -1 148-071-01 SCHOOL TON BEACH TY r TI TON EAC JACK S GONTERMAN PO BOX 71 0 OX 90 21222 BRETON LN HUNTINGTON BEAN92648 IN ON CH 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 l(o� -_ 16-r _ _ l6 � 1487 071-_02 . 148 .0 1 03 148 -.071_.04 — -CH_ koe+G�% BUDDY` BARR KARL F ELLES 21232 21242 BRETON LN 21252 BRETON LN lId INGTON BEACH 646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-071-05 169 148-071-06 � 148-071-07 JOSEPH V GALLO. IRA S LEIBOWITZ CHARLES R LUKES 21272 BRETON LN 21282 BRETON LN 21292 BRETON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 j d 148-071-08 •/ '72 148-071-09 173 148-071-10 / TERRY G LEHIGH - STEVEN P RAKHSHANI GRACE A ANDERSON . 21302 BRETON LN 21312 BRETON LN 21322 BRETON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-:071-11 . 1487071-12 148- 3 JAMES. P. LARKIR "JOHN. D HOMAN " :DE S AUSTIN 21332 BRETON LN 2134.2 BRETON LN 2155 t likaAN.D ST HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNT INGTON BEACH 92646 148-071-14 / 148-071-15 / 148-071-16 �Q LINDA L TURNQUIST YONG C & HYON KIM BART A & LISA BARRETT 21362 BRETON LN 21372 BRETON LN 21382 BRETON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 . HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-071-17 161 148-071-18 I F2 148-071-19 . 193 . RICHARD S JONES - ARNOLD S RITTBERG BILLY S HUMPHRIES 21392 BRETON LN 21402 BRETON LN 8732 HATTERAS DR HUNTINGTON $EACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-071-20 r 0148-071-21 /Ss- 148-071-22 / WILLIAM K GAMBLE PATRICIA A TESSIER MICHAEL R BUONO 301 E COOK ST E 8702 HATTERAS DR 8692 HATTERA9 DR SANTA MARIA CA 93454 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-071-23 / ?-7 148-071-24 ( �" 148-071-25 LEON A HART JOANN P- STEVENS CHRISTOPHER BISTOLAS 8682 HATTERAS DR 8662 HATTERAS DR 8652 HATTERAS. DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 '. HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 148-071-26 / / O 14 71-27 148-071-28 RICHARD R BUTTON KENNE - ERT CHARLES L LINDSAY 8642 HATTERAS DR 8632 TERAS D 8622• HATTERAS DR -- --- ••* T*rn,+nrT n�nr•u o�Fa HLTNTTNGTON BEACH 92646 POSEIDON 11-17-03 smooth Feed Svhee-tS71A . 1.3 2 /3 3 i3� 1.14-494-05 114-494-06 114-494-07 WILLIAM M ODONNELL MARK A CUTLER FRANK A VAN HERK 22091 ISLANDER LN 222.01 ISLANDER LN 22111 ISLANDER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114-494-08 114-494_U9 l 114-.494-10 1J ✓ . PENNY A DEMMON TERRY T TUTTLE CLIFFORD &. PHYLLIS HALL 22121 ISLANDER LN 912 1 CHRISTINE DR 9113. CHRISTINE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114-494-11 /2 114-494-12 114-494-13'�14 / RICHARD D SWANSON JAMES K BERNSEN G. G WOODS 9101 CHRISTINE DR PO BOX 384 22092 SURFRIDER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 LOS ALAMITOS CA 90720 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114-494-15 I�2 114-494-16 114-494-17 ROBERT J JANUSKA STEVE BRANDON VICKI WILDER .22072 SURFRIDER' LN 22062 SURFRIDER LN 22052 SURFRIDER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTTON BEACH 92646 114-494-18. S 114-.495-01 � 114-495-0.2 POUL C ANDERSEN HELEN T VIALA ROBERT A IBBOTSON 8181 KINGFISHER DR 9272 CHRISTINE DR 9262 CHRISTINE DR_ HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 20 114-495-03 ! 114-495-04 • 114-495-05 ! �Q GUENTER T STEUER CHRISTOPHER L BUTTON ROBERT ABDELNABY 9252 CHRISTINE DR 9242 CHRISTINE DR 9232 CHRISTINE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 !9n222 495-06114-495-07 �`"�2 114-495-08_$ON �Lta;�� LUCILLE A BAGNOLI RAVI GOVINDAN IS 9562 HIGHTIDE DR 9202CHRISTINE DR TON .BEACH 2646 HUNTINGTON BEACH . 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114-495-09 / 114-495-10 /SS 114-495-11 FAROUK E SHAM00 FRED J GALLUCCIO JACK G & CINDY BUFFA 9192 CHRISTINE DR 9182 CHRISTINE DR 9172 CHRISTINE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114-495-12 `s 7 114-495-13 r 5 114-495-14 /5-9 MARSHALL E PAPKE TIMOTHY FISCHER GREGORY A BRENNER 9162 CHRISTINE DR 9152' CHRISTINE DR 9142 CHRISTINE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH . 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH - 92646 / A21A !14'-,4a-- 95--15 16 !11 14 -012-0 4+IZR GARY C GORMAN CIT IN GTON BEAC I 9122 CHRISTINE DR PO BOX- 19 �nuTATn-mnNT nr TJTTNTTNGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEAC 2648 POSEIDON 11-17-03 S�Eo 00"dII Farad Sg V. .TM 102 1 d3 114-493-06 114-493-07 114-493-08 JAMES E CAVENER -S-R -912 +� RITA J MARCHETTI 22061 CAPISTRANO LN 22071 0 LN 22081 CAPISTRANO LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 INGTON BE 646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 SOS - lab �a 114-493-09 114-493-10 114-493, =;—F�fO wcscR PHILLIP H` WADE KATHERINE 5 GRIFF 22 22101 CAPISTRANO LN 22123. CAPISTRANO LN NG7T BEACH 9 646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114-493-12 l� g 114-493-13 16 9 114-493-14 SCOTT J & JILL ERTZ GREGORY K HANSEN JAMES A THOMPSON 22131 CAPISTRANO LN 22141 CAPISTRANO LN 9171 CHRISTINE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH . 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114-493-15 114-493-16 114-493-17 GREGORY H KILDOW HEATHER R. KRISHER-LANTO RUTH E DONOVAN 9161 CHRISTINE DR 9141 CHRISTINE DR 20361 SEVEN SEAS LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114-493.71.8- . 114-493-19 _.. I IS 114-493.-20 . MARY .S CROWLEY GLEN R SWANSON. NOSRATOLA :D VAZIRI 22122 ISLANDER LN 22102 -ISLANDER. LN 66 BALBOA CV HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 114-493-21 r /7 - 114-493-22 // 8 114-493-23 SHARON A INSLEY CLETUS F MOLACEK FREDERICK H PFAFF 22082 ISLANDER LN 22072 ISLANDER LN 22062 ISLANDER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH - 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114-493-24 420 114-493-25 f2 / 114-493-26 122 ROLAND T CLARK _ GARY R BAILEY DAVID K SPECHT 22052 ISLANDER LN 22042 ISLANDER LN 22032 ISLANDER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON. BEACH -92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E l2 114- 3-27 /2 ��S 114-493-28 114-493-29 JUDITH ERSON L ROBERT J & KARLA THOMAS GEORGE D BRUNDIGE 22022 IS LN 9152 PLAYA DR 9142 PLAYA DR HUNTINGTON BEAC 92646 HUNT.INGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264E 114-493-30 126 114-493-31 (� 114-494-01 1..2 CHRISTOPHER M SPENCE POUL C ANDERSEN THIERRY T DELAPRE 9132 PLAYA DR - 8181 KINGFISHER DR 22041 ISLANDER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264� 114-494-02 ( 114-494-03 �J Q 114-494-64 ,1- DOU JAMES P HARTMAN FRANK T WALKER 22061 ISLANDER LN 220.71 ISLANDER LN 'IC^ f i-*7TtvTTNC-T0N BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9264 POSEIDON 11-17-03 Nd00,L'ul �e*,IS i RA 114-482-19 72 114-491-01 7-5114-491-02 741 JOE M CROOM RICHARD M FRASER JOEL T BREAULT 9112 PLAYA DR 22162 LAGUNA CIR 9231 CHRISTINE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 7s 76 77 . 114-491-03 11a. 491-04 114-492-01 ANTHONY G SANCHEZ RAYMOND J FOX BRYAN J VISNOSKI 9241 CHRISTINE DR 9261 CHRISTINE DR 22002 CAPISTRANO IN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 90 114-492-02 75 114-492-03 �� 114-492-04 CHARLES V SMITH JOHN F SCOTT KEVIN H & JUDY RHOADES 22022 CAPISTRANO IN 22032 CAPISTRANO LN 22042 CAPISTRANO LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTING,TON BEACH 92646 2 Q 114-492-05 114-492-06 114-492-07 0 3 MILTON B DARDIS GLEDA R FROST _: JANE M OKIMOTO 22052 CAPISTRANO LN 22062 CAPISTRANO LN 22072 CAPTSTRANO LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114_492-08 V / 114-492-09 114-492-10 ..GEORGE W ROBERTS NHUNG T NGUYEN_ REX &--:DEMISE ROCKWELL 22082 CAPISTRANO LN 22092 CAPISTRANO LN 22102 CAPISTRANO IN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114-492-11 f5-7 114-492-12 0 114-492-13 ;i STANFORD M ROSS MC COURT WILLIAM J TR ? SWOLD 22112 CAPISTRANO IN 22122 CAPISTRANO LN "221 PIST HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 INGTON BEACH 92646 qo 9t q2 114-492-14 114-492-15 JOHN E SCHEFFLER - WILLIAM & SUSAN SIMPSON 22152 CAPISTRANO LN 9191 CHRISTINE DR PO 419119 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9.2646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 SAS CITY. MO 64 41 4-492-17 q3 114 492 18 114 _92-19 95 NA RD JOSEPH D MORTIMORE JAMES B CANNADY 9�3- - -I c 22161 LAGUNA CIR 22151 LAGUNA CIR -1-NGTON--BEACH 64-6 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 97 114-492-20 / 114- -01 K6mt- � ptc:c�o 114-493-02 L? L TODD A POWLEY -RAYMOND- =OL � MARJORIE R DORN 22131 LAGUNA CIR 22001 CAPIST N 22021 CAPISTRANO LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 : HUNTINGTON BEAC 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 1 493-03 114-493-04 l00 114-493-05 I� -R�A'YMO - ` ' °'�'� RICHARD B WHITTINGTON JEFFREY K zTONES 220� APISTRAN 22041 CAPISTRANO LN 22�51 CAPISTRANO LN ------ --•_ — • rrrrrrnrwrmm�w7 fl"7%1+ty O7GnG POSEIDON 11-17-03- �3 114-481-20 42 114-481-21 114-481-22 44 DA S . STER KOUROSH KHAVARI KEITH TUCKER 1760 AVE-2�8- 9022 CHRISTINE DR 9032 •CHRISTINE DR A MESA CA HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 d 46 �7 114.-481-23 I � T14-481-24 114 481-2S.. , STANLEY W MARRIOTT PHILIP J BEUKEMA ROBERT G DUTTON 9042 CHRISTINE DR 9052 CHRISTINE DR 9062 CHRISTINE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 PIT SQ 114-481-26 41? 114-481-27 114-481-28 KARL E WYSOCKI FOAD JAHANSOUZ ELMORE E LORANGER 9072 CHRISTINE DR 9082 CHRISTINE DR 9092 CHRISTINE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 S! 52 - - -- 114-481-29 114-481-30 114-481-33 53 ALIREZA D VAZIRI MARION S GOLFOS CITY TINGTON BEAC 66 BALBOA CV 22161 WOOD ISLAND LN PO BOX 190 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 48 4 - s 114-482-01 4-482-A2 114-482-03 . .WILLIAM.R. ARNOLD ,:r� s� yr':` AL S & JULIE GABRION: 22002 SUSAN LN 2202.?. AN-- �—: C,.raa 22032 SUSAN LN . HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 Fi IQ r__INGTON B EACH - - 9 2 4 6 HUNT I NGTON BEACH 92646 114-482-04 5-7 114-482-05 U 114-482-06 . S " OLIVER F THAYER GALE W HILLIS JACK R & LAURA BYRD 2.2042 SUSAN LN 22052. SUSAN LN =833 STONE POST RD HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 FALLBROOK CA 92028 .11.4-482-07 �Q 114-482-08 � r 114-482-09 62 J JOHNSTON = FRIEDA KNERR MALCOLM L MAC KENZIE 22092 SUSAN LN 9061 CHRISTINE DR 9071 CHRISTINE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 9.2646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 65" 0 11448211 114-482-1 -' - _ 82-12 114- STEVEN J & KAREN HAYES ROBERT H MERRITT STEVE WILSON C 9081 CHRISTINE DR 31886 VIA PATO 22081 SUR DER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 TRABUg0 CANYON CA 92679 HUNTINGTON B CH 92646 114-482-13 f 114-482-14 114-482-15 JEANE M FLEMING THOMAS W MORTIMER RICHARD N MAST 22061 SURFRIDER LN 22051 SURFRIDER LN 22041 SURFRIDER LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 ; HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114-482-16 & 114-482-17 7� 114-482-18 -71 CONSTANCE M COLE MICHAEL S &• DONNA TRYON JAMES MASTERSON 22031 SURFRIDER LN 22021 SURFRIDER LN 9192 PLAYA DR T TTwTrn T .-rw� ww�� ♦ nnl w / - TTTTwTT T7T/'1T/'1fiT T t'7%t t.7 n'ICA if T.1TT*TTThTtlrr)M RP'.ZLrp 92646 POSEIDON 11-17-03 2-5 114-N50- 114-150-58,59j 2i 114-150-62 STAT I DEPT OF MILLS LAND & WATER CO STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1025 PO BOX 7108 3330 AVENIDA DEL PRESID SA 95814 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92615 SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672 11 _11A 150 .72 11.4=150=.7$�78�7�i. .11 50-82. M LS & W ER 0 1998 BEACH COAST PROPER AES B LL 0 B X 7 08 PO BOX 22623 21730 NE IN ON EACH 92 15 LONG BEACH CA 90801 HUNTINGTON BEA 92646 12113 - 14- 143 Z 114-160-6945 . 114-160 i77<S3r� 1 a-160-79;90/31"Atjz DAISY E PICCIRELLI ELATE STATE IFORNIA PACIF DESIGN 2675 DALE AVE 2501 P ST 1-46-8 - OTHILL - 40 11 SONOMA CA 95476 SANTA'• CA 92705 CH0 _CUCAMONGA 91730 11 -16V-8 11 -16 -85 114-481-01 2 3 S T OF FO I D !rDAL P CIR L ENT TERRENCE BOSTON 50 P L 6 A 22001 SUSAN LN S A A 92 5 SO 47 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 14 . 481-02 2 114-487.-03 � 114-481-04 �b JOAN J `NASTO RETA C .CAGLE !4:0 ')ISM F-iul� 2.2031 SUSAN LN ' 21572 OAKBROOK A-Nv 89 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 MISSION VIEJO CA 92692 114-481-05 .2.-7 114-481-06 .213 114-481-07 2 RAYMOND S COLE MARINA T VALSAMAKIS LEONARD & REBECCA LOPEZ 22061 SUSAN IN 22081 SUSAN LN 22091 SUSAN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114-481-08 _30 114-481-09 11 81-10 �- WI JOHN & DANA RYAN WILLI J RILEY - 22072 22052 HULA CIR 22042 IR INGTON BEA 92646. HUNTINGTON BEACH .92646 HUNTINGTON B .92646 t2-21 -481-11 114-481-12 .34 114-481-13 ONEY JOHN T GRAVES MARGARET E LOURTIE 0- N _.-N �?c 22012 HULA CIR 332 HAWTHORNE ST INGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 SOUTH TASADENA CA 9103.0 114-481-14 114-481-15 .3 114-481-16 SIK GARY G E JUDY A LENIHAN FRANK R GANDARA 2 1 HULA 22021 HULA CIR 22041 HULA CIR HGNT GT B AC 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 114-481-17 3Q 114-481-18 O 114-481-19 JEFFREY A NELSON KENNETH C KIMBALL RICHARD W MORTIMER 22051 HULA CIR 22071 HULA CIR 900,2 CHRISTINE DR tr'WrMTWTmmnrs nVTncr 09GA c urTN7rrTNT(1T(1N RF.ArW g9941; HUNTINGTON BEACH 92646 Wlpg��a�� 939 480 16 939 480 17 939 480 18 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21592 Surveyor Cir,7B 21602 Surveyor Cir 018A 21612 Surveyor.Ca 08B Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 939 480 19 ------- ------ - -= OCCUPANT 21622 Surveyor Cir 708C Huntington Beach;CA 92646 F j - :s r�. - �a POSEIDON w S�1 r1f� 11-17-03i_ '' y_ ass a rV'S o S^^•d ".' 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 15072 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#'IA► 21851 Newland St T ie 21851 Newland St# Zms Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 HuntiagE(5n Beach,CA 92646 11415072 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT . OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St zz9 21851 Newland St:#` zA o. 21851 Newland St#. 7Fi i Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114 150 72 11415072 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#:zti z 21851 Newland St# 2� 21851 Newland St# zap Huntington Beach,CA'92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUTANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#'2-16 21851 Newland St#.Zq 21851 Newland St#. 7AI Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#:.zg$ 21851 Newland St#:zqq 21851 Newland St 9- 3v Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington B gt. .each, CA 92646 . 114 150'72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#•3o1 21851 Newland St .302- 21851 Newland St# 3s3 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St# so4 21851 Newland St#3 ew 2185I Newland St* 30 c. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 ..114 150 72 114 150 72- 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St iri:3o-) 21851 Newland St? 21951 Newland St Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 11415072 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#-No 21851 Newland St#,311 2 1 a 5 1 Newland St 31 Z Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#a13 21851 Newland St#.31 14 21851 Newland St ?7�S Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 POSEIDON Z r�mgms M- > i n. 1 1-1 7-03 wls1a8-mipj"-mQms'8L'9 JO Cl, 5iW 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#266 21851 Newland St#267 21851 Newland St#268 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 00269 21851 Newland St#270_ 21851 Newland St#271 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 . Huntington Beach,CA 92646. 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21831 Newland St#272 21851 Newland St 10273 21851 Newland St#274 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114150 72 114150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#275 21851 Newland St#276 21851 Newland St#277 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 4278 21851 Newland St 441279 21851 Newland St#280 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114.150 7.2 114150.72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 0281 21851 Newland St 10,282 21851 Newland St#283 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114150 72 -114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 4284 21851 Newland St 4285 21851 Newland St#286 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 11'4114,73 114 f59.7\ OCCUPANT *No Site . ess* *No Site Aess* 21951 Newland St#287 *No. site Beach,CA 92646 114150 75 OCCUPANT 114 79 I4 80 21621 Magnolia St *No Site l ess* 1 Site s* Huntington Beach,CA 114 81 114 150 82 * OCCUPANT 1141 3 *No Site ess 21752'ewland,St *No Site gess* Huntington Beach,CA 92646 POSEIDON j °'100xl_ 11-17-03 'wisA oqW Jai ` S ,, . wi i i 1 �� pIF'�Vi� (9)A 114.150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#236 21851 Newland St#237 21851 Newland St#238 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851.Newland St 4239 21851 Newland St#240 21851 Newland St#241 Huntington Beach;CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,-CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21831 Newland St#242 21851 Newland St 9243 21851 Newland St 9244 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 11415072 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPAjti T 21851 Newland St#245 21851 Newland St#246 21851 Newland St#247 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#248 21851 Newland St#249 21851 Newland St#250 Huntington Beach,.CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St M51 21851 Newland St#02 21851 Newland St#253 Huntingtoti Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 " 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21951 Newland St 4254 21851 Newland St 4255 21851 Newland St C56 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 . . . 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT - OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St.#257 21951 Newland St#258 21951.Newland St#09 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huatin8ton Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#260 21851 Newland St#261 21851 Newland St 462 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 4263 21851 Newland St 9264 21851 Newland St 4265 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 ' - a POSEIDON , C �E� 11-17-03 w� W10` s— laMal sla, ; yp ► } 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St;W6 21851 Newland St L207 21851 Newland St#208 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 15072 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCL NT 21851 Newland St 209 21851 Newland St T210 2185I;Newlaad St 11 . Huntington Beach; CA`92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 . Huntington Beach,CA.92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT - OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#212 21851 Newland St 13 21851 Newland St#214 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150.72 114 15472 114 150 72, OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#215 21851 Newland St 12,216 21851 Newland St 4#217 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 9218 21831 Newland St#219 21851 Newland St#220 Huntington Beach,CA 9264b Huntington Beach,CA 9264b :E i gton Beach,CA 92646 . 114150 72 114 150 72 114150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 0221 21851 Newland St#222 21851 Newland St#223 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21831 Newland St#224' 21851 Newland St#225 21851 Newland St=6 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 _ Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huffiington Beach,CA 92646 . 114150 72 114.150 72 114150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#227 21851 Newland St#228 21851 Newland St#229 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 130 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#230 21851 Newland St#2 31 21851 Newland St 0�2 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21831 Newland St 0233 21851 Newland St#234 21851 Newland St#235 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 POSEIDON �091:5 A aleldwa3 as0 11-17-03 wlsioat5 paaj�y000w,�t�, ®MSIA TA 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT " 21851 Newland St#176 21851 Newland St-0177 21851 Newland St#178 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21831 Newland St T179 21851 Newland St�180 2185 Newland St#181 . 1 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,.CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646. 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St.#182 21851 Newland St#183 21851 Newland St#184 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114360 72 114 15(.,72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St"183 21851 Newland St#186 21851 Newland St#187 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 7.2 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#188 21851 Newland St#189 21851-Newland St 9190 Huntington.Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA.12646 : Mnmtington Beach,CA 92646 " 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#191 21851 Newland St#192 21851 Newland St#193 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21831 Newland St#194 21951 Newland St 9195 21851 Newland St#196 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beacb,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 . 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#197 21851 Newland St#198 21851 Newland'St#199 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114150 72- 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 0200 21851 Newland St#201 21851 Newland St#202 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Htmtington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114150 72 114150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21831 Newland St#203 21851 Newland St#204 21851 Newland St 0205 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 @091:5 J0l 61e)dwal BSn POSEIDON a� Al W%P �an►. .l an�auas ae� 11-17-03 '^'ls�aau��.,pa '.0.W r '. wla `-q aase� sjagej ssgjppV. . @AMA M>t rm 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#146 21851 Newland St#147 21851 Newland St#148 Hi=ington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Hunting-ma Beach, CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUP A"T 218M Newland St#149 21851 Newland St#150 21851 Newland St#151 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 . Huntington Beach,CA 92646' 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#152 21851-Newland St#153 21851 Newland St#154 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150.72 114 150 72- OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 0155 21951 Newland St#136 21851 Newland St#157 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#158 .21851 Newland St#159 21851 Newland St#160 Huntington Beach,.CA 92646: Huntington Beach,.CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#161 21851 Newland St#162 21851 Newland St#163 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 11415071 114150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#164 21851 Newland St 9165 21851 Newland St#166 Bi ntington Beach,CA 92646 _ Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#167 . 21851 Newland St#168 21851 Newland St#169. Huazington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT. 21851 Newland St#170 21851 Newland St 1#171. 21851 Newland St#172 Hu=ington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 . 11415072 114 156 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21951 Newland St 4173 21851 Newland St#174 21851 Newland St#175 Hunntngton Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 n09I5 a0j alejdwal aSf POSEIDON > >_17_M 'wlslaa4s Paaj 4100 USAT— WI W.IN", gasp, s age.1 ssaippy• ®Au3Av, � =� 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 } OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 70116 21851 Newland St#117 21851 Newland St#1 IS Huntingtoa Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCLTPA.N . .21831 Newland St 14119 21.851.Newland St#120 21851,Newland St#121. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 ..' Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#122 21851 Newland St#123 21851 Newland St#124 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 11415(172 114 150 72' OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCC'UPAN� 21851 Newland St#125 21851 Newland St#126 21851 Newland St#127 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 9128 21851 Newland St#129 21851 Newland St 9130 Auntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#131 21851 Newland St#132 21851 Newland St#133 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 .11415072 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 0134 21851 Newland St#135 21851 Newland St#136 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114.150 72 114.1.50 72 114 150 72 . . OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#137. 21851 Newland St#138 21851 Newland St#139 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT . OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#140 21851 Newland St 0141 21851 Newland St#142 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 HuntingtonBeach,CA 92646 114150 72 114150 72 114150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#143 21851 Newland St#144 21851 Newland St#145 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 ®091s a0j aiejdwaj ash POSEIDON - ,- -- -- i -»-os wlslaaq'Raa�%%OL45 t. ...00v.`�E'Fp� t-L 1. ------ - ------ %+.� Smooth Feed SheetsT"" rioazasoa Use template for 51600 909Z6 d0`qmg=38uuunH 9b9Z6 Y0 V"S uo3s=unH 9b9Z6 V0`g S v038ul3uriH STI#3S PuQiMON I58IZ VIT#;S PEMMO I I58IZ £ti#;S PuW"x T58TZ . .Lt�T6'dtIDDO .Lt��'dt1000 iwaC10o0 ZL OSI tFIl ZL OSI viI ZL OSI bTT 9b9Z6 d0` zOR u038u.UmH 9b9Z6 Y.0 v8a%II0*T.=H 9b9Z6 Y0` IOR u035u4 T►H Zit#IS Puts I98IZ I II fur;S Puy"M IS8IZ OT I#is PUTIMM I58TZ 1wdMD0 1Nddi1000 ,IWJMD0 ZL OSI 1'II ZL OSI fit I ZL OSI KT 9b9Z6 d0`g�aS uo38u=nH 9b9Z6 V0 N"Dil uo�'am�mH 9b9Z6 d0`wag UO3BMMH 601#;S PURM N ISSTZ 80I#is PuaI^"is I98IZ LOW IS PugAOX T58IZ Mvdtl'a00 1waw:)Q IWa[1000 ZL OSI til ZL OSI till .:ZL OSI$,IT 9b9Z6 YD Vwg QOVIIquiijj 9b9Z6 YD N=9 UO*X.=H 9b9Z6 Y:)`g "a II038ugMH 901#3S POI"A I58IZ SOT#IS MIMOR I58IZ VOT#IS PUIbat,%T IS8IZ .LAIKdtL700 1.IZddMD0 1"ai1000 ZL OSI viI ZL OSI vil ZL OSI bil 9b9Z6 b0` mil Qozgarn:PH 9b97,6 V0`gMfI u038uqunH 9b9Z6 YD"*EL U033ugBnH £OI#;S PuIMax I881Z ZOI#4S PUTIMON 199IZ I01#IS PII8IAW11 I58IZ .LI�I6'dl1300 1xvi 1000 1wdl1000 - . ZL OSI *II ZL OSI t ll ZL OSl MI 9b9Z6 Y0"S uotBm�nH 9b9Z6 Y3.`4oNS MORPH 9b9Z6 Y0` *R ao*3unH OOT#;S PUTIbag IS8IZ 6%3S PEMImM I99IZ 86#;S Puel"M I58IZ 1"d D0 1"df1000 .L"df1000 ZL OSI bi T ZL OSI bi I ZL OSI bI T 9b9Z6 V:)` ff u04tununH 9b9Z6 VD` rail uo3Eu=nH 9b9Z6 d0`gmS uOZr=unH. L6#;S Pue[MaK I58IZ 96#;S PUVIMals I58IZ 56#;S P'm1m s I98IZ I&V&WDO ZwaA000. J"df1000 ZL OSI bT I ZL'6SI bT I ZL OST VII 9b9Z6 d0 VOM u03gupunH 91,9Z6 b0`gouag uo38u=ng 9b9Z6Y0`t{080g U00allunH b6#;S PmMax I58IZ E6#;S PURMals I58IZ Z6#;S P"IWM IS8IZ 111 anD00 . ,LAI JM00 Jxdl1000 ZL OSI i"II ZL OSI bTi ZL OST ViI 9b9Z6 d3`g0wg:uo39ugm1H 91,9Z6 V0 t[oQaS uojRrq=H 9b9Z6:Y0`q=Qi1 uo38u!=H y vQ Ma T i.6 ;S P. I tL L 58 I Z : OW IS PPEtMaR I SS I Z 68#.;S PMA"M.I58IZ LtzvCM1000 1.9VE1000 dl10�0 ZL OSI VI -ZL 091 bII ZL 051 bII 91,9Z6 d0 VNE cos3u=anH 9b9Z6 YD `gosag uo38ui mH 9b9Z6 d0`q=jj uo38ur3nnH 8817ur3S PUBIM A IS8IZ L87"r;S PuzIMaH IS8IZ 98#;S PtM1&Qll IS8IZ J"(=DO Jxvdl1000 IRYC 11000 ZL OSI tbi I ZL 051 bl I ZL OSI VI I \\ y-�rrIre�/ iZ �T,Gc _ ( 7K Gv /'\ R i - 1d'd"ress� �els - aserOTM 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21831 Newland St#56 21851 Newland St 4157 21851 Newland St#58 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 --- -" -- - 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#59 21851 Newland St#60 21851 Newland St li61 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,"CA 92646 Huntia�toa Beach;.CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#62 21851 Newland St#63 21851 Newland St 964 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPA114 21851 Newland St#65 21851 Newland St#66 21851 Newland St 967 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#68 21851 Newland St#69 21851 Newland St#70 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 " 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#71 21851 Newland St#72 21851 Newland St#73 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#74 21851 Newland St#75 21851 Newland St#76 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beads,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#77 . 21851 Newland St#78 21851 Newland St#79 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21831 Newland St 00 21851 Newland St#81 21851 Newland St M Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT - 21851 Newland St 083 21851 Newland St#84 21851 Newland St 085 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 POSEIDON a -1as.- sap °® � 114 150 72 114 15072 114 15072 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#26 21851 Newland St#27 21851 Newland St 428 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntiagtda Beach, CA 92646 114 150 72 114. 150 72 114.150.72 OCCUPANT ... OCCUPANT OCC UPANL T 21851.Newlaud St O29 .21851 Newland St 430 2I851 Newland St#31 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 - Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#32 21851 Newland St 0033 21851 Newland St#34 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 7f' OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#35 21851 Newland St 936 21851 Newland St#37 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#38 21851 Newland St 439 21851 Newland St#40 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington,Beach,CA 92646.. 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#41 21851 Newland St#42 21851 Newland St 943 Huntington.Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 444 21851 Newland St 445 21851 Newland St#46 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 _ Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 11415072. 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#47 21851 Newland St#48 2185I Newland St#49 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntingtoa Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 050 21851 Newland St 451 21851 Newland&#52 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland WOOD 21951 Newland St#54 21851 Newland St#5 5 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach_;CA 92646 POSEIDON 11-17-03 L c�9911[` A»J IIIAAIII��.� '..1is J:i.� v a a'~I'J wib6y e�aas ' sj� rs'..y�S � d' 114 15W9 114--IkO 63 114 M 5 *No Site Address* *No Sit�Qddress* "No Site Address* -- -- -- - - - 114,�50 64 114 150 72 11415072 72 OCCUPANT*lVo_Sit Address* 11 OCCUPANT C Newlan 21851 Newland St.,� 2185 d Si#Z Huntington Beach, CA 92646.::: Huntington Beach CA 92646 . 114150 72 114150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#3 21851 Newland St#4 21851 Newland St 105 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114150 72 114 150 72' OCCUPANT OCC-TA ANT OCCLTPANTT 21851 Newland St 46 21851 Newland St#7 21851 Newland St#8 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#9 21851 Newland St#9 21851 Newland St#10 Euntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#11 21851 Newland St 412 21851 Newland St#13 &ntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 11415072 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St 0214 21851 Newland St 415 21851 Newland St 1016 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#17 21851 Newland St_418 21851 Newland St#19 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#20 21851 Newland St"21 21851 Newland St 12022 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114 150 72 114 150 72 114 150 72 .00CUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21851 Newland St#23 21851 Newland St#24 21851 Newland St#25 -Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 ���;!,�{��y j���y��p� POSEIDON- rhnYIPSY.Nei�1I1ti�9f mfi5xin —�7—n `u,, {� ✓ e Fait: c�utrc "�IiCCI�.... . . -J fi p`tl,.^ ..,�, i�• �-y Wl r ai tl bv�o v l Z �N i7:A!rJ��j. :r� YrjC0.Q tam p-[�Le.`E� >7161Li RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #22 A 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #1 21752 Pacific Coast Highway "3 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT . 21752 Pacific Coast Highway. #4 21752 Pacific Coast Highway 45 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #6 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #7 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #9 21752 Pacific Coast Highway 7#11 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 RESIDENT - RESIDENT RESIDENT 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #16 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #18 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #19 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 . i RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #20 21752 Pacific Coast Highway 421 :21752 Pacific Coast Highway #22 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA- 92646 j Mr.John S. Mr.Rick Sine Mr.Elmer Smith 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #4 A 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #13 A - 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #17 A Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Roland&Judy Stoeker _ W.William Hawkins' Mr.John Leeman 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #13 21752 Pacific Coast Hwy.. 21752 Pacific Coast Hwy #8 A Huntington Beach,CA. 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 192646 Huntington Beach,CA .92640 Ms.Judy Sturgeon 21752 Pacific Coast Hwy . Huntington Beach,CA 92646 POSEIDON 11-17-03 CS. 9*��"' JI=1�'�9 91 ��il'��eJ��Fy;'' �'•��I;:. ,ft����. fir Let -LUt t, Ms.Shawaa Beardslee. Cabrillo Mobile Home Park 21752,Pacific Coast Highway 3 A Huntington Beach,CA 92646 M Mr. s Carol Downey Roa&Dina Yokom 21752 Pacific Coast Highway 315 A Cabrillo.Mobile Home Park Homeowners y Association .Huntington Beach,CA 92646 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #2 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Mr.&Mrs.Jeff Ackley Colleen Apgae Ms.Mary To Baretich 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #10 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #15 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #23 A Huntington Beach,CA 94646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 i Ms.Lynn Cibres Cory Davis Lester Elder 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #17 - 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #12 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #20 A Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Ms.Kathleen Havens Mr.Dave Lee. Mr..Frank.Marshall 21752.Pacific Coast Highway #14 A , 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #10 A 21752.Paci&Coast Highway `#8 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Taylor&Dan McGinnis Mr. John McGregor. RESIDENT 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #14 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #6 A _-_21752 Pacific Coast Highway #1 A Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 94646 $untington Beach,CA 92646 RESIDENT - RESIDENT RESIDENT 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #TA 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #5 A 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #7 A Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646" Huntington Beach,CA 92646 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #9 A 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #11 A 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #16 A Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #18 A 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #19 A 21752 Pacific Coast Highway #21 A Huntington Beach,CA 92646 . Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 POSEIDON 11-17-03 O 'o� mot'y Wl P aas Slas� y 114 150 28 - OCCUPANT 114 1`3 44 114 13�6 21621 Magnolia Ave *No Site Address* *No Site Address* Huntington Beach,CA - - 114 150 50 114 170.41 OCCUPANT "No Site Ad�* 21643 Pacific Coast Hwy 114 Z1_550 51 *No Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Site A dress* , 114 150 53 (»J 114 0 53 114 150 53 OCCUP`� OC ' OCCUPANT 2I 752 1 A Pa ast Hwy 21752 2A Pac Coast Hwy 21752 3A Pacific Coast Hwy Huntington Beach,CA 921 Huntington Beach, 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 114 OCCUP 53 �, OC 11415053 ,� OC 50 53 217524. Pac oast Hwy 21752opl' �ific Coast Hwy 21752 6A Pa ' c Coast Hwy Huntington Beach, 9?,�646 Huntington BeacSA 92646 Huntington Beac A 92646 114150 53 b,,;p 114150 53 114 0 53 ybr� OC OCCUPANT OCCLTP 21752 7A Pa oast-Hwy 21752 8A Pacific Coast Hwy 21752 9A P Coast Hwy Huntington Beach, 646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, A 92646 114 150 53 114150 53 114 150 53 OCCUPANT OC OCCUPANT 21752 10A Pacific Coast Hwy 21752 11A ' is Coast Hwy 2I752 12A Pacific Coast Hwy Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114150 53 114 150 53 114 150 53 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 2173213A Pacific Coast Hwy 2175214A Pacific Coast Hwy. 21752 15A Pacific Coast Hwy Smtington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 114,150 53 1141.50 53 114 50 53 �� OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OC 21752 16A Pacific Coast Hwy 21752.17A Pacific Coast Hwy 21752 1 SA P Coast Hwy Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,C 4fi 114 150 53 b 114 150 53 114 150 53 +p OCC y OCCUPANT OC 2175219APa '" Coast 21752 20APacific Coast Hwy 21752 219 ' c Coast Hwy Huntington Beach, 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Be A 92646 114 0 53 114 150 53 114 150 53 OCCUP OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 21752 22A Pacific Hwy 21752 23A Pacific Coast Hwy 21752 24A Pacific Coast Hwy Huntington Beach,CA 46 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 POSEIDON si wl t 31 32 1 121 21 149 121 22 8 121 23 Arthur Frances M Brimlow N Nasre ''�;� Nabs acre 652 E Culve a,6—v. 216321 eoalan-d St 21632 Newland St Orange, CA 9286 Huntington BeachKCCA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 - - - ---- .. 34 33 3. 148 12124 148 12126 8001 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL So California Edison D Petersen C- I)IS 2244 walnu ve AVe`Rm.270 21541 Su ry r Cir 21621 Magdo' ve Rosemead,CA 770 Huntington Bead A 92646 Huntington Beach, A 37 38 3! 939 480 02 939 480 03 939 480 04 Robert F&Lloyd A Baron Gary Lee Stuart Cerruti 16611 Carousel Ln 10172 Theseus Dr 21571 Surveyor Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 40 41 -. -- - 41 939 480 05 939 4 W06 9 0 m Douglas&Alison Barsh Haraek S&Genevieve D Brar Hamek "bL L- 21561 Surveyor Cir#2B 19502 Woodlands La 19502 Woodlakds Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beacb,OA.92648 43 44 45 939 008 939 480 09 48010 Raymo oucher Emir reni .'tng 21611 Surveys j 9871 Hot S 21522.Survey_ 2irSntington Beach,C 646 Huntington Beach, 2646 Huatington Bea A 92646 46 47 48 939,480 I1 9391port 12 �u 9 480 13 Ger Schauerer ' Gen 9 drewH iill�'�'i�' 6ao6 w o out 65oocean nt 2I181 Hilis n ewport Beach, 9Zg63 New Beach,CA 63 Huntington Beach, 92646 49 50 51 939 0 14 D1,�, 93 48015 939 48016 SO LLC Dicky Dotd A Yee b� POVPER GP ASSOC Z572 Surveyo PO Box 57 21592 Surveyor Cir.7B Huntington Beach, 2646 _ Huntington B A 92615 Him-dington Beach,CA 92646 52 53 54 939 480 17 93 48018 939 19 Leh Tecklenburg Robert 'Wendt C Carl 21602 Surveyor Cc 8600 Hamflto a 117 Via Dijon Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, 2646 Newport Beach,CA 63 55 56 57 93948025 939 0 26 .93 4490 27 Brett Voirol Kristen. owen Mohan d&Dalia Bastian 8304 A:d vg#101 8304 Atlanta #102 8304 Atlanta ve 4103 Huntington Bea CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beac CA 92646 58 59 6C 939 480 28 9" 0 29 93 030 Linda ey Ric &Lola J True Daniel os 83N AtM a 0,104 $377.Castil� 8304 Atlanta A "ZO1 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington BWh,r A.9 2646 POSEIDON n09_tSr11 � ��� 11-17-03 wisHaa4�Pa?i y}oowS_a.r .a�,y,y!•p.a gJ�'.•'..7�'}''�7 '�^r�,-�• .rid':' W q9 s aase� 1 2 stage s�sa7 of t3yC i 11415028 114 150 34 114 150 36 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ORATWE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL Southern California Edison DISTRICT DISTRIC 2244 Walnut Grove Ave Rm.270 2162I Magnolia Ave 21621 Magnolia Av�ey Rosemead, CA 91770 Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, A 4 - - - 5 6 114150 41 114 150 50 114 15fl,51 Mt iCTE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL STATE OF CALIF DEPT OF PUBLIC STATE OTC AL]F DEFT OF PU-BLIC DISTRIC 21643 Pacific Coast Hwy 21643 Pacific Hwy . 21621 ilMagnolia e: Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beads, A 9Z645 Huntington Beach 7 8 9 114150 53 114 150.5,5 11415059 STATE OF CALIF DEPT OF PUBLIC STATE OF''E DEPT OF PUBLIC MILLS LAND&WATER CO 1025 P St 21643 Pacific Co wy PO Box 7108 Sacramento,CA 95814 Huntington Beach,CA 9;646 Huntington Beach, CA 92615 10 11 12 11415043 114 150 6a 114 150 72. Southern G' rnia Edison ORANC . OUNTY FLOOD CONTROL Marie L Finocchio 2244_Walnut Gro Ave Rm.270 DISTRICT 1041 Fairview Ave 94 Rosemead, CA 91770" 21621 Magnolia A Arcadia, CA 91007 Huntington Beach,CA 13 14 15 114150 73 11415074 1 150 75 M LLS L �:WAATEK CO GRAN COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL NE STMENT GROUP PO Box 7108 DISTRICT 11 Golden St ir300 c� Huntington Bea15 Z 1621 Magnolia Long Beach, CA 9 Huntington Beach;. 1s 17 i8 114150 79 114 150 80 11 50 81 1996 BEACH COAST PROPERTIES LP 1996 BEACH COAST PROPERTIES LP South alifomia Edison C/O Signal MPG Co C/O Signal 0 2244 Walnut ve Ave Rm.270 PO Box 22623 PO Box 22 523 Rosemead, CA 91 Long Beach,CA 90801 Long Beach,CA 90801 _ 19 20 - 21 114150 82 114 15 �83 114 0 84AES HUNTINGTONBEACHLLC Souther rnia Edison Southesa ifomiaEdison 21730 Newland St 2244 Wt Gro ve Rm.270 2244 Walmit Ave Rm.270 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Rosemead.,CA 91770 Rosemead,CA 91 0 — 22 23 24 114160 75 1141 14 21 OS STATE OF CALIFOPMA Southern C 'a Edison So aliforaia Edison 2501 Pullman St 2244 Walnut Gco 4,ve Rm.270 2244 W ut:15%VeA.VeRm.270 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Rosemead,CA 91770 Rosemead,CA 91770 25 26 27 14812115 148 121 16 148 121 17 ORANM,COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 0 COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CITY GTON BEACH DISTRICT DISTRIC 2000 Main St 2162I Magnolia A 21621 Magnolia A Huntington Beach, 92648 Huntington Beach,CA Huntington Beach,CA 28 29 30 148 121 18 148 121 19. 8 121 20 NUBOARD RECYCLINGINC Paul B Saudgren P aadgren 8601 Edison Ave 3722 Highway M 3722 High M Huntington Beach,CA 92W Cabool,MO 65689 Cabool,MO 65 POSEIDON _ $ ail 11-17-03 ..fi�g� 5j� �• t '� /„j �..�' � YxC;Labels Mr.Joe Tumbrello _ iVfr.Robert Moel Nfr. Al Fasano The Gas Company Time Warner Communications Verizon 12631 Monarch St 7441 Chapman Ave. 7352 Slater Ave. Garden Grove,CA 92841 Garden Grove, CA 92840 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Director of Public Works General Manager General Mmager Capistrano Valley Water District El Toro Water District Lagma Beach County Water District 32450 Paseo Adelmto 24251 Los Alisos Blvd 306 Third St . San Juan Capistrano,CA 92693` Lake Forest CA 92630 Laguna Beach,CA 92651 General Manager General Manager General Manager Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District Se T_o WaterDistrict 27500 La Paz Rd. 26111 Antonio Parkway,RSM 18021 East Lincoln St Laguna Niguel,CA 92677-3489 Mission Viejo,CA 92690-0279 Villa Park,CA 92861.6499 District Manager,Orange County General Manager er Southern Califomia Water Co. Mesa Consolidated Water District Orange County Water District 1920.W. Corporate Way 965 Placentia Ave. 10500 Ellis Ave. Anaheim,Ca 92801 Costa Mesa,Ca 92627 Fountain Valley,Ca 92708 General Manager General Manager General Manager South Coast Water District Trabuco Canyon Water District Irvine Ranch Water District 31592 West St 32003 Dove Canyon Dr. 15600 Sand Canyon Ave. Laguna Beach,CA 9265I Trabuco Canyon,_Ca 92679_ Irvine,CA 92619 7000 General Manager General Manager Ga[ry Yamamoto Santiago County Water District Yorba Lands Water District Orange Caty.Dept of Health Services 7431 Santiago Canyon Rd. 4622 Plumosa Dr. ]Xv. of Ddnl&g Water&Emr.Magmt Silverado,CA 92676-0575 Yorba Linda,CA 92686 28 Civic Center-Plaza,Rm.325 ----- - - - Santa Ana,CA 92701 Patricia Temple,Planning Dir. Joey Rocano City of Newport Beach PO Box 373 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach,CA 92663 PHmtiagtoa Beach,GA 92646 _ e(aPl� POSEIDON 11-17-03 wO '1 c PRC Labels St Don Schulz Carole Mintzer Sea&Sage AuduboL Society Surfrider Foundation PO Box 5447 HB/Seal Beach Chapter Conservation Chair, Siena Club 465�T. Christine St Irvine, CA 92616 PO Box 878 Orange, CA 92869.5711 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Josie McKinley - - Poseidon Resources Corp. Orange County Coast Keeper Robert Mayer Corp. 3760 Kilroy Ariport Way. 4 1 Old Newport Blvd., Ste. 103 660 Newport C=er Dr. Suite 260 Newport Beach,CA 92663 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Long.Beach,CA 90806. Dennis Kelly HB Wetlands Conservancy Gordon LaBedz Orange Coast College p0 Box 5903 621 Manila St Costa Mesa,CA 92628 Fairview Huntington Beach,CA 92615 Long Beach,CA 90814 Cost Don May Greg_3dWell Gary Sargent California Earth Corps 8622 Laramie Circle 3363 Topaz Ln 4927 Mmturn Ave. Westminister,CA 92683 Fullerton,CA 92831 Lakewood, CA 90712 George Robertson Jan Vandersloot,U D US Fish&Wildlife Service Orange County Sanitation District 2221 E 16 Street 2730 Laker Avenue West PO Box 8127 Newport Beach,CA 92663 Carlsbad.CA 92008 Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127 Harbor Ridge Estates Seawiad Community Association Irwin Haydock,PhD Maintenance Association C/O Village way Management,Inc. 11570 Aquamarine Cir, GO Nancy Ryan 22 Manchly Fountain Valley,CA 92708 2900 Bristol Street,Bldg.D-104 Irvine, CA 92618 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 Newport Ridge North Comm.Assoc. Mr Sara Bavan Mn Ron Lockmaaa Go Keystone Pacific Management _ Orange CouaLy Flood Control District US Army Corps of Engineers AWL Ilze Lemns 300 X Flower St 911 Wilshire 16845 Von Karmao Ste.200 Santa Ana,CA 92703 Los Angeles,CA 90017 Irvine,CA 92606 _ Mr. Tim Slawson Ms.Lisa Hanf (Ntail Code`CMD2) Mr.Ron Gastellmn. National Marine Fisheries.Services US Environmental Protection Agency Metropolitan Water Dist Of So.Califom 75 Hawthorne St Habi# Conservation:Division .700 N. Alameda St 10'h Flr. San Fmnscisco,CA 94105 501 W.Ocean Blvd.,Ste.4200 Los Angeles,Ca 90012 Long Beach,Ca 90802-4213 Mr. Steve Kim Nit Tim Jocam Mr.Rick Hansen Orange County Health Care Agency Three Valleys Municipal Water Dist. UPPer San Gabriel Valley Environmental Health Division E.Miramar Municipal Water Dist 1021 Eamar Ave. ., 2005 E.Edinger Ave. 11310 E.Valley Blvd Sahta Ana,CA 92705 Claremont,CA 9I711 El Monte,CA 917.31 eid= POSEIDON , ' WN 1 1-1 7-03 Edwin Lowry Vave Sanchez Steve Smith CA EPA/DTSC CA Dept of Conservation SCAQMD 5796 Corporate Ave 5816 Coporate Ave,Suite 200 21865 East Copley Drive Cypress,CA 90630 Cypress,CA 90630 Diamond Bar,CA 91765 OC Harbors,Beaches,and Parks Dept. Gary Reynolds Bob Muir IGCR/CEQA Review OC Vector Control District MWD of So.Calif. 300 N.Flower St 13001 Garden Grove B1 700 N.Alameda St, 10`b floor Santa Ana,CA 92703 Garden Grove,CA 92843 Los Angeles,CA 90012 Chris Crompton Stan Sprague Jack Miller OCPFRD MWDOC OC Health Care Agency 1750 S.Douglas Rd 10500 Ellis Ave 2009 E.Edinger Ave Anaheim,CA 92806 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Mr.Richard B. Bell Mr.Renae M.Hinchey IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT LAGUNA BEACH COUNTY WATER 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue DISTRICT a Irvine,CA 92618 306 ThirlStreet Laguna Beach,CA 92651 POSEIDON S 11-17-03 Karen Evans Tom Luster Donald R. Chadwick USFWS CA Coastal Commission CA Dept. of Fish and Game 6010 Hidden Valley Road 45 Fremont St,#2000 4949 Viewridge Ave Carlsbad,CA 92009 San Francisco,CA 94105-2219 San Diego,CA 92123 Richard Rozzelle Robert Joseph David G Woelfel CA Dept. of Parks and Rec CalTrans SARWQCB 3030 Avenida Del Presidente 3337 Michelson Drive Suite 380 3737 Main Street Suite 500 San Clemente,CA 92672 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Riverside, CA 92501-3348 Stephen L Jenkins Marry Meisler : Jeffrey M Smith CA State Lands Commission MWD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCAG . Div.of Environ.Planning&Mgmt. 700 N.Alameda St. 10'h Floor 818 West Seventh Street, 12''floor 100 Howe Ave Suite 100-South Los Angeles,CA 90012 Los Angeles,CA 90017-3435 Sacramento,CA 95825-8202 Timothy Neely . Jerry Buchanan County of Orange,Planning&Devel. HB City School District PO Box 4048 20451 Craimer Lane 300 N.Flower St,Yd Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Santa Amr,CA 92702-4048 Gary Gorman Richard B Bell - ----- -- ---- PO Box 5903 15600 Sand Canyon Ave.. Huntington Beach,CA 92615 PO Box 5700 Irvine, CA 92619-7000 Mr.Karl Seckel David A Ludwin David Guido MWDOC., OCSD HB Coastal Communities Assoc.: PO Box 20895 10844 Ellis Ave 21241 Cochlea Ln 10500 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley,CA 92708-7018 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Ed Kerins George E&Charlotte Mason Willard Childs 20061 Colgate Cir 21641 Bahama Lane 582 Rancho Santa Fe Road Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Encinitas,CA 92024 Gregg Herr Mr.Gordon Smith Mr.Terry Roberts IRWD HB WETLANDS CONSERVANCY STATE CLEARINGHOUSE PO Box 5700 - 9122 Christine Drive Office of Planning and Research Irvine,CA 92619 - Huntington Beach,CA 92646 . 1400 1&St. Sacramento,CA 95.814. Mr.George Britton ' Mr.Robert Hawkins Mr.Blake Anderson County of Orange LAw OFFICES OF ROBERT C.HAwKINS OCSD Planning&Devel Services Dept. 110 Newport Center Drive,Suite 200 10844 Ellis Avenue 300 N.Flower St.,P Floor Newport Beach,CA 92660 Fountain Valley,CA 92708-7018 Santa Ana,CA 92703-5000 Ms.Laura Simonek Ms.Kathleen Hawkins MWD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HARBOR VIEW KNOLL Comm.ASSOC GO 700 N.Alameda St. 10`h Floor COMMON INTERESTS,INC. Los Angeles,CA 90012 3551 Camino Mira Costa, Suite N San Clemente,CA 92672-3500 POSEIDON ' 11-17-03 FUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST"B" MAILING LABELS—February 4,2003 G:Iabels\Labels\Public Hearing John Ely 41 Huntington ach Girls Softball* 46 AYSO 'on 56 46 22102 Rockport Lane Mike Ericks n Commis ner Cathy White Huntington Beach CA 92646 P.O.Boa 39 3 22041 C 2lina Circle Huntington each,CA 92605-3943 Huntingt in Beach,Ca 92646 HB.Coastal Communities Assoc.' 42 AYSO Regic a 117 46: AYSO gion 55. 46 David Guido John Commis over Duane Hurtado 143 E.Meats Avenue 9468 Cormo ant Cr P.O.Bo 1852 Orange,CA 92865 Fountain V ey,CA 92708 Hunting n Beach,CA 92647 D town Business Association 43 Huntington alley Little League 46 HB Field Hockey* 46 Mr.Ste els Renee A er Manual 200 Main Stree 6 209 Ha�tfor 17782 M tzler Dr. Huntington Beach, 648 Huntington each,CA 92648 Hun" each,CA 92647 Do town Residents Association 44 AYSO on 143 46 HB Pop Warner Football** 46 Ms.Mane rmain Commissi er Anthony DeGiglio Martin S lze 505 Alabama 13976 Street - P.O.Bo 5066 Huntington Beach,CA 648 Westra r CA 92683 Hun. n Beach,CA 92615 Chairperson 45 Fountain alley Youth Baseball*': 46 :.. Robincv Little League 46 Gabrieleao/Tongva Tabal Council AI Letua Sandy be PO Box 693 .14591 Yuc Circle . . 16722 quip St.,#D San Gabriel,CA 91778 Huntin Beach,CA 92647 Hun' n Beach,CA 92649 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians 45 H.B.Jr.All American Football** 46 Seaview 'ttle League 46 Acjachemen Nation Gregg Nutt Brett on 31411 La Matanza Street P.O.BOX 5 20141 M Lane San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675-2625 Huntington ach,CA 92647 H Beach CA 92646 North HB Soccer Club 46 Huntington ach Soccer League* 46 Westmins VMage HOA 47 Press George Mitton Felipe Zapata 5200 Road 18601 New et,#94 _ 18442 Steep e,#3 Westminst CA 92683 Huntington Beach, Huntington ach,CA 92648. South Coast Soccer Club** 46 Ocean View a League 46 Gary Brown 48 1:�L Baron Cathy Van D mum,President CoastlOeeper 6881 Steeplech a Circle,#H 441 Old Newport Blvd.,Ste.103 , Huntington Be ch,CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92663 Co.Family YMCA* 46 South HB Girls ast Pitch Softball** 46 Dori Aa Marie Ensey 7451 Warner A to I 21401 Pinetree L me Huntington Beach,CA 92047 . . Huntington Beac i,CA 92647 POSEIDON 11-17-03 3 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST"B" MAILING LABELS—February 4,2003 G:Labels\Labels\Public Hearing California Coastal Commission 24 Jon M.Archibald 31 S Graham 38 Theresa Henry Westminster School District Mea Area South Coast Area Office 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 5161 Geldin e 200 Oceangate,loth Floor Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Beach, 92649 Long Beach,CA 9280.2-4302 California Coastal Commission 24 Patricia Koch 32 eryle Browuiag 38 South Coast Area Office HB Union High School L)isnct Mea Airs.. 200 Oceangate,loth Floor 10251 Yorktown Avenue 16771 Roos Lane Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, 92649 Robert Joseph 25 CSA,Inc. 33 Hearthside Homes 39 Caltrans District 12 Marshall Krupp,President 6 Executive Circle,Suite 250 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 204 Nata Irvine,CA 92614 Irvine,CA 92612-1699 Newport$each,CA 92660 Director 26 Goldenwest College 34 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 40 Local Solid Waste Enf.Agy. Atta: Fred Owens 5200 Warner Avenue,Ste. 108 O.C.Health Care Agency 15744 Goldenwest St - Huntington Beach,CA 92649 P.O.Box 355 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702 New Growth Coordinator 27 . CC County:.Hatbors,Beach 35 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 40 Huntington Beach Post Office and Parks Dept Evan Henry,President., 6171 Warner Ave. P.O.Box 4048 1812 Port Tiffin Place Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 927024048 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Marc Ecker 28 Huntington Beach Mall 36 Ed DeMeulle,Chairperson 41 Fountain Valley Elem.School Dist Attn:Pat Rogers-Laude SEHBNA 17210 Oak Street 7777 Edinger Ave.#300 9441 ALii Circle Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Dr.Gary Rutherford,Super. 29 CC.Sanitation District 41 HB City Elementary School Dist 10844 Ellis Avenue 20451 Craimer Lane — Fountain Valley CA 92708. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 David Perry. 29 try view Estates HOA 37 Richard Loy 41 HB City Elementary School Dist Ge man 9062 Kahului Drive 20451 Craimer Lane 6742 Shire Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach James Jones 30 HB amptons HOA 37 Ed Blackford,President 41 Ocean View Elementary Keys ton 'fic Prop.Mangmt Inc. AES Huntington Beach,LLC School District 16845 Von venue,Suite 200 21730 Newland Street 17200 Pinehurst Lane Irvine,CA 92606 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92647 POSEIDON 11-17-03 2 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST uBn MAULING LABELS—February 4,2003 G:[abels\IabelAPublic Hearing President 1 Huntington Harbor POA 10 S hnson . 16 H.B.Chamber of Commerce P.O.Box 791 19671 ay Lane 2100 Main Street,Suite 200 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 Huntington Bea 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Betty Jo Woollett 2 William D.Holman 11 Edna httlebury 17 Orange County Assoc.of Realtors PLC Gldn St Mob.Hm.Owners Leag. 25552 La Paz Road 19 Corporate Plaza Drive 11021 Magnolia Blvd. Laguna Hills,CA 92653 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 Garden Grove,CA 92642 President 3 Mr.Tom Zanic 12 Pacific Coast Archaeological 18 Amigos De Bolsa Chica New Urban West . Society,Inc. 16531 Bolsa Chica Street,Suite 312 520 Brogdway Ste. 100 P.O.Box 10926 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Santa Movica,CA 90401 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Atta:Jane Gothold Sunset Beach Community Assoc. 4 Pres.,H.B.Hist.Society 13 Director 19 Pat Thies,President C/O Newland House Museum O.C.Plag.&Dev.Services Dept. PO Box 215 19820 Beach Blvd. P.O.Box 4048 Sunset Beach,CA 90742-0215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 . President 5. Community Services Dept 14 -` : Vicky Wilson 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Chairperson O:G Public Facilities&Res:Dept. PO Box 865 Historical Resources Bd. P.O.Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4848 Julie Vandermost 6 on Aging 15 Planning Din 20 BIA-OC 1706 Oran ve. .City of Costa Mesa 17744 Sky Park Circle,#170 Huntington Bea 92648 -P:O.Box 1200 Irvine CA 92614-4441 Costa Mesa,CA 92628-1200 Richard Spicer. 7 eff Metzel 16 Planning Dir. 21 SCAG _ HOA City of Fountain Valley 818 West 7th,12th Floor _ 19391 arbor Circle 10200 Slater Ave. Los Angeles,CA 90017 Huntington Bea CA 92648 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 E.T.I.Corral 100 8 oe 16 Planning Director 22 Mary Bell Sea City of Westminster 20292 Eastwood Cir. 19382 Surfd e e 8200 Westminster Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, 92648 Westminster,CA 92683 Al Hendricker 9 Maanone 16 Planning Director 23 Environmental Board Chairman Sea A - City of Seal Beach 8452 Grace Circle 19821 Ocea�Beach cle 211 Eight St. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington 92648 Seal Beach,CA 90740 POSEIDON - 11-17-03 NOME OF PUBUC HEARING BEFORE THE CRY(OUNCR OF THE Clay OF HUNTINGTOI N"that - NOTICE IS HER that on Monday, November 17,2003 at 7:00 p.m.in the City Counci Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on.the following planning and'zoning items: 1. APPEAL OF THE 'PLANNING COMMISSION'S ' CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT): Applicant: Poseidon Resources. Corporation Appellant: -Mayor Connie PROOF OF PUBLICATION iBoardman Request: analyze, the potential- environmental impacts associated with the implementation of a proposed 50 million g 106s 1 per day seawater desalination plant.- Location: 21730 Newland(east side,south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner:Ricky Ramos,Associate Planner !. 2.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.02-047COASTAL' STATE OF CALIFORNIA) I DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 'N0. (POSEIDON• SEAWATER .;DESALINATION PLANT):. :. .Applicant:; Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To• construct'a 50 million gallons per day seawater Ss, desalination plant including a 10,120 sq.. ft. ) administration building, a 38,090 sq. -ft. reverse. j osmosis building, a 36,395 sq. ft. product water. COUNTY OF ORANGE storage tank, and miscellaneous accessory, structures on an 11 acre lease area.The proposed: improvements include up to four miles of water, I am a Citizen of the United States and a transm of which will'be withiission lines i Huntington Beach, one mile n the,Coastal Zone,to connect. to an existing regional transmission system in' resident of the County aforesaid; I am Costa Mesa. The project also includes perimeter landscaping and fencing along Newland Street and; over the age of eighteen years and not a Edison Avenue.Edison Avenue) Newland (east � � side, south of Edison Avenue) Project Planner: Ri party to or interested in the below entitled cky Ramos;Associate Planner 3.ZONING MAP AMENDMENT N0.00-02-(L'OWE'S' HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE):Applicant:Paul matter. 1 am a principal clerk of the ; Rothenberg, Canyon Consulting. Request: ZMA: To 1 amend the zoning on the 17.4 acre former Rancho HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, View School and existing Ocean View School District, Bus Maintenance Facility from Public-Semipublic a newspaper of general circulation to General Commercial. Location: Bounded by I Warner.Avenue on .the south, B-Street on the printed and published in the City of 'west, ubi Drive on the north, and multi- housing.units unitss to located just west of Minoru Lane on the east. Project Planner: Jane James, Senior Huntington Beach, County of Orange, I Planner - NOTICE ISp HEREBY GIVEN that Environmental State of California, and that attached j Impact Report No. 00-02 for Item No. 2 was processed and completed in accordance with the Notice Is a true and complete co as California Environmental Quality Act. It was': P copy determined that Item No.2 would have a significant was printed and published in the I environmental effect and, therefore;.environmental impact report is warranted. The environmental impact report is on file at the City Huntington Beach Issue of said of•Huntington-Beach Planning Department, '2000 newspaper to wit the Issue(s) of: Main Street, and is.available for public inspection and comment by. contacting the Planning IDepartment,or by telephoning(714)536-5271. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,that Item No. 2 is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal; 1 Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 filed on'January 22, 2002, in conjunction, with the above request. .NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff November 6, 2003 report,public hearing, City Council discussion and action. The City Council's action on dtem No. 2 may be appealed to the Coastal Commission within ten (10).working days from the date of receipt of the notice'of final City action by the-Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of.the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section, 13110 of the California Code of Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of: the•California Administrative Code is applicable. I declare� under penalty of perjury, that The Coastal Commission address South Coast f . Area Office,200 Oceangate,loth Floor,Long Beach,' CA 90802-4302,phone number:(310)570-5071. the foregoing is true and correct. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 3 is, covered by Environmental Impact Report No.00-01,. certified as adequate and complete in accordance .with'.CEQA .requirements by the, Planning -Commission on October 28,2003. Executed on November 6 , 2003 j'ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request,is on at Costa Mesa, California. file in.the City Clerk's Office, 48, Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be `available-to interested parties at the.City Clerk's, office on Thursday November 13,2003. r ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend l i said hearing and express opinions 'or submit evidence for or against,the application as outlined Signature above. If.you challenge the City Council's action' in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written ,correspondence delivered to the City at, or-prior Ito, the public'hearing. If there are any further .questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the .above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Connie BrockWdy,City Clerk i City of Huntington Beach _. 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor t Huntington Beach,' California 92648 (714)536-5227 Published Huntington Beach Independent - November 0q,2003 111-88" Council/Agency Meeting-Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved•- Denied City Cle 's ature Council Meeting Date: November 17, 2003 Department,ID--Number: PL03-30 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS w z g SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator 9-0 --r PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning r D SUBJECT: CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) - APPEAfn Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Mayor Boardman of the Planning Commission's certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 00-02. This application represents a request by Poseidon Resources Corporation to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a request to construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant 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. The Planning Commission certified the EIR and staff is recommending the City Council also certify the EIR because it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with 'the project and identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. Mayor Boardman appealed the Planning Commission's action on the basis that the EIR does not adequately analyze the project's impacts relative to ocean water quality, marine biology, growth inducement, and the adjacent wetland. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution Noa003- 9a.-3, (Attachment No. 1)." REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny certification of EIR No. 00-02." (Appellant's Request) 2. "Continue the appeal of EIR No. 00-02 and direct staff accordingly." Planning Commission Actions: Planning Commission Action on May 27, 2003: THE MOTION MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 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 DAVIS, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 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 CHLORIDE CONTENTS: AYES: DAVIS, STANTON, SHOMAKER NOES: KOKAL, DINGWALL, RAY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION FAILED PL03-30 -2- 10/31/2003 8:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 THE MOTION MADE BY DINGWALL TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00- 02 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JULY 8, 2003 WITH ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON JULY 8, 2003. WITH NO SECOND, MOTION FAILED THE MOTION MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY RAY, TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JULY 8, 2003 WITH ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON JULY 8, 2003. AYES: KOKAL, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: DAVIS, STANTON, SHOMAKER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION FAILED THE MOTION MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY RAY, TO CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TO JULY 8, 2003 WITH ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF RESPONSE ON JULY 8, 2003 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: STANTON, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: DAVIS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on July 8, 2003: THE MOTION 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, MOTION FAILED THE MOTION MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS BY APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. 1581 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, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, SCANDURA, STANTON, SHOMAKER NOES: KOKAL, DINGWALL, RAY ABSENT: NONE PL03-30 -3- 10/31/2003 8:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on July 22, 2003: THE MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO RECONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 AT THE AUGUST 12, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, KOKAL, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: SCANDURA, STANTON, SHOMAKER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED THE 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, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, SCANDURA, STANTON, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED THE 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 Planning Commission Action on August 12, 2003: THE MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY KOKAL, TO INCORPORATE AND CONSIDER ALL PROJECT-RELATED INFORMATION OR TESTIMONY RECEIVED TO DATE PL03-30 4- 10/31/2003 8:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 (MAY 27, JUNE 3, JULY 8, JULY 22, AND AUGUST 12, 2003) PRIOR TO VOTING ON CERTIFICATION OF EIR 00-02, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, SCANDURA, STANTON, KOKAL, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, RAY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED 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, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DAVIS, SCANDURA, STANTON, SHOMAKER NOES: KOKAL, DINGWALL, RAY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: AApOicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 Location: 21730 Newland Street (East side of Newland, south of Edison Ave) Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of 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 includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. The project also proposes perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. The EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in the EIR include: 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. All other issues, including Population and Housing, Transportation/Traffic, Biological Resources, Mineral Resources, Cultural Resources, Recreation, and Agricultural Resources were determined to result in no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts. These issue areas were fully PL03-30 -5- 10/31/2003 8:19 AM 1 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 evaluated in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix A to the EIR document. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from project implementation are also provided. An analysis of the proposed development of the property is presented in a companion report that will be considered by the City Council after action on the EIR. The companion report reviews applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development No. 02- 05. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: At the May 27, 2003 Planning Commission hearing staff summarized the findings of the EIR. 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 discussed the different jurisdictions involved in the review and regulation of various aspects of the project. Staff and RBF Consulting were asked to respond to a variety of questions, including the EIR inadequacies cited by California Earth Corps and how the EIR addresses growth-inducing impacts. The Planning Commission continued the EIR to the June 3, 2003 meeting and directed staff to respond to a variety of issues. At the June 3, 2003 hearing, staff and RBF Consulting responded to several primary issues raised at the last meeting including: ■ an analysis of the pipeline connection between AES and the proposed desalination plant; ■ CEQA requirements for baseline thresholds; ■ land use analysis; ■ effects of trace compounds in discharge water; ■ CEQA review for the AES generating station; and ■ California Earth Corps 14 areas of concern with the EIR (see Attachment No. 5, June 3, 2003 Staff Report Updates). At the 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. Discussion occurred regarding a variety of topics including, among others, Irvine Ranch Water District's (IRWD) concerns about the project, the hydrodynamic modeling, and jurisdictional limits. The Planning Commission continued the EIR to the July 8, 2003 meeting with the public hearing closed and directed staff to respond to a variety of issues. PL03-30 -6- 10/31/2003 8:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 At the July 8, 2003 meeting staff and RBF Consulting responded to issues identified by the Planning Commission at the last meeting including: ■ AES heat treatment/reverse flow process; ■ growth inducement (end users); ■ AES entrainment/impingement study; ■ NPDES review of AES discharge; ■ leakage from AES discharge vault; ■ growth inducement discussion in May 8, 2003 Coastal Commission letter; ■ product water compatibility with IRWD; • Surfrider National Foundation May 27, 2003 letter; ■ impacts of project on future restored adjacent wetland; ■ archaeological resources within the project boundary; and • growth inducement in regards to Santa Margarita Water District and the Rancho Mission Viejo, Saddle Creek, Saddle Crest, and Saddleback Meadow developments. Discussion ensued regarding a variety of subjects including, among others, CEQA requirements and lead agency responsibilities, the heat treatment process, entrainment, impingement, bacteria levels in the ocean, and the dynamics of the ocean. The Planning Commission then certified the EIR. At the July 22, 2003 meeting Commissioner Davis requested that the EIR be reconsidered due to inaccurate information provided by the applicant regarding salinity levels and historic AES flows. Discussion ensued regarding the appropriateness of a reconsideration, what issues are to be discussed during the reconsideration, and the impacts to the appeal already filed to the City Council. The Planning Commission voted to reconsider the EIR at the August 12, 2003 meeting and directed staff as follows: ■ contract an independent consultant to verify salinity levels and dilution models proposed in the EIR; ■ provide general salinity information on the Southern California bight and how it affects Huntington Beach and area sea organisms; ■ contract an independent consultant to verify modeling related to ocean intake that is discharged by the Orange County Sanitation District; and ■ verify AES pump figures At the August 12, 2003 meeting staff presented a response to the items requested by the Planning Commission. Twelve individuals spoke at the hearing, six of whom were opposed citing similar reasons noted at prior hearings. In addition to the applicant's development team, four other individuals spoke in favor pointing to the need for a reliable source of water, the current use of desalination in other places, and the studies that have been done to support the conclusions of the environmental review. After some discussion, the Planning Commission voted to certify the EIR. Those who voted against certification cited concerns PL03-30 -7- 10/31/2003 8:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 about inadequate analysis of entrainment, impingement, growth inducement, bacterial concentration, and alternatives. C. APPEAL: On August 13, 2003, Mayor Boardman filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR. The basis for the appeal (Attachment No. 4) is the EIR's inadequate analysis of the project's impacts relative to ocean water quality, marine biology, growth inducement, and the adjacent wetland. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, all potentially adverse impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, with the exception of short-term construction related emissions which cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures. The Findings of Fact, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), review each of the impact areas and list the recommended mitigation measures, which are also included in the CEQA mitigation monitoring program (see companion report for Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit). Staff believes that the EIR is adequate and complies with the requirements of CEQA. The Planning Commission staff reports from May 27, June 3, July 8, and August 12, 2003 (Attachment No. 5) provide a detailed review of the EIR, its history and the various issues raised through the Planning Commission public hearing process. The analysis below focuses on the four issues listed in the appeal letter. Ocean Water Quality and Marine Bioloav The project's ocean water quality and marine biology impacts are discussed in Section 4.3, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the EIR. The analysis was based on the following technical studies included in the EIR Technical Appendices, among other information: Hydrodynamic modeling of both source water and receiving water by Dr. Scott Jenkins Consulting; Watershed Sanitary Survey Report by Archibald and Wallberg Consultants; and Marine Biology Analysis by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. The watershed sanitary survey was conducted to identify all potential sources of contaminants to the desalination plant source water. The hydrodynamic modeling was then performed to determine if stormwater and wastewater are possible constituents of the source water at the AES generating station intake. The modeling considered discharges from the Santa Ana River, Talbert Marsh, Orange County Sanitation District, and the AES generating station outfall. The hydrodynamic modeling looked at a worst-case scenario where a series PL03-30 -8- 10/31/2003 8:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 of unlikely events would all occur simultaneously (i.e. extreme storm event, AES facility pumping the maximum amount of cooling water, etc.). The analysis concluded that impacts to the source water are not anticipated to be significant. A second part to the hydrodynamic modeling looked at the mixing and dilution of the concentrated seawater discharge from the desalination plant after it is combined with the AES cooling water and discharged back into the ocean. The modeling again looked at the worst-case scenario which assumes that the AES facility has only two circulating pumps operating (one generating unit running) and that no additional mixing from natural causes such as wind or wave action would occur. The analysis concludes that a maximum of 15.6 acres of ocean floor (benthic area) and 18.3 acres of the water around the discharge (pelagic area) are expected to be exposed to water with a salinity 10 percent higher than the ambient seawater during the worst case scenario. This worst-case scenario has less than a one percent chance of occurring. The model also looked at average conditions with normal power plant operations (four circulating pumps associated with two AES generating units), typical environmental conditions, and desalination plant production of 50 mgd. During this condition, a maximum of 6.5 acres of benthic area (ocean floor) and 8.3 acres of pelagic area (open seas or oceans) are expected to be exposed to water with a salinity 10 percent higher than ambient water. Average case conditions are expected to occur 50 percent of the time the desalination plant is operating. The EIR concludes that the pelagic and benthic areas exposed to a 10 percent increase in salinity as a result of the desalination plant even during the worst-case are relatively small. The EIR builds on the results of the receiving waters modeling by considering the results of the marine biology analysis conducted by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. The analysis notes that a 10 percent anomaly is within the natural variability of seawater salinity and would be tolerated by most fish and planktonic species. Additionally, mobile species have the ability to avoid areas they cannot tolerate. The analysis also states that benthic (ocean floor) species will have similar salinity tolerances. However, during average conditions the salinity of the water at the ocean floor immediately around the discharge will be higher than local normal oceanic variation. This will likely lead to a replacement of the existing benthic community with estuarine species that can tolerate increased salinity and that will be functionally similar to the existing community. At the request of the Planning Commission, the hydrodynamic modeling was reviewed and verified by Dr. Stanley Grant (see Attachment No. 5, August 12, 2003 Planning Commission Report). In addition, more information on elevated salinity impacts on marine life in the Southern California bight was provided. Staff believes that the EIR and Response to Comments as well as the model verification and additional information provided as a result of the Planning Commission review thoroughly and accurately disclose the potential impacts to ocean water quality and marine biology. PL03-30 .9- 10/31/2003 8:19 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 Growth Inducement The project's growth inducing impacts are discussed in Section 5.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action, of the EIR. The Poseidon EIR has properly analyzed the project's potential growth-inducing impacts by focusing on the relationship between the amount of the new supply that would be available to end users and the water supply demand projections for Orange County and the surrounding area. Based on projections provided by the Department of Water Resources, the EIR concluded (on page 5-6) that it is likely that much of the desalinated water supply produced by this project will be allocated to replace existing imported water supplies that are lost to increased environmental restrictions and water supply regulations. Still, the EIR also provided an analysis (on page 5-5) that assumed all of the water produced by the desalination plant would be allocated by local water agencies as supplemental supply to support new growth. The calculations in the EIR show that the total amount of water projected to be produced by the desalination plant would equal less than one percent of the total supply for the South Coast Region and less than eight percent of the supply for Orange County. Consequently, the project results in only a nominal addition to regional supplies and even if all the desalinated water were only allocated within Orange County, the project could not supply enough water to keep pace with the long-term projected population growth. Staff believes that the EIR conclusion that the potential growth-inducing impacts of the project are not anticipated to be significant is supported by an adequate level of analysis in the EIR and Response to Comments. Adjacent Wetland Analysis and mitigation for potential impacts to receptors surrounding the proposed project site (including the adjacent wetland area) are provided throughout the Draft EIR, including Sections 4.3 (marine biology issues associated with water quality) and Section 4.9 (construction-related impacts). The EIR considers the potential impacts of any accidental spill of product or byproduct water from the desalination plant as well as impacts in regards to noise, lighting, air quality, urban runoff/stormwater, erosion, and nesting birds. Additionally, the buffering provided by the existing concrete containment berm on the project site was also considered. Additional discussion is also provided within Responses 3d and 3h of the Responses to Comments document. Concerns from the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy were addressed within Response 13b. Staff believes that the adjacent wetlands were adequately considered in the EIR analysis. E. SUMMARY Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with the Poseidon desalination plant project, alternatives that minimize those impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures. PL03-30 -10- 10/31/2003 8:19 AM 1 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 Staff recommends that the City Council certify EIR No. 00-02 because: • The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project; and ■ Identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. Environmental Status: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, RBF Consulting, a consultant hired by the City, prepared EIR No. 00-02 to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project. The document must be adopted and certified by the City Council prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development No. 02-05. The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. The EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed seawater desalination plant, accessory structures, water transmission lines, and off-site booster pump stations. EIR No. 00-02 discusses potential adverse impacts in the areas of 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. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. 1. Environmental Procedures - The procedure that was followed during preparation of EIR No. 00-02 is outlined below: DATE F x.ACTIVITY May 17, 2001 Staff and RBF conducted an initial study and determined that an EIR would be necessary for the project. May 17, 2001 A Notice of Preparation was sent to responsible agencies and filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify the public of the intent to prepare an EIR. A Notice of Availability was published in the Independent and sent to area property owners within a 2,000 ft. radius as well as interested parties. A 30-day public review period was established from May 17, 2001 through June 15, 2001. June 6, 2001 A Public Scoping Meeting was held at the Edison Community Center(at 2:30 pm and 7:15 pm) for the public to review the proposed project, discuss any concerns and issues, and inquire about the CEQA process. Sept. 19, 2002 Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. Notice of Availability mailed to all property owners and tenants within a 300 ft radius, all interested parties, all attendees at scoping meetings, and all interested agencies. Draft EIR available for public review and comment for forty-five days from Sept. 19 through Nov. 4, 2002. Draft EIR available for review at City Hall, Central Library, and Banning Branch Library. Nov. 4, 2002 Comments on EIR accepted up to 5:00 PM. A total of 21 comment letters were received. March 21, 2003 Response to Comments on Draft EIR and Final EIR are made available for public information and sent to Responsible Agencies and commenting parties. CEQA PL03-30 -11- 10/31/2003 8:37 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 requires Response to Comments be sent to Responsible Agencies and commenting parties 10 days prior to certification hearing.) May 27, June 3, Public hearing before Planning Commission to Certify EIR No. 01-02. July 8, and August 12, 2003 2. Summary of EIR No. 00-02 In the preparation of an environmental impact report, potential impacts associated with the proposed development are identified and analyzed pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. These impacts are categorized into three levels of significance. They are: less than significant impacts; impacts that can be mitigated to a level less than significant; and unavoidable significant impacts. The level of impacts associated with the proposed project are identified below: a) Less Than Significant Impacts The project will result in impacts to some environmental resources and conditions that are concluded not to be significant if the development proposal complies with standard conditions of approval suggested in the entitlement staff report. The following topical areas were determined to result in no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts: • Agricultural Resources • Air Quality (long-term) • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Land Use/Relevant Planning • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Recreation • Transportation/Traffic b) Adverse Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the project (CUP and CDP) can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Areas where impacts may occur and a brief description of the key recommended mitigation measures are as follows: • Aesthetics/Light and Glare - Utilize minimum light levels for safety and security and lighting shall be directed to avoid spillage onto adjacent properties • Construction Related Impacts PL03-30 -12- 11/4/2003 2:39 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 - Limit construction hours to Monday-Saturday, 7 am to 8 pm - Submit erosion and dust control plan - Construction shall include Best Management Practices to control pollutants - Dewatering plan shall by approved by the Public Works Department, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Orange County Water District - All structures to be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation - Conduct nesting survey of savannah sparrows adjacent to desalination plant site - Conduct surveys for California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo, southwestern pond turtle, raptor nests, and sensitive biological resources at booster pump station site - Archaeologist to evaluate any historical and archaeological resources discovered during the construction of the booster pump. • Geology/Soils/Seismicity - Submit geotechnical report to include recommendations regarding grading, foundations, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering, lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential, and ground water constraints and incorporate recommendations into the grading plan - Complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures - Perform special studies and subsurface investigation to determine fault rupture potential of South Branch fault which underlies the site • Hydrology and Water Quality - Submit a Water Quality Management Plan for approval by the Public Works Department to control pollutant runoff - Perform hydrology and hydraulic analysis to address storm water drainage and flooding - Install on-site drainage system to address stormwater - Product water quality to be regulated by the California Department of Health Services • Noise - Submit an acoustical analysis to assure that all stationary noise sources comply with the city's Noise Ordinance • Public Service and Utilities - Pay traffic impact, sewer connection, water service connection, and school impact fees - Incorporate solid waste reduction and recycling methods for project construction and operation These impacts can be reduced by mitigation measures suggested in the draft environmental impact report and summarized in this report. -Staff recommends incorporation of these PL03-30 -13- 10/31/2003 8:37 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 mitigation measures into the conditions of approval for the development project (CUP and CDP). c) Unavoidable Significant Impacts There are adverse environmental impacts that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures relating to short-term construction related emissions of carbon monoxide, reactive organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides from the proposed project. Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. 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 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. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. Prior to certification and adoption of the EIR by resolution, the City Council may amend the document. It should be noted, however, that removal of any of the recommended mitigation measures requires findings and justification. Additionally, all mitigation measures that are approved with the EIR must be applied to the approved project. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1 City Council Resolution No.�.W3—� Certifying Final EIR No. 00-02 2 Final EIR No. 00-02, Technical Appendices, Response to Comments (under separate cover— not attached) 3 Errata pages to Final EIR 4 Appeal Letter By Mayor Boardman dated August 13, 2003 5 Planning Commission Staff Reports dated May 27, June 3, July 8, and August 12, 2003 ■ Report Updates dated May 22, 2003 ■ Late Communication dated May 27, 2003 ■ Revised Errata dated June 3, 2003 PL03-30 -14- 11/4/2003 6:54 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL03-30 ■ Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures dated June 3, 2003 ■ Late Communication dated June 3, 2003. • Late Communication dated July 8, 2003 ■ Late Communication dated July 22, 2003 ■ Staff Report Supplement dated August 12, 2003 ■ Late Communication dated August 12, 2003 6 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 27, June 3, July 8, July 22, and August 12, 2003 7 Letters in opposition and in support 8 PowerPoint Presentation RCA Author: Ramos/Broeren PL03-30 -15- 11/4/2003 6:54 AM ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. gbo3- g A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (SCH#2001051092) FOR THE POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse #2001051092 ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach to address the environmental implications of the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project (the "Project"); and On May 17, 2001, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties. An update to the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study was prepared and distributed on March 4, 2002; and After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the two public scoping meetings held at the Edison Community Center in the City of Huntington Beach on June 6, 2001 (2:30 pm and 7:15 pm), the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR, dated September 19, 2002, and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse; and The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 19, 2002 to November 4, 2002 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and The Planning Commission held public meetings on the EIR on May 27, June 3, July 8, July 22, and August 12, 2003 in which comments were received on the EIR; and The Planning Commission certified the EIR on August 12, 2003; and Public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the City Council in a separately bound document entitled "Responses to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated March 21, 2003; and The City Council held a public meeting on the EIR on November 17, 2003 and receive_d and _ considered public testimony; and The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have previously certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Redevelopment Project in which the Poseidon Project is located; and In the event the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency take any actions in the future in furtherance of and to carry out the Southeast Redevelopment Project which involve the Poseidon Project, any such actions would be based on the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Reports for both the Southeast Redevelopment Project and the Poseidon Project. 03reso/eir 00-02110/14/03 1 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby find, order, determine, and resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EIR,the Responses to Comments, the Errata (bound together with the Responses to Comments), the Appendices to the Responses to Comments and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the City Council, including all minutes,transcripts, attachments, incorporation, and references. SECTION 2. The City Council makes the findings contained in the attached "Statement of Facts and Findings" with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and finds that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts and Findings is attached as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts and the Final EIR. SECTION 5. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist" (also referred to as the "Mitigation Monitoring Program") attached as Exhibit"B"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project(including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate suggested alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 7. The City Council finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 8. The City Council finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR. The City Council finds that the refinements that have been made in the Project do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the City Council through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. 03reso/eir 00-02 I0114103 2 SECTION 9. The City Council finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation. SECTION 10. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project as identified in Section 5.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings (short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality) have been lessened in their severity by the application of standard conditions, the inclusion of Project design features and the imposition of the mitigation measures. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" included as Section 7.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings. The City Council adopts the recitation of overriding considerations which justify approval of the Project notwithstanding certain unavoidable significant environmental effects which cannot feasibly be substantially mitigated as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 11. The City Council finds and certifies that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach City Council, that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05. SECTION 12. The City Council finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2003. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk , ity Atto ey 3 P10�s�s REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Xrec D AND APPROVED: City Adm' strator e f Planning 03reso/eir 00-02/10/14/03 3 Attachment No. 2 Final EIR.No. 00-02 Technical Appendices Response to Comments (Under Separate Cover — Not Attached) On File for Public Review in the Office .of -the- City Clerk .-. l - - DRAFT ENVIRO-NMENTAL IMPACT REPORT K ttB�-�tt—,,�,,l-I.,--.--1��--T.,.�",,---..,-�l-,.�1 t�,,,��,l,',.1,-�,---1-1�,,,��,�1�,�,�-,�—,,,"�,e1 --.�-,-�,-,--,-.,--,-:--��,:,��-�_,.- �,-�--,,-.,---z,,-,.-I,�--­---,-,,--,:----.-: ,-�f,-:-�-�-�-.,-,-,­'- -,�.-.-.�-.-IP--,,"l�_�-,--�--,--:,�I.,—�,-.,�,,----r..I-,��--.--�I.-"T��..�.-,.�,-I-,�.�,.,...,-_-,�—,�1,'.1,-�I-;`--'-.-.,,--m,-;---�,,,,I�-�,--,---,,�-,-----�..-'-��..-.�,a,.-,�,�.'--,4�------,,�,�,,�,,.-.`.,-�-,�,,,.-�',,-c-��-,--,��,--,�,----�.-,,!,,-.-i--�--,,,."�-'�":-5,-,z�--�-.,��,,-,�.,`,,.:, ,-,,-��..N,�,",�&%'l,-,,.,,-,-,"l�1-R.,1,!.-��VN,-F ,--:-,:--,,.-.-,,-��:,:--�,. ��,---�,�f---1"zc,--- �r.,_�-��--.,-.-�-.:--%-�"-,,���,�,�-�.,�1--'-Ii..,��.,-�.l�-1,T---.,I,--.-.�,�--,-_1- ,,-,--�.-:1�,����:.-.��,.�-�-:-.:-�:,�-,,-----,,,-, ,���.-,,,,-.-*�—,.,-��,--,-,�-,�---���--,.'-.��-..7,4,-,.-:..��.-�-,,�---_--,,-.,�-,-�,--;.-';-,.-,�--.-,,'-,--z------,`---,-,r-�,.-,--�-,---�-,---,,--��,,,--,,�..�,,-,---�.,--,--,,-_',,,--,.---,--- �—,-�.----,�I-!�--�,..�--,,1---,�,-`_- ;-,:'�.,��-,---,�-,.-�,,.,I�,,,,-�,-"'�,,.:-z.�.,z,�,r.j-�-�,l;--.-,,­---�:,l-_�,�,,-,:�-z,�-",,�,,�o,-,-:-,�,,.--,,-—-�"J, ".:.---1"�,,�.,.�-.--,--�,.�,.,�,��,,,"��.,:l�-:"-,W.-�, ,".��,,-:-,I,�-�, �,'-,,- --�:�;I:,,,I,,,"'".,,�,,-l�-.,�-',-,,�-;�:.,,,;';`--,--�--�,,,.. '-:---,-�'.--,:,':.I:,,��,.-,.-,- ! ` ,"*.,,�—,,2�,",--'--.---��- ',i�,--,-:�,�-",-7,�.,-i.",,�,-,�!,-"--.,,-i"��I,-�,-,--,".�-"-,,�.,,--,-i,.,,-,,�'-:-,,-l.,,-�-Z,-�.�-,!,.�,�."�,z-,-,-,-,::"�l,-:-Z"-��.,���',-;-�.-1�.,�-,,�-'-,,:-,,---1,,;,�,7�"�,�G,--:.--�,--�-.,�,.-�--.�,,,-���.,�,�--,;:-,,�.,.,.-��o�--., .,.,-I.,,,�,-:,,..�.:,-..,.-,..:�-,�i-�­,.--j,-:I.�­—-..r-"�---I,--_.-.:----�--.,.'-�-,-,.--.;.�-�....��,�!.- ���-.,,—,,,�:.,--,---�I;�,--.��T---�:---�--�-, -.,.,.,--�-Z .,:, ���-,-, �,.,,--�-,,,�.,.L,-%-.,---,,;,-.-�..e�- .,I-.-- -�.;�-.,:�,,.-1�-.,..-,,-'.,-��-- 1-�,�----�-.1--,�- ? ,,-,�---,,--�-�1-�-- - a,. �---.�,�--;,--�-'--'�.,,"��-'-'-.,.,.i�'-�--"-�--,--1-"I'-,��,,-'",-.',-�-.e----�,�-�-.,.--,-�,�.'���,,,,�---,.I�---z','-I-,.-�-,,�-",,i---�-*,-�,,,,,,�,i*---I-�,,,�'�,.�,, ,.,-�:.,,I x.,--'"."�!�,,.,r��.1,��.'�"�-,.-_�',:----�,,---',. �---�----.;!-_-,-�,� ,",,..-.�I-i"-,"--.�-.-,,.,-R,,..,,.,-�1.-,�-'"-,.,l�,.:"-.,'--�:-.��-,-,-,,,,-;,-. ,:,-',,,:�*' .�:,,... ,-,.,'--,,;.-..-1�-.�,,�,, t -:.:� P(JSE1 D0N SEAWATE"�- ,�,,.1'-,,,��, �.,,�,-r�—,-, ��; v DESAL=1 NATtON PROJE,-�,,,�.'-,.-,,, �'- .--� ,-..-.� CTf ,-:,..,-1�l':-��"I. - _ _ ={ _ tI 1 F - Y l -;' Y h N SEPTEMBER 2002 - f { .fa f k P }may . t P - 4 _ _ WI �`d` - J _ Z. . .s d _ _ _ 'T xy k.., �` - - - - - - - . mot: r y^ a - .. _ _ _ __ V ? - ItWCt, �I-I I f-Io.II,I.*,.,�,,"4-1��,`,�5.t i-I;--,"-;�1;�;�-�7,����,,"71.4-1,,-�.4j,,-,�,--,,1-:.�������������.---�...................W,!-,�",.������������� 4 Y ''S' M .'. S TVF N .. y 'e - _ .£ _. - Y 1 s. .✓ r1(` E ) .-�:-�,.,���I,`..M,I-"-�, V�' ,,/ ,1 i F Y t 'rs',' ` LeQi,I.'/'►gEnCY ..`.. { M � �` _ r 4 �'r r "'' X >' p' } -' ` I- s City of H`unt�ngton Beach jF 3 t'RP,, - r' �. ,4-Via_ -. - _�`" - - _ _ - - - - s.tp - - W - Consultant: I-�. -I1-,-1 .,.I. I.,.� .�1�-_—�--�111I;' II-.�-�..�: �-.-I,, 1: ,.. --, .�,.I -.". ,' :�.1 I. -�.. I-- '. ---�.,� -1 -� .1� -.� I. -, � �-, -,�.......� ,-,,-,,-,,,*-- , ,�,.,- , � t tRBFCons_ ult'ng - ?Y , _ . .:. Iz II _ .-. - - - - 1 .. - _ - - I v� ,.x� � \,ems\`>.K�.�:r \YC S,- g 3.:.z �^ ,a ti- .M.,,�,.. y.' a\u\,. ,': •; \��:\\v�\\e:\�.\Y`�`\\, y:. ,:��.\ :F� \':.�..v\ b" .'a �.� +x �.... z-!„... .ilk� � ' .;s,._: \`Ya\\ \ �,'��� .� \-\ 'm •t fix.. . �>, ,t. F :,,1%•. \,M r�� ,��. � '�� a_'` �•'%`, �\`\�e"3 •�.r..:�� \ �>f .\\��e � Y..��\ � �\�@. a"x"r�,l 3\...�� Via, �� .k,z, � ��Cy �.�;._'_». �, �::.-:' �b�� xa .,,. ,�„ r �.\\ a..�..Fl\ •.\�� .�\�3a�'`� Thy;=z \�\��,a"�'�" . �..,xe,� �..,. ��».3�:»t a, \\•E:. ,� ,-.,.'��, _+�•. .s:x ... -o?�- s,,. x ��a 'r•:n,`9t.. \.� -�rr � ,^''._adz. \ � � 1. ;"C>. \�", L� q.. .\$`.� z?'',a.�. a�"€,t. c ;--. _. •�, ,c''�\\�\F �H`�"`.a a:� \\\\�`v��"\`�*\�..�•�v\\� \„�,C���`��t.•,\C• d,.>�,�r �. 5 �-:,,•;-;:, ... �. � �r C\� 3' �:: .a, ,. ay\-.\-�\�:ho.��F.�\\\\°',��Z\ r a \\\\` ?:s.. `§$:�ra ca'` -'>`^ ;a,;,, z-. r ,i � z ,�� arr � \* a i \ a� r,✓ \.AVA\ f �,���.� .'�'�",; �' �. ,:� r �� t ��,� ✓� �t'�v � t��::v��� :. ^'���?i' ����� �,�:. sou �� 4 -�� $ee�a. -' a. -C� .�. � V•a D. .:.�;+�x :��'���av�\�w�. :e��va .¢;-.-�r� --��av`L`�` .,��. -. ����,, -:.v 33<, rya '"*s Y.,��'•' � P Fe. �° C a5 s' ,,. � v e Am mw a : ,.,� z .>x >;'°�vv@a avvZO a a.,'�_,v.Si'Y _.$VvV'a�.: ' a\av•+, nx z�Vaa.a L a.� �" .a•`�j*„?' �''�� �ai z f F �- x a spa k�-..�s��� ' u\ a, �aq��avaa �.f 'c ��'. \ �. - �''T""' I-:yp F Ja xF`> --gc:<• ?�\, `ie 9��'�, ,,�,'�_� „`;:�. \`Av a�fr i.i-, -A ..,�.�. ��\vC�e •,�V; 4�C 3�'a�`v'`.�.. >rvA' x.aa� �' `aax 'A� i'e���, s-d i C �� �;'� •.�. .a ,_.� >� e�: 'v� r ���� ��:M ��z. c• , i r�.� ,� '=`8�? ,R s a a. s- .,air• £ � M .�\........ OV \�" ,,. , a xi:�¢,, '�>�<,.: �a �. ''��y ��ca$�. a _ �'S.•`\t',�e � a\.a� ��''.,�\ �$�s�,"-. ��z�"�. Af al � V i I��vY°x � Z��'� +\ ��i`�..: r`��CaF \..a..:,a�,....'2 * �' >,. -.`:•... �.��5;��n:.ya� r���t�.. ..,,`Sa", �anaya^er....ti .„�` �...F' a,y��,.>,;.e: 'a .\ft C EMBERQ 2,3 � fi cA'.eF.. ' Ord 1 "�, ., a' :..�'`a�'1'-. �,ak�-... � >x�`'�x;�d`-'�*e^_ \�\� �. �`r,�„.�`�.�k..� •�\a aa�� kaa$�,� � �<� \a«.,.1 �3w�'��� '�.�i:i. � ;'k - a°'` �- - 10 -- i Rs\� - ? r fE ��. �:>• �.. �i--�,` � sas.aTYei �• -,.�::x�^�* i��� m �,A��-F w s...v.�r>� F k \��,3.� •s 5:� ���-..*'>. ��'r-� -r .�w�.£S"�.-a-e` k � ?� � - x � >e$�`�e��x� hf�__ a`�rt C�• � ��_ a���� �_,� s�a T '3--: ��� � "� .. r �a F � r_-:- r a�;� ,�� :`� .�: :, d�� are`>,, � ��� ".�-�-a.�• ."`���''��� ' c. �: a�- \ .\,• �` ���<.a ,•a -t' a`\3 # �•\c ��.., \�- �,�, -:'a\ �a,3,.ss„ � �x .� -y\ �z v �.._. � �> :�.,i `����;:.: �a.?fix•. \�, a �F'„. ,.@• y3 C��� �,c'S. �� a 5� � '�t�t\\fir - 4��. � vi t� -ai �. � F a `�k •=g �s':G.a��\ s\. o �\ 'a �' \:> s a`•\:� F""\ .,� �� - �C �xa �.a a,^a�-� ���\`�+.%,� &�� .�,,� <� !'' a#� a, R \ ��F\e> � :F.\$>�>:. \ '�\\\ yam.:- �\ T.: a�� .z..'�\ °> Z-s-Fa ::�:: •b�'"ac�" .��' __ m�a�.x, ��,x"„'.�<a nu„ ate:,a �'>:d �v v ..\ �`•s Sx \k�" �'AF'�' -- a` i x�\ � �'\\, a �'r•�\\� ,�r � _.�'- ��' .,.c '''�'.Y� €?� -.�k -a;�\ •"Y Fy�.ii>aiF n�z•'>a�a��a.',F. .?� tv�\ `��;,vz.�-�'-�>xi�. ra.,�.rsin' ������ ��,a. a`v..a.. � ��- �� \\�,.,,e��i ��r� x�Y�\�\� �. t � .k t•SaQ >a,� ��a"�*cC�, l' � �\\C''�''�s'..c � F\` 3 5.�+ .x', r a�7;w�, �'� � di` ,•,r ads' x `y 2$a $,s�"r. x�.�,.y�,. �. \e \ s, ,�\\ '��� S>.f r €_. a€ -_:.� "'e.�,� O e�?�a � ;�;fac +'".w.��'x a. \ \ a R,..: `��Q'_ � '„F\a:..--..A 1. \� �, ,4'.-�s t�.y\F Ca 2 ��\.V, �'i•i'*'�'4 '��gC�>.��� r c, .:- 't �„s�3 a:��\ ::r>. -9:c:� 'a t.:^r�.. \- a: \��.� ra\F\' yi`�_,� �'•„ � \ « \ ,t� �e:�-- `r � .�' �..- a ,d i..,,. �� bra ac�a Z SaF �... � 'e'- r:� .,d,« .:a \ ,� '\. �"'p k ,arr\x �- �` -s•x��\-\\-�,S "' "'�,• � w y \ \\�ra���• \�,�. ;. . F � a., a 4. ss,',l"' F C *fie;--= �.�'"". -Y. ''�u. �"��a� \$,�. tr v�#J'�.. :;�t.E c �� _:ti.:, z�: `°\�.�Y i C ' 1��''', \,�\ �,sY\\�'a. 6 ?`,� si '�.s. s s.Y' � �•a>� � ::ar �ry �,�.''� a�� \� �\\ C°fY� \� '\`tee .>� ��R� C\rCC: � � \,. \ a •a v\\,� lc"hr� r.. C'r�. - yb. :�Y � �,< -.� r s�- F$ � \\ \\\\.. a�. �•\ -,tea.. a.•5.3.> �.F er�...a ��,,ka � �.\�v`a� e�,/y�+r�s ��;-.;�->� `�`-.,?;':.. � � ,:�,. �m c;- �`i�=::, wMk%f ..^¢ b \\ b� \�-\\' a ` ae.a,•y: a �: \ a _a\\p r'', �:ys� � a�� n� ,.�.-'V»:!"'�..J'\oF. y\\�"a�- . ,3 ��y _,�,t,� �\�� ��'.\`\ate\� .� ..� �,"G.��?„ �•�- �`y Y2 '.:�\� �r.'Sb�. \ `b "��,- \... �.:«' r� ,.,�, \�\ .F�. x..'��•...a�\ ,:a ;,�. a, s �.'�>* F-'� �.�.Faa� ��o �3"�'r° .r.\�\;Y ,u..'�""', ,� ��:���'.,� �/� '.::..�� -,,,.;'.... .. �' �'.s � � \. ..r "__ Fc a`� \ .?,... --rF1.,.-�\y�r. ��\- .•�-a �x o-, y: ,;tea .a,,`^.�.' a';>C .:- �'/ ,{ �••�... $�.,._ ��a\\�r �x \ '\`'\a r \�C\\ y ��" 'a \ �.v. ry -,.7 >}.. .,s� \��. a�`ay�. ✓p r, ., \\\.\�i ` � � � -.:GF\ '� �` a�\\' ,k z+ �t t \\: ,;�• �\,\\i s� � .z ;ty �, �.s a�T.' \\.�\ -,�:� .,,� �\ rt �d, r +4a \`a �.��. ,\.��,.:, .. ... @� ..£ ✓t�, :��..�� >,"� °���� �,� r. M}r:: yS �. .s>.Czy;, A a'. r::,r'fi` '?t' \A "w... '.`\', �� \C\;:•>��,e .z�- p.\\\\\ � � ��<�' 'az���>� Y��". -r-> Y_:a�,� a\ F 'ha'ia� r `.. �" x++a,,';- ...>�-�" €:.�� A ..� .. ` - ..��. :,\ � s`: � zh�C a „,,/y,a- d s:� ?�-r I�,ta,�' mc. \\., ..c•�„ ��� A. Y-=:�,. -°\�\\ �' v � '.'-" �,��\�..� �,�._'a�����.:.. ..•�`: \\\Ze.C�, q;�._\ p, ls. �.�\ r- ,. .,5.,:.zA ..�^.:...�..�.s F� 7.k'.-�' orb, ,�„-,:.:� av�. ,:�.: �. a�„ •.\��* \\ r "\� � --�� "•yji.r ��. aF�- --r". as .d �. Fw '¢a..;Hsrr -:# \��� ,�, ��a�$\.� � ".� 4"F --s :a'3 G,: \ d r ,�:a,\ r`�-'r J✓ @t � w C�-�»\�` ^'`.-a->. �A :�': ,+,'r �: :��. .�� :,.., ays;"a�, a2.� � a � �.�\ /r --.r ✓-3�:..�\ \ --r �d.�. t S�a�� E �:.� \� > k�a ��-�:i�•s. .u��;axzsa\�ti\F`\���\..>.e k?��F��\U`\���\�C.,.._�i,�i,�.3�...;.;.a:?�.:..:�_�\`,,<_....��z.;Y,... ...:��. ?x-,s d.:n�...�\\Ya >,� .. ..\\::3 �/.., 1- F - ,...�r. „.� ' # :r�� .m ��l I �� r ,`1' f. s' s r _ GY t - RESPONSES TO COMMENTS fi Y*. -" ,. � 2-,L- Yy aye, �,,,r r`-.; a. a 2 ' z atF +fix„ #, Ufa -,� fi,x r s + , , ; � - � ,} �t �rr "Z for the r . � �°c,#""«r,.a.sa 'F zu - u'a,y z 4.yi - ,�. �. a sa. _'�'rtY ct� r�° @.-3 cS,g.t=y c "S j" 4 1.,` "4 .I. z y3 ,n � �k. i. i , }r t x k st4 P , SEIDON "SEAWATER :, 3 } '�A: ''°�'k yy'. "' bj'P,�`4 '' +..r a4z- bWi'� ,?ez�'.ti+ .,,r:_t# .•rr Ysx" r,.s.i g s .sue AY L'» ,� _y�y..}-2�-. x ,afTc' ` w Sri"�' wx X 3 f p }' S 7 t v s. z r�tG*�$. 4 da y s S s e, a e- Nca� k N ,r Y, d,a,._ 7 fx x r �� ,� DESALT NATION PROI ECT i td -�,irk- �-i. ,.a t j�`.Lt`,- "�i 'xr �,ua " -x"tY+f�" rr,' i t- 3, a :<'+:,rw x - , k rx61. ..^s>�. s—k 'r xt a7 ..o 4c''=e .� s" ,� 'a 4. S a` �.+ '` �t mn`` ..,- T y ",y r „�¢ s .y 5R i lIL t"h`• � r : sa"-f tzy r" 'k�i.za"^r. t a" 'ir 'n j..t n" F,". � ;, - z`; b r zr# 'j4T -ate* �5 di„x �."`ir=a .� 7*�4-^� U •Y,•�. »3,, s ,-aft +�,. - - � a ,.,Z.fir.s-r `. ,: ''a. �,-_�r '� S , t.. ° x F `" T °`.. , �"'�`?,y' z k .� �` - a b y t ,aa 't-3# ¢8 ,a. 'i-..xh, v.'�Mrs,. as t x5yia .a ,� er, r rY+ .�n' '?„ ,,.. { - .. ^i -' #a. v -&. rev •� x „� a ° ,.- " V�- m ` ,, �t � r .MARCH 21 2003 . f yag.:a.'. � s't ,�``{ 'xt: yra ,,. ,�. ^r°*i.;-i .?'? ", c "a.° -,�' '� x m` ,,- r 4"`. 't P', s'�''zk,.� fi +X Ka a� `` �,.k�`, r v� ��e, ,t X .. 't y. "'%�. ,- ,'',eL.�t s w''s KS"` " P 'rx'` .""ts a..gw k't '4Y'c...� a s >< a " 1# t kq# +:. '. T 'SA , "n N$ +3'+•. ,�#54 `'�u y d a-.:. d �R ,�t":� �$,.�,.��, 'yY�, k' t' r ., '-a e<r - "3,.rs, 6 r'+.°"al.Bx' 'a+ ,`fi. �., ,F .-.c ', '' r s h t J, �t*aw s,FF�; `''n�Y 5 ,-''�'y'``tat '�'k�. �u 9 .,"^"„ ,u'- r t§ t' "-, =¢,a£ '" - - ` f°-ix` "$. .'sue r... s 1. SC•=µ zy qt..». 'Nw` >.zt' .z ,0 "r "°"' -- .. y,'�-"r4} n`� b• 479 5 ` $.as' Wr 'l -5""q a[. 3k M r aCz; a.*` 3 k�'c ;J F...,f•t�j F „ yi;'5,:'''�' _ fi ,� ,l''y h�,br *.- , YCs' 'E,t:"z.�Z`'Sa-,-. . .ram.�. ' .�, .' . it } r 7zv�rw'(':. xs —" y, "F• S l t' [` � s<L". -e.. t`�Se .x y .,;r s t' - y,e+' , "' x.vat:, 1�`� ;'`j_. -r``�^ac'�A'm y.y°- ,,',4 r'.kv ` - - "^. _ w 4 . a 3,' ' �y„"F. .s-'raA i��,,,,yyy��r qM , �` f»F" 11 R 'rx, � ti 3,sf` 1i'+ -U. +�^. h; SkNit,} 1^{ ! b5 l ., #p - :5, - S - h ""€� -` ''t +r 5N' vY,P ,E. `"4-,f 1 v ..'. ,& ..iy k� s i -` S xa. ,: .. _: s r ?v�.,:�, c�4 r _ *c t,� .s-E e. .e+., r= tq, "*� '� -, , *�' { #'.-- y- to `r ` tl' �.a .�s,,�y'+7"-- +� I ,�.4.y,,;7 a:ay .'$ds t. it>' 't �,r �'ti 141. ? s , �, as aF �� :.. �,x ". se. w t tIVA� $r s e a 5l r # $ 'r s kT.may. ' r„n.L y r s �'u 1`a'tz 7s q *..N� !r. ]'*'a8.3r'� 'v�.f h*..,r .r":fi- •F` t .4" r 't+�.bj'.� `-,t", .«`''S� - `ns. ;, - sF 0" r,„�,� 1t j�s_�` r 3 'ta'i* ' ts- "r z e y.%%%'si. x i a.`t. ``��£�,� i} "'y'2's'` " E'` Y' +';`"ai,t r -§ t -w a a..i Swz`'�0.h3 t s. •+ g e, .,9 a�'tx c s r�tz r`+r.. q,F,f , x A z- iy� x �'? .V,g yc,. a h d'�. *'�'{FPS,. 4S' ry $ r •"e C'.*" 73 _ - ,sw Y. is ;� r :� "'� ems: f r _' -_,�,rr" £+*`'grt 'µ a ''X-,»`�. r} ,4,��'.t}t ,mot"t'ix ,' y r" ,, a. t Y'f � � � , t — ar 'IN me,'µ -�ash *r c 1 a ?-,r"`•zT"? '" a "+' `" „a, k ;. A �lvj` � ; Lead Agency- 4 A `1 , xti City of Huntington Beach : a f <wA. *s. - - '+rrc ...' -- ., 1�11 % s - U-',FT,,�,Y.�,,�,�j�,�.", �.,-..*�.'--�- - ,-.—."-- " . --7". , . I -�1, I Krt,% y "'11- r a a ffl3 P- a 's a,,G,., - .. - 1x afr ro II t.�.,�-,,�IA,;:,"--I"--��-,. k��4 - Consultant z 1 t b - - � ,, RBF Consulfingu, -- - . r ­-t •t yy , 1 - - -_ _ ATTACHMENT 3 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA 3.0 ERRATA TO DRAFT EIR TEXT (revised July 10, 2003) Changes to the EIR are noted below. Additions to the text are indicated with shading. Deletions to the text are indicated with stricken text. Changes have been analyzed and responded to in Section 2.0, Responses to Comments. The changes to the EIR do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. Changes are listed by page and where appropriate by paragraph. NOTE TO REVIEWER: This Errata has been prepared in response to comments received on the Draft EIR, which was available for public review from September 19, 2002, to November 4, 2002. Additional editorial corrections have been initiated by City staff. These clarifications and modifications are not considered to result in any new or greater impacts than identified in the Draft EIR. To avoid redundancy, it should be assumed that additions, modifications, or deletions of text within Sections 4.1 through 4.9 of the Draft EIR, when applicable, are reflected in Section 1.0, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Page 1-3, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 41 LAND.USE/RELEVANT PLANNING LAND USE The proposed desalination facility is not anticipated to None required. However, refer to mitigation measures create any impacts to surrounding uses with regards to contained in , Section 4.5 air quality, noise, aesthetics, hazards and hazardous (Noise), Section 4.7 (Aesthetics/Light& Glare), Sestiep materials, and short-term construction. Significance: , and Section Less than significant. 4.9(Construction Related Impacts). ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. Page 3-1, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ".....and would not require modifications_to the coastal/marine portions of the existing_ AES H ocean intake/discharge facilities. _ owever, it should be noted that the existing AES intake/discharge facilities traverse land owned by the California State Lands Commission �(CSLC), and the land is leased to AES. A lease agreement between the CSLC, AES,_and-the; project applicant will be required prior to project approval;' Page 3-9, Proposed Buildings and Structures "All proposed buildings and structures will comply with state and local standards in regards to fire and structural safety.; The proposed desalination project would consist of the following buildings and structures: ❖ Administration Building (approximately 158'L x a�W x 15#'H, 9,9A810,120 s.f.): This building is proposed_to_be Type_II,_non-rated_;(generally defined by the California Building_ Code-as- structures_incorporating_ non-combustible_materials-_[steel,_iron,; City of Huntington Beach July 10, 2003 164 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA oncrete, or masonry]_for structural elements_, floors, walls, and roofs) and will be constructed of steel. The exterior will feature flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. A metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. All glazing will be tinted and will include clear anodized window frames. ❖ Reverse Osmosis Building (approximately 29M3'L x 1320'W x 25'H, 38,644090: s.f.): This building will be a Type-II, non-rated, steel-constructed building housing the reverse osmosis components of the desalination plant and associated indoor pumps. The exterior will feature flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. A continuous metal reveal band will be placed mid-height to break up the 25-foot structure vertically. A metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. Full height louvers will match the wall panel color and will be recessed slightly from the face of the structure to allow for shadowing. Panel coloring will match the Administration Building. ❖ Pretreatment Filter Structure (approximately �196% x 444196'W x 16'H, 42;8AA38,270, s.f.): This open-air structure will house the pretreatment filter components of the plant. It will feature concrete walls matching the color of the Reverse Osmosis Building. The concrete walls will "stair-step" in elevation to a peak that will be finished with the deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. These panels will match the fascia of the Administration and Reverse Osmosis Buildings. A painted band will be included to match the reveal band of the Reverse Osmosis Building. ❖ Chemical Storage/Solids Handling Building (approximately 9A170.'L x 92:50'W x 21'H, 7,=7,_596 s.f.): This Type-II, non-rated, steel-constructed building will house the chemical storage and solids handling equipment associated with plant operation. The building will architecturally match the Administration Building, featuring flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. The metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. ❖ Bulk Chemical Storage Structure (approximately T8# 'L x 6639'W x 24-3'H, 4,368 s.f.): This structure will also feature Type-II, non-rated, canopy steel construction and will house various chemicals stored in bulk. The metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed panels running horizontally. ❖ Electrical Room/Substation Building (approximately 60'L x 30'W x 12'H, 1,800 s.f.): This Type-II, non-rated, steel-constructed building will match the Administration Building architecturally. The exterior design utilizes flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. The metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. ❖ Lime Silos (six tanks approximately 20' in diameter and 25' high, 314 s.f. ): The lime silo tanks will be arrange in two rows of three tanks each within the northern portion of the subject site in an area approximately 80 feet long by 57 feet wide. These tanks will be GGA&WGted ef _roteel and_painted to Matr0h _ _ placed within an open air, welded steel structure incorporating aesthetic treatments to enhance the character of the site' City of Huntington Beach July 10, 2003 165 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA ❖ Washwater Tank (approximately 45' in diameter by 19' high, 1,590 s.f.): This single tank will store washwater and will be constructed of steel, painted to match the surrounding buildings and structures. The approximate capacity of this tank would be 200,000 gallons. Flush Tank (approximately 25' in diameter by 29' high, 491 s.f.): This single tank will store the desalination plant's flush water and would have an approximate capacity of 100,000 gallons. This tank will be constructed of steel and will be painted to match the surrounding buildings and structures. ❖ Ammonia Tank (approximately 6' in diameter by 6` high, 28.35 s.f.): This single tank will store ammonia and will be constructed of high density polyethylene or fiberglass reinforced polyester, and would have an approximate capacity of 1,000 gallons. ❖ Aboveground Product Water Storage Tank ( ' diameter and amaximum of 30' deep; renMngulaF option: 330* L x 175' W x 40' rl approximately 215' in diameter and 40' high [30' above grade and 10' below grade]): The WRdeFgFGURd aboveground product water storage tank would be either circular eF FeGtaRgulaf in shape and would have an approximate capacity of 10 million gallons. For a detailed discussion of the proposed aboveground endeFffeund product water storage tank, refer to page 3-16 of the Draft EIR or Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS." Page 3-11, Proposed Desalination Plant Flow Process ".....An intake pump station will be located near the pre-treatment filters of the proposed plant to lift the water out of the intake pipeline and into the RO pre-treatment facilities (refer to Exhibit 6, DESALINATION PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC). The proposed plant would divert approximately 100 mgd of water from the AES condenser cooling water system. It should be noted that the proposed project would utilize AES pumps circulating a total of 126 mgd. These pumps would operated constantly by AES even during times when power is not being generated. and_wa44Id b_ 'nd-I,® ._n4 of the E ( eneFatinn Sta inn. Should the AES facility cease to operate, the proposed desalination facility would continue to produce and distribute potable water subject to required approvals including EIR or equivalent. To prevent growth of marine organisms in the intake system, chlorination....." Page 3-20, OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS "....booster pump station, including both the generators and diesel fuel storage tank, would be placed entirely underground to maintain the natural character of the surrounding resource preservation easement. Any displaced vegetation would be replaced. A second underground booster pump station is proposed within the parking lot of St. Paul's! Greek Orthodox Church within the City of Irvine, located at 4949 Alton Parkway. The; underground pump station would be constructed within the north/northwestern portion of the, church parking lot, in an area used for both parking and volleyball activities. The site is, surrounded by the St. Paul's Church to the south, the Woodbridge Village Association to the; west, an apartment complex to the east, and open space to the north. The footprint_of the; City of Huntington Beach July 10, 2003 166 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA proposed underground pump station would be approximately 100 feet by 100 feet, and would require a construction easement of 125 feet by 125 feet. The pump station would be entirely underground except for a small pipe vent and a ground-level steel access door for maintenance '(the access door would not impede parking after construction). It should be noted that St. Paul's Greek Orthodox Church has been contacted by the applicant and has issued a statemen `of interest for the underground pump station site. Refer to Response 14d within the Responses, to Comments document for additional information.' Page 3-20, OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ".....potential water compatibility impacts that may result from introduction of desalinated seawater into the regional water system). Edison Avenue Improvements As a condition of approval by the City of Huntington Beach for the proposed project, the applicant will be required to complete improvements along the southern side of Edison Avenue (situated north of the subject site as shown in Exhibit 2 of the Draft EIR, SITE VICINITY MAP). These improvements would consist of the dedication of 12 feet along the frontage of the existing Edison Avenue (for curb, gutter, paving, and street lighting improvements) for a total of approximately 600 linear feet. It should be noted that AES Huntington Beach, LLC would be responsible for dedication of property to the City for these improvements, as AES owns the, entire southern frontage of Edison Avenue and would lease property to the applicant for the proposed project. However, the project applicant would be responsible for completing these roadway and landscaping improvements as a condition of approval for the project subsequent to property dedication. It should also be noted that street widening along Newland Street (west of the proposed project site) would be performed by the City, with separate entitlements and" environmental evaluation. AES Huntington Beach, LLC would dedicate the necessary right-of- way along Newland Street and both AES and the project applicant would be required to pay their fair share of the cost. Page 3-20, PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES ".....Although the region has made a significant financial investment in the imported water system and the system has met all of the region's supplemental water supply needs (exGept times „f extFeme dFeug 4t with the exception of a one year period from March 1991 to March 1992), there is a present concern regarding the amount of water....." Page 3-21, PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES ".....Solutions to potential water shortage and reliability problems include water management programs on imported water systems as well as an increased reliance on many different sources of water supply and a continued emphasis on water conservation through implementation of State-approved Best Management Practices (BMP's). Orange County has implemented several successful programs including ultra low flow toilet and low flow shower head programs, conservation based rate structure programs, landscape conservation programs and commercial, industrial and institutional conservation programs. However, according to the Orange County Water District Master Plan Report (Section 5.6.2), potential conservation savings will be limited to no more than 30,000 to 60,000 acre feet per year. This amount is hardly sufficient to offset potential Ies ^c . .^'^^pled supplies anticipated water shortages due to increases in population and economic activity. City of Huntington Beach July 10, 2003 167 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA Water recycling (reclamation of wastewater to produce water that is safe and acceptable for various non-potable uses, but not approved for drinking and other domestic uses) is a technology that has provided a valuable source of water supply for Southern California. Southern California (and Orange County in particular) leads the way in producing recycled water to offset potable water demands. In 1996 the major imported water supplier in the region, MWD, adopted its so-called "Southern California's Integrated Water Resources Plan" (IRP) representing a dramatic shift in water management and resource planning for the region. The IRP identified 80 different local recycling projects producing over 150,000 acre feet per year of water supply available to the region. Depending upon technological advancements and economic constraints, the IRP projected that as much as 800,000 acre feet of recycled water could be made available to the region by 2020. Recycled water projects will certainly be relied upon to meet the 'demands of projected growth in the region. However, recycled water has not been approved for drinking or for other potable uses. Desalinated seawater can be made directly available for drinking and other potable uses. Consequently, seawater_desalination was also one of several potential resource options identified in the IRP. The IRP also recommended that groundwater recovery projects, storage projects, water recycling projects, water transfer projects and water conservation projects be included in the "resource mix". The IRP PFediGt6 `states that, _ _ _ _ ---an W _ " based on' fe sibilit ay studies on potential projects, 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 develop approximately 56,000_acre-feet per year, or approximately one fourth of _r—i th_e_potential fo_r seawater desalination: development identified by the 1996 IRP." Page 3-22, PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES ".....and environmental impacts to biological resources. In general, anticipated statewide shortages can be expected to translate to equivalent local and regional shortages, with similar economic and environmental effects. ;Senate_Bill (SB) 221_and SB 610 re_quire_demon_stration_o_f water supply reliability prior to development." Page 3-25, AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS REQUIRED ".....The following agreements, permits, and approvals are anticipated to be necessary: Approval/Permit, Permits to Operate Agency Final EIR Certification City of Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit City of Huntington Beach Coastal Development Permit' City of Huntington Beach Franchise Agreement City of Huntington Beach DlFink+ag Domestic Water Supply Permit State of California Department of Health Services Coastal Development Permitz California Coastal Commission (CCC) ' The City's Coastal Development Permit approval may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. 2 A CDP is required directly from the CCC for the ocean discharge. City of Huntington Beach July 10, 2003 168 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA NPDES Permit Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Permit to Operate South Coast Air Quality Management District Encroachment Permits U.S. Army"!Corps of Engineers (Santa Ana River Crossing) Caltrans, District 12 (SR-55 undercrossing) County of Orange (channel crossings, pump station) City of Huntington Beach (product water pipeline) City of Costa Mesa (product water pipeline) Mesa Consolidated Water District (product water Metropolitan Water District_ of Southern Californiai - ----------- ----- ---- (product water pipeline) Institutional Agreements Various cities, agencies, and regional water — --- - purveyors. Lease Agreement California State Lands Commission 1Industrial Source Control Permit Orange County Sanitation Districts Page 4.1-9, RELEVANT PLANNING ".....Policy HM 1.4.4 (Page V-HM-8): "Require that owners of contaminated sites develop a remediation plan with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA). Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan) The proposed project site is located within the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan area.j (This redevelopment plan became effective in August of 2002, with the associated Program EIR! certified in June of 2002. As adoption of the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan did note change any General Plan or zoning designations within the redevelopment area (including they proposed desalination facility site), the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project will be consistent with the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan, General Plan, and zoning. As a result of this redevelopment plan, the proposed desalination project may be eligible to receivel tax increment funding from the redevelopment area for use in developing infrastructure/aesthetic improvements and hazardous materials remediation (in accordance with the goals contained within the redevelopment plan).;' Page 4.1-10, RELEVANT PLANNING ".....As such, the proposed desalination facility's ocean discharge will require separate review and approval by the California Coastal Commission of a Coastal Development Permit. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION_ OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE Growth Management p ❖ 3.03: The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and, transportation systems-shall be used by_SCAG to implement the region's growth es�; ' �polici -- ------____ City of Huntington Beach July 10, 2003 169 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA ❖ 3.18: Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause adverse environmental impacts. g ❖ 3.21: Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological, sites. ❖ 3.22: Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. 3.23: Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans. Air Quality Chapter ❖ 5.11: Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subregional, and local). consider air quality, land use, transportation, and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts." Page 4.1-10, LAND USE ".....long-term plant operation. The proposed pipeline alternatives and underground pump station2l' are adjacent to a variety of land uses, including residential, open space, commercial, educational, medical, institutional, and recreational. However, the pipelines and underground pump stations will be subsurface and are not anticipated to result in any long-term land use impacts. In addition, it should be noted that St. Paul's Greek Orthodox Church has been notified of the proposed pump station and has provided a letter of interest in response (refer to (Response 14 of the Responses to Comments document for more information and environmental impact analysis . Page 4.1-11, RELEVANT PLANNING "The project evaluated within this EIR proposes to implement a 50 mgd desalination plant within an industrial area. Project implementation would be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Local Coastal Program, aPA Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). During the "design development" stage, the Applicant....." Page 4.3-11, Impacts on Source Water from the OCSD Outfall ".....The OCSD discharges up to 480 mgd of wastewater that has received primary treatment and some secondary treatment at an outfall that is located approximately five miles offshore at a depth of 195 feet. lit should be noted that OCSD has committed to provide secondary treatment for 100 percent of all effluent it receives. The development of facilities to provide this additional) secondary treatment could take up to 11 years to plan, design, construct, and commission. A more detailed implementation plan is being developed by the District and will be completed in early 2003. City of Huntington Beach July 10, 2003 170 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA In addition, on August 12, 2002, the OCSD began disinfecting its wastewater per Regional! (Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. The OCSD is presently adding bleach asi, is disinfectant followed by sodium bisulfite to remove residual prior to ocean discharge, and wiIIG continue to do so for the next three to five years. Testing and studies are underway to evaluate other disinfection technologies^including ultraviolet light, ozone, and peracetic acid for long-term; application I_ _ __-- -- _ - -- _ -- ___-- -- -. The OCSD wastewater discharge would have the greatest potential to impact water quality at the AES intake with summer El Nino conditions when currents are flowing northwest towards the AES facility. In addition, for "worst case" conditions, the model assumed that OCSD was discharging at its maximum allowable rate of 480 mgd and that the temperature conditions in the ocean would allow the wastewater plume to be near the depth of the AES intake. The model showed that under these extreme conditions, the OCSD discharge would be diluted 10 million to one at the AES intake and would not affect water quality at the intake.iThis dilution) to uld be further increased in consideration of OCSD's proposed secondary treatment process; current disinfection process, which were not accounted for within modeling_in this Draft EIR., Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant." Page 4.3-19, Water Quality Impacts to Marine Biological Resources The "first flush" treated waste cleaning solution from the washwater tank will be discharged into the local sanitary sewer for further treatment at the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) regional wastewater treatment facility. The cleaning flush water following the "first flush" will be mixed with the RO plant brine concentrate, treated waste filter backwash, and the AES plant discharge and sent to the ocean. This "second flush"water stream will contain trace amounts of cleaning compounds and would be below detection limits for hazardous waste. An Industrial] Source Control Permit from the OCSD for discharge of waste cleaning solution into the sanitary sewer system will be required for the project. In addition, the discharge must comply with the, limits and requirements contained in the OC_SD's Wastewater Discharge Regulations.j Impacts to the local marine environment in this regard would be less than significant. Page 4.6-3, Roadway Maintenance "The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department provides roadway maintenance to the City of Huntington Beach. The Department performs regular maintenance on City owned roadways in the form of re-paving, pothole/curb repairs, and striping, as well as roadway widenings, expansions, and improvements. (t should be noted that the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department has dotm Red mewl,", Street (IGGated west of the _pFp* 'Reed to bq jTpFeyed -- - --- -- °- - - -- - - ------ -- ;conditioned the' utter widening of both Newland Street (located west of the subject site) and Edison Avenue (situated, ,north of the subject site). The applicant would be required to complete improvements along the, southern side of Edison Avenue as a condition of approval for the project, while the City would be responsible for improvements along Newland Street with the applicant responsible for paying their fair share. For more information refer to the "Impacts" section below." — City of Huntington Beach July 10, 2003 171 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA Page 4.6-4, Storm Water Drainage ".....The OCFCD and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department operate the storm water drainage system within the City of Huntington Beach. The storm drainage system removes water runoff from streets, and, a#eF filtic t*GF, transports the runoff to the ocean. The OCFCD owns, operates, maintains, and improves regional flood control facilities. The City of Huntington Beach owns and operates 145, storm drainage channel pumping stations which pump the runoff water into the channels and to the ocean. No runoff from the project site....." Page 4.6-5, Reclaimed Water ".....The City of Huntington Beach irs GUFF84y paFteGipatiAg porticipated in the Green Acres project (GAP) in association with the OCSD and the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The OCSD produces secondary treated water for the OCWD, where the water is treated once again and distributed for potential industrial use and landscape irrigation +e for: the Cities of Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Huntington Beach. (GVVRS)` The GWRS is a major eew reclamation project currently being developed by the OCSD and OCWD. This project could increase the City's use of reclaimed water to 400 afy. At the present time, no conveyance facilities are available at or near the subject site, and it is not anticipated that the proposed desalination project will require the use of reclaimed water." Page 4.6-8, Roadway Maintenance "As previously stated, both" Newland Street and Edison_Avenue _have harm FeGeRtly been conditioned to be improved, " by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. 'As a condition of approval by the City of Huntington Beach for the proposed project, the applicant nt will be required to complete improvements along the southern side of Edison Avenue: (situated north of the subject site as shown in Exhibit 2 of the Draft EIR, SITE VICINITY MAP).' These improvements would consist of the dedication of 12 feet along the frontage of the existing Edison Avenue (for curb, gutter, paving, and street lighting improvements) for a total of approximately 600 linear feet. It should be noted that AES Huntington Beach, LLC would be:. responsible for dedication of property to the City for these improvements, as AES owns the entire southern frontage of Edison Avenue.and would lease property to the applicant for the proposed project. However, the project applicant would be responsible for completing these; roadway and landscaping improvements as a condition of approval for the project subsequent toy property dedication. It should also be noted that street widening along Newland Street (west of, the proposed project site) would be performed by the City, with separate entitlements and environmental evaluation. AES Huntington Beach, LLC would dedicate the necessary right-of- way along Newland Street and both AES and the project applicant would be required to pay" their fair share of the cost. In addition,1 traffic impact fees as determined by the City of Huntington Beach will be collected upon project implementation in order to offset any costs incurred for roadway widenings and intersection capacity improvements.3 Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant. 3Letter, Mr.Todd Broussard, City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, July 16, 2001. City of Huntington Beach July 10, 2003 172 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA Page 4.6-9, Wastewater eight-inch sewer conveyance pipeline leading off-site to the existing 48-inch OCSD sewer pipeline located within Newland Avenue or a 54-inch OCSD line within Pacific Coast.Highway. OCSD has also indicated that the pH and flowrate of the washwater tank discharge would be acceptable, contingent upon the acquisition of a Sewer Connection Permit from the City of Huntington Beach and an Industrial Wa6te gisGhaffle S_ource Control Permit from the OCSD. It should be noted that the County of Orange's....... Page 4.6-17, Hydraulics ".....However, the hydraulic characteristics of the OC-44 Pipeline may be affected in one of two ways, depending on whether the pipeline segment in question is east or west of the proposed Poseidon/OC-44 connection point. West of the proposed Poseidon/OC-44 connection point, the flow rate and flow direction would remain unchanged, while a change in water pressure would be negligible (a change of less than five pounds per square inch). East of the proposed connection point, the direction of flow would be reversed, the flow rate would increase, and water pressure would decrease. It is anticipated that maximum flow velocity through this portion of the pipeline would be 7.5 feet per second (fps). All flow rate, pressure, and velocity changes which may occur in the existing pipelines are within_pipeline design specifications. It should be notethat the OC-44 connection is operated by a Joint Powers Authority J(with Mesa. Consolidated Water District as the approving agency). The applicant will obtain appropriate, approvals from the Mesa Consolidated Water District prior to project operation in order to. ensure that impacts to the OC-44 do not adversely impact the Joint Powers Authority. In; addition, the proposed project would not inhibit the City of Huntington Beach's ability to operate the OC-44 from zero to 13 cubic feet_ per second (CFS)__without restriction or need for: notification." - ------ ----- -- — ----------- Page 4.6-18, Reclaimed Water "The City of Huntington Beach is not currently utilizes `utilizing reclaimed water, although the City is may in the future' through the Green Acres Project and Groundwater Replenishment System. The proposed project is not anticipated to require the use of reclaimed water or installation of reclaimed water facilities, as the project itself will be a new reclamation source. Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. Page 4.6-21, MITIGATION MEASURES 11PSU-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, _ _ _ _feF ReR_FesideRtial._ _ the applicant will be required to pay applicable school mitigation fees pursuant_to State; law.'' - ----- - - — --- - - -- - Page 4.9-19, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ".....not anticipated to be significant (refer to Appendix L, BOOSTER PUMP STATION BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS SURVEY, for additional information). It should also be noted that any displaced vegetation would be replaced. City of Huntington Beach July 10, 2003 173 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA In addition, implementation of the proposed project may result in impacts to waterways due to "frac-outs" potentially occurring during pipeline construction. "Frac-outs" occur when drilling fluids (usually bentonite) seep to the surface via cracks in the ground. Prior to the performance f any directional boring, the applicant will prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan will 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 become Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate' resource agencies prior to each major bore:' Page 4.9-28, MITIGATION MEASURES ".....of the roadway using appropriate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer. ❖ 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;" Page 4.9-30, MITIGATION MEASURES ".....restrictions on construction activities may be required in the vicinity of the nest until the nest is no longer active. CON-40 _ 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 I 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 b_y the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore_; CON-41 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. CO 4NC0 2 All focused surveys for sensitive biological resources performed prior to proposed project implementation shall include a review of data within the' California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) to obtain current information on- any previously reported sensitive species/habitat, including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code: City of Huntington Beach July 10, 2003 174 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA CO Prior to implementation of the proposed off-site booster pump station adjacent to the NCCP/HCP boundary, a jurisdictional delineation of the proposed pump station site shall be performed to determine the extent of jurisdictional area, if zany, as part of the regulatory permitting process.! CULTURAL RESOURCES CON-40AI Should buried historical/archaeological resources be discovered during excavation on the proposed booster pump station site, all construction work in that area shall be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. CON-445 During excavation of five feet below ground surface or lower on the proposed booster pump station site, a paleontological resource recovery program for Miocene invertebrate fossils shall be implemented. This program shall include, but will not be limited to, the following: ❖ Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor must me empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are not encountered, or upon exposure are determined following examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources; ❖ Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates; ❖ Identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. The paleontologist should have a written respository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities; and ❖ Preparation of a report of findings with appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources." Page 5-7, Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Assessment ".....As discussed in Section 5.2, GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS, the project may facilitate new development in se,ith Orange County and the South Coast Region;." Appendix E, Watershed Sanitary Survey, Page E-41, Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Discharges Refer to Responses 17b and 17c of the Responses to Comments, above. City of Huntington Beach July 10, 2003 175 ATTACHMENT 4 °�� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Mayor Connie Boardman SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO CERTIFY EIR NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON DESALINATION PLANT) AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE DATE: August 13, 2003 At their August 12, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission certified EIR No. 00-02 (Poseidon Desalination Plant) as adequate and complete. I am hereby appealing the Planning Commission's action to the City Council because the EIR does not adequately analyze the project's impacts relative to ocean water quality, marine biology, growth inducement, and the adjacent wetland. cc: City Council Planning Commission Ray Silver, City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning o � a =- _,o n A (Boardman ElR0002Appeal2) ATTACHMENT 5 JJ City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Plannef=,-� DATE: May 27, 2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) APPLICANT: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 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: • 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. • 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)_ 00 • Jl kp, g6i I T'n M V-0214 27; AR - 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 RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1581 (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny certification of EIR No. 00-02 with findings for denial." B. "Continue certification of EIR No. 00-02 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction 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 includes up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. The project also proposes perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. The EIR provides a discussion of impacts by issue area and provides mitigation measures, where appropriate. Specific issue areas discussed in the EIR include: 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. All other issues, including Population and Housing, Transportation/Traffic, Biological Resources, Mineral Resources, Cultural Resources, Recreation, and Agricultural Resources were determined to result in no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts. These issue areas were fully evaluated in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix A to the EIR document. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project and long-term implications resulting from project implementation are also provided. An analysis of the proposed development of the property is presented in a companion report that will be considered by the Planning Commission after action on the EIR. The companion report reviews applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development No. 02-05. PC Staff.Report—5/27/03 2 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) ISSUES: Subject Property And Surrounding Land Use,Zoning And General Plan Designations: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property and P (Public) PS-0-CZ-FP2 (Public- AES Generating South of Subject Semipublic—Oil Production Station Property Overlay—Coastal Zone Overlay—Floodplain Overlay) North of Subject I-172-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-0-CZ- ASCON-NESI landfill, Public FP2 Tank Farm West of Subject RM-15 IL-0-CZ-FP2 (Limited Vacant,Mobile Home Property(across Industrial), RMP-CZ-FP2 Park, RV Park from Newland St (Manufactured Home Park) General Plan Conformance: A detailed discussion of the project's conformity with goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan is presented in Section 4.1 (Land Use/Relevant Planning) of the EIR. 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 3 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) 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 industrial development on-site and surrounding industrial area. The structures will be lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. The new structures include multiple building masses and consistent architectural treatment that is carried throughout all the structures, including the architectural screen for the various tanks, for a cohesive appearance. The project provides code required parking and landscaping pursuant to the zoning ordinance including at 10-foot landscape planter with an eight-foot high block wall along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages. The perimeter wall and landscaping will help screen the site and improve the aesthetics of the area. 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. Potential 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 4 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) 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 proposed desalination plant structures have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks and the AES facility. 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 project 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. These improvements will further the city's goal of improving the circulation in the immediate area consistent with the adopted standards. The applicant will also be required to pay traffic impact fees to be used for improvements to the city's overall circulation system. Consistent with policies for mutual access, the applicant is proposing to access the site through the existing AES entrance off Newland Street to limit driveway access points onto arterials. To enhance the visual quality of the site, the project is required to provide a 10-foot perimeter landscape planter to enhance the overall appearance of the site and area. The landscaping improvements are proposed to be consistent with the approved AES landscaping for a cohesive appearance. D. Coastal Element 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. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 5 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) i 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. 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- . 6 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) 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 Land Use designation for the site of P (Public)which permits a variety of public and institutional uses such as governmental facilities and utilities. Adequate services can be provided to serve the project 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 lower profile structures (maximum height 30 ft.) and installing perimeter landscaping along the project's Newland and Edison street frontages. The proposed structures will be located behind an existing concrete berm (10 ft. high) away from any wetland or sensitive habitat areas. The buildings are adequately buffered and will have no impact to sensitive habitat. E. 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. 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. The implementation of these measures will help to reduce impacts to the surrounding area during construction. F. 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. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 7 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) G. 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. A recommended mitigation measure will require the applicant 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. Noise sources during construction are exempt from the Noise Ordinance provided that a valid building/grading permit has been obtained.from the City. Construction hours are limited to between the hours of 7 am to 8 pm, Monday through Saturday and prohibited on Sundays and Federal holidays. 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. H. 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. 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 100 percent spill containment capacity. ZoninP_Compliance:Not applicable. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 8 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: Not applicable. Environmental Status: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, RBF Consulting, a consultant hired by the City, prepared EIR No. 00-02 to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project. The document must be adopted and certified by the Planning Commission prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development No. 02-05. The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. The EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed seawater desalination plant, accessory structures, water transmission lines, and off-site booster pump stations. EIR No. 00-02 discusses potential adverse impacts in the areas of 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. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. 1. Environmental Procedures The procedure that was followed during preparation of EIR No. 00-02 is outlined below: DATE ACTIVITY May 17,2001 Staff and RBF conducted an initial study and determined that an EIR would be necessary for the proiect. May 17,2001 A Notice of Preparation was sent to responsible agencies and filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify the public of the intent to prepare an EIR. A Notice of Availability was published in the Independent and sent to area property owners within a 2,000 ft. radius as well as interested parties. A 30-day public review period was established from May 17, 2001 through June 15, 2001. June 6,2001 A Public Scoping Meeting was held at the Edison Community Center(at 2:30 pm and 7:15 pm) for the public to review the proposed project, discuss any concerns and issues, and inquire about the CE A process. Sept. 19,2002 Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. Notice of Availability mailed to all property owners and tenants within a 300 ft radius, all interested parties, all attendees at scoping meetings, and all interested agencies. Draft EIR available for public review and comment for forty-five days from Sept. 19 through Nov.4,2002. Draft EIR available for review at City Hall,Central Library, and Banning Branch Library. Nov. 4, 2002 Comments on EIR accepted up to 5:00 PM. A total of 21 comment letters were received. March 21,2003 Response to Comments on Draft EIR and Final EIR are made available for public information and sent to Responsible Agencies and commenting parties. (CEQA requires Response to Comments be sent to Responsible Agencies and commenting parties 10 days prior to certification hearing.) May 27,2003 Public hearing before Planning Commission to Certify EIR No. 01-02. PC Staff Report--5/27/03 9 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) 2. Summary of EIR No. 00-02 In the preparation of an environmental impact report, potential impacts associated with the proposed development are identified and analyzed pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. These impacts are categorized into three levels of significance. They are: less than significant impacts; impacts than can be mitigated to a level less than significant; and unavoidable significant impacts. The level of impacts associated with the proposed project are identified below: a)Less Than Significant Impacts The project will result in impacts to some environmental resources and conditions that are concluded not to be significant if the development proposal complies with standard conditions of approval suggested in the entitlement staff report. The following topical areas were determined to result in no environmental impacts or less than significant environmental impacts: • Agricultural Resources • Air Quality (long-term) • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Land Use/Relevant Planning • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Recreation • Transportation/Traffic b)Adverse Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Signs scant Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with the project (CUP and CDP) can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Areas where impacts may occur and a brief description of the recommended mitigation measures are as follows: • Aesthetics/Light and Glare - Utilize minimum light levels for safety and security and lighting shall be directed to avoid spillage onto adjacent properties - All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view • Construction Related Impacts - Concentrate construction activities away from adjacent residential uses as feasible - Limit construction hours to Monday-Saturday, 7 am to 8 pm - All construction equipment shall have mufflers - Install construction security fence - Submit erosion and dust control plan - Construction shall include Best Management Practices to control pollutants - Complete a Storm Water Pollution.Prevention Plan prior to construction PC Staff Report—5/27/03 10 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) - Dewatering plan shall by approved by the Public Works Department, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Orange County Water District - Post informational signs on site prior to starting remediation - All structures to be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation - Contractor to follow all recommendations within the adopted Remedial Action Plan A Traffic Management Plan shall be approved for all work in roadways A truck and construction vehicle routing plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department Conduct nesting survey of savannah sparrows adjacent to desalination plant site Conduct surveys for California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo, southwestern pond turtle, raptor nests, and sensitive biological resources at booster pump station site Archaeologist to evaluate any historical and archaeological resources discovered during the construction of the booster pump. • Geology/Soils/Seismicity - Submit geotechnical report to include recommendations regarding grading, foundations, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering, lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential, and ground water constraints and incorporate recommendations into the grading plan - Complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures - Compliance with the Uniform Building Code and California Division of Mines and Geology's Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards and Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction - Incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction - Perform special studies and subsurface investigation to determine fault rupture potential of South Branch fault which underlies the site • Hydrology and Water Quality - Submit a Water Quality Management Plan for approval by the Public Works Department to control pollutant runoff - Perform hydrology and hydraulic analysis to address storm water drainage and flooding - Install on-site drainage system to address stormwater - Product water quality to be regulated by the California Department of Health Services • Noise - Submit an acoustical analysis to assure that all stationary noise sources comply with the city's Noise Ordinance • Public Service and Utilities - Pay traffic impact, sewer connection, water service connection, and school impact fees - Incorporate solid waste reduction and recycling methods for project construction and operation These impacts can be reduced by mitigation measures suggested in the draft environmental impact report and summarized in this report. Staff recommends incorporation of these mitigation measures into the conditions of approval for the development project(CUP and CDP). PC Staff Report—5/27/03 11 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) c) Unavoidable Significant Impacts There are adverse environmental impacts that cannot be completely eliminated through mitigation measures relating to short-term construction related emissions of carbon monoxide, reactive organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides from the proposed project. Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. 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 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. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. Prior to certification and adoption of the EIR by resolution, the Planning Commission may amend the document. It should be noted, however, that removal of any of the recommended mitigation measures requires findings and justification. Additionally, all mitigation measures that are approved with the EIR must be applied to the approved project. Environmental Board: The City's Environmental Review Board reviewed the EIR at their meeting of October 3, 2002. In addition, the Board submitted a letter during the 45-day public comment period. The letter has been responded to by the consultant and is included as part of the Response to Comments (see Attachment No. 2). In summary,the Board commented on the following: • Use of the most energy efficient motors available to drive the 36 large electric water pumps • Coordinate with other agencies on possibility of co-locating other needed pipelines to minimize impacts • Impacts to water quality and marine biology • Reduced impacts from use of aboveground water storage tank in lieu of underground tank option Coastal Status: The proposed project is within the appealable portion of the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 is being processed concurrently with EIR No. 00-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 pursuant to Chapter 245 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The project's compliance with Coastal Zone issues is discussed in a separate report. Redevelopment Status: The-project is located in-the-Huntington Beach Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Project area. Discussion of the proposed-projecfs effect on redevelopment issues is discussed in a separate report. PC Staff Report—5/27/03- - 12 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The EIR was circulated to other Departments for review and comment. All Department comments and recommendations are incorporated into the EIR and its mitigation measures. No conditions of approval apply to the EIR. As development of the proposed project occurs, compliance with mitigation measures will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is attached to the staff report for the development. 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. Application Processinz Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): Dec. 12, 2000—Application Submitted September 21, 2003 March 16, 2001 -EA Completed September 19, 2002—Draft EIR Completed March 21, 2003 —Response to Comments Completed ANALYSIS: The analysis section provides a brief overview of the EIR and its conclusions, a review of the project alternatives, a brief discussion of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a summary of the response to comments. EIR Overview The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The EIR discusses potential adverse impacts in nine issue areas. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 13 (03 SRO 5 EIR 00-02) ♦ Aesthetics/Light and Glare The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the area by replacing three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures together with perimeter landscaping and an eight-foot high block wall. The new structures include variations in form, building details, colors, and materials to create visual interest. The design is carried throughout all the structures, including the architectural screen for the various tanks, for a cohesive appearance. To provide a unified appearance, a 10-foot wide planter with an eight-foot high block wall will be provided along the project's street frontage consistent with the wall design approved for the AES generating station. A mitigation measure is recommended to require all exterior mechanical equipment to be screened from view to so as not to detract from the appearance of the area. The project will also introduce new lighting sources within the project area as well as a minimal amount of additional reflective surfaces on proposed structures. Glare effects from the proposed structures are deemed relatively minor compared to the existing levels in the vicinity. With implementation of standard conditions of approval and a mitigation measure to prevent light spillage across property lines and utilizing minimum light levels for safety, the effects of increased light and glare will be less than significant. ♦ Air Quality The long-term on-site and off-site air emissions for the proposed project were modeled as recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The results indicate that long-term impacts would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds and are not anticipated to be significant. The off-site emissions resulting from the production of electricity to operate the desalination plant were also considered. Based on the expected power consumption for the plant, the project may create regional impacts in regards to air quality. However, it would be speculative to quantify such emissions as the electricity used by the project will come from a regional power supply grid. Given that the project conforms to the General Plan and zoning designations, impacts in this regard have been accounted for in local and regional planning documents. Moreover, the project will be subject to review by the SCAQMD for consistency with regional air quality plans. Based on this no mitigation measures were included. Short-term air quality impacts are discussed under the Construction Related Impacts section. ♦ Construction Related Impacts Air quality impacts during construction include fugitive dust and exhaust emissions from construction and motor vehicles. Recommended mitigation measures to address these impacts include requiring watering of the site and using low-sulfur diesel fuel. However, short-term impacts relating to carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, and nitrogen oxides emissions from construction equipment, particularly during the hauling of materials off-site, exceed SCAQMD thresholds and are considered an unavoidable significant impact because they cannot be mitigated. The project will also generate noise impacts during the construction process from remediation, demolition, and construction activities as a result of power tools, jackhammers, pile drivers, truck trips, etc. Mitigation measures are recommended that require equipment to be muffled, the prohibition of unnecessary idling of equipment, compliance with construction hours in the Noise Ordinance, and adoption of a truck route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors. PC Staff Report-5/27/03 14 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) During construction, construction equipment and high levels of truck traffic may adversely impact the area. Mitigation measures are recommended that require fencing the construction site and locating equipment storage, stockpiling, and construction activities away from residential areas to the greatest extent feasible. Construction of the water transmission line will cause temporary disruption to area streets. Traffic impacts during construction will be addressed by several mitigation measures which require submittal of a Traffic Management Plan and a construction vehicle routing plan, among others. Impacts from potential exposure to hazardous materials during the construction process will be addressed through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations as well mitigation measures which require, among others, the approval of a Remedial Action Plan and compliance with requirements for the proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials. The project is anticipated to create water quality impacts during excavation, grading, and construction through the discharge of dust or sediment laden runoff. Several mitigation measures are proposed to address this issue including a requirement for submittal of an erosion control plan and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Construction of the underground booster pump in an area within unincorporated Orange County as well as the desalination plant in Huntington Beach may have impacts to biological resources by disrupting their habitat. The EIR identifies mitigation measures to address these impacts which require the completion of various biological resource surveys pursuant to the requirements of the appropriate federal and state agencies. Any potential impacts to cultural resources are addressed by mitigation measures to implement a paleontological resource recovery program as well as a requirement to halt any construction upon discovery of any historic/archaeological resources until an archaeologist can be consulted. Construction of the booster pump will require permits from the County. ♦ Geology/Soils/Seismicity The EIR includes an analysis of existing topography, geology, seismicity, and liquefaction conditions at the project site and analyzes the potential environmental effects of the project. In addition, this section describes potential impacts from landslides, tsunamis, and seiche waves. The EIR includes recommended mitigation measures to address potential impacts. The mitigation measures require design level geotechnical reports to minimize or avoid impacts related to compressible materials, lateral spreading, liquefaction potential, ground shaking, and flood control bank stability. Also, complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures will be required. To address seismic impacts, a mitigation measure is recommended to require special studies and subsurface investigation to determine fault rupture potential of South Branch fault which underlies the site. Potential impacts from tsunamis and seiche waves are anticipated to be less than significant given that previous evaluations noted in the General Plan put the tsunami potential for the city at very low. Additionally, the existing concrete berm along the perimeter of the site provides additional protection from any potential waves that might impact the site. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 15 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) ♦ Hazards and Hazardous Materials The EIR states that the project is expected to have a beneficial impact by facilitating the remediation of contamination surrounding the fuel storage tanks and distillate fuel tank. In addition, demolition of the tanks would also abate any asbestos and lead paint on the structures. The operation of the plant involves the use of hazardous materials with: 1) periodic cleaning of the reverse osmosis membranes which filter impurities from seawater; 2).treatment of potable product water; and 3) storage .of diesel fuel for emergency back electricity generators at the off-site underground booster pump stations. The materials to be used are described in detail in the EIR, Section 4.8. 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 100 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 require the applicant to submit a complete chemical inventory including a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a qualified professional. The EIR concludes that project design implementation and compliance with existing requirements reduce anticipated impacts to less than significant. ♦ Hydrology and Water Quality The project's hydrology and water quality impacts are proposed to be addressed by mitigation measures that require the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) which will identify Best Management Practices (BMPs), the submittal of a site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis, and the installation of an on-site drainage system subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Concerns about the quality of the product water will be addressed by compliance with California Department of Health Services requirements. The EIR concludes that the project will impact water quality in the long term by increasing runoff from impervious surfaces. An on-site local storm water drainage system would be implemented with the project and the storm water will be discharged into the ocean via the AES outfall. Through the use of appropriate mitigation, the impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. An analysis of the potential impacts to the source water from the Pacific Ocean was also conducted. The computer model concluded that under the worst-case scenario during an El Nino winter and with the AES facility pumping the maximum amount of cooling water, water drawn into the intake would be comprised of 0.001 percent water from the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh. The study also concludes that dry weather runoff from the Talbert Marsh under the worst-case scenario is released into the surf zone and onshore waves keep the marsh water in the shallow near shore waters. In contrast, the AES intake is 2,292 feet offshore in 34 feet of water. The model further concludes that under the worst-case scenario the Orange County Sanitation District discharge would be diluted 10 million to one at the AES intake. Lastly, the re-circulation of the AES outfall into the intake was also studied and under the worst-case scenario will only make up 0.1 percent of the intake water. The analysis concluded that impacts to the source water are not anticipated to be significant. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. PC Staff Report—5/27/03 16 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) Potential impacts of the brine discharge to marine biology were also analyzed. The analysis concludes that, under the worst-case scenario which assumes that the AES facility has only two circulating pumps operating (one generating unit running) and that no additional mixing from natural causes such as wind or wave action would occur, a maximum of 15.6 acres of ocean floor (benthic area) and 18.3 acres of the water around the discharge (pelagic area) are expected to be exposed to water with a salinity 10 percent higher than the ambient seawater during the worst case scenario. This worst-case scenario has less than a one percent chance of occurring. During average conditions with normal power plant operations (four circulating pumps associated with two AES generating units), typical environmental conditions, and desalination plant production of 50 mgd, a maximum of 6.5 acres of benthic area (ocean floor) and 8.3 acres of pelagic area (open seas or oceans) is expected to be exposed to water with a salinity 10 percent higher than ambient water. Average case conditions are expected to occur 50 percent of the time the desalination plant is operating. The EIR notes that a 10 percent anomaly is within the natural variability of seawater salinity and would be tolerated by most fish and planktonic species. Additionally, mobile species have the ability to avoid areas they cannot tolerate. No significant impact to local fish and planktonic populations is expected as a result of the brine discharge. The analysis also states that benthic species will have similar salinity tolerances. However, during average conditions the salinity of the water at the ocean floor immediately around the discharge will be higher than local normal oceanic variation. This will likely lead to a replacement of the existing benthic community with estuarine species that can tolerate increased salinity and that will be functionally similar to the existing community. The analysis concluded that impacts to benthic species are not anticipated to be significant. ♦ Land Use/Relevant Planning The EIR includes information on the existing land use characteristics of the project site and the adjacent areas relative to the desalination plant, water transmission lines, and booster pump stations. The Land Use section of the Initial Study (Appendix A) determined that the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, nor would it conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, this section addresses conformity of the proposed project with local land use plans and policies, and existing and planned land uses in the project vicinity. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations for the project site. The EIR concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program. Any impacts the proposed project might create relative to air quality, aesthetics, construction, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise are addressed in the corresponding EIR sections. Given that the water transmission line and booster pump stations are underground no long-term land use impacts are expected. The EIR concluded that the proposed project would,therefore, result in a less-than-significant land use impact. ♦ Noise The EIR examines existing ambient noise levels on-site, at nearby surrounding sensitive receptors, along the proposed water transmission line alignments,.and at.the booster pump station sites and evaluates the potential noise impacts resulting-from implementation of the proposed project. Stationary noise sources PC Staff Report—5/27/03 17 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) on-site were considered and include 36 electric water pumps and air conditioning system components. The pumps will either be operated indoors or will be provided with enclosures to dampen noise. Additionally, intervening structures such as the concrete berm and the proposed wall, together with significant setbacks, will further reduce noise. A mitigation measure is recommended 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 measures to assure compliance with the city's noise ordinance prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. The EIR concluded that with the mitigation measure, the potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The off-site booster pump stations will be placed underground to minimize potential noise impacts. Because the project will only employ up to 18 staff and will require approximately three truck deliveries per day, impacts from mobile sources are anticipated to be less than significant. Short-term noise impacts are discussed under the Construction Related Impacts section. ♦ Public Services and Utilities The EIR includes a discussion of the existing public services and utilities available to the proposed project. Services evaluated include fire, police, schools, libraries, roadway maintenance, parks, water, wastewater, storm water, reclaimed water, solid waste, electricity, gas, telephone, and cable. All public services impacts would be less than significant after implementation of recommended mitigation measures. The recommended mitigation measures include payment of school impact fees, traffic impact fees, sewer connection fees, and water service connection fees. To address solid waste impacts, a mitigation measure is recommended which requires the submittal of a waste reduction plan. Alternatives to the Proposed Project CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or its location that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project (see page 3-23 of the EIR), but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Four project alternatives were selected for review. The Alternative Project Design alternative was ultimately found to be infeasible. The three remaining alternatives were further studied to identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects resulting from the proposed project. These three alternatives are described below. • No Project/No Development Alternative — Maintain the project site in its current state with no development. • Alternative Site Alternative—An alternative site for the project is located southwest of the current project site and was the proposed project site in the Initial Study. However, this option was rejected due to potentially significant impacts to AES parking, access, and operations. Several alternative locations outside Huntington Beach were also considered including the mouth of San Juan Creek in Dana Point, San Onofre, and along the coast in San Clemente. These alternatives are not being considered for various reasons including.environmental concerns with a new ocean PC Staff°Report—5/27/03 18 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) intake/discharge system (Dana Point and San Clemente) and engineering and acquisition issues (San Onofre). 9 Aboveground Product Water Storage Tank Alternative — Development of the project with an aboveground storage tank in lieu of an underground storage tank. A summary of the three feasible project alternatives, and a comparison of environmental impacts relative to the proposed project, is presented in the table below: Summary of Project Alternatives IssueArea No Projed/No Development Alternative Site Aboveground Tank Opdon Land Use/Relevant Planning < N/A = Geology/Soils/Seismicity < </= _ Hydrology and Water Quality < _/> > Air Quality < Noise < =h = Public Services and Utilities > (water supply) Aesthetics/Light and Glare < =h > Hazards and Hazardous < Materials Construction Related Impacts < U= < Legend: = Impact is equivalent to impact of proposed project(neither environmentally superior or inferior) < Impact is less than impact of proposed project(environmentally superior) > Impact is greater than impact of proposed project(environmentally inferior) A detailed analysis of environmental impacts for these alternatives compared to the proposed project is included in Section 6.0, Alternatives To The Proposed Action, of the EIR. As discussed in Section 6.5, the No Project Alternative was determined to be the most environmentally superior alternative. Among the other alternatives, the Aboveground Product Water Storage Tank alternative is anticipated to produce a lower amount of short-term construction related emissions as it would require less grading and excavation that the underground tank design. The Alternative Site alternative is not anticipated to significantly reduce impacts as implementation is expected to result in overall similar or greater environmental impacts. Statement of Overridinz Considerations Environmental impacts associated with implementation of a project may not always be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of the project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Because implementation of the proposed project would create significant unavoidable impacts a Statement- of Overriding Considerations is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the PC Staff Report—5/27/03 19 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) project, based on information contained within the Final EIR, as well as any other information in the public record. The proposed project would result in the following significant unavoidable adverse impact: • Air Quality Short-term construction related emissions of carbon monoxide, reactive organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides Although the project results in adverse impacts to the environment 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 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. Errata Section 3.0 of the Response to Comments outlines the changes to the Draft EIR (see Attachment No. 4). The changes consist of additional information on the required improvements along Edison Avenue, a discussion of the relevance of the Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and the addition and modification of a few mitigation measures in . response to the comments received on the Draft EIR. In addition, it also includes other minor clarifications to the text. Public Comments As mentioned above, the Draft EIR was circulated to the public for review and all interested parties, property owners, and occupants within three hundred feet of the site were notified of the document's availability. The public and responsible agencies were therefore able to review the document and submit comments within the forty-five day public comment period. The 21 written comments received from the public have been responded to in the Response to Comments (see Attachment No. 2) of the EIR. The comments covered a wide spectrum of issues and concerns including but not limited to: impacts to biological resources, impacts to water quality and marine biology, geologic hazards, growth inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, and impacts to the water supply/quality and distribution system. One follow up letter dated May 8, 2003 was received from the Coastal Commission (see Attachment No. 5). Any further written communication received subsequent to the preparation of the staff report as well as a response to the Coastal Commission letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission under separate cover. SUMMARY: Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 serves as an informational document with the sole purpose of identifying potential environmental impacts associated with the Poseidon desalination plant project, alternatives that minimize those impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures. Staff recommends that.the-Planning jCommission certify EIR No. 00-02 because: PC Staff Report—5/27/03 20 (03SR05 EIR 00-02) ■ The EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project; and ■ Identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 1581 (Final EIR No. 00-02) 2. Final EIR No. 00-02 including Response to Comments (under separate cover—not attached) 3. Technical Appendices EIR No. 00-02 (under separate cover—not attached) 4.- Errata pages to Fiftal-E4R- 5. Coastal Commission letter dated May 8, 2003 SH:HF:RR:rl PC Staff Report—5/27/03 21 (03 SR05 EIR 00-02) RESOLUTION NO. 1581 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2001051092)FOR THE POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse #2001051092 ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City") to address the environmental implications of the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project (the "Project"). • On May 17, 2001, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared -and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties. An update to the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study was prepared and distributed on March 4, 2002. • After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the two public scoping meetings held at the Edison Community Center in the City of Huntington Beach on June 6, 2001 (2:30 pm and 7:15 pm), the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR, dated September 19, 2002, and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 19, 2002 to November 4, 2002 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and WHEREAS, public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the Planning Commission in a separately bound document entitled "Responses to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated March 21, 2003; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public,meeting on the EIR on May 27, 2003, and received and considered public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments, the Errata (bound together with the Responses to Comments), the Appendices to the Responses to Comments and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments, incorporation, and references. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission makes the findings contained in the attached "Statement of Facts and Findings" with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and finds that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts and Findings is attached as Exhibit "A"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in'the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission finds that all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts and the Final EIR. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist" (also referred to as the "Mitigation Monitoring Program") attached as Exhibit "B"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the Planning Commission finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate suggested alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 7. The Planning Commission finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 8. The Planning Commission finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR. The Planning Commission finds that the refinements that have been made in the Project do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the Planning Commission through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. 2 . SECTION 9. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation. SECTION 10. The Planning Commission finds that the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project as identified in Section 5.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings (short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality) have been lessened in their severity by the application of standard conditions, the inclusion of Project design features and the imposition of the mitigation measures. The Planning Commission finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" included as Section 7.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings. The Planning Commission adopts the recitation of overriding considerations which justify approval of the Project notwithstanding certain unavoidable significant environmental effects which cannot feasibly be substantially mitigated as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 11. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, that the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05. SECTION 12. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The Planning Commission certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance.with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED, this 27 h day of May, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Chairperson,Planning Commission ;':' �a STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 May 8, 2003 � -- Mr. Ricky Ramos ••= '. City of Huntington Beach Planning Department ' 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 VIA FACSIMILE (714) 374-1648 RE: Coastal Commission staff review of City's Response to Comments for proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. Dear Mr. Ramos: Thank you for providing the Responses to Comments document of March 21,2003 for the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. The document provides responses to comments the City received on its Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the proposed project, including comments provided by Coastal Commission staff in a letter dated November 4, 2002. The proposal involves constructing and operating a desalination facility to be located at the Huntington Beach Generating Station(HBGS) in Huntington Beach. A portion of the proposed project is within the City's Local Coastal Plan jurisdiction and will require a coastal development permit from the City. Additionally, part of the proposal is within the Coastal Commission's retained jurisdiction as well as within the Commission's appeal jurisdiction, so it will require additional review and approval by the Commission. We have several concerns about the responses that we would like you to incorporate into the CEQA review before the City considers adopting a Final EIR for the proposed project. We understand the Planning Commission has scheduled a hearing on the matter for May 27, 2003. Our concerns are based on the level of information needed to review the proposed project's conformity to the Coastal Act as well as to provide adequate evaluation under CEQA. We are especially interested in ensuring this proposal undergoes proper review, since it represents what would be the largest coastal desalination facility in the U.S. and the first one to be reviewed in California for over a decade. To better ensure this environmental review is done comprehensively and efficiently,we recommend the comments below be incorporated into the City's EIR review before the City and the Coastal Commission start their reviews for coastal development permits. General Comments: The responses in several issue areas do not provide adequate information for reviewing the proposed project for conformity to the Coastal Act, and may not be adequate for review under CEQA. Our primary concerns relate to the EIR's evaluation of the proposed project's biological impacts, the alternatives analysis, growth-inducement, and cumulative impacts. Letter re: "Responses to Comments" on Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project DEIR May 8, 2003 Page 2 of 6 One additional area of concern that underlies several of the comments in our November letter regards the applicability of various ordinances, regulations, and laws to this proposed project. The proposal involves using a private entity to produce potable water from a public resource (i.e., seawater), and selling that product to one or more public water districts. Providing a public water supply has, in the past,been done most commonly by public entities. Our concerns in this matter take two forms: Whether laws, ordinances, and regulations applicable to public entities providing a water supplygpply differently, if at all,to private water suppliers. Public water districts are subject to a number of requirements that are based in part on their characteristics as public agencies. For example, rates are set for public water districts based largely on the operational and maintenance costs of providing a public service, not on profitability. Additionally,the Coastal Act includes several policies with provisions or requirements for public works facilities, but not for similar"private works facilities." We recommend the EIR provide an analysis of this issue to ensure that anticipated regulatory requirements and mitigation measures would indeed apply to this proposed project. Of course, a more fundamental question to be asked and answered outside the context of CEQA is whether privatizing water supplies is sound public policy. . Whether international trade law adversely affects the ability of state and local jurisdictions to regulate proposals such as this. Recent decisions by international trade tribunals and other developments in international trade law raise concerns that private companies operating internationally may not be subject to state or local environmental regulations if those regulatory actions interfere with profitability. For example, a company may argue that producing and selling water in California includes restrictions, such as flow limits, mitigation requirements, or compliance with Coastal Act resource protection policies,that are not required in other countries where the company produces and sells water, and that these restrictions adversely affect profitability. Such an argument could limit or eliminate state and local environmental protection requirements, and may abrogate many of the mitigation measures identified during environmental review. We therefore recommend the City consider how international trade agreements, treaties, and laws may apply to this proposal, and whether anticipated environmental mitigation measures could be compromised. Attached is a copy of a presentation given to the Coastal Commission in February of this year regarding Coastal Act policies that may apply differently to public and private proposals. The City may wish to evaluate its own Local Coastal Plan policies and other applicable City ordinances in a similar manner and include the evaluation as part of the EIR. Please also note that at several places in our November comment letter,we requested additional information be provided in"subsequent environmental documents". This was meant to refer to subsequent CEQA-related documents to be developed as part of the City's CEQA review, such as a supplemental EIR, an addendum, or other similar documents. Letter re: "Responses to Comments" on Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project DEIR May 8, 2003 Page 3 of 6 Specific Comments: • Water Quality and Marine Biological Resources: Our comment letter requested that the EIR include additional information about the proposed project's impacts on biological resources. We note that several other federal and state regulatory agencies (including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, the Regional Water Quality Board, and the State Lands Commission) also stated in their comment letters that the DEIR did not adequately address various aspects of the proposed project's impacts to biological resources. However,rather than make changes to the analyses based on comments from these agencies,the "Responses To Comments" document largely re-iterates what was stated in the DEIR. There are a number of assumptions used in the EIR analysis that do not appear to accurately reflect conditions at the project site or characteristics of the existing and proposed facilities;therefore,the EIR's determination that there are no significant impacts to marine resources may not be accurate. We have provided more detailed comments on this issue below. • Entrainment: Our comment letter stated that results of the HBGS entrainment study would be needed to identify the existing level of impacts to marine biological resources and to help determine impacts of this proposed project. Our letter also cited the City's LCP Policy 6.1.19, which requires mitigation be identified before approving any new or expanded seawater pumping facilities. The City's response to our comments states that the project would not result in increased entrainment, entrapment, or impingement of marine organisms, and that results of the study would therefore not be necessary. We disagree, for several reasons: o First, the DEIR appears to base its assumptions about entrainment impacts on the permitted water use at HBGS rather than actual use. We note that several recent CEQA-equivalent analyses by the California Energy Commission to review proposed changes to coastal power plants have used as their baseline the actual amount of water used by a power plant,rather than the maximum permitted amount. This approach provides a more accurate assessment of existing versus proposed conditions and meets the CEQA requirement to establish baseline levels by determining the actual, existing environmental conditions at the time of review. The EIR analysis should therefore be based on the actual amount of water used at the power plant during a recent representative period of time, and the analysis should compare this rate and pattern of use with the water use anticipated for the desalination facility. o Next, the DEIR states that the desalination facility would not increase entrainment over that caused by the power plant because some of the power plant's pumps would be used to circulate water for use by the desalination facility even when the power plant was not generating electricity. While this measure might reduce the difference between the rates of entrainment caused by either process, it does not provide the level of information needed to determine entrainment impacts for either facility. Without-additional detailed information about each facility's pumping rates,the relationship between water use for power generation and for desalination(e.g., the Letter re: "Responses to Comments" on Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project DEIR May 8, 2003 Page 4 of 6 timing and rate of desalination operations during power plant shutdown, long-term operation of the desalination facility without power production, etc.), and the different entrainment effects that may result from power generation and desalination,we are unable to determine whether entrainment rates would increase, decrease, or remain the same. o Additionally, the entrainment study currently underway for the power plant is meant to not only determine entrainment impacts but to identify what mitigation measures are available and necessary if the study results show significant impacts. The study could therefore result in mitigation measures that might require structural or operational changes to the once-through cooling system affecting both the power plant and the desalination facility. Since part of the purpose of CEQA review is to identify significant impacts and available mitigation,we believe it is necessary to include the results of the entrainment study as part of the review for the proposed desalination facility. o Finally, we note that the California Energy Commission(CEC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) will use the results of the entrainment study to help determine whether alternative cooling systems may be feasible and necessary at the power plant. The CEC recently provided a 10-year certification for the power plant, and the power plant's NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)permit is subject to review and renewal by the RWQCB every five years. Since alternatives to the existing cooling.system such as dry cooling,wet-dry cooling, and others will likely be considered during these upcoming reviews and within the approximate 20-year planning horizon of this CEQA analysis, the EIR should evaluate the effect that selecting a cooling system other than once-through cooling would have on the desalination facility, and should also evaluate the effect the presence of an existing desalination system might have on the choice of alternative cooling systems. The issues and concerns above regarding marine biological resources and entrainment should also be incorporated into the EIR's cumulative impacts analysis. This issue is of particular concern because the offshore waters that would serve as both source and receiving waters for the facility are subject to significant ongoing stresses that adversely affect water quality and biological resources. Additional adverse effects related to entrainment or brine discharges may exacerbate these existing adverse conditions. • Modeling water quality and biological impacts: The EIR needs to include more detailed information about the modeling and assumptions used to develop and evaluate the "worst-case" scenario for impacts to water quality and marine biological resources. The modeling results provided show increased salinity extending over up to several hundred acres of water surface and benthic habitat. While the EIR points out that part of this increase is within the natural range of variability in seawater, it does not describe how that variation correlates seasonally or with ambient ocean conditions in the vicinity of the discharge, and does.not describe-the effect-an ongoing increased salinity.discharge would have on marine organisms that would otherwise experience seasonal or ambient conditions. Additionally, the modeling identifies an impact that may be significant and _5 Lt Letter re: "Responses to Comments" on Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project DEIR May 8, 2003 Page 5 of 6 that would occur over a relatively large area,but does not evaluate mitigation measures to avoid or minimize that impact, such as structural or operational changes to the facility's outfall. We recommend these be included in the EIR. • Lack of site-Mecific or general information: We also requested that the EIR include information about the impacts of other similar desalination facilities and mitigation measures used at those facilities. We believe this would help determine whether there were issues or knowledge gained elsewhere that might be applicable to the proposed project. The City's response states that this information is not necessary. However, we refer back to our concerns mentioned above about another of the City's responses, which stated that the findings of the current entrainment study are not needed, either. We are therefore left with no recent, applicable data about the effects of desalination facilities in general, or about this proposed facility in particular. The absence of one set of these data may be acceptable,but the absence of both provides very little credible information on which to base the CEQA analysis. • Inadequate Alternatives Analysis: There are likely several reasonable and feasible alternatives that have not yet been incorporated into review of the proposed project, and that will be needed both for completeness under CEQA and for conformity to Coastal Act policies. In our November comment letter, we requested additional alternatives analyses be done that identified other sources of water that might be used to provide drinking water. In its response,the City stated that alternatives were not needed because the use of ocean water would not cause significant impacts. However, based on our concerns about entrainment and water quality mentioned above, we believe the City should reconsider this position, since the proposal may indeed result in significant entrainment impacts. The City also stated that other water sources were not being considered because part of the project purpose is to provide a reliable local source of drinking water, and that sources such as reclaimed or recycled water were not considered local since they were derived from imported water or groundwater. We note,however, that the recent Metropolitan Water District(MWD) document, "Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies" (March 25, 2003) considers recycled water as a local water source. Since the proposed facility is within the MWD service area, and is subject in part to MWD planning projections, we believe it would be reasonable to define the sources of supply consistent with the definitions used by MWD. This approach would allow for an adequate alternatives analysis under CEQA and would also allow for consideration of recycled or reclaimed water sources that may have fewer adverse environmental impacts. Even if seawater were to be the only water source evaluated,there are several methods of using seawater, such as beach wells, covered intakes, etc., that would avoid or reduce what may be significant levels of entrainment caused by using a once-through ocean water cooling system. While these alternatives may require that new structures be built or existing structures be modified, the construction-related impacts may be relatively short-term and minimal compared to the ongoing adverse entrainment effects that may occur. We therefore recommend the EIR provide additional evaluation of these or other similar alternatives. fjti�'i-sf e . Letter,re "Responses to Comments" on Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project DEIR May 8, 2003 Page.6 of 6 • Inadequate Analysis of Growth-Inducement: The EIR does not provide adequate information about the known or likely use of the water to be produced by the proposed facility;therefore, it is not possible to adequately evaluate the growth-related or cumulative.imp acts of that use. Regarding growth-inducement, CEQA requires a discussion of how the proposed project could foster growth. The analysis should, at the very least, include information about where the produced water is either known to be going(due to existing contracts to purchase the water) or is likely to go (based on the economics of producing and transporting water from coastal,low-elevation Huntington Beach to other locations in the water supply service area). The analysis should also evaluate effects of the potential growth on the resources of the surrounding area,pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, and should also address the impacts of that growth on coastal resources, as required by the Coastal Act. In closing, we recommend that these concerns be incorporated into either a Final or Supplemental Draft EIR before review begins to determine the proposed project's conformity to the Coastal Act. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and please feel free to contact me at (415) 904-5248 or tluster(a,coastal.ca.gov if you have any questions. Since ly, Tom Luster Energy and Ocean Resources Unit Cc: Poseidon Resources—Billy Owens U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service—Jonathan Snyder CA Dept. of Fish&Game—William Paznokas Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region—Mark Adelson State Lands Commission—Jane Smith STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94105-2219 Ys VOICE AND TDD (415) 904.5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 W10a February 20, 2003 To: Coastal Commissioners and Interested Public From: Jaime Kooser,Deputy Director Alison Dettmer,Manager, Energy and Ocean Resources Unit Tom Luster, Energy.and Ocean Resources Unit Re: Briefing on the Applicability of Coastal Act Policies to Public and Private Desalination Facilities INFORMATIONAL ITEM ONLY Summary: This briefing summarizes Coastal Act policies that may apply differently to desalination facilities proposed by public or private entities. The briefing provides only a conceptual level review of how these policies are likely to apply differently to public or private proposals, as each proposed facility will require case-by-case review to determine how and whether a particular policy applies. It identifies many of the questions and concerns that the Commission may consider when reviewing a proposed desalination facility for Coastal Act conformity. The briefing is being provided based on interest recently expressed by the Commission and due to staff anticipating that several large-scale desalination facilities requiring review under the Coastal Act will soon be proposed by both public and private entities. It is also offered in advance of a more comprehensive report on coastal desalination in California being prepared by staff in conjunction with the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. That report is intended to provide the Commission, staff, applicants, and the public guidance on how Coastal Act policies may apply to a much wider range of issues associated with desalination, and will identify the types of information likely to be needed to review proposed facilities for conformity to the Coastal Act. The report will also support the work of the California Department of Water Resources Task Force on Desalination,which is charged with determining opportunities for, and constraints on, desalination in the state. This briefing groups the various applicable Coastal Act policies into several categories—growth- inducement, alternatives analysis, coastal-dependency,priority development,placing fill in coastal waters, and the capacity of public works facilities—and provides an analysis of each category. The briefing also includes a discussion of the Public Trust Doctrine as it may apply differently to public-or private proposals. Finally, it includes a list of existing and proposed desalination facilities along the California coast. - :F ^F - 4 d Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 2 of 17 INTRODUCTION Development along the California coast has long been either accommodated or limited by the amount of fresh water available. Past efforts to provide adequate water have included importing water from other areas, increasing water availability through storage projects, using groundwater, and promoting conservation. Efforts to provide water through seawater desalination have generally been limited in both size and number due to technological or economic constraints and its effects on coastal resources. Recent changes in desalination technology, along with a growing interest by state and local governments, water districts, and private entities to increase and diversify sources of potable water along the coast, have led to a number of proposed projects that would significantly increase the amount of water provided through desalination. There are currently about a dozen desalination facilities along the California coast, none capable of producing more than several hundred thousand gallons of potable water per day. Over the past two years, there have been about 20 proposals for desalination facilities along the coast, including several with an anticipated capacity of 30 to 50 million gallons per day. [A list of existing and proposed coastal desalination projects in California is provided at the end of this briefing.] These proposed facilities are largely at the conceptual or design levels; it is likely, however,that several will be subject to review for coastal development permits in the near future. In anticipation of reviewing these proposed facilities, Commission staff is updating a report prepared in 1993, "Seawater Desalination in California". The updated report will identify Coastal Act policies that apply to proposed desalination facilities and is intended to provide general guidance on the types of information needed and considerations to be addressed during review of these proposals for conformity to the Coastal Act. Proposed facilities need to conform to a range of Coastal Act policies, such as those related to water quality,protection of marine organisms,visual resources, and will be subject to other applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Today's briefing,however, focuses on only one element—how policies of the Coastal Act might apply differently to public or private proposals to provide desalinated seawater. Why is this an issue? Interest in"public vs. private"aspects of desalination has been generated in part by recent changes in the way water is being provided to the public. Until recently,public water supplies in California have most commonly been provided by some type of community service or municipal water district, with a smaller number provided by investor-owned utilities or privately-held mutual.water companies'. Recent trends towards utility deregulation and interest by various government entities to privatize some services are creating opportunities for private entities to take on some of the risks and responsibilities of providing water to the public. Additionally, water is increasingly being seen as a commodity rather than a public resource or public good, and is being produced, transported, and used increasingly based on market forces rather than on non-market public interests. As public entities face growing budget constraints, they may be less able or willing to make significant infrastructure improvements or increase their 'The Department of Water Resources reports that in 1994-96,of the 2850 water agencies in California, 195 (or about 7%)were private investor-owned facilities(Source:California Water Plan Update:Bulletin 160-98). .. _ _. Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 3 of 17 service areas, and may chose to turn over all or some of their water supply duties to private entities. Conversely,public entities may choose to take on some characteristics of private entities in the way they market their water supplies or expand the area in which they provide water through various forms of public-private partnerships2. These changes are occurring at the same time that technological and economic changes in desalination make it increasingly feasible for entities along the California coast to tap into the Pacific Ocean and provide large amounts of water at economic costs approaching the costs of other more commonly available sources, such as water imported from the Central Valley or Colorado River. While a number of issues associated with these changes will be under the purview of other government bodies, such as the state's Public Utilities Commission or State Water Resources Control Board, the Coastal Commission has an important role in determining whether such changes conform to the policies of the Coastal Act and result in the necessary protection of coastal resources. Coastal Act Policies Applicable to Public/Private Water Supplies The Coastal Act includes a number of policies that may apply differently to public or private water purveyors. In general, the Act emphasizes coastal resources as public resources subject to public oversight and the capacity of public infrastructure. Specific Coastal Act policies evaluated in this briefing are grouped in the following categories: • Growth-inducing Impacts • Alternatives Analysis • Coastal Dependency • Priority Development • Fill in Coastal Waters • Capabilities of Public Works Facilities This briefing evaluates each of the above policy issues separately and describes how each could apply to public or private entities, and in some cases public-private partnerships. The review of a specific proposed facility for conformity to Coastal Act policies, however, will require case-by- case analysis of how these policies apply. In addition to evaluating the policies listed above, the briefing includes a description of the Public Trust Doctrine, a legal construct that underlies many of the provisions of the Coastal Act, and how it may apply to some aspects of the use of ocean water for desalination. z Rates established by the state-Public-Utilities Commission for water sales do not allow public agencies to profit from their water sales,but allow-private:entities-a-regulated amount of profit based on elements such as delivery costs,_characteristics of the-service area,and other-considerations. Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORAM TION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 4 of 17 ANALYSIS OF APPLICABLE COASTAL ACT POLICIES I. Growth-inducing Impacts Section 30250(a) states: New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, 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... " Section 30254 states: New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted consistent with the provisions of.this division;provided, however, that it is the intent of the Legislature that State Highway Route 1 in rural areas of the coastal zone remain a scenic two-lane road. Special districts shall not be formed or expanded except where assessment for, and provision of, the service would not induce new development inconsistent with this division. Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation,public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development. Analysis: In some areas along the California coast, desalination could remove what may be the single largest constraint to growth, a limited supply of potable water. Constructing new desalination facilities, especially large-scale facilities, is likely to lead to new development and population increases in some coastal areas. Without adequately evaluating these facilities, the increased development and population could expand beyond the rate and direction of growth anticipated in local or regional growth management plans, could result in new and unanticipated pressures on local populations and infrastructure, and could have significant adverse effects on coastal resources. The Coastal Act addresses the growth-inducing effects of proposed development from two somewhat different perspectives. The first focuses on whether proposed development can be supported by available public services; the second focuses on whether public facilities can adequately support proposed development: • Section 30250(a): Review under this section requires, in part, that new development be in or near existing developed areas able to accommodate it or in areas with adequate public services. This section is meant to prevent new development from outpacing the ability of local communities to provide necessary services and to promote concentrated development patterns. _ ` - - �•to Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 5 of 17 • Section 30254: As in section 30250(a) above,this section establishes that the permitted level of development be tied to the capabilities of local services,but also establishes that the capacity of existing or expanded public works facilities and service districts be based on the level of development an area can accommodate in a manner consistent with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. it also provides that certain types of development—coastal-dependent, essential public services and industries, recreation, and visitor-serving land uses—not be precluded by other development, and that new development conform to the policies and standards contained in any applicable Commission-certified local coastal plans (LCPs). These policies may relate to regional water and growth management goals or how limited water resources are allocated. Both sections emphasize that new development be tied to the capabilities of up blic services and public works facilities. Public control of these facilities generally provides mechanisms such as public hearings,public election or appointment of officers, and other forms of public oversight, that better ensure such developments are linked to local growth management plans and allow the public to be involved in decision-making. Public ownership is also likely to allow for a more comprehensive approach to resolving issues related to local and regional growth, the types of development to be considered, and the directions in which it occurs. The ongoing public review or oversight provided by a public rather than private entity is also likely to allow more complete consideration of other specific aspects of growth-inducing impacts such as those below: • Is the water meant to yrovide a new supply, or is it proposed to replace an existing su 1 ? If a facility is meant to provide a new supply, the review of growth-inducing impacts may need to consider how allocation of that new supply will be subject to growth-related goals contained in LCPs or other local or regional planning efforts. Such a review is also likely to involve a more far-reaching evaluation of cumulative impacts. If a facility is meant to instead provide a replacement source—for instance, to reduce or eliminate withdrawals from a surface water body affecting fish or wildlife habitat or to replace groundwater withdrawals causing subsidence—there may be few, if any growth- inducing effects associated with such a facility, and the review of growth-inducing impacts would likely be more limited. A coastal development permit issued for such a facility may need to include a condition requiring additional review and permit amendment if the water use is later proposed to go beyond replacement of an existing source3. In either case, ongoing public oversight is likely to better ensure that the supply is used as proposed. • Is the facility meant to provide a baseline supply of water, or is it to be used only during droughts or emergencies? Similar to the above, some desalination facilities have been proposed to provide water only during drought or emergency situations rather than provide a continuous,baseline water supply. Such facilities are less likely to result in growth-inducing impacts. Again, however,publicly-owned facilities are likely to have 3 As an example,the California-American Water-Company(Cal-Am),which supplies water to much of the Monterey Peninsula,is proposing a desalination facility to replace a portion of its water supply currently being withdrawn from the Carmel River. Other--entities,are considering whether the proposed facility might also be used to provide a new and increased source of water for other areas nearby. Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 6 of 17 better oversight mechanisms to ensure that any changes that may result in growth-related impacts are adequately reviewed. Additionally,private facilities intended to operate only during severe situations may not be able to generate the necessary revenues, and may need to provide additional supplies to remain solvent. For proposed projects intended to provide only emergency or drought-related water supplies, the Commission may opt to include a condition requiring additional review and a permit amendment if the project intent changes. • Is the service area for the water defined? A desalination facility may be proposed to serve a specific service area or provide water to a specific set of users, or it may be intended to serve a less well-defined and possibly more extensive area or unspecified set of users. It is easier to determine growth-inducing impacts when the water supply area is specifically defined, through identifying growth or infrastructure limits in the service area, long-term contracts with users, or other similar methods. This aspect of review is specifically addressed in section 30254,which states that special districts shall not be formed or expanded where the resulting development would be inconsistent with Coastal Act policies. As trends towards water marketing increase and the potential for interbasin or even international water transfers occurs, any difference in public oversight over public or private facilities is likely to have more far-reaching growth-inducing consequences. Longer distance transfers also raise issues associated with determining whether local impacts to coastal resources are worth benefits that may accrue elsewhere. II. Alternatives Analysis The Coastal Act requires in some instances that proposed development undergo an alternatives analysis to determine whether there are feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives to the proposed action. Applicable sections include: Section 30233(a) states: The diking,filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects... Section 30260 states: Coastal-dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand within existing sites and shall be permitted reasonable long-term growth where consistent with this division. However, where new or expanded coastal-dependent industrial facilities_ cannot feasibly be accommodated consistent with other policies of this division, they may nonetheless:be.permitted-in=accordance with this section and Sections 30261 and 30262 if Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMA TION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 7 of 17 (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging, (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and(3) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Analysis: Section 30233(a)requires in part that projects involving fill in coastal waters be allowed only under particular conditions, including a determination that there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative. Section 30260 states that coastal-dependent facilities may be permitted even if they do not fully comply with other Coastal Act policies, but only if there are no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative locations. One primary purpose of an alternatives analysis is to determine whether there are alternatives that would avoid or substantially reduce any significant adverse effects of a proposed project. In either case, a public entity proposing a project is likely to have a greater number of alternative locations available than a private proponent. A city or water district, for example,may own or control a larger land base from which to choose sites for a proposed facility. Similarly, a public entity may, in many cases, have greater control over available resources or infrastructure needed to support a desalination facility. For example, a municipal utility may have electrical power plants that can provide both a site and power for desalination,or it may have available amounts of stormwater or wastewater that can serve as a less environmentally damaging alternative to using seawater as the water source. Public entities may also be able to invoke eminent domain in determining whether various sites are feasible. For proposed private facilities, the alternatives analysis may, in some cases,need to evaluate whether using or providing a public water source is a feasible option and whether such a source would result in fewer adverse impacts. Feasibility: The Coastal Act requires the alternatives considered to be feasible. Section 30108 of the Act defines "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors". These factors will likely be weighed differently in reviewing a given public or private proposal, as the range of options available to either type of entity may differ significantly—for example, as mentioned above, a public entity may have a greater number of feasible locations available to it due to having a larger land base or having power of eminent domain. Cost is another feasibility factor that may apply differently to public and private proposals. Because desalination is still a relatively costly form of providing a water supply, it is likely that the alternatives deemed feasible will include some that are relatively costly. These costs are likely to be borne differently by public or private facilities due to the funding mechanisms imposed on or provided by each. M. Coastal Dependency. Section 30101 states: "Coastal-dependent development or use"means any development or use which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all. �tF� rY per.., Svc-'4,-4f �..� ` ?•µ-t_�. Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 8 of 17 Section 30260 states: Coastal-dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand within existing sites and shall be permitted reasonable long-term growth where consistent with this division. However, where new or expanded coastal-dependent industrial facilities cannot feasibly be accommodated consistent with other policies of this division, they may nonetheless be permitted in accordance with this section and Sections 30261 and 30262 if (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging; (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and(3) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Analysis: Desalination, in and of itself,is not coastal-dependent. Many desalination facilities are located at inland sites and are used to desalt groundwater, irrigation water, or other water sources. Even desalination facilities using seawater as their source water might not be coastal- dependent, as they may need only to be located close to the coast, and not necessarily adjacent to the ocean. Section 30260 of the Coastal Act recognizes that some types of facilities must be located on or adjacent to the ocean, even if they do not fully conform to all applicable Coastal Act policies. Such"coastal-dependent" facilities may be permitted, however, only if alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging, if to do otherwise would adversely affect public welfare, and if adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, desalination facilities that do not conform to all applicable policies of the Act and proposed to be located on or adjacent to the ocean must be reviewed individually to determine whether they are coastal-dependent. If this case-by-case review determines a particular facility is coastal-dependent, the facility can be reviewed for conformity to section 30260: • Are there available alternative locations for the facility that would have fewer adverse effects on coastal resources? • Are the adverse environmental effects of the proposal mitigated to the maximum extent feasible? • Is denying the proposed project inconsistent with the public welfare? In reviewing whether a facility is consistent with the public welfare,it is likely that there will be significant differences between public and private proposals. .A review of a proposal's effects on public welfare may include.evaluation of whether the water will be used solely by a private entity or provided to the public, comparison of private versus public benefits that may accrue from the proposal, along with the degree of adverse impacts to public resources. It could also include a review of whether the type of public or private development that may benefit from a facility is a priority development identified in the Coastal Act as described in the section below. Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 9 of 17 IV. Priority Development Several sections of the Coastal Act4 mandate that certain types of development, such as lower- cost visitor and recreation facilities, coastal agriculture, upland coastal recreation, coastal- dependent facilities, and others,receive priority over other types. Analysis: The Coastal Act's identification of the types of development to prioritize in the coastal zone raises at least three distinct issues related to whether a water supply is public or private: • First, whether non-priority development that includes its own water supply might be able to proceed at the expense of priority development that may not be able to provide. its own supply; • Second,whether locating a desalination facility in a coastal area might preclude or adversely affect the use'of the site or adjacent sites by priority uses; and, • Third,whether a private desalination facility would allocate water in a manner reflecting the same priorities as a public facility. Regarding the first issue, the types of development prioritized in the Coastal Act do not necessary come with their own water supply. In areas where development is limited by the available water, private facilities that provide their own water might be able to proceed while other higher priority developments that do not have the ability to provide their own water might not. A private,non-priority development could therefore override Coastal Act preferences for priority coastal uses or might not be subject to water allocation decisions made by a local public water purveyor. Because desalination remains a relatively costly process, a development's ability to provide its own desalinated water may be largely based on financial considerations rather than whether the proposed development is recognized as a priority development for coastal areas. A lower-cost visitor and recreation facility, for instance, may not be able to compete with the ability of a higher-cost facility to provide its own water, and so a coastal site suitable for either type of development may end up used by the latter at the expense of the former. One other consequence of this issue could show up during difficult financial times, in that a private development dependent on its own water supply may, for various reasons, no longer be able to afford the costs of desalination and instead increase the burden on the local public water purveyor. This additional burden could further limit the ability of public agencies to allocate water or land to priority coastal uses. [This issue is also discussed later in Section VI 4 These sections include: • Section 30213—lower-cost visitor and recreation facilities. • Section 30222—'visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation. This section also prioritizes those facilities over private residential,general industrial,or general commercial development,but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. • Section 30222.5—aquaculture facilities. • Section 30223—upland areas for coastal recreation. • Section 30224—recreational boating and associated facilities. • Section 30234—commercial fishing and recreational boating facilities. • Section.3 0241—prime agricultural-land. • Section-3 0255-coastal�dependentdevelopment. • Section 30254—priority developments must not be precluded by other development due to the limited capacity of public works facilities:-,• yy pp It L. Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 10 of 17 of this briefing.] A similar resource-allocation issue may arise due to the relatively high electrical demand associated with desalination, in that the demand from a desalination facility used by a non-priority development could limit or preclude the ability of local electrical supplies to support priority developments. Regarding the second issue, a desalination facility located on or adjacent to coastal sites suitable for higher-priority developments could remove or reduce land available for such developments. Desalination facilities may result in several types of adverse effects on coastal resources—visual, noise, public access, water quality, etc.—any of which, even if mitigated, could reduce the ability of priority developments to be sited nearby. This would in turn diminish the coastal uses associated with these priority developments, and may therefore be inconsistent with Coastal Act goals. As an example, in Consistency Determination#CD-16-94 (U.S. Army, Fort Ord), the Commission determined that a desalination facility being considered in the coastal zone near the cities of Marina and Seaside would diminish public access and recreational opportunities in that area, and further concluded that a feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative site was available east of Highway 1 away from the shoreline area. Regarding the third issue,public ownership and oversight of desalination facilities, especially in areas with certified LCPs, is more likely to ensure that water allocations will occur in a manner consistent with the priority developments identified in the Coastal Act and in the LCP. Allocations from public facilities are likely to be subject to more ongoing public review,whereas allocations from private facilities may be.primarily market driven and might not adequately reflect Coastal Act priorities. This difference in how public or private entities might allocate water is likely to be moderated in areas where the state Public Utility Commission has provided exclusive retail rights to a municipal water district. In these areas, a private desalination facility would be able to act only as a water wholesaler and sell only to the water district where the allocation decisions would be made. V. Projects Involving Fill in Coastal Waters Section 30233(a) states: The diking,filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following.• (1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. (2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411,for boating facilities if, in conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 11 of 17 restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland. The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and any necessary support service facilities, shall not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland. (4) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes; new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. (5) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines. (6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. (7) Restoration purposes. (8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. Analysis: Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act applies to proposed projects involving diking, dredging, or filling in coastal waters, and contains strict limits on desalination facilities,public or private, that would require new inwater structures. This section identifies eight types of development under which fill may be permitted. Of these.eight, coastal desalination facilities are likely to fall under, at most,two of these types-coastal-dependent industrial facilities,or incidental public service purposes. Some desalination facilities may fall under neither. Fill for coastal-dependent industrial facilities: Regarding the first of these two types, desalination, as stated in the previous section, is not in and of itself a coastal-dependent use. Again, this will require case-by-case review and may depend, in part, on the different opportunities that may be available to public or private entities as described above. Fill for incidental public.p=oses: The type of allowable fill makes a clear distinction between public and private purposes. By definition, a public facility is likely to include a greater presumption that it is for a public purpose than is a private facility. This Coastal Act provision further defines the type of fill allowed as an incidental public purpose as "...including but not limited to,burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines". The element common to these examples, and the interpretation provided by past Commission findings, is that this type of fill involves only temporary impacts. For instance, the impacts associated with burying a cable or pipe are generally limited to the immediate effects associated with construction, such as turbidity, short-tern disturbance to marine organisms, and the like. The type of fill allowed under this provision does not include new open intakes and outfalls (unless they are considered coastal-dependent and therefore allowable under the other fill provision), and does not provide for the types of ongoing adverse environmental effects associated with such structures, such as entrainment of marine organisms, discharges of various contaminants or increased brine concentrations, or other similar impacts. This interpretation is strengthened by the policy specifically mentioning maintenance of existing intakes and outfalls, which presumably have impacts considered part of a site's baseline conditions,versus constructing new intakes or outfalls,which would result in new and ongoing impacts. A @ id I "VO I 111L Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination_ INFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 12 of 17 VI. Capacity of Public Works Facilities Section 30254 states: New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accommodate needs generated by development or uses permitted consistent with the provisions of this division;provided, however, that it is the intent of the Legislature that State Highway Route I in rural areas of the coastal zone remain a scenic two-lane road. Special districts shall not be formed or expanded except where assessment for, and provision of, the service would not induce new development inconsistent with this division. Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount of new development, services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation,public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development. Analysis: This section of the Act ties development to the capabilities of public works facilities. Such facilities are protected from failure, bankruptcy, or other economic difficulties differently than are private facilities. If a private desalination facility ceases operations, the burden of supporting the developments using water from that facility may suddenly shift to a nearby public water supply. This public system may not have the capacity to serve these developments, and perhaps more importantly for purposes of the Coastal Act,the capacity that may be diverted to users previously supplied by a private facility may limit the ability of the public system to provide for the priority developments discussed in a previous section above. VII. The Public Trust Doctrine The Public Trust Doctrine is a long-held legal construct of American property law. The doctrine as applied in the U.S. is an expanded version of the form contained in English Common Law dating from the era of the Magna Carta in the 13`h Century. The essence of the Public Trust Doctrine is that the public has the right to use and enjoy lands underlying navigable waterbodies. Its most common uses have been to ensure the public has access to navigable waters and tidelands for navigation, commerce, fishing, and shellfish harvest. The flexibility inherent in the doctrine has resulted in each state applying it differently. In California, the doctrine is invoked in portions of the state Constitutions. California courts have recognized it as being sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs, and over time have determined the doctrine applies to not only to the land underlying the water but also to the s California Constitution,Article 1, Section 25:"The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof,excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries,and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon, and no law shall ever be passed making_it a_crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose!of-fishing.in any water-containing.-fish that.have been planted therein by the State;provided,that the legislature:may_by statute;provide for the-season when-and the conditions under which the different species offish may be taken.` Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 13 of 17 water itself5, and applies not only to navigation and commerce but also to water quality. Courts in this state have also recognized that the doctrine allows the public to use navigable waters for "...boating, swimming, fishing,huntinf, and all recreational purposes"8, "preservation"9, and other"ecological and aesthetic values" °. While private uses are allowed, they are generally limited to those that would not harm public trust values, including the uses identified above. Review of proposed coastal desalination facilities using seawater from either the open ocean or estuaries may need to include evaluations as to whether the proposal will fully support these public trust values. Some of these evaluations may be already included in other elements of the review—for example, determining whether the volume and rate of a facility's intake and discharge adversely affects marine organisms is generally done as part of review for conformity to the Coastal Act's policies on marine biological resources—however,the review may also need to determine whether other"ecological and aesthetic values"incorporated into the Public Trust Doctrine are supported. Importantly, approval of a private desalination facility would result in the use of a public trust resource for private benefit. To ensure the Public Trust Doctrine is supported,project review should evaluate whether the proposed use for private benefit would allow continuation of the other public uses. CONCLUSION This briefing has provided only a conceptual level review of how various Coastal Act policies are likely to apply differently to public or private desalination proposals. Given the complexities of the issue and site-specific characteristics, each proposal will require case-by-case review to determine whether and how each of these policies applies. 6 National Audubon Society v. Superior Court,(1983)33 Cal.3d 419 7 People v. Gold Run Ditch and Mining Co. (1884)66 Cal. 138 8 People v.Mack, 19 Cal.App. 3d 1040, 1045,97 Cal.Rptr.448 (1971) 9 Marks v. Whitney, 6 Ca1.3d 251, 259,491 p.2d 374,98 Cal.Rptr.790(1971)—"[O]ne of the most important public uses of the tidelands... is the preservation of these lands in their natural state..." 10 National Audubon Society v. Superior Ct.,33 Cal.3d 419,435,658 p.2d 709, 189 Cal.Rptr.49(1983)—"The principle values the plaintiff seeks to protect,however,are recreational and ecological—the scenic views of the lake and its shore,the purity of the air, and the use of the lake for the nesting and feeding by birds. Under Marks v. Whitney,6 Cal.3d 251 [491 P.2d 374,98 Cal.Rptr.790](1971),it is clear that protection of these things is among the purposes of the public trust." Also City of.Berkeley v.Superior Court,26 Cal.3d 515,521,606 P.2d 362, 162 Cal..Rptr:_327(1980)—"Although early cases expressed the scope of the public's rights in tidelands as encompassingnavigation,commerce and fishing,the permissible range of public uses is far broader,including the right to :..preserve the tidelands in their natural state!as ecological units for scientific study." Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 14 of 17 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Richard F., PhD, and Paulo Heyman. Public/Private Partnerships in Municipal Water and Wastewater Systems: Case Studies of Selected Cities. The United States Conference of Mayors Urban Water Council, Washington, D.C. February 2000. The California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98, Appendix 4-A Urban and Agricultural Water Pricing. Public Citizen, California Water: A Primer, from Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environmental Program,n.d. Slade, David C., Esq., R. Kerry Kehoe,Esq., and Jane K. Stahl, Esq. Putting the Public Trust Doctrine to Work: The Application of the Public Trust Doctrine To the Management of Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the Coastal States, 2°a Edition. Coastal States Organization, Inc., Washington,D.C. June 1997. Sommariva, Corrado and Simon Harrison. Risks and opportunities in private desalination rp ojects, from Global Water Intelligence,p. 14-15. May 2002. Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 15 of 17 EXISTING DESALINATION FACILITIES ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COAST Operator/Location: Public/ Purpose: Maximum Source Water: Discharge: Status: Private: Capacity: Chevron/Gaviota Private Processing 410,800 gpd, Ocean Ocean Active 460 AF/yr. City of Morro Bay Public Domestic 600,000 gpd, Seawater wells Not known Not known 672 AF/yr. City of Santa Barbara Public Domestic Ocean Not known Inactive Duke Energy/Morro Bay Private Power plant 430,000 gpd, Ocean Blend Not known Power Plant 482 AF/yr. w/cooling water Duke Energy/Moss Private Power plant 480,000 gpd, Ocean Blend Active Landing Power Plant 537 AF/yr. w/cooling water Marina Coast Water District Public Domestic 45,000 gpd, Seawater wells Injection well Active 50 AF/yr. Monterey Bay Aquarium Private Aquarium 40,000 gpd, Ocean Combined Active visitor use 45 AF/yr. w/other seawater discharges PG&E,Diablo Canyon/San Private Power plant 576,000 gpd, Ocean Blend Not known Luis Obispo County 645 AF/yr. w/cooling water ' San Simeon/San Luis Public Visitor center 10,000 gpd Ocean Not known Inactive Frv' Obispo County 11 AF/yr. Santa Catalina Island Public Domestic 132,000 gpd Seawater wells Not known Not known 148 AF/yr. -� U.S. Navy/San Nicolas Public Domestic 24,000 gpd Seawater wells Not known Not known Island (Military) 27 AF/ Various offshore oil&gas Private Platform uses 2,000—'34,000 gpd, Ocean Ocean Active platforms 2—38 AF/ . N Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMA TION ITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 16 of 17 PROPOSED DESALINATION FACILITIES ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COAST Proponent/Location: Public/ Purpose: Maximum Source Water: Discharge: Status: Private: Ca aci Cambria Community Public Domestic 430,000 gpd,481 Ocean Pipeline to Planning Services District AF/yr. ocean Cannery Row Marketplace Private Domestic 5,000 gpd. 6 AF/yr. Ocean Pipeline to Planning /Monterey ocean Carmel Area Wastewater Public Not known Not known Not known . Not known District City of San Buenaventura Public Not known Not known Not known Not known Not known City of Sand City Public Domestic 45,000 gpd, 50 Seawater wells Injection well Planning AF/yr. East-West Ranch/Cambria Private Domestic Not known . Not known Not known Withdrawn Fort Ord State Park/ Public Domestic Not known Not known Not known Not known Monterey County Metropolitan Water Domestic 5 mgd, 5600 AF/yr. Ocean Not known- Not known District of Southern California Monterey Bay Shores/ Private Private 20,000 gpd Seawater wells Injection well Not known Monterey County development Monterey Peninsula Water Public Domestic 3-4 mgd Seawater wells Injection well Planning Management District, Carmel River/Sand City Poseidon Resources/ Private Not known 30-50 mgd Ocean Blend DEIR Huntington Beach w/cooling 5 water Poseidon Resources/Long Public/ Not known 40 mgd Ocean Blend Planning Beach private w/cooling partnership water a San Diego County Water Public/ Domestic 50 mgd, 56,000 Ocean Not known _T NAuthority&Poseidon private AF/yr. Briefing to Coastal Commission on Public/Private Desalination INFORMATIONITEM ONLY February 20, 2003 Page 17 of 17 Proponent/Location: Public/ Purpose: Maximum Source Water: Discharge: Status: Private: Ca aci Resources/Encina partnership Sand City Public Domestic 450,000 Seawater wells Injection well Planning Sterling Hotel/Sand City Private Private 20 AF/yr. Seawater wells Not known Not known development Santa Cruz County Public Domestic 3-14 mgd Not known Not known Planning Sanitation District U.S. Navy,North Island Public Power plant 700,000 gpd Seawater wells Not known Not known Naval Air Station/San (Military) - Diego Orange County Public Domestic 27 mgd, 30,240 Applicant for Metropolitan Water AF/yr. MWD subsidy District/Dana Point San Diego Water District Public/ Domestic 50 mgd, 56,000 Applicant for &Poseidon Resources/ private AF/yr. MWD subsidy Carlsbad partnership West Basin Municipal Public Domestic 20 mgd, 22,400 Applicant for Water District AF/yr. MWD subsidy Long Beach Public Domestic 8-10 mgd,9-11,000 Applicant for AF/yr. MWD subsidy Los Angeles Public Domestic 10 mgd, 11,000 Applicant for -a AF/yr. MWD subsidy CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos,Associate Planner DATE: May 22, 2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)—REPORT UPDATES The following attachments provide additional information and revisions to the two May 27, 2003 Staff Reports for the Poseidon desalination plant distributed to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2003: 1. Response to May 8, 2003 Coastal Commission letter(Attachment No. 5 of the EIR Staff Report) 2. Revised Planning Commission Resolution which incorporates additional language to facilitate the Redevelopment Agency's ability to enter into an agreement with the developer to provide for an in-lieu payment from any future tax-exempt owner as a covenant which would run with the land in case the project is sold(see underlined text). The original Planning Commission Resolution is included as Attachment No. 1 of the EIR Staff Report. 3. Revised conditions of approval 4(i) and 4(n)(1) (Attachment No. 1 of the CUP/CDP Staff Report) 4. Letters in support/opposition 5. Intake Water,Quality Characterization (as requested by Chairperson Kokal) HZ:SH:HF:RR 1 GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0503rr2.doc L CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner DATE: May 22, 2003 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO MAY 8,2003 COASTAL COMMISSION LETTER REGARDING EIR NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) ISSUES PRESENTED IN THE MAY 8 COASTAL COMMISSION LETTER: As the Staff Reports were being prepared,the City received a follow-up letter dated May 8, 2003, from California Coastal Commission staff member,Mr. Tom Luster, Coastal Program Analyst, Energy and Ocean Resources Unit, addressing concerns about the City's responses to the Coastal Commission's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR). The Coastal Commission submitted a comment letter during the 45-day comment period and a response has been included in the March 21, 2003 Response to Comments. It should be noted that there is no legal requirement under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) or the State CEQA Guidelines to prepare a formal written response to Mr. Luster's May 8 follow-up letter. However, for the benefit of the Planning Commissioners,this supplement to the Staff Report summarizes the issues presented by Mr. Luster in his follow-up letter and staff s position on those issues. The primary issue raised by Mr. Luster is whether the information and analysis provided in the Final EIR(including the responses to comments) is adequate under CEQA to certify the Final EIR and for approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP), or whether additional information and analysis is required. CONCLUSION: The information and analysis presented to date is adequate under CEQA for the Planning Commission to certify the Final EIR and for approval of the CUP and CDP. As noted in the CEQA Statement of Facts and Findings (Attachment No. 5 to the CUP/CDP Staff Report), additional information and analysis may be required by various Responsible Agencies and additional mitigation measures may be added to obtain Coastal Act compliance (Coastal Commission), Clean Water Act compliance (Regional Water Quality Control Board) and compliance with other public agency requirements.The various Responsible Agencies must make those determinations at the-time-that the project is brought before them for.approval. It should also.benoted that the Coastal-Commission-has approval authority over the project's G:WdmLtr\Wdm1tr03\0503rr3.doc A.T. Coastal Development Permit for the brine discharge and, as such,has the authority to request further clarification of these issues if desired. DETAILED REPORT: As noted in the Staff Report for the CUP/CDP,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 in the Coastal Zone is being processed concurrently with Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 pursuant to Chapter 245 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The City's Coastal Development Permit can be appealed to the Coastal Commission. A project that is located on 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 utilizing ocean water and discharging into the ocean. Mr. Tom Luster provided the City with comments on the Draft EIR in a letter dated November 4, 2002. That seven-page letter(also sent on behalf of the Coastal Commission)was among the most comprehensive of the 21 comment letters received by the City on the Draft EIR. The City provided a good faith,reasoned analysis in response to the November 4, 2002 comment letter. The City's eight-page response provided clarifying information, described the disposition of issues raised by Mr. Luster and, where appropriate, gave reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. Essentially,the response explained that the extensive modeling and analysis of ocean water quality and marine biology issues resulted in a conclusion that there would be less than significant impacts in those areas. Some of the issues raised in Mr. Luster's May 8,2003 letter restate issues raised in his November 4, 2002 letter and, as noted below, the City's response has not changed. Staff continues to recommend that the Planning Commission certify the Final EIR as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA. The following addresses the bullet points in Mr. Luster's May 8 letter in the order that he presented each issue. • Private vs. public water supply issues: CEQA does not require this type of public policy analysis. The EIR is a tool for disclosing and analyzing potential environmental impacts, regardless of whether the project is a public or private venture. • International trade laws: Again, CEQA does not require this type of analysis. In addition, this comment letter does not provide any substantive argument or specific example of a recommended mitigation measure that would be adversely affected in the stated manner. The City, Coastal Commission and other Responsible Agencies have the authority to condition and monitor project mitigation measures, as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. • Water quality and marine.biological issues: The City provided good faith,reasoned- analysis in response to-all comment letters that raised water quality and/or marine biological issues,-including comment letters received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife G:\AdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0503rr3.doc ?` ` ,a .ca E -a — Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the State Lands Commission. To date, the City has only received one follow-up letter(the May 8 letter from Mr. Luster) and that letter does not cite any additional specific concerns with the EIR beyond that previously noted and responded to in the Responses to Comments document. The assumptions used in the EIR analysis for water quality and marine biological issues have been validated by the City's independent consultants and the applicant's consultants. • Entrainment issues: The Coastal Commission has original jurisdiction over the entrainment issues because the AES intake facility is located on the waterside of the mean high tide line. It is important to emphasize that other public agencies have statutory authority to approve or withhold approval of necessary permits based on their own independent analysis and in accordance with specific statutory criteria. Addressing the issue of whether the "baseline" should be current operations or permitted operations, note that Page 3-10 of the Draft EIR and responses to comments Io, 2b, 2d, and 2e (see response to comments pages 8 and 18-20) explain that there will be no changes to the "operational schedule" for seawater intake by AES. The current average flow is higher than the 126 MGD "worst case" low flow that was analyzed for the modeling. In other words, the project will not have greater entrainment impacts than already occur. Note also that the "worst case"for discharge (lower flows) is always a"better case"for entrainment. Cumulative marine biological resources and entrainment impacts are addressed through the modeling,which takes into account all factors affecting the offshore waters. • Modeling_issues: This comment asks for additional detailed modeling information. However, detailed modeling information has already been provided to the Coastal Commission and.the public through the EIR and Appendices. The model shows a less than significant impact, not an "impact that may be significant." Also,the worst case 10% salinity increase occurred in an area of approximately 18 acres (see response to comment 2e)not"several hundred acres" as stated in the May 8 letter. The average case impact area is reduced to 8.3 acres (see page 4.3-13 of the Draft EIR). Consequently,the City correctly characterized the impact area as "relatively small" (see response to comment 7h, bottom of p. 67), not"relatively large." • Information about other desalination facilities: This information was previously asked for in Mr. Luster's November 4,2002 letter. A response was provided in the City's responses to comments 2g and 2n(see response to comments pages 20 and 24-25). • Analysis of alternatives: This information was previously asked for in Mr. Luster's November 4, 2002 letter. A response was provided in the City's response to comment 21 (see response to comments pages 21-23). • Analysis of growth-inducing impacts: This information was previously asked for in Mr. Luster's November 4, 2002 letter. A response was provided in the City's response to comment 2m(see response to comments pages 23-24). HZ:SH:HF:RR G:WdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0503 rr3.doc AT TPk-1Cr`HV1 ENT INJO. LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (May 22, 2003) RESOLUTION NO. 1581 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2001051092) FOR THE POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse #2001051092 ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City") to address the environmental implications of the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project (the "Project"). • On May 17, 2001, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties. An update to the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study was prepared and distributed on March 4, 2002. • After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the two public scoping meetings held at the Edison Community Center in the City of Huntington Beach on June 6, 2001 (2:30 pm and 7:15 pm), the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR, dated September 19, 2002, and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 19, 2002 to November 4, 2002 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and WHEREAS, public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the Planning Commission in a separately bound document entitled "Responses to Comments for the . Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated March 21, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the EIR on May 27, 2003, and received and considered public testimony. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have previously certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Redevelopment Project in which the Poseidon Project is located; and Nit ) WHEREAS, in the event the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency take any actions in the future in furtherance of and to carry out the Southeast Redevelopment Project which involve the Poseidon Project, any such actions would be based on the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Reports for both the Southeast Redevelopment Project and the Poseidon Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE,as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments, the Errata (bound together with the Responses to Comments), the Appendices to the Responses to Comments and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments, incorporation, and references. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission makes the findings contained in the attached "Statement of Facts and Findings" with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and finds that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts and Findings is attached as Exhibit"A"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission finds that all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts and the Final EIR. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist" (also referred to.as the "Mitigation Monitoring Program") attached as Exhibit "B"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the Planning Commission finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate suggested 2 alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 7. The Planning Commission finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. SECTION 8. The Planning Commission finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR. The Planning Commission finds that the refinements that have been made in the Project do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the Planning Commission through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. SECTION 9. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation. SECTION 10. The Planning Commission finds that the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project as identified in Section 5.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings (short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality) have been lessened in their severity by the application of standard conditions, the inclusion of Project design features and the imposition of the mitigation measures. The Planning Commission finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" included as Section 7.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings. The Planning Commission adopts the recitation of overriding considerations which justify approval of the Project notwithstanding certain unavoidable significant environmental effects which cannot feasibly be substantially mitigated as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 11. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, that the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05. SECTION 12. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The Planning Commission certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it 3 has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED, this 271h day of May, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Chairperson, Planning Commission 4 Aas W g ' ,C 2 •"l LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (May 22, 2003) Revised Suggested Conditions of Approval—Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05: 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the following shall be completed: 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) 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 subiect to change depending on when the fee is paid. G:\RAMOS\Poseidon\Revised Conditions LEGISLATIVE DRAFT May 22,2003.doe HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW P. O. BOX 865, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 "Making 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 05/22/03 10:12 FAX 949 476 1187 IRWD WATER QUALITY Q 002 , tNIM00 WA1116 101WVH W1n1 ER DISTRICT 15600 Sand Canyon Ave.,P.O.Box 57000,Irvine,CA 92619-7000 (949)4535300 May 22, 2003 VIA FAX(Original by Mail) Mr.Ricky Ramos City of Iuntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Response to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Dear Mr. Ramos: The Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD)has reviewed the Response to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. IRWD is supportive of efforts to develop a cost- effective seawater desalination water supply to augment water supplies in Orange County. However,IRWD finds certain responses to comments inadequately or improperly address major issues of concern. Sodium and Chloride Constraints on Water Reuse. The issue related to the IRWD limits for sodium and chloride are improperly addressed. The permit limits as set by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board(RWQCB)are reclaimed water effluent permit limits,not treated domestic water limits. Water discharged to the sewer picks up incremental increases in total dissolved solids and the ions that make up TDS,such as sodium and chloride. The blended desalted water(50:50)with MWDSC water would have sodium of 118 mg/L and 138 mg/L for chloride. The limits(125 mg/L sodium and 150 mg/L chloride)are for reclaimed water effluent which is treated wastewater. Historically,MWRP reclaimed water effluent realized average increases in sodium and chloride levels over the domestic water levels by 47 mg/L and 75 mg/L, respectively. In 2002, IRWD's MWRP exceeded the 125 mg/L limit for sodium 90%of the time and 70%of the time for chloride. Adding the increments for sodium and chloride to the proposed desalted blend will exceed both limits. This will seriously jeopardize IRWD's compliance with its discharge permit for its reclamation system,particularly during the winter months when MWDSC is the primary source of domestic water for IRWD. One option is to have MWDSC provide IRWD with the funds to install and operate sidestream RO treatment of its MWRP reclaimed effluent to maintain compliance with its RWQCB permit limits for sodium and chloride. Customer Acceptance. The issues of customer acceptance and economic impacts are not regiured by CEQA,but are considered optional. The project, as proposed, has to potential to negatively impact the taste of the water served to IRWD customers. As a results,customers may perceive the water to be substandard,or even unsafe,which could significantly alter the customers' water consumption or irrigation practices. Additionally,responding to the potential 05/22/03 10:13 FAX 948 476 1187 IRWD WATER QUALITY 0 003 Mr. Ricky Ramos City of Huntington Beach May 22, 2003 Page 2 increase in customer complaints to IRWD could substantially impact district resources. Given the potential for such a significant impact to customer acceptance, IRWD feels very strongly that this issue,though optional,must be addressed. Membrane Performance. There was no Appendix E provided that discussed increases in membrane permeate TDS and ions with membrane operating time provided with the document IRWD received. Please provide complete document with all appendices. Water Stabilization and Corrosion Control. The response provided does not adequately address this topic or the topic DBPs. Based on the water quality data provided in the EIR,the corrosivity (Langelier Index)of the Finished water is estimated to be—1.4 SI. A negative value indicates the product water would be corrosive. A corrosive water has the potential to leach lead and copper from plumbing fixtures. deteriorate metal pipe materials leading to premature failure and to leach lead in older homes where lead containing solder may have been used. Lead is a documented health hazard. Premature failure of metal pipes in distribution systems and customer homes world like result in the release of chlorinated water to storm drains and receiving waters where the elevated chlorine levels could negatively impact certain aquatic species. Additionally,IRWD has significant issues related to bromide and brominated species of total THM formation on this treated water. These issues need to be addressed via a technical report and bench/pilot levels studies. As noted in our original comment letter by Richard Bell,IRWD is requesting that the current version of the DEIR for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project,which we consider to be inadequate,be substantially modified to so as to represent a fully-developed and technically feasible project. We request that the City of Huntington Beach not certify the DEIR in its current form and require Poseidon Resources to further develop the project,conduct and provide sufficient technical analyses supporting key aspects of the project as described above and in IRWD's original comments, revise the DEIR accordingly, and re-circulate the revised DEIR for comments. If you should have any questions or need additional information.please contact me at(949)453- 5858 or via email at oldewaee@irwd.com. Thank you. Sincerely, Lars D. Oldewage Laboratory Manager, Water Quality Department Cc: K. Seckel, MWDOC 03 10: 13a Poseidon Resources 562-490-2403 P'2 H WaYap A.Cbrk Director Municipal wader INab P.et of C)MAge Coun.y PRUMI correlpmIeuce May 19,2003 The Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor The city of HwItington Beach 2000 Malin street Huntington Beseb,CA 92648 Dear NLtyor Boardmatc As you may hm read in the Areas lately,all of Slouch=Califaxrua-inn lufti; Orange County must adjust to the federal mandate that bas reduced our take of the Colorado River vaucr by one-fifth.•Bcomm of our relatively wet winter.,we do not have an immediate crisis;bowever we au>st be restpomibik in our long'-term water management planning.The Metropohtau Water District of Southern Catifomia (MMSQ has assured all its member agencies,including the Municipal Water.District of Orange County(A4WDOC)that there will.be plenty of water far the next 20 years so long as the member agencies continue water conservation,improve Goundwater mariagsn ed and develop new water resources,inchlding deWk adoTL For coastal coma mities Mw ours,seawater desalination is the most ivHabk new source of'drinkiag water available.Tbrougb its draft Ermformmnnal Impact Roort, Poseidon Resources has proposed that it can provide 50 milt u gaaloss of clem drinking water per deny to Orange County whhout causing a vgnUicant impact on tho eaviromncnt. Oranp County will benefit from diversifying its"water portfolio"and become more self reliant through.Veeft projects lie Groundwater P.Th bb ment Symew..and Poseidon Resources'proposed seawater degelination facility in Fluirtington Beach,We need a diverse water portfolio,and both of flim projects w71 be kgpoitant and significant conponfts to Willing Orop County's long-term water needs, Silty To' gyve Ditector Municipal Water District of Orange County CC: Himfington Beach Catty Council Hun atom Beach Planning Conw,%ion 2021 1kninwa Ce,nw Drive,%. tte 1o7,brvine CA,926 12.'Tel.949/679-9676 _,_-•.•----- MAY 22 '03 03:11PM BC CONSVY 714 846 1114 P.1 Bolsa Chica A Non-Profit, Non-Political Corporation for the Benefit ofBolsa Chica Wetlands Conservwxy May 22, 2003 Randy Kokal Chair,Planning Come nission The City of Huntington' Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, C.k 92648 Dear Chairman Koka, The Bolsa Chica Con iervancy is a non-profit organization dedicated to the advocacy of the preservation an restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands through public education,outreach aid leadership. The Conservancy is a coalition of responsible community leaders fi m science,business,education, and government. We have met with Poseidon Reso ces and are confident that its proposed desalination facility will not have any negative impact on the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Poseidon Resources 1 ia.$been helpful in providing bottled water at Conservancy events and has prove,i to be supportive of our efforts to preserve the wetlands. Sincerely, `L k Adfianne Morrison Email xecutive Director adrlanne®holaaehieo.o olsa Chica Conservancy Phone (714)846.1114 cc: Huntington B Dach City Council Fax Huntington B each Planning Commission (914)846.4065 3842 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach Callbrnia 92649J263 4/17/2003 H NTINGTON BEACH SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT INTAKE WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION November 2001 —December 2002 HUNTINGTON BEACH SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT INTAKE WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION NOVEMBER 2001 -DECEMBER 2002 EVENTS LIMIT FINDING GROUP A Biochemical Ox en Demand 1 10 0 0 0 milligrams/L COD 2 50.000 60.000 0.000 120.000 milli rams/L Total Organic Carbon 12 0.5 0.05 0.0 0.6 milli rams/L Total-Suspended Solids 8 0.1 15 10 . 25 milli rams/L Ammonia as N 4 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.09 milligrams/L Temperature winter 4 18.4 16.0 21.0 degrees C Temperature summer 5 21.9 18.7 25.7 degrees C H 12 OA 7.8 7.0 8.2 PH units GROUP B Bromide 9 0.1 76 56 94 milli rams/L Boron 8 0.5 4.5 2.5 5.6 milli rams/L Color 1 3 3 3 3 color units Coliforms,fecal 10 2 6 0 23 MPN/10Om1 Fluoride 4 0.01 1.6 1.2 1.9 milli rams/L Nitrate as N 4 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 milli rams/L Oil and Grease 11 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.9 milli rams/L Phos horns,total 2 0.060 0.033 0.000 0.066 milli rams/L Radioactivity Gross Beta 1 180 180 1a0 picocurlesit. Total Alpha Radium 228 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 icocurles/L Radium 228 1 0.224 0.224 0.224 icocuries/L Sulfate 4 0.01 2,543 2,460 2,620 milli rams/L Sulfide 1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 milli rams/L uifite 1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 milli rams/L. Surfactants, 1 0.050 0.065 0.066 0.045 milli rams/L Aluminum 8 0.01 2" 62 496 micro rams/L Barium 2 1.0 2.9 0.0 S.8 micrograms Cobalt a 0.006 0.362 0.090 1.200 micrograms/1. Iron 8 0.01 204 70 650 micro rams/L Magnesium 8 5.0 1,278 1,230 1,340 milli rams/l. Molybdenum 8 0.005 10 9.2 11 micro yarns/L Manganese 8 0.005 6.2 2.5 9.6 micro rams/L Tin• a 0.005 0.011 0.000 0.030 micro rams/L Titanium a 0.005 20 5.7 49 micro rams/L SECTION 1 Antimony 8 0.01 0.11 OAO 0.14 micro rams/L Be Ilium 8 0.006 0.004 0.000 0.02 micrograms/L Chromium,total 8 0,005 1.3 0.1 4.8 micro mms/L Lead 8 0.005 0.2 0.1 0.4 micro rams/L Nickel 8 1 0.006 2.9 0.9 8.8 micro rams/L Silver 8 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.06 micro rams/L Inc 8: 0.005 2.9 1.6 5.8 micr rams/L HUNTINGTON BEACH SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT INTAKE WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION) NOVEMBER 2001 -DECEMBER 2002 EVENTS LIMIT FINDING Phenols see individual henolics 0 Arsenic 8 0.01 1.6 1.3 2.5 micro ramsIL Cadmium 8 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.30 micro rams/L i r 8 0.005 1.1 0.6 2.0 micro rams/Lrcury 8 0.005 0.02 0.00 O.OS micro rams/Llenium a 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.06 micro rams/Lallium a 0.005 0.011 0.000 0.025 micro rams/L snide 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 milli rams/L SECTION 2 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 ico rams/L SECTION 3 otatile Organics all VOCs 1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 micro ramslL In Table 2D-2 are ND Acid Compounds 2-Chloro henol 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0,00 micro rams/L 2,44Dimeth I henot 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0,00 micro ramslL 2,4-Dinitro henol 4 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L 4-Nitro henot 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Pentachioro henol 4 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro ramslL 2,4 6-Trichloro henol 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L 2,4-Dichloro henol 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L .2-Meth l-4,6-dinitro henol 4 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L 2-Nitro heno) 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L 4-Chioro-3-meth I henol 4 0.10 0.00 0:00 0.00 micro rams/L Phenol 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro ramslL Base/Neutrals Acena hthene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Anthracene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Benz a anthracene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Benza b fluoranthene 4 0,001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Benz k fluoranthene 4 0.0025 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L bis 2-Chloroeth (ether 4 0,10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L bis 2-Eth Ihex I hthalate 4 0.01 0.14 0.06 0.28 mico rams/L ButylbenEff phthalate 4 0.010 0.013 0.007 0.022 micro rams/L 4-Chloro hen 1 hen tether 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Dibena a h anthracens 4 0.0026 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 micro rams/L 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 4 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro ramslL 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Dimeth i phthalate 4 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L ,4-Dinitrotoluene 4 0.05 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L 01-n-oc I phthalate 4 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 micrograms/L HUNTINGTON BEACH SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT INTAKE WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION NOVEMBER 2001 -DECEMBER 2002 EVENTS LIMIT FINDING Fluoranthsne 4 0.0025 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Hexachiorobenzene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Hexachloroc cta entadiene 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L lndeno 1,2,3-c rene 4 0.0025 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Naphthalene 4 0.0025 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L N-Nitrosodimeth lamine 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L N-Nitrosodi hen lamine 4 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L P rene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Acena hth lene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Benzidine 4 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Benzo a rene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Benzo(q,W)perylene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L bis 2-Chloroethox methane 4 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 _microgram L bis 2-Chioroiso ro I ether 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L [2-Cti -Bromo hen 1 hen tether 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L lorona hthalene 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L h sene 4 O.00i 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L ,2-Dichlombenzens 4 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L 4-Dichiorobenzens 4 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Dteth t phthalate 4 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.07 micro rams/L Dibut t phthelate 4 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.04 microgramsil. 2,11-Dinitrotoluene 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Azobenzene 4 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Fluorene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Hexachiorobutadiene 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micrograms/L Hexachloroethane 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Iso horone 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Nitrobenzene 4 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L N-nitrosodi-n- ro lamine 4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L Phenanthrene 4 0.0025 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 144 ,2,4-Trichiorobenzene 4 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 micro rams/L PESTICIDES Aldrin 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L BHC-ai ha 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/i. SHC-beta 4 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L ,4'-DDD 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro ramslL 4 4'-DOT 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Endosuifan i 4 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 microgramall. Endosultan 11 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Endosulfan sulfate 4 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Endrin 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Endrin aldehyde 4 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 microgram Heptachlor 4 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro ramslL Heptachlor epoxide 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Arochloril(PCBs) 4 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Toxa hene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L t3HC-delta 4- 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L fx p ae,- NO, I,C�Vy. VCR VVi. • y HUNTINGTON BEACH SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT INTAKE WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION NOVEMBER 2001 -DECEMBER 2002 EVENTS LIMIT FINDING BNC amma Lindane 4 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro mms/L Chlordane-alpha 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micrograms/L iChlordane-gamma 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0,000 micro rams/L 4,4'-DDE 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L Dieldrin .4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L OTHERS 1-Meth Ina hthalens 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 1-Meth 1 henanthrene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 2,3 6-Trimeth ina hthalene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 2 4'-DDD 4 0.001 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 2 4'-DDE 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 2.4'DDT 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 2 6-Dimeth ina hthalene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 2-Meth lnaphthalene 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L ons-Nonschlor ene 4 0.0026 0:000 0.000 0.000 macro tams![. 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L r 4 0.00s 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L 4 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro ramsiL 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/L ted bi hen Is PCB 4 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams![ d 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 micro rams/[ 4/17/03 . n VI ENT IND S:S MET CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 Inter Office Communication 0B Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner- DATE: May 27, 2003 SUBJECT: LATE COMMUNICATION Attached are additional comment letters received since Thursday May 22, 2003 from the parties listed below regarding the Poseidon seawater desalination plant. Attachment: 1. J. Geever, Surfrider Foundation dated May 27, 2003 2. Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation dated May 26, 2003 3. California Earth Corps/Don May dated May 27, 2003 4. Commissioner Dingwall dated May 27, 2003 5. James Iverson dated May 20, 2003 6. Charlie Butler dated May 23, 2003 7. Thomas Wilson dated May 23, 2003 8. City of Newport Beach dated May 20, 2003 9. Dick White dated May 27, 2003 GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0503 rr4.doc Page 1 of 1 Ramos, Ricky From: Ssurfdad@cs.com Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 11:27 AM To: Subject; Poseidon Desalination Plant EIR Comments(SF National) Comment letter from J. Geever at SF National. Don Schulz 5/27/2003 First we want to make clear that the Surfrider Foundation does not oppose the use of desalination plants in every instance. To the contrary, we are hopeful that future desalination projects can be designed and regulated in such a way that they can provide environmental benefits. However, for the reasons stated below, we feel very strongly that the decision to certify the Huntington-Poseidon EIR is premature. We ask the Planning Commission to postpone any decision until further investigation can clarify key elements of the project that will have a significant bearing on the adequacy of the EIR. While we recognize that in many cases delaying the certification of EIRs will create financial difficulties for project proponents, we do not believe that this is reason enough to sacrifice the public's right to review projects thoroughly. Nor do we believe that is the case here. From reading the EIR, we are unable to identify the intended recipient of the water product from this proposal. This makes it nearly impossible to identify all the potential impacts from this new supply of water—and equally important,negates the urgency of certifying the EIR at this time. Our current concerns include: 1) As I mentioned, we are concerned that the ultimate recipient of the new supply of water will have a significant bearing on the adequacy of the EIR. The final destination of this new supply of water will have a direct bearing on growth inducement and an indirect bearing on exacerbating sewage treatment capacity problems and urban runoff problems. The severity of the environmental impact will differ depending on the recipient of the water supply. On the other hand, there is potential for recognizing an environmental benefit from the new supply in the form of offsetting our unsustainable dependence on local groundwater and other import sources. Again, realizing these benefits is a function of the recipient of the new water. Therefore, we request that the certification of the EIR be postponed until the recipient of the new water is identified and the consequential negative or positive environmental impacts are thoroughly documented. 2) We are also concerned that the EIR doesn't sufficiently cover the impacts of the cooling water intake on marine life. We understand that the project proponent has relied on the cooling water permit for the AES generator station and argues that there are no additional environmental impacts from entrainment and impingement as a result of the desalination process. But, in our opinion, the reliance on the generator cooling water makes Poseidon a co-operator and does not completely insulate them from responsibilities to mitigate and/or cooperatively eliminate the enormous environmental impact from impingement and entrainment. - First, it is our understanding that the cooling water intake was permitted during an unusual emergency action and no environmental assessment was conducted. Therefore,relying on the existing permit is, in effect, certifying an EIR for a project that has never undergone the public scrutiny guaranteed by the California Environmental Quality Act. - Furthermore, the EIR does not address the inevitability that the US Environmental Protection Agency will be issuing new regulations for cooling water intakes under a court order. It is entirely feasible that the AES generating station will have to dramatically change their once- through cooling water system to meet Best Technology Available standards once the regulations are finally promulgated. The EIR does superficially address the future of the desalination plant in the possible event that the generator would discontinue operations. However, once again, the project proponent relies on the existing permit, which will make them solely responsible for the dramatic marine life mortality. Finally, the presumption that there is no additional marine life mortality as a result of the desalination process is not thoroughly investigated or documented in the EIR. Because the studies of marine life mortality for this plant are not available, or are not appended to this EIR, it inadequately documents the assumption of no additional impact from the desalination process. Therefore, we request that the certification of the EIR be postponed until: 1) the EIR includes studies of the marine life mortality that results from the generator's cooling water.system, Z) explores alternatives to the existing once- through cooling water system and how this would impact the project design, and 3) thoroughly discusses research into alternatives for seawater supplies that do not have the dramatic mortality rates associated with the current intake process. 3) The discharge is a subject of some controversy. Dr. Jenkins' modeling suggests that the impact of the brine discharge and thermal variant will not cause significant impacts. In fact,there is some speculation that brine concentrate and a cooler discharge may actually improve current conditions. However, it should be documented whether or not the current conditions meet the requirements of California's Ocean Plan. For example, beyond the Zone of Dilution there should not be any impact on indigenous populations. We are concerned that the current discharge is causing dramatic ecosystem impacts. In fact,the EIR suggests that the salinity variant may disrupt marine life communities by making the salinity variances inhospitable to certain species, yet attractive to others with higher tolerance to changes in salinity. This dislocation and replacement of indigenous populations is inconsistent with the Ocean Plan and only go to raise other questions about marine life impacts. Are predator/prey relationships being disrupted? Are there disruptions to the collection of species attracted to the area? And more directly, how are these disruptions impacted by the alteration of the discharge? 4) There is also some human health concerns about using this area for desalination source water. Inexplicably,the health standards and required treatment for source waters in reclamation processes is much stricter than those applicable to desalination processes. From a policy perspective, this raises serious concerns about the dis-incentives to perfect and implement water reclamation projects. Furthermore, there may be reasons for a similar heightened scrutiny and treatment standards for desalination source water where there is a history of contamination— as is the case in the AES intake area. We still don't fully understand the sources Z' � 3 and dynamics of nearshore water pollution in this area. Furthermore, we have not fully considered the impact of a new source of water in this area on our current Basin Plan. As mentioned above, if it were documented that this new source of water was strictly limited to reducing our unsustainable dependence on local .groundwater and imports, than these concerns are dramatically less. However, if this new source of water is an addition to the current supply, our problems of pollution control are only being exacerbated before we can get a handle on the current problems we face. If the additional water supply (as opposed to offsetting current unsustainable supplies) is delivered to communities along the Santa Ana River, does the increased urban runoff exacerbate nearshore water quality problems in the area of the AES intake? Does this in turn raise concerns about the source water for the desalination plant? Therefore, once again, we request that the certification of the EIR be postponed until the ultimate recipient of the water is identified. If it turns out that the recipient is currently serviced by the OCSD, the EIR should thoroughly discuss how the increased flow of sewage and diverted stormwater will impact the relationship between the discharge plume and the source water intake. Furthermore, studies should be conducted to document the relationship between Santa Ana River water, the AES intake, and the health impacts of the two. 5) Further, because the project proponent has not identified the end user of the water, it is entirely impossible to evaluate this project as either a private or a public entity. However,because the alternative analysis does not include different potential sites for locating the plant, one of the negative aspects of private projects is already apparent. Further, it is impossible to determine if the water will interfere with coastal priority projects by supplying water to lower priority projects that would otherwise have to compete with public projects. Finally, because this project is more akin to a private project, there are several Public Trust issues that need to be resolved before the approval of this project sets adverse precedent. 6) The EIR avoids a range of alternatives to the project by narrowly defining the purpose of the project. The project proponents have characterized the project as a "new" supply of water and disregarded other methods for meeting our water demands as inconsistent because they rely on a more sustainable use of"existing" water supplies. Arguably,the demand for water could be met with more progressive conservation and reclamation projects. Therefore, we request that the certification of the EIR be postponed and the document be amended to give tine project a broader definition of purpose so that alternatives like water reclamation and conservation are consistent with the project purpose. 7) The EIR does not adequately address the issue of solid waste management. As the EIR states, daily operations at Huntington Beach's landfills are already at full capacity. Therefore,the introduction of solid waste from the pre-filtration processes at the Project has no where to go without some adjustment to the Waste Management Plan. Furthermore,without further evaluation of the constituents that are removed during the pre-filtration process, it is impossible to determine whether hazardous or toxic material will be involved. Should the pre-filtration process entrap toxins, it may well trigger Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) compliance—as well as create liability for the Huntington Landfill and the city of Huntington Beach under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act(Superfund liability).This possibility has not been explored in the EIR. Therefore, we request studies of the intake/source water to determine if there are toxins that would require special disposal, and if so, a documented plan for toxic disposal. •�y-�. -�,� va:40F4 r-rc1_. 41�-3.3L-4uSb G�.uG i o o Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter May 26,2003 TO: Planning Commiassion, City of Huntington Beach CC: Council Members, City of Huntington leach RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DEPORT NO. 00-02 (Poseidon S4j5mater Declination Plant) Dear Planning Commission Members, I understand that the period for public comment for the-above referenced Ellt has expired, however,in view of the fact that the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant its planning to utilize resources made available to them(wastewater,heat and energy)from the adjacent AES Huntington Beach Power Generating Station(HBGS),I believe that the EIR may be deficient in recognizing the ervirormserrtal impact that the Desalination Plant will have on the permit currently held by AES Huntington Beach LLC,HBGS. Specifically, RE:ORDER NO.00-3 NPDES NO. CA0001163 AES Huntington Beach LLC Huntington Beach Generating Station states(last page)states: PERMrr RE-OPENING, REVISION,REVOCATION,and RE-ISSUANCE. 1.). "TW order may be re-opened to address any changes in State or Federal plans,policies or regulations which would affect the quality requirements for the discharge." Also,pg. 4 states; "...compliance with California Ocean Plan atnended most recently"(Judy 23, 1997). The most recent California Ocean Plan is dated Dec.3,2001. The California Ocean Plan dated Dec.3,2001 has several amendments which are not reflected in the current AES NPDES discharge permit such as; 1.Replacement of acute toxicity effluent limitation. 2.Revise and changes water quality objectives for the protection of human health. 3:Addition of provisions for compliance determination for chemical water quality objectives. 4.Sample reporting protocol.(DNQ Vs.ND.) S. Power plant compliance reporting(mass emissions). It is my opinion that all of these changes and amendments have both a direct and indirect bearing on the decision to allow a SOMOD desalination plant to operate in conjunction with the HBGS. May-2i-03 05: 48A PRU 415-332-4056 P .03 Also,it is my understanding that the water quality requirements of the Calitbrnia Ocean Plan (COP)do not require Federal(EPA)approval to become effective in state-owned waters Federal requirements(if any)are additional to state mandated regulations. NPDES discharge permits are supposed to be reviewed periodically(every 5 years)unless "administratively extended."CEQA allows for public cornment to be held prior to revisions or amendments to a renewed NPDES permit. Local Coastal Plans(LCD's)ate nubject to review every 10 years.The Basin Plan is currently being reviewed and revised. It is over 5 years old,and is subject to review and revision every 5 years.The idPDES permit cun=tl)•held by Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)specifically prohibits the presence of the sewage discharge plume in the vicinity of&bdding water reclamation plants.The bacterial water quality in the surf zone directly in front of the AES HBGS frequently exceeds A8411 bacterial standards for reasons that are presently not known.An investigation of the AES HBGS phint as a possible source of this contamination is currently being conducted by the Regional Winer Quality Board (SARWQCB).Both the COP and the Basin Plan do not specifically designate reclamation of seawater for drinldng water purposes as a"beneficial use"of power plant wastewater. Source control standards for seawater included in the current COP and Basin Plan troy not be sufficiently stringent for the protection ofbuman health.The water quality standards for the treatment of wastewater prior to discharge into the salt water barriar and the groundwater settling ponds in Santa Ana(the ORS Project)are more stringent(`bottled water"standards)then are the standards proposed by the Poseidon Desalination Plant("drinking water"standards). Our sources of imported water are being reduced,and our groundwater reserves are overdrawn. Realatnation of seawffier for drinking water purposes(desalination plants)are certainly woriby of serious consideration,and together with the GRS wastewater project,will greatly improve the reliability of fresh water sources for our watershed residents.However,it is suggested that the Planning Commission consider postponing a decision on the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant until these issues are revolved,and the current NPDES permit held by.AES HBGS can be. re-opened,reviewed and revised prior to being re-issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. I appreciate this opportunity to make these comments to the Huntington Beau.h City Council, and I ng Co chu z - - Stafrider Foundation Huntington BwWSeal Beach Chapter 2.2 CALIFORNIA EARTH CORPS 4927 Minturn Avenue Lakewood, CA 90712 (562) 630-1491 May 27, 2003 Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Re : Poseidon Desalination Project Dear Commissioners; California Earth Corps has reviewed the EIR and attended several technical workshops held by Poseidon on plant operations and marine impacts . While most of the document is well done and will provide a reliable basis for decisions not only by this Commission, but also by the other Regulatory Agencies who must issue discretionary permission for construction and operation, there are some areas that are quite significant to us that have not been addressed adequately or not at all, others that are in conflict with other sections in the document, and some that are errors of fact . GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS have not been addressed as required under CEQA or to the criteria properly described in 5 . 1 . The 50 million gallons per day of produced 300 ppm TDS water will supply 30, 000 households, or a City about the size of Manhattan Beach, even without considering its' capability to dilute high TDS water down to meet consumer standards . Because Poseidon is a wholesaler and will never retail to meet the needs of a specific development, or because the new households will be distributed across OC Met' s service area, or because this new water will offset the need for additional inter basin water transfers, does not mean that the additional infrastructure requirements of 30, 000 new households generated by this new water do not have to be iterated and analyzed. These Growth Inducing Impacts may not be dismissed in 7 . 0 as Not Significant as stated in 7 . 2, Population and Housing. 3 • � CEC, 5/27/03 page 2 5 . 3 Long Term Cumulative Impacts should iterate, analyze and determine if the infrastructure necessary to support these additional households exists; if not, how they would be funded, i . e . , fire, police, schools, roads, rail and airports, electrical supply and sewerage capacity, etc . It seems to us that 50, 000 mgd of new water induces 50, 000 mgd of sewage treatment and ocean discharge in any consideration . POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON ADJACENT WETLAND California Earth Corps has recently assisted the Huntington Beach Wetland Conservancy in completing the acquisition of the Picirrelli Property, allowing the restoration of an additional 150+ acres of fully tidal wetland bounded by the Talbert Channel Magnolia, Pacific Coast Highway and the proposed Poseidon Project . In addition to the $1 . 65 million for this 45 acres and the $4 . + million value of the additional private, State and County lands is the -$30 . + million in private and State funds committed to this restoration . We are willing, even eager to participate as Huntington Beach & {-he Conservancy move forward with this exciting and regionally important restoration, but this Commission has the responsibility to protect this substantial investment in our children' s future through such Conditions of Permit to this Project as may be required to protect this investment . We believe that Poseidon, as a good corporate citizen, will look favorably on these opportunities to partner with the City and with the community in protecting and enhancing, even with the custodial responsibility for the adjoining Tidal Wetland . This EIR now before you is the source document the other Agencies will utilize to evaluate the appropriateness of issuance of their own Permits . Failure to consider the impacts on the Wetland may introduce substantive delays, even Permit denials, as Agencies scurry to fill the data gaps created by EIR oversight . We understand that you also have before you a Statement of Overriding Considerations, but we feel that the omission of evaluation of these potential impacts on the Wetlands are far better addressed and mitigated as Conditions of Permit . 3 .v" CEC 05/27/03 Page 3 4 . 2 Geology, Soils and Seismicity, notes that the loose, compactable sandy soils of the top 15 feet are subject to liquifaction when wet .The water table is at 5 feet, subject to the tide . The site is atop the Inglewood/Newport section of the Santa Monica/Baja coastal zone of deformation, an association of en echelon faults running from Punta Bunda in Mexico to Holister just south of San Jose, where it intersects the San Andreas system. It has been determined to be capable of a 6 . 9 event, based on a fault length of 44 miles . While this would most probably result in the plant, at least the product water tank, settling into the soil to the level of buoyancy and riding the "lateral spread" from five feet above sea level to the water, breaking pipes, making product water unavailable for emergencies and releasing chlorine gas from the chemical storage area, emergency services would be preoccupied with other things around town, where broken gas pipes would ignite to fuel a mini Dresden firestorm with no available water and outside help preoccupied with a double core meltdown at the San Onofre Nuclear Plant built to withstand a 6 . 5 event within 50 miles . Fleeing citizens could meet a cloud of chlorine gas coming the other way. A more probable 6 . 5 amplitude Maximum Credible Event with a 50% probability within twenty years would cause liquifaction to produce a low head landslide, with the plant slip slidin' away into the middle of the Wetland. Even a 4 . 9 event, with 1/20th the energy, could cause settling, liquifaction and pipe breaks, with the possible release of chlorine gas . Corrogated sheeting along Channel referred to in EIR was and is intended to be temporary, to be removed during Wetland restoration to form the inlet for tidal waters . It would pose no barrier to contain "lateral spread" or mudslide anyway. 7 . 3 Says No Significant Impacts are anticipated from Geology Soils & Seismicity; the disaster scenarios . are dismissed and not considered. We would guess that even the 6 . 9 event would probably result in property damage, not grave injury or loss of life on site, except for the chlorine . We consider the EIR inadequate, absent any review of these potential Geophysical hazards, and suggest : 3•� CEC 05/27/03 Page 4 MITIGATION: Chlorine storage and injection area in the chemical storage building should be in a Containment Structure capable of withstanding a 6 . 9 event or 2 g' s of strong motion in all three axes and fitted with seismic shutoff valves . 4 . 2-2 Existing Conditions Ascon/Nesi Toxic Dump site . Apparently, materials disposed of here before Toxic Chemical definitions and standards were established may be Class I Priority chemicals by todays' standards . Since the Dump site is located above the Project site and under hydrostatic pressure, has the plume of contaminants reached the Project site yet? Which chemicals? What concentrations? Where is it'? How fast is it moving? What do the core samples from the mandatory Phase III evaluation reveal? Why are they not included in the EIR? What remediation is expected? Has DTSC done a site investigation? Where is the Cannery Street Land Fill? What is in it and does it impact the Project site? How can these chemical plumes be interdicted before they reach the Wetlands? 4 . 3 Hydrology and Water Quality. -2 The EIR is internally inconsistent regarding On Site Drainage : "in times of heavy rainfall, stormwater runoff is either released by manual valve (to where? Surely not the wetland) or pumped into the channel", elsewhere in the EIR, "pumped out the outfail", elsewhere, "contained within the 10 foot or 15 foot" (which?) containment berms . We believe all the above are the wrong answer (s) . The NPDES Permit required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board will require Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) . We believe all stormwater runoff, at least the first . 75 inch of any event carrying the first flush of toxicants, must be retained and stripped of- toxicants to the still-to-be-determined. TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) . The Clean Water Act (CWA) non-degradation policy requires discharge be cleaner than the receiving waters (of the Channel) ; CEQA requires these options be explored to 3•� CEC 05/27/03 Page 5 provide the data for responsible decisions by the discretionary agencies such as yourselves . 7 . 4 b says No Substantial Impact, therefore no evaluation or mitigation . We disagree, and would suggest : MITIGATION: Applicant shall utilize the 10 (or 15) foot berms or construct a suitable berm to contain stormwater runoff and a linear "constructed freshwater wetland" containing rushes, sedges or other aquatic plants known to strip suspended solids, dissolved solids, pollutants, toxicants and other undesirable contaminants from runoff, at the base of the berm enclosing the facility, to contain and cleanse the first . 75 .inch of any storm event, before percolation through the sands and into the water table . Pumps capable of removing runoff over the . 75 numerical standard from a 100 year capital storm into either the Channel or ocean outfall shall be provided. 4 . 3-3 Water Quality, Ocean No data is provided for the AES intake; at "507 mgd to 200 mgd" under what circumstances? No biologicals are stated or referred, no survival rates for plankton, bacteria, pathogens or otherwise, passing through AES heat exchangers . What will Poseidon do if AES shuts down? What specific criteria will Department of Health Services require? 4 . 3-4 Beneficial Uses : "No potential beneficial uses in the Project vicinity, including . . wildlife habitat, threatened listed, or endangered species, or habitat, spawning or reproduction habitat, no marine or shellfish habitat" except for the tidal wetland planned adjacent to the Plant. The EIR totally fails to address . this fundamental CEQA requirement and is accordingly inadequate by definition. Minimum Conditions of Permit: Must meet Marine Water Quality Objectives , to wit: Thermal Plan. Plant discharge must meet the State Water Resources Control Board Thermal Plan maximum 20 degree delta T without varience . 3•S CEC 05/27/03 Page 6 • Bacterial. <10 E . coli /ml max; we believe DHS standards are higher. • Biological . Must meet non degradation standard; must demonstrate that a "Balanced Indigenous Population exists and will be maintained outside the Zone of Initial Dilution • Wetland Beneficial Uses as a nursery to near shore biota must be protected. We are aware that Applicant believes they can meet, and the SARWQCB will require these objectives, but the EIR does not evaluate and the suggested Coastal Permit does not require compliance, as a consistency determination suggests . 4 . 3 Subsurface Water Quality . Subsurface plumes of pollutants from the Ascon/Nesi and Cannery Street toxic dump sites must be evaluated and methods of interdiction reviewed and, where appropriate, mitigation required. 4 . 4 Air Quality. Remediation is not discussed! The EIR acknowledges and the Phase II study documents that the Fuel Storage Tanks are, and have been, leaking; that substantial soil contamination exists . Where are the core samples and evaluation? (What contaminants? What concentrations? Where located, How deep, What volume?) Where is the Remediation Plan? Should not the Site be Remediated before the Project is approved? What quantities and concentration of toxicants will be released to the airshed during remediation? Release of VOCs during remediation should be addressed and mitigating containment required. 4 . 5 Noise Wetland and shorebirds are quite sensitive to noise; sudden sounds often provoke migrating birds to flight, unnecessarily expending energy reserves needed for migration . Sound barriers such as vegetated berms are effective and can be made esthetically pleasing . MITIGATION: Sound Barriers should be required . 3• V CEC 05/27/03 Page 7 4 . 7 Light and Glare Wetland and shorebirds are also sensitive to light and glare . Birds migrating at .night are often misdirected by urban lights, becoming lost or .even crashing into things . Wetland destinations of nocturnal migrating birds appear as dark spots; when wetlands are inadvertently illuminated, migratory bird counts drop . Many just don' t make it to their final destination. MITIGATION: Lights should be directed away and wetlands shielded from all illumination. 4 . 8 Hazardous Materials Precautions for safely handling and storing chlorine should be discussed and the Permit properly conditioned to protect public health and safety, especially through any seismic event . Additionally, many serious and mitigable Impacts are dismissed as Insignificant : 7 . 0 Not Significant Impacts - that are substantial and can be mitigated: 7 . 2 Population and Housing : Growth Inducing Impacts are significant, have not been addressed, and should be analyzed at 5 . 3 . 7 . 3 Geology and Soils : Impacts are significant and should be. analyzed at 4 .2 . 7 . 4 a) states Huntington Beach draws 700 of its' drinking Water from ground water aquifers, other places, 750 , still others, 66% . Which number is factually correct? b) probabilities of a 30+ foot tsunami every 100 or so years do not seem insignificant to us; while not particularly applicable here, the risk - and preparations to control property damage should be reviewed by the Planning Commission of all Coastal Cities . Mudflows in liquifaction prone areas with even mild gradients are not low; they are a near certainty. 7 . 5 Air Quality adverse impacts from VOCs released during remediation are not insignificant . 3� CEC 05/27/03 Page 8 7 . 6 Traffic, transportation and Emergency: Chlorine spills or accidental release, with safety precautions should be analyzed. 7 . 7 Biological : Subsurface Booster Pump located in NCCP area must be mitigated for loss of habitat . We suggest : MITIGATION: Disturbed area should have all exotic and non native plants removed and be replanted after completion of water pipeline and Booster Pump in NCCP area with a palatte of as many indigenous plants as practicable with supplemental watering and care provided during the first year, or until they are established, and with weeding out of invasive non natives and replacement of failed natives until the Booster Pump is no longer required and has been removed. Poseidon' s actions as a good corporate citizen and environmental steward may inspire the operators of the other Booster Pumps in the area to do likewise . 7 . 9 b) Haz Mat Code Sec . 65962 . 5 et seq re : chlorine must be implemented. 7 . 10 Noise impactes on Wetland must be precluded. 7 . 11 Public Services required by Growth Inducing Impacts must be evaluated. 7 . 12 Utilities and Services required to support induced growth must be evaluated. 7 . 13 Esthetics : A buffer between the Wetland and the Stormwater Containment Berm should be required and planted with a palatte of plants indigenous to the Coastal Sage community and providing public access via a pathway along the Plant perimeter bordering the Wetland but screened from it such as not to disturb birds, yet affording views and vistas of wildlife for residents and visiting schoolchildren . MITIGATION: Require a Codition of Public Access via such pathway to be designed and constructed in coordination with the Huntington Beach Wetland Conservancy and the forthcoming Talbert Marsh Conceptual Plan. 3 •� CEC 05/27/03 Page 9 7 . 14 Cultural, Archeology This site has been a temperate seashore where people have .congregated to fish and dig clams since time immemorial . The top 15 feet contains the unbroken record of habitation and human land use since humanity entered North America . We have been drawn to this seashore, to this site for over 10, 000 years . It is dif"ficult to believe that no record of our presence exists, or will be uncovered during Project construction . We suggest a Condition of Permit : When cleaning soils during site remediation and when removing or moving soils during construction, all personnel will be alert for artifacts of human occupation, 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. 7 . 15 Recreation Coastal Act provisions for Public Access and Preservation of public views to and from the site, of seashore, ocean and Wetlands call for a Condition of Permit providing such access as suggested above at 7 . 13 . With full consideration of all these inadequacies, errors and omissions in this Environmental Impact Report, and in the hope that a better Project, with fewer delays to fill the data gaps in the Record, will result, it is our request that this EIR be withdrawn, and a supplemental and correcting EIR be prepared, commented upon and returned to this Commission for Certification at a future meeting. Thank you for your attention. Do ay, resident California Earth Corps 3•�t The.P®seed®n Project MAY ? 7 2003 Why we Faust be cautious: In 1905 a Spanish born American philosopher by the name of George Santayana stated (in his book, The Life of Reason), "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Let us take a look at Huntington Beach, circa 1955: Southern California Edison Company proposes to build an Electrical.Generating Plant that would use Bunker Oil as a fuel, delivered to an off shore terminal, piped to on shore storage tanks and used to heat water into steam for the steam powered turbines connected to the electrical generators. Edison proposes that their plant will act as a catalyst to bring other industry into the area, all of which would greatly expand the Industrial Tax Base, Signal Oil Company is said to be willing to build an oil refinery in the adjacent area. Our city fathers of the time were convinced (in part)to accept the proposal on the basis that: 1. It would "draw-in" additional industrial expansion. 2. It would provide lower cost electricity(no long distance transmission overhead). 3. It would provide jobs. 4. It would increase the Tax Base. 5. It would help relieve the shortage of a much needed utility. 6. It would"enhance" our city in many ways. 7. They were not asking for any"entitlements", it would be paid for entirely with private capital. 8. There was no "down side" to the proposal (according to all the experts of the time). Who could resist such a proposal ? Huntington Beach didn't. And so the Edison Plant was built. The first thing to go wrong was that Signal Oil Co. did not build a refinery in the area, in fact no one built any other significant industrial facility in the area. Huntington Beach relied heavily on the advice of"experts" about there being little or no disadvantages to having the Edison Plant along the beach. As we learned later(after it was too late),the sum total of the "experts" knowledge base on the subject(at that time)was close to zero(0). You might say that the whole project was somewhat experimental at that time. A few years later, the monsters began to jump out of the box: 1. The burning of bunker oil to provide steam for the turbines produced great quantities of contaminates that contributed heavily to air pollution and smog. 2. The:local air.was turned a dirty gray 3. The air-was filled with small unburned hydrocarbon particles. 4. Freshly washed linens and whites hung out to dry in the summer sun and ocean breeze, were turned a dirty gray in a matter of just a couple of hours. 5. Light colored automobiles parked out of doors had a dirty gray covering with small black spots. 6. Through civic and governmental action, the Edison Co. was forced to change over to natural gas as a fuel. Some of the problems were solved,but not all. Air pollution is still an on-going battle. 7. In the 1990's the installation was sold to a private company. 8. In 2000 when the energy crunch hit and Huntington Beach really needed the locally generated electricity, that company virtually "thumbed their combined noses at Huntington Beach". The bottom line is: A. At the time it was built, the Edison Plant was EXPERIMENTAL at least in part. B. At the time the Edison Plant was built, the knowledge base for such things was little more that ZERO(0 ). C. At the time the Edison Plant was.built, the so called"experts" were basing their opinions on the knowledge base of.that time. D. At the time he Edison Plant was built,Huntington Beach took part in an EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT with no reward for that "risk taking". If Huntington Beach is to take part in an EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT AGARV, it will require a certain amount of"RISE TAKING", for which Huntington Beach MUST BE REWARDED— UP FRONT. With the above in mind, I would like to make a motion that the following conditions be made apart of whatever decision this Planning Commission makes relative to the Poseidon Application. 1. 'SAXES A. 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 be established 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 will cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later that the fifth( 5 ) day of July, each calendar year. B. Real Property and/or Right, Title and 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 be established in an amount equal to what said 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)will cooperate fully in this calculation. Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later that the fifth( 5 )day of July, each calendar year. C. 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. 2. Environmental Concerns A. Visual Blight A perimeter of natural trees, 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 present or future home sites, are to be blocked so that the Poseidon Project will look like a dense stand of trees. B. 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. All liquid run-off from equipment, yard, grounds, spills, landscaping or for any other reason will be handled the same as above. 3. night-of-way Fees A. An "In-Lieu"fee An In-Lieu 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 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 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. _ � _ 4.3 Said In-Lieu Fee will be paid to the City of Huntington Beach no later that the fifth( 5 ) day of July, each calendar year. Robert E. (Bob)Dingwall Planning Commissioner James H Iverson 19350 Ward St., Sp. 23 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-3001 ? ; Ph: (714) 378-5180 Fax: (714) 556-2364 May 20, 2003 Planning Commission Chairman Randy Kokal City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Chairman Kokal: I have wondered for years why we didn't tap into the Pacific Ocean to solve our recurring water problems. The Federal government is threatening to cut California's share of the Colorado River, the weather refuses to give us a constant supply, and you can bet other cities and agencies will try to beat us out of water. Poseidon Resources has an application before the Huntington Beach Planning Commission to build a desalination facility at the AES plant. I would like it to be a larger facility than they are planning, but lets get what we can to prove the theory works as well as it has in Arab countries. My understanding of this project is that it will provide us with additional water at reasonable rates while adding to our tax base and consequently our taxes collected. The company is willing to fund the facility with private money, which I consider another point in their favor. I urge your yes vote when this matter comes before the City Planning Commission. Sincerely, / James H. Iverson CC: Mayor Boardman Page 1 of 1 Lugar;Robin From: Zelefsky, Howard Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:11 PM To: Lugar, Robin Subject: FW: Poseidon comment letter ----Original Message----- From: ChariieButier2@aol.com [mailto:CharlieButier2@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday, May 27,2003 1:25 PM To: hzeeefsky@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Fwd: Poseidon comment letter Mr Zelefsky: I understand that you are the Director of Planning. I recently sent this letter to the City Council, and Ron Davis. I would like it placed into the public record in regards to the reasons that I oppose the proposal to approve the Poseidon Desalisination Facilities. Thank you very much. Respectfully Charlie Butler 5/27/2003 C.o • f Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: CharlieSuder2@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 12:24 PM To: City Council Public Correspondence Subject: Poseidon comment letter To the City Council: I am writing as an individual to express my opposition to the Poseidon project. I respectfully request that this project not be allowed. I fully understand that it would generate tax revenues but further deteriorating the Southeast Huntington Beach area is not an "acceptable trade off'in any manner. Tax revenues at that cost are far too high. There are many more reasons to oppose this project and this is just a start. The desalinization plant would depend on the AES input and output"tubes"into and out of our Ocean. The AES electricity generating plant is old, inefficient, and pollutes the air, amongst other problems. When AES spoke to us they originally promised a new modernized plant with lower profile and cleaner pollution standards,they also promised other things that never happened. When the"electricity crisis"hit, AES quickly changed their minds and stuck with old technology and activated two more burners. Now AES has financial issues, as their public filings can detail for anyone interested. With these problems, it is not highly probable that AES will upgrade their HB plant, as they currently are in more of an international asset sale mode. On top of that,this area has become crowded with residences compared to when the power plant and the waste processing facilities were built.The load through the waste processing facilities has increased dramatically as the Orange County population increases. So the input and output of the AES circulation tubes has more pollution issues to deal with than if it were in a rural area, or when it was planned. Our beaches have been closed due to pollution many times, and scientists cannot determine why. Until this is determined and corrected it can only deepen the problem to add another polluter to the mix.The newspaper and television coverage on closed beaches in the summer damages our economy and our tourism. How happy will the new Hotels be with closed beaches? Yet,in a small area we have a waste processing facility that releases treated and untreated"human pollution"near the input and output tubes that draw Ocean water and its unwelcome additives back into the beaches to an electricity plant located in front of recreational beaches.There have been many sightings of the "plumes"around the output tubes.Add to this the urban runoff that is channeled to the same location from inland as far away as the Chino dairy farms. Using the time honored "common sense"approach;one would normally not expect this combination to produce good results. If scientists cannot determine the cause of the current beach closures,why do we feel that consultants hired by Poseidon can accurately determine their effects? Now to add one more processing plant to the input and output tubes is on the table. Should this be approved,AES will be subsidized, and it is even more unlikely that the electricity plant will ever be retired, reduced in usage, or updated to new technology. Plus there would be far more pollution from the generators lowering the air quality. The output from the Poseidon plant would change the water quality.This is a beach, not an industrial dump. Few could logically object to desalinized drinking water;we all understand this is really a dessert. The issue is a small area with urban runoff, a waste plant, a polluting power plant, a new polluter, and another use of the"tubes"in an area that has become heavily populated with human beings.The issue is not a trust between politicians and citizens; it is pollution and human beings.The issue should not be generating property tax increments into the redevelopment zone fund at any cost; because the cost of more beach closures can be greater than the revenues brought in. Please also consider the voters and the pollution in residential neighborhoods,the health of the residents and tourists, and the quality of life.There are many spots in rural areas that could be used to desalinize water.Trading tax revenues for deteriorating the Ocean and neighborhood, and the risk of more beach closures is not a long-term strategy to allow. People travel all over the world to go on vacation to beaches.This generates resort areas,tourist revenues, entertainment and other more enjoyable uses of the Ocean.This should be a focus. Thanks.for your time=. Charlie.Butler 5/27/2003 (9. 2- ..,,. ",j' THOMAS W. WILSON CHAIRMAN 00� '; • ��� '= ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY 2 7 SUPERVISOR, FIFTH DISTRICT 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, P.O.BOX 687, SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 9 2 702-0 687 PHONE: (714) 834-3550 FAX: (714) 834-2670 wEBSITE: http://www.oc.ca.gov/supes/fifth EMAIL: thomas.wilson@ocgov.com May 23,2003 The Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor, City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Mayor Boardman: The preservation, protection and restoration of our watershed and coastline have always played a major role in our policy-making decisions as County Supervisors. As a founder of the Orange County Coastal Coalition, it has been my mission to bring together business, public agencies, environmental groups and concerned individuals to protect Orange County's coastline. Poseidon . Resources has exhibited its commitment to water quality with exhaustive biological and oceanographic testing to analyze the effect its proposed desalination facility will have-on the.merine habitat. I am pleased to support Poseidon Resources' desalination facility because there is no evidence that it will harm our coastline environment. In fact, once the public realizes that it is drinking desalinated seawater, it may be most motivated to proactively protect our ocean from pollutants. The environmental community must embrace business like Poseidon that care about our coastline and show concern with active participation in environmental protection programs. Sincerely, Imo• THOMAS W.WILSON Chairman of the Board cc: Huntington Beach City Council vtiuntington Beach Planning Commission '1 . � �W Pp`.. . �: .RT 0�h '4 CITY OF NEWPORT. BEACH N C�RN MAY 2 7 Epp . May 20, 2003 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Randy Kokal Ch•uirman, Huntington Beach PIr-inning Commission. 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project EIR Dear Chairman Kokal, During our review of the Responses to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), we became aware of an alternate location in Bonita Canyon Sports Park for the proposed pump station. Apparently, this alternate location was not identified in the DEIR, but was presented in response to comments from the State Department of Fish and Game. The City of Newport Beach agrees with the evaluation in the Response to Comments. The construction of this facility would require severely disrupting the use of the Bonita Canyon Sports Park parking lot for an extended period of time. The Bonita Canyon Sports Park is scheduled to open in July 2003 and has already generated tremendous interest. This long awaited youth sports park was designed to relieve the lack of sports fields for Newport Beach's youth. These youth sports groups have been waiting anxiously due to the lack of fields in the City even with the new park. The groups were disappointed by the unavailability of the fields during the spring season and had to wait until the opening in July. It is anticipated that the five fields and practice fields will be used seven days per week, 12 months of the year. There are over 5,000 children enrolled in youth sports programs in Newport Beach. The park also has heavy anticipated use for the playground and picnic area as we open it up to reservations. Any delay.or disruption of this facility would profoundly impact a neighborhood in great need of parks and recreational facilities. We also agree that by reducing the facility's parking capacity, the users will be forced to park their vehicles on adjacent residential streets. While the City shares the concerns of resource agencies on proposed pump station's impacts to the habitat resources in the area, we agree with the conclusion that the City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 www.city.newport-beach.ca.us 61 alternative location would result in greater impacts to the Bonita Canyon Sports Park and the adjacent residential areas. Sincerely, Sharon Z. Wood Assistant City Manger 2 05/27/2003 Dick white, 17811 May Lane,HB., 92649-4916 The Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor The City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject: Water for the future Dear Mayor Boardman: We have an opportunity to mitigate the ever-increasing shortage of water in our coastal city. As a Huntington Beach resident,I appreciate our seaside community and would not want anything introduced that might damage our precious coastal habitat. That is one reason I believe it to be beneficial that Poseidon Resources be permitted to build its 50-million gallon desalination facility at the AES plant. If our coastal waters are purified to make drinking water,it will be incumbent upon Poseidon to constantly test the water off our coast to make sure that water is clean. Another benefit is the inevitability of a desalination plant on our coast. Dwindling ground water in our aquifer, and dwindling water in our down stream position for Colorado River water dictates aggressive water conservation and acquisition programs. Conservation is now under way—Poseiden is the only known solution for the latter and it surely must come about some day as it has in many places around the world. The desalination process is"seawater in,seawater out." It is my understanding that no chemicals will be introduced to the ocean that don't already exist there. It is essential that Huntington Beach and all of Orange County develop its own new water sources. With an infinite water supply in our ocean,the desalination-of seawater is the most logical solution to our impending clean water crisis. This facility would not cost the taxpayers a dime. Poseidon Resources will pay thousands of dollars in taxes to the City of Huntington Beach. This desalination facility makes sense economically,environmentally,and will benefit all Huntington Beach residents. Sincerely, Ovule Dick White cc: Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach Planning Commission Brian Lockery—Poseidon G1. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication s Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner'�- DATE: June 3, 2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)—REPORT UPDATES The following attachments provide additional information relative to the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant: 1. Response to issues raised at the May 27, 2003 Planning Commission hearing 2. Additional letters in opposition/support HZ:SH:HF:RR G AAdm Ltr\Admltr03\0503rr6.doc CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner DATE: May 29, 2003 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED AT THE MAY 27,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) As directed by the Planning Commission at the May 27, 2003 Planning Commission hearing on the subject project, staff prepared the following responses to substantive issues raised at the May 27, 2003 hearing, in addition to issues identified in correspondence received following the close of the Draft EIR public review period. As stated at the hearing by staff, the City's environmental consultant and the applicant, the issues raised at the hearing and in the additional correspondence have substantially been addressed in the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments document. This staff report has been prepared to further clarify staff s position and the EIR analysis, and to specifically address the key issues requested by the Planning Commission. As set forth below, the information and analysis presented to date is adequate under CEQA for the Planning Commission to certify the Final EIR and for approval of the CUP and CDP. DETAILED REPORT: .The CEQA process for the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project has involved several opportunities for public comment on the project. As noted in the, May 27, 2003 Staff Report, the Draft EIR was circulated for public review between September 19 and November 4, 2002. The City received a total of 21 comment letters on the Draft EIR, and prepared formal written responses to all comments, as required by CEQA. The City completed the Response to Comments document on March 21, 2003, after several months of additional research and analysis to address Draft EIR comments. The Responses to Comments document, although only required by CEQA to be distributed to Responsible Agencies that submitted comments, was provided to all commenting parties (both public and private). It should be noted that, of the 21 comment letters and responses provided by City staff, the City only received three replies from agencies that commented on the Draft EIR(see items 1, 3 and 4 below). f GAAdm Ltr\Adm1tr03\0 5 03 rr5.doc CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOLLOWING CLOSE OF DRAFT EIR PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: 1. Tom Luster, California Coastal Commission (letter dated May 8, 2003): This letter primarily restates issues raised in a November 4, 2002 letter. A separate response has been prepared by staff and was attached to the staff report update dated May 22, 2003. 2. Edward Kerins, Huntington Beach Tomorrow (dated May 21, 2003): Mr. Kerins' letter primarily expresses concerns regarding RO flushing effluent, noise, loss of tax revenue, and pipeline financial impacts. The RO train issue is addressed in the Draft EIR and in several Responses to Comments, including No. 6b and No. 17. Noise issues are addressed in the Draft EIR (including Sections 4.5 and 4.9), as well as various responses. Financial/tax issues are not relevant to CEQA. 3. Lars D. Oldewage, Irvine Ranch Water District (dated May 22, 2003): Mr. Oldewage's letter expresses concerns regarding product water.quality, product water customer acceptance, RO membrane performance, and water stabilization/corrosion control. These issues have been addressed within Response to Comment Nos. 14, 15 and 16. 4. Wayne Clark, Municipal Water District of Orange County (dated May 19, 2003): This letter expresses support for the project. 5. Adrianne Morrison, Bolsa Chica Conservancy (dated May 22, 2003): This letter expresses support for the project. 6. J. Geever, Surfrider National Foundation (dated May 27, 2003): Mr. Geever's comments on the proposed project focused on growth inducement, marine biology, discharge salinity/temperature, source water quality, public/private ownership, alternatives, and solid waste management. These issues are addressed in the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments (in particular, refer to Response 2m for growth, 4b for AES permit issues, 2c for Ocean Plan issues, 21 for alternatives, and I I c for solid waste). Additional discussion of these issues is provided below, as they are similar to issues raised by California Earth Corps' "14 points".letter. 7. Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation, Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter (dated May 26, 2003): Mr. Schulz's letter expressed concerns primarily relating to the proposed project's California Ocean Plan/NPDES consistency. This issue is addressed in Response 4b and below as part of the California Earth Corps response. 8. Don May, California Earth Corps (dated May 27, 2003): Mr. May's comments on the proposed project focused on growth inducement, coastal/terrestrial biological impacts, geological hazards, Ascon/Nesi hazardous materials, on-site drainage, AES shutdown scenario, permitting requirements, groundwater/soil contamination, noise, light and glare, operational use of hazardous materials, drinking water supply, tsunami potential, aesthetics, and cultural resources. This letter was specifically requested by the Planning Commission to be addressed in more detail by staff. Refer to the `California Earth Corps' 14 Various Categories" discussion below. 9. Robert E. Dingwall, Planning Commissioner (dated May 27, 2003): Mr. Dingwall's letter expressed concerns primarily relating to the history of the AES Generating Station and project benefits for the City of Huntington Beach. The letter also proposes several conditions on the project that include taxes, fees, and design requirements. It should be noted that aesthetic and water quality issues are addressed in the Draft EIR. 10. James H.Iverson,.Huntington.Beach Resident (dated May 20, 2003): Mr. Iverson's letter focuses,on the-benefits of the project_in regards to water supply/reliability, tax base G:\AdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0503rr5.doc 2 ';� _1+ 'es?a '4q" ! •-2 income, and lower public risks due to private funding. Mr. Iverson recommends certification of the EIR. 11. Charlie Butler (email dated May 23, 2003): Mr. Butler's email (unsigned) expressed concerns relating to impacts from the AES facility, existing bacterial plume along the Huntington Beach coast, and discharge water quality. The Draft EIR and technical appendices provided extensive discussion of the project's relationship to the existing beach contamination, including detailed plume modeling. This issue was addressed at length during the hearing, including specific responses provided by Dr. Jenkins of Scripps Institute. 12. Thomas W. Wilson, Orange County Board of Supervisors (dated May 23, 2003): Mr. Wilson's letter focuses on the benefits of the project in regards to a lack of evidence showing the project would harm the coastline environment and Poseidon's involvement in environmental protection programs. Mr. Wilson is supportive of the proposed project. 13. Sharon Z. Wood, City of Newport Beach (dated May 20, 2003): Ms. Wood's comment letter expresses agreement with analysis contained within the Responses to Comments document that found that impacts would be greater if the Bonita Canyon Pump Station site is utilized rather than the site nearby the NCCP/HCP boundary within unincorporated Orange County. 14. Dick White, Huntington Beach Resident (dated May 27, 2003): Mr. White's letter focuses on project benefits including ocean water quality, water supply/reliability, tax income to the City, and private funding. Mr. White is supportive of the proposed project. 15. Bruce Monroe, The Sierra Club, Coast and Ocean Sub-Committee of the California and Nevada Regional Conservation Committee (dated May 27, 2003): Mr. Monroe's letter expresses concerns in regards to economics, planning/growth, siting, entrainment and impingement, and by-product discharge. These issues are similar to those raised by the Coastal Commission (see separate staff response), Surfrider and California Earth Corps (see Items 2 and 3 above, and "California Earth Corps' 14 Various Categories" discussion below). 16. Robert Thomas, Huntington Beach Resident (dated May 27, 2003): Mr. Thomas' letter expresses concerns regarding land use compatibility, discharge water quality, bacterial plume concerns, and underground utility conflicts. These issues are addressed in the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments, as well as the "Land Use/Relevant Planning Consistency" discussion below. 17. Jan Vandersloot, Ocean Outfall Group (dated May 27, 2003): Mr. Vandersloot provided the Planning Commission with two graphics (one taken from the Draft EIR showing the project's potential salinity plume and one showing City/County stormwater pump stations/OCSD surfzone monitoring stations) and two pages from the Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III report dated March 21, 2003. Mr. Vandersloot utilized these documents during his presentation to the Planning Commission on May 27, 2003. May 27, 2003 Planning Commission—Public Hearing Comments In addition, as part of the CEQA process for the proposed desalination facility, input from the community in the form of local organizations and residents was received before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on May 27, 2003. A total of 27 oral comments (by 23 different individuals) regarding._the- proposed project were heard (22 comments during the Planning Commission Public Hearing and.five during the Study Session preceding the Public GAAdmLtr\Admltr03\0503rr5.doc 3 F'" :i Hearing). A list of speakers is provided below ("*" indicates that the speaker also submitted written comments, either as part of the Draft EIR review period or following close of public review): Planning Commission Study Session 1. *Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation- Opposed to Project 2. Bruce Monroe, Sierra Club - Opposed to Project 3. Randy Fuhrman - Opposed to Project 4. Jan Vandersloot, OOG - Opposed to Project 5. *Don May, CA Earth Corps - Opposed to Project Planning Commission Public Hearing 1. Dean Albright, OOG—Opposed to Project 2. Norm Westwell— Supportive of Project 3. *Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation - Opposed to Project 4. Mark Bixby- Opposed to Project 5. Ed Demeulle, SEHBNA - Opposed to Project 6. Randy Fuhrman-Opposed to Project 7. Bruce Monroe, Sierra Club - Opposed to Project 8. Deborah Zisch - Opposed to Project 9. Jan Vandersloot, Ocean Outfall Group (OOG) - Opposed to Project 10. Larry Porter - Opposed to Project 11. *Don May, CA Earth Corps - Opposed to Project 12. Stephanie Barger, Earth Resource Foundation- Opposed to Project 13. Monica Galluccio, SEHBNA- Opposed to Project 14. David Guido - Opposed to Project 15. John Scott, SEHBNA- Opposed to Project 16. Tim Anderson - Opposed to Project 17. Billy Owens—Project Applicant 18. Ron Van Blarcom—Project Applicant Team 19. Scott Jenkins—Project Applicant Team 20. Nikolay Voutchkov—Project Applicant 21. Jeffrey Graham—Project Applicant Team 22. Eileen Murphy- Opposed to Project STAFF RESPONSE WITH RESPECT TO SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES RAISED As directed by the Planning Commission, it is the purpose of this Staff Report to provide responses to substantive environmental issues raised at the May 27, 2003 public hearing. Brief responses are provided above for all late correspondence. In addition, the following issues were requested by the Planning Commission for further clarification. It should be noted that the majority of both late communications and oral comments received by the Planning Commission pertained to issues that have previously been addressed in the Draft EIR or have been responded to either in the Responses to Comments document or Staff Report dated May 27, 2003. The following-discussion addresses.primary-EIR issues raised in late communications received after May 22, 2003"or oral-comments received:before.the.Planning Commission on May 27, 2003: GAAdmLtAAdm1tr03\0503rr5.doc 4 ,'„k ' r::." e "L+ ❖ Analysis of Pipeline Connection Between Generating Station Intake Facilities and Proposed Desalination Plant within AES Site: There was some question as to whether or not the EIR addresses the project-related infrastructure necessary to connect the desalination facility to AES facilities. The EIR provides concept site plans and graphics illustrating these connections, which were accounted for in the EIR. (see specific discussion on page 4.9-3 of the Draft EIR). In addition, on-site facility/pipeline connections were considered as part of the construction and operational impacts of the desalination plant, which resulted in relocating the desalination plant from its originally contemplated located within the AES property to minimize disruption to AES operations. ❖ CEQA Requirements for "Baseline" Thresholds: Several comments raised the issue of whether or not the EIR should evaluate project operation in the event that the AES facility were to shut down. It is important to note that CEQA requires an EIR to evaluate a project's impacts based upon the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is prepared, and discourages evaluation of speculative scenarios. Therefore, it is appropriate that the EIR base its analysis on continued operation of the AES power plant. Nonetheless, responses to this issue have been provided, both at the public hearing, and in response to Coastal Commission comments (see Response Nos. 2d and 2e). This issue is addressed in further detail below as part of the "California Earth Corps' 14 Various Categories"discussion. ❖ Land Use/Relevant Planning Consistency: The proposed project would comply with the General Plan and Zoning designations, and is consistent with the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan. The facility would occur within a primarily industrial area. Proposed on-site structures would replace dilapidated fuel oil storage tanks constructed several decades ago. The project would comply with all City requirements in regards to aesthetic screening, architecture, and building height. The project would also be required to comply with the City's Municipal Noise Ordinance. Noise and aesthetic issues are addressed in detail within Sections 4.5, 4.7 and 4.9 of the Draft EIR. The project is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the surrounding community in regards to land use and relevant planning (see Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR). ❖ Effect of Trace Compounds in Discharge Water: The Draft EIR includes analysis of water quality issues based on extensive water quality modeling conducted by the applicant and input provided by other agencies as part of the EIR process. Poseidon Resources has completed several efforts to characterize the intake and discharge water quality of the Huntington Beach seawater desalination plant. These efforts include: completion of sanitary survey (included as Appendix E in the DEIR), collection of desalination plant intake water quality information for the last two years, and operation of seawater desalination pilot plant for the last six months. The results of these efforts indicate that the Huntington Beach desalination plant source water does not contain significant amounts of hazardous compounds (such as lead, mercury, arsenic, etc.) that can pose a health hazard or have a measurable impact to marine aquatic life. The concentrations of the compounds of concern measured at the desalination plant intake are summarized- in Table 4-2 of Appendix E in the EIR. Review of this data indicates that the desalination plant source water contains very low concentrations of the G:\AdmLtr\Admltr03\0503rr5.doc 5 }'s=—'i l ik� 'S compounds in question. Under worst-case scenario, the concentration of these compounds in the desalination plant discharge can increase no more than two times the background seawater concentration (without taking credit for power plant discharge dilution). When taking into consideration that the desalination plant discharge will be blended with the power plant cooling water, the blended water will have compound concentrations no more than 1.65 times background levels when initially discharged at the offshore outfall. Dilution factors of the blended discharge (calculated by the hydrodynamic model) indicate that ocean mixing will rapidly reduce the concentrations of these compounds. Concentrations will be less than 10 % over background levels within a distance of 330 ft from the outfall, declining further to less than 1% over background within 1,300 ft from the outfall. Typically, the concentration of heavy metals and other hazardous compounds in seawater and the desalination plant discharge is several orders of magnitude 'lower than the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) defined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Therefore, the concentrate discharge to the ocean will not pose a health risk and will not have a negative impact of the beneficial uses of the ocean water (swimming, boating, fishing and other recreational or commercial activities). In addition to not being a human health risk, the desalination plant concentrate discharge will not have a measurable effect on the aquatic life because of the very low levels of various metals and other hazardous compounds in the concentrate, which are typically several times lower than the discharge limits established by the California Ocean Plan. The California Environmental Protection Agency, in a close coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB), including the Santa Ana RWQCB which regulates discharges in the Huntington Beach area, has established maximum concentration limits for the compounds that would have a measurable impact on marine life when discharged into the ocean. These limits have been determined by the California Environmental Protection Agency staff based on extensive research and ocean water quality analysis completed by EPA staff scientists supported by outside experts. The applicability and adequacy of the California Ocean Plant limits as measures for adequate protection of marine environment in the Huntington Beach area is also confirmed by extensive site-specific environmental studies completed at 14 ocean monitoring stations in the vicinity of the AES discharge completed over a 25-year period in a response to monitoring requirements stipulated in the AES NPDES discharge permit. Results of these extensive environmental monitoring efforts indicate that maintaining discharge concentration below the Ocean Plan limits resulted in a long-term preservation of the marine environment in the vicinity of the discharge. If a concentration of a compound in the concentrate is below the limit established by the Ocean Plan, than the compound discharge will not have a significant effect on marine life. As indicated previously, the desalination water concentrate will contain compounds (such as lead, copper, etc.) of concentrations several times to several orders of magnitude lower than the Ocean Plan limits, which will ensure the preservation of the marine biota in the discharge area. For example, the MCL for Mercury is 0.002 mg/L.- The maximum concentration of Mercury measured in the desalination plant source seawater is less than 0.0001 mg/L. If we conservatively assume.that it is 0.0001 mg/L, then the desalination plant, discharge under a worst-case scenario would have Mercury concentrations of GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0503rr5.doc_ 6 0.0002 mg/L, which is 10 times lower than the MCL for safe drinking water; therefore, the concentrate discharge will not pose public health risk. The maximum limit for mercury in the Ocean Plan is 0.0004 mg/L, which is two times higher than the maximum discharge concentration, rendering the desalination plant discharge safe for aquatic life. Similarly, the maximum concentration of lead in the desalination plant water is 0.0002 mg/L, the MCL for Lead is 0.015 mg/L and the Ocean Plan Limit for Lead is 0.02 mg/L (i.e. 100 higher than the Lead concentration in the intake and 50 times higher than that in the discharge under worst-case scenario). The source water that will be filtered out by reverse osmosis and returned to the ocean in the byproduct water will not been changed in any way other than their concentration. Because these compounds, which are natural components of seawater and because of the chemical makeup of ocean organisms, the return of these existing compounds to the sea in the byproduct water discharge does not otherwise raise significant environmental risk for the marine life. In addition, it should be noted that evaporation from the sea surface does precisely the same activity as the proposed desalination plant, only in quantities of constituent water removal that dwarf the capacity of this project. In spite of the enormous evaporative losses of constituent water occurring daily at the sea surface, no one has ever been able to detect higher concentrations of the metals in question at the sea surface versus near the seabed or in the interior of the water column. Ocean mixing is more than sufficient to erase the local concentrating effects of evaporation, just as it will be for the saline discharge of this project. In the case of emergencies such as spills of chemicals or oils in the ocean in the vicinity of the desalination plant, the elevated concentration of the chemicals in question will be detected through continuous monitoring of the desalination plant intake water quality. As indicated on page E-71 (Appendix E) of the EIR, when the contaminants are detected by the monitoring system, the desalination plant will automatically adjust operations or shutdown. ❖ CEQA Review for the AES Generating Station: It was suggested that the AES project did not have to comply with CEQA, and therefore this project should address AES intake/discharge impacts. First, it is important to note that the project before the commission does not include any modifications to the AES power plant or AES intake/discharge lines other than utilizing of the AES intake water for desalination and existing AES discharge line. These impacts are addressed in the EIR. Issues associated with project operation in the event of potential future inoperation of the AES plant are addressed below under California Earth Corps' 14 Various Categories. Issues associated with AES plant operation and recent "Huntington Beach Generating Station Retool Project Application for Certification 00-AFC-13" were addressed by the California Energy Commission as part of their facility siting process, in accordance with the Warren-Alquist Act and CEQA. The Energy Commission's Final Decision, dated May 2001, for the AES retool project was a 207-page document addressing a comprehensive range of environmental issues including air quality, water quality and marine biology. In addition, Article 17 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifically exempts the California GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0503rr5.doc 7 .. ! '� Energy Commission facility siting process from CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15251(k). In addition, the Planning Commission and members of the public asked several questions pertaining to the existing regulation of the AES intake facility and what might happen to the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project if regulatory changes were made in the future regarding the operation of the AES facility. It is important to emphasize that the EIR specifically identifies that the "intake system" for the project is "the existing condenser cooling water circulation system from the AES facility" and not the "existing ocean water intake pipeline" (see Draft EIR page 3-10). The "desalination plant's intake structure" is "located downstream of the steam condensers" (see Draft EIR page 3-11). Exhibit 6 in the Draft EIR (page 3-12) graphically depicts the physical relationship between the Poseidon Desalination Plant and the AES Huntington Beach Power Station. This distinction means that the desalination project as described may only use water that is already in the AES system. In the future, if the AES intake facility were no longer operational or if future regulatory action diminished the intake flows below 126 MGD as analyzed in the EIR, Poseidon would be required to make substantial changes to its intake system. Any such changes in the project would require subsequent environmental and permit review in accordance with CEQA and applicable state/federal regulatory agencies In his May 8, 2003 letter, Mr. Tom Luster of the California Coastal Commission staff asked this question in a slightly different way focusing instead on the "baseline" used in the EIR evaluation of intake flows. The response to this comment is essentially the same. The impact analysis in the EIR evaluated the current maximum permitted flow for the AES intake facility as well as a "worst case" flow (126 MGD) that is lower than the current average flow. (See Attachment No. 1.3 to the May 22, 2003 Inter Office Communication from staff to the Planning Commission.) ❖ California Earth Corps' 1114 Various Categories": A late communication submitted by Mr. Don May of the California Earth Corps was submitted to the Planning Commission on May 27, 2003. In addition, Mr. May spoke to the Planning Commission during the public hearing. In his oral comment, he referenced that the EIR was deficient in "14 various categories", and that these "14 deficiencies" were referenced in his comment letter. As such, provided below are responses to the "14 deficiencies" that Mr. May referenced, many of which have been previously addressed either in the Draft EIR or Responses to Comments. It should also be noted that this comment letter was written primarily in the context of potential impacts to the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy. The Conservancy provided minor comments on the Draft EIR (Comment No. 13) and did not respond to the formal written response provided on March 21, 2003. As stated by Staff and noted above, Staff believe that the EIR is adequate under CEQA. Growth Inducing/Cumulative"Impacts: This issue has been previously responded to within the Responses to Comments document, Responses 2m and 2n. Several members of the public and Planning Commission members raised issues relating-to the EIR's analysis GAAdmLtr\Admltr03\0503rr5.doc 8 of the project's potential growth-inducing impacts. Questions were asked relating to the potential end users of the project's desalinated water supply. In Orange County (as is the case in most of Southern California), retail water agencies and cities have the statutory authority and the duty to provide water service to end users within their service area. End users include existing customers and potential new customers, which conceivably could include expanding commercial or residential developments or new infill developments in Orange County. However, the retail agencies and cities have choices in the potential water supply they use to serve their customers. They can use groundwater and other local supplies (like recycled water) to the extent those supplies are available. They can negotiate water transfers from other areas of the State that have surplus supplies and they can emphasize conservation methods to stretch existing supplies. In addition, most retail agencies and cities depend on (and choose to purchase) imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD") through their local wholesaler. In Orange County, the local wholesaler of water is the Municipal Water District of Orange County (see support letter Attachment No. 4.4 to the May 22, 2003 Inter Office Communication from staff to the Planning Commission). Under California law, all water agencies (wholesale and retail) must prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan describing existing and future sources of water supply. These plans are required to be updated every five years. Moreover, recent laws require that any end user that intends to develop 500 or more new homes, commercial office projects over 250,000 sq.ft. or retail centers over 500,000 sq.ft. must (in conjunction with the proposed retail water supplier) prepare a "Water Supply Assessment" detailing and analyzing the proposed water supply for the development project. The Water Supply Assessment is prepared in addition to other environmental review documents required as part of the land use planning and zoning process. Land use policies of cities and counties regulate growth at the local level. All of these documents are subject to public review as part of the environmental review process. Speculating on the various future water supply choices that may be made by retail water providers and end users throughout Orange County is not required by CEQA. It is unknown how many retail water agencies or cities will negotiate to purchase desalinated project water from Poseidon Resources. Finally, even when some water wholesale or retail agency purchase project water, it is unknown how they will allocate the supplies. In any case, CEQA will require environmental review of those choices at the time they are made. Accordingly, the Poseidon EIR has properly analyzed the project's potential growth- inducing impacts by focusing on the relationship between the amount of the new supply that would be available (to several end users) and the water supply demand projections for Orange County and the surrounding area. The response to comment 2m provides a summary review of the EIR's analysis of the project's potential growth-inducing impacts. Response to Comment 2n provides additional discussion regarding cumulative impacts. Potential Impacts-to•Adiacent:Wetland: Impact analysis and mitigation for potential impacts to. receptors surrounding the proposed project site (including the adjacent ,���;a, .^.-� eg.:•�—;fir � � —` GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr0310503rr5:doc 9 wetland area) are provided throughout the Draft EIR, including Sections 4.3 (marine biology issues associated with water quality) and Section 4.9 (construction-related 'impacts). This comment letter raises similar issues to those identified by California Department of Fish and Game, for which additional discussion (and mitigation measures) are provided within Responses 3d and 3h of the Responses to Comments document. Concerns from Gary Gorman of the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy were addressed within Response 13b. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity: Mr. May's concerns regarding liquefaction and seismic activity are addressed within Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR and Responses 2i and 16d of the Responses to Comments document. The proposed project underwent third-party geotechnical review by Scott Magorien, CEG, to examine potential site-specific impacts in regards to geology, soils and seismicity. Mitigation measures as contained within the Draft EIR will be implemented, along with recommendations provided within a site- specific, construction-level geotechnical report. Such measures will pertain to 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 geotechnical report shall specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential, and groundwater constraints. In addition, as a response to Mr. May's concerns regarding the release of chlorine gas during a seismic event, the Draft EIR(page 4.8-6) states that no chlorine gas will be present on-site. Ascon/Nesi Hazardous Materials: As stated on page 4.8-2 of the Draft EIR, groundwater sampling data provided within CH2M Hill's Phase II Site Assessment (1996), groundwater contamination in the forms of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was not found near the northern border of the subject. site with the Ascon/Nesi landfill. It should be noted that both the Cannery Landfill and Ascon/Nesi landfill are situated upgradient from the subject site. Prior to project construction, the subject site would be tested and remediated as necessary pursuant to all local, state, and federal requirements. This concern is also addressed in Response 1 ld of the Responses to Comments document. On-Site Storm Water Drainage: As stated within Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR, in times of heavy rainfall, stormwater (which is trapped on-site due to existing 10 to 15-foot fuel oil tank containment berms) is presently either released through the manual valve of a drain line or pumped (after testing) into the Huntington Beach Channel. Subsequent to project implementation, all storm water would be contained on-site and directed to the AES outfall line, the City's local storm water system; or the AES local storm water system (all of.which ultimately flow into the Pacific Ocean via the AES outfall). No storm water would be discharged into the adjacent Huntington Beach Channel. The project will comply with all NPDES and associated Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP)requirements. What Happens if AES Shuts Down: Several of the formal comments received on the Draft EIR raised similar issues relating to the hypothetical future shut down of the AES plant. The responses to comments 1 o, 2b, 2e, 2f, 19a and 19b provide additional information addressing this general topic. �^,arc:,r {•1 G:\AdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0503rri:doc 10 c'"'�',<?,_ '_ ,�"'•' i�.�W Deficiency in Analysis of Adjacent Wetland Area: Refer to the response to Mr. May's concern regarding the adjacent wetland, above. This issue was addressed within the Draft EIR and several Responses to Comments, particularly Response No. 3. Subsurface Water Quality: Refer to the response to Mr. May's concern regarding the Ascon/Nesi and Cannery Street Landfills,above. Air Ouality During On-Site Remediation: As stated within Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR, remediation-related air emissions are accounted for within the overall construction- related air emissions analysis. In addition, a detailed description of contaminants and their locations and concentrations found within the 1996 Phase II Site Assessment conducted by CH2M Hill is found within Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR. As stated within Response 11 d of the Responses to Comments document, a Remedial Action Plan will be prepared prior to project implementation, which will address the potential for airborne contaminants and suggest applicable containment measures,if necessary. Noise Impacts to Adjacent Wetland: Refer to Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR. On-site stationary noise generators will be attenuated (if necessary) to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. This issue is addressed in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR and in Response to Comment No. 3n. Light and Glare Impact to Adjacent Wetland: Refer to Draft EIR Section 4.7 and Mitigation Measure ALG-2, which recommends directional lighting to prevent light "spillage" onto adjacent uses. This issue is addressed in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR and in Response to Comment No. 3n. Hazardous Materials Handling and Storage: Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR provides extensive information on site design in regards to the storage and handling of hazardous materials. The project would adhere to all Occupational Health and Safety Association (OSHA) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)requirements. Biological Impacts of the Off-Site Pump Station Nearby the NCCP/HCP Area: The applicant will be required to consult with applicable regulatory agencies, and, upon consultation, appropriate mitigation measures for plant and wildlife species will be determined. This issue is also addressed within Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR and Response to Comment No. 1 c. Archaeological Resources: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR, archaeological resources within the City have mostly been destroyed by development. The remaining archaeological resources are likely to be found in vacant, undeveloped areas of the City. As all elements of the proposed project (excluding the proposed pump station nearby the NCCP/HCP area in unincorporated Orange County) occur within developed areas, the project is not expected to impact archaeological resources. In addition, a discussion of potential impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed pump station nearby the NCCP/HCP area in unincorporated Orange County is provided within the Draft EIR in Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS. G:\AdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0503rr5.doc FROM : LARRY PORTER FAX NO. : 9497229166 May. 29 2003 03:15PM P1 I arty Porter 1501 Westcliff Dr#201 Newport Beach California 92660 Phone ; Home& Fax 949 722 9166 Email : Dubbietub@aol.com Huntington Beach Planning Commission 4 y May 29th Poseidon Resources Matter �ll Mr R,t cidv P.raaS FAX 714.37q 1 S4 Dear Commissioners: Allow me to address you please and discuss the reality of the enviornment affecting the project.Thank you I was very involved with the movement to change the behavior of the Orange County Sanitation District that led to the District not seeking to renew its waiver. Soon it became apparent that the parameters ,quide lines, rules goveming the discharge where most inadequate,that the agencies "responsible"for oversight—well—were—let's say "asleep at the helm" REALITY OF THE DISCHARGE? The governance did not consider: 1) WIND DIRECTION 2) CURRENT DIRECTION 3) BOYANCY /SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF THE DISCHARGE CONSTITUENTS 4) PESTICIDES 5) PHARMACEUTICALS 25% METABOLIZED/USED--75%POOP&OR PEE TO SEWER 6) ENDOCRINE SYSTEM DISRUPTORS/MIMICKERS ?) ORGANIC CHEMICALS 8) VIRUSES 9) OIL AND GREASE 10)SOLVENTS: MEK TOLUENE ACETONE and etc and etc SILLY&FUZZY SCIENCE Their"Silly Science"concluded that the plume would never grow in size-and-that it migrates off shore-and-that it is ALWAYS held below a THEI2MOCUNE that never changes or moves PLEASE NOTHING COULD BE MORE FROM THE TRUTH And to further add insult —that-61,500 lbs(allowed in their permit)of oil and grease don't float. REALLY Oh not with this OCSD discharge it's different. BELL O SILLY&FUZZY SCIENCE II ITS NOT JUST WHAT'S SAID—IT'S WHAT IS NOT SAID 11 — a „�., Z FROM LARRY PORTER FAX NO. : 9497229166 May. 29 2003 03:16PM P2 The AES intake does not p1111 the watee field/piumc of the OCSD discharge toward it. That would be like a vacume cleaner pulling dust from the corner of a room. is that to say that since stuff from OC San's discharge surrounds the ABS intake—take a deep breath— that stuff won't be sucked in the intake ???? Now you see it—now you don't The Bight: San Pedro to Newport Beach The Enviornment Affecting the Quality of the Intake LET COMMON SENSE BE YOUR GUIDE This is not a pristine body of water by any strech of the imagination.This is a body of water that is subject to many discharges , insults ,and much urban runoff( from 8 million people—IT guess)—The Domingues Creek ,Los Angeles River,San Gabriel River and near coastal water sheds.This is the stuff of JUST"SEA SALTS" Seals are washing up on the beach dead.Surfers are being advised to proactively get hepatitis shots. SILLY &FUZZY SCIENCE III AES PIPES 300 TO 400YDS OFFSHORE—20 FEET OF WATER The"GOO"from the Los Angeles River and The San Gabriel River and the Dominguez Channel and other"Stuff from runnoff of the Port of Los Angeles—Long Beach and from the many ships at anchor and that frequent the port which is enclosed a great deal by the break water extending from San Pedro to the San Gabriel River that has a large opening facing sount toward Huntington Beach -- HOLD YOUR BREATH Do not in fluence the QUALITY ,let me repeat QUALITY of AES's intake?? Do not jepordize the membranes in the treatment process ?? OF COURSE NOT -HOW COULD IT??? If this isn't FUZZY SCIENCE THE DEVIL IS 1N THE DETAILS RO MEMBRANES ARE INCREDIBLE AND DELICATE Was it brought to your attention the "stuff"that would render the membranes unless? Would it be prudent to know the details ahead of time?.Measure twice—cut once.An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.Error on the side of caution. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES BLESSING? NO NO Please read their letter dated: August 6th 2002 Why do they have so many questions and conditions?Why is there so much requested detail? Why was the detail not supplied to begin with? THE PEOPLE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE AND HAPPINESS Does the Planning Commission have a overiding responsibilty to provide a site to manufacture water that would benefit some one else?, I don't think so Could the area be put to a"Higher and Better"use for the benefit of HUNTINGTON BEACH? CART BEFORE THE HORSE THIS POSEIDON PROJECT? JUST "SEA SALTS"BEING DISCHARGED?PLEASE FROM LARRY PORTER FAX NO. : 9497229166 May. 29 2003 03:16PM P3 It's obvious that there a many many "uncrossed is and undoued Fs" Why are the beaches always posted either side of the AES plant'? Please deny this Poseidon Project Sincercly, Larry Porter a May 8, 2003 RECEIVED The Hon. Connie Boardman MAY 2 8 2003 Mayor The City of Huntington Beach Clty of Huntington Be ach 2000 Main Street City Council office Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Boardman: As a long-time Huntington Beach resident, I whole-heartedly endorse Poseidon Resources' proposed desalination facility. Recent technological advancement has finally made it economically viable to tap into the world's largest water resource—the ocean. Most of the infrastructure that is needed for this important project is already in place. The noise generated by the pumps will not be heard over the noise level that already exists at the AES facility. Additionally, the site already has industrial facilities and is the perfect spot for a desalination facility. Not only will Poseidon be a quiet, unobtrusive neighbor,but it will bring thousands of tax dollars to our city. These tax dollars will help pay for the upkeep of our parks and supplement our public safety programs. It is my understanding that Poseidon will also fund the widening and beautification of both Newland Ave. and Edison St. Huntington Beach will also have the opportunity to receive the desalinated seawater Poseidon purifies. Desalinated seawater is not only higher in quality than the tap water to which we currently have access, but Huntington Beach would also have the added benefit of higher water pressure. High water pressure is of particular importance to firefighters who rely on high water pressure to assist them when they put out fires. In short, Poseidon brings all of the benefits of a good corporate neighbor with none of the negative side effects. Sincerely, Rich Kolander 21152 Strathmoor Huntington Beach, CA 92646 cc: Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach Planning Commission CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 Inter Office Communication 0B Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner DATE: June 3, 2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT)—REVISED ERRATA Attached is a revised Errata Section (revised May 30, 2003)to EIR No. 00-02. The revision consists of a description of the off-site booster pump station proposed within the parking lot of St. Paul's Greek Orthodox Church in the city of Irvine (see pages 166, 167, and 170 of the attached Errata Section). HZ:SH:HF:RR GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0503 rr7.doc Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmentallmpact-Report 3.0 ERRATA 3.0 ERRATA TO DRAFT EIR TEXT (revised May 30, 2003) Changes to the EIR are noted below. Additions to the text are indicated with shading. Deletions to the text are indicated with stricken text. Changes have been analyzed and responded to in Section 2.0, Responses to Comments. The changes to the EIR do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. Changes are listed by page and where appropriate by paragraph. NOTE TO REVIEWER: This Errata has been prepared in response to comments received on the Draft EIR, which was available for public review from September 19, 2002, to November 4, 2002. Additional editorial corrections have been initiated by City staff. These clarifications and modifications are not considered to result in any new or greater impacts than identified in the Draft EIR. To avoid redundancy, it should be assumed that additions, modifications, or deletions of text within Sections 4.1 through 4.9 of the Draft EIR, when applicable, are reflected in Section 1.0, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Page 1-3, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4.1 LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING LAND USE The proposed desalination facility is not anticipated to None required. However, refer to mitigation measures create any impacts to surrounding uses with regards to contained in , Section 4.5 air quality, noise, aesthetics, hazards and hazardous (Noise), Section 4.7 (Aesthetics/Light & Glare), Sestien materials, and short-term construction. Significance: , and Section Less than significant. 4.9(Construction Related Impacts). ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. Page 3-1, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ".....and would not require modifications to the coastal/marine portions of the existing AES ocean intake/discharge facilities., However; It should be noted Ghat the existing AES Intake i i6st,traverse land' owned by ;the Gahfornia State Lantls Commission (CSLC), antl the land;is leased to AES A lease agreement between the CSQ.. ,AES, acid the project applicantwlll be required prior toprofect approval:" Page 3-9, Proposed Buildings and Structures "AIJ proposed buildings and structures„will comply v✓ith state andlocal standards in regards to fire and structural safety: The proposed desalination project would consist of the following buildings and structures: Administration Building (approximately 158'L x 5764'W x 148'H, 9-,MlQ,120 s f.): This building is proposed to be Type-11, non rated (generally defined by the California Building Code as structures incorporating non combustibleM materials ;[steel, 'Iron; City of Huntington•Beach March 21, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA I or masonry) for striacturaf:elements, .floors, walls, and roofs) and will be constructed of steel. The exterior will feature flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. A metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. All glazing will be tinted and will include clear anodized window frames. ❖ Reverse Osmosis Building (approximately 29.23'L x 13-20'W x 25'H, 38,544090 s.f.): This building will be a Type-II, non-rated, steel-constructed building housing the reverse osmosis components of the desalination plant and associated indoor pumps. The exterior will feature flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. A continuous metal reveal band will be placed mid-height to break up the 25-foot structure vertically. A metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. Full height louvers will match the wall panel color and will be recessed slightly from the face of the structure to allow for shadowing. Panel coloring will match the Administration Building. 4- Pretreatment Filter Structure (approximately �196'L x 4"195'W x 16'H, 42,00038 270 s.f.): This open-air structure will house the pretreatment filter components of the plant. It will feature concrete walls matching the color of the Reverse Osmosis Building. The concrete walls will "stair-step" in elevation to a peak that will be finished with the deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. These panels will match the fascia of the Administration and Reverse Osmosis Buildings. A painted band will be included to match the reveal band of the Reverse Osmosis Building. ❖ Chemical Storage/Solids Handling Building (approximately 9017.0'L x 8250'W x 21'H, 380590 s.f.): This Type-II, non-rated, steel-constructed building will house the chemical storage and solids handling equipment associated with plant operation. The building will architecturally match the Administration Building, featuring flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. The metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. ❖ Bulk Chemical Storage Structure (approximately 7-81121 x 5639'W x 243'H, 4,368 s.f.): This structure will also feature Type-II, non-rated, canopy steel construction and will house various chemicals stored in bulk. The metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed panels running horizontally. ❖ Electrical Room/Substation Building (approximately 60'L x 30'W x 12'H, 1,800 s.f.): This Type-11, non-rated, steel-constructed building will match the Administration Building architecturally. The exterior design utilizes flat metal wall panels running vertically along the face of the structure. The metal panel roof system will be screened with a metal fascia using deep-ribbed metal panels running horizontally. ❖ Lime Silos (six tanks approximately 20' in diameter and 25' high, 314 s.f. ): The lime silo tanks will be arrange in two rows of three tanks each within the northern portion of the subject site in an area approximately 80 feet long by 57 feet wide. These tanks will be placed within an open air;:welded steelstructure ircorporat�ng aesthetic treatments to enhance the character of the site:, City-of Huntington Beach _ March 21, 2003 165' Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental,-,Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA Washwater Tank (approximately 45' in diameter by 19' high, 1,590 s.f.): This single tank will store washwater and will be cgnstructed of steel, painted to match the surrounding buildings and structures. The approximate capacity of this tank would be 200,000 gallons. ❖ Flush Tank (approximately 25' in diameter by 29' high, 491 s.f.): This single tank will store the desalination plant's flush water and would have an approximate capacity of 100,000 gallons. This tank will be constructed of steel and will be painted to match the surrounding buildings and structures. ❖ Ammonia Tank (approximately 6' in diameter by 6` high, 28.35 s.f.): This single tank will store ammonia and will be constructed of high density polyethylene or fiberglass reinforced polyester, and would have an approximate capacity of 1,000 gallons. ............ ........ . ❖ AboveUTtderground Product Water Storage Tank ( ' approximately 215' i,n, diameter :and 40'` high [30' above;' grade and 10' below grade]): The aboveground product water storage tank would be eithe circular in shape and would have an approximate capacity of 10 million gallons. steel. For a detailed discussion of the proposed aboveground ugreu♦ae product water storage tank, refer to pag`e'3-16 of the Draft EIR or Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS." Page 3-11, Proposed Desalination Plant Flow Process ".....An intake pump station will be located near the pre-treatment filters of the proposed plant to lift the water out of the intake pipeline and into the RO pre-treatment facilities (refer to Exhibit 6, DESALINATION PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC). The proposed plant would divert approximately 100 mgd of water from the AES condenser cooling water system. It should be noted. that the proposed project.would'utilize pumps circulating a total.of 126'rngd These pumps would operate constantly arid.would. be independent of. the ,AES Generating Station; Should. the AES facility -cease to„operate, Elie;proposed;desalination facility wo,u d :continue produce and distribute potable water;! To prevent growth of marine organisms in the intake system, chlorination....." Page 3-20, OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS "....booster pump station, including both the generators and diesel fuel storage tank, would be placed entirely underground to maintain the natural character of the surrounding resource preservation easement. Any displaced vegetation would be replaced. � "�' A second underground booster, pump stat�an is proposed; within the parking tot ofi St Paul's �ti Greek orthodox Church within the City of Irvmef located at 4949 Attor Par`Kway? underground pump station would be constructed within 3the north�northwesterrir porfion 'of the church parking totf in an area used for both parking and voll`eyba(t act�irzties the r site is surrounded by the St Paul's Church to;=the south, the Woodbridge Village 'Associatxon to the west, an:.apartment carnptex to the east, and' open:space, to3the north The footprint' of the proposed`undergraurid,pump station_would be approximateiy 'tQt3 #eel by '�Ot?feet;` apd.woulct City of Huntington Beach March 21, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS EnvironmentallmpactReport 3.0 ERRATA require a cans#cuc#ion Basemen# 9f 125'feet by 125 feet The pump station would be entirely �/a3 unclergraund except for a 'sma!I3 pipe ve4nt and a ground level steel access door for snlamteriance (the access door Would not impede parking after construction) It should Abe 'noted that St= i P,aul's Greek Orthodox Church has been contacted by the applicant anclLhas issued a statement of Interest for the underground pump station safe Refer`ta Resparise 14d within the Responses � to Cornrnents document foradd�tional mforrnation"' 4 Page 3-20, OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ".....potential water compatibility impacts that may result from introduction of desalinated seawater into the regional water system). Edison Avenue improvements As?a condition'of approval by the City of" Huntington Beach :for the proposed .'project, the applicantwill"be req"wired to complete improvements along"'the"southern side of Edison Ave"nue (situated;north of the subject site:as"shown in":Exhiibit 2 of;.the Draft EIR, SLTE'.VICINITX MAP): These it provements would consist of.the;dedication.of'"12"feet along the fronfage.of the existing Edison= 40ear, e; (for 'curb; 'gutter pa'ing and street lighting, improvements) for a .total :of approxi600 feet It"should be noted th4 AES,Huntington each "L LC would be ertyresponsibl fordediction ityfortheimsasAwthe e entire "southern frontage of Edison..Avenue and woultl;lease property. to the applicant for the ro osed.p project However, the project applicant;woultl.be responsible for completing""thezi se ' roadway and l"andscaping i.nprovements,as a condition of approval for the project subsequent to property dedication ; It should also be noted #hat street widening:along;Newland Street (westf.of the proposed project:site). would`be perforrried by!the City, with te entitlements -and environmental,evaluation. AES Huntington, Beach "LLC would dedicate the "neces ary right-of= way along,Newland Street ,and,'both`AES and the�;p" :, e' t applicant,would:be" required to`pay their fair'hare of the cost: Page 3-20, PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES ".....Although the region has made a significant financial investment in the imported water system and the system has met all of the region's supplemental water supply needs (except ;R +irnoc of ov+rcmo rJrnunh+ with`the exception" of'a"one,.year periotl:from-March .1991 "to March: 1992), there is a present concern regarding the amount of water....." Page 3-21, PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES ".....Solutions to potential water shortage and reliability problems include water,management programs on imported water ;systems as, well 'as an increased reliance on many different sources of water supply and a continued emphasis on water conservation through implementation of State-approved Best Management Practices (BMP's). Orange County has implemented several successful programs including ultra low flow toilet and low flow shower head programs, conservation based rate structure programs, landscape conservation programs and commercial, industrial and institutional conservation programs. However, according to the Orange County Water District Master Plan Report (Section 5.6.2), potential conservation savings will be limited to no more than 30,000 to 60,000 acre feet per year. This amount is hardly sufficient to offset ^n+o^+:^' Inscog ;r, irvmnnrtor! c inr.�;oc anticipated water sh'oitages;due to increases in,popuiatlon and economic.activity. City_of•Huntington-Beach March 21, 2003 167 N �.u 1.+ 'n��, k �•:._ � t ....y C -ram— ..... .r.. Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Envilronmental'Impact Report 3.0. ERRATA Water recycling (reclamation of wastewater to produce water that is safe and acceptable for various non-potable uses, but not approved for drinking and other domestic uses) is a technology that has provided a valuable source of water supply for Southern California. Southern California (and Orange County in particular) leads the way in producing recycled water to offset potable water demands. In 1996 the major imported water supplier in the region, MWD, adopted its so-called "Southern California's Integrated Water Resources Plan" (IRP) representing a dramatic shift in water management and resource planning for the region. The IRP identified 80 different local recycling projects producing over 150,000 acre feet per year of water supply available to the region. Depending upon technological advancements and economic constraints, the IRP projected that as much as 800,000 acre feet of recycled water could be made available to the region by 2020. Recycled water projects will certainly be relied upon to meet the demarrtds of projected growth in the region. However, recycled water has not been approved for drinking or for other potable uses. Desalinated seawater can be made directly available for drinking and other potable uses. Consequently, seawater desalination was also one of several integrated sGUFGes of supply potential resource options identified in the IRP. The IRP also recommended that groundwater recovery projects, storage projects, water recycling projects, water transfer projects and water conservation projects be included in the "resource mix". The IRP :ediGts staves thatsrrit " .' based on feaslbihty studies on potential projects, about 200,OOp acre feet per year (of:desalinatetl ocean water),could b- developed by 2010 (p. 3-12). The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project represents an opportunity to develop approximately 56,000 acre-feet per year, or approximate) one fourth of the potential for: seawater desalination Y development identified by the 199E IRP." Page 3-22, PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES ".....and environmental impacts to biological resources. In general, anticipated statewide shortages can be expected to translate to equivalent local and regional shortages, with similar economic and environmental effects Senate Bill (SB) 221 and Sf3 610 require-demonstration gf water supply reIi bilitypnorto development" Page 3-25, AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS REQUIRED ".....The following agreements, permits, and approvals are anticipated to be necessary: Approval/Permit, Permits to Operate Agency Final EIR Certification City of Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit City of Huntington Beach Coastal Development Permit' City of Huntington Beach Franchise Agreement City of Huntington Beach DF;Rk;ag:Domestic water Supply Permit State of California Department of Health Services Coastal Development Permit2 California Coastal Commission (CCC) The City's Coastal Development Permit approval may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. Z A CDP is required directly from the CCC for the ocean discharge. City of Huntington Beach March 21, 2003 168 5 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA NPDES Permit Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Permit to Operate South Coast Air Quality Management District Encroachment Permits U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Santa Ana River Crossing) Caltrans, District 12 (SR-55 undercrossing) County of Orange (channel crossings, pump station) City of Huntington Beach (product water pipeline) City of Costa Mesa (product water pipeline) Mesa Consolidated Water District (product water pipeline) Metropolitan 1 Vater ;District of Southern".California (product water`pipeline)' Institutional Agreements Various cities, agencies, and regional water purveyors Lease Agreement California State Lands-Commission Industrial"Source Control Permit Orange:County Sanitation District Page 4.1-9, RELEVANT PLANNING ".....Policy HM 1.4.4 (Page V-HM-8): "Require that owners of contaminated sites develop a remediation plan with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA). Southeast:Coasta[!Redevelopment Plan The proposed project site,' s located within"the Southeast;Coastal 'Redevelopment Plan; area;: This",redevelopment,plan became!effective in,August of.2,002, with the assodiated Program EIR certified in June of 2002. As adoption of the'`Southeast;Coastal Redevelopment"Plan did not change~"any, General Plan or zoning designations within the redevelopment'area (including,the proposed,:'desaination fadilityl site), the proposed Poseidon Seawater. Desalination Project will be"consistent with-the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan,:Generaal Plan,.and zoning: ,As'a result of his; redevelopment plan;`the proposed desalination project"may be"eligible to`receive tax increment funding from` the redevelopment } area for use m" developing infrastructure/aesthet`c improueriients and hazardous"materials'remediation (n accordance with the:goals contained within the redeveI' mentplan}:° Page 4.1-10, RELEVANT PLANNING ".....As such, the proposed desalination facility's ocean discharge will require separate review and approval by the California Coastal Commission of a Coastal Development Permit. h SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF. ! GOVERNMENTS; (SLAG)" REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE Growth IVlanagement,Chapter. �:e 3 03" " The"timing, ;financing, and locat ion.of public facilities, utility systerris,, and transportation systems shall be,used :by SCAG to-implement the:regions.growth policiel .s., City,of:Huntington-Beach March 21, 2003 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA •3 3 18 Encourage planned development.in locations least Ifkely,to cause`adverse environmental impacts. 3.21. Encourage,the impfementatton.;of measures;aimed:at the'preservation and protection of recorded and.unrecorded cultural 'resources and archaeological sites. 3 22 Discourage; development, ;or encourage; the,,use of special .design requirements; in,areaswith steep slopesJ,igh fire;flood,°and seismic hazards: •' 3 23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce ,noise m certain locations; measures ,aimed >at preservation of biological' and ? ecological ; resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seism ic`hazards, mirirnize earthquake damage:-:and', ,to develop°:emergency response and recovery'plans Air"Q0ality Chapter ❖ 5 11 Through the environmental document,`review pro,ce s;.ensure that plans at ail levels of government (re'gional, air basin, county;, sub regional, and ,,local) consider air quality, .land use, transportation, and economic relationships .to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts:'' Page 4.1-10, LAND USE ".....long-term plant operation. The proposed pipeline alternatives and underground pump station, are adjacent to a variety of land uses, including residential, open space, commercial, educational, medical, institutional, and recreational. However, the pipelines and underground (pump stations will be subsurface and are not anticipated to result in any long term land use impacts In a`dd�tian, �t 'should be noted '#hat St Paut"sGre'ek Orthodox°Church Chas{beer notified, `af the prapa'sed �u#rn`p'rstation4"and'has pravtded a,letter ofi anterest in°responsr(refier tc 3 Res"ponse14 y aft they }iRespanses to 3 Comments ; dacurnen#' for {(Wore` kmfarrnat�on; and enuiranmental impact analysis}: ... . :� Page 4.1-11, RELEVANT PLANNING "The project evaluated within this EIR proposes to implement a 50 mgd desalination plant within an industrial area. Project implementation would be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and SCAG'Regional Corriprehensive Plan;` Guide (RCPGj. During the "design development" stage, the Applicant....." Page 4.3-11, Impacts on Source Water from the OCSD Outfall ".....The OCSD discharges up to 480 mgd of wastewater that has received primary treatment and some secondary treatment at an outfall that is located approximately five miles offshore at a depth of 195 feet It should.be notetl that OCSD has';committedto provide "secondary treatment for 1,00 percent of ali effluent it receives ; The development of facilities to provide this additional secondary treatment could take up to 11 years to plan, design, construct, and commission A more de#ailed implementation:p,ah is being developed b' the.District and:vvill be completed in early 20Q3:' City of Huntingion,Beach March 21, 2003 170 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental;Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA In.'addition, on August 12;".;2002", the OCSD :began disinfecting its wastewater:per Regional Water Quality Gontrok Board (RWQCB) requirements: The OCSD.is presently,add►ng bleach as a disinfectant;follovveti by sodium bisulfate ' remove';residual prior to ocean discharge, and will continue to do so for the next three to"five years Testing,"and"studies are under, y;"to eVa(u,ate other,disinfection technologies, including;ultraviolet light, ozone;'and peracetic acid:for long-term application. The OCSD wastewater discharge would have the greatest potential to impact water quality at the AES intake with summer El Nino conditions when currents are flowing northwest towards the AES facility. In addition, for "worst case" conditions, the model assumed that OCSD was discharging at its maximum allowable rate of 480 mgd and that the temperature conditions in the ocean would allow the wastewater plume to be near the depth of the AES intake. The model showed that under these extreme conditions, the OCSD discharge would be diluted 10 million to one at the AES intake and would not affect water quality at the intake. This:d lution would befurther increased 'n "consideration of:OCSD's proposed' secondary freatrnent process and current disinfectaanprocess, which were"not accounted for-within modeling in.this Draft.EIR': Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant." Page 4.3-19, Water Quality Impacts to Marine Biological Resources The "first flush" treated waste cleaning solution from the washwater tank will be discharged into the local sanitary sewer for further treatment at the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) regional wastewater treatment facility. The cleaning flush water following the "first flush" will be mixed with the RO plant brine concentrate, treated waste filter backwash, and the AES plant discharge and sent to the ocean. This "second flush" water stream will contain trace amounts of cleaning compounds and would be below detection limits for hazardous waste An Industrial Source Control,Permitfrnm,the.00SD for discharge,of waste cleaning solution into" he sanitary sewer system will be,"'required for the project ' In addition;°,the'discharge must comply with the limits and :requirements contained in ttie OC"SD's Wastewater Discharc Regulations Impacts to the local marine environment in this regard would be less than significant. Page 4.6-3, Roadway Maintenance "The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department provides roadway maintenance to the City of Huntington Beach. The Department performs regular maintenance on City owned roadways in the form of re-paving, pothole/curb repairs, and striping, as well as roadway widenings, expansions, and improvements. It should be noted that the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department has subjeGt site) to be improved as a result of on- 3tieR6 to the AES HURtiR9tGR BeaGh conditioned,the widening"of bo"th Newland Street;(Iocated west of the subject site) and Edis"on Avenue (situated north,of the subject site) The'applicant,woutd:be required#o complete; mprouements along the southern'side "of Edison Avenue as a condition of approval for the project, wh"ale the City"would be responsible;for irri rovem g p ents aloe Newland Street with the;applicant responsible for,paying their.fair share. `For;more:informafon refer to the "Impacts"section below:" City of•Huntington Beach,, March 21, 2003 { 3 171 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental,Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA Page 4.6-4, Storm Water Drainage ".....The OCFCD and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department operate the storm water drainage system within the City of Huntington Beach. The storm drainage system removes water runoff from streets, and, afteF filtFatinn transports the runoff to the ocean. The OCFCD owns, operates, maintains, and improves regional flood control facilities. The City of Huntington Beach owns and operates 145 storm drainage channel pumping stations which pump the runoff water into the channels and to the ocean. No runoff from the project site....." Page 4.6-5, Reclaimed Water ".....The City of Huntington Beach is participated in the Green Acres project (GAP) in association with the OCSD and the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The OCSD produces secondary treated water for the OCWD, where the water is treated once again and distributed for potential industrial use and landscape irrigation its for the Cities of Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Huntington Beach. lR additiGR, (GWIR). The GWRS is a major Re reclamation project currently being developed by the OCSD and OCWD. This project could increase the City's use of reclaimed water to 400 afy. At the present time, no conveyance facilities are available at or near the subject site, and it is not anticipated that the proposed desalination project will require the use of reclaimed water." Page 4.6-8, Roadway Maintenance "As previously stated, kioth Newland Street a6iidl Edison Avenue have has PeGently been conditioned to be improved, sterage taRk optien be seleGted, Edisen AVeRwe will require GUrb, gutteF, sidewalk, street lighting, and n^„in^ i^,nr^„err+et 4 - by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works As a 177 condition of approval'by the City of Huntington Beach"for:the pro'posedproject, the applicant`wlll be required;tocomplete improvements.,along the,southerr side of Edison Avenue (sifuat:ed"north;of the subject site as shown;in Exhibit°2 'of the Draft E.IR SITE VlC1NITY NIAP) These improvements would consist of he dedication-of 12 feet along;the frontage of the.,exist'ing Edison Avenue ,(for curb ;gutter; paving, and street lighting improvements) 'for: a. total...ofi approximately 600 linear feet Itshould be noted,that'AESHuntington Beach,"LLC would be responsible for dedication of.property"to the City for these improvements;' as ES A owns,the entire southern:;fronfage of Edison Av nt, for hoth lenue andwould' ica, e proposed„project However, the project applicant would be responsible for";completing. these roadway and landscaping improvernentsas'a condition of approval for the project s`ubsequenfito property detlication It should also be noted that street widening along Newland Street (west,of the proposed,'project;site} would''be,"' erformed by the City, with separate entitlements and environmental;evaluation AES Hun tington..Beach' .L-LC would dedicate the necessary right of= way along Newland Street and both AES and the .`project appiicant'would be required to pay their fair hare;of the cost.' In addition traffic impact fees as determined by the City of Huntington Beach will be collected upon project implementation in order to offset any costs incurred for roadway widenings and intersection capacity improvements.3 Impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant. 3Letter, Mr.Todd Broussard, City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,July 16, 2001. City of Huntington Beach March 21, 2003 172 a < , hr s Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmentalw Impact,Report . 3.0 ERRATA Page 4.6-9, Wastewater ".....eight-inch sewer conveyance pipeline leading off-site to the existing 48-inch OCSD sewer pipeline located within Newland Avenue or a 54-inch OCSD line within Pacific Coast Highway. OCSD has also indicated that the pH and flowrate of the washwater tank discharge would be acceptable, contingent upon the acquisition of a Sewer Connection Permit from the City of Huntington Beach and an Industrial Waste DisG4afge Source Control Permit from the OCSD. It should be noted that the County of Orange's....." Page 4.6-17, Hydraulics ".....However, the hydraulic characteristics of the OC-44 Pipeline may be affected in one of two ways, depending on whether the pipeline segment in question is east or west of the proposed Poseidon/OC-44 connection point. West of the proposed Poseidon/OC-44 connection point, the flow rate and flow direction would remain unchanged, while a change in water pressure would be negligible (a change of less than five pounds per square inch). East of the proposed connection point, the direction of flow would be reversed, the flow rate would increase, and water pressure would decrease. It is anticipated that maximum flow velocity through this portion of the pipeline would be 7.5 feet per second (fps). All flow rate, pressure, and velocity changes which may occur in the existing pipelines are within pipeline design specifications. jt should be noted that the, OC=44 connection is,`operated by .a Joint Powers Authority,.(with , Mesa Consolidated 1Nater District as the approving agency) The applicant will obtain appropriate approvals from the Mesa Consolidated; Water District prior to project operation hn order to ensure that impacts to the OC=44 do not adversely impact the ;Joint Powers Authority In addition,.the proposed project would not inhibifi tfie City of Huntington.Beach's ability to operate the, OC-44; from ;zero to" 13 cubic feet per: -,,second:;(CFS) 'without restriction or need.for notification." Page 4.6-18, Reclaimed Water "The City of Huntington Beach is not currently utilizes utilizinglimited ameuRts a reclaimed water, although the City is p!aR 'R te-expand-its use Of FeGlaimed w ater may, in the :future through the Green Acres Project and Groundwater Replenishment System. The proposed project is not anticipated to require the use of reclaimed water or installation of reclaimed water facilities, as the project itself will be a new reclamation source. Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. Page 4.6-21, MITIGATION MEASURES 11PSU-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, cvR;rneFGial fee Gf $0.1287 per qquaFe feet fGr--RGR PeSideRtial .de e-leppmen-t the applicant wlll be".required to pay. applicable school rn'itigation fees pursuant to State laws" Page 4.9-19, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ".....not anticipated to be significant (refer to Appendix L, BOOSTER PUMP STATION BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS SURVEY, for additional information). It should also be noted that any displaced vegetation would be replaced. City°of Huntington Beach- March 21, 2003 173 i .I�% Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental-Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA ti In addition, implementation:of the proposed projectmay"result in impacts towaterways due.to "frac outs" pofentially occurring° during ;pipeline construction "Frac-outs",occur when_dnlling fluids (usually benton_ite) seep"to fhe;sufface via cracks in the ground 'Pnor:to the.performance of :any tlirect�onal fjoring, th`e applicant,will prepare.a Frac=Out Contingency Plan. The p 10iv,Will establish cnteria -under which a bore" would be shut down ('e":g , loss of pressure, loss of a certain arnounfof returns)and the number of imes`a sing e'bore should.be allowed to frao-out before the bore is shutdown and reevaluated It will also clearly state what measures will "be taken to'seal previous frac_outs;that have,occurredon a given:bore to ensure that it"does not becor6 the path of least,.resistance 'for subsequent frac outs' Additionally, the�,sEte-specific Frac-Oaf Contingency Klan:wiH be prepare ;an reviewed by"tlie`City Engineer and`appropriate resource:agencies prior to each major bore:;" Page 4.9-28, MITIGATION MEASURES h ".....of the roadway using appropriate construction signage and flagmen, or submit a detour plan for approval by the City Traffic Engineer. The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction Per Caltrans requirements, the Pp plicant shall subrnit:the Traffic Management Plan to.Caltrans at the 90= ercent desi n- hase;: Page 4.9-30, MITIGATION MEASURES ".....restrictions on construction activities may be required in the vicinity of the nest until the nest is no longer active. CON 40 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 sin,g,fe'bore,should 6e allowed to fr.,ac out before"the bore is shut;down and ;reevatuatecf. It will; also, clearly state what;measures wilt: be taken to seal previous fr ac 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`;Fran Qut Contingency Flan will be prepared and reviewed b" the City Engineer an,vappropriate resource agencie's prior to each mafor bore.° CON=41 fn order to minimize potential construction impactsto nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to ,the proposed desalination facility, a pre construction nesting survey will be performed'by a qualified biologist in consultation with apphcabie regulatory agencies Should'; nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation (such" as relocation, .construction noise .abatement measures, etc ) will be mplerrientet as appropriate based on'the"f- dings'of the!pre construction survey; C9N=42; Qlf focused sunieys for s"ensitive !biological resources performetl prior to pro osed p"r t irn ementation review of data within the California Natural Diversity,Data Base (CNDDB)ao obtain current mformafon, on any previously reported°.sensitive specieslhabitat, including 'Significant :Natural Areas identified under Ch'apter'12 of the Fish aritl Game Code. City of Huntingtom-Beach March 21, 2003 174 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ERRATA CON-43 .Prior to implementation of the proposed off-site booster pump station adjacent to the NCCP/HCP b'ounda'ry a: junsd cti©nal: delineation' of the, pro pose tl,Pump station site.shall,f?e performed.to determine the:extent of.jurisdictional ,area,, =if any;.ss part of the regulatory,,permitting process. CULTURAL RESOURCES CON-404 Should buried historical/archaeological resources be discovered during excavation on the proposed booster pump station site, all construction work in that area shall be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. CON-44-5 During excavation of five feet below ground surface or lower on the proposed booster pump station site, a paleontological resource recovery program for Miocene invertebrate fossils shall be implemented. This program shall include, but will not be limited to, the following: ❖ Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor must me empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are not encountered, or upon exposure are determined following examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources; ❖ Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates; . ❖ Identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. The paleontologist should have a written respository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities; and ❖ Preparation of a report of findings with appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency, would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources." Page 5-7, Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Assessment ".....As discussed in Section 5.2, GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS, the project may facilitate new development in sewth Orange County and the.Soiith,Coast Region." Appendix E, Watershed Sanitary Survey, Page E-41, Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Discharges Refer to Responses 17b and 17c of the Responses to Comments, above. City of Huntington Beach March 21, 2003 175 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report J M Na @ON) 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY Refer to the following summary of project impacts, mitigation measures,and unavoidable significant impacts. IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 4.1 LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING LAND USE The proposed desalination facility is not anticipated to None required. However, refer to mitigation measures create any impacts to surrounding uses with regards to contained in Section 4.5 (Noise), Section 4.7 air quality, noise, aesthetics, hazards and hazardous (Aesthetics/Light&Glare),and Section 4.9(Construction materials, and short-term construction. Significance: Related Impacts). Less than significant ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. RELEVANT PLANNING The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project None required. will be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program, and does notpropose to change any General Plan or Zoning designations. Significance: No Impact. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. 42 GEOLOGY,SOILS &SEISMICITY WIND/WATER EROSION Implementation of the proposed desalination project Refer to Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, below. would create adverse impacts in regards to wind and water erosion. Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. TOPOGRAPHY No significant landform impacts are anticipated, as the None required. existing project area is relatively flat and contains no unique geological or physical features. Significance: Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. GEOLOGY/SODSIr City of Huntington Beach S tuber 19, 2002 1-3 �j��,td,%� Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY D raft.Env!ronmental-Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION.MEASURE The project site's high liquefaction potential and shallow GEO-1 A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared groundwater conditions may create geologic hazards for and submitted with the building permit the proposed desalination facility. Significance: Less application for the proposed desalination plant. than significant with mitigation. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to remedial work, overexcavation I recompaction, result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. dewatering, water quality, and chemical/fill It should be noted that Mitigation Measures GEC-3 and properties of underground items including buried GEO-4 would not be applicable to this option. 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. GEO-2 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 I+ report and/or by the City Engineer. GEC-3 Excavation for the proposed underground product water storage tank shall implement dewatering activities in compliance with NPDES regulations. Pumped groundwater shall be sampled, tested, and (if deemed necessary) treated prior to discharge. GEO-4 In order to prevent the underground product water storage tank from "floating"when water levels in the tank are lowered,the tank shall be either"anchored"utilizing piles,weighted,and/or have adequate soil placed across the top of the tank to hold the tank in place within shallow groundwater known to exist within subject site boundaries. GEC-5 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. GEO-6 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. SEISMICITY/FAULTING The project area is subject to seismic activity, as it is GEO-7 Due to the potential for ground shaking in a situated within 1.25 miles of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake seismic event,the project shall comply with the Fault Zone. SI nificance:-Less than-significant with- standards set forth in the UBC (most recent City of Huntington-Beach September 19, 2002 1-4 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft'Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE mitigation. edition) to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. (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. GEO-8 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 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. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL The proposed project will be subject to liquefaction GEO-9 Due to the potential for liquefaction within the hazards, seismically-induced settlement, and lateral project vicinity, the Applicant shall comply with spread, as the project area has a very high potential for the standards set forth in the UBC(most recent liquefaction. Significance:Less than significant with edition)for structures on-site to assure safety of mitigation. the occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. (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). GEO-10 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: Overexcavation and recompaction of soils; ❖ in-situ soil densification (such as vibro- flotation or vibro-replacement); injection grouting;and •b deep soil mixing. GEO-11 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. City-of Huntingtorr:Beach- September 19, 2002 1-5 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE OFF-SITE PIPELINES AND UNDERGROUND PUMP STATION The proposed off-site components of the project may Refer to Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION RELATED result in hazards in regards to geology and soils. IMPACTS. Significance: Less than significant with mitigation. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. 4.3 HYDROLOGY AND.WATER.QUALITY .: LONG-TERM WATER QUALITY IMPACTS The proposed desalination plant may have hydrology and HWQ-1 Prior to issuance of precise grading or building water quality impacts in regards to flooding and storm permits, which ever comes first, the applicant waterrunoff. Significance:Less than significant with shall submit and obtain approval from the City of mitigation. Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically The proposed desalination plant may have hydrology and identifying Best Management Practices(BMPs) water quality impacts in regards to the local that will be used on-site to control predictable marine%oastal environment. Significance: Less than pollutant runoff. This WQMP shall identify,at a significant. minimum, the routine, structural and non- structural measures specified in the Countywide ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to (DAMP)Appendix which details implementation result in greater impacts in comparison to those of the of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a proposed project. However, due to project design, no project, the assignment of long-term mitigation measures beyond those identified for the maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, proposed project are required. Significance: Less than and shall reference the location(s) of structural significant with mitigation. BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: 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 BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person; HWQ-2 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. HWQ-3 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. HWQ-4 Product water quality will be permitted by the California Department of Health Services to ensure safe, reliable water quality to the consumer. City,of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-6 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 4.4 AIR QUALITY LONG-TERM EMISSIONS The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project None required. would create long-term air quality emissions impacts through on-site station, off-site mobile, and off-site energy-related emissions. Significance: Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL PLANS Air quality emissions and related impacts for the None required. proposed project have been accounted forboth regionally and locally. Significance:Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS The proposed project may impact sensitive receptors None required. Refer to Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION surrounding the project site in regards to air quality. RELATED IMPACTS, for a discussion of short-term Significance:Less than significant construction related air quality impacts. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. 4.5 NOISE LONG-TERM STATIONARY SOURCES The proposed project may have long-term stationary NOIA Prior to the issuance of any building or grading noise impacts on surrounding sensitive receptors. permits, the Applicant shall prepare an Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans, prepared under the supervision of a City- ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK approved acoustical consultant, describing the OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to stationary noise generation potential and noise result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project 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. City of Huntington-Beach- September 19, 2002 1-7 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmentallm pact Report " IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES FIRE SERVICE The proposed project could increase demand for fire and None required. emergency services within the City. Significance:Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to resultin similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. POLICE SERVICE The proposed project is not anticipated to create a None required. significant increase in service calls to the project vicinity nor is it expected to create a need for additional police facilities within the City. Significance: Less than significant impact. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. SCHOOLS The proposed project may place additional demand on PSU-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the schools located within the vicinity of the project area. applicant will be required to pay applicable Significance:Less than significant with mitigation school mitigation fees pursuant to State law. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to resultin similarimpacts to those of the proposed project.. LIBRARIES The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plan may increase None required. demand on the City's library system. Significance:Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. ROADWAY MAINTENANCE Additional traffic generated by the proposed project may PSU-2 The Applicant will be required to pay increase demand on streets nearby the project site. appropriate traffic impact fees as determined by Significance:Less than significant with mitigation the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to resultin similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-8 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DrakEnvironmental Impact Report- IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE PARKS AND RECREATION The desalination project may increase demand on park None required. facilities within the vicinity of the project area. Significance:Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. WASTEWATER Implementation of the proposed desalination plant could PSU-3 The Applicant will be required to pay the increase demand on the local wastewater system. prevailing sewer connection fee plus five Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. percent of the OCSD connection fee. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. STORM WATER DRAINAGE The proposed project may increase demand on the local Refer to Section 4.3, Hydrology and Water Quality. storm water drainage system. Significance: Less than significant impact with mitigation. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. WATER The proposed project's product watermay create impacts PSU-4 The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate in regards to water supply. Significance: Less than fees for water service connections, installation, significant with mitigation. and meters. In addition, the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. The proposed project's product watermay create impacts in regards to water compatibility, water quality, and hydraulics. Significance: Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. RECLAIMED WATER The project site does not currently utilize reclaimed None required. water, and is not anticipated to utilize reclaimed water in the future. Significance:Less than significant impact ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE.TANK OPTION., Implementation of this option is anticipated.to City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-9 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft,Environmental Impact Report- IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. SOLID WASTE Project implementation may increase the generation of PSU-5 The Applicant will coordinate with the City's solid waste, thereby increasing demand on solid waste recycling representative to ensure that the disposal facilities within the vicinity. Significance:Less proposed project is in compliance with the than significant with mitigation. City's waste reduction and recycling program. PSU-6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK Applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to the generation of construction and operational result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. 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. ELECTRICITY The desalination project may create impacts in regards to None required. increased electricity demand. Significance:Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. GAS Existing gas facilities in and surrounding the project area None required. are capable of accommodating additional demand resulting from the proposed project. Significance:Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. TELEPHONE AND CABLE Existing telephone and cable facilities in and surrounding None required. the project area are capable of accommodating additional demand resulting from the proposed project. Significance:Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. City of Huntington:Beach Septemberr19, 2002 1-10 Poseidon Seawater-Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft;.Environmental Impact Report- IMPACT MITIGATION:.MEASURE 4.7 AESTHETICS/LIGHT&GLARE SITE CHARACTER The Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may alter ALG-1 For areas visible by adjacent existing or the site character of the project area, including proposed residential areas,exterior mechanical undeveloped portions of the project area. Significance: equipment shall be screened from view on all Less than significant with mitigation. sides,and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be set back 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK includes, but is not limited to, heating, air OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to conditioning,refrigeration equipment,plumbing result in greater impacts in comparison to those of the lines, duct-work and transformers. Said proposed project. However, due to project design, no screening shall be architecturally compatible mitigation measures beyond those identified for the with the building in terms of materials and proposed project are required. Significance:Less than colors. If screening is not designed specifically significant with mitigation. into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). LIGHT AND GLARE The proposed project may generate light and glare ALG-2 If outdoor lighting is included,light intensity shall through on-site nighttime security lighting. Significance: be limited to that necessary for adequate Less than significant with mitigation. security and safety. All outside lighting shall be. directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and The proposed project may create additional light and and a evations.shall be shown on the site plan glare through project-generated automobile traffic. Significance: Less than significant. ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in greater impacts in comparison to those of the proposed project. However, due to project design, no mitigation measures beyond those identified for the proposed project are required.Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. 4.8. HAZARDS&HAZARDOUS MATERIALS LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The proposed project may create hazards due to the None required,other than project design implementation storage, transportation, and/or handling of hazardous of existing regulations and requirements. materials, thereby posing a threat to on-site occupants and surrounding uses. Significance: Less than significant ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. 4.9 CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Proposed project construction may,.generate=erosive• CON-1 Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading conditions including sediment laden storm runoff or dust Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion City of Huntington-Beach: September 19, 2002 1-11 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 .EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft-Environmental Impact Report- IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE which could have adverse impacts in regards to Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach hydrology and water quality. Significance: Less than Department of Public Works which will include significant with mitigation. the following measures: ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK a) Where necessary, temporary and/or OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to permanent erosion control devices, as result in reduced impacts in comparison to those of the approved by the Department of Public proposed project. However, all mitigation measures in Works, shall be employed to control regards to construction related hydrology and water erosion and provide safety during the quality would remain applicable to this option. rainy season from October 15th to April Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. 151h. b) 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. c) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. d) 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%. e) After a rainstorm,all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. f) 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. g) 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. h) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. i) 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. CON-2 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 a licable'to City-of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1=12 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY D raft-Environmenta I Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE the project include the following: 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. 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. CON-3 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. CON-4 Prior to any dewatering activities, the Applicant shall obtain and comply with a general dewatering NPDES permit from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. CON-5 The Applicant shall submit a dewatering plan for review and approval by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The Applicant will comply with the approved dewatering plan. CON-6 The Applicant shall inform the Orange County Water District(OCWD)of its plans for on-site dewatering, and, if necessary, will acquire necessary permits and approvals from the OCWD to ensure that no adverse impacts on the groundwater basin or seawater intrusion barrier occur as a result of the proposed project. The Applicant will comply with any approved dewatering permits or plans. CON-7 During dewatering operations, a survey City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-13 Poseidon SeawaterrDesalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE program shall be conducted on surrounding properties and structures to ensure that movement or settlement from on-site dewatering operations does not occur. This survey program will be subject to approval by the City Engineer. CON-8 Should on-site dewatering operations require discharge into the sanitary sewer system,the Applicant shall obtain applicable permits and approvals for the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)and City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. Should the dewatering discharge be directed to existing AES stormdrain facilities, the Applicant shall ensure that dewatering is addressed in the Applicant's SARWQCB NPDES permit. AIR QUALITY Short-term construction processes for the proposed CON-9 Prior to the issuance of grading permits or project would have short-term air quality impacts. approval of grading plans, the City shall Significance:Unavoidable significant impact. include a dust control plan as part of the construction contract standard specifications, which shall include measures to meet the ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK requirements of the City and SCAQMD Rules OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to 402 and 403. Such measures may include, result in reduced impacts in comparison to those of the but are not limited to,the following: proposed project. However, an unavoidable significant impact would still occur. During grading operations,the following shall be complied with: :• Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts; Discontinue operation during second- stage smog alerts; ❖ All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas; s Comply with AQMD Rule 403,particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas; Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut; •: 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; .• Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation; Wash mud-covered tires and under carriages of trucks leaving construction City-of Huntington-Beach - September 19, 2002 1-14 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE sites; .• 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; .• Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight fitting tarp; .• Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; Maintain construction equipment in peak operating condition so as to reduce operating emissions; .• Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment; .• Use electric equipment whenever practicable;and s• Shut off engines when not in use. NOISE Construction processes for the proposed desalination CON-10 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, project may generate significant amounts of noise and the Applicant shall ensure evidence vibration, impacting adjacent sensitive receptors. acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Significance: Less than significant with mitigation. Departments of Planning and Public Works that: ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK All construction vehicles or equipment, OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 result in reduced impacts in comparison to those of the feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with proposed project. However, all mitigation measures in properly operating and maintained regards to construction related noise would remain mufflers; applicable to this option. Significance: Less than All operations shall comply with the City significant with mitigation. of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40(Noise Control); Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas;and 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. CON-11 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 1-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. CON-12 To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-15 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental_Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Project implementation may create an increase demand CON-13 Unless underground utility locations are for public services and utilities. Significance: Less well documented,as determined by the City than significant. of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the project engineer shall Project implementation may conflict with underground perform geophysical surveys to identifysubsurface utilities and structures, the utilities along the proposed pipeline alignment findings of which shall be incorporated into Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK and graded areas shall either be relocated OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to or be cut and plugged according to the result in similar impacts to those of the proposed project. applicable code requirements. Significance:Less than significant with mitigation. AESTHETICS/LIGHT&GLARE Project-related construction may adversely impact views CON-14 During construction, a security fence, the of and across the proposed project site through debris, height of which shall be determined by the equipment, and truck traffic. Significance: Less than City of Huntington Beach Department of significant with mitigation. Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. The ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK construction site shall be kept clear of all trash,weeds, etc. OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to result in greater impacts in comparison to those of the CON-15 Construction activities, to the extent proposed project. However, no mitigation measures feasible, shall be concentrated away from beyond those identified for the proposed project are adjacent residential areas. Equipment required. Significance: Less than significant with storage and soil stockpiling shall be at mitigation. least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines. City of Huntington-Beach September 19, 2002 1-16 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Project implementation may pose a risk to on-site CON-16 Prior to excavation of the contaminated and workers and adjacent land uses with regards to short- other areas for rough grading, the project term construction related hazards and hazardous site shall be cleared of all excess materials. Significance: Less than significant with vegetation, surface trash, piping, debris mitigation. and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK of properly(recycled if possible). OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to CON-17 Proper excavation procedures shall be result in greater impacts in comparison to those of the followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and proposed project. However, no mitigation measures Health Standards. If applicable,the South beyond those identified for the proposed project are Coast Air Quality Management District required. Significance: Less than significant with (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be mitigation. obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. CON-18 The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. CON-19 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. CON-20 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. CON-21 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. CON-22 Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. CON-23 The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size, wording and City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-17 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental1mpact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. CON-24 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). CON-25 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. CON-26 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. CON-27 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. CON-28 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. CON-29 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 alarms stems below City of Huntington,Beach September 19, 2002 1-18 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft'Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 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. TRAFFIC Short-term project construction (of both on-site and off- CON-30 A Traffic Management Plan(TMP)shall be site elements)could potentially create impacts in regards prepared and implemented to the to traffic. Significance: Less than significant with satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction mitigation. within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK located where construction would affect roadways. The TMP shall include, but not OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to be limited to,the following measures: result in reduced impacts in comparison to those of the proposed project. However, all mitigation measures in Limit construction to one side of the regards to construction related noise would remain road or out of the roadbed where applicable to this option. Significance: Less than possible; significant with mitigation. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/ routes are disrupted by construction activities, if any; s• 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; .• 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; The Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. Per City of.Huntington Beach- September 19, 2002 1-19 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE Caltrans requirements, the applicant shall submit the Traffic Management Plan to Caltrans at the 90-percent design phase; .• Construction activities shall, to the . extent feasible, be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s);and Provide for temporary parking, where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. CON-31 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. CON-32 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. CON-33 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. CON-34 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. CON-35 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. City of-Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-20 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Construction of the proposed project may result in CON-36 Prior to construction on the proposed impacts to sensitive biological resources. Significance: booster pump station site, three focused Less than significant with mitigation. coastal California gnatcatcher surveys shall be performed in accordance with USFWS protocols, preferably during the ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK gnatcatcher breeding season. Should the OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to species be observed on or adjacent to the result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. site, consultation and permitting through the USFWS would be required. CON-37 Prior to construction on the proposed booster pump station site, eight focused least Bell's vireo surveys shall be performed for the off-site underground booster pump station (at least 10 days apart during the vireo nesting season of April and July)in accordance with USFWS protocols. Should the species be observed on or adjacent to the site, consultation and permitting through the USFWS would be required. This measure may not be necessary if construction phasing can avoid the vireo nesting season. CON-38 Prior to construction on the proposed booster pump station site, a qualified biologist shall perform a habitat assessment for the southwestern pond turtle. If habitat for this species is observed, a trapping program will be implemented to determine the presence or absence of these species. If present,pond turtles must be trapped and relocated prior to the start of construction. CON-39 A survey for active raptor nests shall be performed by a qualified biologist 30 days prior to the commencement of construction activities on the proposed booster pump station site. Any occupied nests discovered during survey efforts shall be mapped on construction plans for the site. If recommended by the biologist, restrictions on construction activities may be required in the vicinity of the nest until the nest is no longer active. CON-40 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 City of Huntington Beach September 19, 2002 1-21 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DraftEnvironmental-Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE 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. CON-41 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. CON-42 All focused surveys for sensitive biological resources performed prior to proposed project implementation shall include a review of data within the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species/habitat, including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code. CON-43 Priorto implementation of the proposed off-site booster pump station adjacent to the NCCP/HCP boundary,a jurisdictional delineation of the proposed pump station site shall be performed to determine the extent of jurisdictional area, if any, as part of the regulatory permitting process. CULTURAL RESOURCES Construction of the proposed project may result in CON-44 Should buried historical/archaeological impacts to cultural resources. Significance: Less than resources be discovered during excavation significant with mitigation. on the proposed booster pump station site, all construction work in that area shall be halted or diverted until a qualified ABOVEGROUND PRODUCT WATER STORAGE TANK archaeologist can evaluate the nature and OPTION: Implementation of this option is anticipated to significance of the finds. result in similarimpacts to those of the proposed project. CON-45 During excavation of five feet below ground surface or lower on the proposed booster pump station site, a paleontological resource recovery program for Miocene invertebrate fossils shall be implemented. This program shall include, but will not be City of Huntington:Beach September 19, 2002 1-22 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE limited to,the following: Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are not encountered, or upon exposure are determined following examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources; s• Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates; s• Identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. The paleontologist should have a written respository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities; and Preparation of a report of findings with appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency,would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AIR QUALITY The proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project may have unavoidable significant impacts in regards to short-term, construction related CO, ROG,and NO,emissions. However, impacts in this regard have been adequately analyzed within the City's General Plan EIR, as the project will be consistent with all General Plan and zoning designations. No other unavoidable significant impacts have been identified for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. 1.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES "NO PROJECTlNO DEVELOPMENT" ALTERNATIVE City of Huntington-Beach September 19, 2002 1-23 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos,Associate Planner#--fz- DATE: June 3, 2003 SUBJECT: LATE COMMUNICATION Attached are additional comment letters received since Thursday May 29, 2003 as well as comment letters distributed at the May 27, 2003 hearing from the parties listed below regarding the Poseidon seawater desalination plant. Attachment: (New comment letters since Thursday May 29, 2003) 1. Jan Vandersloot, dated May 29,2003 2. Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation dated May 30, 2003 3. Rich Kolander, dated May 8, 2003 4. Robert Harrison, dated May 30, 2003 5. Don May, dated June 3, 2003 10. Tom Luster, dated June 3, 2003 (Comment letters distributed at the May 27, 2003 hearing) 6. Larry Porter, dated May 27, 2003 7. Bruce Monroe, dated May 27, 2003 8. Jan Vandersloot, dated May 27, 2003 9. Robert Thomas, dated May 27,2003 GAAdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0603rr1.doc w`Ti JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. Diplomate, American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone (714) 848-0770 Email JonV3 cr aol.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 JonV3 cr,aol.com 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. Diplomates American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone (714) 848-0770 Email JonV3 cr 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 bacterial 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 (<10 MPN/l00 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 JAIN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. Diplomate, American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone (714) 848-0770 Email JonV3(@,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 offline 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 ' l JAN D. VANDERSLOOT,M.D. Diplomate, American Academy of Dermatology 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone (714) 848-0770 Email JonV3(@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 MAY-27-03 13144 FROM,OCSD ADM1A1 ]D: 714962@356 FACE 2/ td 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 .'-AY;-2?-03 r3o4S FROM+005D ADMIN rD+714962M359 PAGE J/ its Executive Summary of Review Puel Comments on the Hundngtoaa Beach Phoe III Final Dam Report Marob 21,2003 Background High bacteria counts at Huatington State Beach forced a two-month beach closure in the summer of 1999,at significant cost to the community. TWs occurred immediately capon implementation of the AB411 beach closure standards.The Orange bounty Sanitation District(OCSD)conducted a series of studies ro determine the source of the bacteria. Initial studies suggested that contamination from the sewage outfall 7 Ian 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 cleanly identified as of spring,2001. Scient0c Objectives Phase M of the Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation re-focused attention on the sewage outfall,with specific hypotheses ooncerning onshore transport of the sewage plum&71m study objectives,as originally staked in the Huntington Beach Shoreline COtatemarnaffioq lavestagation,Phase III Workplan are: "1)characterize the physical oceanographic processes involved in possible cross-shelf WWVW of the wastewater-PTuase`ran— is vicinity of the AES diennal discharge outfall:2)determine if There is a causal linkweer o shore and suit zone baMna and re,aced 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)its the study,after careful consideration,re-deFned the objectives 1n October.2002 thus:"The principal objective for this multifaceted measurement program was to determine if there is a causal link between offshore wastewater discharge and significant bacterial contamination at or above state beach sanitation standards(i.e.,A1B411)along the Huntington Beach shoreline_This objective includes the aim of identifying coastal ocean processes that could explain any observed links.A secondary objective was to determine the principal coastal-ocean circulation patients in this region,allowing the evaluation of any new ideas that may arise or On recognition during or following this study.Thirdly,eonditiaris during the summer of 2001 would be compared to those of 1999 and other years with a high incidence of surf wne bacteria oonmaduation." By this statement,the Pls defined the important issue as bacterial contamination causing beach closures,not a more general question about bacterial transport. 1 MAY-'�7-03 13:45 FROM-OCSD ADMIM ID: 71496203SS PACE viam 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 AE41 I 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 dimct observation of links between bacteria in the outfall plume and beach contamination,on analysis of spatial and temporal patterns of shoreline contamination 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 Review 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 Pls met again 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 Parcel 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. Jobn Allen,Ph.D. Oregon State University Theoretical geophysical fluid dynamics;Coastal ocean dynamics Jack Bartle,Ph.D. Oregon State University Coastal ocean dynamics; Flow-topography interactions 2 MAY-27-e3 13-AS FROM-OCSO ADMIN ID,714862e356 PAGE Walter E.Frick,Ph.D. USIEPA Ecosystems Research Division. Plume models for outfall design and assessment;Low-velocity compressible flow theory Roger Fajioka,Ph.D. Water Resources Research Center,University of Hawaii Environmental water quality;Public health microbiology 'Welsh Holden,Ph.D. University of California.Santa Barbara Microbiology;Bacterial community fingerprinting Jesus Pineda,lP'hnA Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Cross-shore transport of planktonic larvae; Benthic population ecology Cynthia Cudaback,Phi.A (Co-chair) University of California,Santa Barbara Inner shelf transport and effect on biological communities Judy Lemus,Ph.D.(Co-chair) Sea Grant Program.University of Souther California Marine Advisory Program Leader Review Panel Objectives OCSD initiated Phase II[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? Z Were the data properly interpreted and presented in the preliminary reports? 3.Are them;other studies that could be conducted to dem mine 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- f 3,40 FROM t OCSO ADM I N r 0, 714SS20356 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 teach 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 outfall 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)Bacterial sam,l inn The Panel recognizes the difficulty 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 White 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 surfione 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.2a,2b,2c). 2)Spatial di connection The argourneat that the OCSD outfall plume is not a major source of beach contarninsdon reties on the spatial gap between high bacterial concentrations in the core of the phone and the high bacterial concentrations measured at the beach.Given that the transport properties of bacteria in the coastal ocean are not well understood, it seems prudent co allow for the possibility of a range of plausible behaviors,A possible mechanism for bridging Elie observed spatial disconnect could be in the reconcentration of bacteria either within the surfzone or during transport. if the beach is considered to be the end of the transport pathway,and bacteria transported to shore remain on shore or trapped in the surfzone,possibly adsorbed to sediment particles,then low concentrations of bacteria just 4 ( ' [C) ;lAa-27-03 13+96 FROM+OCSD A0147M ID+ 7149620366 PAUh offshore can be reconcentrated at the beach. The potential for resuspevsion of fecal indicator bacteria within the surfzone was not addressed in the Phase III study and therefore cannot be ruled out as a possible sot=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)Patchiness 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 Ill 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,Volurne 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 II investigations(Figs. 3-14 and 4-13 of KB-III Final Draft Report). Finally,the accumulation of buoyant particles at onshore propagating fronts associated with an intemal We has been observed in Southern California(Pineda, 1999). 5)!Qros,.;-shelf_jMaj=mechanisms A thorough consideration of cross-shelf transport of physical water properties and plume material is nog 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 with 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 tmnsport in the bottom boundary layer by breaking internal waves near a slopin,boundary. 5 � .11 MAY-27-03 13:46 FROM:OCSO- ADMI N rD+ 7 1 48820 3 56 PAGE e/10 Future Stadles There are two;Hain areas of concern that could benefit from further research: cross-shelf transport and circulation mechanisms,and accurate tracking of plume bacteria. Cross-shelf transp rt and circulation mechanisms I) 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 surfzone,may be useful to determine whether water-borne particles can be transported from the 15m isobath to the surf2one. If possible,adding dye to the effluent after the 200.1 dilution near the outfall may also yield profitable results. This Iatter 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 NT and vT)as acfunction 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 ro 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. TrackiUAplull2e 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 high-temporal resolution measurements of a chemical signature of the plume. 6 �.1 Z MAY-27-03 13.47 FROM,OCSD ADMIN ID- 71498203SS PAUL 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 treasurable 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(197 8)that expresses a decay coefficient as a function of light intensity,salinity,and temperature.A review of Manciai'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 colifolm bacteria to sunlight intensity.A more complete model of bacterial dle-off would necessarily be considerably more complex than due Mancini model. lEdIto><tal 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 anchors should pay close attention to grammar for all chapters.The executive summary,especially,should be carefully edited for clarity,since this is The only seclioD 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. Also,some important information is contained only in the figures and tables,making the reader's task more difficult.In general,rcaders should be informed of the experimental deslgtl of the study before the results are discussed.The document would be easier to read if each chapter had this structure: !.Introduction 2.Goals or Objectives 3.Experimental Design and Methods MAX-27-03 23,47 FROM-OCSD ADMIN ID: 714962co3sts -- •- 4. Results 5. 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 needs 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 life easier for the reader.Compare the timing of observed poleward motions of total coliform 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.L (1978). Numerical estimates of coliform mortality rates under various conditions.Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation Nov:2477-2484. Pineda,J. (1999). Circulation and larval distribution in internal tidal bone warm fronts. Umnology and Oceanography 44:1400-1414 8 Ramos, Ricky From: Joe Geever Ogeever@surfrider.org] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:28 PM To: rramos@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Ssurfdad@cs.com Subject: Poseidon EIR comments ®U Huntington desal EIR follow-up... Mr. Ramos, Please find attached a comment letter that Surfrider Foundation would like to submit as a response to several items that were discussed by the Planning Commission at the May 27, 2003 hearing concerning the Poseidon EIR. Thank you for your continued willingness to review and consider our comments. Please forward these comments to the members of the Planning Commission for their consideration. I am available to answer any questions you may have regarding these comments prior to or at the meeting scheduled for June 3. I can most often be reached at (310) 410-2890 and check this e-mail address routinely over the course of the day. Thank you again for your consideration, Joe Geever Joe Geever Surfrider Foundation Southern California Chapter Coordinator PO BOX 6010 San Clemente, CA 92674-6010 (949) 492-8170 or (310) 410-2890 Please help our Mother Ocean by becoming a Surfrider Foundation member! <https://host.trustcommerce.com/surfrider/membership.htm>Click here to join. 1 TO: Planning Commission, City of Huntington Beach FROM: Surfrider Foundation—National Office DATE: May 30, 2003 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) Dear Mr. Ramos, We are writing for the Surfrider Foundation, our more than 35,000 members and 60 chapters nationwide. We hope to offer some clarification of our comments at the Huntington Beach Planning Commission hearing on May 27, 2003. First we want to thank the Commission for accepting these late comments and for giving them full consideration before making your final decision. As you know, the Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the Poseidon Desalination Facility covers a complicated project proposal with multi-discipline concerns and multi- jurisdictional potential consequences. Therefore, it has not only taken us considerable time to consider all the potential impacts treated in the EIR, but to look beyond the stated impacts to those neglected by the study. Given the dramatic and complicated nature of this project proposal, once again we ask the Planning Commission to postpone their decision on this EIR until all the foreseeable impacts are fully documented and responded to. Several questions were raised by the Commissioners during the public hearing and we would like to add our concerns for your consideration(below). First, we would like to clarify some of the discussion concerning the scope of authority resting with the Commission, as well as the separate duties in certifying the EIR. It is true that the project will be submitted to several agencies with discretionary authority to approve or deny permits for the project. In this context,the Huntington Beach Planning Commission is constrained to permitting under the limits of their authority. However, this should not be confused with the duties of certifying an EIR. It is not true that these separate agencies will require separate EIRs if they find this one lacking in sufficient detail—as suggested by staff and the Poseidon representatives. We are not aware of any situation where a responsible agency has found the lead agency's certification lacking and then proceeded with a separate CEQA process. Therefore,the certification of the EIR before the Planning Commission is final and the information contained in the EIR will be utilized by the permitting agencies in their future deliberations. This is why we feel that it is critical to ensure that the EIR.is thorough and completely assesses every foreseeable environmental impact. Z •� 1) The Commission raised concerns about the lack of any environmental assessment for the existing AES operation. There is the obvious problem of the Poseidon EIR bootstrapping, or in the Commissioners' terms"piggybacking," their desalination plant onto the existing AES generator permits. Relying on an existing permitted project for an environmental assessment may be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) in some circumstances. But, as the Commission pointed out, in the present situation, this EIR would be relying on an assessment that is not available. The Commission focused this discussion on the discharge plume. We want to reiterate that our concerns also cover the dramatic destruction of marine life that is caused by the AES intake and cooling water process. It is well documented that cooling water intakes kill marine life in two ways: a) by trapping larger individuals on the intake screens (impingement), and b) by circulating smaller individuals (e.g., larvae and fish eggs) through the cooling water process (entrainment). This is of even greater concern where there is a possibility that the cooling water process is destroying marine life that is listed as endangered or threatened, or species undergoing rebuilding plans from years of overfishing. The degree to which these cooling water intakes destroy marine life is a function of numerous variables—some of the more relevant here are the temperatures and pressures created in the intake and cooling process. In fact, numerous large coastal generators are currently conducting research to determine the mortality rate from entrainment. While inconclusive,the studies suggest that there may be some percentage of the larvae and fish eggs that survive the process, and that these survival rates may be correlated to exposure of these animals to temperature variances. Therefore, it is feasible that some percentage of marine life that enters the intake would survive the cooling process only to later be killed by the desalination process. Furthermore, this percentage of survival from the cooling process, and subsequent mortality in the desalination process, may be different during periods when the generators are shut down for maintenance, and dramatically different should the AES plant be shut down permanently—as would be the case in some of the EIR"worst case scenarios." Assuming that no marine life could survive the Reverse Osmosis filtration process, diverting 100 million gallons of water a day would have dramatic impacts on marine life floating or swimming within range of the intake. Therefore,given that there are no studies of marine life mortality from the AES generator considered in this EIR, and consequently no evaluation of the additional mortality caused by the desalination process, the EIR fails to address a foreseeable environmental impact and is not in full compliance with CEQA. As an aside,the Commission should also be aware that the US Environmental Protection Agency is currently reviewing and drafting new regulations for cooling water intakes under a court-ordered consent decree responding to marine life mortality. The outcome of that process could be the imposition of new regulations 2--3 that would dramatically curtail the amount of water allowed for cooling water intakes. Therefore, it is not only the occasional maintenance shut-downs, and possible de-commissioning of the AES plant that have a bearing on the marine life mortality in this EIR, but the very existence of a cooling water intake in the future. 2) The second issue raised by the Commission was the consideration of"growth inducement" impacts and the degree to which these can be specified without documentation of the "end users"of the new water supply. These discussions raised new considerations when the Poseidon representatives admitted for the first time that there were contractual agreements to supply 25mgd of de-salted water to the Santa Margarita Water District. It has been our concern that"growth inducement" should be treated under two separate considerations. The first consideration is a broader study of population predictions and the ability of the affected water districts to both meet these projected demands while simultaneously reducing our unsustainable reliance on imported water and local groundwater supplies. However, it is also necessary to specifically identify the recipients of the new supply and do a separate and more thorough analysis of local impacts. For example,the Santa Margarita distribution could possibly induce growth on a larger scale than water distributed to other communities. Furthermore,increasing impervious groundcover (e.g., streets, driveways, etc) while simultaneously supplying more water to an area will have dramatic impacts on urban runoff problems—not to mention the increased pressure on existing sewage treatment facilities. These new pressures should be assessed within the context of the watershed that is being impacted. In the case of the Santa Margarita transfer, it is foreseeable that there will be potential impacts on coastal water quality at Doheny State Beach, an area already considered one the most impacted beaches in the state.-These more localized impacts are only identifiable when the project proponents have identified the "end users." This type of assessment is currently applicable for the 25 mgd proposed for distribution to the Santa Margarita Water District. Therefore, we continue to assert that the EIR is inadequate until it more specifically identifies the "end users"of the product water and provides an analysis of the impacts on local water bodies and sewage treatment capacity. These are `foreseeable"impacts in the case of the Santa Margarita transfer. The remaining 25mgd distribution should also be identified with some level of"end user"so that similar assessments can be prepared for the public and decision makers. We still feel strongly about the other issues raised in our letter dated May 27, 2003. We also want to endorse the comments of our Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter which were submitted by Don Schulz. We are simply providing these comments for some clarification of the issues discussed at the hearing. Once again, thank you for your willingness to accept and consider these supplementary comments. This is a major project which raises new issues and concerns for many of us. We appreciate the enormous service the Planning Commission and staff are providing the community in ensuring the EIR is comprehensive both in its scope and depth of analysis. Please feel free to contact me about any questions you have regarding these comments or any other subject. I will also plan to attend the hearing on Tuesday June 3, 2003 to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Joe Geever Southern California Chapter Coordinator Surfrider Foundation PO Box 6010 San Clemente, CA 92674-6010 (310) 410-2890 jgeever@surfrider.org 2.5 May 8, 2003 RECEIVED The Hon. Connie Boardman MAY 2 8 2003 Mayor City of Huntington The City of Huntington Beach City CounciltOffi each 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Boardman: As a long-time Huntington Beach resident, I whole-heartedly endorse Poseidon Resources' proposed desalination facility. Recent technological advancement has finally made it economically viable to tap into the world's largest water resource—the ocean. Most of the infrastructure that is needed for this important project is already in place. The noise generated by the pumps will not be heard over the noise level that already exists at the AES facility. Additionally, the site already has industrial facilities and is the perfect spot for a desalination facility. Not only will Poseidon be a quiet, unobtrusive neighbor, but it will bring thousands of tax dollars to our city. These tax dollars will help pay for the upkeep of our parks and supplement our public safety programs. It is my understanding that Poseidon will also fund the widening and beautification of both Newland-Ave. and Edison St. Huntington Beach will also have the opportunity to receive the desalinated seawater Poseidon purifies. Desalinated seawater is not only higher in quality than the tap water to which we currently have access, but Huntington Beach would also have the added benefit of higher water pressure. High water pressure is of particular importance to firefighters who rely on high water pressure to assist them when they put out fires. In short,Poseidon brings all of the benefits of a good corporate neighbor with none of the negative side effects. Sincerely, Rich Kolander 21152 Strathmoor Huntington Beach, CA 92646 cc: Huntington Beach City Council Huntuigton Beach Planning Commission May 30, 2003 9332 Greenwich Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646-3526 Randy Kokal, Chairman JUN 0 2 2-001 Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Chairman Kokal, I am a 33 year resident of Huntington Beach and spent 40 years working as a process control systems engineer. I am a registered Control Systems Engineer in California. I retired from Boeing where I spent the last part of my career designing guidance, navigation and control systems for space craft. I currently teach courses in process control systems at Cal State Fullerton. The Poseidon Desalination project is designed to use the current cooling feedwater infrastructure for the power plant. The biggest problem with the current system is the thermal elevation of the discharge water resulting in a rather large thermal gradient. This results in a thermal plane which can, and does, interact with the sewage discharge from the plant at Brookhurst and PCH. The desal project will use this water and the thermal content therein. This will result in the discharge temperature being lower than the current temperature, thus alleviating part of the current problem. The discharge brine concentration (salinity) will be increased due to the water being extracted. The amount of salt will remain the same as current levels which is the amount ingested from the ocean. In the early 1970s a desal plant was part of the OCWA Water Factory 21 at Ellis and Ward. It was an evaporation process which consumed extremely large amounts of fossil fuel and generated enough noise that it could be heard from our home over two miles away. It was dismantled and now is used in Saudi Arabia. This was replaced by a reverse osmosis (RO) process similar to the one proposed by Poseidon. The RO desal process is clean and environmentally friendly. It does not require the use of additional fossil fuel and the accompanying generated pollution. It makes use of the existing infrastructure and helps alleviate the current thermal problem. It is also a very quiet process and will not be a disturbing influence in the neighborhood. I am quite familiar with this process. From an engineering standpoint, and my perspective, this project is a winner and should be approved. Sincerely, klj'4UY4� Robert W Harrison, P.E. 1+ Ramos,-Ricky From: Don May Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:23 PM To: RRamos@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Billy Owens Subject: FW: Poseidon EIR comments Poseidon 6-3-03 Comments.doc Ricky, this is the response that went out last Saturday midnight; I apologise, I should have sent it formally to you on Monday. See you tonight. Don May -----Ori ina1 Message----- Dear Commissioners and Planning Staff: Thank you for the opportunity to expand on our comments of May 27, and for taking precious time from your weekend to review them. You have been Commissioned by your elected Councilpersons to issue discretionary Permits when you can find that the proposal would result in a net benefit to the residents of Huntington Beach. All entitled improvements and projects in conformance with the General Plan and LCP are issued pro forma directly by Planning and do not need'to come before you; only those requireing your discretion for approval are brought forward for your consideration. Since each action you take results in some increase in density or dilution of the infrastructure paid for by the currant residents, and therefore, some loss of financial investment or dilution of the community quality of life or increased extractive use of the City commons, you must be able to find that the net result is a benefit and betterment to the residents, or else permission must be denied. The Environmental Impact Report is the source document, the compilation of dependable factual information you must rely upon to make the decisions whether the matter before you will be in our common interest. This is a heavy burden, one that is not conveyed or assumed lightly, a responsibility conferred by your peers on those thoughtful citizens of the highest integrity to be trusted with protecting and sustaining the quality of our neighborhoods and the quality of our lives. It is a great honor and reflects the esteem with which you are held in your community. No less is the standard of excellence and completeness demanded of the EIR, for we all ultimately depend upon its' predictive capability to avoid the adverse impacts on our community or any deterioration of our lifestyle. That is why you must demand the full disclosure, completeness and accuracy of all information necessary to make the best possible decisions for the protection and enhancement of the -entire community. Your Staff is provided by the community to provide you with the information, including the EIR, to make those decisions. If you need additional information, or documentation or any other data you feel will assist in your task, whether from your Staff, the Applicant or from the public, please never hesitate to ask. Thank you again for taking time from your weekend to consider our comments. Yours, truly Don May, President 1 t �• I CALIFORNIA EARTH CORPS 4927 Minturn Avenue Lakewood, CA 90712 (562) 630-1491 June 3, 2003 Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Re : Poseidon Desalination Project Dear Commissioners; Thank you for continuing your consideration of the EIR for the Poseidon Project until next Tuesday, June 3rd and allowing us to clarify our comments. In particular, your Commission has asked that we specifically identify those fourteen areas where the EIR completely fails to address substantial and significant issues that are required to provide the information necessary in order to make your Finding that the approval of this discretionary Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit will further the Public Interest of the residents of Huntington Beach. If factual data is not in the EIR to support a net benefit to Huntington Beach, you cannot approve the Permits . As it stands, the EIR does not meet these criteria. I. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS have not been addressed as required under CEQA or to the criteria properly described in 5 . 1 . The 50 million gallons per day of produced 300 ppm TDS water will supply 112, 000 households*, even without considering its' capability to dilute high TDS water down to meet consumer standards. This new supply of water will support new households under any analysis, regardless of where they are located, thus are Growth Inducing Impacts under CEQA that may not be dismissed in 7 . 0 as Not Significant as stated in 7 . 2, Population and Housing. The EIR does not perform any analysis of this, as required. e The average household in Orange County consumes '/2 acre foot of water per year; at 325,851 gallons/acrefoot, 50 mgd will supply 112,014 households. � • Z CEC, 5/27/03 page 2 II . LONG TERM CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WERE NOT ANALYZED . 5 . 3 Long Term Cumulative Impacts must iterate, analyze and determine if the infrastructure necessary to support these additional households exists; if not, how they would be funded, i. e. , fire, police, schools, roads, rail and airports, electrical supply and sewerage capacity, etc. In the case of Santa Margarita Water District, where Poseidon acknowledges that discussions are underway to contract for a firm forty year supply of half, 25 mgd, of their new water production, this would meet the requirement to demonstrate a firm water source before permitting subdivision of land. Since no other source of new water exists, by definition this is allowing new housing to proceed. Even if this Induced Growth is distributed across other areas in Orange County, it will still require the same additional infrastructure to support the additional growth. Since Huntington Beach will NOT be contracting for this water, it will NOT receive ANY Benefits from the Project while ALL of the liabilities and environmental insults will visited upon its' residents and City environment . For example, much of the exported 50, 000 mgd of new water will be returned to Huntington Beach as sewage, to be treated in an expanded Huntington Beach (OCSD) facility and dumped into Huntington Beach nearshore waters . How can this Commission Find that this impact is to the benefit of Huntington Beach residents? That is why is analysis is required in the EIR; absent this data, you cannot make the Finding and so cannot issue either the CUP or CDP. III. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND POTENTIAL RELEASES 4 . 2 Geology, Soils and Seismicity, notes that the loose, compactable sandy soils of the top 15 feet are subject to liquifaction when wet .The water table is at 5 feet, subject to the tide. The site is atop the Inglewood/Newport section of the Santa Monica/Baja coastal zone of deformation, an association of en echelon faults running from Punta Bunda in Mexico to Holister just south of San Jose, where it intersects the San Andreas system. It has been determined to be capable of a 6. 9 event, based on a fault length of 44 ,5•3 CEC 05/27/03 Page 3 miles . While this would most probably result in the plant, at least the product water tank, settling into the soil to the level of buoyancy and riding the `lateral spread" from five feet above sea level to the water, breaking pipes, making. product water unavailable for emergencies and releasing chlorine gas from the chemical storage area. A more probable 6. 5 amplitude Maximum Credible Event with a 50o probability within twenty years would cause liquifaction to produce a low head landslide, with the plant slip slidin' away into the middle of the Wetland. Even a 4 . 9 event, with 1/20th the energy, could cause settling, liquifaction and pipe breaks, with the possible release of chlorine gas . 7 . 3 Says No Significant Impacts are anticipated from Geology Soils & Seismicity; these disaster scenarios are dismissed and not considered. We consider the EIR inadequate, absent any review of these potential Geophysical hazards, and suggest: MITIGATION: Chlorine storage and injection area in the .chemical storage building should be in a Containment Structure capable of withstanding a 6. 9 event or 2 g' s of strong motion in all three axes and fitted with seismic shutoff valves. IV. REMEDIATION OF SUBSURFACE TOXICANTS NOT CONSIDERED 4 . 2-2 Existing Conditions : Soils contaminated by leaking above ground fuel storage tanks must be remediated prior to Plant construction. Methodology selected for the cleanup must be evaluated along with release of toxicants to the airshed and fate of toxicants scrubbed from the soil. Ascon/Nesi Toxic Dump site. Apparently, materials dumped here before Toxic Chemical definitions and standards were established may be Class I Priority chemicals by todays' standards . Since the Dump site is located above the Project site and under hydrostatic pressure, the contaminant plume has probably reached the Project site. EIR must disclose which chemicals, what concentration and. where it is. CEC 05/27/03 Page 4 4 . 3 Subsurface Water Quality. Subsurface plumes of pollutants from the Ascon/Nesi and Cannery Street toxic dump sites must be evaluated and methods of interdiction reviewed and, where appropriate., mitigation required. . What do the core samples from the mandatory Phase III evaluation reveal? Why are they not included in the EIR? What remediation is expected? Has DTSC done a site investigation? Where is the Cannery Street Land Fill? What is in it and does it impact the Project site? How will these chemical plumes be interdicted before they reach the Wetlands? Where is there ANY discussion of these issues? DETERMINATION OF •APPROPRIATE MITIGATION TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT ADAQUATE DISCLOSURE AND EVALUATION. V. HANDLING & DISPOSAL OF STORMWATER RUNOFF NOT CONSIDERED 4 . 3 Hydrology and Water Quality. -2 The EIR is internally inconsistent regarding On Site Drainage: "in times of heavy rainfall, stormwater runoff is either released by manual valve (to where? Surely not the wetland) or pumped into the channel", elsewhere in the EIR, "pumped out the outfall", elsewhere, "contained within the 10 foot or 15 foot" (which?) containment berms . We believe all the above are the wrong answer (s) . The NPDES Permit required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board will require Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) . We believe all stormwater runoff, at least the first . 75 inch of each storm event carrying the first flush of pollutants, should be retained and scrubbed before release. Of available appropriate SUSMPs, we suggest: MITIGATION: Applicant shall utilize the 10 (or 15) foot berms or construct a suitable berm to contain stormwater runoff and a linear "constructed freshwater wetland" containing rushes, sedges or other aquatic plants known to strip suspended solids, dissolved solids, pollutants, toxicants and other undesirable contaminants from runoff, at the base of the berm enclosing the facility, to contain CEC 05/27/03 Page 5 and cleanse the first . 75 inch of any storm event, before percolation through the sands and into the water table . Pumps capable of removing runoff over the . 75 numerical standard from a 100 year capital storm into either the Channel or ocean outfall shall be provided. VI . INTAKE COOLING WATER IMPACTS ON THE OCEAN HAVE NEVER BEEN EVALUATED 4 . 3-3 Water Quality, Ocean. No data is provided for the AES intake. Entrainment and impingement of plankton depress the "Indigenous Populations" and shift populational dynamics outside the Zone of Initial Dilution, in violation of the Clean Water Act and criteria for issuance of the NPDES Permit required by Poseidon. Insertion of the Poseidon Plant into the discharge of the AES discharge terminates AESs' responsibilities at the point of diversion. A new NPDES Permit is now required by Poseidon to shoulder this responsibility; therefore, these impacts must be considered, evaluated and mitigation recommended by this EIR. No biologicals are stated or referred, no survival rates for plankton, bacteria, pathogens or otherwise, passing through AES heat exchangers. What will Poseidon do if AES shuts down? What specific criteria will Department of Health Services require? Minimum Conditions of Permit: Poseidon must meet Marine Water Quality Objectives and non degradation Policy: • Thermal Plan. Plant discharge must meet the State Water Resources Control Board Thermal Plan maximum 20 degree delta T without variance. • Bacterial. <10 E. coli /ml max; we believe DHS standards are higher. • Biological. Must meet non degradation standard; must demonstrate that a "Balanced Indigenous Population exists and will be maintained outside the Zone of Initial Dilution • Wetland Beneficial Uses as a. nursery to near shore biota must be protected. �. f,4 CEC 05/27/03 Page 6 We are aware that Applicant believes they can meet, and the SARWQCB will require these objectives, but the EIR does not evaluate and the suggested Coastal Permit does not require compliance, as a consistency determination requires . VII .THE EIR DOES NOT CONSIDER POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON ADJACENT RESTORED WETLAND 4 . 3-4 Beneficial Uses : "No potential beneficial uses in the Project vicinity, including . . wildlife habitat, threatened listed, or endangered species, or habitat, spawning or reproduction habitat, no marine or shellfish habitat" except for the tidal wetland planned adjacent to the Plant. The EIR totally fails to address this fundamental CEQA requirement and is accordingly inadequate by definition. The Beneficial Uses described at 4 .3-4 are those to be restored to the degraded site adjacent to the Plant and are the criteria for achieving "functionality" . The restored estuary is an ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) and an Area of Special Biological Sensitivity by definition California Earth Corps has recently assisted the Huntington Beach Wetland Conservancy in completing the acquisition of the Picirrelli Property, the last parcel required for restoration of 150+ acres of .fully tidal wetland bounded by the OCFC Talbert Channel, Magnolia, Pacific Coast Highway and the proposed Poseidon Project . In addition to the $1 . 65 million for this 45 acres and the $4 . + million value of the additional 100+ acres private, State and County lands acquired for this restoration, is the -V$30 . + million in private, State and Federal funds committed to fully restore a tidal wetland. Present plans call for the completion of this restoration before completion of the Plant . This Commission has the responsibility to protect this substantial investment in our children' s future through such Conditions of Permit to this Project as may be required to protect this investment . We believe that Poseidon, as a good corporate citizen, will look favorably on these opportunities to partner with the City and with the community in protecting and enhancing, even with the custodial responsibility for the adjoining Tidal Wetland. CEC 05/27/03 Page 7 This EIR now before you is the source document the other Agencies will utilize to evaluate the appropriateness of issuance of their own Permits . Failure to consider the impacts on the Wetland may introduce substantive delays, even Permit denials, as Agencies scurry to fill the data gaps created by EIR oversight . EIR CONSIDERED ONLY THE EXISTING "SEVERLY DEGRADED" WETLAND and the resource agencies only responded to projected Plant impacts on the degraded fields . The EIR must consider the impacts of the Plant on the wetland that will be fully restored by the time the Plant is built . IIX. IMPACT OF CONTAMINANT PLUME FROM PLANT ON ESTUARY NOT CONSIDERED 4 . 3 Subsurface Water Quality. Impacts on the wetland from subsurface plumes of pollutants from the leaking fuel storage tanks, Ascon/Nesi and Cannery Street toxic dump sites must be evaluated and methods of interdiction reviewed and, where appropriate, mitigation required. IX. IMPACTS OF FUGITIVE TOXICANTS FROM REMEDIATION TO THE AIRSHED NOT CONSIDERED 4 . 4 Air Quality. Remediation is not discussed! The EIR acknowledges and the Phase II study. documents that the Fuel Storage Tanks are, and have been, leaking; that substantial soil contamination exists . Where are the core samples and evaluation? (What contaminants? What concentrations? Where located, How deep, What volume?) Where is the Remediation Plan? Should not the Site be Remediated before the Project is approved? What quantities and concentration of toxicants will be released to the airshed during remediation? Release of VOCs during remediation should be addressed and mitigating containment required. CEC 05/27/03 Page 8 X. IMPACTS OF NOISE ON A RESTORED ESTUARY NOT CONSIDERED 4 . 5 Noise impacts on the currant degraded fields were dismissed as Insignificant, while the substantial impacts on a restored estuary were not considered. Wetland and shorebirds are quite sensitive to noise; sudden sounds often provoke migrating birds to flight, unnecessarily expending energy reserves needed for migration. Sound barriers such as vegetated berms are effective and can be made esthetically pleasing. MITIGATION: Sound Barriers should be required. XI . IMPACTS OF LIGHT AND GLARE ON A RESTORED ESTUARY WERE NOT CONSIDERED 4 . 7 Light and Glare : Wetland and shorebirds are also sensitive to light and glare. Birds migrating at night are often misdirected by urban lights, becoming lost or even crashing into things . Wetland destinations of nocturnal migrating birds appear as dark spots; when wetlands are inadvertently illuminated, migratory bird counts drop. Many just don' t make it to their final destination. MITIGATION: Plant lighting should be directed away from wetlands, which should be shielded from all illumination. II. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (above) 4 . 8 Hazardous Materials Precautions for safely handling and storing chlorine should have been discussed and the Permit properly conditioned to protect public health and safety, especially through any seismic event . :5.q CEC 05/27/03 Page 9 7 . 0 The Poseidon EIR dismisses many serious and mitigable Impacts are dismissed as Insignificant: 7 . 2 Population and Housing: Growth Inducing Impacts are significant, have not been addressed, and should be analyzed at 5 . 3 . 7 . 3 Geology and Soils : Impacts are significant and should be analyzed at 4 . 2 . 7 . 4 a) states Huntington Beach draws 70% of its' drinking Water from ground water aquifers, other places, 75%, still others, 66% . Which number is factually correct? b) probabilities of a 30+ foot tsunami every 100 or so years do not seem insignificant to us; while not particularly applicable here, the risk - and preparations to control property damage should be reviewed by the Planning Commission of all Coastal Cities. Mudflows in liquifaction prone areas with even mild gradients are not low; they are a near certainty. 7 . 5 Air Quality adverse impacts from VOCs released during remediation are not insignificant. 7 . 6 Traffic, transportation and Emergency: Chlorine spills or accidental release, with safety precautions should be analyzed. XII . IMPACTS FROM THE PIPELINE AND BOOSTER PUMP BURIAL IN A . NCCP CONSERVATION AREA WAS NOT ADAQUATELY ADDRESSED. 7 . 5 Biological: Subsurface Booster Pump located in NCCP area must be mitigated for loss of habitat . We suggest: MITIGATION: Disturbed area should have all exotic and non native plants removed and be replanted after completion of water pipeline and Booster Pump in NCCP area with a palatte of as many indigenous plants as practicable with supplemental watering and care provided during the first year, or until they are established, and with weeding out of invasive non natives and replacement of failed natives until the Booster Pump is no longer required and has been removed. CEC 05/27/03 Page 10 Poseidon' s actions as a good corporate citizen and environmental steward may inspire the operators of the other Booster Pumps in the area to do likewise. 7 . 9 b) Haz Mat Code Sec. 65962 . 5 et seq re: chlorine must be implemented. 7 . 10 Noise impacts on Wetland must be precluded. 7 . 11 Public Services required by Growth Inducing Impacts must be evaluated. 7 . 12 Utilities and Services required to support induced growth must be evaluated. XIII . BUFFER AREA TO SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL LAND USE FROM ESHA 7 . 13 Esthetics : A buffer between the Wetland and the Stormwater Containment Berm should be required and planted with a palatte of plants indigenous to the Coastal Sage community and providing public access via a pathway along the Plant perimeter bordering the Wetland but screened from it such as not to disturb birds, yet affording views and vistas of wildlife for residents and visiting school children. MITIGATION: Require a Codition of Public Access via such pathway to be designed and constructed in coordination with the Huntington Beach Wetland Conservancy and the forthcoming Talbert Marsh Conceptual Plan. XIV. EIR FAILS TO ADDRESS PRESERVATION OF ARTIFACTS 7 . 14 Cultural, Archeology This site has been a temperate seashore where people have congregated to fish and dig clams since time immemorial. The top 15 feet contains the unbroken record of habitation and human 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 that no record of our presence exists, or will be uncovered during Project construction. We suggest a Condition of Permit : When cleaning soils during site remediation and when removing or moving soils during construction, all personnel will be alert for artifacts of human occupation, and to CEC 05/27/03 Page 10 save and entrust all such items of interest to the City for display at a future Marsh Visitor Center or other Civic venue. 7 . 15 Recreation. Coastal Act provisions for. Public Access and Preservation of public views to and from the site, of seashore, ocean and Wetlands call for a Condition of Permit providing such access as suggested above at 7 . 13 . With full consideration of all these inadequacies, errors and omissions in this Environmental Impact Report, and in the hope that a better Project, with fewer delays to fill the data gaps in the Record, will result, it is our request that this EIR be withdrawn, and a supplemental and correcting EIR be prepared, commented upon and returned to this Commission for Certification at a future meeting. Thank you for your attention. Don May, President California Earth Corps !_,ru•ry Porter 1501 Westcliff Dr#201 Newport Beach California 92660 Phone : Honlc. & Fax Q49 722 9166 Email : Duhhicluh(%Iaol.com Huntington Beach Planning Cor1111115S1or1 Mav 27 2003 Poseidon Rcso nlces 'TAR T F,OF('()Iv"TENTS 1. Chart San Pedro Channel 2. i.os An,cles &nran��e Counti+s AAA S;)n Pedro t+, Newport Beach �. Locnlion Plume'. - ()('SD 4. Discharge. Constitients — OCSD --- 011&(irr;l.:c 5. Rising Discharge Plume— EPA 301 H Example. 6. Discharge Plante Underwater—OCSD 7. Prescription for Worry—OC Register Sept 9th 2001 8. Huntington Beach Independent —Cartoon&Editorial&Readers respond 9. LA'I'hnes / Huntington Beach Independent -- 'Wave Goodby to the Sewage Waiver " 10. Department of Health Services . John Curphey to Poseidon & Josie McKinley 11. 0(' Re+lisrer . `Douhts Sink Somi� kv,:, •r r c;os Say Firm Seeking to Build Desalinsolon 1'1;;ilt In Hunhn+itnll `•'11111 Enough (.)VerSl�,III 1 11!101 12. Daily Pilot , "Smoking (Iun" - Roitoll - ;11;; 13. Huntington Beach Independent-- "Plunie c+i : clam" ala Porter 14. "Tracey of the Coast" 15. LA 'I'imes . "Marine L,il'e Withers LIMA a \V:;\'C 01 1 10111.111 Caused Diseases.. 16. OC %%eekly -- 'bile Monster" LO • I �` l 1180 gat• '�� / 3r. 's ` �� • U _ '\rne /7 \�\` �'TTTI"T"iTT-T-i1�"--- �::,, �"G D araoso,,FR! 0 10 74 9 Nautical Miles \.-: �r 3 1 ` 1 2 -3 - azia to y.` S 9 Yards I a 5000 10 ` \n br$ n 7= a 4' s a ` 9OF 12 /\ T — — COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1 ) I �Illrujprr.- l 10�3 / I 9 $ a UNITED STATES — WEST COAST 91 1r/ � ', TO ' �: :II 9 9 : 64 - N r--.. ,•�-'• SPIRE - CALIFORNIA zt f sto S` �. ! IJ 4 Iz'Y- 01 / 14 OTIT a 8• q,�, 6 r i . _ Yu• 0� 11 �rn / �`� 1 r 1 EVA ! EMMY 2 �,a - 4 Q :5 !3 j' ' 5t HUNTMercator Projection _is:n 1 ? — _ 12 %' 11 9 8 \ : P 4t'\' \'. Scale 1:80,000 at Lat. 33°31' 6 i < _ e� n 10:. s; ( )ocm s,rms)4f _ OON north American Datum of 1983 Z.` •g 1 6`% FI4s- _ (11-orld Geodetic System 1984) '� 11 \ s2 52 3111.A i Z ' �., _ 16 13 72 !s`�— j4Z A S SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS j 16" C he /y: `' - - AT MEAN LOWER LOW WATER � or. 11 / t1 STACKS �- I. I If 13 F)Y 10s BEL �rl� I '\ R A (2,R 5s 17 / 15 14 $ 12 04srn ?2 d� 7= ; ��g� ••`� 8 \. •\ —^ F:YIs BELL %• i% II �� i• OQsm 7 5� �, 42 °RTr 8 ` 16.- / 15 12 \'u;. :(8ri�ep) - /c \• BUILDING N•�rpor1 Hdiha % 2` } 21 14 Obs1ri' :-.. 901. ': aF Haan ) 21. 19 0: 16 i Subm buoy'' 'f'iap J9 92 .\ 6 • 5 / a 17 g 4 ' ` TOWER 16 S 12 6a 110 a r':• 1 24 /23 22 I 15 14/'/ / F1.4 I 9 42 RA 18 I4 18 17 / 13 7 8 � 41\11 4d C 16 • o N 15 I 13 S.' 8 52 4 } CUY 23 35 29/ 27 / 17 16 13 oDsrn If @` sP)Re B�s� 21 — I6 15 frsn Boren y 11 i. 69 % /, 1g !!' 1 /OU15 lgim) I 8 S/. 8 /�\ AgKERs TOr57 _ ! % \� r 1 % Subm buD 12 I /6• i 7 3' r ,36 \ 42 1 !.S / 32 21 4v g M 1915,ims rep 19 ! 9 �;9� c� 8�: 8 1 7Q / ! ®p OAs1n 0 19 20 19 i 16 13 �� rogF"g r 1 111 ` `r 21 21 /'' ! 21 ��� �725 \ �`I�� i 4ii�cR�f i r 1 . ^� a3 \ S 23 34 Y 90 107 `5h \63 23 t�� �\ / 25 319 25 '495 / 39 25 130 ; 132 �� �\ 42 Obs1n 284 1 28F1 R 4//BELL \ ate) g 132 1 b '`':;Suds troy ` 28 Su'p ,.buoy \ \ 64 75 83 ; 44 ~ <i a 1 .140,1 pm 5' ms\ep3029 28 86 LOS ANGELES & ORANGE COUNTIES h �� 1= -T -_ = - --.A �I jARTESIia� eutfl HEAMOSABEACH: - s KOflIN AND VICINITY I = EON6 itEACH PARK Et H " si'uwgr'RI Hills I r F CERRITOS. -� - w > TORRANCE N, .t iaw000�; ; .Torre 5- r E'at 11-hr• Mari„o<` 'L OOMIN6UF2 :. LEGEND a REBON00 BEACH ' r•FE FREEWAY Q DITEWSTATE It1GHWAY a o C - - - o ~ `G N.Ix_ HAWMAN L - A4rrn,- "" cY aEss : ANAHII ' - � �._FREEWAY UNDER 6•. - x1iOiJ - _y esa. r e co CONSTRUCTION 101 U.S wGHWAY D 46. - t L E ' s µwr r•I [: ' �+� li eveee r: - .np._. . l AAtii i DIVIDED HrrrmnY lMAIORI m CAUFORNIA - o., LOM A •• 1 ';,�';��_ ter, .tSTANTON STATE MGIVWAY At." (-,nw r e t. uvP wlRr t�:'"•c Sr ] .:: - a+t rrurEw \—ROAD PRLOS YEImES ESTATES, I s S16NAL \y; u ee • t��1 NZ COUNTY IRGHN�AY .[L loos 'SBA ;: - S NILL / § , '�•• RR 4 em -1 :� »tea t.I, ARV_ToaeE s !fie GARDEN GROVE'r, Y ��. , LOCAL ROAD BRAYED) ® OTHER STATE HIGHWAY 1" l Roaut ESTRTES el`` - • r', j _^ I n�1'TVAEi .,•,=,.,x I \,_1 f``-.. -GRAVFl ROAD E"�S OI n .•.• 'r - Lj SSM001_-I,j -,�j STATE 5t'FA➢C HIGHWAY �- GRADED DOLT ROM ROADSIDE REST' l•hrl� gn e` .f crti Bo `+o-. wsi: WO.MINSTdN �,;. ^• BEIMONi Qa,,, : _ bwe ' -,�-�, r.. _r 9 d .P4s NI115 (.-7:.. e n Vim; SHONEDIRT ROAD 4Z MILEAGE BETWEEN T e'ao �j/(J�x "..jam •• US NAl'a__. -•• TOWNS a JUNCTIONS = � 3 �rl/Tle+'" \ LON � �.� , e.� ! ESTMINSTER a� =�- RANCHO PAM MOES•r. wurAws Son Pedro- � � � 1 r n �POOR ROAD ROAD _ MAEAGE DART - cN aHroRTU6UEtt On�l ' i� `-� ��.'� i .•A'`'wCiv_tis' ws 1 i F:. �_... I-.. r c rrcxrrcVu stiF'' -•_RTRB y .oy :_ BEACH ' -' i_'.A�' •p MIDWAY �= LOCKEDGATE Pt.Picent SAN:"- 11 - - -- - -! +�1 ,f _ arT SEAIBIa _ SANTA I(r' MILEAGE BETWEEN D11R75 C�>4 "�M ��" -tu.Gro wE Eoecu An .�.- RAUROADSIDwc x LcnR PI �,.f f ��PEB� - 4Tr wn•F .,.,n..r`• '=•� A-h..mil,- - `` _ • .ANA Y CALIFORNIA HW~Y oo Q3o"" if I �� sr MINE PATROL OFFICE D In `,, 1�' (p\ T While PL ' Yc-.' U vs SIRESET Nt1ATUE6TON N l `•r n s ..c.:c.r �. _ rHARBOURg AUTOMOBBE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE .`, E ` Pf.Fer / - _ r°• •-• }x.c rn.•uc; a,rP' ` RECREATION _ .._ ......--.. -. .- I / ..... _ ._ .. . ,\t: ri.. `s I VALLEY N CPARK • DEPROVEDCAMPGROIIND / \ _ �• rr Q -n ,I UNIMPROVED CAMPGROUND , / t �rwie_:• � v /%a•� ,• •1 PUBLIC DOLE COURSE \ _ / ; 3 •ow_ w,�„ ��; ; E La+wF�: ,K PRIVATELY OPERATEDPRIV {/ _ s ' CAMPGROUND \\\\ ' Ii 11'* i GOLF COURSE PRIVATE - - HUNTINGTO Lmu�GOLF COURSE A BOAT RENTAL AND 1/111NQo1rG 1 c� Y WINTER SPORTS AREA ® BMI RENTAL ONLY -�Z / BEACH -�!: .t C.-• 1'S,` \' L: to rt c AUTO RACETRACK( A eonT IAUNCH,NG ONLY COSTA DRAG STRIP ••#P COMMERCU1lFWIWG)'ONO •, _ - A A :MESAOFF HWMWAY ' �. VENICLE AREA e& DEEP SPORTfi9oNG , I _-... `Y_F) ___ _-._- I AvvY4 • h'. ANDING PUBUC SHWTWG RANGE ♦ SUMFWC ARN �- 4- ` .'] / ` • -e` scnLE NEW RT)BEACH " 1 i n,I 1 l`COR D 1 4 ] A S 6 7 B , 't .. - _ BALBO }- OFl COPYRIGHT©'1999 AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MICS DEPARTMENT AM STOP A37S \ - ..... .. /.. Mee swrvw weo ' _ cosh rESA sax \ of Irn.;bns�9a, \ Bhre Cwern R- Lob ter vf::.t;-` _ `'^-1\Gibrahor I S4CO4r.A.TxF y �y '•C` .; e�, _1_._ Serdioal,�_,:'. G ;�;.d un n��lhe,(L:. / / / r Rock ttx res.a uAtx . ... `, sami'9 .9 1C1 Frog Rock i • Ben _!1.J... ,PI; / les are shown ; ' 7 C.�r?, / W /a,S ien they are i `io. _ LG VALO i - - CcF.-cc } _„x PO> c—rxt4 -- I area covered i \ •; N cPn. Abolcne ---- --------------- ---------- -- - --- Guide to Los Cott ^r rs ' POW — StYa S Steel - Chim Point Pe k - .. - Y ➢ D."i° , ��+� 2 wiz' % The distance between Santa Catalina.Island Reproduction of thi: Jetkrah PL and the mainland has been distorted in any portion thereof cc SobPv,p W Carte - S.d Rocks ;-� order to show the entire Island The ac- _ infringement of cepyr I• - -Earedirg EAST nm cxr tual distance is approximately::22 miles. _ i 4 5 6 7 8 9 Discn plomme Location r' t� +�q 1 ! ..✓ s, Ea - �s :a ss? �t s fSjat �Spy,-1x��?�,+ s i a m rCM 57h a r T ,��k'�uz,� fir , 45, tsM � tr{ '!apY 1..':tt'L ik .3 79'• 3 s ,y t!s}thtsf as i r r x a r r t k i�;, j y3 t fi "+ t d µ t S.R t N 1 L 5 7 1'+}j� �` a ti�i'J^i z�.tsf j�k�y M s`�+o !i'• ' '" ! z -# i t ! yu v'. 3 ss•s a ; N E$' i-;JY t,h t`sr} z• 4 }� ^`0j"� fi-'St1 �. rm, � �„F•S eta+�r � eac'l } .� s3 t r._.:�• r S w r�rt t "'zt��'—i P s sfx K s '^m �'' t,SSz t � rk.r•- c + 5f 1 t u�'fi�lr ��J'x� Ck�jC£{r.£`r+�t�wM i � �L � anti s:�"'S a t : ✓ t -. b y 4�'y^7"'r"�rggs��r,S at i�.G aka" a i+ sal e�r y A ti ,,. ,�rs > '7 �.' +' t.15'��s' s�^�r* w^..o- 7 s t d 'l 1r°Y ak Y Zatf gc�rppr iyb i �`;a � + •'�k r .+ _i t.'�. �y`f t t •d, R a lr wr.,3c A� �-���„��. 3� �Y` 5 i -c t�' yN "7�'i �WW 'c� � S'} #��� t�d� -i. z r. ����'� �; � 'J� x; Y t d�6 t�s) ��.'3idr,�3��'•�.��ik {X.Y+ ��.f�''�', ,a AES 0utfall�4r� N*( :,. � � � �r� �� s r ,�• ro�k�t ,�yr h t�`�8e*"�� �typ{`�o�-a�� l.�i��Ca i ��4,. s"`�. r .o }r� to rr z .�. •' �s Ja.v u r! iti�I:A;kl+�M'.s+ry k�C K�js'�i �U, p idc6 t t7Y� y,9d1. `V11 'J► 2.5 A r !� ae - 4 ° i``r�, " 'kv r{ kiy�a��ejr'ts'"4!t R*, '$�•.. �.f a. + f i .^eA x H ,"'rary a^._ ``C tS4Y ''s a• tZ r ,kkYt . V �'!'y��}�,J.�.Ery �`�ti� 1MPYy Yt1f'.� 18`rn}.f4yr� G} #fin kZ � h 20 ..o-`^- •�7 tT z - rf 's"a5,} .z2'r}2}�2A55�3�',.,p�� '+k"' -ft+ 5,.b'4L(� .- r. \ � � �•�at tLSk� �y� S .f r s Qk zt%w _rust r s t f_ 1 t E r T Ir y�r 3 4'' t t Plume frequently found Fact Sheet-continuation Page 11 of 17 12118197 DRAFT Order No. 98.5. NPDES Permit No. CA0110604 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2 from the diversion of effluent flows to water reclamation, if., the discharger can demonstrate that the proposed increases in concentration are consistent with federal 301 (h) decision criteria and other permitting requirements. To facilitate this process, the EPA and the Regional Board will work with the discharger to assess the effects of the discharge on the marine environment at actual mass emission rates and concentrations observed during the permit term. The draft permit contains the following effluent limitations for major wastewater constituents and properties, as specified in Table A of the Ocean Plan: n.. ....<.... ... ., k.. .. :....:. :.::n n:•:w:::+:::.:. ::::w..;......v} r::r:::^....... J::}}:-;}::5:Ci`:Y:}`}i��4}:L:.i:.:}i .:,,..,.r.....::... ,neit iffl.....:..::.:..:.:: ..:..;.:{.:: n�ts::<>>�:�: .•.:.-30afa �Avera e;:� ; �=d... •verai.. Grease and oil mg/I 25 40 75 Ibs/day 61,500 98.400 184,000 Suspended Solids n/a As 30-day average, 75% removal from influent stream or 60 mg/I,whichever rate is higher Settleable Solids ml/I 1.0 1.5 3.0 Turbidity NTU 75 100 225 pH units Within 6.0 to 9.0 at all times Acute Toxicity TUa 1.5 2.0 2.5 The need for effluent limitations based on water quality objectives in Table B of the Ocean Plan was determined in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) and EPA guidance for statistically determining the "reasonable potential" for a discharged pollutant to exceed an objective, as outlined in the revised Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD; EPA/505/2-90-001, 1991) .. This statistical approach combines knowledge of effluent variability (as estimated by a coefficient of variation) with the uncertainty due to a limited number of effluent data to estimate a maximum effluent value at a high level of confidence. This estimated maximum effluent value .is -calculated -as "the 99- percent confidence level of the 99th percentile based on a lognormal distribution of daily effluent values. Projected receiving water values, based on the estimated SURFACE ' TRAPPING OEM ' PY OCUNE TRANS MIi 4EG10N ZONE FIELD MER031NQ ' ZONE j R[SiNQ PLUMES NWHT- t OP-RISE Jor ENTRAINMENT i OF OiLUTI WATER t CURRENT MEMO q, IN 1p f E PA borrf=s- me 2D40 m deed (*#sn DecamlasWan f 4f OUNC9!diff s r s River 1ot�tta ��r1 �, r ,1 J• � 6 e • _ - �y�• •.� _ Y -�ti� - Vic_-Y{r� :-j _.`tr � .. - ` • P-f t 4e Ulna _ �--� - It ! _ ` � 55•-Y (\ - - dfllur• nr�r r 1 i TI 11✓ ORANGE C O I N l Y .� smuts• C l_��•�,. 1 .t �f D 2001 '(A\\ Sundae ter.-..... .-.! `.- .. .•� .. ..: �l .. --- tl I Orange County's information source since 1905•ww•w.oaegistcr com �- Prescnption . worlry • PharmaccuticcJs pass through our bodies and into our sewers. ' •• No.one knows how rousing that water might affect humans. -_ --_LWA. . Anms� ho �a1. hnge meter. ex posure O t' • • The waiver 111.11111w.ivul in- sy Goat aroaz• u In.lahoralory studies at ed dumping of minimally ' • "It's a major problem not The Orange County Register trcatcd sewal,c is raising Trent University in Canula. mdy for Ptah,but for prv.plr; wrath. And a $600 million Chris Metcalfe exposed said Dave Schubert of 71tc ' A mysterious stew of drugs - 'plan'to pump highly treated aquarium fish for 100 days to Salk Institute for Biological which have passed,unmetabolized, waste water underground to the synthetic female hormone Sciences.He points to studies through the human body-cascades replenish Orange rounty's ethinylestradinl at levels as in Furope linking high bar- into America's waterways daily. drinking-water supply is rats- low as one part per trillion. moot levels to low slxrun Antibiotics,' hormones from ins eyebrows. Officials ap- The male fish had complete counts in human males, al- birth-control pills, chemotherapy proved the first stage of that sex reversal,he found. though such studies are hotly agents,blood thinners,anti-inflam- plan in March. . Ethinylestradinl is used in debated by scientists. matory drugs, beta blockcrs, anti- 'The question Is, what is birth-control and estrogen- 'These' are : things we depressants, caffein, nicotine and the impact of injecting very replacement pills - medica- haven t thought about," said thousands of other pharmaceuticals minute concentrations of all tions people take every day.It GuRlette.'We assumed.once C • sorts of different compounds has been found in sewage out of our bodies these things and "personal-care products" are into the ground water?'said waste water in the United were no longer environmen- not removed from sewage by Iradi- Christian G.Daughton,chief• Kingdom, Germany, Canada tally active-that once they tional treatment processes. Scien- of the U.S. Environmental and the United States at went to the sewage-treatment tists have found them In treated protection.Agency's Enyiron- _fish-feminizing concentra- . .plant,we didn't have to worry waste water that pumps into rivers mental Chemistry Branch in tions,Metcalfe said shout them. and oceans all over the world. Las Vegas.'The normal deg- Something similar was hap- "nut with the reuse of wa- radation processes that hap- petting In alligators in Florida. ter, this is becoming a real The chemicals occur in tiny con- pen above ground arc very Young males had shrunken concern And it's not going to colorations-so small that the tech- greatly attenuated below gcaitals. There was a sharp go away as the human pop- emergnologyed to measure them has mound. There are many drop-off in the number of alli- illation increases." emerged only w recent years But fewer bacteria,no sunlight,so gator eggs that hatched. • even those low doses- may l pro- things can last a long long In a controlled experiment; + foundry impact wildlife and eria to time. Guillette and colleagues col-What's the significance of lected alligator eggs from rel- ANTIBIOTICS '- that?I don't think anyone can atively clean lakes and corn- Noone knows how it all affects pared them with Antibiotics are also flush- humans, that question right P -eggs humans,or what the dangers of now• exposed to estrogenic them- lost into the sewage system. so many drugs mixing together Said Louis J•Gu%Ilettc Jr.a i s When antibiotic's became may be. icals at levels found in some' widely availablc in the '40s. Eve day. Orange,County's professor at the University of the were hailed as miracle Every Y g Florida:-not scares the heck Florida waters. Result: The Y sewage-treatment plants pump chemical-czpused alligators drugs that could kill bad bae- about 270 million gallons of %ut of some of us." developed the same problems teria while sparing healthy waste water into the ocean,none of + Such unknowns hclpcd dc- ° as alligators in the wild,while human cells.Use has soared:2 which is screened for the presence rail similar "toilet-to-tap" the"clean"alligators did not. million pounds was produced of pharmaceuticals because no such prOkets in Los Angeles•and At the University of Call- in 1954,more than So million requirements exist San Diego.Orange Counri-of- fornia,Berkeley,Da%id L Se- pounds are produced today. ' Only 150'Itiillion gallons gets two heists say that won't happen dlak has been analyzing waste Bacteria have rallied their hem _.. . .__ _ _- .-- - - -__ .water-fwm several-Bay-area- _ _ _ _natural defenses to-right this- levels of treatmcnt, as.re-s sewagc-treatmcnt plants. He onslaught. Today bacteria quired under the Clean Water HORMONES found concentrations of es- have grown stronger and arc Act; the remaining 120 mil- trogcnic hormones compara- tougher to kill than ever be- lion•gallons gets-just a pri- Ten years ago,John sump.. ble to those that cause femi- fore,and many strains are in- mary level of treatment,re- ter and his collcal-lies in the nisadun of male .fish. Even creasingly unfazed by med- moving mainly. solids, United Kingdom noticed that after the waste water received icine's fiercest antibiotics because of a waiver ofthe law something very strange was secondary sewage treatment, sthat's up for renewal in 2003. t happening to•male'fish that designed to remove organic swam in waste-water effluent. material, 30 percent of the They were becoming females. hormones remained. ' This bodes ill for human European scientists have source of Orange County's ' OLD WATER health,warns the t 1-S.Cenirrs -been far altratt of thrir Amer ,Ifittkin wairr supply. fill Disrasr t:tnllrttt and 111r• !ran rininirrputs in rewatell "111e southern C.1lilittnia 'there is'it,new water,csfli- vrntinn. '11u• CDC rstirltatrs inn;file issue,partly hcranxr wwrr systcm etas not•tc:d{p vials stress. '111c planet has that between 50 million and denser cities and older sew. been thoroughly studied with been recycling the same stuff - 150 million antibiotic pre- age systems make the prob- respect to these other com- for about 3 billion years, and scriptions every year are un- Icnis there more acute, pounds,"said-UCI's Ogunsei- what-runs through rivers to. needed- prescribed to treat But the U.S.Geological Sur- tan.-1 haven't seen a lot of day ran through dinosaurs, colds and vita)infections that vey is trying_to close the gap.' talk,in Orange County in par- dndn hirds and woolly r am- antibiotics are tssrless ten Its Toxic Substances Ilydml• titular, about the chemical ' fight. ogy Program has been analyz- components in our sewers." moths millions of years ago. Not all of ncCse medications In&dozens of American wa- Jay the time the Mississippi arc f dly mclaNilized in the terways over the past several TROUBLE? River reaches New Orleans, body.They pass inin sewers years to figure out what's in its_water has been consumed and are released in►o oceans them. Detailed results won't it was little more than 18 and .expelled "some seven and rivers through treated be released until winter. But months ago that the EPA's times,they say. and-untreated waste water- i)aughton co-authored the pi= The human body is de- and via urban runnif from at a technical nn•cting last per that focused Americas signed to handle toxins, said . farms,where many cows and year, scientists said they've eyes on the problem. Com- Guillette.But he worries that of the too com• chickens are even more over- found many plcx combinations of phar- we've pushed things trio far. medicated than humans, pounds they're testing for in maceuticals and 'perso- "We've been exposed to Several studies have toned American waterways, fromifids, nahcare products" are mains for cons,but the thing caffeine to codeine,antac • that bacteria in waterways continually entering w2ter- that's different today is the cholesterol-lowering agents. attar scwage-lrcatmrnt plants anti-dcpressants and birth "•ays in q'tantltics that rival number of kinds of chemicals are resistant to a wide array of agricultural chemicals, be our bodies are exposed to ev. antibiotics including vanca- control hormones. concluded. cry day,' he said. 'In the mycin,one of the toughest in This barral;e is "Particu- 1960s, (the book) 'Silent • INTO THE DRINK y Spring'was concerned about • — tart troublcsomc' because the arsenal. USES researcher Larrymarine life is exposed to it 24 a ,couple of-hundred client. In Chicago. bacteria from hours a dap. seven days a icals Today,we're being ex- weld geese were found to be Bober reseed a chemical used week,generation after gengr- posed tb teas of thousands of resistant to tetracycline, !n shatnpon from a stow chemicals every day,and that icillin,ampicillin and cryth� agc-trcatmcnt plant in Las ah°n; a�tdd accumulate soupsoup is u+eamplcx, m cin• Avirries is wvll water owd by In Spain, bacteria down- lu"t1+le in Tiro Rivrra aml slowly"that they would re- 'it's our job to try and fig- stream of a wastc-wa- Whittier. 111r rluntµal isui otaiu utulrlr,tad until they ore%list which ones we nerd ter-treatment plant were dahgcrous.Barber said,but it cascaded h a profound.We- cr pay attention'rdin and as But P shows that these chemicals �'crsible change - "change entists.we'te doing that. But more resistant to numcrotu are entering the drinkin wet- that would otherwise be attri- were trying to catch the antibiotics than bacteria up- g g- , pitted to natural adaptation,' horses after they've been out •stream. Such results have ter su ! tic wrote. of file barn and running been found all over the world, pp y The research to date has around for decades. These 'The sewer bat-become a A Gamin study discovered examined this chemical or chemicals are released into selective pool for all sorts of that as well.The water cycle hot no one%fiat,M has any idea the environment with little evolutionary. advancements was truly completed,said re- . understanding of their coo- for an sorts of o nistns,' searcher.Thomas Hebcrer. what happens when logical impact - or pub. said Dale Opmeitan,a pro- The same drug that originally low-dose dtugx mix together. tic-health impact. We know fessor in the University of passed through someone's "if you take pollutant X it almost nothing• about what California, Irvine, D rt- kidneys was found in (tic be onatenth of that xtr � might happens when they mix.' ment of Environmental Anal- drinking water that went into qulred to have any type ofef- ysis and Design who•re- someone's mouth. feet," Daughton said. 'But if ---searched caffeine in waste All this raises questions you also have pollutant Y.Z ConW'Slona at plat 79t,8910 or water from the Irvine Ranch about reusing water, which .A and B-and their modes of v Water District. Orange County is poised to action ate the same or very d � . 'If we're addingantibiotics iimilar-you have an additive "The introduction of effect that could be'dettee- we're selecting for anti. waste-water effluent into table." . biotic-resistant bacteria,and. drinking water aquifers and Daughton has co-authored that may ultimately prove surface water as a dcliber- a book onshe topic.lust pine• very dangerous, ate)y planted activity is be' lished by the American coming more common, UC Chemical Soi:iety and Oxford DRUG STEW Berkeley's Sedlak wrote in an University Press. article urging caution. 'But Most drugs are detected in, Also found in waste water. while an increased reliance parts-per-trillion :sod ibuprolcn, clofibric acid on such water recyclifig may arts- ention concentra- (from a cholesterol-lowering be necessary to stretch a iKr-b nns,as opposed to other poll, drug),salicylic acid(from as- scarce resource,the potential lutants, which are usually pirin), tranquilizers; preser- health-and ecological effects measured In "parts-per-mil- vativm herbal remedies,vita of exposure to chemical eon- lion,"We're talking about an -col= taminants are not well under- eyedropper-fWl in a lake,• In japan.live oral potiovi- stood—Their presence in re- said Sediak rus was found in sewer and cycled waters raises broader But that's hart necessarily river water. in Germany, 36 -questions about the risks and comforting, for some of different drugs were found in benefits of water recycling these compounds. It makes sewer effluent.And the flesh and our approaches for annci- sense that low doses can harve. s -.. ._...._ - paling the emergence of new_ -profound. _ impacts,". _said _ of ca crch,eels and other contaminants.' rP•D Herbert T.Buxton.coordlaa- fish 'downstream of scw- Local sewer agencies don't for of the USGS's Toxic Sob- age-treatment plants• con test effluent for the presence stances Hydrology Program• tained high concentrations of of pharmaceuticals.because "iiormones,in particular.are the chemicals used in lier-. the compounds'aren't regu- designed to be active at-those fumes,shampoos, detergents fated, and no testing•is rc- low levels. and sunscreens. quiyed.But in the future,such `There are many different testing might become routine, implications of all this.There scientists suggest.The Santa are questions.We don't have Ana River is primarily many answers.' ivanic-neater effluent, cuur- �.,•--__:�.._,..1 Can[err_ • -_...._ �..___.�.-._... (,�' HUN' TINGT 0 N BEACH Iq . .INDEPENDE...NT A good, clean BOLTON A. elsion .. ::'.. Tthe summer,of.1999,when con. rr ".he City Council deserves' stant beach crlosu s wrecked usual- applause for its decision l. y"pNfitablc.$jdnihs for lktwntownearlier this month to businesses.:insump aboard the grow. !Fv f" •a" t" i i,' FOr residents who go to the g oti$Gtlon of coastal cities that" beach•" S g e water bein ble to o in the 01op se a federal waiver ;. ! -let one sit anywhere on the `anoagtg the Change Coup Sanita-" • lion District to sand they like—is part of why ;`ftyi' I r NUt`fTINGTON "• EDITORIAL thcy.live in I luntington(Beach. pump partially k , <r treated seavagc bcnicd that joy anJ benefit,they miles off the city's shores. may es well live in Missouri. 'jhe waiver,which is set to For the council,when a decision �. will benefit all its constituents,the -=+ -Piro in January 2003,was grant- �d to the district by the Environ. verdict might seem an easy one. ?• ;_ ___ ;__.r _ ; mentpl Protection Agency.Without But it was still a bold one,as it x .i'` %;.c it,all 236-million gallons of sewage joined only Seal Beach:as early the district sends into the ocean . opponents of the waiver.(just this rt each day would have to be treated week,Ne tl'Po Beach added a r ' t r• 1,• _ ::=_• fully.Now.half of the sewage has third,influential voice to the 'f, i rt�tflUf "'T%, g only had"the golid waste removed. opposition. 71se waiver;envitonmenialists say, ...Now,this:trio of cities needs towe a yleaves i�"rife�itith,bacterie. , work on other non-coastal towns ���� <<�fi+„• e r�`e Huntington Beach leaders,.resi. to get aboard the waiver battle. ents and business owners all hnvc Come November 2002,when the ''taerty reasons to want the water to -; sanitation district will decide ,•, '.'be at mean w possible. whether to push for the waiver's -For the citys businesses,the continuation,the courity's cities will importance of a clean beach and need to be united in opposition.It water.was clearly demonstrated in will be the right thing tti Jo. �"" = Gi,`Q�• • READERS RESPOND FULL SUIT !fit Issue:DO y011 agree with Reach,I luolington Reach and Newport _- '' e cl ' 'decision to fi ht the Be It"aleJ. Pb, g The mayors of Garden Giove,West- Waivei that allows partially ntinstcr,t.Os Alumllos,Rucna Park, treated sews a to be alum ed Fullerton,lira,Yorhn Linda.Ccrriins, g Anaheim,Tustin.Santa Ana,Placentia. ,.into.its coastal waters? Orange.Villa Park,La Palma,Cypress, Fountain Valley and La Habra should be he'ettsuser.is dte city has already spo- contacted.by their chiuns and asked to Jtat'.[The:ciiy councill is unanimous- vote against the waiver.. l'r dyer.- Full tltcyte secondary is whet vie have to The wrelve'oil' 50 primary treat• demand the Orange County Sanitation Dis, ORANGE COUNTY EDITION ment of.the,efllta nCsawege to;be.dumped. trict to go to in wrnpliance with.the Clean . in heoceart::?!4y :;:' water Act. ., `� . ��(;r• t te,Clean Wade, ct demands full sce•: EIIEEN MURPHY ^11 gel ondary treatment of eeaiagp Full secondarr. :.Huntington Beath _ — `.kmova'98%of the solids of the sewage. before diechargingit into the ocean.Sec:. - ntuasu,r. sr"vreatnra n.root ondary:treatment also greatly reduces ter Actl of 19 mandate the of the at t a. - )athogens:which'aro bacteria and viruses, _ Water Act of 1972 i6 the that end enhances further prtreauinp to reclaimone-should`do reloading sewoie trcatmait.' end reuse the resulting fresh water. ll+e waiver allows uv u+chcun+vent the 'What Is needed now,is for all of us minimum.One of the buzzwords or recent reading this who have friends and family in iimas is proaulve.Doing hiss ihnn the min- surrounding titles to have their city coon. !mum is zero so less than active unit any ells vote against-the waiver, thing hilt lint. All that is needed is 13 cities to vote• DON MCOEE against it and the waiver will be toast,Seal Huntington Reach SEP'f *z} Zoo) ORANGE COUNTY EDITION cc Coo a e ire co On The Internet-www.unutscomoc T H U R S D A Y, S E P T E M B E R 27, 2001 CanaonX[1I,0Crtn®P.r a sae HUNT I NGT0N BEACH 1NDEPENDE_...§..N_. T ON THE WE&WWW.HBINDY.COM FOR THE WEEK QF SEPTEMBER 27-OCTOBER 3,2001 SERVING THE COMMUNITY SINCE 1966 Independent .. lhutWay,September 27.2001 AS NATURAL PERSPECTIVES Wave goodbye to.sewage waiver th�iruncn toexpress our disinfecting sewage effluent before dis- trice will have to upgrade the treatment prosecution that bears the burden of ha to the City Coun- charging it. level.This will greatly reduce the proving its case.In other systems,a it doing the right The council,wdm happy to say, amount of bacteria that is discharged defendant has to prove his own inno- Monday,Sept. N agreed to look at his ideas too. into the ocean offshore of Huntington cence.In regard to sewage discharge_it 17.The council voted unanimously to t Public comments from the audience Beach,but it certainly won't eliminate makes a big difference who bean the urge:the Orange County Sanitation Dis- on Munduy night saw speaker after it.To do that,we'd need to disinfect burden of proof.The sanitation distni t trice to upgrade its level of sewage speaker address the issue—all in favor our sewage before dumping it of sea,as says that ifs discharge is not getting treatment.something everyone in of upgrading sewer treatment.Most - is done in Santa Munica.That's certain- the beach and it dtxsn't plan on chang• Orange County desurves, speakers framed the issue in tenns of ly something that should be considered. ing its ways until opponents prove thn Of the seven yes votes,the one cast the infamous waiver.What they're Huntington Beach is-Surf City there is a problem.Environmentul by Peter Green was even more signift• VIC LEIPZIG AND LOU MURRAY referring to is this:most communities USA.'We live in a beach town with groups.and now presumably the cit.al ranI than those u(his six council enl- see rcipeired by the('Tenn Witter Act tee millions of heach visitors per year and I lunlingim Beach,feel that the hun►rn leagues because Green serves un the inadequate,treatment process.This errs- give their sewage full secondary treat. numerous beach-dependent businesses. should be on the district.that is,tkrt board of dirccton of the sanitudun dis- olution will be delivered to the sorties. merit.But here in Orange County,the Naturally in Huntington Beach water treatment should be upgraded unlcso trice as the delegate from Huntington tion district.Ralph Bauer also pro. sanitation district has a waiver from the' cleanliness is neat to Godlincss.Bacte. the district can prove beyond a shad,— Beach.The sanitation district staunchly posed language for adoption by the federal Environmental Protection ria in the water snakes people sick and of a doubt that them is no problem. derends the current level of treatment, council.Unfortunately,a few folks in Agency that allows them to get by with is definitely not good for business. Very possibly,neither side will be abLL which is to treat half the sewage with the environmental community misread giving secondary treatment to only half Peter Grevas is a dedicated environ- to provide absolute,rock-solid proof. secondary treatment and half with only his proposal as an attempt to water our sewage.Thu waiver results in a lot mentalist who wants what's best for his Who should win the debate in that primary treatment.So Green's vote was down the mayors resolution.In fact,if more bacteria being dumped into the city.Yet he has been reluctant to fie'• In our opinion,in rase of doulm. a particularly tough one.Our thanker go anything.Bauers language was even ocean.. oppbsc the waiver.Now can that be? opt on the side of safety.Protect the to Greco especially. stronger.I It:thinks—and we agree— Ilia catchy slogan-Do us a favor— Iles a rational,thoughtful scientist. environment. Mayor Pam Julien Houehen put for. that even secondary treatment may not Get rid of the waiver expresses many Can't science resolve this issue?It .NC LBPZIG and LOU MURRAY are Hwtb.3 ward a well-warded,formal resolution be sufficient and that the sanitation dis- people's sentiments.Without the waiv- comes down to burden of proof. ,os Beach,eydeb and&—or nentakis.They opposed to continuing with the current. trict should investigate the possibility of cr,the Orange County Sanitation Dis- In an American court of law,it's the ._ eat be reidxd at v deipr a0ad,sort. �.Il State-of Califomla—Health and Human SeMces Agency Department of Health Services ` ,. Ce91olnie lth NM &eMoes DiANA M.soNTA,Or"d of R.N.,Dr.P.N. QMY DAVIS • August 6, 2002 � - ' • - 71 :.moo-, �- •.. _ y.:... , Ms. Josie McKinley, Project Manager Poseidon Resources Corporation 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 260 Long Beach, CA 90808 Dear Ms. McKinley;. SYSTEM NO.3010110-ORANGE COUNTY DESALINATIOIIi PROJECT This letter.is in response to your letter dated July 10, 2002, and our subsequent meeting to discuss the letter and inspect-the proposed site at Huntington Beach. Your letter was In response to our May 10, 2002 letter In which we raised several questions regarding os.lo,o z the project. The proposed Orange County Ocean Desalination Plant will be located at the AES Huntington Beach,,...L.L.C. power plant... ..We have;reviewed the supporting technical material included in your July 10 letter further supporting the Report titled "Poseidon Resources; Orange County Desalination Plant: Watershed Sanitary Survey Wa�,yJ Report"prepared by Archibald&Wallberg Consultants. S - Conditional conceptual approval_ is hereby granted for the Orange County Ocean Desalination Plant at.Huntington Beach: The conditional conceptual approval`includes the following treatment process: chemical coagulation, flocculation, filtration, reverse osmosis, free chlorine contact time and chloramines. The entire treatment process will be granted 3-log removal of Giardia and 4-log removal. of viruses. . Following the 1Departrrtent's policy on multibarrier treatment, the Orange:County Ocean Desalination `Plant will need to.provide 0 5=log inactivation of Giardia and 2-log inactivation of ruses. Final:approval will.be granted through the. issuance of a water_supply permit.allowing construction of tie plant, its operation and delivery of potable water to the participating water suppliers in the area The.Domestic Water Supply Permit application needs to be submitted to our Santa Ana District office for processing prior to construction. The following items were addressed in your letter. 1. Poseidon indicates the. to)dns associated with potential red tide/algal bloom episodes) in the waters around the plant intake should not pass through the various treatment processes. The information you submitted indicates that the proposed treatment process (chemical coagulation, flocculation, filtration, reverse osmosis and free chlorine) will remove the .algae particles and-also the biotoxins from the water. Your review also indicates there are no cited Doyouur.part to help California save.enaW.Talearn-mmneabout saavhV energy,-vW the following web site: wvaw.sm mereneravoanter.orttMULndexhtml -Southem California Drinking Water Field Operations Branch,South Coastal Raggiort 1180 Eugenia Place,suite 200,Carpinteria,CA 93013 (808)-3881328:. (806)745-8106 fax Internet Address:htt:tAvnw.dha.ca.aovlwdddvramftechnlcattdwo/dwnindex.blm Ms. Josief-McKiniey- Page-12. reports of toxins problems associated with ocean water desalination treatment facilities. You also indicate if a problem were to occur the treatment plant could be shut down. Parameters need to be developed which would trigger a plant shutdown. We will require that a monitoring program be developed by Poseidon if it is shown to be a problem. Based on the information contained In your letter we do not expect this issue to be a major obstacle. We however request that a more detailed report be submitted validating your conclusions. We also feel a study needs to be conducted which verifies the blotoxin Is removed by the reverse osmosis and disinfection treatment processes. 2. The additional information submitted indicates the pretreatment filtration process to be provided ahead of the reverse osmosis membranes is adequate. A modified direct filtration process is described. Flocculation will be provided in a basin and In the pipeline prior to the filters. It has been shown that the reverse osmosis (RO) treatment process does not remove all virus and adequate disinfection (CT and free chlorine along with chloramines) Is needed. The process will include about 5 hours of free chlorine contact time. If additional virus removal credit is requested through the treatment plant or reverse osmosis process, a study will need to be conducted. 3. The proposed piping modifications to address the source of bacteria and ammonia in the intake vault must be successful in addressing these contaminants. Follow-up monitoring must document that the source has been permanently removed. if these modifications.are not successful in correcting the unidentified source of bacteria and ammonia In the intake, the Department's position concerning the level of treatment needed will be different than that which Is outlined in the Sanitary Survey Report. The 14� Department will require 4-log glardia and 5-log vin s removal/Inactivation if the me Intake collform and ammonia levels are not reduced after the modifications are completed. 4. There were recent news releases which indicated the effluent plume may be responsible for some of the Huntington Beach area high beach bacteriological results.. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Is reviewing its 301 waiver to full secondary treatment along with providing disinfection of the wastewater treatment plants ocean discharge. If it shown to be a source of bacteria, the Department will require 4-log giardia and 5-log virus removallinactIvation for the desalination treatment plant. S. Poseidon submitted additional information on the complete list of "other chemicals in the bearing cooling water" which are stated as "not toxic to humans", along with the chemicals being adequately diluted in the intake water to the reverse osmosis treatment unit. 6. Poseidon will need to submit a plant operations plan which must adequately address the notification proces it is to be used to assure all "heat treatment and non-routine operations or discharges to the cooling water" will result in a plant shut down to prevent these waters from being processed � ,13 ',Ms:Josie-McKinley Page 3 through the desalination plant. You indicated that the operations plan will adequately address this Issue, 7. Poseidon's project team will conduct a study to assure that the disinfection byproducts (DBPs)that will be formed as a result of the water supply from this plant do not interact with DBPs of the water systems receiving the water and result in a shift in the make-up of the regulated DBP constituents causing compliance problems for the systems receiving the water. The study protocol was submitted and is acceptable. 8. The facility will need to be permitted as a Wholesale Domestic Water System. The water utilities receiving the water will need to obtain amended domestic water supply permits. Poseidon will need to apply for a domestic water supply permit pursuant to the Regulations Relating to Domestic Water Systems. This Includes the submission of: information necessary to comply with the Technical, Managerial and Financial (TMF) Capacity requirements, A Water Quality Emergency Notification Plan (ENP), • An Engineering Report describing how the proposed new facilities will comply with the treatment, design, performance and reliability provisions of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearance information. • Plant operations plan. Permit provisions for similar projects include but are not limited to: • Submittal of plans and specifications for Department approval prior to construction, • Compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) — including the treated water turbidity, disinfection residuals and CT levels, All water must be treated—no bypassing, • Complete water quality analyses conducted by an approved laboratory, Adequate corrosion control, • Adequate cross-connection control program, • Updated watershed sanitary surrey every five years, • Mandatory use of ANSYNSF approved chemicals, • Raw water bacteriological monitoring, __ _ • Certified treatment and distribution operators, Ms:Josie McKinley.,- Page 4 + Submission of monthly operation reports and a report after the first year of operation detailing the effectiveness of the planVs performance, a list of any violations and a list of any needed additions or operational changes. We suggest that you review our website at www.dhs.ca.ggv/as/ddwem which lists the California Drinking Water Program's rules and regulations relating to domestic water systems. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. Frank Hamamura, District Engineer, Santa Ana District at (714)558-4708. Sincerely, John Curphey, P.E., lef South Coastal Region DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONs BRANCH CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES J =Ml zvvz December 14, 2002, Saturday , - - - SECTION: Local THE ORANGE COUNTY ` ►; � � EmRLENGTH: 1053 words _ HEADLINE: orange countY,in(urnud ,ensmree since 190S. wmae&,«xnm; + i Doubts sink some water deals I/Officials say firm seeking to build desalination plant in Huntington Beach isn't working with enough oversight. BYLINE: By JIM HINCH, The Orange County Register BODY: A tiny company seeking to build the nation's largest seawater desalination plant in Huntington Beach is raising questions among some Southern California water officials who say the company is little more than a middleman that has misled officials and worked without sufficient public oversight. For the past two years, Poseidon Resources, a 7-year-old Stamford, Conn., company staffed by about two dozen former power-plant developers, has been locking up exclusive agreements with coastal California power plants to use the plants'cooling pipes to draw seawater into desalination plants Poseidon hopes to build. Armed with those agreements, which essentially shut out competition, Poseidon has approached local water agencies and begun applying for development permits. Company officials say that when they line up enough customers, they will hire engineers to build the plants. Two years ago, the company signed an agreement with AES Corp. to build a $230 million desalination plant on eight acres adjacent to AES' seaside Huntington Beach power plant. The desalination plant would produce 50 million gallons of fresh water per day -- about 8 percent of Orange County's total drinking needs. Company executives said their business model, a public-private partnership new in the water industry, saves money because the company can pick the best- - and possibly cheapest-- firms for specific jobs. Poseidon does no construction itself and hires others to design and build the plants. Water agencies benefit from the company's willingness to shoulder the financial _ risks of large construction projects,_executives_said._Once completed, Poseidon sells either the fresh water or the plant itself to the public agency. Officials at some Southern California water agencies, however, worried enough about the company's approach that they either backed out of deals to buy water from Poseidon or asked the company to guarantee more public oversight of construction. Kevin Wattier, general manager of the Long Beach Water Department, said he allowed a tentative deal with Poseidon to expire because "they're not an engineering firm," and Wattier saw no reason to "pay someone an additional profit" to build a plant that the department, using technology it is developing, could operate for 20 percent less. Wattier also said Poseidon officials approached him saying they had an exclusive operating agreement with AES' Long Beach power plant. Wattier said he checked but found no evidence of such an agreement. Tony Chavez, AES general manager, said he had no exclusive agreement with Poseidon. "They've got a good game going, and I'm not going to get in the middle of it," Wattier said. "If they can fool others, that's fine. They're not going to fool me." Billy Owens, Poseidon vice president, said the company had "a preliminary agreement to explore the feasibility" of the Long Beach site, but negotiations got derailed by real estate complications at the AES plant beyond Poseidon's control. Owens said Poseidon parted with Wattier on friendly terms when both parties realized they had philosophical differences about"a private party participating with a public entity." Wattier said Poseidon's experience in Tampa Bay, Fla., where a desalination plant is nearing completion, also gave him pause. There, two companies Poseidon hired to build the plant went bankrupt. Tampa Bay Water, the agency that hired Poseidon, ended up buying the company out of the project for$10 million and completing the plant itself. Koni Cassini, finance manager for Tampa Bay Water, said her agency is satisfied with Poseidon's performance and bought the company out to use tax-exempt financing to lower the project's cost. Poseidon President Andy Shea said the companies hired in Tampa went bankrupt for reasons unrelated to the project. That the plant was completed on time and on budget despite setbacks is "an excellent example of why (Poseidon's business model) is so resilient," Shea said. The Municipal Water District of Orange County also recently backed out of a deal to buy water from Poseidon in-part because the company's-control over.the _. project made it difficult for the agency to "know if we're getting a good deal or not," said Karl.Seckel, district engineer. Various water officials have considered building a desalination plant in Huntington Beach for years, but were hindered by old technology that made the cost of producing drinking water prohibitive. In 2005, when Poseidon intends to start up its plant, it would produce water for about$800 per acre-foot, the amount two families use in a year. At that time, the district expects to buy water elsewhere for about $600 per acre-foot, Seckel said. In San Diego, where Poseidon seeks to build another 50-million-gallon-per-day plant, local water agency officials asked the company to sign an agreement guaranteeing public participation in selection of construction companies after agency board members voiced concern about lack of public oversight. Officials from the San Diego County Water Authority said they plan to buy the plant five years after it opens and will have final say over whom Poseidon hires to build the project--though Shea emphasized that "we own the project. We're selling the water. We're building the project." Shea said water agencies are wary because their industry moves slowly to embrace new technology and methods. "We do have a different approach. Sometimes it's accepted. Sometimes it's a huge threat to the established way of doing things," he said. Owens said the Santa Margarita Water District recently signed a contract to buy half of the Huntington plants output -- a crucial step, because the company needs commitments to buy before it can secure financing. Poseidon will share information and consult with customers during construction, Owens said. Owens said Poseidon has made desalination a viable alternative in a region rapidly running out of water sources. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California "has been talking about desalination for 20 years and nothing has happened," Owens said. "We're not looking to make an egregious profit. ... We believe the costs are competitive." (714) 445-6688 or jhinch � .It3 HI I U074 MEMER ._,,: :�• After some eary ornir; f bl�rs ou: - vai�on,we should be able to see quite cieary this afternoon. ,.r See Page AZ SERVING THE NEWPORT-MESA COIWVAUNMES SINCE 1907 ON THE WEB:WWW.DAILYPILOT.COM THURSDAY,MAY 9,2002 BOLTON 1 °owy Sp STRIA The srnok�n t,n. ' cv O ' N '46' %A • '1�.+� f}.'j � ••1 is � i Fig# •'�' /�r '� r'• � +•�' i t •-�l i'�r �, •( R� . t � E i•. ILI WY • F—i ''f ' � rl a •�1r •` �W. i 1 r. "r j,, ►i tj. Fry;: ,R lir:V, � 'ifs 'J; V l,t r;J w,+N� r C :r r it icelift '..: {: , ..vie;;• ON lea (:K'�+✓ rty,�4� If r r.�� M4wy ,illhr , f��Iip�����l�.iYl i�.a,� � .. ��r,���ip ,� '�r�fir•� 'S'�MY' ��t �k.Y lrtw SFr v 1#~� -�� �°,il.+•'�+tlCl" n ��L i;ts 4 51•�'bl�i�'# �5l�tl ��ti '`�����1 •%1Yfrwd "� �� * �fJf�i4r11' �'1: ~:�1r;!t, �, r �.l<<.7�'M�M��J�ai rk r��� s}'en'�A. ��•• 4�'�r,N,,,`f J.•f�r+'� ,1�� r,• ,�1`' tT�;av��Wr�.,��,„ ,'�i Ii`�A• {Y�'S` 4yptli�'1 r��p��, x t w�lY�3�i {nt �'),r r •�''ff� .r i.. +:11 Y: 1. z6o z ORANGE - COUNTY EDITION Cos 7*' on 7fte mtQees were utm+a mx — ::. M O N D AY .-JU L Y'.1., 2 0 0 2_- ._r:: t 'operataarrmvetacVar PAGrs sue nIldiloaeedAtIalligber ...... .._ ...rre s .,w-.;�.r.• ...-.::. ...:• .--••uwr•:.•'A' :,..ce..�... .-Rw: '3T:ta - -1 N ■ONpAY.juLYl;-2mr ?- ti * OEX y R A .:t D Y T.-_ "`'3�'�+�'•',. ! dui l: :'� yp{ NJ. .'. .:Cra." y„ '�} '. _y:+ '-'• - 'd-r.�e y+ w�_-- .- SECTION "Y 2. °'ti.�Y rw _ - 9•_ w s+rdyk ` 'I.�t1-thr r1+, y -.S"r ' :t'-- Y. L•1 C.a t-9'•4k -::',"�. a6� .�aT�C�{•��'�' -,�-'y�'t�.ti+a;giy::- �!:'af�S.r -Hjq'4H�.. - WO eg 1 LOS ANGELES TIMES OC MONDAY,JULY 1,=2 611 Commentary Marine Life Withers';-Under a Wave of Human-Caused Diseases By 05M GRAX DAVIASON. of un;irift n bast.:explain the devastating marine caged the'rate forests of the sea,' red wastelands,a perfect medic i..Oceanic aid At mepherk Admiafs. been burning through populations.outbreaks.Flar years human have to algae-covered rubble.The pus- for microbes We're turaft our:tration. t it barQy news that the of sea creature,to the point that oleo been flooding coastal waters ale of this massive die-off was [past into a ghat petrl dish,-a'...A century before Cousteau ocesms are in trouble After atlnetion threaten some species with nutrients.Agricultural runoff partly solved when a team of sden- pathogen-friendly environment in opened our eyes to the wondrous all, We be®'more than Some of these plagues are old from fields and giant feedlots flows tfsts announced recently that It which microbes flourish at the er world beneath the waves.and the. three dece duce the and well-(mown,reawakened with into rivers and eventually fends its had Isolated the agent responsible,pease of sea life destruction we're causing there, Late Jacques-Yves Cous- rmexpected virulence Others are way to the am providing a ve* for one of the diseases the baste- it Is possible to return our the father of modem pathology.. teas first mtrednced t01ions of caused by pathogen new to sudr table smorgasbord for disease- rlum.Senatia marcesems. The coastal waters to health,but it will Rudolph Vhchaw,write that-epi- televtsWn viewers to the glories of ease. After years of speculatkn, causing orgaName. name may be unfamiliar,.yet it is require action on a nuonber-of demics are lice signposts from the wdersea world and to the two recent studies go much further This overabundance of outriw not an exotic deep-sea pathogen fronts We must fight global which the statesman of stature can havoc that humane had already bee than ever in Implicating humans In ents—and the introduction of hu- but one commonly found in human warming by implementing the read that i disturbance has oc- gunYfhea king an marine life this'marine metadernie'A study man sewage In some places—plays feces and sewage. Kyoto Protocol and by rtopping cuffed in the de%JopsnesL of his Bylkeven the old F remhman-of- published recently in the Journal a critical role in the marine meta- The list of human insults to the the absurd dithering over whether nation that not even c::Tele.-r noli- the-So himself would be shodhed Science suggests that ocean waters demie Take the case of Elkhorn ocean goes beyond global warming the problem even exists, as the tics can overlook.'it is past time to by ft conditions we've treated in heated by global warming are al- coral.This magni5cent branching and introduction of nutrients.We Bush administration continues to heed the many watery signposts the oceans today. especially in laving bacteria,femgi and viruses coral was once the most abundant overlish nearly everywhere,elimi- do..We must include anal ai us that all is not well m the. .. .. Boas*waters,the shores ad bays to reproduce faster and range Sur reel-0nl � wives[most come To7raowv tber, unebtcked' ding Species to the Carib eating herbtvomus(fah that'ome'nmo8umller tSe Qeao Water Art; nation of the sex people by'-the.older__:.bean.Now it is virtually wiped not. kept harmful algae-to chart.We btaease the number of marine pro- and [enjoy the surf Thee waters mate cycles of climate.:Z-- The result is an ecological catasr dram wetlands.and dredge chao-'tested.anctua ire where aquatic-Ostia Gray Ihdidsorn is author of are ask and growing sicker by the Global warming play!in toso-% topic a shift from spectacularly.nels and harbors, turning dear, We can regroup from human.as. .'Fire in the llarlk House'(Public day. In tecera'peam a startling tart role,but it atone doesn't luny'-biodivere moralsometimes san om areas reek tidy-bott into mud - salts;and fully fend the National.:A#airs,_ZWV-.:: r; ... , i_­'4 V.._7-�R,__�_. ,�A,47," n�-,i,4'.-.U1,..", ,A ,f-&,-, a l.a,�I,,--�,.,�j._,,.,­' ;­,Iif,.'�r,.....,�._j.' �-,51-.-.,'��.:�­�.,_If. .­.,f'­..,�-z­P.,�.�1 � 4..`.._a" I ::§v, ...._­�: ,4-4"�_,-'. � �­ -­-I ,,1T.-..-�i :1,....�-1�..� .; t,% R_ K" �-1 .,j..'.I1, fi!. ..'� ,,�"��,- ,.-1,1j ..�;.........-. I. ,gV _I � � i 1_...I.`_ ' ..�i. ',, .. .-' I. ­1 V, � ,�§., ­T ,! , - ". .,P......� ,-P.- > %12..'--z;..... ­. :....�­ .VlI .� I,-. � , _ .' 7 1� ` . ,... .... _.4 '— . _ l.,��...: , ....,,"-.:. , , , � � . .. _ �... -- ..,L :-a * --.� --1.._ i...-- .y -I..,;,., i ....n1,. ; � l ., �-, i � . , ,. ,11** wl, ; - I %I -".z --- ., II-��,- .1 , "-.§ _*;;­ /"A�-1,�),�' .� .� ,,�­ .._JE,-­ v�. �.i , ,,1�[ , !_ -- -"T&,, , ''., , :, ;,,��.'," �`,��22 ��-�,E,� �vj-R� 4-: ��:� 7 .� , k� i�- = -Pf�, w—�" -i l _ rv, _ �".� , a, _ ' g � lQ. . t.vt f� ,M ­,j.,ZI i� .M; i t A5 41N -; 3 N v�, Z i-_:!­��,eq !� =- A!�. ��.­ . a - _� , , ��' 1,�,i", ,-_ _-­ " ,— ­,- 12 P,� r, ��, I y�� �,_"W 4. 1� .,�"­ ­ -SN i, �� i �,giv""I I I V 4" ��, � ,0 - i — t ,<, Y14* t Ir .,- u. �j � �P. � " � 9 . "I d",l.",v V -i1 v ; ', v:2_� I'l- ,_I , N�3 ; ) �w�S� I y V 4.1 � , � WYt: , !,Lt t -,�t� 4 " ,� � An�, t4 Ok �-,fJ Ai...; '_4. e!j p ,e4H1 .r1� �-� �.-. .4 ,l���­�­ � 4­; t- ti 1 — ,�. , " . §l ,.� �,; �, H CZ"- ,AevS* i �i"U A; i, I�M .,I2­­ 2.i i"�o ," ';4 � X , 1 -­Ti ,i I T �`f�" Z � � F i �4 , ,, �;�gv.f � , i 1 ,11,�X -4 1 � ... mNl t (44 U��'4 I V lA I A,� 6r" :-K g ,� `.� V',: I�Q f, 1,j, .Mr k � f�g 1� i� � 91" m M 111��I ,­ s i �-� ,ffi , V�j , i�, �I�"., ,��W ; A V;p �, N&4 W�i,.. Fl!k—1- "I ITA"T4 ,� "��Ci ,Z mt YV , A �; , ­� � " 1 v%,I ,3 r; RA �-Mg7 . �;.- I Pi Z. JJ .- gt,s , %, � - ,, , �ftY . "I�- , ,t)� ".1 ,.A AL­�7 _ �,)! �,.�. f I , . I W ­ 1 iry '­,T ­,�; ,� ��-, �K- M, . ao:t& ° &,ry , F i�,5? V —f- �Z1 UU— i,k.. _" ­f,V, � 6J­f_ ;l- , , . 4 * t �: ­ (�."�;5, J, . ,V- '�a` A * ­ . ' , .1-­y �''r1i ,- ill ­�, ,�;Q17 j��J "e�i, ,!.�,_�� � � � 9,i2�,h � ",. o 1 ff _i!i, I Y";� 1 "X ,v ( 1F _ R, - y­-_ ?, � L;T­j zv � f,a Y t! I 'I .,.1�..........�1.�.. .. ;r...W. -�a';2 � 7I !g K P_piiq," Y. . ,1 -V1 —�6- .. ; ag h1-1 t i .16 4 � )a I-fi A. �M I � p. , -,I- .�.I. �.. "I ­" i: �--�­ lI 1 ­* l' %l­ : > 0 1 ��sb, , '�M5 � 7 -.w 4,1 A. 0l��: 1,5 ,��� � . .' 1:­ � �., . .f -- 7 .�.,: ..I,- -:-- ,I-_,C -!...,.� r r���-1.; lL- ,., - .' ,.. _.,.". .' 1 ...�.I.-�.1. " SriW; g, , 1 !. j­�,­ ", ' j 3. ;--. K� q � oM l'a::e.. 1 > - ', v � �� _.UR- � � ,- , 0 - �;We k_ _�",Q;a, �,%j�v, ;'P .'liNg�,&j �fi J., - -z c` f �W, -�,,,y­ 'bfrsq,Z1 �VO4 `,- ­ Tp"ipN. v I 1 1 i", % .�� Y .,, rv;jq'gt�I, � a.A-_. M - �� ,_P, ,C�, m ­ _ , -- .._ ' -- F�,,,T.qe� - I.4P5� ,v, " r , ,"; S �... 1,. . ?­J J- Lk'. ­g­ - , i iL. NjI iw�"�"I­ — � ;-x a 4its:.A . �,,=ry ! j-T -. o, 4,N f­ �j,. ��,1 4" . 4I — x.g,N_ l.Q ., Z .,, I ­ : �- -I " v. - - � 7 " -v 7.! 'u�-i , V: _ �,,�, , -.-.J�I.�, - -,';, ! 1 .y .7 Q , L " "pl ­14� � , 1 i, j , } I &�",,,,,,�,, T�.­ i1f 1;a 4 -� - ---�' I'. 11 e .-1` t'!- � ' ­ . L ,oj'%-�!."�,j " _� l � — ��� I , - 1� ,�-� ,-,-" - , � , . 1. I _-,�,7'! ,.,I 4j,- ..., *,:.�'.' � k, . ­ . ., '. ., , , .. . -* . ." - ".", %1,­_ .. � \"�,' ,­z­ __ �4 ­ �_�' 1 'f',-.:".-. "_% V";,. i,i � ' � �, 'l ­ iZ" ;' / N " i ,,q- " "IJ �­i n L ..I,- �i, . .; , 1�` 4� �­� , ;" ,� 4l- i1M ­k'vr­&j °z­` _1 ) _,--e�— 14 _'L — A��_ " . , 7 , ,, �, .,iI. :,I;­�.:,,�,,. :;,-:; , i� 1,� tt',` �,.,,,— , , ILr. I- t J� k .�_- .._-- i, ii 1 _ N —.. �I; I , ' iI , � - —, - I - , ­ . ..�! _ 'LLL . I i�tt'.UY'�.:�41 — I �,_m -, - . ,"�� �. �_. ..... ,C� ­,�­ .. ..­,L',��'. .- : - - : %-_-� -- -.:, ".".'-.-.--r-.. - _�:;_l 1. - .-,--,-- --:� -��.- �__--,- .. - ," -'�:------: '�' -,,7 F,.i, li , , I- '*�,.'.. - . rnm � ' 1 -,, , "�. t r- • t -r " i�, , ­� ' � f q 'f " :1,,,7�:I,_',._l � � "lLi \1 f" j � I p " , Vj ,� 9 TVh 6 i � f \ , 0 � " I 1 - , . j i .,'. �1; ,.�I,:.*�. � - �-: �V ? ,- �i I k­, i ! , i - I q 1 I i ,I , ) } k � Fi $ 1 , { , ; ?, q IV l - l _ . I f. " f 1 ! t -d !, f8 I1j1 r,: eII t , ). t . ,,. 11 ..- - - - - - Poseidon Desalination Plant Comments NPDES CA 0001163 Presented to the Huntington City Council C(O P Tuesday May 27, 2003 Y by Bruce Monroe, Spokesperson, Regional Conservation Committee Chair, Coast and Ocean Sub-Committee of the California & Nevada Regional Conservation Committee, The Sierra Club The Sierra Club national policy on water concerns three aspects: conservation, supply, and quality. The full text of this policy is found at: The California regional policy, because of regional.differences in weather, geology, and needs, is determined on a case-by-case basis. In every instance,we are first interested in conservation. We resist new supplies or increased supplies until such time as attempts at conservation have been exhausted. Our reasoning about this specific permit is guided by five issues: 1. Economics 2. Planning and growth 3. Siting 4. Entrainment/Impingement 5. Distribution and Outfalls. Economics —We are concerned that this permit would allow a facility the operation of which would increase utility costs to the public. Planning and growth —We are concerned that the increased supply will encourage use and discourage conservation. Conservation remains our first priority. Siting —we are concerned about situated a large for profit utility on beach front public trust lands that are better suited for public use as defined in the California Coastal Act. We question the legality of using anon-renewable, life sustaining public resource, and salt water, in a monopolistic manufacturing process, which ultimately calls for the repurchase of the processed water by the public. We question whether is it legal for the discharger to charge the public a fee to"purchase"the processed commodity. Entrainment and Impingement—We are concerned that any permitted water by this process will increase the total daily throughput in the host electrical generating plant and entrain or image additional marine life forms and natural processes. Distribution and outfalls—We are concerned that the resulting manufacturing waste (brine) distributed through the outPalls will further damage marine resources and unbalance the salinity and mineral content of the naturedly occurring ocean water. In summary: The Sierra Club strongly opposes this application for the reasons stated above. FYI: The first meeting of California's Desalination Task Force will not be held until May 29, 2003,two days -: :this meeting..A report will probably not be forthcoming for about a year. tX1 v HunUff Beach. 17 +�'!. 'tit,j ?'!,.> ;l�r•.!.`!.: 11:,�, � 1 � _';� ' ..::Talbert•�u - � _x: =� �.� _ ;` 1 _.Marshy ' NI nymb ing- Mal RL t . W[` fTl Q tD _ t0 m Q CZ) Rpm Rpm 10 day average ofsaktiity at mid neater column depth tot concetttmud 3. SCl eater from:R 0.=SO mg4.Plant Flow Rate= 126.77.mgd.sanm i wndidol3s. -tft 5a ssrp� Q $oirm Pasedon Resoumes CcWraN,q August 20DZ in ® PGSEIDOtV SEAWATER DESAUKATtON MOIEET Projected,Mid-Depth Salinity Over the AES Outiall - "Worst Case"-Scenario- fn CO r a in ! flaitl i.IiSAL . t. — �. Aa,rrO.r G.Vt. .., 1 iC f - ., rr - � � � ., � rein � � • 7;r 0C'SD : 4' Aerial Location Map ns Imm Santa Ana River r in Ir{1 WmmntB, - North mid ftift ON {.ci 0 North of ftef 05/28/2003 15:40 7148486643 HBDERM rWut ny MAY-27-03 13:44 FROM:DCSD ADMIN I0+ 7149620356 PAGL Huntington Beach Sh®lrehne 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 23.E 05/28/2003 15:40 7148486643 HBDERM rHUt nn MAY-27-03 13t46 FROM:OCSO ADMIN 1D 7149620366 PALE 6/ 104 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-shel transport and eireul�tion mechanisms 1) 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 outsidc 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 rimed 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 alone, shelf fluxes of ten'7perdture(uT and vT)as afunction of depth and spatial Iocation 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 atmospberic 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. TrackinXof plume bacteria 1) 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 high-temporal resolution measurements of a chemical signature of the plume. 6 er, MAY 27, 2003 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ROBERT THOMAS ,t PLANNING COMMISSION 9152 PLAYA DR. MR. RICKY RAMOS HUNTINGTON BEACH, 92646 DEAR MR. RAMOS : THIS LETTER IS TO ASK THAT YOU DENY THE REQUEST BY POSEIEDON RESOURCES FOR THE SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT AT 21730 NEWLAND STREET. THE PLANT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS . SOUTHEAST HUNTINGTON BEACH ALREADY HAS MUCH MORE THAN ITS FAIR SHARE OF PUBLIC UTILITIES . MY MAIN AREAS OF CONCERN ARE THE EFFECT OF DRAWING SO MUCH WATER INTO INTO THE PLANT. THE HB STATE BEACH AT NEWLAND IS VERY POLLUTED AND SCIENTISTS THEORIZE THE AES PUMPS MAY BE DRAWING OCSD OUTFALL CLOSE TO THE PUBLIC BEACH. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF OF WATER TRANSMISSION LINES IN AN AREA WITH MULTIPLE SEWAGE AND POWER LINES . I RESERVE THE RIGHT -TO BRING LEGAL ACTIONS, IF NEEDED, ABOUT THESE OR ANY UNDISCOVERED ENVIRONMENTAL OR HEALTH PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THIS INDUSTRIAL PROJECT. PLEASE PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FROM THE HAZARDS OF THIS PLAN. THANK YOU, ROBERT J. THOMAS STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Gore von CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 �sa�=rye SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 'f VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 ? FAX (41 5) 904-5400 June 3, 2003 Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Review of the Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Poseidon Desalination Facility Dear Commissioners: I have been asked to provide information about the purpose of, and need for,the entrainment study being done at the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station and how results of that study may affect the outcome of the City's CEQA review for the proposed Poseidon desalination project at the AES facility. As stated_in our previous comment letters,part of the purpose of CEQA review is to identify a proposed project's significant adverse impacts along with available mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce those impacts. CEQA review is also meant to provide decision- makers with a systematic approach to address the impacts and mitigation measures so that their final decisions are based on adequate information about the environmental consequences of the project. For the reasons below, I believe the likely impacts of entrainment associated with power plant and desalination operations suggest that the results of the current study should be incorporated into the CEQA documents to use in your decision-making. Generally, entrainment is one of the main impacts associated with coastal power plants that use once-through ocean water cooling systems. In some cases,the loss of plankton and larvae due to power plant operations can cause significant adverse impacts to local or regional marine biological communities. The study underway at the AES facility is meant to determine the type and extent of entrainment impacts and to identify mitigation measures that may be available to avoid or minimize those impacts. This study(equivalent to what is known as a"316(b) study" established by the U.S. EPA)has become a standard requirement for reviewing entrainment impacts associated with coastal power plants using once-through cooling. Results of this study are of particular interest because there has never been an adequate entrainment study done at AES Huntington Beach. Information provided previously about entrainment at the facility is based on data collected in the late 1970s from other power plants along the coast. Since then,more recent developments in sampling and modeling, along with improved understanding of marine ecosystem dynamics have shown that entrainment data for such once-through cooling systems must be recent (e.g., within just a few years) and local (e.g., adjacent to the intake) to be of value in determining impacts. The California Energy Commission(CEC)recognized these issues in its May 2001 approval of the AES facility upgrade. The CEC_approval included a requirement that the operator conduct a study to determine the type and.extent of entrainment, in large part due to the concerns mentioned above Io- I Comments to Huntington Beach Planning Commission re: Poseidon Desalination EIR June 3, 2003 Page 2 of 2 —that there were no data from recent or local entrainment studies, and that the only data available were from distant power plants and were more than two decades old'. As mentioned above,the purpose of these entrainment studies is not only to identify the impacts, but to assess mitigation measures that may be appropriate. At other coastal power plants recently reviewed by the CEC (including the Moss Landing, Morro Bay, and Potrero power plants), results of the updated entrainment studies have been used to require significant changes to facility designs, operations, and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce entrainment impacts. For the AES facility,the CEC's approval includes a requirement that the results of the study be used to determine whether alternative cooling systems or other mitigation measures would be feasible and necessary to address entrainment impacts. This could easily lead to significant changes in power plant operations that would also affect the operations of the proposed desalination facility. Until the results of the AES entrainment study are available, it is not possible to determine the type and extent of entrainment impacts associated with the power plant operations, nor will it be possible to determine the degree to which those impacts may be associated with the desalination facility. Likewise, it is not yet possible to determine what feasible mitigation measures may be necessary to avoid or reduce those impacts and what affect those measures would have on the design or operation of the once-through cooling system or proposed desalination facility. Even though the desalination facility is tied closely to the power plant,there are likely to be times . when maintenance requirements or market conditions would limit power plant operations, and entrainment occurring during those periods would be due largely to desalination. However, as stated above,without the results of the entrainment study, it is not possible to determine the associated impacts nor the necessary mitigation and therefore, it is difficult to ensure compliance with CEQA or other applicable requirements. As a final point, the Coastal Commission will need the.results of the entrainment study to complete its review for the facility's coastal development permit. We would prefer that this occur as an appropriate part of the CEQA review, especially since a decision by the Planning Commission to move forward at this time without the study results will not speed the overall review process. Thank you for attention to these issues. I hope this is helpful to your deliberations. Please feel free to contact me at(415) 904-5248 or at tluster(a(�coastal.ca.gov if you have questions. Sincerely, Tom Luster Energy and Ocean Resources Unit Note:The CEC's review of the AES Huntington Beach upgrade was done under an Emergency-2-Month Review classification. All other recent CEC coastal power plant reviews have required that the entrainment studies be completed prior to CEC approval. ( �.2 jJ City of Huntington Beach Planning.Department STAFF REPORT HUNTINGTON BEACH � - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner lzp_ DATE: July 8,2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (Continued from June 3,2003 With Public Hearing Closed)(Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) APPLICANT: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 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: • 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. • Continued Item - Planning Commission meeting June 3, 2003 - Planning Commission requested clarification regarding ten items pertaining to the EIR. 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 RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1581 (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny certification of EIR No. 00-02 with findings for denial." B. "Continue certification of EIR No. 00-02 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of a seawater desalination plant that will convert up to 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of seawater into potable water. The project includes 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. There will also be up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. The project also proposes perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. BACKGROUND: As requested by the Planning Commission, staff prepared responses to specific issues identified by the Planning Commission at the June 3, 2003 hearing on the subject project. In addition, this staff report summarizes .issues identified in correspondence received subsequent to the May 27, 2003 Planning Commission hearing and oral testimony at the June 3, 2003 Planning Commission hearing. As stated at PC Staff Report-7/8/03 2 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) the two previous public hearings by staff, the City's environmental consultant, and the applicant, the issues raised at the hearing and in the additional correspondence have substantially been addressed in the Draft EIR, Responses to Comments document, and previous staff reports. This staff report has been prepared to further clarify staff s position and the EIR analysis, and to specifically address the key issues requested by the Planning Commission. As set forth below, the information and analysis presented to date is adequate under CEQA for the Planning Commission to certify the Final EIR. DETAILED REPORT: The CEQA process for the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project has involved several opportunities for public comment on the project. As noted in the May 27, 2003 Staff Report, the Draft EIR was circulated for public review between September 19 and November 4, 2002. The City received a total of 21 comment letters on the Draft EIR, and prepared formal written responses to all comments, as required by CEQA. The City completed the Responses to Comments document on March 21, 2003, after several months of additional research and analysis to address Draft EIR comments. The Responses to Comments document, although only required by CEQA to be distributed to Responsible Agencies that submitted comments, was provided to all commenting parties (both public and private). It should be noted that, of the 21 comment letters and responses provided by City staff, the City only received three replies from agencies that commented on the Draft EIR. Of those three replies, two agencies continued to raise concerns with the EIR(Coastal Commission staff member Tom Luster provided letters dated May 8, 2003 and June 3, 2003 and IRWD staff member Lars Oldewage provided a letter dated May 22, 2003 and IRWD staff member Gregory Heiertz provided a letter dated June 5, 2003), while one agency simply emphasized that the seawater desalination project at Huntington Beach is needed to fulfill Orange County's long-term water needs (Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) Board of Directors member Wayne Clark provided a letter dated May 19, 2003). PREVIOUS SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF RESPONSES A total of 39 comment letters have been received subsequent to the public review period for the Draft EIR. In addition, a total of 43 oral comments have been received by the Planning Commission at the May 27, 2003 and June 3, 2003 hearings. Prior to submittal of the May 29, 2003 staff report, 17 comment letters had been received by the City subsequent to the Draft EIR public review period. In addition, 27 oral comments regarding the proposed project were received at the May 27, 2003 public hearing. These comments were responded to within two staff reports (dated May 27 and May 29, 2003). This staff report addresses the comment letters received at or after the June 3, 2003 hearing as well as the 16 oral comments received at that hearing. As noted in this report, the comment letters and oral comments focused on similar topics, such as salinity, marine biological impacts, and the proposed project's relationship to the OCSD outfall and bacterial plume. STAFF RESPONSES WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES Commissioner Kokal: 1. AES Heat Treatment/Reverse Flow Process: Periodically, the AES power plant completes a heat treatment procedure to control the amount of marine organisms naturally occurring .PC.Staff Report—7/8/03 3 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) in the seawater that attach to the walls of the power plant intake structure and pipeline, and interfere with plant operations. The heat treatment procedure is typically completed once every six to eight weeks and continues for six to eight hours per heat treatment event. Heat treatment is a part of the routine operation.of every power plant and as such this process is permitted and regulated by the AES power plant NPDES discharge permit. The main goal of heat treatment is to detach the living marine organisms from the power plant intake structure and pipelines and to return the marine organisms back into the ocean through the power plant intake. Therefore, for the duration of a heat treatment event, the power plant intake and discharge are reversed (i.e. cooling water enters from the power plant discharge and discharges through the power plant intake). The marine organisms detached from the power plant intake structure and pipelines cannot be released through the power plant discharge outfall because they cannot pass through the power plant condenser tubes. The marine organisms are several times larger in size than the condenser tube openings. Under normal operations the cooling water is collected through the intake structure pumped through the power plant condenser tubes which exchange heat with the cooling water, and then the heated water is discharged through the power plant discharge outfall. During heat treatment, a very small amount of seawater flow is actually taken from the ocean, and most of the cooling water flow is recirculated within the power plant system rather than discharged through the power plant outfall. By recirculating the seawater flow, rather than discharging it to the ocean, the seawater temperature in the recirculation loop within the power plant rises. The higher water temperature triggers the detachment of the marine organisms from the intake structure and pipeline walls so that they may be released back into their natural environment in the ocean. Once the heat treatment process is complete and before the discharge is released to the ocean, the discharge is cooled to meet the temperature discharge limit under AES Power Plant's NPDES Permit. There is no separate temperature limit for the heat treatment process. Because the heat treatment process reverses the flow direction in the discharge line, the proposed desalination facility would not be able to discharge its saline concentrate. Therefore, the desalination plant will not be operational during periods of heat treatment. Because the desalination plant will not take water for treatment during power plant heat treatment operations, the desalination plant has no effect on entrapment and entrainment of marine organisms during that process. The relationship between the power plant heat treatment process and the desalination plant operations was addressed in the Draft EIR (see Appendix E, page E-9). As stated on this I age "Poseidon will not take water into the desalination plant during heat treatments". 2. Growth Inducement (End Users): Concern about the Draft EIR's analysis of the project's growth inducing impacts was raised by Coastal Commission staff member, Mr. Tom Luster, in his November 4, 2002 comment letter. Mr. Luster raised this issue again in late comment letters and the issue has also been raised by several others who submitted late comments on the Draft EIR. At the public hearings before the Planning Commission on PC Staff Report—7/8/03 4 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) May 27, 2003 and on June 3, 2003 this issue was raised in oral comments and discussed by the Commissioners. On each occasion, staff has responded that the Draft EIR's analysis of the project's potential growth-inducing impacts has been completed in compliance with the legal requirements of CEQA. Growth is managed on a number of fronts: General Plans are adopted by local and county governments to set forth accepted activities within the jurisdictions as it relates to density, land use and related infrastructure. Most local governments also work with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and related planning groups to refine expectations for the future. In Orange County, water agencies work with the California Department of Water Resources, SCAG, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to develop their respective Urban Water Management Plans to project how they will serve customers within the relevant approved General Plan areas. Urban Water Management Plans and General Plans are formulated only after receiving required public input. Amendments to these plans require further public input and, in the case of General Plans, environmental determinations. The examination of the project's potential growth-inducing impacts is contained in Section 5.2 (pages 5-2 through 5-6) of the Draft EIR(refer to Attachment No. I to the staff report). Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR (pages 3-20 through 3-23) examined the related topics and addressed the need for the project (refer to Attachment No. 2 to the staff report). The following excerpts from the response to comment 2m are reproduced below to clarify the approach taken by the Draft EIR in analyzing the project's potential growth-inducing impacts. ".... As stated in the Draft EIR, the proposed project consists of construction of a seawater desalination plant, storage facilities, and pipelines to produce drinking water for delivery into the regional water distribution system to meet the needs of the Southern California Region and particularly Orange County. It should 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 nor is it allowed to by law. At page 3-20, the Draft 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. The analysis of potential growth- inducing impacts recognized that water supplies are typically allocated on an aggregate basis and, consequently, potential impacts in both the South Coast Region and in Orange County were examined. The Draft EIR (on page 5-6) concludes that the potential growth-inducing impacts of the project are not anticipated to be significant.... ...The comment requests information (to the extent that information is known) regarding the potential allocation of the project's desalinated water PC.Staff Report—7/8/03 5 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) supply by various water agencies. It is beyond the scope of this EIR to specifically address how local water agencies will allocate the desalinated water supply produced by this project. By way of response, however, it should be noted that in Section 5.2, the Draft EIR referenced several water supply plans and provided an analysis for certain allocation scenarios. Based on projections provided by the Department of Water Resources (DWR), the Draft EIR concluded (on page 5-6)that it is likely that much of the desalinated water supply produced by this project will be allocated to replace existing imported water supplies that are lost to increased environmental restrictions and water supply regulations. Still, the Draft EIR also provided an analysis (on page 5-5) that assumed all of the water produced by the desalination plant would be allocated by local water agencies as supplemental supply to support new growth. The calculations in the Draft EIR show that the total amount of water projected to be produced by the desalination plant would equal less than one percent of the total supply for the South Coast Region and less than eight percent of the total supply for Orange County. Consequently, the project results in only a nominal addition to regional supplies. Moreover, as noted on page 5-5, even if all of the project water was only allocated within Orange County, the project could not supply enough water to keep pace with long-term projected population growth. The Draft EIR (on page 5-6) concludes that the potential growth-inducing impacts of the project are not anticipated to be significant." One of the main concerns raised repeatedly regarding the Draft EIR relates to the Draft EIR's inability to identify the specific "end users" of the water to be supplied by the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. At the Planning Commission hearings for this project, the Commissioners have questioned the applicant regarding the existence of an agreement between the applicant and Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) by which SMWD would purchase the rights to receive (via a water exchange) up to one half of the proposed project's water supply (up to 25 million gallons per day). At the public hearings, the applicant confirmed the existence of this agreement, but also noted that the agreement is not legally binding unless a series of conditions are met. The applicant further clarified that even if the agreement went forward, there is no requirement addressing how SMWD would allocate the water within the SMWD service area. As stated in the Draft EIR and confirmed by the applicant's testimony, it can be concluded that the project's water will be delivered into the existing regional water distribution system used to meet the water needs of Orange County. Those needs could include the water needs of end users in the SMWD service area (if the exchange agreement is carried out) and/or the needs of water users in the service area of any of the other cities and water agencies in Orange County. The following excerpts from the May 29, 2003 staff report are reproduced below to clarify what might happen to the project's water once it is delivered into the regional distribution system. PC Staff Report—7/8/03 6 (03 SRO 5A EIR 00-02) "In Orange County (as is the case in most of Southern California), retail water agencies and cities have the statutory authority and the duty to provide water service to end users within their service area. End users include existing customers and potential new customers, which conceivably could include expanding commercial or residential developments or new infill developments in Orange County. However, the retail agencies and cities have choices in the potential water supply they use to serve their customers. They can use groundwater and other local supplies (like recycled water) to the extent those supplies are available. They can negotiate water transfers from other areas of the State that have surplus supplies and they can emphasize conservation methods to stretch existing supplies. In addition, most retail agencies and cities depend on (and choose to purchase) imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD") through their local wholesaler. In Orange County, the local wholesaler of water is the Municipal Water District of Orange County (see support letter Attachment No. 4.4 to the May 22, 2003 Inter Office Communication from staff to the Planning Commission). Under California law, all water agencies (wholesale and retail)must prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan describing existing and future sources of water supply. These plans are required to be updated every five years. Moreover, recent laws require that any end user that intends to develop 500 or more new homes, commercial office projects over 250,000 sq.ft. or retail centers over 500,000 sq.ft. must (in conjunction with the proposed retail water supplier) prepare a "Water Supply Assessment" detailing and analyzing the proposed water supply for the development project. The Water Supply Assessment is prepared in addition to other environmental review documents required as part of the land use planning and zoning process. Land use policies of cities and counties regulate growth at the local level. All of these documents are subject to public review as part of the environmental review process. Speculating on the various future water supply choices that may be made by retail water providers and end users throughout Orange County is not required by CEQA. It is unknown how many retail water agencies or cities will negotiate to purchase desalinated project water from Poseidon Resources. Finally, even when some water wholesale or retail agency purchase project water, it is unknown how they will allocate the supplies. In any case, CEQA will require environmental review of those choices at the time they are made. Accordingly, the Poseidon EIR has properly analyzed the project's potential growth-inducing impacts by focusing on the relationship between the amount of the new supply that would be available (to several end users) and the water supply demand projections for Orange County and the surrounding area." PC Staff Report—7/8/03 7 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) 3. AES Entrainment/Impingement Study Section 316(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act reads as follows: "Any standard established pursuant to section 301 or section 306 of this Act and applicable to a point source shall require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact." In 1977, the U.S. EPA published draft guidelines for conducting 316(b) demonstrations for compliance with Section 316(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act (Section 316(b) is summarized above). Such studies were planned and conducted in southern California with oversight from the Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), National Marine Fisheries Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game. Studies were conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and study results were submitted to EPA in 1982-1983. In the early 1990s, EPA was sued by Riverkeeper and others for not implementing Section 316(b), since demonstration guidelines were never finalized and no updated studies were required. A Consent Decree from District Court was filed in 1995 that provided EPA until 2001 to finalize 316(b) regulations. Subsequent orders gave EPA more time. The final rule for Phase I (new) facilities was published in November 2001. The proposed rule for Phase II (existing) facilities was published in April 2002, and final guidelines are projected to be issued in February 2004. The Phase II rule currently applies to facilities that: 1. Both generate and transmit electric power or generate electric power but sell it for transmission; 2. Use a cooling water intake structure(s) or obtain water by any sort with an independent supply who has a cooling water intake structure; 3. Draw cooling water from waters of the U.S. and at least 25% of the water is used solely for contact or non-contact cooling purposes; 4. Have an NPDES permit, or are required to have an NPDES permit; and 5. Have flows of 50 mgd or more (those with less than 50 mgd, as well as certain existing manufacturing facilities, and offshore and coastal oil and gas extraction facilities, will be subject to the Phase III rule). It is likely that when the Phase II rule is enacted, all existing coastal generating stations in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties will be required to perform new 316(b) demonstrations and comply with new Performance Standards. Most of the generating stations' NPDES permits will be up for renewal in 2005. South Bay Power Plant (San Diego County) was recently required to perform a 316(b) demonstration as part of its NPDES permit renewal process, and was specifically directed to follow the proposed Phase II guidelines. Several generating stations north of Point Conception (Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Morro Bay Power Plant, Moss Landing Power Plant, and Potrero Power Plant) all performed 316(b) demonstrations in the last four years or so. These studies used PC Staff Report—.7/8/03 8 (03SR05A EIR00-02) methods agreed upon by the power plant operators and regulatory agencies (primarily Regional Water Quality Control Boards). In December 2000, AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. submitted the Application for Certification to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for the AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. Generating Station Retool Project. In March 2001, the CEC issued its Staff Assessment of the project, which recommended "a license be issued for a restricted time period consistent with AES's electrical generating contract with the Department of Water Resources or until September 30, 2006". As part of this conditional license, AES is required to complete several tasks, including Condition of Certification Bio-4: "The project owner will prepare a monitoring/study plan and conduct one year of monitoring to determine the actual impingement and entrainment losses resulting from the operation of the cooling water system for the new Units 3 and 4 and the existing Units 1 and 2. The project owner will sample the intake and source water to determine fractional losses relative to their abundance in the source water. The methods, analysis, results, and conclusions of the monitoring study will be documented in a scientific style report and submitted to the CPM for review and approval. Other agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, shall be included in the review of the draft report, if they so request. A final report shall be prepared upon completion of field sampling. The study results will be utilized during the NPDES permit renewal evaluation to be completed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board in June 2005." Initially, AES staff planned for Unit 3 to be in commercial operation on or about November 12, 2001 and Unit 4 to be in commercial operation on or about November 26, 2001 (R. Tripp, pers. comm. 2001). However, due to unforeseen circumstances, this did not occur. According to AES staff, Unit 3 was made operational on June 26, 2003 and Unit 4 is expected to be operational sometime this summer. In accordance with Bio-4, MBC Applied Environmental Sciences (MBC) submitted a draft entrainment and impingement study plan to the CEC. After reviewing the study plan, CEC staff and consultants met on October 5, 2001 to discuss specifics of the study plan. In July 2002, MBC submitted a revised draft study plan to the CEC and the Biological Resources Research Team (BRRT), which consists of interested parties representing regulatory agencies, consultants, and the applicant (AES Huntington Beach L.L.Q. Comments and recommendations to the study plan were submitted by the BRRT and discussed at a meeting on October 9, 2002. . The study plan is now in final form, as members of the BRTT have agreed on sampling and analysis methodologies. On June 19, 2003, the CEC authorized MBC to commence the biological monitoring for the AES Huntington Beach entrainment/impingement study, the results of which will be included in a formal report to be prepared after monitoring has occurred for one year. AES submitted $1.5 million to the CEC to conduct the study. As it is currently proposed, data will be collected for one year. A Final Report is due to the CEC within 10 months of the end of sampling. CEC Condition of Certification Bio-5 specifies "If the entrainment PC Staff Report—7/8/03` 9 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) and entrapment study determines that significant impacts to one or more species of coastal fish is occurring, the project owner will provide mitigation/compensation funds for mitigation/compensation for impacts to Southern California Bight fish populations. Upon consultation with the project owner, the mitigation/compensation funds should be used for such things as tidal wetlands restoration, creation of artificial reefs, or some other form of habitat compensation that is sufficient to fully address the species impacts identified in the final report required by the Condition of Certification Bio-3..." AES and the CEC will then present their cases on what the significance of impacts is, and what appropriate mitigation should be required. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board will also review the results of the study prior to reissuance of the generating station's NPDES permit in 2005. In the Section 316(b) Phase II Proposed Rule, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency explains that "the mortality rate of entrained organisms varies by species; mortality rates for fish can vary from two to 97 percent depending on the species and life stage entrained." However, it should be noted that, in an effort to be as conservative as possible, the CEC will require that the forthcoming entrainment/impingement study for the AES Generating Station assume a 100 percent mortality rate for all marine organisms entrained through the AES intake. It is important to note that the purpose of the AES entrainment and impingement study is not to determine the mortality rate of organisms entrained through the AES intake structure, but rather to determine the number of individuals and types of marine organisms impacted, as well as the extent of impacts to source water populations offshore of the generating station. All entrainment and impingement effects determined from the CEC study are attributable only to generating station operations and are being properly addressed though the ongoing permitting certification process. As such, the 316(b) study for the AES facility would not serve as an indicator of potential mortality impacts to entrained marine organisms. 4. NPDES Review of AES Discharge: As stated within Response 4b of the Responses to Comments document, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (No. CA0001163) issued to AES Huntington Beach, LLC by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) includes specific monitoring requirements for monitoring the discharge through the outfall. This permit will need to be renewed in 2005. NPDES requirements will continue to apply in the event of proposed project implementation. In addition, the project will be required to obtain a separate NPDES permit from the RWQCB that will also include monitoring requirements. The discharge from the desalination plant will be required to meet all Ocean Plan standards regulated by the RWQCB. 5. Leakage from AES Discharge Vault (bacterial levels): The bacteria levels in the AES Power Plant intake well are generally less than 1,000 MPN (most probable number) per 100 mL (milliliter) but occasionally exceed this level. The intake well levels are often higher than the bacteria levels in the ocean near the intake, based on intensive monitoring conducted by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences during the summer of 2001. This indicates that there is a source of bacteria to the intake well. Power plant staff has confirmed that the only discharges to the intake well are screen wash water and a small PC Staff Report—7/8/03- 10 (03 SR05A EIR 00-02) amount of pump seal water and that there may be leakage through the gates separating the intake well from the discharge vault. The discharge vault currently receives the following sources: ❖ condenser cooling water discharge; ❖ on-site storm drain water and process wastewater from the power plant's retention basins; and ❖ off-site City of Huntington Beach storm drain water from urban runoff from the mobile home park near the power plant. The power plant's retention basins and the City's storm drain system may contribute to bacteria levels in the discharge vault. The potential leakage between the discharge vault and the intake well may be a source of bacteria in the intake well. The California Department of Health Services (DHS) bases pathogen removal requirements for drinking water treatment plants on monthly median total coliform bacteria levels in the source water. The monthly median levels in the intake well range from <2 to 705 MPN/100 mL. These levels are sufficiently low that DHS granted conceptual approval for the minimum required removal of pathogens for the desalination plant. In addition, the desalination plant has multiple treatment processes to remove and inactivate bacteria and other pathogens in the source water. The bacteria and other pathogens that will be removed by the desalination plant will be present in the concentrated discharge from the plant. There will be two mechanisms for killing the bacteria to insure that the concentrated discharge from the desalination plant does not increase the levels of bacteria discharged to the ocean through the power plant outfall. First, the influent will be chlorinated to kill the bacteria whenever total coliform levels reach 1,000 MPN/100 mL and then de-chlorinated prior to the treatment process to protect the RO membranes. Second, the high pressures associated with forcing water through the reverse osmosis membranes will kill bacteria. Pilot testing conducted at the Carlsbad Pilot Plant has shown that the total coliform levels in the concentrated discharge are consistently less than 2 MPN/100 mL. Commissioner Dingwall: 1. Growth Inducement - California Coastal Commission comment letter (dated 5/8/03): See response to Commissioner Kokal's Issue No. 2, above. 2. Product Water Compatibility with Irvine Ranch Water District (IR)WD): IRWD's operational*concerns associated with the blend of desalinated water with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) water could be resolved by implementation of one or more measures, including (a) modification of the IRWD discharge limits for sodium and chloride to accommodate the use of desalinated as a new water supply source and/or (b) modification of desalinated plant water quality to accommodate the IWRD limits, if any, at the time the desalination plant is operational and ready to begin delivering water into the regional distribution system. PC Staff Report—7/8/03 11 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) Another factor to be taken into consideration in addressing IRWD concerns is that the above mentioned sodium and chloride limits stem from limitations defined in the Water Quality Control Plan (groundwater basin plan defined by the Santa Ana RWQCB) applicable to the IRWD project. Currently, this plan is being amended. The amended plan may further accommodate the use of the desalinated water blend. The applicant understands that it must work with the RWQCB, MWD and other users of the regional water distribution system to address all specific concerns and regulations governing water quality at the time when the plant is actually going to be ready to deliver water. The applicant has indicated that it is committed to produce water quality that is in compliance with all pertinent regulatory requirements at the time the project begins commercial operations. This commitment is going to be enforceable by intergovernmental agreements with MWD and others which stipulate performance and water quality standards (as identified in the Draft EIR). It should be noted that the applicant has initiated and continues to conduct workshops with Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), its member agencies and MWD. These workshops are designed to identify and resolve integration/operation issues of the new water source with all affected parties. IRWD has been invited to attend these workshops. In addition, technical reports on issues pertaining to water chemistry, hydraulics, and related subjects have been made available to IRWD and other receiving water agencies, and will continue to be made available as the project progresses. The first two such papers on corrosion control strategies, and hydraulic modeling were provided to agencies attending the project's first technical workshop held at MWDOC on February 13, 2003. IRWD did not attend this workshop. Consequently,the applicant set up a separate meeting held on March 26, 2003 to present all of the work effort that has been completed to IRWD and to discuss the ongoing work effort needed to address IRWD's and other water agencies' concerns. Mr. John Hills, IRWD staff, confirmed in his June 3, 2003, oral testimony before the Planning Commission that the applicant is working with IRWD to address their water quality issues and work towards resolution. Mr. Hill also informed the Commissioners that as of June 3, 2003 no resolution had been reached. He wanted these facts disclosed in the record of proceedings before the Planning Commission. As a result of IRWD's concerns regarding the compatibility of the proposed project's product water with their recycled water facilities, staff recommends a condition be incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) associated with the proposed project to ensure that the interests of the IRWD are addressed. The condition shall read as follows: "The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, the applicant shall PC Staff Report—7/8/03 12 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) 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 reject the use of desalinated water." 3. Responses to Comments 2c, 21, 4b, and 11 c - Surfrider National Foundation comment letter(dated 5/27/03): Mr. Joe Geever of the Surfrider National Foundation submitted written comments to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed project in a letter dated May 27, 2003. Commissioner Dingwall specifically requested an examination of issues raised by Surfrider's May 27, 2003 letter in regards to product water quality, alternatives, intake water quality monitoring, and solid waste disposal. Many of the issues raised within this letter have been previously addressed within the Responses to Comments document. As such, Responses 2c, 21, 4b, and 11 c from the Responses to Comments document are provided below: Response 2e - Product Water Quality: This project does not require that the Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of the intake be designated as supporting the beneficial use of drinking water (MUN). The Sources of Drinking Water Policy, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in 1988, requires that all waters of the state, with certain exceptions, be protected as existing or potential sources of municipal and domestic supply. One of the exceptions is water with a total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration exceeding 3,000 mg/L, which is applicable to the Pacific Ocean. The MLTN designation affords some additional chemical protection of a waterway because maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are to be achieved in ambient waters. There is no additional protection provided for microbial contaminants because MCLs have not been established for pathogens or coliforms. The Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of the intake is high quality and, in fact, has concentrations of some chemicals that are far below the drinking water MCLs prior to any treatment. An MUN designation would not provide any additional protection because the intake water quality is not influenced by storm water discharges, the Santa Ana River, the Talbert Marsh, or the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) wastewater discharge, as described in the hydrologic modeling studies included in the Draft EIR Appendix(Appendices C and D). Requiring these discharges to meet MCLs PC Staff Report—7/8/03 13 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) in ambient waters would provide no improvement in water quality at the intake to the desalination plant. The treated water from the Poseidon Desalination Plant will be required to meet all drinking water standards in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. As described in the Watershed Sanitary Survey Report (Draft EIR, Appendix E) and in the Draft EIR (pp. 4.6-11 through 4.6-17), the plant will have multiple treatment processes, including reverse osmosis membranes, and will be capable of meeting all of the drinking water standards. The applicant will be required to obtain a drinking water permit from the California Department of Health Services that will address monitoring of source water quality (intake supplies). The desalination plant intake water quality in terms of turbidity (which is a surrogate indicator for potential elevated pathogen content) and salinity will be measured automatically and monitored continuously at the desalination plant intake facilities. Instrumentation for continuous monitoring and recording of these parameters will be installed at the desalination plant intake pump station. In event of excessive increase in intake seawater turbidity and/or salinity, this instrumentation will trigger alarms that will notify desalination plant staff. If the intake turbidity and salinity reaches a preset maximum.level, this instrumentation will automatically trigger plant shutdown procedures. In addition to the automation provisions, turbidity and salinity will also be measured manually by the desalination staff at least once a day and the intake seawater will be analyzed for pathogen content at least once per week. In the event of elevated intake seawater turbidity, laboratory pathogen content analysis will be performed more frequently. In addition to the intake water quality monitoring instrumentation, the desalination plant pretreatment filtration facilities will be equipped with filter effluent turbidimeters and particle counters. This equipment will allow to continuously monitor pretreatment filter performance and to trigger adjustments of desalination plant operations to accommodate intake water quality changes. Response 21 - Alternatives: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a), an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. According to the Draft EIR, (Section 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, page 3-8) "the proposed project consists of construction of a seawater desalination plant, storage facilities, and pipelines to produce drinking water for delivery into the regional water distribution system to meet the needs of the Southern California Region and particularly Orange County." The comment does not discuss the main component of the project (construction of a seawater desalination plant) and, focusing on the drinking water production aspect of the project, suggests that the EIR "evaluate possible PC Staff Report—7/8/03 14 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) alternative sources of water that might be available" to meet the drinking water needs of Orange County and the region. 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. Although an objective of the project is to provide a reliable local source of drinking water to Orange County and the surrounding region, 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 (Le., imported water supplies and local groundwater supplies). (See the list of project objectives on page 6-1 of the Draft EIR.) "Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives," as stated in CEQA Guidelines section 15204(a). Except for desalinated seawater, the lead agency is not aware of(and the comment does not identify) any "other water sources" that do not fall into the categories of either "imported water" or "local groundwater." For example, 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 directly produce potable/drinking water. Consequently, there are no feasible "other water sources" to evaluate that meet the objective of the project. 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 Draft EIR notes (on 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 any alternative water source (assuming there is one) will avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts when compared to the project. The comment suggests that "subsequent environmental documents" should evaluate various factors related to the availability of water supplies in the region. Because that aspect of the comment does not address the sufficiency of this Draft EIR for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project, no further response is necessary. Several factors regarding the availability of water supplies in the region have been reported since the start of the public review period of the Draft EIR. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) has identified the overdraft of the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin by more than 400,000 acre-feet due to drought conditions of the last three years.' The project could serve, for example, to offset withdrawals from the groundwater basin ' "O.C.Sees Cheap Water Era Ending",Orange County Register,September 29,2002. PC*Staff,Report—7/8/03 15 (03 SR05 A EIR 00-02) during dry years (allowing it to recharge) and to offset the need for imported water in wetter years. For further information about the availability of water supplies in the region, reference is made to the Metropolitan Water District's (MWD) Integrated Resource Plan and the current situation with the reduction of Metropolitan's Colorado River allocation. Metropolitan's December 10, 2002 Board documents contain an approval of further support of increasing the volume of desalinated water to manage potential supply shortfalls and drought conditions. Finally, it should be noted that MWD established its Local Resources Program (LRP) to encourage the development of local programs for water conservation, recycling, desalination and storage to establish a diversity of approaches to improve regional supply reliability. The program is also intended to assist in the management of drought conditions as well. The comment suggests that Section 3.5 of the DEIR does not "adequately discuss other sources of water." Section 3.5 is the portion of the PROJECT DESCRIPTION that sets forth the "need" for the project and the project objectives. While a statement of objectives is required as part of the project description section of an EIR2, the information regarding the "need" for the project (Draft EIR at pages 3-20 through 3-23) was simply included as supplemental background information relating to water supply availability in Orange County and the region. On page 3-23 the Draft EIR reproduces a table created by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR, the governmental agency in California that has statutory responsibility with respect to water supplies). The table summarizes the projected availability of surface water, groundwater and recycled water supplies. The table projects a water supply shortage of 944,000 acre-feet for the South Coast Region in 2020. Finally, the comment suggests that the benefits and effects of the proposed project should be compared with water supply projects "such as" the 80 projects referenced in the "Southern California Integrated Water Resource Plan" (IRP). As stated in the Draft EIR at page 3-22, the IRP was adopted in 1996 by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), the major imported water supplier in the region. As described in the Draft EIR, each of the "80 projects" referred to by the comment were existing water recycling projects. The Draft EIR(on page 3-21) further describes the difference between the proposed project and water recycling projects. Water recycling consists of the "reclamation of wastewater to produce water that is safe and acceptable for various non-potable uses,but not approved for direct use drinking and other domestic uses." The proposed project will produce water that is approved for direct use drinking and for other potable uses. A comparison of two different supplies with different objectives is not required. It should also be noted that the proposed project will only produce CEQA Guidelines Section 15124[b]. PC Staff Report—7/8/03 16 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) approximately 56,000 acre-feet per year of potable water supply (not 150,000 acre-feet per year as stated in the comment). Response 4b—Intake Water Quality Monitoring: The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (No. CA0001163) issued to AES Huntington Beach, LLC by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) includes specific monitoring requirements for monitoring the discharges through the outfall. Those requirements will continue to apply. In addition, the project will be required to obtain a separate NPDES permit from the RWQCB that will also include monitoring requirements. The RWQCB's Ocean Plan human health standards are designed to protect the beneficial use of body-contact recreation. The discharge from the desalination plant will be required to meet all Ocean Plan standards regulated by the RWQCB. Response 11c — Solid Waste Disposal: As stated within Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS, of the Draft EIR, the applicant shall prepare a waste reduction plan for construction/operational waste and the project will be in compliance with AB 939 requirements. 4. Impacts of Project on Future Restored Adjacent Wetland — California Earth Corps comment letter (dated 5/27/03): Impact analysis and mitigation for potential impacts to receptors surrounding the proposed project site (including the adjacent wetland area) are provided throughout the Draft EIR, including Sections 4.3 (marine biology issues associated with water quality) and Section 4.9 (construction-related impacts). This comment letter raises similar issues to those identified by California Department of Fish and Game, for which additional discussion (and mitigation measures) are provided within Responses 3d and 3h of the Responses to Comments document. Concerns from Gary Gorman of the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy were addressed within Response 13b. Although the Draft EIR was prepared prior to City staff gaining knowledge that the adjacent wetland area would be restored, several mitigation measures were included in the Draft EIR that would mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent wetland, even in a restored state. These mitigation measures apply to potential impacts in regards to noise, nighttime lighting, and nesting birds, and are provided below: NOI-1 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 PC Staff Report—7/8/03' 17 (03 SR05A EIR 00-02) Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. ALG-2 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. CON-12 To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: ❖ Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and ❖ Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. CON-41 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. Additional mitigation measures throughout the Draft EIR would also minimize impacts to the adjacent wetland area in regards to air quality, urban runoff/storm water, and erosion. It should also be noted that the existing containment berm (approximately 15 feet in height) running along the border of the project site adjacent to the wetland area would be left in place, further minimizing potential impacts to biological resources. Response 3d. The Huntington Beach Wetlands are situated southeast of the desalination site and occupy a 131 acre, 1.5 mile long area along the coast, bordered by Pacific Coast Highway to the southwest, and the Talbert and Santa Ana River Flood Control Channels to the north and southeast.3 The wetlands are divided into two major components. To the southeast, the 17-acre Talbert Marsh opens to the ocean through a 100 ft-wide entrance adjacent to the mouth of the Santa Ana River. The Talbert Marsh is a recovering wetland area reintroduced to tidal influence on February 17, 1989.4 The second component of the Huntington Beach wetlands, separated from the Talbert Marsh by Brookhurst Street, includes 89 privately owned acres abutting the edge of the southeast corner of the proposed project site. This acreage has limited tidal access, and water sources are primarily limited to rainfall, urban runoff, and groundwater seepage.5 3 MEC,1991, 4 Reish and Massey, 1990. 5 MEC,1991. PC Staff Report—7/8/03 .._ 18 (03 SR05A EIR 00-02) Salinities are extremely high in the soils and seasonal ponds, water quality of the brackish water marsh is poor, and the area in general is considered degraded. The remaining area of the Huntington Beach Wetlands includes almost 20 acres of open water channel of the Talbert Flood Control System. The privately owned area of the Huntington Beach wetlands (abutting the edge of the southeast corner of the desalination plant site) is primarily a seasonally flooded estuarine intertidal habitat dominated by pickleweed, along with other plant species that can tolerate high soil salinities and seasonal saturation and drought, such as saltgrass and alkali heath.' Many areas of the wetland are heavily disturbed and unvegetated. The back dune habitat along the Pacific Coast Highway supports a moderate number of species including introduced plant species. The dunes have been replanted with native plant species. The site functions as a seasonal wetland for some wildlife, while seasonal ponding in former tidal sloughs supports limited fish and invertebrate use. As stated in the Draft EIR, a spill at the desalination facility of either product or byproduct water is likely to have negligible effects on the Huntington Beach Wetlands and.Talbert Flood Control System. Soils of wetlands are already flooded by freshwater during the rainy season, forming standing pools. Product water spills will do the same. Soils are already hypersaline, so spills of byproduct water will contribute little to the salinity of soils. Spills into the local Talbert Channel are also likely to have minimal impact. The channel already has multiple year-round_ fresh water inputs, so product water spills will have no impact. Byproduct water spills will be diluted by these fresh water inputs, although if the channel contains ocean water at the time of a spill, salinities may be overly elevated. Species likely to be found in the channel, such as topsmelt, can tolerate wide variations in salinity. Western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus, federally-listed as threatened and a state species of concern) forage primarily on sand at the beach-surf interface where they feed on small invertebrates. Snowy plovers nest most commonly on sandsvits, dune-backed beaches, beach strands and open areas near river mouths and estuaries. Western snowy plover is a winter migrant in southern California and a localized breeding resident April through September.9 Reduced tidal influence in the marsh adjacent to the proposed project make it unlikely that western snowy plover will forage in this area. Plovers would also be unlikely to nest in this, or other adjacent marsh areas due to human activity. Western snowy plover nesting was last observed in the area in 1993, when one nesting pair was observed at the protected California least tern breeding area located on the Huntington State Beach.10 Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingii, state-listed as endangered) may use the pickleweed of the Huntington Beach wetlands for breeding, nesting and feeding habitat. 1 Construction impacts, including short-term, temporary noise 6 Coats and Josselyn 1990,CDFG 1982,cited in MEC, 1991. ' MEC,1991. e Thelander and Crabtree,1994. ' AES and URS,2000. 10 Personal communication,Jonathan Snyder,United States Fish and Wildlife Service,2003. MEC,1991. PC Staff Report—7/8/03 19 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) disturbance, could lead to disruption in Belding's savannah sparrow nesting activities in the marsh adjacent to the project site. A spill at the desalination plant site of either product or byproduct water could potentially impact Belding's savannah sparrow through inundation of any of the bird's low- or ground-lying nests in the area. However, such a spill is unlikely to occur as the existing on-site containment berms abutting the wetland area would remain in place, thereby keeping product water or byproduct water from impacting the wetland area. Adult birds are likely to avoid areas of construction and operational impacts, minimizing potential effects on adults. As noted in Section 3.0, ERRATA, in order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. California least tern (Sterna antillarum brownii, state- and federally-listed as endangered) are known to fly over the Huntington Beach wetlands, and to feed in the open water of the Talbert Channel.12 Least terns forage on small shallow-water fish such as anchovies and topsmelt.13 In order to provide abundant food for their chicks, California least terns breed in loose colonies along the coast near areas of seasonally abundant small fish, such as estuaries, river mouths and shallows. Nests are shallow depressions in sandy open areas with little vegetation. Nests and chicks are highly vulnerable to predation from native and introduced predators. A protected 7.9-acre California least tern breeding area is located on the Huntington State Beach between the Talbert Marsh opening and the mouth of the Santa Ana River, approximately 5,000 ft south east of the proposed project area. Typically 200 to 300 nesting pairs of California least terns utilize this breeding site each year.' This area is likely to be unaffected by construction impacts. The nesting site is also well outside the modeled area of elevated salinities from the offshore discharge.'5 Least terns nest above the high tide level, so they would not be directly impacted by water of varying salinities as might occur in the case of accidental release of high saline water. California least tern forage species are mobile, surface-schooling fish species can be expected to tolerate all salinity conditions resulting from project operations (refer to Appendix C of these Responses to Comments), limiting least tern exposure to high salinities during foraging. California least terns are not likely to be impacted as a result of RO plant operations. Response 3h. A biological constraints report was prepared to assess potential biological resource impacts at the proposed underground pump station, while a review was conducted to assess potential marine biological and coastal terrestrial impacts at the proposed desalination site. Rare plants and natural communities may exist adjacent to the proposed underground booster pump station location (for further information, Refer to Response lc, above). However, in response to agency comments, the underground pump station location will be sited adjacent to existing pipeline facilities, and no sensitive vegetation/community will be replaced. '= MEC, 1991. 13 Thelander and Crabtree, 1994. 14 Personal communication,Keane,2001. 15 Jenkins and Wasyl,2001(Appendix D of the-Draft EIR). PC Staff Report—7/8/03 20 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) As indicated in Response 3d, above, the wetland area abutting to the southeastern boundary of the desalination plant site features high salinities in the soils and seasonal ponds, poor water quality of the water marsh, and the area in general is considered degraded. This area is dominated by pickleweed, along with other plant species that can tolerate high soil salinities and seasonal saturation and drought, such as saltgrass and alkali heath. Many areas of the wetland are heavily disturbed and unvegetated. The back dune habitat along the Pacific Coast Highway supports a moderate number of species including introduced plant species. The dunes have been replanted with native plant species. The desalination plant is not anticipated to impact vegetation in the adjacent wetland area. However, should construction have the potential to impact suitable habitat for nesting birds within 500 feet of project construction/staging areas, applicable pre-construction nesting surveys will be performed in coordination with appropriate resource agencies. In addition, the proposed water conveyance pipeline alignment would primarily travel within existing street right-of-way and easements. No sensitive vegetation or natural communities are anticipated to be impacted through pipeline implementation (also see Response 3e above regarding flood control channel crossings). Commissioner Ray: 1. Impacts of Project on Future Restored Adiacent Wetland/Possibility of Buffer Area— California Earth Corps comment letter (dated 5/27/03): See response to Commissioner Dingwall's Issue No. 4, above. 2. Archaeological Resources within Proposed Project Boundaries: According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan EIR, archaeological resources within the City have mostly been destroyed by development. The remaining archaeological resources are likely to be found in vacant, undeveloped areas of the City. As all elements of the proposed project (excluding the proposed pump station nearby the NCCP/HCP area in unincorporated Orange County) occur within developed areas, the project is not expected to impact archaeological resources. In addition, a discussion of potential impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed pump station nearby the NCCP/HCP area in unincorporated Orange County is provided within the Draft EIR in Section 4.9, CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS. 3. Growth Inducement in Regards to Santa Margarita Water District and the Rancho Mission Viejo, Saddle Creek, Saddle Crest, and Saddleback Meadow developments: Refer to Commissioner Kokal's #2 response, above. It should be noted that the Santa Margarita Water District would only provide service to one of the specific developments mentioned by Commissioner Ray (the Rancho Mission Viejo development), as the Saddle Creek, Saddle Crest, and Saddleback Meadow residential developments are within the service area of the Trabuco Canyon Water District, not SMWD.16 4. AES Heat Treatment/Reverse Flow Process:. See response to Commissioner Kokal's Issue No. 1, above. 16 http://www.tcwd.ca.gov/service.htm PC Staff Report—7/8/03 . 21 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AT OR AFTER THE JUNE 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING WRITTEN COMMENTS: A brief summary of each comment letter received either at or after the June 3, 2003 Planning Commission hearing is provided below (refer to each individual comment letter as provided by City staff in previous staff reports or late communication packets for more information): 1. Rich Kolander, Huntington Beach Resident (dated May 8, 2003): Mr. Kolander's letter provides information on the benefits of the proposed project, focusing on the industrial nature of the project area, existing infrastructure, tax revenues, and improvements in water pressure. Mr. Kolander endorses the proposed project. 2. Jan Vandersloot, M.D., Huntington Beach Business Owner (dated May 29, 2003): Mr. Vandersloot's letter provides information regarding the proposed project's salinity plume and suggests a relationship to the results of bacterial testing performed as part of the Huntington Beach Closure Investigation, Phase I. Information from the Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III, is also included. The letter also expresses concerns regarding entrainment/impingement, public/private desalination plant ownership, alternative locations, by-product brine disposal, and recreational impacts. Attached to Mr. Vandersloot's letter is the executive summary from the Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III Peer Review Panel Summary Report. Mr. Vandersloot recommended continuation on the Draft EIR for the project. 3. Larry Porter, Newport Beach Resident (dated May 29, 2003): Mr. Porter's letter focuses on the existing bacterial plume off-shore of Huntington Beach and its potential relationship to the proposed project. The letter also contains information regarding the Southern California Bight and pollutants discharged into the Bight from local waterways. Mr. Porter also states concerns with reverse osmosis membrane durability and the Department of Health Services conceptual approval letter. Mr. Porter recommends denial of the proposed project. 4. Robert W. Harrison, P.E., Huntington Beach Resident (dated May 30, 2003): Mr. Harrison's letter focuses on thermal impacts of the existing AES facility and potential effects of the proposed project. The letter provides information on benefits of the project, such as environmental benefit and use of existing infrastructure. Mr. Harrison recommends approval of the proposed project. 5. Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation — National Office (dated May 30, 2003): Mr. Geever's letter focuses on entrainment/impingement and potential impacts of the project on organisms surviving the AES cooling process and growth inducement. Mr. Geever recommends continuation of the Draft EIR for the proposed project. 6. Don May, California Earth Corps (dated June 3, 2003): Mr. May's comment letter largely reiterates text found in his previous letter dated May 27, 2003. Mr. May's comments on the proposed project focused on growth inducement/cumulative impacts, coastal/terrestrial/wetland biological impacts, geological hazards, Ascon/Nesi hazardous materials, on-site drainage, AES entrainment/impingement, permitting requirements, groundwater/soil contamination, noise, light and glare, operational use of hazardous materials, drinking water supply, tsunami potential, aesthetics, and cultural resources. Mr.May recommends continuation of the Draft EIR. PC Staff Report—7/8/03 22 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) 7. Tom Luster, California Coastal Commission (dated June 3, 2003): Mr. Luster's letter focuses on the 316(b) study to be performed for the AES Generating Station. Mr. Luster repeats the comment included in his November 4, 2002 and May 8, 2003 letters that the results of this study are necessary to appropriately make a determination on the Draft EIR. Mr. Luster recommends continuation of the Draft EIR until this entrainment study is completed. 8. Gregory P. Heiertz, P.E., Irvine Ranch Water District (dated June 5, 2003): Mr. Heiertz's letter suggests that product water from the proposed project would cause Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) to exceed reclaimed water permit limits set by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), due to elevated sodium and chloride levels. Mr. Heiertz recommends that mitigation measures to ensure reclaimed water quality permit compliance should be included into the EIR prior to certification. 9. Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation (dated June 19, 2003): Mr. Schulz's letter provides information regarding the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS). 10. Mike Seymour, Huntington Beach Resident (dated May 29, 2003): Mr. Seymour's letter indicates support for the project. 11. Michelle Kremer, Surfrider Foundation National Office (dated July 2, 2003): Ms. Kremer's letter urges the Planning Commission not to certify the EIR until deficiencies relative to growth inducement and marine life mortality, among others, are addressed. 12. Richard Kolander, Huntington Beach Resident (dated July 1, 2003): Mr. Kolander's letter includes articles on water supply problems in the western United States. 13. Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Resident (dated July 3, 2003): Mr. Holman expresses support of the project. ORAL COMMENTS: In addition, as part of the CEQA process for the proposed desalination facility, input from the public was received by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on June 3, 2003. A total of 16 oral comments regarding the proposed project were heard during the public hearing. A list of speakers and a brief summary of their comments is provided below. In addition please note that "*" indicates that the speaker also submitted written comments, either as part of the Draft EIR review period or following close of public review. 1. Don McGee — Opposed to Project: Mr. McGee stated his concerns in regards to the AES facility's financial situation, public versus private ownership of the proposed project, and conservation of water instead of desalinated water. 2. Dean Albright, Ocean Outfall Group (OOG) — Opposed to Project: Mr. Albright's comments focused on sewage/bacterial impacts and their relationship to marine biology and potential salinity impacts of the proposed project. 3. Chris Jepsen — Opposed to Project: Mr. Jessup stated his concerns in regards to AES air pollution and potential project-related impacts in regards to product water pipeline implementation, adjacent wetland impacts, desalination facility electricity consumption, and land use issues. 4. *John Hills, IRWD — Expressed Concerns About the Adequacy of the EIR: Mr. Hills' comments focused on potential impacts to IRWD reclaimed water quality, customer acceptance of water, reverse osmosis membrane performance, and potential corrosion impacts from desalinated product water. PC.Staff Report—7/8/03 23 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) 5. Billy Owens - Project Applicant: Mr. Owens provided a brief project overview and responses to some recurring comments on the proposed project. 6. *Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation - Opposed to Project: Mr. Geever stated his concerns in regards to growth inducement and marine life mortality impacts of the proposed project. 7. *Rich Kolander, Supportive of Project: Mr. Kolander provided an analogy of the proposed project to an early-era Ford automobile factory. 8. Greg Jewell, Surfrider Foundation - Opposed to Project: Mr. Jewell stated his concerns that an alternate site should be utilized for the proposed project. 9. Randy Furman - Opposed to Project: Mr. Furman provided comments regarding a lack of benefits of the proposed project for the City of Huntington Beach, alternative sites, and the relationship of the project in regards to the Southeast Coastal Redevelopment Plan. 10. *Don May, California Earth Corps - Opposed to Project: Mr. May stated his concerns in regards to growth inducement, permit acquisition for the project applicant, and issues raised by the California Coastal Commission and California Department of Fish and Game. 11. *Larry Porter - Opposed to Project: Mr. Porter provided comments in regards to the relationship of the OCSD discharge and the AES intake and potential salinity issues of the proposed project. 12. Ron Van Blarcom — Project Applicant Team: Mr. Van Blarcom stated the relationship between the proposed project and the legal requirements of CEQA. 13. Jeffrey Graham — Project Applicant Team: Dr. Graham provided information regarding potential marine biological impacts due to the by-product brine discharge of the proposed project. 14. Elaine Archibald—Project Applicant Team: Ms. Archibald stated information found in the Watershed Sanitary Survey, and that there is no relationship between the bacterial plume off the coast of Huntington Beach and the AES intake. 15. Nikolay Voutchkov — Project Applicant: Mr. Voutchkov provided information regarding product water quality and its relationship with IRWD. 16. Scott Jenkins — Project Applicant Team: Mr. Jenkins stated that the AES intake does not have a relationship to the bacterial plume near the Huntington Beach coast, as well as the AES intake's relationship to local marshes and the Santa Ana River. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 1581 (Final EIR No. 00-02) 2. Excerpt from Draft EIR pages 5-2 through 5-6 3. Excerpt from Draft EIR pages 3-20 through 3-23 4. Additional Comment Letters a) Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation Local Chapter, dated June 19, 2003 b) Mike Seymour, dated May 29, 2003 c) Gregory Heiertz, Irvine Ranch Water District, dated June 5, 2003 d) Michelle Kremer, Surfrider Foundation National Office, dated July 2, 2003 e) Rich Kolander, dated July 1,2003 f) Bill Holman, dated July 3,2003 5. Planning Commission Staff Reports (Previously Distributed—Not Attached) a) EIR No. 00-02 Staff Report dated May 27, 2003 b) CUP No. 02-04/CDP No. 02-05 Staff Report dated May 27, 2003 PC Staff Report—7/8/03 24 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) c) Late Communication dated May 27, 2003 d) Report Updates dated May 22, 2003 e) Report Updates dated June 3, 2003 fl Late Communication dated June 3, 2003 g) Revised Errata dated June 3, 2003 PC Staff Report—7/8/03 25 (03SR05A EIR 00-02) RESOLUTION NO. 1581 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2001051092) FOR THE POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse #2001051092 ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City") to address the environmental implications of the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project (the "Project"). • On May 17, 2001, a Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties. An update to the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study was prepared and distributed on March 4, 2002. • After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the two public scoping meetings held at the Edison Community Center in the City of Huntington Beach on June 6, 2001 (2:30 pm and 7:15 pm), the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR, dated September 19, 2002, and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 19, 2002 to November 4, 2002 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and WHEREAS, public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the Planning Commission in a separately bound document entitled "Responses to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated March 21, 2003; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the EIR on May 27, 2003, and received and considered public testimony. WHEREAS,the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have previously certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Redevelopment Project in which the Poseidon Project is located; and WHEREAS, in the event the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency take any actions in the future in furtherance of and to carry out the Southeast Redevelopment Project which involve the Poseidon Project, any such actions would be based on the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Reports for both the Southeast Redevelopment Project and the Poseidon Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE,as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments, the Errata (bound together with the Responses to Comments), the Appendices to the Responses to Comments and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments, incorporation, and references. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission makes the findings contained in the attached "Statement of Facts and Findings" with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and finds that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts and Findings is attached as Exhibit"A"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference.. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission finds that all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts and the Final EIR. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist" (also referred to as the "Mitigation Monitoring Program") attached as Exhibit "B"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the Planning Commission finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate suggested alternatives in the.preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. SECTION 7. The Planning Commission finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. 2 SECTION 8. The Planning Commission finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR. The Planning Commission finds that the refinements that have been made in the Project do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the Planning Commission through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. SECTION 9. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation. SECTION 10. The Planning Commission finds that the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project as identified in Section 5.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings (short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality) have been lessened in their severity by the application of standard conditions, the inclusion of Project design features and the imposition of the mitigation measures. The Planning Commission finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" included as Section 7.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings. The Planning Commission adopts the recitation of overriding considerations which justify approval of the Project notwithstanding certain unavoidable significant environmental effects which cannot feasibly be substantially mitigated as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 11. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, that the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05. SECTION 12. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The Planning Commission certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED, this 27th day of May, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Chairperson, Planning Commission 4 l � ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXCERPT FROM THE DRAFT EIR (pages 5-2 through 5-6) 5.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of the ways in which a proposed project could be growth-inducing. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth-inducing if it would foster economic growth or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)]. For example, new employees from commercial and industrial development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area. A project could also indirectly induce growth by reducing or removing barriers to growth, or by creating a condition that attracts additional population or new economic activity. However, a project's potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Development pressures are a result of economic investment in a particular locality. These pressures help to structure the local politics of growth and the local jurisdiction's posture on growth management and land use policy. Land use policies of local municipalities and counties largely regulate growth at the local level. 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. In general, growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. Population The population of the County of Orange was 2,867,700 as of January 1, 2000 and 2,925,700 as of January 1, 2001. This represented a 2.0 percent increase in population over this time period. The population of the City of Huntington Beach was 190,300 as of January 1, 2000 and 193,700 as of January 1, 200V This represented a 1.8 percent increase in population over this time period. Therefore, the population of the City of 1 California Department of Finance,"City/County Population Estimates,with Annual Percent Change, January 1, 2000 and 2001." May 2001. Huntington Beach increased at a slightly slower rate than that of the County over the past year. In 2001, the population of the City of Huntington Beach represented 6.6 percent of the total population of the County of Orange. The California Department of Finance estimates an increase in County population to 3,031,440 in the year 2005, and to 3,168,942 in the year 2010.2 The proposed 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 Orange County 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 may not necessarily induce growth because the new water supply made available by the project will be needed to replace anticipated reductions in available imported water supplies. In addition, implementation of the project will provide greater flexibility in meeting existing water supply needs during times of drought. Housing The California Department of Finance estimated approximately 967,112 housing units with a vacancy rate of 3.52 percent in the County of Orange, and 75,524 housing units with a vacancy rate of 2.65 percent in the City of Huntington Beach as of January 1, 2000.3 The desalination project would occur within an industrial area and would not involve the construction of any new housing or the relocation of any existing housing. Employment The proposed project site is currently occupied with several fuel storage tanks. The existing facility does not require the employment of any personnel. Implementation of the proposed desalination would generate minor short-term and nominal long-term employment within the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed plant would employ a total of 18 people, with five to seven people working on-site Monday through Friday and a minimum of two people on duty during swing shifts, graveyard shifts, and weekends. Project implementation would not appreciably affect the projected employment figure of 1,667,778 jobs in the year 2005 for the County of Orange.¢ Jobs/Housing Balance Information obtained from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) indicates that the City's jobs/housing ratio was .1.109 in 2000. This ratio indicates that more job positions exist within the City of Huntington Beach than housing units. This trend is anticipated to increase into the future. The jobs/housing ratios for 2000-2025 are included in Table 5-1, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JOBS/HOUSING RATIO, 2000-2025. 2 Center for Demographic Reserach,"Orange County Facts and Figures",March 2002. 3 California Department of Finance, Report E-5, "City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 2000 and 2001.' July 2001. 4 Center for Demographic Research,"Orange County Fads and Figures",March 2002. 2•�i- The proposed desalination project will not affect General Plan or Zoning designations for the project area and, as such, will not affect SCAG's current jobs/housing balance projections for the City. Table 5-1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH JOBS/HOUSING RATIO, 2000-2025 Year Jobs/Housing Ratio 2000 1.109 2005 1.171 2010 1.213 2015 1.239 2020 1.266 2025 1.289 Source:Javier Minjaves,Southern California Association of Governments,11/21/01 Water Supply Water supplies are typically allocated on an aggregate basis among diverse demands (urban, agricultural, and environmental) and across a geographically broad market. In California, water supplies are generally managed to be available for use within defined regions or service areas. This project, and primary users of water made available by this project, lie within a region defined by the California Department of Water Resources in Bulletin 160-98 (the California Water Plan Update) as the South Coast Hydrologic Region (the South Coast Region).5 The South Coast Region is bounded by the Santa BarbaraNentura County line and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north; a combination of the San Jacinto Mountains and low-elevation mountain ranges in central San Diego County to the east; the Mexican border to the south; and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The South Coast Region is described as "California's most urbanized hydrologic region" containing only seven percent of the state's total land area, but roughly 54 percent of the state's population (Bulletin 160-98, page 7-47). Through an integrated system of pipelines, pumps, and treatment facilities, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) delivers imported water to approximately 95 percent of the South Coast Region (Bulletin 160-98, page 7-48). 5 In 1957,the Department of Water Resources published Bulletin 3,the California Water Plan. Bulletin 3 was followed by the Bulletin 160 series. The Bulletin 160 series was published six times between 1966 and 1993, updating the California Water Plan. A 1991 amendment to the California Water Code directed the Department to update the plan every five years. Bulletin 160-98 is the latest in the series. In? �� The County of Orange and the service area of the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) are located at the center of the South Coast Region. In addition to the statewide water planning information available in the California Water Plan, local water planning information is also readily available for Orange County water supplies. The Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 requires all urban water suppliers to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan, and to update that plan every five years using a 20-year planning horizon. MWDOC supplies imported water to 32 local water agencies and cities throughout.the County of Orange. The most recent MWDOC Regional Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is dated December 20, 2000. Neither CEQA, or the CEQA Guidelines provide a specific methodology for determining whether or not a project will have growth-inducing impacts. One methodology would be to assume a "worst case" scenario, wherein all water produced by the desalination plant, or indirectly made available by implementation of the project, would be directed entirely toward supporting new growth. The Department of Water Resources has long recognized the entire South Coast Region as hydrologically interconnected, as well as physically connected by the MWD pipeline system. The proposed desalination plant project would produce 50 mgd (or 56,000 acre feet per year) of potable water for ultimate use within the South Coast Region. In comparison, the total 1995 water use in an average year for the South Coast Region was 5,224,000 acre feet (Bulletin 160-98, Table 7-21). The project would result in the nominal addition of slightly over one percent of the existing supplies used in the South Coast Region. If the potential growth impact area is theoretically narrowed to only include Orange County, the project's contribution is greater. MWDOC reported the total Orange County water use for the year 2000 as 703,000 acre feet (MWDOC UWMP, page 2-2). Under the "worst case" scenario analysis, the project would result in. the addition of less than eight percent of the existing supplies used in Orange County. With a projected population growth of approximately two percent per year, the project alone would not supply enough water to serve long-term growth projections for Orange County. Water planning documents are legally required to provide projections of future water needs (based on population projections and other factors) and to identify, to the extent feasible, where the water supplies to meet those needs will be found. In the South Coast Region (and particularly in Orange County) those planning documents have identified sea water desalination as one of the future supplies necessary to provide water for projected growth. Bulletin 160-98 identifies a projected year 2020 need of 6,084,000 acre feet per year in the South Coast Region. The Department of Water Resources has identified 5,141,000 acre feet of available water supply for 2020 (83,000 acre feet less than was available in 1995). This would result in a 944,000 acre feet shortage of available water in 2020 in an average year, and a 1,317,000 acre feet shortage in a drought year (refer to Bulletin 160-98, Table 7-21 and Table 3-2, SOUTH COAST REGION WATER BUDGET). Substantial reductions in the amount of imported Colorado River supplies and in the amount of imported State Water Project supplies from Northern California have been mandated and have been reflected in the projections. The Department of Water Resources identified seawater desalting as one of several management options available to offset these reductions, and stated "seawater desalting is sometimes described as the ultimate solution to Southern California's water supply shortfall" (Bulletin 160-98, page 7-70). However, the supplemental supply of 56,000 acre feet per year from this project will not be enough to replace the amount of existing supplies that are projected to be lost, much less offset the future supply needs. In Orange County, 2020 water needs are projected to be as high as 856,000 acre feet in an average year (MWDOC UWMP, page 2-10), and the desalination project has already been identified as part of the solution to offset projected losses and meet projected needs. The MWDOC UWMP specifically states that "seawater desalination is undoubtedly in the future of Orange County's water supplies," and describes a seawater desalination facility within the City of Huntington Beach (situated adjacent to the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station) as a "future water supply for Orange County." (MWDOC UWMP, page 3-13). Bulletin 160-98 describes the water supply reliability situation in the South Coast Region as follows: "Since local supplies are insufficient to meet water demands, the (South Coast) region imports more than 60 percent of its supply. A natural disaster or other emergency that would curtail or limit imports to the region would be detrimental. Water supply is a critical issue for the region and water agencies are seeking to ensure a more reliable and adequate supply in case of emergencies" (Bulletin 160-98, page 7-54). The objective of the proposed project is to meet that stated need by creating a drought-proof supply of domestic water and reducing Orange County's dependence on imported water. As the proposed project's product water would aid in supplying a projected water supply shortage for the region and has been identified as an important water source in the MWDOC UWMP (the applicable regional, planning, water supply document), potential growth-inducing impacts are not anticipated to be significant. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXCERPT FROM THE DRAFT EIR (pages 3-20 through 3-23) 3.5 PROJECT NEED AND OBJECTIVES NEED FOR PROJECT It is common knowledge that Southern California could not exist without its extensive imported water system. There are three main parts to the region's imported water system: 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 MWD and others operate numerous transmission pipelines necessary to distribute imported water supplies throughout the region. Although the region has made a significant financial investment in the imported water system and the system has met all of the region's supplemental water supply needs (with the exception of a one year period from March 1991 to March 1992), there is present concern regarding the amount of water that will continue to be available for delivery through the imported water system. Increasing regulatory activity and environmental water use needs in Northern California and in the Mono Lake area have reduced the amount of imported water supply (compared to system capacity and earlier projections) that is available to Southern California. Likewise, there is a fundamental change occurring in the availability and use of Colorado River water because California, for the first time, will be required to reduce the amount of Colorado River water it uses. California is currently finalizing its Colorado River Water Use Plan. Implementation of the Plan will, among other things, result in a reduction of up to 1 million acre feet per year as compared to the highest amount diverted in the past 25 years (from a high of 5.4 million acre feet per year to the California allotment of 4.4 million acre feet per year). Solutions to potential water shortage and reliability problems include water management programs on imported water systems as well as an increased reliance on many different sources of water supply and a continued emphasis on water conservation through implementation of State-approved Best Management Practices (BMP's). Orange County has implemented several successful programs including ultra low flow toilet and low flow shower head programs, conservation based rate structure programs, landscape conservation programs and commercial, industrial and institutional conservation programs. However, according to the Orange County Water District Master Plan Report (Section 5.6.2), potential conservation savings will be limited to no more than 30,000 to 60,000 acre feet per year. This amount is hardly sufficient to offset anticipated water shortages due to increases in population and economic activity. Water recycling (reclamation of wastewater to produce water that is safe and acceptable for various non-potable uses, but not approved for drinking and other domestic uses) is a technology that has provided a valuable source of water supply for Southern California. Southern California (and. Orange County in particular) leads the way in producing recycled water to offset potable water demands. In 1996 the major imported water supplier in the region, MWD, adopted its so-called "Southern California's Integrated Water Resources Plan" (IRP) representing a dramatic shift in water management and resource planning for the region. The IRP identified 80 different local recycling projects producing over 150,000 acre feet per year of water supply available to the region. Depending upon technological advancements and economic constraints, the IRP projected that as much as 800,000 acre feet of recycled water could be made available to the region by 2020. Recycled water projects will certainly be relied upon to meet the demands of projected growth in the region. However, recycled water has not been approved for drinking or for other potable uses. Desalinated seawater can be made directly available for drinking and other potable uses. Consequently, seawater desalination was also one of several potential resource options identified in the IRP. The IRP also recommended that groundwater recovery projects, storage projects, water recycling projects, water transfer projects and water conservation projects be included in the "resource mix". The IRP states that based on feasibility studies on potential projects, 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 develop approximately 56,000 acre- feet per year, or approximately one fourth of the potential for seawater desalination development identified by the 1996 IRP. Further, as a new reliable and sustainable water. source, water produced through the desalination process may become increasingly important in meeting increasing water demands generated by anticipated statewide population growth and related development activities. In this regard, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) provides.an assessment of anticipated statewide population growth and related water consumption statistics in their "Bulletin 160 series". The DWR employs these projections in developing and:implementing long-range strategies addressing California's water demands. Information from Bulletin 160-98 (the most recent of the Bulletin 160 series) is presented in Table 3-1, CALIFORNIA - 1995 TO 2020 WATER DEMANDS AND RELATED STATISTICS. Table 3-1 CALIFORNIA - 1995 TO 2020 WATER DEMANDS AND RELATED STATISTICS Change 1995 2020 Forecast: (percenta e) Population(million) 32.1 47.5 +15.4 Irrigated crops(million acres) 9.5 9.2 -0.3 Urban water use(million acre feet) 8.8 12.0 +3.2 Agricultural water use(million acre feet) 33.8 31.5 -2.3 Environmental water use(million acre feet) 36.9 37.0 +0.1 Source: California Department of Water Resources,Bulletin 160-98:California Water Plan Based on the State's assessment of future water availability, and the water demand information presented in Table 3-1, DWR projects--2020 statewide water shortages at approximately 2.4 million acre feet in an average water year, and 6.2 million acre feet in drought years.. Effects of water.shortages-are typically evidenced in required rationing, . curtailment of development, and environmental impacts to biologic resources. In general, anticipated statewide shortages can be expected to translate to equivalent local and regional shortages, with similar economic and environmental effects. Senate Bill (SB) 221 and SB 610 require demonstration of water supply reliability prior to development. In a more localized context, Bulletin 160-98 presents an assessment of existing and projected water supplies and demands for the South Coast Hydrologic Area. Extending eastward from the Pacific ocean, the South Coast Hydrologic Area (South Coast Region, or Region) is generally defined as that area bounded by the Santa Barbara-Ventura County line and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains on the north, and a combination of the San Jacinto Mountains and low-elevation mountain ranges in central San Diego County on the east, and the Mexican border on the south. The South Coast is California's most urbanized region. Although it covers only about 7 percent of the State's total land area, it is home to approximately 54 percent of the State's population. The largest cities in the region are Los Angeles, San Diego, Long Beach, Santa Ana, and Anaheim. Although highly urbanized, about one-third of the Region's land is publicly owned. About 2.3 million acres is public land, of which 75 percent is national forest. Previously discussed anticipated statewide water shortages will likely be reflected locally within the South Coast Region, and as indicated in Table 3-2, will become acute under drought conditions where demands may exceed available water sources by up to 21 percent. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The overall objective of the project is to provide Orange County and the surrounding region with a long-term, reliable, high quality local source of potable water. Project implementation will create a local drought-proof supply of domestic water and would reduce Orange County's dependence on imported water, consistent with the goal of integrated water resource management. A key advantage of the selected site is to utilize existing ocean intake/discharge lines of sufficient seawater volume to avoid the impact of constructing new ocean intake/discharge facilities. The project is intended to realize the following objectives: ❖ Provide a reliable local 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 or local groundwater supplies; ❖ Provide product water that meets or exceeds the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Department of Health Services (DHS); ❖ Reduce salt imbalance of current imported water supplies by providing a potable water source with lower salt loads for blending with existing supplies; 3. 3 Table 3-2 SOUTH COAST REGION WATER BUDGET (THOUSAND ACRE FEET) ' 1995 2020 Average Drought Average Drought Water Use Urban 4,340 4,382 5,519 5,612 Agricultural 784 820 46.2 484 Environmental 100 82 104 86 Total 5,224 r5,283 6,084 6,181 Suppiies Surface Water 3,839 3,196 3,625 3,130 Groundwater 1,17.7 1,371 1,243 1,462 Recycled and 207 207 273 273 Desalted Total 5,224 4,775 5,141 4,866 Shortage 0 E56 944. 1,317 Source:California Department of Water Resources,Bulletin 160-98:California Water Plan. ❖ Remediate the subject site of on-site contaminants resulting from approximately 35 years of use as a fuel oil storage facility in order to protect the health and safety of those in the surrounding community; ❖ Create ecosystem and biologic resources benefits that may accrue due to decreased pressures on existing water resources and reduced contamination within receiving waters; and ❖ Minimize demands on the existing imported water system. ' Water use/supply totals and shortages may not sum due to rounding. Jun-20-03 02 :52P PRC 415-332-4056 P.02 FOlfll �' s Huntington Beach/Sea]Beach Chapter June 19,2003 TO: Planning Commission,City of Huntington Beach CC: Council Members,City of Huntington Beach RE:Poseidon Resources GWRS vs. Seawater RIO Desalination Water Quality Comments. Dear Planning Commission Members. Some of the technical information that you may have received from Poseidon Resources during the Poseidon Desalination Plant E1R hearings regarding the comparative watcr quality of Seawater R/O Desalination water vs. reclaimed fresh water is not completely accurate(see attachments). This may raise an issue regarding the credibility of their statements in other areas. l would encourage you to question the Poseidon technical staTon all matters relating to water quality that are not fully disclosed in the E1R. Thank you for Four consideration of this suggestion. Wo Sc ulz Chapter Executive Member Attach. l)E-mail Dtd. 6/09/03 to Billy Owens Poseidon Resources Vice President. 2)Letter Dtd. 5/23/03 "GWRS vs. Seawater R/O Desalination; Differences in Treatment Methods." 3)E-Mail Dtd. 6/12/03 from Ron Wildermuth,Communications Director QOCWD.com. 4)E-Mail from Phil Anthony,Chair Joint Cooperative Committee GRS Jun-20-03 02 : 52P PRC 415-332-4056 P.03 6/09/03 Hilly Owens Thanks for the information regarding your intention to apply for a separate NPDFS permit from the RWQCB for the desalination project. AES will also have to apply for an amendment to their NPDES permit in order to supply the source water for this project. We are looking forward to the opportunity for public comment to both permit applications when they become available for review. 1 believe that your comparison of the GWRS vs.Desalination Project water quality contains some misconceptions regarding the GWRS project water. Because of the stringent source control and pre-treatment(microfiltration,chlorination and de-clorination)process that the GWRS must undergo prior to further treatment at wafter factory 21, the water quality for the GWRS water presently being used to re-charge our aquifer and our salt water barrier is superior to the Desalination Project product water that you are planning to sell to distributors. The Poseidon Desalination Project water contains no comparable sea water source control and pre-treatment before R/O. I have forwarded your Comparison of GWRS vs. Desalination Project Water to GWRS and OCSD staff for their review and comment. They are included in this distribution. Your comments are appreciated. Don Schulz Attach: 1 ..rain-;du-u:3 ue :5ew t KEl 415-332-4056 P.04 Attach: 2 GfoundwatW ROPWishMeM Syatar i (GWRS) & S*2WatW Rd® tiMation; Differarms in Trw1ment MletllDdlll May 23,1"= Some questions have been raised about why the proposed GWRS, which uses a reverse osmosis (RIO) system, is using additional treatment beyond the RIO process even though the water will not be consumed as drinking water. The Poseidon Seawater proposed plant wil/be producing drinking water from the ocean, but does not use the additional tieeitments. The simple answer is that the source water for each treatment system is different: sewage wastewater contains more contaminants than seawater, therefore it requires more aggressive treatment. The standards are set by the Califomia Department of Health Services(OHS)for both proposed facilities. Desalinated water is "cleaner" by definition in the sense that GWRS product (treated water produced by the process)cannot be used directly as a potable water couros but the desalinated water can. The GWRS source water is treated sewage which is loaded with all sorts of inorganic and organic chemicals from industrial and domestic waste discharges. Only about 10°A of these contaminants in wastewater can be identified by analysis, so a much Mont stringent treatment technique is required by OHS before the GWRS product water can be used to recharge the. groundwater basin. DMS requires that the recharged water remain in the ground for a defined period (6 months to 2 years depending on the groundwater basin) so that additional in-situ treatment (breakdown of organics) can occur before groundwater containing recycled water can be pumped into the potable supply system for use. GWRS is using UV disinfection, followed by the addition of hydrogen peroxide, to destroy N- Nitrosodlmethylamine (NDMA)which is one of the most powerful carcinollens known. NDMA forms in treated wastewater when Chlorine is used as a disinfectant. The GWRS source water has relatively high levels of NDMA both from direct industrial.discharges irto the sewer system and from formation of NDMA during chlorination-of the wastewater. The RIO in the GWRS will remove about 50% of the NDMA and the rest Is destroyed by the UV treatment. NDMA is not found in the Huntington Beach seawater source water and will not be formed after RIO because the NDMA precursors are removed. There is a very particular reason why GWRS needs to treat their RO water with UV disinfection in combination with hydrogen perwdde: their source water(i.e_ the wastewater) contains two highly carcinogenic compounds: N-nitrosodimethylamine(NDMA)and 1,4-dioxons, which are regulated by the California DHS. Unfortunately,these are some of the few.organic compounds that cannot be effectively removed by the RO system and the only cost-effective way of their treatment known today is a combination of UV irradiation followed by a hydrogen peroxide oxidation. The purpose of the UV irradiation is to break the complex organic molecules of the NDMO and 1,4-dioxone to smaller molecules; which are than oxidized by hydrogen peroxide to carbon dioxide and water. The source of.NDMA and 1,"ioxane In the wastewater is unknown of this time (OCWD developed a comprehensive pmgram to find it), but is typically gesHuel related or originates from some industries. The desalination plant treats its R/O water with lime and chlorine/amonia only. The desalination pretreatment and the GWRS pretreatment system are similar, although GWRS was membrane microfiltration and the desalination plant may or may not use membrane prefte n-ent. A significant benefit of the Huntington Bond,source seawater(and seawater in general)is that it does not contain NDMA and 1,4-dioxane — therefore we do not- mead the additional UY Ar4 PAAAidnn RacnirrrAS— Huntinamn Floarh 1 Jun-Cu-u3 uz : b3sw PRc 415-332-4056 P.05 Attach: 2 hydrogen peroxide systems to deal with these compounds. We have measured the concen*ation of both compounds in the H®Carlsbad intake seawater and they are non-detectible. Several additional key water quality dffferences between the Huntington Beech source seawater and GWRS source water(which is actually wastewater)are that: 1. Seawater contains several orders of magnitude lower pathogens concentration (coli bacteria)than GWRS source water. The call count in the Huntington Beach desel plant source seawater is usually In the range of 0 to 100 bacteria cells per liter(typically below 50), the call count of the GWRS water is in the order of million brrc terial cells per liter. The DNS gives only two log pathogen rerrwval credit for the RO system in both cases— HS decal plant and the GWRS. Because the RO systems in Huntington Beach decal and GWRS are given the same log removal credit (read pathogen rem val capabilities) but, the GWRS has to deal with several orders of magnitude higher pathogen count, they have to do an additional RO water post treatment —which the UV and peroxide do for them. Both of these technologies are credited for additional pethogien removal,which Is needed in the GWRS case to deal with the higher pathogen content in the source water. 2. Seawater contains an order of magnitude lower concentration of arsenic(i.e. arsenic is not present/non-detect) then the GWRS source water. There are «umerous sources of arsenic in the wastewater — most of them are industrial Installations. Arsenic is very difficult to treat and requires more complicated and conservative irrstreatment and RO design. 3. Intake water total suspended solids content. The GWRS source water has turbidity of 10 10 100 NTU, and turbidity usually averages around 15 to 20 NTU. 7b*ssawater turbidity is typically 1 to 4 NTU (i.e. several times lower). This difference requires more robust and expensive pretreatment. 4. Intake water organic content. The total organic carbon in the GWRS water is in a range of 4 to 10 mg/L. Theo Huntington Beach seawater contains TOC,s<legs then 0.2 mg& (i.e. is below detection limits). This requires a more complicated pretreatment and a more conservatively designed RO system,which makes the RO system bigger. There are a number of other compounds that are different in a positive way(such as nutrients)— the GVVRS has a large amount, seawater does not —which make the treaMnent of wastewater more complicated and expensive. The differences listed above are not an exoeptlon tot the GWRS only—most water reuse installations in the US face the same probliame, which will make water reuse even more expensive in the Uwe as compared to the downward Cost trend of Seawater desalination. PO.q Idnn Rowunirres— Huntinatnn Rama-h 2 Jun-20-03 - 02 : 53P PRC 415-332-4056 P.06 Page I of I Subj-. Desal&GWRS Date: 6/121200312:13:63 PM Pacific Dayllght-Time From: RWdd W#Jh0WQydearn To: 5M4429ft-tom Received from Internet: Don, Thanks for sending us the handout from Poseidon. The reel answer is that different sources of water require different treatments. Both systems can provide very healthy water. We feel it is environmentally responsible to reuse our water because the technology is here to produce safe, high quality water. Unfortunately, there are many Inaccuracies in the Poseidon Information piece. Most are the result of leek of information and understanding about the GWR System, its source water and its treatment process. For example, the Poseidon paper says GWRS source water has a turbidity of 10 to 100 NTU, and usually averages 15`20 NTU. The fact is that GWRS source water will have a turbidity of 2ti5 NTU based on over seven years of testing. The paper says the treating wastewater is more complicated and expensive. Our estimate of the cost of GWRS water is about$500.00 an acre-foot,while desalting the ocean is S900.00 to 1,000.00 an acre-foot. I am not going to go through the whole paper; 1 think you get the point. Our General Manager,Virginia Grebbien,will talk to Poseidon and hopefully ensure that information about GWRS is referred to us for fact checking prior to use in the future. Ron Ron Wildermuth Communications Director Orange County Water District PO Box 8300, Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8300 10500 Ellis Ave.,Fountain Valley, CA 92708 rwi IdermuthCocwd.com www.acwd.com 714)378-3351 714)963-0291 fax Attach: 3 Friday,June 13,2003 CompuServe: Ssurfdad Jun-20-03 02 : 53P PRC 415-332-4056 P.07 Attach: 4 A number of opinion editorials have recently been published in newspapers around the state, launching an attack on a saw-to-be released report by the StsteMI*s Recycled Water Task Force. Unfortunately,the authors of the opinion editorials are being hasty in their comments. They do not have the benefl,of reviewing the Recycled Water Task ForosM n's final report,nor do they take into cazsideration the technological advances that make recycled water a viable part of CalitbmiaWrms water supply portfolio.The Task Force is made up of experts in the field of water and was established to develop alrategies and policies for new water reuse projects that would produce 200,000 acre-feet of new water annually in California. Mh increased demand, decreased availability of imported water and the increased water treatment requirements, water supplies will become even more limited and a<pensive. California communities need new, reliable and tocalty-controlted sources of water, suct.as the Groundwater Replenishment(GWR)System. I went to assure you that the GWR System will produce safe, high-quality water. The GWR System stands alone in the state reuse picture due the extremely high quality water being produced. You Can be confident and proud of the extensive lengths the GWR System is going though in order to ensure the water produced is of this highest quality, somewhere between bottled drinking water and distilled water. As you know,the GWR System will take highly treated sewer water currently released to the environment and send it through one of the woridKI"s most advanced treatment processes W microfiftration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide treatment. These are the same systems used to purify baby foods,medicines,and fruit juices. They also have a proven track record in providing safe, high quality water for many businesses includhig bottled water companies, The GWR System has been developed from extensive study and experience with similar projects throughout the country. The GWR System will be the largest membrane technology project of its kind in the world and will become the model for other communities to follow. If you have any Questions,please feel free to contact Ron Wildermuth, Director of Communicartions for the Orange County Water District,at 714-376-3351 or rwi Idemwth®ocwd.corn. Sincerely, Phil Anthony Chair,Joint Cooperative Committee Groundwater Replenishment System To ensure that the factual information about the Groundwater Replenishment System does not gat lost in inaccuracies perpetri ted by individuals who are not familiar with it,hers are some of the ways this project demonstrates that water quality and protecting public hrralth are the Orange County Water DistrictbETMs and Orange County Sanitation OisMctM'vs top priorities. AS The water produced by the GWR System will meet and surpass state anti federal drinking water standards. AS The quality will be as good as bottled water due to the advanced treatment processWmicroliltration,reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light and paroxkWe*as well as natural ground filtration. A§The advaxad oxidation process with ultraviolet light plus hydrogen peroxide will eliminate emerging contaminants, such as 1,4-dioxone and NDMA,and others. A§The GWR System will remove complex pharmaceuticals using the latest multiple Merrier Jun-20-03 02 :53P PRC 415-332-4056 P.08 Attach: 4 technology so that the water produced by the GWR System will actually be purer then other current local and imported sources. AS An outside, independent study of the water quality found GWR System water to be safer than water from any of our current supplies,including imported water. AS Lending health and science experts from around the world endorse the Groundwater Replenishment SystemM7"s technology to purify wastewater. One of the reatearchers made the oomment: bE®You could put all the viruses in the world ahead of this system and none would make it through.M0 AS GWR System product water has been tested for more then seven years surd no significant contaminants and no viruses made it through the system. AS The GWR System product water is so pure it cannot be put into a normal concrete pipe, because it would leach the minerals fbm the pipe and destroy it. We actually have to add mineral back to the water before transportation, similar to what bottled water companies do for taste. Porter Novell! P: (949)583-2600 6: (949)583-2601 May 29, 2003 City of Huntington Beach ;clLI%1 o `iN n` Planning Commissioner Ron Davis 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Ron, I'm betting its that"small world"we talk about... might you be the Ron Davis that wrote articles (that I liked) in the Huntington Beach Independent? I have been excited about the prospect of the desalinization plant adjacent to the AES plant. I figured (incorrectly)that it would be a "slam-dunk", good-for- everybody project that would arrive in the nick of time to help us with the looming water shortage. I read today in the HB Independent that there is major opposition from assorted people. I trust your final decision; and the decision of the Commission as a whole. You all have the best information; not I... but please know that I am 99% for this project. I don't understand how pumping brine back to the ocean is any less an issue than sending treated wastewater out there... if we want to live in houses, we need water.....I Sincerely, r r Mike Seymour 21081 Greenboro Ln Huntington Beach CA 92646 2 IRTT RANCH DATER DISTRICT 15600 Sand Canyon Ave.,P.O.Box 57000,Irvine, CA 92619-7000 (949)453-5300 June 5, 2003 Mr. Ricky Ramos City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project EIR Dear Mr. Ramos: John Hills,Director of Water Quality for Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD),provided testimony on the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project EIR at the Huntington Beach Planning Commission meeting on June 3, 2003. That testimony outlined several concerns that IRWD has regarding the adequacy of the draft EIR.and the City's responses to our comments on those inadequacies. I understand that a representative of the project proponent offered rebuttal testimony at the Planning Commission meeting to the effect that the concerns of IRWD, particularly with regard to water quality and permit compliance issues, had been addressed and that the IRWD Engineering staff was satisfied with the project proponent's approach. I would like to clarify for the City that IRWD's concerns, particularly with regard to water quality and permit compliance issues,have not been satisfactorily addressed by the project proponent in the EIR. IRWD continues to believe the EIR is inadequate because it does not address and mitigate a potential adverse impact of the project on IRWD's reclaimed water system. Specifically, the increased sodium and chloride contained in the proposed project's product water will be introduced into IRWD's domestic water system, pass into our wastewater, then cause increased sodium and chloride levels in reclaimed water that is produced from our wastewater stream. The increased levels of sodium and chloride will cause IRWD to exceed permit limits for reclaimed water set by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board for these constituents. This is particularly problematic during winter months when IRWD relies on the East Orange County Feeder#2, which is proposed to have high levels of product water from the proposed project, as our primary source of domestic water. As such, implementation of the project without the appropriate mitigation measures has the potential to limit or curtail our annual production of 13,000 acre-feet of reclaimed water from the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant. If not mitigated,this potential reduction in existing water supply has local, as well as regional, adverse environmental consequences. CEQA requires evaluation and mitigation of such environmental.consequences. Mr. Ricky Ramos City of Huntington Beach June 5, 2003 Page 2 We believe that the EIR should not be certified by the City of Huntington Beach until the aforementioned issue, as well as the other issues raised in our May 22, 2003 letter to you, are addressed. We urge that specific and effective mitigation measures be included in the EIR to address the adverse environmental impact of the project on IRWD's water reclamation program. We further believe that these mitigation measures must not be deferred, but should be incorporated into the EIR and mitigation monitoring plan before it is certified by the City of Huntington Beach. IRWD is willing to work with the City and project proponent in developing potential mitigation measures. If you have any additional questions about the IRWD Engineering staff position on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at(949)453-5560. Sincerel 4 Gregory P. Heiertz, P.E. Director of Engineering and Planning GPH/clg cc: B. Owens, Poseidon Resources N. Voutchkov, Poseidon Resources K. Seckel,MWDOC J.Hills, IRWD P. Jones,IRWD F:/grm/wrd/gph/Itrs/poscmnts.doc Surfrider July 2,2W3 Foundation City of Huntington Beach Via Facsimile Planning Department Original Via Standard Mail Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington.Beach, CA 92648 RE: Huntington-Poseidon Environmental Impact Report Dear Commissioners, Thank you for your .diligence in. reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) submitted by the Poseidon consultants regarding the construction and operation of a.desalination plant on-the AES Huntington Beach Generating Facility. We strongly urge you not to certify this Draft EIR.until the Draft deficiencies are addressed and re-circulation of a modified EIR is.made available for public comment. During the public hearings on June 3, 2003,Commissioners Kokal;Dingwall, and Ray all requested information about growth inducement and end users for the additional* water,and marine life:mortality from cooling water entrainment/impingement. They also requested additional information on a.variety of other issues such as,but not limited to: AES Heat Treatment/Reverse Flow Process, NPDES review of AES discharge, leakage from AES discharge vault(bacteria levels), product water compatibility,impacts on adjacent wetlands,and concerns about archeological resources, The Surfrider Foundation agrees that in order for the EIR to be adequate itmould . need to include information about the end users of this new water supply. Information on the end users of the potential new water supply is missing in the Draft EIR."The EIR suggests that the new supply of water would go to partially relieve demand on unsustainable imported and groundwater supplies created by the natural population growth predicted for.the year 2020. Not included in the,analysis is the fact that 25 - . million gallons a day, approximately half of the plant's output, is contracted for transfer to Santa Margarita:.We agree with the Commissioners' concerns that this makes the .current draft of the EIR misleading and inadequate. Not only does this new information suggest much.of the new water supply may go to development not likely to occur.in its absence,it also points out the lack of any guarantees that the remaining new supply will actually,relieve our reliance on other.sources.-Therefore,revisions.to the.EIR to include this important new information.should be circulated to the public and allowed ample time for public review and continent. We also,agree with Commissioner Kokal's request for more information about marine life mortality from entrainment° and. impingement. The EIR has inadequately. reviewed the impact of entrainment from*. the generator cooling water process. -Importantly, the-•EIR does not thoroughly address alternatives to once-through cooling NATIONAL OFFICE.• P.O.BOX 6010.• SA CLEMENTE,'Ca 92674=6010; (949)'492-8170 4 FAX(949).492-8142 • www.surfdder.org a E-MAIL info@ surfrider.org a member of Earth Shag that may still supply source water for the desalination plant (e.g., wet cooling towers). Furthermore, the EIR has not thoroughly reviewed additional marine life mortality resulting from additional loads on the generator to supply energy to the desalination plant. The EIR should analyze whether this increased energy demand requires the plant to withdraw even more ocean water because of the Poseidon plant. In addition, the EIR does not review studies offered by the energy industry. suagesting that some portion.of the marine life entrained in the cooling water may actually survive. In a bizarre paradox, the energy industry is arguing that they don't kill all the marine life entrained in their cooling water,while their partners in the desalination business claim_that the generators do. While it is true that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assumes 100% mortality in their entrainment studies;this assumption is an effort to apply the "precautionary principle" to once-through cooling. Here we are reviewing the additional mortality caused by forcing marine life through a desalination . process. Applying the "precautionary principle"in this instance would require assuming that marine life survived the cooling water process Growth inducement . and marine. life .mortality are 'just two -examples. of deficiencies in the EIR listed by the Commissioners,at the June hearing and are not. representative of an exhaustive list of concerns regarding.the adequacy of the EIR. We believe any additional information regarding these issues, and the .others listed by the Commission, represent "significant new information.' that requires a recirculation of the . draft EIR for public comment.' Once again, we thank the Commission for their serious and thorough attention to this EIR. Please feel free to contact us with any.questions regarding our concerns about the project and the certification of an EIR that is.,in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.. ncer 13 , Michele emer Surfrider Foundation National Office Cc: Ricki Ramos,Planning Commission Staff . 1 Section 21092.1'of the California Environmental Quality Act from the Public Resources Code mandates: When significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to section 21092 and consultation has occurred pursuant to sections 21.104 and 21153, but prior to certification,the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to section 21092, and consult- again pursuant to sections 21104 and 2.115Y before`certifying the environmental.impact report. CA Stat. &21092.1.(1998). The California State Supreme Court interpreted 121092.1 in Laurel Heighti,improvements Assoc of San Francisco. Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1120 and held a public agency must re-circulate an EIR when the"information added to the EIR changes the EIR in a way that deprives the-public of a meaningful opportunity.to comment upon a substantial adverse environment effect of the project." City of Huntington Beach July 12003 Planning Dept. 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach CA, 92648 Attn: Mr. Randy Kokal Ref: E I R# 00-02 Gentlemen: Enclosed please find articles on water supply problems facing other areas in the Western United States. This may be a precursor to what could occur in Southern California. To quote a member of the Palm Desert City Council, " People have lived in this false water utopia." Another article concerns Lake Powell. They point out that prior to the lake level dropping 50% they were given ample warning by scientist's, " but our water management experts don't listen." They close the article by saying that those reliant on Colorado River water could get"plunged into a crisis with no plan of action." Don't we also get water from the Colorado River via MWD? Staff`s recommendation on the EIR states it is "adequate and complete."We are fortunate to have a staff that works so diligently and articulates their position in an intelligent and well thought out manner. Poseidon has hired experts to answer any questions concerning the installation. Individuals who have a lifetime of experience in their respective fields. And yet, it appears our Planning Dept puts more faith in individuals with no credentials, who put forth a specious and disingenuous argument. Judgment requires data , and they have none to bolster their position. Sincerely: Richard Kolander Retired electrical engineer enc: articles Boston Ulobe Online/ Nation I World /in 1.alit., aesert resorts reel water pinch Page 1 of 2 Calif., desert resorts feel water pinch By Seth Hettena,Associated Press,6/15/2003 PALM DESERT, Calif. -- In the middle of the Southern California desert, resort guests can travel by gondola to waterfront bistros, homeowners can water-ski on a man-made lake, and golfers can tee off at more than 100 courses made lush and green from constant watering. How much longer can this go on? That is what some are wondering since the federal government in April cut the amount of water California can draw from the Colorado River-- a rollback that has thrown into question the long-term future of the Coachella Valley, a resort and retirement mecca 110 miles east of Los Angeles. "We've gone from being assured that we lived in this magical place where the rules of water didn't apply to now having, I think, a very appropriate wake-up call about the fact that we do live in the California desert," said Buford Crites, a 17-year member of the Palm Desert City Council. "People have lived in this false water utopia." For years, California has been using more than its fair share of water from the Colorado River, which flows to seven Western states. Drought and booming growth around the West finally prompted the government to crack down and demand that the state's water agencies work out a deal to redistribute the water. When a deal fell through Dec. 31, the government cut back the state's share of river water by 15 percent. The bulk of that cut landed on the Coachella Valley. The valley's water agency halted deliveries of Colorado River water to about a dozen golf courses, at least one construction company, and the lake built for water skiing amid a housing development. Also, a landscaping ordinance that had been in the works before the cutbacks and went into effect on June 1 requires new developments to use 25 percent less water than existing ones. Water rates also may go up. Dave Twedt, the land development manager for the new Trilogy Golf Club at La Quinta, is looking for water to ensure his greens are not brown when Tiger Woods and other top golfers arrive this fall for the popular Skins Game. The club is one of several spending more than $200,000 each to drill into the aquifer far beneath the course. "You don't have a whole lot of choices,"Twedt said. "It's not like we'll be put out of business because,thank goodness, we can drill an irrigation well." Drilling wells, though, may not be the long-range answer, either. _..Gj The many homes,farms, golf courses, and other,resorts that already use well water are sucking so httn•//www hncton crnn/(iailvglnhe2/166/hiation/Tn Calif desert re.qnrtc feel water ninth+chtml 6/15/200') tsoston Lriooe L)wine i tvauon 1 worta i in t-asnr., aesert resorts reel water pinch much from the ground that the valley floor sinks more than an inch a year in spots -- a process that could accelerate if the water agency cannot get more Colorado River water, which is usually poured onto the ground and allowed to soak into the earth to replenish the aquifer. If officials cannot line up more water, the water agency may be forced to impose tougher restrictions on wells and usage to protect the aquifer. It was cheap and abundant water from the aquifer that transformed this desert-- described by 19th-century explorer John Wesley Powell as"the most desolate region on the continent" --into a lush landscape of fairways and luxury neighborhoods decorated with waterfalls and lakes. The 300-square-mile valley stretches from the former Rat Pack getaway of Palm Springs, which sprang up in the 1950s, south to the briny shores of the Salton Sea. The population boomed 170 percent between 1980 and 2001 to about 330,000. Golf courses are the selling point for many of the developers building gated communities in the valley. Last year, golf helped attract 3 1/2 million visitors, who pumped an estimated $1 billion into the economy. In this self-ordained golf capital of the world, the cut in Colorado water has shocked golf course managers and development firms. "Because the club has not been properly forewarned and has not been given a reasonable amount of time to transition to a private water supply,there is a real possibility of incurring catastrophic damages," John Heckenlively, president of The Plantation golf club, wrote in an April 30 letter to the water district. Meanwhile, fruit and vegetable growers, who use most of the valley's Colorado River water allotment, face a crisis of their own. They are paying $15 million over five years-- nearly 10 times the usual cost --to buy excess water from fanners in nearby Palo Verde. Water officials hope that the valley and three other Southern California water agencies reach an agreement to share the Colorado River and secure enough water to supply fanners and recharge the aquifer for the next 35 years. Whether the valley finds more water or not,there will probably be no more projects like Palm Desert's Desert Springs Marriott, where guests ride gondolas to feast on ali steaks by the edge of a sprawling lake, said Crites, the city councilman. "That was done in Palm Desert at a different time-- when people really believed we could pretend we were Hawaii," he said. "There was really no organized group saying the emperor had no clothes." This store ran on page A13 of the Boston Globe on 6/15/2003. corydght?003 Globe Newspaper Compaiky. [Send this stop• to a friend I Easy-print version Search archives htto://ww.w.boston:com/dailvsrlobe2/166/natiotvin Calif desert resorts feel water oinch+.shtml 6/15/2003 1JC11Vt1rVSLA;U111 - W 11LC15 UU Il dUgC rduc 1 Ul View Previous News Select an Edition EMAIL ARTICLE _ LINK TO ARTICLE =PRINT ARTICLE Article Published:Sunday,March 02, 2003-12:00:00 AM MST writers on the range OTHER COLUMNS Jun. 15 Lake Powell: Going, - Should we preserve gogoing gone? n public land? Jun. 1S Jun. By John Weisheit,Moab Utah - Who needs Sugerfund when we've got reality Who would have believed it? Water levels at Lake Tv? Powell have dropped to 50 percent for the first Jun.7 time since it filled in 1980. This draining Is likely - Keep biopharming in to continue to the point where the reservoir could greenhouses vanish In the next three or four years. Jun. 2 - With a little help. native With snowpack below 25 percent of normal, and species can burgeon warnings from the U.S. Geological Survey, EPA Jun. 1 and others of a severe and sustained drought, - West must start and Lake Powell's days may be numbered. A 1995 fight fires study published by the American Water May.ze Resources Association predicted that a severe - mountain hamlet's drought would lead to Lake Powell's draining 'homecoming' mecoming within eight years. Things are right on schedule. May. - Reall ranches don't have 'ette' In their name Now that Lake Powell Is down by some 87 feet, three boat ramps have been closed. The National Park Service is working with a $3 million emergency appropriation to extend other ramps as the reservoir continues to decline. But construction of the recently approved $70 million Antelope Point marina complex Is in limbo, because boats can't be launched from what has been revealed by drought to be a cliff. Once Lake Powell drops an additional 28 percent, it will no longer generate hydroelectricity because Glen Canyon Dam's penstocks will be exposed, and water will no longer be able to turn the generators. There's also a problem with sediment, since fluctuating river flows that occur during low reservoir levels will speed the movement of sediment toward Glen Canyon Dam. The U.S. Geological Survey says that major droughts of the past, such as the years from 1942 to 1977, went largely unnoticed. We notice this drought because the West has four times the population and we've been mining our groundwater. Federal scientists have also Informed us that the previous century was 20 percent wetter than normal. That means our ability to put water to 4 (Q work was helped by luck as much as it was by massive engineering projects. Even at those inflated levels, Colorado River water allocations are 20 percent above what the river delivered. httn-//www:denvernost.com/Stories/0.1413.36%7E 172%7E 1209566.00.iitm l 6/15/2003 UenverYost.com - writers on xange rage Y. of % We've managed to avoid crises in the past because not all the Colorado River Basin states used their full allocations. Even so, the river reached the sea only twice In the past two decades. Add to all this a drought cycle that Is predicted to last 25 years, and Lake Powell, along with every other reservoir In the upper Colorado River storage system, won't have water to store. Vanishing bodies of water in the Western United States shouldn't surprise us: It's part of our legacy. In 1890, the Geological Survey's first professional paper discussed the principles of global climate change. The publication analyzed how a body of water that was once 800 feet deep, Lake Bonneville, had reduced itself into the briny and shallow Great Salt Lake. In the 19th century, the physical geography of the planet provided undeniable evidence that humans can become victims of climate change. In the 20th century, we gained new tools, such as tree-ring data, that allowed us to reconstruct the climate of the last 400 years. This reaffirmed that the Earth's climate varies dramatically. Scientists have given us ample warning, but our water-management experts don't listen. At a recent gathering In Moab, Utah, John Keys, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, worked to calm the fears of those concerned that the Colorado River may soon be unable to provide for the 25 million people plumbed into his system. "They [the reservoirs] are doing exactly what they were designed to do," he said. But when it was pointed out that these reservoirs are declining more than 10 percent per year, he had no plan for how the federal government would handle the shortages. It would be truly unfortunate If the warnings these declining levels represent are not heeded, and all those presently reliant on the overuse of Colorado River water get plunged into a crisis with no plan of action. littn://www.denveraost-.com/Stories/0.1413.36%7E 172%7EI209566.00.html 6/15/2003 i 1 , July 3, 2003 i Mr. Randy Kokal, Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission i 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i Subject: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project: Dear Mr. Kokal and Commissioners: 1 am writing to express support for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project under consideration by the Planning Commission. As you know, Southern California is largely dependent on imported water to meet our growing demand for safe drinking water. As our region continues to grow into the 2111 century, it is imperative that we develop new and alternative sources of fresh water. The desalination of ocean water will provide us with an unlimited, reliable supply of clean, safe water. With Huntington Beach and Orange County facing depletion of their groundwater supply and uncertainty In the reliance of its Imported water, desalination provides the safest and most environmentally sensitive alternative In obtaining a safe and reliable water supply. The reverse osmosis process makes sense, has worked elsewhere, and Huntington Beach provides a perfect location for this type of process. Orange County needs to be more self-reliant when it comes to its water supply. The supply of Imported water will decrease as more Colorado River water gets diverted to other states (Arizona, Nevada. Colorado) - but the need for water in Southern California will continue to increase as the population throughout the region continues to grow. Logic dictates that the cost for that imported water will go up. Orange County needs to supplement its own water sources to avoid having to choose between expensive imported water or water rationing. 1 know you will give this important project your thorough and thoughtful consideration, and I urge your yes vote. Sinc ely, �r Bill Holman 5861 Raphael Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner DATE: July 8, 2003 SUBJECT: LATE COMMUNICATION Attached are corrections to page four of the July 8, 2003 staff report as well as additional comment letters received since Thursday July 3, 2003 regarding the Poseidon seawater desalination plant. Attachment: 1. Corrections to page four of July 8, 2003 staff report 2. Don May, California Earth Corps, letter dated July 8, 2003 3. Tom Luster, California Coastal Commission, letter dated July 7, 2003 4. Norm Westwell, letter dated July 8, 2003 i r GAAdmLtr\AdmItr03\0703rrI Aoc CORRECTION TO JULY 8, 2003 STAFF REPORT - PAGE 4 in the seawater that attach to the walls of the power plant intake structure and pipeline, and interfere with plant operations. The heat treatment procedure is typically completed once every six to eight weeks and continues for six to eight hours per heat treatment event. Heat treatment is a part of the routine operation of every power plant and as such this process is permitted and regulated by the AES power plant NPDES discharge permit. The main goal of heat treatment is to detach the living marine organisms from the power plant intake structure and pipelines for collection and disposal and to r-etu Therefore, for the duration of a heat treatment event, the power plant intake and discharge are reversed (i.e. cooling water enters from the power plant discharge and discharges through the power plant intake). The marine organisms detached from the power plant intake structure and pipelines cannot be released through the power plant discharge outfall because they cannot pass through the power plant condenser tubes. The marine organisms are several times larger in size than the condenser tube openings. Under normal operations the cooling water is collected through the intake structure pumped through the power plant condenser tubes which exchange heat with the cooling water, and then the heated water is discharged through the power plant discharge outfall. During heat treatment, a very small amount of seawater flow is actually taken from the ocean, and most of the cooling water flow is recirculated within the power plant system rather than discharged through the power plant outfall. By recirculating the seawater flow, rather than discharging it to the ocean, the seawater temperature in the recirculation loop within the power plant rises. The higher water temperature triggers the detachment of the marine organisms from the intake structure and pipeline walls so that they may be collected and disposed of release, bark into their- natural o of+ i +moo eeean. Once the heat treatment process is complete and before the discharge is released to the ocean, the discharge is cooled to meet the temperature discharge limit under AES Power Plant's NPDES Permit. There is no separate temperature limit for the heat treatment process. Because the heat treatment process reverses the flow direction in the discharge line, the proposed desalination facility would not be able to discharge its saline concentrate. Therefore, the desalination plant will not be operational during periods of heat treatment. Because the desalination plant will not take water for treatment during power plant heat treatment operations, the desalination plant has no effect on entrapment and entrainment of marine organisms during that process. The relationship between the power plant heat treatment process and the desalination plant operations was addressed in the Draft EIR (see Appendix E, page E-9). As stated on this page "Poseidon will not take water into the desalination plant during heat treatments". 2. Growth Inducement (End Users): Concern about the Draft EIR's analysis of the project's growth inducing impacts was raised by Coastal Commission staff member, Mr. Tom Luster, in his November 4, 2002 comment letter. Mr. Luster raised this issue again in late comment letters and the issue has also been raised by several others who submitted late comments on the Draft EIR. At the public hearings before the Planning Commission on rr CALIFORNIA EARTH CORPS 4927 Minturn Avenue Lakewood, CA 90712 (562) 630-1491 July 8, 2003 Hon. Randy Kokal, Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Poseidon DeSalination EIR, SOC, CUP & LCP Dear Chairman Kokal and Commissioners: California Earth Corps has commented by statement and testimony at the May 27 and June 3 Hearings as to the omission or inadequate disclosure of factual information on the predictable environmental impacts of the Poseidon Project as required under CEQA. Most glaringly: 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. 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 HB Public Health and Safety. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON ADJACENT WETLANDS While the wetlands adjacent to the Project will not have been restored by the time the NOD is issued, should this Commission chose to act tonight, 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 Commission can act tonight to avoid or mitigate the adverse impacts through Conditions of Permit: 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 CEC, 07/08/03 Page 2 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 (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. CEC, 07/08/03 Page 3 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. Curtural 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 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 this Commission should remand the EIR back for revision to address these and other omissions and inadequacies. Failing that, you must at least adopt these mitigations for the adverse impacts of the Poseidon Desalination Project. CEC, 07/08/03 Page 4 Sincerely, Don May, Executive Director California Earth Corps (1) The final BMP handbooks are now available as PDF files at http://www.CABMPHandbooks.com/. It' s a big file, 450 pages, or I would have attached it. You will also find an order form if you wish to purchase hardcopies. STATR OP CALIPORNIA-71111 ASSOVRCBS A01INCY GRAY DAVIS.CO1,60r If CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION e2 PRDMONT, SUITD 2000 9AN URANCISCO. CA 94105.2219 VOICD AND TOO (415) 904.5200 July 7,2003 VIA FACSIMILE(714)374-1648 Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Sireet Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RE: City of Huntington Beach Review of Proposed Poseidon Desalination Facility Dear Commissioners: I have been asked to respond to several questions about the City's review of the proposed Poseidon desalination facility as it relates to Coastal Act and related CEQA requirements. The main questions relate to the overall scope of the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)and its adequacy in addressing elements of the proposed project that would affect coastal resources. Our primary concern,as expressed below and in comment letters provided earlier during the CEQA review process,is that the EM does not yet adequately describe the proposed project's impacts to coastal resources and the mitigation measures chat may be necessary to address those impacts. We believe,therefore,that the EIR does not yet provide an adequate basis for making a decision about the proposal's conformity to the City's Local Coastal Program(LCP)or the Coastal Act. This letter discusses several,but not all,of our concems about the currently inadequate EIR and recommends that the City significamly revise several sections of the EIR before adopting it as final. Part of our interest in this proposed project and in having.the CEQA work done adequately is that the proposal would be the first coastal desalination plant in California in about a decade,and would be the largest coastal desalination facility in the U.S. Given its location in California's coastal zone and its potential to cause significant impacts to coastal resources,we believe the CEQA review should be thorough enough to adequately inform decision-makers about the proposal's conformity with applicable policies of the City's LCP and the Coastal Act. To reflect that interest,Coastal Commission staff previously provided comments during several stages of the City's CEQA review,including a June 14,2001 letter in response to the City's Notice of Preparation, a November 4, 20021etter on the Draft EIR, a May 8,2003 letter regarding the Response to Comments,and a June 3,2003 in response to requests Som several Planning Commissioners. The comments focused on elements of the proposed project that will need to be evaluated during the coastal development permit review by both the City and the Coastal Comments to Huntingion Beach Planning Commission re:Poseidon Desalination£IR July 7, 2003 Page 2 of 6 Commission.? This letter expands on a number of the comments we provided previously, including those related to growth-inducement, entrainment,project and mitigation alternatives, and the ability of state and local agencies to adequately regulate the proposal. We have also been asked to address the scope of the City's role as lead agency in review of the project. Extent of CEQA review: There have been several questions about the jurisdictional scope of the City's CEQA review and about whether the City,as lead agency,needs to consider project impacts or mitigation measures outside of its jurisdiction. The CEQA statute and guidelines are very clear in establishing that a lead agency is to review a proposed project in its entirety, without limiting its review to the particular jurisdiction of that agency. For example, the CEQA definition of"lead agency"makes no distinction about only reviewing aspects of the proposal within the agency's jurisdiction;in fact,the lead agency is required to consult with other agencies that have jurisdiction over parts of the proposal and incorporate their concerns and recommendations into its review.I If lead agencies were required to address only those issues within their jurisdiction,many proposed projects would be reviewed under a number of separate M produced by several different agencies,which is clearly not the case. One example with this proposed project of an element that may be outside the City's jurisdiction but within the City's responsibility as lead agency is"growth-inducement". In our previous comment letters,Coastal Commission staff requested the EIR include a more thorough analysis of the growth-inducing effects of the proposed project. However,the discussion of growth- inducement in both the EIR and the Response tct Comments is inadequate,in that it only describes the 50 million gallons per day of water to be provided by the facility as being used as part of the overall water supply for somewhere in Orange County or Southern California. Apparently, the City has been informed that the applicant has contracted to provide half of the produced water to the Santa Margarita Water District. At the very least,the EIR should evaluate the growth-inducing effects of these 25 million gallons per day on the Water District's service area, and should also determine where the remainder of the water will be sent and its anticipated growth-inducing impacts. Even if the contract includes conditions (which is a normal aspect of contracts),it is reasonable to assume that the water is meant to be provided to the Santa Margarita Water District and therefore rises above the level of being speculative. Additionally, this information about growth-inducement will be needed as part of the Coastal Commission's permit review. i Note:Part of the proposed project is within the retained jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission and will require a coastal development permit from the Commission. Portions of the proposal are also within the Commision'v appeal jurisdiction;therefbte,the City's decision as to whether or not to issue a coastal development permit may be appealed to the Commission. =Section 21067 ofthe CEQA Statute defines"lead agency"as meaning"the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment". Other sections of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines identify the lead agency's obligation to coordinate with other agenciov with jurisdictioa,to adequately incorporate the concerns and responsibilities of those agencies,and to produce an environmental document that adequately assesses the proposed project's environmental effects and necessary mitigation measures. f '_ Comments to Huntington Beach Planning Commission re:Poseidon Desalination EIR July 7, 2003 Page 3 of 6 Entrainment: The proposed project, in and of itself,would result in entrainment and mortality of marine organisms at what could be significant adverse levels of impact beyond what is caused by the power plant;however, this is not addressed in the EIR. Information about entrainment caused by the desalination facility is needed as part of the EIR for several reasons—first,to determine the effects of the facility on the marine environment;next, to identify mitigation measures that may be necessary to address those effects;and finally, for both the City and the Coastal Commission to determine whether the proposal conforms to policies of the City's Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act. The analysis needed in the EIR to determine conformity to these policies is separate from any requirements under the federal Clean Water Act or state water quality standards. The City's LCP Policy 6.1.19 states: "Prior to approval of any new or expanded seawaier 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. " Sections 30230 of the Coastal Act states: 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,scientiftc, and educational purposes. Section 30231 of the Coastal Act states: The biological producrivity 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 ofground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that prorect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. The proposed facility includes new seawater pumping facilities(see, for example,Exhibit 3 in the Draft EIR);therefore,the above LCP policy applies to the proposal. However,neither the EIR nor the CDP Staff Report identify the entrainment effects associated with new seawater pumping or the mitigation measures needed to minimize those effects. In fact,the BM analysis erroneously assumes that any entrainment mortality that would be.associated with the desalination facility is already occurring due to power plant operations. In the City's Response to Comments(issued March 21,2003,p. 8),the City stated: "No increase in entrainment or impingement of marine organisms would occur upon project implementation,as project operation would not result in an increased intake of ocean water through the AES intake Comments to Huntington Beach Planning Commission re:Poseidon Desalination EIR July 7. 2003 Page 4 of 6 structure. The desalination facility would divert ocean water for desalination subsequent to its use as cooling water by the AES Generating Station." However,in the Errata section of the same document,the City adds the following to the EIR:"It should be noted that the proposed project would utilize pumps circulating a total of 126 mgd. These pumps would operate constantly and would be independent of the AES Generating Station. Should the AES facility cease to operate,the proposed desalination facility would continue to produce and distribute potable water." The proposed desalination facility would cause entrainment mortality when it operates while the power plant is not generating electricity. Although the desalination facility is tied closely to the power plant,there are lilcely to be times when maintenance requirements or market conditions would cause the power plant to shut down,and entrainment mortality occurring during those periods would be due largely to desalination. During those periods when the power plant is not producing electricity but is only n using its circulation pumps,the entrained organisms are not likely to experience the same mortality rates since they will not be subjected to the higher temperatures and pressures that occur during power generation. However,the desalination process itself will cause entrainment mortality and without the results of an appropriate entrainment study,it is not possible to determine the type and scope of those impacts or the mitigation that may be needed,nor is it possible to ensure compliance with CEQA or applicable LCP or Coastal Act requirements. Therefore,the characterization in the EIR that there would be no change or increase in entrainment is in error,and the document does not include the analysis necessary to conform to CEQA or the LCP and Coastal Act sections cited above.3 To address this inadequacy,at the very least,the City needs to include in the EIR the results of an entrainment study describing the entrainment and water quality impacts associated with the proposed use of 126 mgd of ocean water,and describes the maximum feasible mitigation measures to minimize these entrainment impacts. The entrainment study being implemented by AES,due to start later this month,will likely be adequate for purposes of the EIR. Although the study results will not be available for approximately 14-16 months,they are necessary as part of the EIR's environmental review. [Note: We first identified the need for this type of information in our comment letter on the City's NOP in June 2001. At any time,the City or the applicant could have initiated the entrainment study on its own rather than wait for the AES study to be concluded.] Results of this study are of particular interest for this proposed project because entrainment data have never been collected at AES Huntington Beach. Information provided previously about entrainment at the facility is based on data collected in the late 1970s from other power plants along the coast. Therefore,absent the results of the study about to be initiated(or a similar study using the same protocols),there is no recent,local, and scientifically valid data about the likely,, entrainment impacts that would result from the desalination facility, and therefore no way to determine conformity to CEQA,the LCp,or the Coastal Act. We note further that the EIR does not adequately describe the relationship between ARS and Poseidon,either as it relates to operation of the power plant and desalination facility or as it relates to any leases or contracts between the two parties. As part of the application for a coastal development permit tram the Coastal Commission,the applicant (Poseidon)will need to provide doemuc=tion of the underlying landowner's approval,along with any conditions of that approval that may affect operations. Comments.to Huntington Beach Planning Commission re: Poseidon Desalination EIR July 7, 2003 Page S of 6 Project and Mitigation Alternatives: The discussion above on entrainment impacts and mitigation measures that may be necessary to address those impacts leads to consideration of alternatives. Without the results of the entrainment study,the EIR cannot adequately address alternatives that may be necessary to mitigate entrainment impacts. The current EIR dismisses the necessary alternatives analysis because of its conclusions that there would be no increase in entrainment. As shown above,this conclusion is not yet timely and may be erroneous. Therefore, along with incorporating the results of the entrainment study and determining whether there are significant adverse entrainment impacts,a revised EIR would need to evaluate whether there are feasible alternatives that would avoid or reduce those significant impacts. Again,this cannot be done before the entrainment study is completed,but would likely require consideration of alternatives that could significantly alter the proposal,including using recycled water,siting the facility or pipelines in different locations,and others. Applicability and enforceability of local and state requirements: One important part of CEQA review is to identify the regulations that would apply to a proposed project. In a previous comment letter,we identified two specific concerns about this issue: • Whether laws,ordinances,and regulations applicable to public entities providing a water supply apply differently,if at all,to private water suppliers; and, • Whether international trade law adversely affects the ability of state and local jurisdictions to regulate proposals such as this. Even though these issues may not be entirely within the City's jurisdiction,they are within the City's responsibility as CEQA lead agency,since the answers to the questions raised will affect how and whether the proposed project's environmental effects are regulated. Regarding the first issue, the Coastal Act includes several policies that differentiate between public and private entities. We therefore again request that the EIR provide an analysis of this issue to ensure that the regulatory requirements and mitigation measures described in the document would indeed apply to this private proposal. Concerning the second issue,because of recent trade agreements and decisions by international trade tribunals,there is some question as to how and whether local and state regulations apply to private entities operating in the international arena. We again request that the EIR include an evaluation of how international trade agreements,treaties, and laws may apply to this proposal,and whether anticipated environmental mitigation measures could be compromised. Closing: In summary,the existing EIR and the Response to Comments are not adequate for CEQA,nor are they adequate to determine whether the proposal conforms to applicable LCP or Coastal Act policies. To address these shortcomings,we recommend the City revise the EIR to include the assessments described above. We also request that the City re-open the comment period for the EIR so that we may provide further comments on these and other areas of concern. Finally,we refer the City to our previous comment letters for more details on the issues raised in this letter as well as other issues raised about the adequacy of the EIR. Comments to Huntington Beach Planning Commission re:Poseidon Desalination EIR July 1, 2003 Page 6 of 6 Thank you for attention to these issues, I hope this is helpful in your deliberations. please feel free to contact me at(415)904-5248 or at tlusterna.coastal.ca.gov if you have questions. Sincerely, c.►S�C Tom Luster Energy and Ocean Resources Unit Cc: Poseidon Resources—Billy Owens Department of Water Resources—Jonas Minton, Chuck Keene Coastal Commission,Long Beach Office—Steve Rynas Ramos, Ricky From: Norm Westwell- H Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 1:03 PM To: rramos@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Late Communication -Desalination plant Dear Planning Commission, I happened to recently meet a government marine biologist who shared with me his remarkable knowledge on our local issue of the desalination plant. I'm sorry I do not have his name. However, I am quite certain anyone respected in this field of study would ultimately arrive at the same conclusions. He expressed to me the near zero impact of this forward thinking project. As California water sources diminish, history will show the vision of municipal water PRODUCTION systems. He clearly believed the public benefit would greatly outweigh any minor negative environmental impacts. In the near future, water is likely to be as scarce as tax dollars are today. California's water resources are being reallocated at record pace. Lack of municipal potable water is a major public safety issue. Let us use what god has bountifully given us. The ocean. The planning commission should not frivolously delay this project. I respectfully urge the commission to SUPPORT the proposed DESALINATION project. Your friend, ------------------------- ------------------------- HB Libertarian Party Representative Norm "Firecracker" Westwell norm@ModernPublic.com \ I / THERE IS A PRICE FOR BEING FREE Torch of Liberty, enlightening the world www.ModernPublic.com It's your government - GET INVOLVED! i i ORANGE COUNTY COASUESPER 441 Old Newport Blvd.Suite 103 Newport Beach, California 92663 Office: (949)723-5424 Fax: (949) 675-7091 Email: coastkeeperl@earthlink,net http://www.coastkeeper.org June 26,-2003 Mr. Rlc y Ramos Planning DepaMmnt City of H intlngton Beach 2000 Ma n Street Huntin n Beach, CA 92648 (Via Fa Imlte 714 374-1648) R : Proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant Project i Dear Mr.!Ramos, e Orange County Coastkeeper is an environmental organization with a missio1- rough o protect and preserve the marine habitats and watershed of Orange County programs of education, restoration, advocacy and enforcement. We hav reviewed the Draft Environmental impact Report and consulted with marine biologists and other interested stakeholders to develop a position relative to the a tidement of this project. Three statements need to be made at the outset: 1)We believe the future water su ply of southern California Is a combination of both desalinated seawate generated rrom desalination plants and reclamation water generated from Pu Ilc Owned Treatment Works (POTW's). 2)This particular project is the first sign flcant desallnatlon plant of a series of desalination plants that will be propose throughout the State. Unfortunately, there Is no existing regional or State gu delines and policies, or many scientific studies to assist in the entltlem t process. 3)The Huntington Beach Planning Commission is only the first ste of a very lengthy entitlement process that will require approximately 17 different'permlts or certifications, under the authority of approximately 13 dlfferen�agencies. It will be through this entitlement process that guidelines and policies will be developed. 0 the case of Poseidon, two Coastal Development Permits(CDPs)will be required from the California_Coastal Commission, one for the actual construction of the pl nt, and one for the changes in ocean.discharge at the AES outfall pipe. The di arge of liquid brine waste from desalination operations is regulated under Clean Water Act, through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination �jg�D3 I System;administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Discharge of liquid b Ines Into California waters is also regulated under the Porter-Cologne Water uality Control Act and the California Ocean Plan. Cur review of the Poseidon Report demonstrates there are environmental impacts from desalination. The impacts that are major concern to Coastkeeper are 1) construction impacts, 2) waste discharge impacts, 3) coastal development impacts 4) reinforcement of the long-term need for AES power plant to remain on the Last, and 5) Private Control Construction Impacts: Coastkeeper will want to review specific water quality lane for both construction and post-construction of the plant. The applicant should evelop a comprehensive Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), utilizing appropriate Best Management Practices. Post construction water quality plans s Quid Include a surface water treatment train that ensures capture and treatme t of stromwater and any affluent not to exceed the numeric water quality standa s contained In the California Toxic Rule (CTR). il�faste Discharge impacts: Normal seawater has a salt concentration of roughly 35,000 parts per million (ppm). According to the Poseidon MR, the average salt concentration of the brine discharge into the ocean will be 68,000 ppm, plus the addition of 4 million gallons per day of filter backwash. Coastkeeper was concerned with thl seemingly significant increase in salt concentrate and contents of the filter backwa h, After asking our staff marine biologist and other marine biologists to review a EIR documents, their combined response was the elevated salt concen ate will affect a relatively small area and the concentrate will repel some species f fish and possibly attract other species of fish, but given their mobility, fish kills woi Id not be the result. 1 e EIR states water temperature would not be elevated and adequate mixing v ould occur so as to prevent long-term stratification of brine on the bottom of the mixing zone. esides heavy metals, originating naturally in source water or through contact- Ith pipes and plant components, other chemicals, such as coagulants, anti- scalant . cleaning agents, filter storage chemicals, and anti-fbam agents are used in the de lination process. Coastkeeper wants to see more spedfically the consUtu nts of the filter backwash wastewater and assurances that the antl- coagula t5 do not remain In the discharge, Further, chemicals for cleaning equipmint MUST be discharged to the POTW, and not the ocean discharge. astal Development Impacts: Growth along the southern California coast Is peeted to Increase by 5.6 million people by 2020. Umited fresh water potentially can be the major Impediment to new development and further growth, i i i The additional water provided by Poseidon could reduce this constraint, and lead to more grDwth within the water service area. The Issue is the proper management of growth,'which Is the responsibility of local, county and State government and should be deal with in the appropriate forums. Management of growth via withholding infrastrL cture Is, In our opinion, short sighted and hardly management at all. In the case of range County, we need additional water sources to ensure a stable water supply t compensate for the loss of Colorado River water and the potential of future r ductions from the California Aqueduct supply from northern California. The Metroix itan Water District, which supplies water at significantly less cost, recently publishi d a report stating the District could supply Orange County enough water to accomn odate this future growth and development. Therefore, there Is a real probabl Ity that Poseidon, at 50 m.g.d, will hardly be significant enough to Impact future development as there are other alternative sources for water that developers can acg4ire. �n Important point is that Poseidon will only have several customers, all public water agencies that are required to receive public testimony in their decision making processes. Poseidon should not be permitted to sell to any entity other than a public;agency. I eInforcernent of AES power plant's need to be located on the coast: Today's'technology In power plant construction commonly utilizes dry-cooling generat ng systems. Power plants no longer need to be located near huge volumes of wate that can be utilized for cooling. Coastkeeper's long-term vision Is to have the AES power plant removed from our coastline. We have a concern that the shared lumbing of source water and discharge water, without separate permitting, will onl relnfbrce AES's long-term justification to be located on the coast. Coastk per would like Poseidon to obtain separate permitting for the Intake and dlschar facliltles, so at some point in the future, the AES power plant could be relocat to a location off the coast.. F rlvate Control: A major statewide concern Is the potential fbr developers to build'la private desalination plant to provide themselves with a water service letter, fireas of California's central coast, for example, could be opened for massive develo ent. Certainly the permitting of desalination plants need to be reviewed on an Inds dual case basis for it Impacts. On the Issue of privatization of ocean water, it curre tly takes place hundreds of times each day. Examples are many. Cases In point a the privately owned for-profit cruise ships that intake ocean water and make d nking water for their passengers. Privately owned companies, such as Edison, built power plants. AES, another privately owned company, currently owns the po ILAr plant in Huntington Beach.They are regulated by the Public Utilities Comma Ion, as most probably will desalination plants if and when they are built. i At this time, the Orange County Coastkeeper supports Poseidon's application to the City of Huntington Beach to build a plant and provide desalinated water. However, as we have stated In this letter, we still have several concerns that have not been addressed and must be answered before final approval Is given. Our reason for support Is that we have carefully studied the ER and have had a scientific review by our staff,marine biologists and other biologists. This is just the beginning of a lengthy review of this project. During this review those agencies that have the expertise and staff will fully evaluate the complexities of such a major project, and remaining questions of concern will be addressed and answered. As this project goes through the entitlement, every issue can be addressed. If It is necessary, protective conditions will be placed on the project and If additional concern are raised the project could be denied. We feel that it Is Important that the project continue through the entire process, so that all agencies have the chance to use their experts to do an Independent evaluation. This is important to the future of California, especially Southern California where water issues continue to be of the highest priority. Water will always be one of the most Important Issues for the State of California and whether we like It or not, we must explore every option available to us. Desalinatlon Is a part of our future and we should give this project a fair hearing and a decision based on scientific evidence, not emotional rhetoric or unsubstantiated claims. Sincerely, tarry n Execu v Director Memorandum To: Ron Davis CC: Ricky Ramos From: Billy Owens Date: July 17, 2003 Re: Salinity Range References for Poseidon EIR / Power Plant Operation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have asked Poseidon to confirm sources for the above items based upon your discussion and questions in the July 8`h public hearing. Salinity You requested the specific locations and references supporting statements in the Poseidon EIR documents that define the 10% salinity variation ranges mentioned by Dr. Jenkins in the July 81h public hearing. Our response is as follows: Poseidon believes that you may have confused two different references and circumstances related to a 10% salinity value; a) one for the natural ocean salinity variation; b) another for the marine life (benthic organisms).tolerance and sensitivity to increased salinity. The natural ocean salinity variation of 10% (D-6, Appendix D) stated by Dr. Jenkins was in the summary sections of the reports. The ocean salinity off Huntington Beach has a 10% natural variation...not+/- 10%, which would be a 20%variation under that interpretation. Maximum ocean salinity was 34.3 ppt during the 1998 summer El Nino when southerly winds transported high salinity water from southern Baja up into the Southern California Bight. Minimum salinity was about 31 ppt during the 1993 winter flood. The variation between maximum and minimum salinity is about 3.3 ppt, which is about 10% of the average salinity of 33.5 ppt. The sources for these data are many. In Dr. Jenkins' reports, he referenced the monitoring reports of OCSD 1993, OCSD 2000 and MBC 2001, but there are also many other studies and databases (long term ocean water sampling programs for regulatory agencies) for the Southern California Bight that indicate the same thing, including daily salinity monitoring from Scripps Pier and the CalCOFi cruise data. These studies are identified in the Bibliography to Appendix D, pages D 109-113. Poseidon's worst case dilution scenario was based on a "Worst Month". The worst month was largely selected based on the occurrence of minimal wind, wave and current mixing, and the salinity that coincided with these conditions was 33.49 ppt, lower and within 2% of the 1998 (34.3 ppt) salinity maximum. A 99% reduction in dilution due to retarded mixing levels is certainly more representative of worst case than is a 2% higher l.�'� GoHhv�Iv l c.�filc� 7/Z- POS E IIDON RE SOURCES c� background salinity. (99% is the drop off in near field dilution for the wind, waves and tides of the worst case scenario versus the winds, waves and tides during the summer of 1998 — effectively calm conditions). The salinity record for 1980-2000 (attached pdf table file) so you can see what the salinity data in the above referenced monitoring reports looks like when plotted for 20 years. The worst case is an extreme condition that may occur only one week every three to seven years, primarily in the summer during strong La Nina conditions (page D-5). Poseidon made the extreme case more extreme by extending the period to a month to ensure that our analysis was conservative. Certain marine life are sensitive to increased salinity. From the Southern California Bight to the tip of Baja California, Mexico, the marine population and character are fairly consistent. This region also has recorded salinities ranging from the typical 33.49 ppt to 38 ppt in various bays and estuaries in the Southern California Bight. Text and footnotes found on pages 4.3-13 through 4.3-18 DEIR Summary Report, dated September 2002 discuss the ability of marine life to tolerate salinity levels up to 40 ppt without significant harm. The report further addresses the potential for marine life to accommodate the expected saline plume at the discharge point. Additional marine biology supporting data are found in the literature citations of Appendix F, page F-15. Power Plant Operations Statements made by Dr. Jenkins about the average capacity factor of the Huntington Beach Generating Station are not from the EIR documents. Independent of the previous EIR work, Dr. Jenkins has been correlating the 20 year water sampling data with the same 20 year (1980-2000) period of the power plant operation. It is likely that a review of a more recent and smaller time period may show the plant capacity factor or operating hours to be different than the above 20 year period. Units 3&4 did not operate for parts of the past several years. The anticipated return to service of units 3&4 for commercial operation in 2003 may place the plant operations closer to the previous operating profile. I hope this is responsive to your questions. 2 07/17/2003 11:02 SIO/CTR FOR COASTAL STUDIES 9701967#el5624902403 NO.553 D02 S = 33.51 ppt: IS = 33.52 ppt a 34.0 I. I c I 33.0 N I I C ► I 32.0 I I 20.5 year verage = 33.52 ppt 31.0 I I I � T= 25.0°Cr IT= 17.6 °C 25 C. • o � 20 ..r CL o E 15 20.5 year can = 17.6 C 10 �rnln ` -0.74 ft NGVDI I Amin =-1.96 ft NGVD E o s d. I = ti da 'c 4 I mean= �LU Z 3 2.97 n 2 ' 0 ----- ------------------------------------------- -------- MSL o E' -1 i >-2 'c mean= W Z-3 -2.33 ft o =4 � I .5 1980 1984 1988 1992 . 1996 2000 Year APPENDIX B: Period of record for ocean water mass properties and boundary conditions,Huntington Beach, 1980-2000: b)daily mean salinity, station 8d, (from MBC, 2001,OCSD, 2000, 1993); c)daily mean temperature, station 8d, (from MBC, 2001, MD, 2000, 1993); d)daily r maximum and minimum water levels (from NOAA tide gage#9410660). log: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF. REPORT.. HUNTINGTON BEACH - - - - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner1241- DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) APPLICANT: Poseidon Resources Corporation, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 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: • 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. • Reconsidered Item Planning Commission meeting July 22, 2003 - Planning Commission voted to reconsider the certification of 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 RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1581 (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny certification of EIR No. 00-02 with findings for denial." B. "Continue certification of EIR No. 00-02 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 represents an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of a seawater desalination plant that will convert up to 50 million gallons per day (MGD) of seawater into potable water. The project includes 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. There will also be up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to an existing regional transmission system, and two off-site booster pump stations. The project also proposes perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue. BACKGROUND: The EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on July 8, 2003. However, at the July 22, 2003 meeting the Planning Commission voted to reconsider the certification of the EIR and requested that the following items be provided: PC Staff Report—8/12/03 2 . (03 SR05B EIR 00-02) 1) Independent review of the hydrodynamic modeling for concentrated seawater dilution (see Attachment 2); 2) Independent review of the hydrodynamic modeling for source water quality (see Attachment 2); 3) Additional information on elevated salinity impacts on marine life in the Southern California bight (see Attachment 3); and 4) Clarification on the historical flow of the AES Generating Station (see Attachment 4). ATTACHMENTS: (Attachment Nos. 7-18 were previously provided and not attached) 1. Resolution No. 1581 (Final EIR No. 00-02) 2. Review of the hydrodynamic modeling of the source water make up and concentrated seawater dilution by Dr. Stanley Grant dated August 4, 2003 3. Analysis of salinity impacts to the marine life in the Southern California bight by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences dated August 4, 2003 4. Letter from Poseidon Resources Corporation dated August 6, 2003 regarding AES flow rates 5. Letter from Poseidon Resources Corporation dated August 7, 2003 6. Letters in opposition 1. May 27, 2003 EIR Staff Report 8. May 22, 2003 Staff Report Updates 9. May 27, 2003 Late Communication 10. June 3, 2003 Staff Report Updates 11. June 3, 2003 Late Communication 12. June 3, 2003 Revised Errata 13. June 3, 2003 Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 14. July 8, 2003 EIR Staff Report 15. July 8, 2003 Late Communication 16. July 8, 2003 Late Communication(Coastkeeper letter) 17. July 22, 2003 Late Communication 18. July 17, 2003 Memorandum from Billy Owens to Commissioner Davis HZ:SH:MBB:RR:rl PC Staff Report—8/12/03 3 (03SR05B EIR 00-02) RESOLUTION NO. 1581 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2001051092)FOR THE POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse #2001051092 ("EIR") was prepared by the City of Huntington Beach ("City") to address the environmental implications of the proposed Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project (the "Project"). • On May 17, 2001, a Notice of Prep_ aration/Initial Study for the Project was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, other responsible agencies, trustee agencies and interested parties. An update to the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study was prepared and distributed on March 4, 2002. • After obtaining comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, and comments received at the two public scoping meetings held at the Edison Community Center in the City of Huntington Beach on June 6, 2001 (2:30 pm and 7:15 pm), the City completed preparation of the Draft EIR, dated September 19, 2002, and filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 19, 2002 to November 4, 2002 and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and WHEREAS, public comments have been received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments have been prepared and provided to the Planning Commission in a separately bound document entitled "Responses to Comments for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project" (the "Responses to Comments"), dated March 21, 2003; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the EIR on May 27, June 3, July 8, July 22, and August 12, 2003, and received and considered public testimony. WHEREAS,the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have previously certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Redevelopment Project in which the Poseidon Project is located; and WHEREAS, in the event the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency take any actions in the future in furtherance of and to carry out the Southeast Redevelopment Project which involve the Poseidon Project, any such actions would be based on the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Reports for both the Southeast Redevelopment Project and the Poseidon Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project is comprised of the Draft EIR and Appendices, the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments, the Errata (bound together with the Responses to Comments), the Appendices to the Responses to Comments and all Planning Department Staff Reports to the Planning Commission, including all minutes, transcripts, attachments, incorporation, and references. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission makes the findings contained in the attached "Statement of Facts and Findings" with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR and finds that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts and Findings is attached as Exhibit"A"to.this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the Project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission finds that all significant effects of the Project are set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts and the Final EIR. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the Project is approved, all significant effects which can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been mitigated or avoided by the incorporation of Project design features, standard conditions and requirements, and by the imposition of mitigation measures on the approved Project. All mitigation measures are included in the "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist" (also referred to as the "Mitigation Monitoring Program") attached as Exhibit "B"to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project (including the "No Project" Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede. the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the Planning Commission finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate suggested alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR and that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the Project. 2 .......... SECTION 7. The Planning Commission finds that no "substantial evidence" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15384) has been presented which would call into question the facts and conclusions in the EIR. . SECTION 8. The Planning Commission finds that no "significant new information" (as that term is defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5) has been added to the EIR. The Planning Commission finds that the refinements that have been made in the Project do not amount to significant new information concerning the Project, nor has any significant new information concerning the Project become known to the Planning Commission through the public hearings held on the Project, or through the comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. SECTION 9. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program establishes a mechanism and procedures for implementing and verifying the mitigations pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081.6 and hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the Project prior to or concurrent with Project implementation. SECTION 10. The Planning Commission finds that the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the Project as identified in Section 5.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings (short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality) have been lessened in their severity by the application of standard conditions, the inclusion of Project design features and the imposition of the mitigation measures. The Planning Commission finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" included as Section 7.0 of the Statement of Facts and Findings. The Planning Commission adopts the recitation of overriding considerations which justify approval of the Project notwithstanding certain unavoidable significant environmental effects which cannot feasibly be substantially mitigated as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 11. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent review and judgment of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission, that the Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05. SECTION 12. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR serves as adequate and appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The Planning Commission certifies that the Final EIR prepared for the Project is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED,this 12"day of August, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Chairperson, Planning Commission ', ' ',rkj, TO: Kevin Thomas, RBF Consulting FROM: Stanley B. Grant, Ph.D. DATE: August 4,2003 SUBJECT: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project,Third Party Technical Review of Water Quality Studies Thank you for the opportunity to review the following documents pertaining to the planned Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach: 1. "Hydrodyanamic modeling of source water make-up and concentrated seawater dilution for the ocean desalination project at the AES Huntington Beach power station Part II: Analysis of issues to source water" by S.A. Jenkins and J. Wasyl, dated 10 October 2001 (revised 13 January 2002). 2. "Hydrodyanamic modeling of source water make-up and concentrated seawater dilution for the ocean desalination project at the AES Huntington Beach power station Part I: Analysis of issues to receiving water" by S.A. Jenkins and J. Wasyl,dated 19 August 2001 (revised 20 December 20, 2001). Summary of Findings Both documents describe coastal modeling studies. The first document describes modeling studies aimed at assessing whether water quality at the power plant intake is impacted by nearby sources of contaminated water, including tidal and stormwater discharges from the Santa Ana River and Talbert marsh outlets, the submarine wastewater outfall operated by the Orange County Sanitation Districts (OCSD), and contaminated effluent from the power plant outfall. The second document examines how the blending of power plant cooling water with high salinity effluent from the desalination plant will affect the distribution of salinity in the region surrounding the power plant outfall. In reviewing these documents, I considered two basic questions: (1)Are the model predictions of nearshore current patterns robust and reasonable?(2) Are the model predictions of pollutant sources and nearshore pollutant transport robust and reasonable? Summary of Findings: Predictions of Nearsh ore Current Patterns. To predict nearshore current patterns,the consultants employed a numerical model that solves momentum and mass conservation equations, subject to tidal and wave forcing. oo 2— The calculations are carried out using up-to-date and sophisticated hydrodynamic modeling tools, and the methodologies and parameters employed are meticulously documented and referenced. The input parameters used for the hydrodynamic model appear reasonable. In addition, tidal and wave-driven coastal circulation patterns predicted by the hydrodynamic model appear to be consistent with current measurements in the nearshore region at Huntington Beach. To illustrate this point, I have attached a figure from a recent paper prepared by my research group that schematically illustrates the tidal phasing and orientation of tidal and wave-driven currents at Huntington Beach. The wave-driven currents illustrated in the figure are for typical summertime conditions when southerly waves generate an upcoast littoral drift in the surf zone. The important point is that the current patterns illustrated in this figure, which are based on field measurements collected at different times over the past several years,coincide closely with the hydrodynamic model predictions reported by Jenkins and Wasyl. Summary of Findings: Predictions of Pollutant Sources and Transport. The transport modeling effort focused on two different issues: (1) the probability that the power plant intake will ingest pollutants from nearby point sources of sewage(OCSD outfall)or runoff(Santa Ana River and Talbert marsh outlets,power plant outfall), and (2) the degree to which high salinity effluent from the desalination plant will affect salinity levels in the coastal region around the power plant outfall. The fate and transport model used in the modeling effort is well developed, and key parameters appear appropriate and well documented. For the purposes of evaluating water quality impacts, the modelers examined worst-case scenarios in which the maximum pollution loads were released during environmental conditions most likely to transport the pollutants to the power plant intake. These worst case scenarios were also compared with nominal cases when pollutant loading and environmental conditions were "average". For the worst case scenarios,the model predicts that the footprint of elevated salinity(10% above ambient on average) will range from 6.8 to 15.6 acres. Furthermore, the model predicts that water quality at the power plant intake will not be significantly impacted by any of the pollution point sources considered in the analysis. The approach adopted here--of using worst-case scenarios to evaluate potential impacts--is excellent, and the conclusions reported appear reasonable. While the results described in the reports appear adequate for planning purposes, as with any modeling effort there are additional issues that could be explored. In that spirit, I offer below some points for consideration. Some reflect my own curiosity about the model,while others (such as reporting of variability)might be worth pursuing down the road. In any case, these points should not be viewed as criticisms of the modeling effort. As indicated above,I believe the consultants have done an excellent job preparing their analysis. 2 Points for Consideration: 1. The hydrodynamic model predictions could be compared with field measurements of current velocities and temperature distributions collected in the nearshore region at Huntington Beach(e.g.,using data from ADCPs and thermister strings deployed by the USGS during the summer of 2001,or by OCSD on numerous occasions). Depending on the outcome, such a comparison would either validate the existing hydrodynamic model, or provide insights into areas where it could be improved. 2. As I understand it, the present modeling effort does not take into account the effects of regional-scale circulation patterns on local currents offshore of Huntington Beach. Would the hydrodynamic model predictions be more robust if the current fine-scale model was embedded within a course scale model that captures circulation at the scale of the southern California Bight(e.g.,the UCLA ROMS model)? 3. If pollutants from known point sources cannot be transported to the power plant intake (as suggested by the modeling effort),then why is water quality in the power plant intake well intermittently poor? OCSD conducted several special surveys in which water samples were collected from offshore of Huntington Beach in the vicinity of the power plant intake structure, and simultaneously from the intake well inside the AES power plant. As reported by Archibald/Wallberg Consultants(report dated November 2001, revised January 2002), the water offshore has relatively low concentrations of colifonn bacteria, while water in the intake well at the AES power plant intermittently harbors high concentrations of coliform bacteria. One interpretation is that the bacteria detected in the intake well are from(as yet unidentified)in-plant sources. Another interpretation is that the power plant intermittently ingests contaminated water from offshore. Presumably, a careful analysis of water quality data already collected by various agencies over the past year would help clarify the origin of fecal pollution in the power plant intake line. 4. As presented in the report,the modeling results are, in nearly all cases, averaged over a 24 hour to 30 day period(e.g., see Figures 2.1 through 2.11 in Part 2 of the report). Plots of time averaged predictions are useful, but they only tell part of the story. For example,the time averaged concentrations at a particular site(say the power plant infall) could be negligible,yet the spread of predicted values (e.g.,standard deviation) could be quite large. In this regard it would have been useful to see plots of the maximum values predicted by the model over the same windows of time(e.g., 24 hours to 30 days). The use of such plots to evaluate potential impacts would be in-line with the conservative stance adopted by the modelers. 5. The modelers report predicted dilutions ranging over seven decades (or 10 million fold) on a logarithmic scale. It seems likely(at least to me)that numerical error associated with the model will not permit accurate determination of dilution over this enormous range. By way of comparison, a recent study of error associated with numerically solving the advective-diffusion equation for open channel flow applications 3 t concludes that no more than three decades of logarithmic dilution can be predicted with confidence(unpublished manuscript by Sanders et al., 2003). 4 Huntington Beach Pier • ' 15'N power plant o _ pier 12N Talbert s Marsh waste water z 4rF2 90_ treatment system od6r, reh Santa Ana River sad` � � •� ,,„• thermal u Figure 6 Kim et al. r ice, IMPACTS OF INCREASED SALINITY ON MARINE SPECIES SPECIFIC TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT With a normal range from 33.0 to 34.0 parts per thousand(ppt)(Allan Hancock Foundation 1965)and a long- term mean of 33.5 ppt, the 10%anomaly modeled by Jenkins and Wasyl(2001)as a result of the addition of the brine plume represents a localized salinity increase to 36.9 ppt. Although naturally occurring salinities in this range are the exception in the Southern California Bight, salinities up to 37 ppt are known to occur in southern California embayments, including the relatively open Los Angeles Outer Harbor where salinities up to 36.99 ppt have been found (Soule and Oguri 1974). Salinities up to 37 ppt are below the 40 ppt cited by Pomory(2000)as the upper limit of salinity tolerance for most marine organisms. The California Ocean Plan (SWRCB 2001) includes no discharge requirements or water quality objectives concerning discharge of brine or an increase in salinity.The EPA(1986,the Gold Book)in discussing Quality Criteria for Dissolved Solids and Salinity states all species of fish and other aquatic life must tolerate a range of dissolved solids concentrations in order to survive under natural conditions and continues, marine species also exhibit variance in ability to tolerate salinity changes, then cites examples of salinity induced fish kills when salinity exceeded 75 ppt. The Gold Book recommends a limit in salinity variation from natural levels not exceed 4 ppt to protect wildlife habitats,when natural salinity occurs between 13.5 and 35 ppt. In the case of the proposed project, an increase of 10%above mean local salinity of 33.5 ppt would be 3.4 ppt, noticeably lower than the EPA=s recommended upper limit of 37.5 ppt in local marine waters. In southern California, most ocean discharges tend to either not affect or to lower the salinity of the receiving waters, as occurs from discharges from once-though cooling or industrial and municipal outfalls,respectively. For this reason little work on the effects of elevated salinity has been done (SCCWRP 1994). In general, studies of salinity tolerances of marine organisms focused on the reduction of salinity through the introduction of freshwater,either from natural sources(such as rivers)or from municipal discharges. Studies conducted in natural systems tend to examine species occurrence in estuaries as related to temperature, seasonality and tolerance of species to naturally reduced salinity. Historically,laboratory experiments designed to test salinity tolerances examined reduction in salinity,often testing synergistic effects of reduced salinity with other variables, such as increased nutrients or decreased oxygen levels, as would occur in the vicinity of a municipal wastewater discharge. In 1993, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project(SCCWRP)conducted bioassays on varying concentrations of brine to determine at what concentrations increased salinity could affect survival,growth or reproductive success for sensitive life stages of three species of marine organisms: giant kelp(Macrocystis pyrifera),amphipods(Rhepoxynius abronus),and sea urchins(Strongylocentrotus purpuratus).These species are widely used and acceptable test organisms utilized to test toxic effects of effluents discharged into saline waters throughout southern California.This test was designed to simulate the effects of the discharge of brine from a reverse osmosis (RO) plant in Santa Barbara. The results of exposure to increased salinity indicated that desalination plant brine and elevated salinity(up to 43 ppt)did not produce toxic effects on amphipods, kelp spores or affect sea urchin fertilization (SCCWRP 1994). Kelp spore growth was found to be reduced when tested at a salinity of 43 ppt, but not at a salinity of 38.5 ppt.Sea urchin embryos demonstrated a significant reduction in normal development when exposed to a 10%increase in salinity. Further testing on sea urchin embryos found a small reduction in normal development at 36.5 ppt and a much greater reduction at 38.5ppt. SCCWRP concluded that desalination waste brine was not toxic to amphipods, kelp spores or sea urchin embryos at the 35 ppt concentration expected to occur locally in the vicinity of the discharge. Specific examples of California marine species= ability to tolerate elevated salinity are scarce. Salinity tolerances for amphipods, an important food source for many fish species, vary by species, but some gammerids are able to tolerate salinities from 2 ppt up to 59 ppt(Grosse and Pauley 1989). Ghost shrimp (Neotrypaea californiensis), common in shallow muddy areas of the Southern California Bight survive in salinities from about 25%to 125%of normal seawater,a range from about 8 ppt to 41 ppt(Homig et al. 1989). California grunion(Leuresthes tenuis),an important sportfishing species,tolerates salinity up to 41 ppt in the prolarvae stage and up to 38 ppt when 20-day-old larvae(Reynolds et al. 1976,Hubbs 1965).Additionally,two other fish species,sargo(Anisotremus davidsonii)and longjaw mudsucker(Gillichthys mirabilis),are known to occur in both southern California coastal waters and the Salton Sea,where salinities range up to 41 ppt(Black 1988),while the striped mullet(Mugil cephalus),common in southern California embayments,was found in the MBC Applied Environmental Sciences Augustugust 4, 2003 T r a Al R.-' H 11 E� "7 5 E Salton Sea at salinities up to 38 ppt(Walker 1961). Salinity tolerances of many marine species may also be inferred by the geographical range in which the species is known to occur. For example, in southern California, Pt. Conception is widely recognized as the northern boundary of many subtropical and tropical fish species(Cross and Allen 1993).Northern species also tend to occur off of southern California, but at deeper depths than north of Pt: Conception. Many of the fish that occur in coastal waters of southern California are also found commonly off Baja California, and occasionally into the Gulf of California and Central America.While a salinity of 33.5 ppt is considered normal for southern California coastal waters, typical salinity in coastal waters of Baja is 34.5 ppt (Hickey 1993). Salinity in the Gulf of California generally ranges from 35 to 36 ppt, but may increase to 39 ppt in shallow areas (Brusca 1980). Many of the local coastal fish species are common where salinity is greater than in southern California, such as offshore of Baja California. Using range information, Table 1 provides an expected minimum upper end salinity tolerance for the twenty most abundant species of fish impinged at the Huntington Beach Generating Station between 1979 and 2001. Most southern California fish species are exposed to some variation in salinity throughout their range and should be able to tolerate a localized salinity elevation in the range that is projected for the project, even if they are unable to avoid the plume. Similarly,several invertebrate species that dominate the invertebrate community offshore of Huntington Beach also occur in shallow areas of the Gulf of California where salinities may reach 39 ppt(Table 2).As mentioned above,some local invertebrate species,especially those commonly found in estuaries where salinity may vary dramatically on a seasonal basis, are able to tolerate a wide range of salinities. Still, in the event of localized salinity increase, some changes in the invertebrate community in the immediate vicinity of the increase are expected. Invertebrates for the most part are not as mobile as fish. Due to short life-spans and rapid colonization, it is expected that there may be a local replacement of infaunal invertebrate species in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Replacement species will likely be species that are already present in southern California, although they may be more common in southern waters,or those that have wide salinity tolerances such as occur in local estuaries. These species will function in a similar way in the ocean ecosystem as occurs now, feeding on detritus, filtering water,.and providing a food source for fish. Citations Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California. 1965.An oceanographic and biological survey.of the southern California mainland shelf. Submitted to the California State Water Quality Control Board. Publ. No. 27. December 1963. 227 p. Black, G.F. 1988. Description of the Salton Sea sport fishery, 1982-83. California Dept. of Fish and Game, Region 5, Inland Fisheries. Downloaded from: http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/SSSportFisheryl988.html Brusca, R.C. 1980. Common intertidal invertebrates of the Gulf of California. Second Edition. Univ. Ariz. Press, Tucson, AZ. 513 p. Cross. J.N. and L.G. Allen. 1993. Fishes. Chapter 9 in: Dailey, M.D., D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson (eds.). 1993. Ecology of the Southern California Bight:A synthesis and interpretation. Univ. Calif. Press, Los Angeles, CA. 926 p. EPA 1986. Quality criteria for water 1986,AGold Book@. EPA 440/5-86-001. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,Washington DC. Grosse, D.J., and G.B. Pauley. 1989. Species Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates(Pacific southwest).Amphipods. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Rpt. 82(11.92) January 1989. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 16 p. Hickey, B.M. 1993. Physical Oceanography. Chapter 2 in: Dailey,M.D., D.J.Reish,and J.W.Anderson(eds.). 1993. Ecology of the Southern California Bight:A synthesis and interpretation.Univ.Calif. Press,Los Angeles, CA. 926 p Hornig, S.,A. Sterling,and S. D. Smith. 1989. Species Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fish and invertebrates (Pacific northwest). Ghost shrimp and blue mud shrimp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Rpt. 82(11.93). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TREL-82-4. 14 p. Hubbs, Clark. 1965.Developmental temperature tolerance and rates of four southern California fishes, Fundulus parvipinnis, Atherniopsis affinis, Leuresthes tenuis, and Hypoblennius sp. Calif. Fish and Game MBC Applied Environmental Sciences August 4, 2003 3 ,:z 51(2):113-122. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl. 2001. Hydrodynamic modeling of source water make-up and concentrated seawater dilution for the ocean desalination project at the AES Huntington Beach power station. Part I: Analysis of issues to receiving water. Revised December 2001. Love, M. 1996. Probably more than you want to know about the fishes of the Pacific Coast. Really Big Press, Santa Barbara, CA. 381 p. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 2001. AES Huntington Beach L.L.C. Generating Station: Marine Mammal Protection Act-Small Take Permit Application. Submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service, Long Beach, CA. Prepared for AES Huntington Beach L.L.C.generating station, Huntington Beach, CA. 15 p. plus attachment. Pomory, C. 2000. Benthic impact of the discharge from desalination plant. Letter report to Poseidon Resources. 3 p. Reynolds, W.W., D.A. Thomson, and M.E. Casterlin. 1976. Temperature and salinity tolerances of larval California grunion Leuresthes tenuis, a comparison with gulf grunion, Leuesthes sardina. J Exp. Mar. Biol. ECOL. 24(1):73-82. Riley, J.P., and R.Chester. 1971. Introduction to marine chemistry.Academic Press, London and New York. 465 p. Soule, D.F., and M. Oguri (eds.). 1974. Marine studies of San Pedro Bay, California. Part V. Data report. Temperature, salinity, oxygen and pH in outer Los Angeles harbor June 1971 to November 1973. Allan Hancock Foundation, Harbors Environmental Projects, and Office of Sea Grant Programs, University of Southern California. USC-SG-3-74. 76 p. State Water Resources Control Board. 2001 California Ocean Plan. California Environmental protection Agency. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 1994.Toxic effects of elevated salinity and desalination waste brine In:SCCWRP Annual report 1992-93. 166 p. Walker, B. W., ed. 1961. The ecology of the Salton Sea, California, in relation to sportfishery. State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 113. 204 p. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences- August 4, 2003 3.3 August 6, 2003 INFORMATION ON AES FLOW RATES Response to "Issue#4" as Raised by Commissioner Davis at the July 22 Meeting The minimum AES intake flow rate is one component of the worst case analysis of the project's potential impacts relating to the increase of ocean salinity levels. As stated in the EIR (at page 4.3-12) the "worst-case scenario assumes that the AES facility has only two circulating pumps operating(one generating unit) and that no additional mixing from natural causes such as wind or wave action would occur." EIR Appendix D (at page D- 79) lists the combined capacity of a two-pump flow at 126.7 million gallons per day (mgd). At the 22 July 03 meeting, Commissioner Davis questioned whether the EIR worst case flow rate of 126 mgd was correct. Referencing selected annual summary sheets for the NPDES permit of the AES power plant (included in EIR Appendix C at pages C-80 through C-92), Commissioner Davis questioned why recent "annual flow averages" shown on those summary sheets were lower than 126 mgd, citing references to 104 mgd and 109 mgd. This led to some confusion because no combination of pumps at AES could deliver 109 mgd. Staff was directed to review the data in the EIR Appendix and provide a response at the next meeting. Inspection of the NPDES summary sheets in EIR Appendix C reveals that Commission Davis was referring to a charts showing numbers for "Serial Discharge 003A," retention basin effluent discharges, and not the chart showing numbers for "Serial Discharge 001A,"for the outfall. The actual number on the retention basin summary sheet for 1998 (EIR Appendix C-81) was 103,981 gallons per day (GPD not mgd). Likewise, the actual number on the retention basin summary sheet for 2000 (EIR Appendix C-81) was 109,386 gallons per day(GPD not mgd). The summary sheet for the outfall discharge for 1999 (EIR Appendix C-85) shows a combined discharge flow of 156.98 million gallons ep r day (mgd) and the monthly figures show that the flow was never less than 126 mgd. The average annual flow rates of the AES plant from 1979 through 2002 are shown on the attached bar chart("Figure 3"). The bar chart was created from NPDES data courtesy of MBC (the City's consultant). Flow rates at AES during 2000 - 2001 and for a number years preceding that time had been depressed while the plant underwent refit for modern clean air equipment and for the re-powering of Unit 3. However, at no time from 1979 through 2002 (the EIR study period) did the annual average of the daily flow rates at AES fall below the 126 mgd level used in the EIR for the worst-case salinity dilution modeling scenario. �':� August 7, 2003 Planning Commission Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Reconsideration of Environmental bnpact Report No. 00-02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) Dear Commissioners: As you know, I represent Poseidon Resources Corporation ("Poseidon"). At the July 22nd Planning Commission meeting, The Commission reconsidered its certification of the desalination project EIR. This letter is offered to clarify information presented in the EIR and Appendix and to correct the misstatement made by one of the members of the Poseidon consulting team at your July 8th meeting. Poseidon has reviewed tapes of the July 8 meeting and regrets the misstatement made by Dr. Scott Jenkins in response to Commissioner Ron Davis. By this letter we respond to the offer made by Commissioner Ron Davis to "find[the information] in the appendix"and attempt to present that information in a clear and concise manner. We submit that there is no question as to the accuracy of the hydrodynamic modeling presented in the EIR and the EIR Appendix. We also believe that it cannot be denied that Dr. Scott Jenkins is an expert in this field of study. (His accomplishments are noted in his extensive resume.) In addition, the EIR analysis received peer review and was approved by the City's expert consultants, RBF and MBC Consulting, as well as by the "staff marine biologists and other marine biologists"consulted by Orange County Coastkeeper. (See page 2 of the June 26,2003 letter provided by Orange County Coastkeeper.) According to Commissioner Ron Davis' July 18 memorandum to Commission Chair Randy Kokal, "The reason for reconsideration is based upon subsequent evidence of potential inaccuracies in the hydrodynamic modeling of source water and concentrated seawater dilution relative to salinity and worst-case scenarios." j Discussion by the Commissioners at your July 22 meeting clarified specific concerns regarding natural variations in ocean salinity levels, the salinity dilution modeling and the worst-case dilution scenario analyzed in the EIR. This letter and the enclosures are offered to addresses those concerns. The following are included as enclosures to this letter. (1) A brief transcript of a portion of the testimony of Dr. Scott Jenkins under questioning by Commissioner Ron Davis (relating to the "10% variation"). Poseidon Resources corporation 3760 Kilroy,Airport Way,Suite 260,bona Beach,CA 90806. USA 562-490.2003 Fax:562-190-2403 Executive Office: 1055 Washington Boulevard,Stamford,CT 06901 Planning Commission Members City of Huntington Beach August 7, 2003 Page 2 (2) A letter from Dr. Scott Jenkins correcting the record and clarifying information provided in the EIR and Appendix regarding ocean salinity, the salinity dilution modeling and the worst case scenario. (3) Dr. Scott Jenkins' VITA. It should be noted that the references in the EIR to the data sources for the ocean modeling assumptions are drawn from public records at the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB). The information was supplied by the Orange County Sanitation District and the AES (formerly Edison) power plant in compliance with the discharge (NPDES) permits governing facility discharges into the ocean. The monitoring data for the discharges is filed monthly and annually. The data is referred to as OCSD 1982- 2001,MBC 2001, etc. as it is found in the SWRCB. The data collected is extensive and covers a number of parameters, including salinity. At your last meeting, Poseidon's attorneys (Ron Van Blarcom and John Erskine) objected to your reconsideration of the EIR for three reasons:the mandatory CEQA processing date was fast approaching, the. reconsideration action violated the Planning Commission's procedural rules and the Planning Commission no longer had jurisdiction over the EIR due to the appeal filed by Mayor Connie Boardman. For strictly legal reasons,Poseidon is not waiving any of those arguments. However,we will continue to work with your Commission, to answer all questions and address all issues that have been raised concerning the EIR. Please consider this letter and the enclosures in connection with your reconsideration of the EIR. Please do not hesitate to call on me with any questions you may have concerning this letter or the attachments. Be assured that the entire Poseidon consulting team will be available, should you request further input from Poseidon during your reconsideration of the EIR. Very Truly Yours, Billy Owe. Sr. Vice President Poseidon Resources Corporation Enclosures i OO � i >s �r pdt .b �1 t 400 ,A ' xa M nm x S" M a x � p ;: 4rzmm AiRE�G 7 ,9 aEirF t .Y3E�A ' i5�x1Ftw 7� �' 9 3 13e '""�j 300 0C "� Yng3�ir�25 � , w3t rlttl .y..rUL TIP 7�j+'.+�4 ..�. ds3 H q r AN q?a I>i z y : '�p'v{ 3 ° 3~ of f "� Tdtrar,iN4 Yar a.A�i ^t� -"& z; .ils ��s���n#��"��r�"ma i L A I'[" l-31 s ,r tq b a � 3 aV rs f 3 e' s t +aG"ff eI N s '�rrt ~{i r ➢ r,'e .,01 4 3 tf, , ,�ej£I kxY s '� aSf�i S ��yy�{ryry f Ab' �,��' ref A' p.r°m� Qa >H t.l1.t ,�dsle a'ra,+�, e3 uhj 1 3us fe �- a 'f p {�rA f 1 P ! sy rj{e a 7q r*j <.f -a elf�1 IRON k�,k� s fr r _ Ae� �jr r�fy"ggf� 7 N i� � tq ;a� a f''p�ktr r',ai, 'rsq i r 9 it #aj e� f �pai t jr rany,� fl :. e e;�rk E ear s' t o rf�� � r y5 f v 3,3c 1S a1, 3� a (6� RL r � , f € : 6 4 , f+>l ,,#,v +1 6 $ r�,i t a r y 'f r vl"r, e ,4e t 1 1 i, yre - 5� o tr ' i¢ r a '' a Je s o ;-, ri r u{sjs (. q r ",.[, ,;><, �" �' ai 'I'4�� {J I t2 L`C 3 )f} t I} ri y rx i S:2 , t t 17 ys a 2 { h q 'L P Ik' i 3 �A X '0., $ - !�t Y b,..1 qq.F: i k' F 1 t f 9ar�s�,:6�. �° ft � Sgit as '� �`„- R•7P y t e( � eel. 5 ,? t.r .w.. S,._..i }IU sr .his, f a �rtia�J y'..d i p�,,;. v+figg.."'Ys`', 3?'q" ,Sf ar > j�s1 qx r NJ r-1 nist a 7Y -5 ; , S `� ,',l a , G..1 , FQJC, a e., f°'3 �r Y !, f:�` �e gi_ti,° i y3yt, ,t-.y; ry r}H a t I�: ��� i qv,3t :�. f t >I��ry M, t 8 erg.,'r6 S :.R xi a Ea 4 p � }b r n 9 .,,;4, P .^ Y �1� 3 ..„ de, Q Sit of i�,�ty-. �33 e '4t i �` i4��� ��,.y'zk� C�G:1i�0 Y t e �I US1 t "s a9_ gipp, t'�" s-� ,t�t�, 1i t: § .-i , fir;' .s I �3 ra , f , e y 3 e }, a kes, y,��sa fill, way 3 f "i ,�3U C }• sh � t o` Sil h,sft.�' S�q i 5,t�+>n r t1L� 6, '? 3s� u�fi 14 yggl 100 j�'++I((^^yy rs4 qg q a l rh i '� ' �hl m i s '„1`r 1 'f !1 ka ( 8i5 7t,N s r , J a i$ 3 „ ry iq I r h,+r� tr�5� en1 P4='3 >� € p v' t 1 k3 rr r h^I G Y R Si(K fl'�. ?Y rl i 3 4° Yt * '1�. �i '..- w•s r9ro R 8ts D v1 4t �� q s�,y 3 ass n , a xr as � � a risr S a ofa>elM 4y$ 5 •+:�t� ,x `�•s ;:'� ,3I _.ve"c '�� Ir f.,;,r is ,�S -PONDY }., Q'�r3+ze P? �3,..e r A fS. �,�`t''� iA� +t 5 1!`,_ j' '. lz r-"' a �trsx'a ¢ fZ. - w r a' r .& ti�a $ir P� td 3 a `sr ? ,x a r a ^ 9?S�.r ptrr'f if ` � F a 'r '<'1yiY' ,✓' ( '»'e�' ''rt cef� �'.. "r s ✓''��+ }.T. 7 73 L H i S{ g,,a i t " ', Y:3`k+r S s e !3'�aT .§ ' ' Ft f, �,44� �1' fL r3� y rr x rzd ;3 rr' $3-L '�, v „}vr_ 4 ikr s1�T , #r�S �' f #�, 3� ,r irk yk .t;y � nab Pqs iSs>� t( 3 r5f ff t seS7 e ', i. t!•g :.L ?.b t S sf !; s {'d.yr §:"9 b �� l; ''r'�n3 .. �Sxf ts`,,� I �' 'vv13 "`�� :;#VQ';�Sf s33gga.,i . ttyy��'e# fui t;.,3s f 7 J'4s.. f� �'I e?� f � ._3 19,i n PQ Gff 3fi A;i zi e a r �Y f rgskra J , ri"t ,}3 y �agP #�: T $ , ,�'y �t v 'a I} Rig R i`^f�3.,1"1 �F. h *7v t,. ''q F'NR RS s;,Y }! PS 3'•v' a ...�?i j ��3( 3 tr T7 r "'R i TE.j, � Aa ftfq :.. rr'u qi sS s. 3" s ti!",00 4' 3iu?fi 1� -',q X!w Ff� '}.-;N ab, rt �° Sri fr t( �A d 9i eS' R gt2s sir";+ ....�..< 0 ..i., �. g.; �., .. 3 1980 1935 1990 1993 2000 Year Figure I Annual average of the daily. plant flow rate at AES Nuntitagtota Beach PLC generating station. 1979=2002:: [from NDPES, 2002, COUrtesy of MBC ptaliod"Etzvit-onniehtal '. y Transcript of a Portion of the Testimony of Dr. Scott Jenkins Under Questioning by Commissioner Ron Davis Huntington Beach Planning, Commission Meeting July 8, 2003 Davis: But let me go to another point that is really troubling in terms of the analysis that we've gotten here. In your report- you did a study back in 2001 that's part of our Appendix. Correct? Jenkins: Correct. Davis: And in that report you indicated something about the salinity levels varying between essentially plus or minus ten percent that that's a normal variation? Jenkins: Yeah, for the Southern California bight that's correct. Davis: OK now typically when I read scientific studies and there is an extensive bibliography here such a statement is ordinarily foot noted or referred to so I can go back and look at the source for that material in this case in your article this is not the case. Jenkins: Well actually if you review the MBC monitoring data which was in the appendix of my report the ten percent variation is there in their data !�IT 1 Davis: Well I'm just looking at your statement because I saw throughout the course of the thing you did refer to a lot of things but with reference to that ten percent issue you didn't have a source that I could look at. But I did take a moment to try and do some research on the internet and correct me if I'm wrong what I find is that various areas of the ocean some places in the Atlantic and some places in the Pacific have higher or lower elevations in salinity Jenkins: That's correct Davis: But the variation, do we have any evidence or maybe you can refer me to a section in the appendix where we monitored in the area of the outflow pipe where we can show the variations, range of plus or minus ten percent? Jenkins: Well yeah that's the MBC Monitoring data they measure salinity along with a number of other variables the temperature, salinity, and so on their data shows the ten percent variation Davis: Maybe one of your colleagues can find that in the appendix and give it to me after I'm through for a second Jenkins: OK August 7, 2003 Planning Conunission Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Reconsideration of Environmental 17npact Report No. 00-02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant) Dear Commissioners: Please accept this letter as a correction of a portion of my testimony at your 8 July 03 meeting and as an attempt to further clarify important issues discussed in the EIR and Appendix relating to natural variations in ocean salinity, the salinity dilution modeling and the worst case scenario analyzed in the EIR and Appendix. Correcting the Record: It has been my pleasure to appear before the Planning Commission on these matters. I testified during the noticed public hearing on the EIR and I have provided additional comments during the public comment period. From time to time, I have been called to the podium by various Commissioners and examined with respect to specific issues. On the night of 8 July 03, I was called to the podium by Commissioner Davis and questioned about the natural variation in ocean salinity levels. In the two prior hearings of 27 May and 3 June 03; I provided testimony about ocean salinity levels. I have reviewed the tapes and feel compelled to point out that I never used the prefix "plus and minus" when describing ocean salinity variations, nor did I use those words myself during the 8 July hearing. "Plus and minus 10%"were the words of Commissioner Davis in a yes-no question posed to me around 11:OO PM on 8 July 03. I should have said no, but I answered affirmatively(see excerpt from July 8th hearing below). Davis: And in that report you indicated something about the salinity levels varying between essentially plus or minus ten percent that that's a normal variation? Jenkins: Yeah, for the Southern California bight that's correct. I did not listen carefully enough to the question. It was entirely my mistake for not catching and correcting Commissioner Davis when he added the "plus and minus" prefix to my 10 % figure on ocean salinity variations. I missed it again a few moments later (and my response shows that, again, I-was not listening clearly). Commissioner Davis said "plus or minus ten percent." I answered affirmatively, but responded"the ten percent variation" (see excerpt from July 8 hearing below). Planning Commission Members, 2 City of Huntington Beach August 7, 2003 Page 2 Davis: But the variation, do we have any evidence or maybe you can refer me to a section in the appendix where we monitored in the area of the outflow pipe where we can show the variations,range of plus or minus ten percent? Jenkins: Well yeah that's the MBC Monitoring data they measure salinity along with a number of other variables the temperature, salinity, and so on. Their data shows the ten percent variation (emphasis added). I did not take the opportunity during the meeting on the night of 8 July 03 to correct the record or to provide Commissioner Davis with any specific references to the EIR or Appendix. Unfortunately, I assumed the objective of Mr. Davis' line of questioning was to the potential effect upon the ocean environment of the higher salinity discharge in the average and worst case scenarios. Reference was indeed made to the EIR analysis and previous testimony of Dr. Graham on the effects upon marine life in the area based upon the higher salinity and the results concluded no significant harm to the ocean or marine life. Since this was not disputed in the exchange, the potential significance of the ocean natural salinity slipped in importance. The manner in which the hearing progressed offered little opportunity for subsequent discussion of this issue as other commissioners introduced new topics between 11:00 pm and 1:00 am the next morning prior to adjournment. In closing comments, Commissioner Stanton complained that his speaker light had been on for over 2 hours and that he was never given an opportunity to speak. The Commission meeting of 22 July 03 afforded no opportunity for clarification or rebuttal of Mr. Davis' concerns about salinity or the explanatory document sent to Mr. Davis (at his request)by Poseidon on the issue prior to the 22 July 03 meeting. Obviously, my verbal mistake is not contained in the EIR, and should not impinge the credibility of the EIR. In the remainder of this letter, I hope to clarify the actual facts as presented in the EIR and Appendix. Ocean Salinity: It is an observational fact, supported by 20 years of NPDES monitoring data of the AES and OCSD outfalls (see Figure 1), that the ocean salinity varies by 10% between summer maximums and winter minimums, with a long term average value of 33.5 parts per thousand (ppt). Maximum salinity was 34.3 ppt during the 1998 summer El Nino when southerly winds transported high salinity water from southern Baja up into the Southern California Bight. Minimum salinity was about 31.0 ppt during the 1993 winter floods. The variation between maximum and minimum salinity is about 3.3 ppt, which is about 10 % of the average value of 33.5 ppt. Averages never tell the whole story and can sometimes be misleading. In this case, the ocean salinity exceeded the 33.5 ppt average value during 2,488 days of the period of record and was below average during 1,543 days.. Therefore, above average salinities are ;,_ �. U Planning Commission Members 3 City of Huntington Beach August 7, 2003 Page 3 more common than below average salinities. Average salinities were observed a total of 3,492 days during the period of record, or about 46 % of the time. Adding the prefix "plus or minus" to the 10% number for natural variability renders the information factually incorrect. Ocean salinity does not vary symmetrically (as in a"bell curve" or Gaussian probability distribution) and plus or minus 10 % would actually represent a 20 % variation. Nowhere is it written in the EIR or its technical appendices that the ocean salinity off Huntington Beach varies by"plus or minus" 10%. The EIR Summary Report, page 4.3-3, and Appendix D, D-6, are the specific references on the natural salinity of the ocean in the California Bight. The salinity data sources for the ocean modeling assumptions in Appendix D are drawn from public records at the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The OCSD and AES/M3C files were selected because of the proximity to the proposed project location and extensive records. The reports,referred to as OCSD 1982-2001, MBC 2001, etc., provided monitoring data on a monthly and annual basis. The City's EIR consultant is familiar with and has examined these sources as they have been used for other studies. Salinity Dilution Modeling: Dilution of the concentrated seawater produced by the Poseidon project was evaluated in the EIR for two basic modeling scenarios: average case and worst case. There are seven (7) controlling variables in this problem: four (4) that affect the strength of ocean mixing and ventilation, and three (3) that affect the source strength (salinity concentration). Mixing/ventilation variables include wind, current, wave and tidal range data, while source strength data include the power plant flow rate, ocean salinity and temperature. a) average case: This condition is constructed from the long term means of the ocean mixing and source strength variables. Based on analysis of the AES plant operations data and the ocean monitoring data (illustrated in Figure 1), the following parameter assignments were made for average case dilution modeling: 1) AES intake flow rate=253.4 mgd 2) Desalination production rate=50 mgd 3) Combined discharge=203.4 mgd 4) Ocean salinity= 33.52 ppt 5) End-of pipe combined discharge salinity=41.42 ppt 6) Combined discharge temperature anomaly DT= 100 C 7) Combine discharge density anomaly Dr/r= 0.44% 8) Wave height= 1.1 m 9) Wave period= 11 sec 10) Wave direction=2670 11) Wind= 5 knots 12) Tidal range = Syzygian spring/neap cycle (} �_• :t+ .mod �i;,4gc s"-� o,3ti� �• "� Planning Commission Members 4 City of Huntington Beach August 7, 2003 Page 4 13) Daily maximum tidal current=45.1 cm/sec Under average conditions, the maximum salinity is at mid water column depth in the core of the discharge jet, and reaches 41.7 ppt, which is only 25 %higher than the background seawater salinity. The EIR again gives the pessimistic description of the plume by following the long axis of the egg-shaped plume, along which the discharge salinity in the water coluran decreases to 38.5 ppt (15 % above background seawater salinity) within only 20 feet from the discharge outfall tower. Within 500 feet from the outfall tower the discharge salinity will be only 10 % higher than the background seawater salinity over an area of 8.3 acres. Considering the eccentricity of the egg-shape plume, the 10 % saline anomaly contour extends an average distance of about 330 feet away from the outfall. The highest salinity on the seafloor for average conditions is found at the base of the outfall tower and is 37.6 ppt (only 12 % above background seawater salinity). The discharge salinity drops to less than 10 % above the background seawater salinity in only 430 feet away from the discharge along the long axis of the egg-shaped plume, or an average distance of 300 feet, which was the dimension I used to characterize the size,of the plume in the hearings of 27 May and 6 June 03. b) worst case: This condition is caused by the simultaneous occurrence high salinity concentrations and low intensity ocean mixing. Salinity concentration is maximized when the AES flow rate is at the minimum operational level while the natural ocean salinity is at maximum. Minimum ocean mixing levels were found to occur in the autumn of 1992. However, the ocean salinity in the autumn of 1992 (of the data set used) was 33.49 ppt , not the salinity maximum of 34.3 ppt as identified in Figure 1. This is due to the fact that salinity maximums are mutually exclusive with mixing minimums. Salinity maximums are caused by vigorous southerly winds that create a well-nixed coastal ocean while pushing high salinity water masses into the Southern California Bight. Worst case dilution modeling was based on the following set of parameters: 1) AES intake flow rate = 126.7 mgd 2) Desalination production rate=50 mgd 3) Combined discharge=76.7 mgd 4) Ocean salinity=33.49 ppt 5) End of pipe combined discharge salinity= 55.37 ppt 6) Combined discharge temperature anomaly DT = 100 C 7) Combine discharge density anomaly Dr/r= 1.59 % 8) Wave height=0.6 m 9) Wave period= 8 sec 10) Wave direction=2550 11) Wind=0 knots 12) Tidal range= Syzygian spring/neap cycle 13)Daily maximum tidal current=21 cm/sec {,�� apt ">7yaY5Y'� t1'p a q� ..J.�J Planning Commission Members 5 City of Huntington Beach August 7, 2003 Page 5 Ocean conditions represented by these parameter assignments did not persist in the long term record for more than a week. However, in the model simulations these conditions were perpetuated for 30 days to verify the stability of the computed results. The recurrence of worst case environmental extremes is about 1 week every 3 to 7 years. Worst case dilution calculations indicate that the desalination project will result in an egg-shaped saline plume around a jet of water discharged vertically upward toward the sea surface from the outfall tower. In the core of this jet the highest salinity reaches 55.0 ppt at mid depth in the water column, about 64 % higher than the background ocean water salinity (33.52 ppt). -The difference between the discharge salinity and the background seawater salinity rapidly decreases with increasing distance from the discharge outfall tower. The EIR gives numbers for the salinity decay in the water column following the long axis of the egg-shaped plume, stating a decrease to 40 ppt (20 % above background seawater salinity) within 20 feet from the discharge outfall .tower; a decrease to 15 % above the background seawater salinity at approximately 100 feet away from the outfall tower; and a decrease to 10 % above background seawater salinity within 1,200 feet from the outfall tower. The EIR gave the most pessimistic description of the size of the saline plume for worst case. Since the total area of the plume within the 10 % saline anomaly is 18.3 acres, the size of the plume in terms of the average dimensions of its egg-shape would extend to about 500 feet away from the outfall, (or about 150 meters). No specific dimensions of the worst case plume were given at the 27 May and 6 June 03 hearings; although I believe I mentioned the 150 m average dimension for worst case at the 8 July hearing. No seafloor dimensions of the plume were mentioned at any of the hearings, as the size and strength of the plume are a bit less on the seafloor than in the water column. Again, the EIR gives the most pessimistic outlook of the seafloor footprint by following the long axis of the egg-shape. The highest salinity on the seafloor is at the base of the outfall tower and is 48.3. ppt (44 % above background seawater salinity). The discharge salinity drops to. less than 15 % (38.5 ppt) above the background seawater salinity in only 100 feet away from the discharge. The bottom discharge salinity is reduced to 10 % of the background salinity within 1,000 feet from the discharge outfall tower. This 10 % anomaly contour covers 15.6 acres of the seafloor, so for an average of the egg-shaped plume, the seabed salinity decreases to within 10 % of background within a distance of 465 feet from the outfall, or about 140 meters. Worst Case AES Intake Flow Rate: During the hearings of 27 May, 3 June and 8 July 03, I emphasized the fact stated in the EIR and Appendix; namely, that the worst case scenario for concentrated seawater dilution is based on the minimum AES generating configuration. This configuration involves one generating unit on line, using two circulation pumps that produce a combined flow rate of 126.7 million gallons per day (mgd). The minimum flow rate was rounded off in testimony to 126 or 127 mgd. AES is Planning Commission Members 6 City of Huntington Beach August 7, 2003 Page 6 not equipped with variable speed pumps and it is not possible to generate electricity at any flow rate less than 126.7 mgd. The minimum operational flow rate provides the least amount of"in-the-pipe" dilution and results in the highest salinity concentrations that would be discharged from the desalination plant. Consequently, the 126.7 mad flow rate was included in the worst case dilution modeling parameters. Thank you for the opportunity to correct a portion of my testimony at your 8 July 03 meeting. I hope that this letter has also helped clarify important issues discussed in the EIR and Appendix. Sincerely, j-, -GyGL/r'J " Dr. S. A. Jenkins, Phc� Natural Variability = (Smax - Smin) 33.52 = 9.7% - 10% }1 Jf7 t- 34.0 - U) 3. .0 c CO 0 32.0 - 20.5 year average = 33.52 ppt 31.0IM E i -- --- -- ---- -----�--- :1 1980 1984 1988 199_? 1996 12-000 ;SAD Year �t Figure 1. Period of record for ocean water daily mean salinity, Huntington Beach, 1980-2000. (data from NPDES monitorina reuods for AES and OCSD outfalls. en: MBC. 2001: OCSD. 1993. 20001 VITA Dr. SCOTT ALAN JENKINS Senior Engineer Scripps Institution of Oceanography Center for Coastal Studies, 0209 University of California, San Diego La Jolla, California 92093-0209 (858) 534-6480 Home/Consulting: 14765 Kalapana St., Poway, CA 92064 Born/Raised: Aurora, Illinois/Albuquerque, New Mexico Education: Yale University, B. S., Chemistry, 1972 University of California, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Ph. D., Physical Oceanography, 1980 Academic Honors: * Yale National Scholar, 1972 * Howard Douglas Moore Prize, Yale University, 1972 * Andrew Mellon Foundation Fellow, 1981-1983 * Inventor of the Year, 1985, San Diego Patent Law Association * American Council of Consulting Engineers, GRAND AWARD, 1988, Best Special Project for Grays Harbor Jet Array, Co-recipient HNTB * 1995 Lincoln Award Patents: U. S. Patent No. 4,560,304, "Apparatus for impeding fine sediment deposition in harbors and navigation channels" U. S. Patent No. 4,661,013, "Improved apparatus for impeding sediment deposition in marine berths" U. S. Patent No. 4,957,392, "Method and apparatus for active prevention of sedimentation in harbors" U. S. Patent No. 5,558,460, "Apparatus for enhancing wave height in ocean waves" 1 Employment History: Employed at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography since age 16, beginning with summer jobs through high school and college. Since then the following job titles were held at Scripps: - Laboratory Assistant, 1966-1972, (summers only) - Research Assistant, 1972-1974 - Sea Grant Fellow, 1974-1976 - Staff Research Associate IV, 1918-1981 - Mellon Research Fellow, 1981-1983 - Assistant Research Oceanographer, 1983-1988 - Lecturer, 1987-1993 - Assistant Research Engineer, 1988-1993 - Associate Development Engineer, 1993-1994 - Senior Engineer 1995 to present Consulting History: Provided consulting services in coastal processes, hydrodynamics, aerodynamics and hydraulics of harbors and estuaries. Services include both field measurements and numerical modeling. A partial list of clients includes: - City of Carpinteria, 1983 - Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, 1983 - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1983 - Port of Grays Harbor, 1983-1990 - Port of Mobile, 1984-1989 - Exxon Production Research Co., 1984-1990 - City of Oceanside, 1983-1984 - Port of San Francisco, 1985-1986 - Port of Benecia, 1987-1989 - Nolte Engineering, 1987-1988 - San Diego Gas and Electric Co., 1987-present - Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, 1991-present - Abam Engineers, Inc., 1992 - Southern California Edison, 1992-present MEC Analytical Systems, 1992-present - Science Applications International Co., 1993-present - Naval Research and Development Laboratory 1995 - present - Irvine Company - NRG Energy, Inc. - Cabrillo Power Operations, Inc. - Poseidon Resources, Inc. - Headlands Reserve, LLC Teaching: (1982 to present), Co-instructor SIO 216A, "Physics of Sediment Transport" with Professor Douglas L. Inman. 2 (1982 to present), Co-instructor SIO 216B, "Coastal Processes" with Professor Douglas L. Inman. (1984 to present), Member AOS, Applied Ocean Science curricular group. Graduate advisor to Peter Mull, who graduated with an M. S. degree from Applied Ocean Sciences curricular group of Scripps Institution of Oceanography in January 1987. Graduate advisor and thesis committee Co-Chairman to Saima Aijaz, who graduated with a Ph. D. degree from the AOS curricular group of Scripps Institution of Oceanography on March 16, 1993. Undergraduate advisor to Kelly Boardman, who graduated with a B. S. degree from UCSD Urban Studies in June 1993. (1994 to present), solo instructor MARS-20, "Introduction to Physical Oceanography," 3-hr. lecture and 3-hr. lab., Marine Science Department, University of San Diego. Environmental and Professional Societies: - National Research Council Committee on Sedimentation Control in Strategic Harbors and Waterways - Scripps Institution of Oceanography Long Range Planning Committee - American Geophysical Union - San Diego Clean Water Program - Surfrider Foundation, Environmental Director, 1990-1993 - Technical Advisory Committee, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1995 to present Television: - ESPN, "Surfer Magazine Show," Host of"Surf-Science Segment," 1988- 1992 - CBS, "Eye on the Earth," Interview with Dan Rather, 1992 - Discovery, "Hidden Treasures," Host, 1994 - BBC, "Walking on Water," Opening Host, 1994 Books or Chapters Submitted for Publication: Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, in preparation, Coastal Processes: Physics of Transport by Waves, Winds and Currents, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 968 pp. 3 Peer Reviewed Publications: Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1985, On a submerged sphere in a viscous fluid excited by small-amplitude motions, Jour. Fluid Mech., v. 157, p. 199-224. Jenkins, S. A. & J. A. Bailard, 1989, Anti-sedimentation system for harbors, World Wide Shipping, v. 52, n. 1, p. 70-75. Heinz, R. A., J. A. Bailard & S. A. Jenkins, 1989, Water jets fight silt, Civil Engineering, v. 59, n. 1, p. 54-58. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1989, Wave overtopping at San Malo seawall, Shore and Beachl v. 57, n. 3, p. 19-25. Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1990, Resuspension of estuarial sediments by tethered wings, Jour. Coastal Res., v. 6, n. 4, p. 961-980. Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1990, Optimization of glides for constant wind fields and course headings, Jour. of Aircraft, AIAA, v. 27, n. 7, p. 632- 638. Jenkins, S. A., L. Armi & J. Wasyl, 1992, Glide optimization during cross- country wave flights, Technical Soaring, v. 16, n. 1, p. 3-16. Jenkins, S. A., J. Wasyl & D. W. Skelly, 1992, Tackling trapped sediments, Civil Engineering, v. 62, n. 2, p. 61-64. Jenkins, S. A., S. Aijaz & J. Wasyl, 1992, Transport of fine sediment by hydrostatic jets, Coastal and Estuarine Studies, American Geophysical Union, v. 42, p. 331-347. Inman, D. L., M. Hany S. Elwany& S. A. Jenkins, 1993, Shoreline and bar-berm profiles on ocean beaches, Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 98, n. C10, P. 18,181-18,199. Aijaz, S. & S. A. Jenkins, 1993, Dynamics of shearing in flocculating fine sediment suspension, Makromol. Chem., v. 76, p. 89-93. Aijaz, S. & S. A. Jenkins, 1994, On the electrokinetics of the dynamic shear stress in fluid mud suspensions, Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 99, n. C6, p. 12,697-12,706. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1999, Climate change and the episodicity of sediment flux of small California rivers, Jour. Geology, v. 107, p. 251- 270. Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1999, Sand transport mechanics for equilibrium tidal inlets, Shore & Beach (Magoon Volume, Jan 99), v. 67, n. 1, p. 53-58. Jenkins, S. A. and D. L. Inman, submitted, Thermodynamic solutions for ocean beach profiles, Jour. Marine Res., 32 pp. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, in press 2002, Climate change in the coastal zone, p. to in M. Schwartz, ed., Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, in press 2002, Energy and sediment budgets of the global coastal zone,.p. to in M. Schwartz, ed., 4 Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, in press 2002, Accretion and erosion waves on beaches, p to in M. Schwartz, ed., Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, in press 2002, Scour and burial of objects in shallow water, p. to in M. Schwartz, ed., Encyclopedia of Coastal Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Conference Proceedings and Technical Publications: Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1976, Forces on a sphere under linear progressive waves, Proc. 15th Coastal Eng. Conf., Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., v. 1,p. 2413-2418. Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1977, Tilting spar directional wave sensor, Proc. Nat. Sed. Trans. Study Workshop at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Institute Marine Resources No. 78-102 and Sea Grant Publ. No. 62, p. 143-149. Jenkins, S. A., 1980, Directional wave and current data from a weakly buoyant tilting spar, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Coastal Eng.,Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., v. 1, p 32-33. Jenkins, S. A., D. L. Inman & J. A. Bailard, 1980, Opening and maintaining tidal lagoons and estuaries, Proc. 17th Int. Coastal Eng. Conf., Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., v. 2, p. 1528-1547. Jenkins, S. A. 1980, Sedimentation control experiments at Mare Island Naval shipyard, Proc. Dredging Sedimentation Control, P. Shelly, ed., Pub. EG&G, Washington, p. (4-1) - (11-6). Jenkins, S. A. 1980, Alternatives for sedimentation control at the Pier 10- 11-12 complex, Norfolk, Naval Station, Proc. Dredging Sedimentation Control, P. Shelly, ed., Pub. EG&G, Washington, p. (11-1) - (11-6). Bailard, J. A. & S. A. Jenkins, 1983, Experimental sand bypass system at Oceanside Harbor, Phase 1 a fluidizer and eductor crater system design report, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. L-203440, 75 p. Jenkins, S. A. 1983, Notes on the L/Dmax of soaring sea birds, Soaring, v. 47, n. 8, p. 27-28. Jenkins, S. A., 1983, Vortex foils, Popular Science, v. 162, September, p. 66. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1984, The Nile littoral cell and man's impact on the coastal zone of the southeastern Mediterranean, Proc. 19th Coastal Eng. Conf., Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Ch. 109, p. 1600-1617. Bailard, J. A. & S. A. Jenkins, 1984, Systems for reducing sedimentation in berthing facilities, Proc. Dredging '84, Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., v. 1, p. 11-320. Bailard, J. A. & S. A. Jenkins, 1985, Evaluation of two concepts for reducing sedimentation at Mayport Naval Station, Naval Facilities Engineering Command TN #N-1725, 47 pp. 5 Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1985, Erosion and accretion waves from Oceanside Harbor, p. 591-593, in Oceans '85: Ocean Engineering and the Environment, IEEE and Marine Technology Society, v. 1, 674 pp. Jenkins, S. A. 1985, Secondary flows in thermal waves, Proc, of IAMAP/IAPSO Joint Assembly, Honolulu, Hawaii, Int. Union of Geodesy & Geophysics, Washington, p. 96-97. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1986, Budget of sediments for estuarine harbors, Proc. Symp. on Sed. Control., National Research Council, Marine Board, July 7-10, Washington, D. C., 8 pp. Jenkins, S. A., 1986, Existing facility modification, Proc. Symp. on Sed. Control, National Research Council, July 7-10, Washington, D. C., 8 PP. Jenkins, S. A., 1986, Passive remedial measures for controlling sedimentation in channels and parallel berths, Proc. Symp. on Sed. Control, National Research Council, Marine Board, July 7-10, Washington, D. C., 36 pp. Jenkins, S. A., 1986, Scour and erosion of fine sediments due to horseshoe vortices, EOS, v. 67, n. 44, p. 1020. Jenkins, S. A., 1987, Downbursts, Soaring,v. 51, n. 7, p. 37-41. Bailard, J. A. & S. A. Jenkins, 1987, An evaluation of two concepts for reducing sedimentation at Mayport Turning Basin, Florida, Proc. Sediments '87, ASCE, New York, v. 2, p. 100-116. Jenkins, S. A., D. L. Inman & D. W. Skelly, 1989, The impact of dam building on the California coastal zone, Waterfront Age, v. 5, n. 1, p. 12-16. Wasyl, J., S. A. Jenkins & D. W. Skelly, 1991, Sediment bypassing around dams - a potential beach erosion control mechanism, The California Coastal Zone Experience, ed. Domurat, G. W., ASCE, p. 251-265. Jenkins, S. A., L. Armi & J. Wasyl, 1991, Glide optimization during cross- country wave flights, Proc. "I OST/V Congress, DFVLR, D-8031 Wessling, Germany, p. 16.2-16.3. Jenkins, S. A., & J. Wasyl, 1991, Research and development of sedimentation control for marinas and harbors, Proc. 1991 National Applied Marina Research Conference, International Marina Institute, Wickford, RI, 20 pp. Aijaz, S. & S. A. Jenkins, 1993, Fluid-sediment interactions and dynamic shear stress in fine sediment suspension, Powders & Grains '93, Thornton (ed.), Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 323, p. 437-438. Aijaz, S. & S. A. Jenkins, 1993, Fluid-sediment interactions and dynamic shear stress in fine sediment suspensions, Proc. of the Second Int. Conf. on Micromechanics of Granular Media, Birmingham, UK, Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 413-419. Hyman, M., J. Rohr, J. Schoonmaker, T. Ratcliffe, B. Chadwick, K. Richter, 6 S. Jenkins, & J. Wasyl, 1995, Mixing in the wake of an aircraft carrier, Proc. Oceans, 95, v. 1, p. 221-237. Inman, D. L., S. A. Jenkins, and M. Hany S. Elwany, 1996, Wave climate cycles and coastal engineering practice, Coastal Eng., 1996, Proc. 25th Int. Cont, (Orlando), Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Vol. 1 , Ch. 25, p. 314-327. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1997, Changing wave climate and littoral drift along the California coast, p. 538-549 in 0. T. Magoon et al., eds., California and the World Ocean >97,.ASCE, Reston, VA 1756 PP. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1997, Climate change and the sediment flux of small California rivers, p. 60-63 in R. E. Flick & C. Willis, eds., Coastal Impacts of an E/Nino Winter(Proceedings of a Workshop), University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, SIO Reference Series No. 97-10, 63 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1998, A coastal monitor/forecast system," p. 491-502 in 0. T. Magoon et al., eds., California and the World Ocean '97, Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Reston, VA, 1756 pp. (v. 16; A-189). Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1998, Analytic solutions for equilibrium profiles on ocean beaches, EOS, Amer. Geophys. Union, Trans., v. 79, n. 45, p. F446. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1998, Erosion cycle of coastal drainage basins due to climate change, EOS, Amer. Geophys. Union, Trans., v. 79, n. 45, p. F371. Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1999, AEI Nino and global warming effects on tidal inundation of a southern California wetland restoration,@ p. 52 in Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles, Abstracts Volume, Annual Meeting, April 30-May 1, 1999, Dominguez Hills, 80 pp. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 2001, Processes on narrow beaches with sandy foreshores and cobble berms, Restoring the Beach: Science, Policy and Funding, CSBPA & CalCoast, 8-10 November 2001, San Diego, CA, 2 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 2001, Beach recovery following river mouth scour at Del Mar, CA, Restoring the Beach: Science, Policy and Funding, CSBPA & CalCoast, 8-10 November 2001, San Diego, CA, 2 PP. Jenkins, S. A., D. L. Inman & P. M. Masters, 2002, Coastal watershed model for ENSO-driven discharges of sediment and sorbed chemicals, Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conference, ASCE San Diego, 24-27 February 2002. Technical Reports: Jenkins, S. A., D. L. Inman &W. G. Van Dom, 1981, "Evaluation of sediment management procedures," SIO Reference Series No. 81-22, 212 pp. 7 Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1983, "Oceanographic report for Oceanside Beach facilities," City of Oceanside Beach facilities, City of Oceanside, 206 pp. Jenkins, S. A., & D. W. Skelly, 1983, "Jet array site suitability study at Charleston Naval Station," SIO Reference Series No. 83-20, 146 pp. Jenkins, S. A., D. L. Inman & D. W. Skelly, 1983, "The action of sea level inequalities upon sediment influx events at Mayport Naval Station," SIO Reference Series No. 83-19, 57 pp. Jenkins, S. A., & D. W. Skelly, 1983, "Port of Grays Harbor jet array site suitability study," SIO Reference Series No. 83-19, 47 pp. Inman, D. L.& S. A. Jenkins, 1984, "The Nile littoral cell and man's impact on the coastal zone of the south-eastern Mediterranean," SIO Reference Series No. 84-31, 43 pp. Jenkins, S. A., 1985, "Alternatives for maintaining tidal circulation in the Batiquitos Lagoon, California," SIO Reference Series No. 85-16, 51 pp. Jenkins, S. A., 1985, "Clandestine methods for the determination of beach trafficability," SIO Reference Series No. 85-27, 62 pp. Inman, D. L., S. A. Jenkins, D. M. Hicks & H. K. Kim, 1986, "Oscillatory bursting over beds of fine sand," SIO Reference Series No. 86-13, 50 PP. Jenkins, S. A. & D. W. Skelly, 1986, "Balanced equilibrium tidal plan for Batiquitos Lagoon," Prepared for Nolte Engineering, 59 pp. Jenkins, S. A., 1987, "Hydrodynamics of artificial seaweed," S10 Reference Series No. 87-16, 66 pp. Jenkins, S. A., D. W. Skelly & J. Wasyl, 1988, "MARFAC sedimentation control: site suitability study and conceptual system design," SIO Reference Series No. 88-12, 28 pp. Jenkins, S. A., J. A. Nichols & D. W. Skelly, 1989, "Coupled physical- biological dispersion model for the fate of suspended solids in sewage discharged into the ocean," SIO Reference Series No. 89-3, 53 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & D. W. Skelly, 1989, "An evaluation of the coastal data base pertaining to sea water diversions at Encina power plant," SIO Reference Series No. 89-4, 52 pp. Jenkins, S. A., D. W. Skelly & J. Wasyl, 1989, "Dispersion and momentum.flux study of the cooling water outfall at Agua Hedionda," SIO Reference Series No. 89-17, 36 pp. Jenkins, S. A., 1990, "Test and evaluation plan for the gliding submarine tactic," prepared for COMSUBDEVRON 12, Groton, CT, 14 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & I. Flynn, 1991, "White paper- a procedure for remotely determining suitability of amphibious landing beaches," prepared for Amphibious Liaison, Naval Ocean Systems Center, Pt. Loma, CA, 22 pp. Aijaz,'S., S. A. Jenkins & D. L. Inman, 1993, "Dynamic shear stress in fluid-mud suspension," SIO Reference Series No. 92-23, 106 pp. ici Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1993, "Hydraulics and coastal processes modeling for three wetland restoration alternatives at San Dieguito Lagoon, CA," submitted to Southern California Edison Co., 173 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1994, "Numerical modeling of tidal hydraulics and inlet closures at Agua Hedionda Lagoon," submitted to San Diego Gas and Electric Co., 91 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1994, "Time stepped suspended transport model for the dispersion of optical particles in coastal waters," submitted to Office of Naval Research, Code 1153, 84 pp. Hammond, R. R., S. A. Jenkins, J. S. Cleveland, J. C. Talcott, A. L. Heath, J. Wasyl, S. G. Goosby, K. F. Schmitt& L. A. Leven, 1995, "Coastal water clarity modeling," SAIC, Technical Report 01-1349-03- 4841-000, 491 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1996, "Wave transport corrections to the inlet closure problem of the San Dieguito Lagoon, CA," submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 101 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1996, "Far field dispersion of paper particulates from surface vessel discharges in marginal seas," submitted to Naval Research and Development Lab., Code 574, 210 PP. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1996, "Analysis of inlet closure risks at Agua Hedionda Lagoon, CA and potential remedial measures," submitted to San Diego Gas and Electric, Co., 316 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1996, "Hydrodynamic transport study of constituent net additions from the SDG&E South Bay Power Plant," submitted to San Diego Gas and Electric Co., 25 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 1996, "A coastal monitor/forecast system," SIO Reference Series No. 96-12, 20 pp. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, 1996, "A chronology of ground mine studies and scour modeling in the vicinity of La Jolla," SIO Reference Series No. 96-13, 26 pp. Inman, D. L., S. A. Jenkins & J. Wasyl, 1998, "Database for streamflow and sediment flux of California rivers," University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, SIO Reference Series No. 98-9, 13 pp. + 3 tbls. + 18 figs. + 4 appens. Jenkins,.S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1998, AAnalysis of coastal processes effects due to the San Dieguito Lagoon restoration project final report: July 23, 1998,@ submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 333 pp, + 126 figs., + 11 appens. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1998, ACoastal processes analysis of maintenance dredging requirements for Agua Hedionda Lagoon,@ submitted to San Diego Gas and Electric Company, 176 pp. + 60 figs. + 8 appens. 77 Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1999, APerformance and optimization of the Mixed Habitat Plan*in long-term inundation simulations, (*a restoration concept for San Dieguito Lagoon, CA),@ submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 62 pp. + 36 figs. + 8 appens. Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1999, ALong-term inundation simulations of alternative restoration plans* for the San Dieguito Lagoon, CA, (*RESTORATION CONCEPTS INCLUDING: The Maximum Tidal Basin Plan, Maximum Salt Marsh Plan, Hybrid Alternative and the Reduced Berm Alternative),@ submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 57 pp. Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1999, ALong-term tidal inundation frequency analysis for credit evaluation of the San Dieguito Lagoon restoration alternatives,@ submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 10 pp., + 3 appens. Jenkins, S. A. & J. Wasyl, 1999, AHydroperiod functions for habitat mapping of restoration alternatives for San Dieguito Lagoon,@ submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 15 pp. Jenkins, S. A., M. Josselyn & J. Wasyl, 1999, AHydroperiod and residence time functions for habitat mapping of restoration alternatives for San Dieguito Lagoon,@ submitted to Southern California Edison Company, 30 pp., + appen. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 1999, ACoastal currents in the neighborhood of Agua Hedionda Lagoon during the migration period of the Tidewater Goby,@ submitted to Cabrillo Power 1 LLC, 34 pp., + 2 appens. Inman, D. L., S. A. Jenkins & P. M. Masters, 2000, ABudget of sediment and fate of DDT at the ocean edge of the Southern California Bight,@ a technical report dated 30 March 2000, prepared for Latham and Watkins, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, 57 pp., 9 tables, 18 figs. Jenkins, S. A., 2000, AResuspension of bottom sediments in San Diego Bay due to propeller wash and circulation pump discharge from CVN 75 class aircraft carriers,@ submitted to SPAWAR System Center, San Diego, 24 pp., + appen. Inman, D. L. & S. A. Jenkins, in preparation, AMine scour and burial a primer for fleet use,@ University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, SIO Reference Series No. 02-8, Jenkins, S. A. & D. L. Inman, 2002, AModel for mine scour and burial; an illustrated abstract with technical appendix,@ University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, SIO Reference Series No. 02-2, 42 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 2001, AHydrodynamic modeling of fresh water ingestion and concentrated seawater dilution for the Long Beach Ocean'Desalination Project at Alamitos Power Station,@ submitted to Poseidon Resources, 89 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 2001, AHydrodynamic modeling of source water make-up and concentrated seawater dilution for the ocean desalination project at the AES Huntington Beach Power Station, Part 10 I: Analysis of issues to receiving water,@ submitted to Poseidon Resources, revised 20 December 2001, 111 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 2001, AHydrodynamic modeling of dispersion and dilution of concentrated seawater produced by the Ocean Desalination Project at the Encina Power Plant, Carlsbad, CA,@ submitted to Poseidon Resources, 186 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 2002, AHydrodynamic modeling of source water make-up and concentrated seawater dilution for the ocean desalination project at the AES Huntington Beach Power Station, Part II: Analysis of issues to source water,@ submitted to Poseidon Resources, revised 13 January 2002, 78 pp. Jenkins, S. A. and J. Wasyl, 2002, AHydrodynamic modeling of source water make-up and concentrated seawater dilution for the ocean desalination project at the AES Huntington Beach Power Station, Part III: Analysis of salinity profiles and exposure time,@ submitted to Poseidon Resources, 26 pp. Research Grants: 1) Evaluation of Sediment Management Procedures (with D. L. Inman), Naval Facilities Engineering Commmand #N00014-76-C-063, 1 October 1980-30 September 1982, $230,000. 2) Vorticity and Sedimentation Mechanisms, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-82-K-0111, 1 October 1981-30 September 1982, $240,000. 3) Vorticity and Sedimentation Mechanisms, Phase II, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-82-K-0111, 1 November 1982-31 October 1983, $195,000. 4) Studies in Sedimentation Control for NAS Mayport and Charleston Naval Shipyard, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Pt. Hueneme, Contract#N62474-82-C-8300, 1 September 1982-15 June 1983, $60,150. 5) Dynamics of Settling Floc Layers in Navy Harbors, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-892-K-0111, 1 November 1983-31 October 1984, $207,849. 6) Sedimentation Reduction in Finger Pier Complexes, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-82-K-0111, 1 June 1984-31 December 1984, $49,996. 7) Fluid-Sediment Interactions on Beaches and Shelves, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-83-C-0182 (with D. L. Inman & R. T. Guza), 1 February 1983-30 September 1984, $407,372. . 8) Ship Resistance in Fluid Mud, Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-82-K-0111, 1 November 1984-30 September 1985, $210,000. 9) Growth Supplement to, "Ship Resistance in Fluid Mud," Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-82-K-0111, 1 November 1984-31 October 1985, $17,750. 10)A Study on the Effects and Mechanisms of Artificial Seaweed, California Department of Boating and Waterways, UCSD, Contract #85/621 R, 1 July 1985-30 June 1986, $40,000. 11)Tidal Study of Batiquitos Lagoon, George Nolte & Associates, UCSD, Contract #85/147R, 22 May 1985 - unspecified end date, $9,556. 12)Fluid Sediment Interactions on Beaches and Shelves (with D. L. Inman, R. E. Flick & R. T. Guza), Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-83-C-0182, 1 November 1984-31 October 1986, $580,000. 13)Thermo- and Hydrodynamics for Advanced Ports and Harbors, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-82-K-0111 , 1 November 1985- 31 October 1986, $210,931. 14)Sediment Management Study at the Port of San Francisco, Port of San Francisco, Contract#1351, 1 May 1986-31 March 1987, $164,781. 15)Bedform Response on Beaches and Shelves (with D. L. Inman, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-83-C-0182, 1 November 1986- 31 October 1988 $250,000. 16)Formation and Separation of DC-Rectified Flows in Harbor Inlets, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-82-K-0111 , 1 November 1986-31 October 1987, $200,000. 17)Mechanics of Wave Driven Shoaling in Fortified Harbor Inlets, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-82-K-0111, 1 November 1987-30 September 1988 $210,000. 18)Dispersion Model for the Suspended Solids of Sewage Discharged into the Ocean, State of California Water Resources Control Board, Contract#SWRCB4-136-250-1, $30,000. 19)Harbor Breakwater Wave Overtopping, California Department of Boating and Waterways, UCSD #88/472R, 1 July 1988-30 June 1990, $60,000. 20)Internal Reflection Due to Boundary Rectification, Office of Naval Research Contract#N00014-82-K-0111, 1 October 1988-30 September 1989, $210,000. 21)Scattering of Surface Gravity Waves by Arrays of Tetrahedrons, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-89-J-1117, 1 October 1989-30 September 1990, $150,000. 22)Offshore Breakwaters and Surge, California Department of Boating and Waterways, UCSD Contract#90, 1 July 1990-6 June 1992, $60,000. 23)Excitation of High Frequency Surface Waves by Periodic Boundary Layers on Submerged Obstacles, Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-90-J-1117, 1 October 1990-30 September 1991, $150,000. 24)The Generation of Cross Stream Wave Number with a Blue Shift Due to Gravity Wave Propagation Over a Porous Obstacle, Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-90-J-1117, 1 October 1991-30 September 1992, $150,000. 25)The Effects of Suspensions of Cohesive Sediments on Surge Propagation Through Breakwaters and Channels, Office of Naval 12 Research, Contract#N0001 4-92-J-1 117, 1 October 1992- September 1993, $150,000. 26)The Effects of Suspension of Cohesive Sediments on Shear Stress and Transport (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-94-1-0012, 1 October 1993-September 1995, $150,000. 27)A Vortex Lattice Model for the Prediction of Scouring and Burial of Mines, (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-95-1-0005, 1 October 1995-1 April 1997, $250,117. 28)A Vortex Lattice Model for the Prediction of Scouring and Burial of Mines, (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-95-1-0005--Supplement, 15 April 1997-30 September 1997, $58,112. 29) Scour Mechanics of Aggregate Obstacle Fields with Application to Mine Countermeasures (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-95-1-0005, 1 October 1997-30 September 1999, $351,013. 30)Numerical modeling of station keeping effects due to modifications of the VSW Neutralization Marker (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-95-1-0005, 15 November 1999-30 September 2000, $22,705. 31)Optimizing portability of a mine scour/burial model by means of a geomorphic coastal classification system (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research, Contract #N00014-95-1-0005, 15 November 1999-30 September 2001, $360,252. 32)Enhancement and validation of a model for mine scour/burial (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research Grant#N00014-01-1-0350, 15 January 2001, 31 December 2002, $300,000. 33)Model to predict mine migration and related bedform (with D. L. Inman), Office of Naval Research, Contract#N00014-02-1-0232, 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2003, $244,000. 34)Facing the coastal challenge (with D. L. Inman and Patricia M. Masters), The Kavli Institute, 1 February 2002 to 1 January 2004, $861,579. 35) Total Extramural Funds as Sole-Principal Investigator (1980-2002), $2,566,013. Total Extramural Funds as Co-Principal Investigator (1980-2002), $4,275,150. Total Extramural Funding (1980-2002), $6,841,163. 26 August 2002 I:\saj_vita.02 3 13 July 28,2003 Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Poseidon Project Dear Commission Members: Although my family resides in Orange, we spend considerable time and money in HB. I have been visiting your city nearly every weekend.for most of my 52 years of age. I would like to briefly express just a few of my views regarding Poseidon and why I am opposed to it. Much of the water that would be produced is slated for proposed development in Rancho Santa Margarita. HB currently has an excellent groundwater, reclamation plan. Continue to use this resource and upgrade as needed. Lastly and most importantly of all, it would unquestionably be environmentally unfriendly. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Steve Tyler 2564 Franki St Orange, CA 92865 at, -�J ;►y CP IIUV QV VJ 1"L-V V1 'J7 111 I L.11111 I VVIIIL. VL111 LJ1 I IIII IIV1 LV1V1JVVIUJJ L UG r4;a t15i. , 2003 City o'Huntington Beach Via Facsimile hi"a.nning Department Original Via Standard Nilail Finding Commission Dc"(10 lain Street H.T,'Itington Beach, CA 92648 RI.T.: 'Huntington-Poseidon Enviroartrrenta8 Impact Repeat Re-Consideration F11•-0fil: Surfrider Foundation 1jI:,u (commissioners, I am writing as a representative of the Surfrider Foundation and'our 60 chapters ar:J more than 37,000 members. As you know from our previous communications, use ark;, concerned about the adequacy of the Huntington-Poseidon Environmental Impact Re'pov and strongly recommend significant revisions to that document. First, we want to thank the Huntington Beach Planning Commission for your dil..it eiice in reviewing the Environmental Impact Report(EIR) submitted by the Poseidon ctyisultants regarding the construction and operation of a desalination plant on the AES Hu.,nuroton Beach Generating Facility. We support the most recent decision by the Conirrission to re-consider the certification of the EIR and review all aspects of the an. ys.is that raised concerns for the Commissioners and the public. The public process of;rsvietwing this EIR.has uncovered several discrepancies and omissions.that cause us to SW Peet the thoroughness and accuracy of the analysis as a whole. For example, we want to `thank Commissioner Davis for his diligence in uncovering discrepancies in the dis�ha=ge analysis and Commissioner Ray for uncovering Poseidon's contract to sell w0er to the Santa Margarita Water District. These significant revelations, and others that ha e Otr)y been uncovered during the public testimony phase of the OR review, require siaaifi, ant revisions to the EIR and a subsequent thorough public review and comment Period. .Below you will find an outline of several concerns that have not been adequately ad(-`Yes e-d during the public comment period in reviewing the .EIR. We also want to incgrporate the comments contained in our letters of May 27, May 30, and July .2, as well as dte -omments.of out Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter, into this comment letter. 1NE::sti1 argue that the issues raised in those letters have not been sufficiently addressed in t.,he wbsequent responses. In conclusion, we want to support the recommendations we have heard to contract outside:and objective consultants to review the current draft of the EIR. We believe the cur.,-ant consultants have been unresponsive to the significant information and questions than:haae been uncovered during puhlic review and testimony to date. We also are more 1 Ing �s}a FL-ai g,9 nUV UU UJ wuv U 1 l:)4 ill I Ln i rl I UJ 111L_VUJI 1 L h I'M IYU. 1 J 1 UJUU 1 UJJ c�+avir+ccd than ever ,hat the document is both inherently flawed and inadequate. "r1w ou.iy '-csolution for these defects is a thorough revision of the document followed by a 110V and complete public review and comment period. Si:'�cetr;y .Jo,G sever S4.lfta h!rn California Regional Manager SLlrfrider.Foundation P(►B(.)x 6010 So.r! Ci.emente. CA 92674-6010 :0) s.10-2890 oreuverr"r?sllrfrider.oi-, C4; Rac:k.l Ramos, Planning Commission Staff Examples of Unresolved Inadequacies in Huntington-(Poseidon EIR l l Proiect Description.. a ir;ft,the project is too narrowly defined to allow a thorough review of alternatives that will fulfill the purpose of supplying additional drinking water for a growing population with potentially shrinking water supplies. The project description ch, -ac:cerizes the desalination product water as a`local" source of water for the region and.co.trasts that with"existing imports"supplies. Responses to comments in this rev'r rd ronclude that alternatives such as waste water reclamation and conservation do not meet the project description and purpose because they are still reliant on imports and, in they zue 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 vegion. .For example, supplying water from reclamation for the limited purpose of irrigati'�n would still have the indirect affect of conserving more water for drinking. 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 regon.that is plagued with problems of non-point source pollution and limited sewage tre;- me nt capacity, the flawed project characterization has precluded alternatives that are arg�ab:y more environmentally sound and economically preferable. Therefore, theF.IR shal�ld,he revised to describe the project in a manner that allows thorough analysis of 2 LLN-5Ilk � Huu-M-W wtu U 1 ;!Do r1l rLHT H rub I HL UtN l t.K h HM NU. l U I UJUb 1 UJJ Y. Ub ah� .-rzw ives that sen,e the purpose of responding to our current unsustainable reliance oei-grpundivater and imported water. FL11 hermore, the project description suggests that the"new"water product will offset this.ref.gitm's current demand for unsustainable groundwater and imports while delivering a.!,M)EAy of water that will meet natural population growth predictions. However, there is nc:_io6.imentation or analysis of how this claim will be assured success. This is discussed ire rtor'e detail in.Example 3 below.. Therefore,.the EIR should be revised to either sui�strintiate the claim,that the desalination water product will in fact offset our un.-uswinable reliance on other sources, or inform the public that there are no a.10 re'lices where, when or how this water will be used This is.sign icanal information thrpt tke public and decision makers should be mvne of, and the EIR should be revised to ldindnate any misleading statements to the contrary. i) Treatment of Entrain a nent/lmpinsement I'lie EIR argues that the addition of the desalination facility to the AES generator fa(..)i V. will not create"additional" marine life mortality from entrainment and irn;iinkement. This is a significant issue that deserves thorough analysis and public review. Recent concerns and actions by both state and federal fisheries management awbor:.ities have highli�s kited threats to numerous species of marine life and healthy mac.inc ecosystems, as well as the commercial and recreational fisheries that are a part of the fa(Tic of our coastal communities and economies. Tlr„are are several issues that potentially undermine the assumption that the de,;alirhtion facility will not create"additional"marine life mortality. Issues of concern un(ovored during the public comment 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 Mtchell from MAC,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 survival rates at the generator, in order to test for marine life .mortality from the desalination facility. 3 AUG-UU-U3 WED U l :bb FM NLAYA FUG'fAL UEN'I'Ek FAX NO, 131 U3Ubl U33 F. U4 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 (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 ttUe 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 marine 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 crE:ate additional marine life mortality. Therefore, the.EIR should he revised to da^atnicnt these issues.and analyze the impact of the Huntington-Poseidon facility and and°fn,ieseeable future facilities. ?) Documentation of".End Users"and Effect on Regional!Water Supply .Th'e EIR inappropriately dismisses the need to document the"end user"(or delivery point)of the desalination product water. As noted above, instead the.EIR wakes general sta:empnts about the water being delivered to the.region to offset the need for imported water .0 supply a growth rate predicted for the year 2020. Nonetheless, during the public tes;m >ny period of comment, Poseidon was pressured to admit that 25 million gallons a. daj. product water was to be delivered to the Santa Margarita Water District. Since theta, there has been much debate about whether or not this water will remain available for;off.etting population growth in the region beyond the dramatic development proposed for' henancho Santa Margarita area. This has only highlighted the need for full dis<loswre of the"end users"of the product water. This EIR, at its core, is about full &t.Josure of.information and analyses so that decision makers can make informed deOsicirs, and the public can scrutinize their care for the environment. -:1'harefore, certification of the EIR should be denied until the project proponent can idQ�.#ft the end user of the full amount of water produci: .Furthermore, the contract WA 54n1a Margarita Water District should be documented in the EIR and the fon'seiable impacts front the delivery of 25 million gallons a dory to this area fully anc.!.yzM. Alternatively, the EIR could be amended to state that there are no assira4�ces that any of the water supplied by this project will be resen�ed to offset cu aQn+ly unruslainallo reliance on groundwater and imports. This is a critical 4 AUG-06-03 WED 01 :56 PM PLAYA POSTAL CENTER FAX NO, 13103061033 P. 05 c i7wirtatt of the public's understanding of the purpose of this liroject and the EIR slagui l be perfectly clear on this point C'ir, visues raised above are simply examples of the numerous inadequacies in the current We remain concerned about the thoroughness of this EIR not only for the direct i rrIT.-Aicrations of the project at the local level, but for the precedent it may set for the eel uation of future desalination projects, as well as the cumulative impacts as more and inore 'esalination facilities are proposed for the region. We understand and appreciate t'h,r difficulties this responsibility creates for the Huntington Beach Planning Commission ar.:I st-:iff.. ;Nonetheless, it is the duty imposed by CEQA that the EIR adequately inform thy;public about foreseeable impacts from projects like the Huntington-Poseidon Lie L=ali'nation.Facility. We look forurard to further debate. Please feel free to contact me at `any time to discuss this comment letter. 5 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I B Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner�- DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT) The following items are part of the staff report for item B-1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from John Erskine dated August 6, 2003 Regarding Planning Commission Reconsideration of EIR No. 00-02 2. Response from City Attorney dated August 7, 2003 HZ:SH:MBB:RR G:WdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0803rr1.doc -1= LAW OFFICES NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP WALTER L. NOSSAMAN SUITE 1800 JOHN T. KNOX (1886.1904) 18101 VON KARMAN AVENUE WARREN G. ELLIOTT OF COUNSEL WILLIAM E. GUTHNER. JR. IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612.0177 (1932.1999) TELEPHONE (949) 833-7800 FACSIMILE (949) 833.7878 SAN FRANCISCO WASHINGTON.D.G. THIRTY-FOURTH FLOOR SUITE 370-S 50 CALIFORNIA STREET 601 13" STREET N.W. SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-4799 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (415) 398.3500 (202) 783-7272 LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO THIRTY-FIRST FLOOR SUITE 1000 445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET August 6, 2003.:. 915 L STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-1602 +$ '�' .�' SACRAMENTO. CA 95814.3705 (213)812-7800 "' '- (916)442.8888 II j , (it, kj'� _'.31.3,• REFER TO FILE NUMBER 270210-0005 VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY Jennifer McGrath, Esq. City Attorney City of Huntington Beach P. O. Box 190 2000 Main Street, 4th Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: Planning Commission Reconsideration and Rehearing of EIR No. 00-02 (Poseidon Desalination Plant) Dear Jennifer: As you are aware,the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission("Planning Commission")certified EIR No. 00-02 (Poseidon Desalination Plant) as adequate and complete on July 8, 2003. On July 14,Mayor Connie Boardman appealed the Planning Commission's action to the City Council. The basis of the appeal is that the EIR does not adequately analyze the project's impacts relative to ocean water quality, marine biology, growth inducement, and adjacent wetland. We are informed that the appeal of the Planning Commission certification of the EIR is being agendized for a City Council hearing in September. Eight days after the Mayor's appeal and fourteen days after the certification decision, on July 22, 2003,Planning Commissioner Ron Davis made a motion to reconsider the EIR,which was approved by the Commission majority on a 4-3 vote. The reconsideration was based on Commissioner Davis' stated concern that Dr. Scott Jenkins made inaccurate statements regarding salinity studies referenced in the Appendices to the EIR during a July 8 post-hearing question and answer exchange. As a result of the reconsideration, the Planning Commission is scheduled to reopen the hearing on the previously certified EIR at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting on August 12, 2003. 7FW� moo. ... 231974 1.DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX &ELLIOTT, LLP Jennifer McGrath, Esq. August 6, 2003 Page 2 ISSUE PRESENTED. Whether the Planning Commission's July 22, 2003 motion for reconsideration of the July 8, 2003 certified EIR and potential reopening of the hearing on the EIR on August 12, 2003 is barred by local or State law? BRIEF ANSWER. Yes. The Planning Commission may not reconsider the previously certified EIR for the following reasons. 1. The Commission's July 22, 2003 motion for reconsideration was ineffective in that an appeal of the July 8, 2003 certification had already been perfected and could not be withdrawn or mooted by any subsequent action. Moreover, even if there was no appeal, such motion was made more than ten days after the Planning Commission decision and therefore too late to have any application to a certification that had become final. (See Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance("Zoning Code"), § 248.30 ["A decision on a discretionary approval becomes effective at the end of the appeal period."].) Therefore, the certification of the EIR would be effective ten days from July 8, 2003. 2. CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the Zoning Code already provide a method by which the Planning Commission's decision can be appealed. To permit a rehearing on the certification concurrently with an appeal to the City Council would result in confusion and uncertainty by creating two separate EIRs and two hearing records, each potentially based on different information. 3. The only provisions for reopening the EIR process after certification relate to preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR; CEQA provides no other basis for reopening the EIR process. A subsequent EIR is required when there is"new information" or"substantial changes" in the project or circumstances that involve"new significant environmental effects"not previously considered. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166; Guidelines, § 15162, subd. (a).) Dr. Jenkins'studies were available prior to the certification and were extensively discussed and considered by the Planning Commission and the public at the hearings held on May 27 and June 2, 2003, Dr. Jenkins' post-hearings explanation of his prior studies—even if the source of misunderstanding or miscommunication as to facts within such studies—does not constitute "new information"that would require a subsequent EIR. 4. Reopening the EIR process would raise questions about the integrity of the entire decisionmaking process, since the Planning Commission certified that the EIR complied The hearing on the draft EIR was closed by the Planning Commission on June 2, 2003. Dr. Jenkins spoke under oral comments at the beginning of the July 8,2003 Commission meeting. 231974 1.DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX &ELLIOTT, LLP Jennifer McGrath, Esq. August 6, 2003 Page 3 with CEQA, that they reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that they exercised their independent judgment and analysis with respect to such EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.1, subd. (c)(3); Guidelines, § 15090.) DISCUSSION. A. Procedural Requirements. 1. Certification. CEQA states that"[a]ll local agencies shall ... certify the completion of[] ap environmental impact report on any project that they intend to carry out or approve which may have a significant effect on the environment." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151, subd. (a), emphasis added.) Prior to approving a project,the lead agency must certify that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA (Guidelines, § 15090,subd. (a)(1)), that the final EIR was presented to the decisionmaking body,which reviewed and considered the information in the final EIR before approving the project(id., § 15090, subd. (a)(2)), and that the final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.(id., § 15090, subd. (a)(3); Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.1, subd. (c)(3)). On July 8, 2003,the Planning Commission certified the Poseidon EIR as adequate and complete,based on the information in the draft EIR and testimony and materials submitted to the Commission during the hearings held on May 27 and June 2, 2003. 2. Appeal of Certification. CEQA allows nonelected decisionmaking bodies to decide whether or not to certify an EIR,but it also allows for an appeal process to a higher, elected decisionmaking body. "If a nonelected decisionmaking body of a local lead agency certifies an environmental impact report,"that certification "may be appealed to the agency's elected decisionmaking body, if any." (Id., § 21151, subd. (c).) The Guidelines also allow for such appeals. (Guidelines, § 15090, subd. (b) ["When an EIR is certified by a non-elected decision-making body within a local lead agency, that certification may be appealed to the local lead agency's elected decision- making body, if one exists. For example,certification of an EIR ... by a city's planning commission may be appealed to the city council. Each local lead agency shall provide for such appeals."].) The Guidelines state that where an agency allows administrative appeals upon the adequacy of an environmental document, such appeals must be handled in accordance with the procedures of that agency. (Guidelines, § 15185.) The City of Huntington Beach sets forth appeal procedures in its Zoning Code. "A City Council member or a Planning Commissioner 231974-LDOC .3 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER,KNOX &ELLIOTT, LLP Jennifer McGrath, Esq. August 6, 2003 Page 4 may appeal a decision of the ... Planning Commission...." (Zoning Code, § 248.28(A).) "A decision on a discretionary approval is not final until the time for appeal expires. The time for appeal from a decision by ... the Planning Commission shall be filed within ten calendar days after the date of the decision...." (Id., §§ 248.16, 248.30.) The City Council has jurisdiction over an appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission, and will consider the appeal at a de novo hearing. (Id., §§ 248.18, 248.20(D).) The Planning Commission has, at the point of a perfected appeal,no jurisdiction over such hearing and may not expand it or restrain it in any way.2 The City Council may consider testimony and evidence presented at the hearing on appeal in addition to all pertinent information from the file as a result of the previous hearings from which the appeal is taken. (Id., § 248.20(D).) The decision of the City Council is final. (Ibid.) On July 14, Mayor Boardman appealed the certification of the Poseidon EIR to the City Council pursuant to these provisions. We understand that the appeal of the Planning Commission certification of the EIR is being agendized for a City Council hearing in September. B. The Planning Commission Should Not Be Permitted to Reconsider the Previously Certified EIR. 1. The Motion for Reconsideration is Ineffective. Commissioner Davis' motion for reconsideration of the certified EIR, which was made at the July 22 Planning Commission meeting, was ineffective in that the appeal of the certification to the City Council had already been perfected. Even if an appeal had not been filed within the appeal period, such motion was made more than ten days after the Planning Commission decision and therefore too late to have any application to a certification that had become final. The Planning Commission's certification of the EIR would have been final and effective on July 18,ten days after the Planning Commission's decision. (Zoning Code, § 248.30 ["A decision on a discretionary approval becomes effective at the end of the appeal period."].) Clearly, Commissioner Davis' motion for reconsideration would have been ineffectual had an appeal not been filed because it was not made until July 22, after the appeal period ended. 2 A memorandum"request to agendize a motion for reconsideration" sent to the City Attorney prior to the end of the ten day period would not render such a decision ineffective, since a notice of motion to reconsider is not a reconsideration and a reconsideration is not possible without a majority vote of the Commission. 231974 1.DOC . t+ NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX &ELLIOTT, LLP Jennifer McGrath, Esq. August 6, 2003 Page 5 2. There is Already a Method by which the Planning Commission's Decision Can be Appealed. The Huntington Beach Planning Commission should not be permitted to reconsider the certification since CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the Zoning Code already provide a method by which the Planning Commission's decision can be appealed. To permit a concurrent review and rehearing of the previously certified EIR would be unnecessarily duplicative and would result in confusion and uncertainty among decisionmakers,the courts, and the public by essentially creating two EIRs3, each based on different information, further compounding the anomalies in the procedural record. (See Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. California Dept. of Health Services (1995)38 Cal.App.4`h 1574, 1595 ["[r]outine allowance of conflicting scientific opinions created after the decision"would render the finality of administrative decisions uncertain and attenuated].) Mayor Boardman has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. Thus,the City Council currently has jurisdiction over the Poseidon EIR. The City Council will review the EIR in a de novo hearing that we understand will be scheduled in September 2003, at which time.the City.Council.will consider any testimony and evidence presented at the hearing as well as information from the file. The City Council's decision will be final on the date of its decision. (Zoning Code, § 248.30.) Reopening the certification hearing would be burdensome and would be counter to the policies and procedures set forth in CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the Zoning Code. To permit reconsideration of the certification would render the appeal of the certification moot and would render the procedures enunciated in the Zoning Code ineffectual. Because the appeal is a de novo hearing, Commissioner Davis can effectively raise his expressed concern about Dr. Jenkins'studies at the City Council appeal either in personal testimony,written communication or through a minute order taken by a majority of the vote of the Commission. 3. The Only Provisions for Reopening the EIR Process After Certification Relate to Subsequent or Supplemental EIRs. Although neither the statutes nor the Guidelines address the precise question of whether reconsideration of a previously certified EIR is appropriate, the requirements for subsequent EIRs provide guidance. 3 Re-opening the hearing on the previously certified EIR would create the previously certified EIR, which has been appealed to the City Council, and the "uncertified"EIR that is being reconsidered-by the Planning Commission. 231974_1.DOC O I NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX &ELLIOTT, LLP Jennifer McGrath, Esq. August 6, 2003 Page 6 Public Resources Code section 211.66 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 discuss when a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. A subsequent EIR is required when there is new information or substantial changes in the project or circumstances that involve new significant environmental effects not previously considered. (Guidelines, § 15162, subd. (a)•) Once approval of an EIR has been given, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed unless further discretionary approval is required. (Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. California Dept. of Health Services, supra, 38 Cal.App.4`h 1574, 1596-1597 [scientific report submitted after approval of EIR was "another point of view,"not new information that required reopening of a completed EIR].) Information appearing after approval does not require reopening of that approval. If qualified new information develops, a supplemental or subsequent EIR must be prepared; however, information appearing after the approval does not require reopening of that approval. (Id.; Guidelines, § 15162, subd. (c).) CEQA provides no other basis for reopening the EIR process. In a July 8 post-hearing exchange, Commissioner Davis posed further questions to Dr. Jenkins regarding the accuracy of the science in Dr. Jenkins' salinity studies. On July 22, two weeks after the Planning Commission'.s certification of the EIR, Commissioner Davis made a motion to reconsider the EIR based on his view that Dr. Jenkins' scientific studies(and/or the explanation of the science in response to a post-hearing question from Commissioner Davis) were faulty. Commissioner Davis explained the reasoning for his motion to reconsider in a written memorandum to Commission Chair Randy Kokal: "The reason for reconsideration is based upon subsequent evidence of potential inaccuracies in.the hydrodynamic modeling of source water and concentrated seawater dilution relative to salinity and worst-case scenarios." However, Dr. Jenkins' studies were available prior to the certification and were extensively discussed and considered by the Planning Commission and the public at the hearings held on May 27 and June 2, 2003. The analysis of these studies is not "new information" and .does not raise new issues about the significant effects on the environment since the studies were previously available and extensively discussed. Thus, a subsequent or supplemental EIR would not be required, and there is no valid reason to reopen the EIR process. 4. Re-Opening the Hearing on the Certification Would Raise Questions About the Integrity of the Entire Decision-Making Process. The EIR is intended to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has,in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. (No Oil, Inc. V. City of Los Angeles(1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 86; Guidelines, § 15003, subd. (d).) `Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document of accountability." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the.University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) 231974.1.DOC Y ,(Q NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX &ELLIOTT, LLP Jennifer McGrath, Esq. August 6, 2003 Page 7 The Planning Commission has already certified that the EIR complies with CEQA (Guidelines, § 15090, subd. (a)(1)),was presented to the decision-making body,which reviewed and considered the information in the EIR before approving the project(id., § 15090, subd. (a)(2)), and reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis(id.,'§ 15090, subd. (a)(3); Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.1, subd. (c)(3)). By certifying the EIR,the Planning Commission informed the public that it reviewed and considered the information contained in the Poseidon EIR as required by CEQA. The Planning Commission's post-certification decision to re-open the hearing on the Poseidon EIR questions the integrity of the entire City decision- making process and we respectfully urge that your office advise the Commission and City Council accordingly. Sincerely John . Erskine OSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX&ELLIOTT, LLP JPE/chc cc: Ray Silver Paul D'Alessandro, Esq. Howard Zelefsky Scott Hess Mary Beth Broeren 231974_LDOG J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication To: HON. CHAIR KOKAL AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS From: JENNIFER McGRATH, City Attorney Subject: Reconsideration of Poseidon EIR Date: August 7, 2003 The Planning Commission approved the certification of the EIR for the Poseidon Desalination Plant at its meeting of July 8, 2003. On July 14, Mayor Boardman appealed the decision. At the next Planning Commission meeting, held on July 22, the Commission approved a motion to reconsider its previous decision to certify the EIR. The EIR is now on the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting, to be held on August 12, 2003. Some questions have arisen regarding the current procedural posture of the EIR, primarily related to the effect of Mayor Boardman's appeal, and the effect of the Commission's decision to reconsider its earlier certification of the EIR. In a nutshell, we have concluded the following: 1. The appeal filed by Mayor Boardman prevented the Planning Commission's decision from becoming a final decision on the EIR on behalf of the City. If there had been no appeal filed during the ten-day appeal period, the decision would have become a "final decision" as referred to in the law, and therefore, not subject to reconsideration. However, the filing of the appeal stayed the finality of the decision, allowing the motion to reconsider to be placed on the Commission's agenda. 2. Further, the well-established practice of the City Council and its subsidiary and advisory bodies is to permit a motion to reconsider an action at either the meeting during which the action was taken, or at the next subsequent meeting. (See City Council Manual, 1.04.21) Since the motion to reconsider was made at the Commission's next meeting, in conformance with this well-established practice, and since the finality of the decision had been stayed by the appeal, we believe the motion was permitted. PDA:03memos: Poseidon reconsideration A I 3. When the Commission approved the motion to reconsider, the appeal became moot, because there was no longer any action to appeal. Essentially, by approving reconsideration, the Commission's earlier action was vacated. (See, e.g., City Council Manual, Section 1.04.21: "The effect of the adoption of a motion to reconsider is to vacate the vote taken on the motion to which it applies. . .") We have reviewed the letter on behalf of Poseidon from Mr. John Erskine dated August 6, 2003, and find many of the points therein to be well-taken. Unfortunately, however, the Zoning Code is not entirely clear on whether the Commission's jurisdiction over the EIR was completely divested by Mayor Boardman's appeal. In fact, the City's past practice to allow reconsideration, combined with the fact that the decision had not yet become final, lends weight to the conclusion that the Commission was not completely divested of its jurisdiction over this matter. As always, reasonable minds may differ. We also note that there has been no prejudice to the applicant. if there had been no reconsideration by the Commission, Mayor Boardman's appeal would have placed the EIR before the City Council as a de novo matter, and the certification of the EIR would have been put at issue yet again. Finally, an important caveat. In this memorandum, we have attempted to set forth some of the potential legal arguments that would support the Commission's action to reconsider the EIR. However, as we noted above, many of the arguments made in Mr. Erskine's letter are well taken. Further, we are well aware that the City's staff strongly urged the Commission against the reconsideration of the EIR for many of the same reasons that are set forth in Mr. Erskine's letter. Thus, the Commission should be forewarned that if challenged, we cannot guarantee that a reviewing court will sustain the Commission's action, or that any action by the Commission on the EIR at its August 12 meeting will have any legal effect. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any further questions. n�O- b (Yr JENNIFER McGRATH City Attorney cc: Hon. Mayor'Boardman and Members of the City Council Ray Silver, City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning 2 PDA:03memos: Poseidon reconsideration CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH C Inter Office Communication Planning Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: LATE COMMUNICATION Attached are late communications regarding the Poseidon seawater desalination plant. Attachment: 1. Table 1 and Table 2 Referenced in the Analysis of Salinity Impacts to Marine Life in the Southern California Bight by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences dated August 4, 2003 (Attachment No. 3 to the August 12, 2003 Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 staff report) 2. Robert Thomas, letter dated August 12, 2003 3. Ed Demeulle, SEHBNA, letter dated August 12, 2003 4. Nancy Donaven, letter dated August 12, 2003 GA\AdmLtr\Adm1tr03\0803rr2.doc - 5�1�NC Table 1.Twenty most abundant fish species collected during impingement sampling at the Huntington Beach Generating Station, 1979-2001, species southern range,and minimum upper salinity tolerance for each species. Common Name Species Southern Extension Salinity Tolerance Queenfish Swiphus politus South Central Baja California 34.5 White croaker Genyonomus lineatus Southern Baja California 35 ppt Northern anchovy Engraulis mordax Southern Baja and into the Gulf of California 35-36 ppt Walleye surfperch Hyperprosopon argenteum Central Baja California 34.5 ppt White seaperch Phanerodon furcatus Northern Baja California 34.3 ppt Pacific pompano Peprilus simillimus Southern Baja California 35 ppt California grunion Leuresthes tenuis Southern Baja California 35 ppt Jacksmelt Atherinopsis califomiensis Southern Baja California 35 ppt Shiner perch Cymatogaster aggregata Central Baja California 34.5 ppt Deepbody anchovy Anchoa compressa Northern Baja California 34.3 ppt Topsmelt Atherinops affinis Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt Salema Xenishus califomiensis Peru and into Gulf of California 35-36 ppt, up to 39 ppt Round stingray Urolophus halleri Panama Bay and into Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt Plainfin midshipman Porichthys notatus Southern Baja and into the Gulf of California 35-36 ppt Barred sand bass Paralabrax nebulifer Southern Baja California 35 ppt Black perch Embiotoca jacksoni Central Baja California 34.5 ppt California corbina Mendcirrhus undulatus Central Baja California 34.5 ppt White Seabass Atractoscion nobilis Southern Baja and Northern Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt Kelp perch Brachyisdus frenatus Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt California halibut Paralichthys califomicus Southern Baja and into the Gulf of California 35-36 ppt source: Riley and Chester 1971,Brusca 1980,Love 1996,MBC 2001 Table 2. Numerically dominant invertebrate species(>10%a of total)for each of three invertebrate sampling aspects of the Huntington Beach �t NPDES monitoring program in 2001,all stations or samples combined,species southern range, and minimum upper salinity tolerance for each species. Common Name Species Impingement Trawls Macrofauna Southern Range Salinity Tolerance Spiney sand star Astropectin armatus 33% Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt Tube Worm Diopatra spledidissima 75% Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt =_ Red striped shrimp Lysmata califomica 41% Gulf of California 35-36 ppt, up to 39 ppt " Tuberculate pear crab Pyromaia tuberculata 26% 18% Gulf of California 35-36 ppt,up to 39 ppt source: Brusca 1980, MBC 2001 (D Aug 12 03 03: 13p Eyecare Optomtry (714) 993-5369 P• 1 0-7D 1AW Y70f tf4491 64 AMA `7 Ob Aloe. . � �T /;V C*ev c.4LO'w,' y "m /*00% st 0,� 77 - MO. SEHBNA Southeast Huntington Beach Neighborhood Association "Neighbors taking Responsibility for their Neighborhood" PO Box 6696,Huntington Beach,CA 92615 Email:sehbna(&sehbna.org•Website:sehbna.org Phone:(714)962-7661 •Fax:(714)963-9452 August 12, 2003 Randy Kokal, Chairperson, and Commissioners Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear 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 may be 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. 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. Please do not construe the above comments as our tentative approval. As stated above, we continue to be opposed to the project. However, should you approve the project the impacts need to be minimized if they cannot be eliminated. Sincerely, Edward DeMeulle Chairman 7— Nancy M Donaven 4831 Los Patos Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714/840 7496 ndonaven@fea.net August 12, 2003 Randy Kokal, Chair Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Regarding: Poseidon EIR for Desalination Dear Mr. Kokal and Members of the Planning Commission: It sometimes is important to focus on what a document doesn't say rather than what it does say. Therefore, I will ask some questions which you should be able to answer with a resounding"Yes" or the document in question tonight should not be certified. Question l: Does the document deal with the question of the pollution in the waters off of Huntington Beach, giving a clear cause of the pollution and the effect of this desalination plant on the pollution problem? Question 2: Does the document deal with the problem of private companies in the business of providing water supplies? Question 3: Does it talk about the problem of possible takeover of private corporations by international corporations which would be able to flaunt our environmental laws? These are only some of the problems which I see ahead. I hope you will consider them before casting your vote. you. Nancy M. Donaven CC: Planning Commissioners August 12, 2003 Planning Commissioners, I an a 33 year resident of Huntington Beach and spent 37 years working as a control systems engineer. I am a registered Control Systems Engineer in California and am a Fellow in the ISA (Instrumentation, Systems Automation) international technical society. I retired from Boeing where I spent the last 16 years of my career designing guidance, navigation and control systems for space craft. The prior 21 years were spent analyzing and designing process control systems including those used for water purification and waste water treatment. I currently teach courses in process. analysis and control at Cal State Fullerton. Since retirement I have been actively involved with the water quality and testing program at Bolsa Chica. I an also on the Board of Directors o£ the Amigos de Bolsa Chides, Bolsa Chides F6iihdati6n and the Bolsa Chica Conservancy. The Poseidon Desalination project is designed to use the current cooling feedwater infrastructure for the AES power plant, but does not depend on the AES plant being in an operational state. The biggest problem with the current AM plant system is the thermal elevation of.the discharge water resulting in a rather large thermal gradient. This results in a thermal plane which can, and does, interact with the sewage discharge from the OCSD plant at Brookhurst and PCH. The desal project will use this cooling water and the thermal content therein. This Nill result ifi tie disdhai:ge beiiiq lone= thaw the &ikk4&ht temperature, thus alleviating part of the current problem. The discharge bfiad coadentration (i.e. salinity) will bd inar"Add fram trio nminal 35PPT (3.5$) due to the purified water being extracted. However, the amount of disdhar16 salt will actually be lows= than the curfeiit level as s0tie salt will be extracted in the settling tanks. In the early 1970s a decal plant was part of the OCWD Water Factory 21 at Ellis and Ward. It was an evaporation process which consumed extremely large amounts of fossil fuel and generated enough noise that it could be heard from our home over two miles away. Due. to the large energy consumption, it ass dismantled and now is used in Saudi Arabia. This was replaced by a reverse osmosis (RO) process similar to the one proposed. by Poseidon. The RO desal process is clean and environmentally friendly. It does not require the use of additional fossil fuel and the accompanying generated pollution: It makes use of the existing infrastructure and helps alleviate the current thermal problem. It is also.a very quiet process and will not be a disturbing influence in the neighborhood! I am quite familiar with this process; in fact, I have one in my home for water purification. From a scientific and engineering standpoint, and an environmental perspective, this project is a winner and should be approved. ctfully submitted, Robert W. Harrison, PE Rharrison@socal.rr.com (714) 968-1369 $�i�CO i I 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—Reaardina Study Session portion of Meetina 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.—Coy COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALL GIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Da v 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. M -09 IBIZA STAURANT—DANCING): Applicant: Jeff Bergsma Request: To permit dancNp in conjunction with existing live entertainment on two 50 square-foot dap floors; one within an existing 2,767 square foot restaurant and one on the 2,\aA oot rooftop deck. The request includes participation in the DowntoIn-Lieu Fee program for two additional parking spaces required for posed dance floor. Location: 209 Main Street(West of Main Street, north enue). Protect Planner: Paul Da Veiga,Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit No. 03-09 request: = Permit dancing within the restaurant and on the , 'nconjunction with existing live entertainment on te- 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) 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. - 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. • 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 Y 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, Sierra 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, 14t' 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. 02-04/COASTAL 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) Project 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, 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. (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, Shoonaker, 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:H F:rl APPROVED BY: Ho and Zelefsky, Secretary Randy Kokaloairperson (03p=0527) 10 MINUTES 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-1 a (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. B-1 a (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. 02-06 -- 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 13-1a. 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 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. (03pcm0603) 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 California'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 (03pcm0603) 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. (03pem0603). 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 11 c - 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): 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 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: C and Zelefsky, Secretary Randy Ko 1, Chairperson (03p=0603) PC Minutes July 8,2003 Page 2 2. PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM —Rosemary Model emary Model, Associate Planner, explained the Commission's role in the General Plan onformance process. Dave\IMPROVEM ngineer, identified various improvements including pavement maintning and park enhancements. Bob Sblic Works Transportation Manager, was present to answer quest Discu r arding: ARTEVEM 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 mera (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. (03pcxn0708) 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-1 B. 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 concerns 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-1a 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. (03p=0708) 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. 13-1 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. B- 1 a and B-1 b(Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant). Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation, spoke in opposition to Public Hearing Item Nos. B-1 a and B-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), calling the EIR inadequate. He discussed issues raised at the June Vd 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. 13-1 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-1 a 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-1 b (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant), calling the desalination process environmentally friendly. KarinXeene, 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-1a 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-1 a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 (POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT -CONTINUED FROM JUNE 3. 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) Proiect 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. s 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, RBF 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. Y (03p=0708) 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 8:16 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. (03pan0708) PC Minutes July 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 govem 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 II 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 II 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 316E study (entrainment/impingement study). r 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 (03p=0708) 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-1 b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT -CONTINUED FROM JUNE 3, 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 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 (03p=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 CX 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. Y (03pcm0708) PC Minutes July 22,2003 Page 4 The following tion was made after action on Non-Public Hearing Item No. D1: 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 ENVIRO 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. Larry 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. D-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 Korthof, 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. (03pcm0722) 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 (03p=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 VVAS MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-041COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(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: Norte 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) Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho The City of Huntington Bead fanning 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. 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 ield @ 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. 1584, APPROVING GENERAL PLA ONFORMANCE 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) Proiect Planner: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner No staff presentation was made. (03p=0722) 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 California 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 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, nton, 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 re 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: ,1 :Howard Zelefsky, Secretary F46n 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. 8-1. 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: 21.730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) Project 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 (03pcm0812) 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. (03p=0812) 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 mentfimpingement, 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. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05(POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT-CONTINUED FROM JULY 22, 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 A MOTION WAS MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-041COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-06(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. 03-081TENTATIVE 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 with de differential of three feet or greater and retaining walls two feet high or greats aximum 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 emnant lot for ongoing soil remediation. VAR: To allow a 10-foot building se ation in lieu of the minimum required 15-foot building separation. Location: 1880 thard (03p=0812) ATTACHMENT 7 -REC'E ' CiTY HUN PING j OH u' . Donave4 Z003 SEp 148N Los Patos Avenue Huntmgi6tAeach, CA 92649 714/ 840 7496 ndonaven(aJea.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 1 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. II1. 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 Culifornia Coastal Aci," 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, Copy to: Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2 ATTACHMENT 8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 00-02 Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant E I R NO. 00-02 • Analyzes potential environmental impacts from development of: ✓a 50 MGD desalination plant on 11 acre lease area at AES property ✓ up to 10 miles of water transmission lines to connect to regional system ✓two off-site booster pumps in Irvine and unincorporated Orange County • Documents potential impacts in nine issue areas 9 Evaluates four alternatives to the original project BACKGROUND May 2001 —NOP circulated for 30 days June 2001 — Public scoping meeting held Sept 2002— Draft EIR circulated for 45 days Mar 2003— Response to comments completed Summer 2003—Planning Commission conducted hearings and certified the EIR APPEAL Planning Commission's certification of the EIR appealed based on inadequate analysis of the project's impacts relative to ocean water quality, marine biology, growth inducement, and the adjacent wetland. 2 ANALYSIS • Ocean Water Quality and Marine Biology ✓ Analysis based on hydrodynamic model, watershed sanitary survey, and marine biology analysis, among others ✓ Watershed sanitary survey conducted to identify all potential sources of contamination to source water ✓ Source water model looked at possible constituents of source water at AES ✓ Model looked at worst-case scenario and considered discharges from Santa Ana River, Talbert Marsh, OCSD, and AES outfall. ANALYSIS • Ocean Water Quality ✓Receiving water model looked at mixing and dilution of concentrated discharge during worst-case and average conditions ✓Modeling was reviewed and verified by Dr. Stanley Grant 3 ANALYSIS • Growth Inducement ✓ Focused on relationship between new supply and demand projections for Orange County and surrounding area ✓ EIR concludes that much of product water will be allocated to replace existing imported supplies that will be lost ✓ Product water is <1% of total supply for South Coast Region and <8% of total supply for Orange County ✓ Product water not enough to keep pace with long-term projected growth ANALYSIS • Adjacent Wetland ✓EIR considers potential impacts in regards to spill of product or byproduct water, noise, lighting, air quality, urban runoff/stormwater, erosion, and nesting birds ✓Buffering provided by existing concrete containment berm considered 4 ANALYSIS • EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA: ✓Analyzed potential impacts ✓Analyzed alternatives which may lessen/avoid impacts ✓Identified mitigation measures to address significant impacts RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends certification of EIR No. 00- 02 because: ✓Complies with requirements of CEQA ✓Adequately analyzes project impacts ✓Potentially significant impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened ✓Unavoidable significant impact found acceptable due to overriding considerations 5 �r i END OF PRESENTATION t k 6 (11) December 15, 2003 -Council/Agency Agenda -Page 11 D 2a. (City Council) Part 1 of 2 Parts of Public Hearing Opened and Continued Open from November 17, 2003: 0.) Consider Appeal Filed by Mayor Connie Boardman of the Plannina Commission's Certification of Environmental Impact Report(EIR) No. 00-02(Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant Located at 21730 Newland Street, east side, south of Edison Avenue) -Application Filed by Poseidon Resources Corporation—Approve Resolution No. 2003-82 and (2.) For Part 2-See .Agenda Item to Follow ( ) Communication from the Planning Director. Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Appellant: Mayor Connie Boardman Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of a proposed 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant. Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Avenue) ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday November 13,2003. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk 1. Staff report 2. City Council discussion 3. Open public hearing on this and the following agenda item 4. Following public input,close public hearing **PowerPoint presentation titled Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02-Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant is included in the agenda packet. ** Communication from Patti Sexton dated November 12, 2003 titled Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project in support of the project. ** Communication from Tom Livengood dated 11-19-2003 titled What is Normal?regarding the California Energy Commission 11-7-03 comment letter. ** Communication from Scott Szymborski dated 11-12-2003 titled Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project in support of the project. '* Communication from California Coastal Commission dated 12-8-2003 titled Comments on the City of Huntington Beach Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the Proposed Poseidon Desalination Facility recommending the City not certify at this time. Recommended Action: Motion to: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: Certify EIR No. 00-02 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) requirements by approving Resolution No. 2003- 82 - "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 (SCH#2001051092) for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project." . See Next Page for Part 2 of Public Hearing) y-3 CS 'm\v C,3 , RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 (Poseidon) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 17, 2003 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorne ) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over$5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED RETURNED FOR DED' Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM SpaceOnly) RCA Author: HZ:SH:MBB:RR i Biollifouling A biofilm is a layer of a microorganisms contained in a matrix ,x (slime layer), which forms on surfaces in contact with water. Incorporation of pathogens in biofilms —� s can protect the pathogens from concentrations of biocides that would otherwise kill or inhibit those organisms freely ; . suspended in water. ® i Fouling is concerned with the seclusion of organic, colloidal and suspended particles. Bacteria and other microrganisms that decompose these particles will create substrates. •Rotterdamseweg 402 M 2629 HH Delft, The Netherlands tel: (+31)(0)15 26.10.900 fax: (+31)(0)15 26.16.289 Their development is most rapid in flowing systems where adequate nutrients are available. BULK FLUID y MvR::E�: E JR - v '+ ' e b"' Yid . ?.'� ` Of w a ,3 id Ion POP r EL G .>. rNO r" • o "I WRIA ITO s Biofilms may form: On solid substrates in contact with moisture. On soft tissue surfaces in living organisms. At liquid air interfaces. /We ;,i 4 �-,,: L- :b� `� .»`,,r"y }'� •.ire-,' / I y ''r��� �'� � //%r�/j///S ems: �-.- t,.'.' •e•7 �• yam.: J^ wo- '",r � G' � "•, '''.:�'� "x,70,�, / ,r :.- cry„.,. „,, � '>;. ,�'\,,,. e //G ,� �' � v( !��;.,. ,,.� '�,'�, ''s�. ( ;�,,-:/ � � I .i", r✓,� 4 .�r / r x- IR Mk- 141 x r - r A AOL 3 44 n 3, .a r; ,,,ems;; �,,.,.. �.- Biofilm = Gum i sease r� , v/ F. Biofilm = heart Narrowed furnom Balloon Aftfosclorotic ronc w po of artery arty w. Ut an catheter with uninflated balloon aptxoaches obstructed area in artery a MIN y z x When b iimr q 11flated, i1 break$ up allr r wt LI I'll 111 11101 Allot omen widened, balloon catheter vitth deflated balloon is withdraAr Biofilm = pipes/filters MMI / � h � i i 2 6� r + . a ms� ` a- ' iM 9 r� l a,, •, , �p IIY�MY � 31� , 1 250 Million for what? ? ? � •Nearly 2 gallons of water go down the drain when the kitchen faucet is run until the water is cold. *About 2 gallons of water are used to brush your teeth. •People need about 2.5 quarts of water aday •About 74 percent of home water usage is in the bathroom •21 percent is for laundry and cleaning • 5 percent is in the kitchen. •A typical garden hose can deliver 50 gallons of water in just 5 minutes.