Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development (13)
SENDER: • •N COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ' ■ complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete *RRf.W item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ❑Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse »Addressee so that we can return the card to you. Name) C. Da, of ■ Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece, or on the front if space permits. 1 D. is delivery t'ite n 1? . Article Addressed t0: � If YES/enter' �ib�w, E3 No ..20 o Cea*-g,-t 3. Service Type S ' Q U�OZ'' Qd Mali ❑Express man Q-Aegistered ❑Return Recut for Merchandise L3 insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Wkayl tBft Fee) {]Yes 2. Article Number 7004 075 0 . 00 0 2 `6112 9 215- (nansfartrom servks Albo i PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-tea-1540'< SENDER: • •N COMPLETE THIS SECTIONON DELIVERY ■ complete-items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A.T1( item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ❑Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse X ❑Addressee so that a we can return the card to you. B. by( 'nred ) c. to Del ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, �' or on the front If space permits. tJ !� i. Article Addressed to: dellmy different item 1? ❑Yes If YES,enter delivery address below: "-JZ . A 10 L-> 3. Service Type Q V certified Mail ❑Bpm Man 41 ❑Registered t3 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑insured Mail (3 C.O.D. 4. ResMcted Delivery?(Fidra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number (ltaruWftmswvketeabeq 7004 0750 0002 6112 9208 PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return ReceiptEll toe of M tyro . � Postal _ ED p r ru n^ • N (Domestic Mail Only, fU For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.como 0 F AL USE OFFICIAL USE I r-1 ru Postage $ _n Postage $ q Cerofied Fee ruCodified Fee O Return Rodeo O (Endorsement R lam) Postmark � (Endor m RAW P M1Lr) (E dorsementt Regrd�) C (EndR o�ant�ReqVPez O r.. Total Postage&Fees � $ C3 Total Postage 8 Fees O o O I` st�•e;Apt Na: 3'��O----- O t1f O wPoBoxNo. r`- Wig"AR jNo.;--- --------------------------------------- Of PO t3dr No. ---- - - --�- --t-�------- ------- - STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST DISTRICT PO Box 1450 200 Oceangate,10th Floor LONG BEACH,CA 90802-4416 0 a� mr,gi F'm-ew1 www.coastal.ca.gov 2006 MAR _8 A 11; 26 NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL PERIOD, DATE: March 3, 2006 TO: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 FROM: Meg Vaughn, Coastal Program Analyst RE: Application No. 5-HNB-03-107 Please be advised that on March 3, 2006 our office received notice of local action on the coastal development permit described below: Local Permit#: cdp 02-05 Applicant(s): AES Huntington Beach, LLC Description: Construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination plant., etc... Location: 21730 Newland (east side, south of Edison Ave.), Huntington Beach (Orange County) Unless an appeal is filed with the Coastal Commission, the action will become final at the end of the Commission appeal period. The appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on March 17, 2006. Our office will notify you if an appeal is filed. If you have any questions, please contact me at the address and telephone number shown above. cc: AES Huntington Beach, LLC Poseido Resources Corporation, Attn: Josie McKinley dt CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERK March 1, 2006 CERTIFIED MAIL California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, 10t' Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 NOTICE OF ACTION BY THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ON COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Proiect) Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation,Attn: Josie McKinley, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way #260, Long Beach, CA 90806 Property Owner: AES Huntington Beach, LLC, 21730 Newland St., Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination project 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) Environmental Status: Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Seawater Desalination Project) is covered under Recirculated Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 which was certified on September 6, 2005. Coastal Status: Appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. Date of Action: February 27, 2006 On February 27, 2006, after hearing a staff report presentation, conducting a public hearing, and discussion,the City of Huntington Beach City Council conditionally approved Coastal Development Permit(CDP) No. 02-05. (Telephone:714-536-5227) Notice of Action—CDP 02-05 Page 2 March 1, 2006 The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bohr, Green, Coerper, Hansen NOES: Sullivan, Hardy, Cook This project is in the appealable portion of the coastal zone and may be appealed to the 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. Action by the City Council on a Coastal Development Permit for appealable development may be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Sections 13111 and 13573 of the California Code of Regulations. An appeal to the Coastal Commission shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 13110 through 13120 of the California Code of Regulations. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the City Council is final. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that an application becomes null and void one (1) year after the final approval, unless actual construction has begun. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536-5227. Sincerely, J L. Flynn t Clerk Attachment: Notice of Local Action for CDP 02-05 c: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner G:CDP 02-05 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION March 1, 2006 Poseidon Resources Corporation Attn: Josie McKinley 3760 Kilroy Airport Way Long Beach CA 90806 Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 024W Coastal Development Permit No. 02- 05 for Seawater Desalination Project(Poseidon); CEQA Statement of Findings of Facts with a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program—CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 9, 2006 Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Property Owner: AES Huntington Beach, LLC, 21730 Newland St_, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination project 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) Coastal Status: Appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone Date of Action: February 27, 2006 On February 27, 2006, after hearing a staff report presentation, conducting a public hearing, and discussion, the City of Huntington Beach City Council took action on your application and conditionally approved Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05, CEQA Statement of Findings of Facts with Statement of Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Attached to this letter are the findings and conditions of approval for this application. iTelephone:714536-52271 I Notice of Council Action CDP 02-05 March 1,2006 Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the City Council is final. Action by the City Council on a Coastal Development Permit for appealable development may be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Sections 13111 and 13573 of the California Code of Regulations. Appeal Procedure to the California Coastal Commission: An appeal of the City of Huntington Beach's action on Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 may be filed in writing with the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and in accordance with Title 14, Section 13110 through 13120 of the California Code of Regulations. Their address is: South Coast Area Office California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Attn: Theresa Henry (562) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Coastal Commission receives notice of this action and continues for ten(10)working days. Applicants will be noted by the Coastal Commission as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval, unless actual construction has started. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714)536-5227. Sincerely, Jo L. Flynn Clerk ttachment: Findings and Conditions of Approval—CUP No. 02-04/CDP 02-05 c: AES Huntington Beach, LLC Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination project producing 50 million gallons of potable water per day which includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank(30 foot high), other related accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks to be replaced with one 30 foot high water storage tank and lower profile and modern structures with a more attractive design consistent with the city's adopted Design Guidelines. The project will further enhance the appearance of the area with the installation of 10 to 20 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high block wall along the Edison and Newland street frontages to provide additional screening and a consistent and upgraded appearance in contrast to the existing improvements- 2- The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as proposed and modified by the conditions imposed is compatible with the properties immediately surrounding it which are primarily industrial in nature. Additionally, significant setbacks including Newland Street to the west, Edison Avenue to the north,the flood control channel to the east, an existing concrete berm, 10 to 20 feet of landscaping and eight P 9 an 9 foot high block wall along the project's Edison and Newland street frontages provide additional screening from surrounding uses. Impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are also addressed to make the project compatible. 3. The proposed seawater desalination project including a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of 48-inch water transmission lines will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project as proposed and modified by the conditions of approval is consistent with the PS-0-CZ (Public-Semipublic—Oil Production Overlay—Coastal Zone Overlay)zoning district, and meets or exceeds the minimum development standards set forth therein, and is allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit and coastal development permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(Public) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. LU 7.1.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;COP 02-05) b. LU 12.1.5-Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass; b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c. use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots,including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets;d.enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls; e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and f. mitigation of noise, odor, lighting, and other impacts. c. LU 13.1.8-Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. d. UD 2.1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. e. CE 7-Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. The project will be an improvement to the area because it will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks. The new proposed structures are more compatible with the surroundings because they are lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. There are limited views across the Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS) site due to the height of the existing structures. However, Views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination project structures have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. The project is required to provide a 10-foot landscape planter along the perimeter of the site to enhance the appearance of the area. These landscaping improvements are required to be consistent with the approved landscaping improvements for the rest of the HBGS property to the south for a cohesive appearance. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the development of the desalination project and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, as proposed and modified by conditions of approval, conforms to the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objective, and policies: a. C 1.1.1 -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. b. 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. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) c. 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. d. C 4.7- Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. e. 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. f. 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. g. C 4.7.8- Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. h. C 4.7.9—Require the removal of non-productive oil production facilities and the restoration of the vacated site. i. 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. j. 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. k. C 6.1.19—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. I. 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. m. C 7.1.5—Notify State and Federal agencies having regulatory authority in wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitats when development projects in and adjacent to such areas are submitted to the City. The implementation of any Habitat Conservation Plan shall require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. Incidental take of sensitive habitat and/or species that occurs in the context of development must be consistent with this LCP. n. C 10.1.4—Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new structures to withstand ground shaking and liquefaction such as those stated in the Uniform Building Code. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) The proposed desalination project is located within an unused fuel oil storage tank facility constructed in 1961 and formerly owned and operated by Southern California Edison. In addition to the proposed desalination facility site, the proposed project would also include several related off-site improvements, including tie-in pipelines between the existing HBGS condenser cooling water discharge system and the proposed desalination project, and up to approximately 4 miles of product water delivery. The intake/discharge pipelines would be located entirely within the existing HBGS site. The majority of the product water delivery pipeline would be located within existing public streets, easements, or other rights-of-way in urban areas. As such, the proposed new development is located within existing developed areas. The proposed use is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan designation of P (Public)for the site. The proposed use is compatible and consistent with the industrially designated properties immediately surrounding the subject site and meets the requirements of the Coastal Element of the Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule. The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing unused 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures. The proposed structures vary in height from a maximum of 30 feet for the water tank to a minimum of six feet high for the ammonia tank. The proposed desalination project will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the HBGS site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination project structures will have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. A 10 foot and 20 foot planter along the lease area street frontage on Edison and Newland respectively will further improve the appearance of the project with attractive landscaping. In addition, the proposed pipeline alignment is situated below ground and will not impact public views or require landscaping to minimize visual impacts. As conditioned,the project is required to prepare a final landscaping plan along Edison Avenue for approval by the Design Review Board that is consistent in design, colors and materials with the landscaping for HBGS for a cohesive appearance. in addition, the conditions of approval for the project require a minimum of six percent landscaping over the entire 11-acre lease area, and that landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages include the densest type and number of trees to provide the most effective screening possible, which must be maintained to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. Landscaping within the eastern portion of the site will consist of native wetlands planting for compatibility with the wetlands to the southeast. In addition, the bottom portion of these structures will be hidden behind the existing berm along the perimeter. As noted above, 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, and the design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for the tanks to achieve a unified theme. Furthermore, the conditions of approval also require that utility meters be screened from public view, that electric transformers be enclosed in subsurface vaults, that backflow prevention devices be prohibited in the front yard setback and be screened from view. The conditions further require that all exterior mechanical equipment be screened from view on (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;GDP 02-05) all sides, and that rooftop mechanical equipment be setback from the exterior edges of buildings. The Recirculated Environmental Impact Report analyzed the potential impacts of the project on water quality generally, as well as both ocean water quality and product water quality. Based on the analysis contained in the Recirculated EIR, no mitigation measures are required to protect or enhance ocean water quality. However, the Recirculated EIR contains a number of mitigation measures designed to prevent the degradation of and enhance water quality in groundwater basins, wetlands, surface water and product water. These mitigation measures are contained in the Recirculated Environmental Impact Report for the project. The Recirculated Environmental impact Report analyzed the potential impacts to marine organisms due to entrainment and concluded that no mitigation measures were required. The Recirculated EIR noted that entrainment is currently permitted for the once-through cooling water system of the HBGS, and that the proposed desalination facility does not directly take seawater from the ocean, and that withdrawal of feedwater for desalination is from the HBGS cooling-water discharge and not subject to intake regulation under the Federal Clean Water Act (316b). In addition, the proposed project will not alter in any way existing HBGS cooling water intake operations. For these reasons, no mitigation measures are required to reduce entrainment impacts to marine organisms. The desalination project is surrounded by other industrial properties, a 145-foot wide flood control channel, HBGS, and a wetland area to the southeast. The wetland area is separated from the project by an existing berm. The project has been designed to not create any impacts to the adjacent wetlands. Nonetheless, a number of mitigation measures will be required to ensure that impacts to the adjacent wetlands are minimized. State and Federal agencies with regulatory authority in wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitats have been consulted as part of the CEQA process for the project. These agencies include, among others, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and California Coastal Commission. The project as conditioned will require compliance with the standards set forth in the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code to assure safety of the occupants and seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. Lastly, the project is an ocean water desalination plant that will create an alternative source of potable water. When the project is completed, it will provide Orange County with 50 million gallons of potable water per day, accommodating the needs of Orange County regardless of weather or governmentally imposed conditions affecting water supply. By building the facility and locating it in Huntington Beach,the facility will demonstrate the opportunities offered by desalination, and will offer cities, counties, and the State of California a tangible example of how desalination can become more widely accepted throughout the state and the nation, and will encourage additional research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalination as an alternative source of potable water. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, O Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project meets or exceeds all minimum development standards including but not limited to setbacks, height, and parking. The project is conditioned to require compliance with all (NQA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety Department codes and requirements. The project conforms to the City's Design Guidelines and incorporates variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The project provides buffering from sensitive uses such as residential developments through landscaping, a block wall, and increased setbacks. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the HBGS property to the south for a cohesive appearance. The project meets all the requirements of the O Overlay District. The project meets the minimum size requirements, and the project includes a reuse plan to remediate property that has been contaminated by previous oil-related use. The property is conditioned to operate in compliance with Title 15, Uniform Fire Code, and any other applicable Federal, State, County, or local rules and regulations, and must be approved by the Fire Department. Non- permitted equipment will not be allowed to be used on the project site, and all requirements - for the use of an O overlay zone have been or will be met, including dedication requirements. The project meets all the applicable requirements for the CZ overlay district. The project preserves and improves existing visual resources and complies with maximum height limitations, off-street parking requirements, landscaping requirements, and other requirements. Due to the industrial nature of the project location, there is currently no public access at the site; therefore public access will not be affected by the project. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project is an infill development, which as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructure to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. This includes dedication and improvements to the project lease frontage along Edison Avenue to improve circulation in the area. The proposed project will comply with City of Huntington Beach Fire Department requirements, including the installation of fire sprinklers and fire hydrants, and impacts of the project on the Fire Department are not expected to be significant. There are no anticipated additional impacts of the project on Police protection. The project is expected to have little or no impact on libraries. The project backers will have some responsibility for roadway maintenance, and impacts on roadway maintenance caused by the project are expected to be less than significant. The project is anticipated to have a negligible impact on parks and recreation facilities within the City. Project impacts to existing wastewater facilities are expected to be minimal, and the project plans are anticipated to include a new sewer line or private sewer system to accommodate additional wastewater. A local stormwater drainage system would be implemented as part of the site facility, and stormwater would be treated on-site prior to off-site discharge. The project would require new facilities to support operational water uses, but these uses are not expected to create significant impacts. There are no significant impacts of the project on reclaimed water use. The project would not create any significant impacts on the disposition of solid waste. The project's power demand would be less than one percent of the demand within Orange County or Southern California, and are anticipated to be less than significant. No impacts on natural gas supply are anticipated in the implementation of the project. No significant impacts on telephone and cable service are anticipated by the project. (NQA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) 4. The development of the desalination project and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as they will not impede any public access to the coast and public recreation opportunities in the area. All public access to the coast and public recreation in the area will not be impeded during the long-term operation of the facility as well as during the construction process with the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The site does not currently provide public access or public recreation opportunities because of the industrial nature of the historic uses at the site. The proposed project is consistent with the Public and Semipublic utility uses for which the site is designated, and is not suited for public access or recreation purposes for a number of reasons, including concerns about public safety. The site is located landward of Pacific Coast Highway and would not provide a connection to the coast or public recreation opportunities, as it is virtually surrounded by other industrial uses. Nonetheless, because no public access or recreational opportunities currently exist on the site, the project will not impede existing public access to the coast or public recreation opportunities in the area. The project will not impact an existing public parking or beach access and will not p l P Y 9p p 9 discourage or impact any existing lower cost visitor and recreational facilities. The project_ site is currently not accessible to the beach,thus no access will be impacted. The proposed project will not impede any unique water-oriented activities, nor does it involve any oceanfront land suitable for recreational use. The project involves the use of private lands that are not suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities. Even if the lands were suitable for such visitor-serving uses, the project proposes a coastal- dependent industry use, which is not of a lower priority than visitor-serving uses. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. The site plan received and dated June 1, 2005,floor plans and elevations received and dated April 7, 2003, and March 21, 2005 and landscaping plan received and dated April 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The landscape area on the east side of the project site (landscape area three)shall include the removal of all Myoporum, and shall be planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Southern California coastal community. b. The architectural treatment proposed on all the tanks shall be limited to the top portion that is visible above the surrounding concrete berm. (DRB) c. The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to approval by the Design Review Board per conditions set by the City Council. (DRB) d. Perimeter landscaping for this project along Newland St. and Edison Ave. is required to be installed only along the lease area frontage. The lease area shall have a minimum of six percent landscaping of the entire 11-acre lease area. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04,CDP 02-05) e. The landscaping and wall plan shall be consistent in design, colors, and materials with the landscaping and wall plan for AES for a cohesive appearance. f. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24,California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) g. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan_ Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backfiow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) h. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment. plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement)(MM ALG 1) i. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. j. If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage towards the sky and onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent wetlands, and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (MM-ALG 2) k. The landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages shall include the densest type and number of trees to provide the most effective screening possible and shall be maintained to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits,the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director- h. For the demolition of the three (3) 200 foot diameter fuel oil tanks, a work plan must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of work. (FD) i. In order to minimize potential demolition and construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows and other threatened or endangered species adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-demolition nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows or other threatened or endangered species be found, adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.)will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-demolition survey. j. in order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.)will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. (MM-CON 41) 3. Prior to acceptance of grading plans for review: a. Twelve feet (12')of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Edison Avenue frontage. (PW) (General Plan) b. A 31-foot radius of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue, per City Standard Plan No. 207. (General Plan) 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall submit written proof of final project approval by each applicable regulating agency including but not limited to the California Coastal Commission, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District and all applicable water agencies and cities. (NOA Poseidon CLIP 02-04;CDP 02-05) b. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls and walls) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan (RAP)based on requirements found in the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification#431-92. (FD) d. From the Division of Oil, Gas&Geothermal Resources(DOGGR), provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells. (FD) e. From the DOGGR, provide proof of a Site Plan Review application. (FD) f. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification#422-Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) g. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit/site plan. This approved plan must be presented to obtain the required Huntington Beach Fire Department Fire Code Permit Application to conduct installation and/or removal operations. (FD) h. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number, plus identify and detail all methane safety measures per City Specification#429- Methane District Building Permit Requirements. These details shall be on a separate sheet titled "Methane Plan." (FD) i. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall enter into a Franchise agreement with the City for the generation and transport of product water from the site, and through and across the city's streets, rights-of-way or properties which shall incorporate the following: (PW) (MC 3.44) 1) Franchise payments would be made to City for use of the street rights-of-way of at least$100,000 per year adjusted annually based on adjustments in the Consumer Price Index. 2) The applicant will repave the street from curb to centerline along the pipeline route, including striping and marking and raised pavement markers (RPMs) and slurry seal the other side of the centerline or median (with the striping marking and RPM installation) including constructing ADA compliant ramps consistent with State standards in constructing ADA facilities on all four corners of any intersection crossed by the project pipeline. This would include all missing and non-standard ramps along the pipeline route adjacent to where paving or slurry sealing is to be performed. 3) Funds in an amount not to exceed $1.9 million would be provided to the City which may be used by the City in its sole discretion for improvements adjacent to the site or (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) along the route of the pipeline. If such payment is made through the OPA then this condition will be deemed satisfied. 4) The applicant will provide a performance surety bond and site restoration bond for pipeline construction. City will have the right to review the qualifications of the pipeline contractors prior to selection. Applicant will pay for a full time on-site city construction inspector for the duration of pipeline construction. Applicant will provide a site restoration bond to ensure completion of all project facilities and removal of those facilities in the event of any subsequent condition that prevents operation of the plant. j. A corrected lease line exhibit for area"1" and the 24-foot wide secondary access easement and an accurate metes and bounds description of the project limits shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.A metes and bounds description and separate exhibit of all access routes shall also be provided with the submittal. (PW) k. Irrevocable vehicular access rights shalt be established and recorded across the AES and Edison properties. The access width and turning radius criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. (PW) The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (Code Requirement) 1. The applicant shall demonstrate utilizing a truck turning template overlay that a WB-50 vehicle can maneuver on-site through the designated access route. (PW) m. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05)The recommendations of the accepted geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities. The Grading Plan shall depict, but not be limited to the following items: (PW) 1) The parking layout shall be in conformance with the approved parking plan, and shall also conform to City Standards and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including Municipal Ordinance No. 10.40.050. No parking shall be permitted adjacent to emergency access areas in compliance with Fire Department Standard Specification Nos. 401 and 415. 2) Access for the handicapped shall be in conformance with Title 24. 3) Separate sewer lateral and sewer line to provide service to all onsite facilities. The plan shall provide horizontal location and vertical clearances and dimensional relationship with other utilities. 4) A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04,CDP 02-05) 5) Fire sprinklers shall have a separate dedicated fire service with an appropriate backflow device. 6) Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, fire services and irrigation water services. The final location for all public waterline facilities shall be as approved by the Water Division. 7) Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree. Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any)shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. 8) Final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be submitted for review and approval to the Public Works Department. The report shall also include calculation of first flush flows to substantiate the adequacy and effectiveness of all water quality mitigation and structural best management practices. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall events (storm frequencies up to a 100-year frequency). Mitigation will include adequate detention storage area onsite if the project pump systems fail to operate. The final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetlands. 9) Areas for containment shall be provided to mitigate possible spillage of any materials affecting storm water quality that may be stored on-site, and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. n. Storm Drain, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans(SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP)conforming with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Catch basins shall be grated and not have side openings. (DAMP) (PW) 1) A SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of the development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all de-watering operation flows, and for nuisance flows during construction. (DAMP) 2) The applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NOI)submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. (DAMP) o. A Project WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval and shall include the following: (PW) 1) Discusses regional or watershed programs (if applicable) 2) Addresses Site Design BMPs (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or"zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) 3) Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP 4) Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP 5) Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs 6) Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 7) Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 8) Includes an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs 9) Upon approval of the WQMP, three signed copies and an electronic copy on CD (.pdf or.doc format) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. p. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (ZSO 230.84)The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PW) 1) Curb, gutter and A.C. paving to the new centerline of construction, plus an adequate feathered overlay section to provide a smooth pavement transition along the Edison Avenue lease frontage, within a 42-foot full-width street Right-of-Way per modified City Standard Plan Nos. 104 and 202 (including an 8-foot parking lane on the north side, 24-foot driving lane, a 6-foot parkway on the north and a 4-foot wide utility easement on the south). No parking shall be permitted on the south side of the street. 2) An ADA compliant access ramp at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan No. RSPA88A. The corner curb return radius shall be 35-feet per City Standard Plan No. 207. 3) A 25-foot sight triangle must be provided at the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue. (ZSO 230.88) 4) New Edison-owned street lighting shall be provided for the frontage of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and shall be consistent with City standards. 5) At the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and at the Newland Street driveway located approximately 460-feet south of,Edison Avenue, corner sight distance as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual must be provided. 6) All utilities (proposed and existing) shall be shown for reference purposes and shall be consistent with utility infrastructure plans. q. improvement Plans for all offsite water transmission lines within the limits of the City of Huntington Beach shall be designed and prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer showing a plan and profile of the improvements. Said plans shall be submitted on mylar sheets to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Trenchless construction methods will be utilized to cross roadways sensitive to traffic disruption and drainage channels as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. (PW) r. Conflicts between the routing for all offsite water transmission lines and other existing or proposed utilities, facilities or public infrastructure shall be identified and mitigated on the water line improvement plans. (PW) (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) s. Signing and Striping plans prepared b a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be 9 9 R 9R R R Y 9 submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for Newland Street and Edison Avenue. (PW) (ZSO 230.84) t. Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for offsite pipeline construction or any other work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) u. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No.431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site; details on how no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and details on how wind barriers around remediation equipment shall be provided. (PW) (MC 17.05.150/FD Spec. 431-92) v. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities,truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) w. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) x. 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. The applicant shall coordinate all construction traffic related activities with Costa Mesa's Public Services Department. The construction vehicle routing plan in the City of Costa Mesa shall be submitted for approval by the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Manager. (MM-CON 36)(PW) y. 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 Pack Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard to 1-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. (MM-CON 12) (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) z. In conjunction with the submittal of application for a precise grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. (MM-GEO 2) aa.As the South Branch Fault(situated beneath the subject site) is classified as"Category C by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, special studies and subsurface investigation (including a site specific seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit, to the approval of the City Engineer. The subsurface investigation shall include CPT and exploratory borings to determine the fault rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. (MM-GEO 7) bb. Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, which ever comes first,the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutant runoff and to protect the adjacent wetlands. This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP)Appendix which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, and shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: (MM-HWQ 1) 1) Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and 2) BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person. 3) All fertilizers and pesticides used by the plant shall not pose any harmful effects upon plants, animals, and marine life in the adjacent wetland or to any surrounding properties. cc. Appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits,which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding, and to ensure protection of the adjacent wetlands. (MM-HWQ 2) dd. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first, an appropriate on-site drainage system shall be installed for the project that integrates permanent stormwater quality features. (MM-HWQ 3) ee.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 double walls, sound absorbing materials, acoustic barriers, sound control curtains, and sound baffles), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to insure that noise levels at the HBGS property line do not exceed the (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) City's Industrial noise standard of 70.0 dBA and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach.(MM-NO 1) ff. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. This plan will be submitted to the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. (MM-PSU 6) gg. Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: (MM-CON 1) 1) Where necessary, temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15"h. 2) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. 3) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. 4) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. 5) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. 6) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. 7) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. 8) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. 9) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed by the City of Huntington Beach Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. hh. Construction of the project shall include Best Management Practices(BMPs) as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: (MM-CON 2) 1) Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) wastes from any engine/ equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlonnated potable water line rinsings. 2) During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specked and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. ii. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements, the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent(NOI)to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. (MM-CON 3) jj_ The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge from a facility of air pollutants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public or that damage business or property. (MM-CON 9) kk. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular water or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as specified in the SCAQMD Rule 403. (MM-CON 10) 1) On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 25 miles per hour. 2 All material sufficiently watered n x 1 ma a excavated or graded would be suffice y to ed to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering would occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferable in the late morning and after work is done for the day. 3) All material transported on-site or off-site would be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 4) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations would be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 5) These control techniques would be indicated in project specifications. Compliance with the measure would be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. 6) Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project would be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. 11. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits,the Applicant shall ensure evidence acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works that: (MM-CON 11) 1) All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; 2) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40(Noise Control); 3) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas and wetlands; and 4) Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. (140A Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) mm. Unless underground utility locations are well documented, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. (MM-CON 14) nn.An archaeologist and paleontologist shall be selected by the applicant and the City to be available for archaeological and paleontological findings during grading and construction. A qualified representative of the Native American community shall be consulted upon for appropriate Native American findings. 5. Prior to submittal for buildingpermits,the following shall be completed: P � P 9 a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered. The recommendations of this report shall be reproduced on the plans. (BD) c. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue per conditions set by the Planning Commission. (DRB) e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) f. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). g. A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application for the proposed desalination plant. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, remedial work, overexcavation /recompaction, dewatering, water quality, and chemicalffill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading,flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential and groundwater constraints. Appropriate recommendations shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. (MM-GEO 1) h. A Water Purchase Agreement shall be executed between the applicant/operator of the seawater desalination project and the City of Huntington Beach and shall incorporate the following: (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) 1) The City will have the option to purchase up to 3,360 acre-feet per year(3 million gallons per day or 4.6 cubic feet per second) of water from the Project, on a firm basis, at price equal to 95% cost of water supplied by the Municipal Water District of Orange county (MWDOC) and any subsidy received by the Buyer from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California or any other third party for the purchase of water from the Project. The term of the water supply purchase shall be 30 years with two 30-year extensions at the discretion of the City. Should the plant be unable to deliver these supplies they would be subject to liquidated damages. 2) The City will have the first right to purchase up to 11,201 AF per emergency event (i.e. 13cfs or 8.4 mgd) of additional water from the Project in a declared water emergency at the same cost as above for up to seven consecutive days per event. 3) The City would be provided a 5 cfs (3.2 mgd) pipeline connection from the Project near the Newland/Edison intersection into city facilities in the area. i. An Owner Participation Agreement shall be executed between the applicant/operator of the seawater desalination project and the City of Huntington Beach and shall incorporate the following: 1) The project developer and any future property owner, public or private,would commit to pay property taxes or an equivalent property tax in-lieu fee to the Redevelopment Agency for a period of thirty (30) years from the issuance by the City of a certificate of occupancy for the desalination facility. The tax or in-lieu fee would be based on the assessed valuation or$186,500,000 (estimate construction cost)whichever is greater. 2) The applicant will provide $2,000,000 to the City which may be used at its sole discretion for such improvements as the City Council determines will improve the quality of life in the City of Huntington Beach. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for the irrigation system. (PW) (ZSO 255.04E) b. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36-inch box trees or palm equivalent(13-14 feet of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8-9 feet of brown trunk)and shall be incorporated into the projects landscape plan. (PW) (Code Requirement)(ZSO 232.04B) c. A buffer shall be required between the wetland areas and the containment berm, designated as open space, and planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Southern California coastal community. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) d. The Consulting Arborist(approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW) (Resolution 4545) e. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. f. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification#426-Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) g. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification#401-Minimum Access for Fire Department Access. (FD) h. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. (FD) i. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) j. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow, tamper, and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) k. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are 6'8"wide by 4'3° deep with a 42-inch wide (min.) right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54-inch depth. (FD) 1. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) m. For classification within the City's Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program, a complete chemical inventory and a use,storage, and handling plan prepared by a fire protection engineer, environmental hygienist, or the equivalent shall be submitted to the Fire Department. included, but not limited to, shall be the ammonia storage tank,the lime (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) silos and the chemical treatment facilities. These tanks and associated equipment shall be designed and installed in conformance with 2001 edition of the CFC. (FD) n. As native on-site soils are compressible upon placement of structural loads, project implementation shall implement complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures. (MM-GEO 4) o. Type V cement shall be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measures (coatings, etc.)to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. (MM-GEO 5) p. Due to the potential for ground shaking in a seismic event,the project shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). However;given the proximity of the site to the Newport- Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust Faults, more stringent measures may be warranted. (MM-GEO 6) q. Due to the potential for liquefaction within the project vicinity, the Applicant shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition)for structures on-site to assure safety of the occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997) and "Recommended Procedures for implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California" (Dr. Geoffrey R. Martin et al, May 1999). (MM-GEO 8) r. The proposed project shall incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction. Typical methods include, but are not limited to: (MM-GEO 9) 1) Overexcavation and recompaction of soils; 2) in-situ soil densification (such as vibro-flotation or vibro-replacement); 3) injection grouting; and 4) deep soil mixing. s. The site specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed project shall analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. If deemed a possibility, adequate subsurface stabilization practices (similar to those utilized for liquefaction)shall be incorporated prior to the construction of on-site structures. (MM-GEO 10) t. All applicable school mitigation fees shall be paid pursuant to State law. (MM-PSU 1) u. The Applicant will be required to pay five percent of the OCSD connection fee to the City of Huntington Beach. (MM-PSU 3) v. The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate fees for water service connections, installation, and meters. In addition, the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. (MM-PSU 4) (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;GDP 02-05) w. The Applicant will coordinate with the City's recycling representative to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. (MM-PSU 5) 7. The structures cannot be occupied, the final building permits cannot be approved, utilities cannot be released, the use cannot commence, and the Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following has been completed: a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. (FD) b. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. c. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Code. (FD) d. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. f. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. g. Secured entries shall utilize strobe-switch activated, automated gates and comply with City Specification#403-Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates. (FD) h. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and association (if any) hardware. (FD) i. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424-Portable Fire Extinguishers. (FD) j. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification#428-Premise Identification. Number sets may be required on front and rear of the structure. (FD) k. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415-Fire Lane Signs. Additionally,the site plan shall show all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the grading and improvement plans. (PW)(MC 17.05) m. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance with the City-approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) (ZSO 232.04D) (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) n. Applicant shall provide the City with CD media TIFF images (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only)copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy" prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) o. The applicant shall demonstrate that all measures required by these conditions to protect the adjacent wetlands have been implemented. 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW)(WE-1) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PM (MC 17.05) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, at minimum in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) (WE-1/MC 17.05) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible and maintained in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetland. (PW) (EC 1) e. All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Six foot high dust/wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the"Water Quality Management Plan" requirements. (PW) k. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. 1. Use low sulfur(0.5%) diesel fuel by weight in all diesel equipment. m. Shut off engines when not in use. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) n. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. o. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. p. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. q. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries, associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. Haul trucks shall comply with condition 8(b). (Code Requirement) r. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) s. To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: (MM-CON 13) 1) Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and 2) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. t. During construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. The construction site shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. (MM-CON 15) u. Construction activities, to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas and wetlands. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines and wetlands. (MM-CON 16) v. Prior to excavation of the contaminated and other areas for rough grading, the project site shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash, piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly (recycled if possible). (MM-CON 17) w. Proper excavation procedures shall be followed to comply with OSHKs Safety and Health Standards. If applicable, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. (MM-CON 18) x. The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. (MM-CON 19) y. If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures, the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) Departments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. (MM-CON 20) z. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible time,the contractor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works and Fire Department. (MM-CON 21) aa.All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off-site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. (MM-CON 22) bb. Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. (MM-CON 23) cc. The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size, wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (MM-CON 24) dd.Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), and shall meet City Specification 422—Oil Well Abandonment Permit Process. (MM-CON 25) ee. During remediation, if any soil is found to be hazardous due to contamination other than petroleum hydrocarbons, it will be segregated, stockpiled, and handled separately. (MM- CON 26) ff. Dust and volatile organic emissions from excavation activities shall be controlled through water spray or by employing other approved vapor suppressants including hydromulch spray in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)Waste Discharge Requirements and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permit conditions. (MM-CON 27) gg. Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials, the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. For all work done in the City of Costa Mesa, the project applicant shall receive approval from the Costa Mesa Public Services Department. (MM-CON 32) hh. Construction related activities will be subject to, and comply with, standard street use requirements imposed by the City of Huntington Beach, County and other public agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist with haul truck ingress and egress of construction areas and limiting the large size vehicles to off-peak commute traffic periods. For all work done in the City of Costa Mesa, the project applicant shall receive approval from the Costa Mesa Public Services Department. (MM-CON 33) (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) ii. During periods of heavy equipment access or truck hauling,the Contractor will provide construction traffic signage and a construction traffic flagman to control construction and general project traffic at points of ingress and egress and along roadways that require a lane closure. (MM-CON 35) jj. If grading operations uncover paleontological/archeological resources, the applicant shall suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/archeological resources. The archeologist/paleontologist pre-approved by the City shall report such findings to the Planning Department and the pre-approved Native American representative, if applicable. If the paleontological/archeological resources are found to be significant, the City shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant and in consultation with the Native American representative, if applicable, for exploration and salvage. kk. Excavation for the proposed project shall implement dewatering activities in compliance with NPDES regulations. Pumped groundwater shall be sampled, tested, and (if deemed necessary)treated prior to discharge. (MM-GEO 3) 9. Prior to the excavation process for pipeline construction, the contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. (MM-CON 28) 10. Methane migration features will be consistent with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Specification Number 429 and other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features shall be submitted for review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency(OCHCA), Environmental Health Division and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. (MM-CON 29) 11. Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas (LFG)generation and migration will be completed prior to issuance of grading permits. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems below trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. Approved periodic monitoring of the monitoring network will be performed. (MM-CON 30) 12.A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be located where construction would affect roadways. The TMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures: (MM-CON 31) a. Limit construction to one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible; b. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) c. Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/routes are disrupted by construction activities, if any, and prior to initiating construction, the public shall be notified as to which bicycle routes will be disrupted and when construction will commence; d. Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible public agencies in order to minimize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; e. Prior to any partial or full closure on a street within the city of Costa Mesa's limits, a detour plan shall be submitted to the city for approval by the City Transportation Services Manager. 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; f. The TMP shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. The applicant shall submit the TMP to Caltrans and the City of Costa Mesa at the 90-percent design phase; g. Construction activities shall be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and h. Provide for temporary parking, where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. 13. The Contractor shall obtain the necessary right-of-way encroachment permits and satisfy all permit requirements. Nighttime construction may be performed in congested areas. Also, any nighttime construction activities shall have prior approval by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. Any nighttime construction activities in the City of Costa Mesa shall receive approval from the Public Services Director. (MM-CON 34) 14. Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down (e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac- out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated. It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally, the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. (MM-CON 41) 15.The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be noted in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 16.The applicant and applicant's representatives shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) 17. The applicant shall completely remove the storage tanks from the site within 12 months from the date of approval of City building permits and agreements. 18. The applicant/property owner and each successor in interest to the property which is the subject of this project shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed and until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for Coastal Development Permit. Because the project is in the appealable area of the coastal zone, there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The City Council reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. Haul trucks shall comply with condition 8(b). 6. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2)days of the City Council's action. 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 9. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid at issuance of building permits. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) 10.All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the City Council_ 11. The development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 12.A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying any building. 13. The Water Ordinance#14.52, the"Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (PW) 14.All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) 15. Traffic impact fees for non-residential developments shall be paid at a rate of$140 per net new added daily trip at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This rate is subject to an annual adjustment. (PW)(MM-PSU 2) (MC 17.65) 16.An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) 17.The applicant is hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code 66020. 18.The applicant or its successor shall comply with all directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the adjacent wetlands, whether in the existing degraded conditions or as a restored wetland relative to the desalination plant. 19.The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In addition,the applicant shall supply Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD)and any other water agency with water of quality that does not cause the agency to violate the pertinent limits of the agency's reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed project is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to water agencies. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and its affected member agencies regarding the specific requirements of the quality of the desalinated water prior to beginning construction of the desalination plant. If agreement between the two parties is not reached by then, MWDOC has the right to reject the use of desalinated water. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04:CDP 02-05) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION March 1, 2006 Poseidon Resources Corporation Attn: Josie McKinley 3760 Kilroy Airport Way Long Beach CA 90806 Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02- 05 for Seawater Desalination Project(Poseidon); CEQA Statement of Findings of Facts with a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program—CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 9, 2006 Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Property Owner: AES Huntington Beach, LLC, 21730 Newland St., Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination project 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) Coastal Status: Appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone Date of Action: February 27, 2006 On February 27, 2006, after hearing a staff report presentation, conducting a public hearing, and discussion, the City of Huntington Beach City Council took action on your application and conditionally approved Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05, CEQA Statement of Findings of Facts with Statement of Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Attached to this letter are the findings and conditions of approval for this application. (Telephone:714-536-5227) Notice of Council Action CDP 02-05 March 1,2006 Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the City Council is final. Action by the City Council on a Coastal Development Permit for appealable development may be appealed directly to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Sections 13111 and 13573 of the California Code of Regulations. Appeal Procedure to the California Coastal Commission: An appeal of the City of Huntington Beach's action on Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 may be filed in writing with the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and in accordance with Title 14, Section 13110 through 13120 of the California Code of Regulations. Their address is: South Coast Area Office California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Attn: Theresa Henry (562) 590-5071 The appeal period begins when the Coastal Commission receives notice of this action and continues for ten (10) working days. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to whether or not an appeal has been filed. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval, unless actual construction has started. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536-5227. Sincerely, t ynn4 nt: Findings and Conditions of Approval—CUP No. 02-04/CDP 02-05 c: AES Huntington Beach, LLC Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination project producing 50 million gallons of potable water per day which includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank (30 foot high), other related accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks to be replaced with one 30 foot high water storage tank and lower profile and modern structures with a more attractive design consistent with the city's adopted Design Guidelines. The project will further enhance the appearance of the area with the installation of 10 to 20 feet of landscaping and an eight-foot high block wall along the Edison and Newland street frontages to provide additional screening and a consistent and upgraded appearance in contrast to the existing improvements. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as proposed and modified by the conditions imposed is compatible with the properties immediately surrounding it which are primarily industrial in nature. Additionally, significant setbacks including Newland Street to the west, Edison Avenue to the north, the flood control channel to the east, an existing concrete berm, 10 to 20 feet of landscaping and an eight foot high block wall along the project's Edison and Newland street frontages provide additional screening from surrounding uses. Impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are also addressed to make the project compatible. 3. The proposed seawater desalination project including a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of 48-inch water transmission lines will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project as proposed and modified by the conditions of approval is consistent with the PS-0-CZ (Public-Semipublic—Oil Production Overlay—Coastal Zone Overlay) zoning district, and meets or exceeds the minimum development standards set forth therein, and is allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit and coastal development permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(Public) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. LU 7.1.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;GDP 02-05) b. LU 12.1.5 - Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass; b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c. use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; d. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls; e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and f. mitigation of noise, odor, lighting, and other impacts. c. LU 13.1.8 - Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. d. UD 2.1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. e. CE 7 - Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. The project will be an improvement to.the area because it will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks. The new proposed structures are more compatible with the surroundings because they are lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. There are limited views across the Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS) site due to the height of the existing structures. However, vie ws will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination project structures hav p p p p � e a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. The project is required to provide a 10-foot landscape planter along the perimeter of the site to enhance the appearance of the area. These landscaping improvements are required to be consistent with the approved landscaping improvements for the rest of the HBGS property to the south for a cohesive appearance. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the development of the desalination project and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, as proposed and modified by conditions of approval, conforms to the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objective, and policies: a. C 1.1.1 -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. b. C 1.2.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development ment in accordance wit h the Coastal Element Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule Table C-1. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) c. 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. d. C 4.7 - Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. e. 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. f. 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. g. C 4.7.8- Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. h. C 4.7.9— Require the removal of non-productive oil production facilities and the restoration of the vacated site. i. 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. j. 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. k. C 6.1.19— 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. 1. 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. m. C 7.1.5—Notify State and Federal agencies having regulatory authority in wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitats when development projects in and adjacent to such areas are submitted to the City. The implementation of any Habitat Conservation Plan shall require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. incidental take of sensitive habitat and/or species that occurs in the context of development must be consistent with this LCP. n. C 10.1.4—Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new structures to withstand ground shaking and liquefaction such as those stated in the Uniform Building Code. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) The proposed desalination project is located within an unused fuel oil storage tank facility constructed in 1961 and formerly owned and operated by Southern California Edison. In addition to the proposed desalination facility site, the proposed project would also include several related off-site improvements, including tie-in pipelines between the existing HBGS condenser cooling water discharge system and the proposed desalination project, and up to approximately 4 miles of product water delivery. The intake/discharge pipelines would be located entirely within the existing HBGS site. The majority of the product water delivery pipeline would be located within existing public streets, easements, or other rights-of-way in urban areas. As such, the proposed new development is located within existing developed areas. The proposed use is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan designation of P (Public)for the site. The proposed use is compatible and consistent with the industrially designated properties immediately surrounding the subject site and meets the requirements of the Coastal Element of the Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule. The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing unused 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures. The proposed structures vary in height from a maximum of 30 feet for the water tank to a minimum of six feet high for the ammonia tank. The proposed desalination project will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the HBGS site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination project structures will have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. A 10 foot and 20 foot planter along the lease area street frontage on Edison and Newland respectively will further improve the appearance of the project with attractive landscaping. In addition, the proposed pipeline alignment is situated below ground and will not impact public views or require landscaping to minimize visual impacts. As conditioned the project is required to prepare a final landscaping plan along Edison Avenue for approval by the Design Review Board that is consistent in design, colors and materials with the landscaping for HBGS for a cohesive appearance. In addition, the conditions of approval for the project require a minimum of six percent landscaping over the entire 11-acre lease area, and that landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages include the densest type and number of trees to provide the most effective screening possible, which must be maintained to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. Landscaping within the eastern portion of the site will consist of native wetlands P9 compatibility planting for com atibilit with the wetlands to the southeast. In addition, the bottom portion of these structures will be hidden behind the existing berm along the perimeter. As noted above, 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, and the design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for the tanks to achieve a unified theme. Furthermore, the conditions of approval also require that utility meters be screened from public view, that electric transformers be enclosed in subsurface vaults, that backflow prevention devices be prohibited in the front yard setback and be screened from view. The conditions further require that all exterior mechanical equipment be screened from view on (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) all sides, and that rooftop mechanical equipment be setback from the exterior edges of buildings. The Recirculated Environmental Impact Report analyzed the potential impacts of the project on water quality generally, as well as both ocean water quality and product water quality. Based on the analysis contained in the Recirculated EIR, no mitigation measures are required to protect or enhance ocean water quality. However, the Recirculated EIR contains a number of mitigation measures designed to prevent the degradation of and enhance water quality in groundwater basins, wetlands, surface water and product water. These mitigation measures are contained in the Recirculated Environmental Impact Report for the project. The Recirculated Environmental Impact Report analyzed the potential impacts to marine organisms due to entrainment and concluded that no mitigation measures were required. The Recirculated EIR noted that entrainment is currently permitted for the once-through cooling water system of the HBGS, and that the proposed desalination facility does not directly take seawater from the ocean, and that withdrawal of feedwater for desalination is from the HBGS cooling-water discharge and not subject to intake regulation under the Federal Clean Water Act(316b). In addition, the proposed project will not alter in any way existing HBGS cooling water intake operations. For these reasons, no mitigation measures are required to reduce entrainment q edu e e rainment impacts to marine organisms. p 9 The desalination project is surrounded by other industrial properties, a 145-foot wide flood control channel, HBGS, and a wetland area to the southeast. The wetland area is separated from the project by an existing berm. The project has been designed to not create any impacts to the adjacent wetlands. Nonetheless, a number of mitigation measures will be required to ensure that impacts to the adjacent wetlands are minimized. State and Federal agencies with regulatory authority in wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitats have been consulted as part of the CEQA process for the project. These agencies include, among others, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and California Coastal Commission. The project as conditioned will require compliance with the standards set forth in the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code to assure safety of the occupants and seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. Lastly, the project is an ocean water desalination plant that will create an alternative source of potable water. When the project is completed, it will provide Orange County with 50 million gallons of potable water per day, accommodating the needs of Orange County regardless of weather or governmentally imposed conditions affecting water supply. By building the facility and locating it in Huntington Beach, the facility will demonstrate the opportunities offered by desalination, and will offer cities, counties, and the State of California a tangible example of how desalination can become more widely accepted throughout the state and the nation, and will encourage additional research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalination as an alternative source of potable water. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, O Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project meets or exceeds all minimum development standards including but not limited to setbacks, height, and parking. The project is conditioned to require compliance with all (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety Department codes and requirements. The project conforms to the City's Design Guidelines and incorporates variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The project provides buffering from sensitive uses such as residential developments through landscaping, a block wall, and increased setbacks. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the HBGS property to the south for a cohesive appearance. The project meets all the requirements of the O Overlay District. The project meets the minimum size requirements, and the project includes a reuse plan to remediate property that has been contaminated by previous oil-related use. The property is conditioned to operate in compliance with Title 15, Uniform Fire Code, and any other applicable Federal, State, County, or local rules and regulations, and must be approved by the Fire Department. Non- permitted equipment will not be allowed to be used on the project site, and all requirements for the use of an O overlay zone have been or will be met, including dedication requirements. The project meets all the applicable requirements for the CZ overlay district. The project preserves and improves existing visual resources and complies with maximum height limitations, off-street parking requirements, landscaping requirements, and other requirements. Due to the industrial nature of the project location, there is currently no public access at the site; therefore public access will not be affected by the project. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project is an infill development, which as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructure to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. This includes dedication and improvements to the project lease frontage along Edison Avenue to improve circulation in the area. The proposed project will comply with City of Huntington Beach Fire Department requirements, including the installation of fire sprinklers and fire hydrants, and impacts of the project on the Fire Department are not expected to be significant. There are no anticipated additional impacts of the project on Police protection. The project is expected to have little or no impact on libraries. The project backers will have some responsibility for roadway maintenance, and impacts on roadway maintenance caused by the project are expected to be less than significant. The project is anticipated to have a negligible impact on parks and recreation facilities within the City. Project impacts to existing wastewater facilities are expected to be minimal, and the project plans are anticipated to include a new sewer line or private sewer system to accommodate additional wastewater. A local stormwater drainage system would be implemented as part of the site facility, and stormwater would be treated on-site prior to off-site discharge. The project would require new facilities to support operational water uses, but these uses are not expected to create significant impacts. There are no significant impacts of the project on reclaimed water use. The project would not create any significant impacts on the disposition of solid waste. The project's power demand would be less than one percent of the demand within Orange County or Southern California, and are anticipated to be less than significant. No impacts on natural gas supply are anticipated in the implementation of the project. No significant impacts on telephone and cable service are anticipated by the project. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) 4. The development of the desalination project and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as they will not impede any public access to the coast and public recreation opportunities in the area. All public access to the coast and public recreation in the area will not be impeded during the long-term operation of the facility as well as during the construction process with the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The site does not currently provide public access or public recreation opportunities because of the industrial nature of the historic uses at the site. The proposed project is consistent with the Public and Semipublic utility uses for which the site is designated, and is not suited for public access or recreation purposes for a number of reasons, including concerns about public safety. The site is located landward of Pacific Coast Highway and would not provide a connection to the coast or public recreation opportunities, as it is virtually surrounded by other industrial uses. Nonetheless, because no public access or recreational opportunities currently exist on the site, the project will not impede existing public access to the coast or public recreation opportunities in the area. The project will not impact any existing public parking or beach access and will not discourage or impact any existing lower cost visitor and recreational facilities. The project site is currently not accessible to the beach, thus no access will be impacted. The proposed project will not impede any unique water-oriented activities, nor does it involve any oceanfront land suitable for recreational use. The project involves the use of private lands that are not suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities. Even if the lands were suitable for such visitor-serving uses, the project proposes a coastal- dependent industry use,which is not of a lower priority than visitor-serving uses. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. The site plan received and dated June 1, 2005,floor plans and elevations received and dated April 7, 2003, and March 21, 2005 and landscaping plan received and dated April 23, 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The landscape area on the east side of the project site (landscape area three)shall include the removal of all Myoporum, and shall be planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Southern California coastal community. b. The architectural treatment proposed on all the tanks shall be limited to the top portion that is visible above the surrounding concrete berm. (DRB) c. The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to approval by the Design Review Board per conditions set by the City Council. (DRB) d. Perimeter landscaping for this project along Newland St. and Edison Ave. is required to be installed only along the lease area frontage. The lease area shall have a minimum of six percent landscaping of the entire 11-acre lease area. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) e. The landscaping and wall plan shall be consistent in design, colors, and materials with the landscaping and wall plan for AES for a cohesive appearance. f. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) g. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) h. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) (MM ALG 1) i. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. j. If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" towards the sky and onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent wetlands, and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (MM-ALG 2) k. The landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages shall include the densest type and number of trees to provide the most effective screening possible and shall be maintained to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. h. For the demolition of the three (3) 200 foot diameter fuel oil tanks, a work plan must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of work. (FD) i. In order to minimize potential demolition and construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows and other threatened or endangered species adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-demolition nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows or other threatened or endangered species be found, adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.)will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-demolition survey. j. In order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation (such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.)will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. (MM-CON 41) 3. Prior to acceptance of grading plans for review: a. Twelve feet(12') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Edison Avenue frontage. (PW) (General Plan) b. A 31-foot radius of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue, per City Standard Plan No. 207. (General Plan) 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall submit written proof of final project approval by each applicable regulating agency including but not limited to the California Coastal Commission, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District and all applicable water agencies and cities. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) b. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls and walls)consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in the City of Huntington_ Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification#431-92. (FD) d. From the Division of Oil Gas& Geothermal Resources DOGGRprovide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells. (FD) e. From the DOGGR, provide proof of a Site Plan Review application. (FD) f. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification#422-Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) g. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit/site plan. This approved plan must be presented to obtain the required Huntington Beach Fire Department Fire Code Permit Application to conduct installation and/or removal operations. (FD) h. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number, plus identify and detail all methane safety measures per City Specification#429- Methane District Building Permit Requirements. These details shall be on a separate sheet titled "Methane Plan." (FD) i. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall enter into a Franchise agreement with the City for the generation and transport of product water from the site, and through and across the city's streets, rights-of-way or properties which shall incorporate the following: (PW)(MC 3.44) 1) Franchise payments would be made to City for use of the street rights-of-way of at least$100,000 per year adjusted annually based on adjustments in the Consumer Price Index. 2) The applicant will repave the street from curb to centerline along the pipeline route, including striping and marking and raised pavement markers (RPMs) and slurry seal the other side of the centerline or median (with the striping marking and RPM installation) including constructing ADA compliant ramps consistent with State standards in constructing ADA facilities on all four comers of any intersection crossed by the project pipeline. This would include all missing and non-standard ramps along the pipeline route adjacent to where paving or slurry sealing is to be performed. 3) Funds in an amount not to exceed $1.9 million would be provided to the City which may be used by the City in its sole discretion for improvements adjacent to the site or (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) along the route of the pipeline. If such payment is made through the OPA then this condition will be deemed satisfied. 4) The applicant will provide a performance surety bond and site restoration bond for pipeline construction. City will have the right to review the qualifications of the pipeline contractors prior to selection. Applicant will pay for a full time on-site city construction inspector for the duration of pipeline construction. Applicant will provide a site restoration bond to ensure completion of all project facilities and removal of those facilities in the event of any subsequent condition that prevents operation of the plant. j. A corrected lease line exhibit for area "1" and the 24-foot wide secondary access easement and an accurate metes and bounds description of the project limits shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. A metes and bounds description and separate exhibit of all access routes shall also be provided with the submittal. (PW) k. Irrevocable vehicular access rights shall be established and recorded across the AES and Edison properties. The access width and turning radius criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. (PW) The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (Code Requirement) 1. The applicant shall demonstrate utilizing a truck turning template overlay that a WB-50 vehicle can maneuver on-site through the designated access route. (PW) m. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05)The recommendations of the accepted geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities. The Grading Plan shall depict, but not be limited to the following items: (PW) 1) The parking layout shall be in conformance with the approved parking plan, and shall also conform to City Standards and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including Municipal Ordinance No. 10.40.050. No parking shall be permitted adjacent to emergency access areas in compliance with Fire Department Standard Specification Nos. 401 and 415. 2) Access for the handicapped shall be in conformance with Title 24. 3) Separate sewer lateral and sewer line to provide service to all onsite facilities. The plan shall provide horizontal location and vertical clearances and dimensional relationship with other utilities. 4) A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code(CPC). The water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) 5) Fire sprinklers shall have a separate dedicated fire service with an appropriate backflow device. 6) Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, fire services and irrigation water services. The final location for all public waterline facilities shall be as approved by the Water Division. 7) Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree. Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. 8) Final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be submitted for review and approval to the Public Works Department. The report shall also include calculation of first flush flows to substantiate the adequacy and effectiveness of all water quality mitigation and structural best management practices. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall events (storm frequencies up to a 100-year frequency). Mitigation will include adequate detention storage area onsite if the project pump systems fail to operate. The final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetlands. 9) Areas for containment shall be provided to mitigate possible spillage of any materials affecting storm water quality that may be stored on-site, and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. n. Storm Drain, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP)and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) conforming with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Catch basins shall be grated and not have side openings. (DAMP) (PW) 1) A SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of the development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all de-watering operation flows, and for nuisance flows during construction. (DAMP) 2) The applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. (DAMP) o. A Project WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval and shall include the following: (PW) 1) Discusses regional or watershed programs (if applicable) 2) Addresses Site Design BMPs (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or"zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) 3) Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP 4) Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP 5) Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs 6) Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 7) Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 8) Includes an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs 9) Upon approval of the WQMP, three signed copies and an electronic copy on CD (.pdf or .doc format) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. p. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (ZSO 230.84) The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PW) 1) Curb, gutter and A.C. paving to the new centerline of construction, plus an adequate feathered overlay section to provide a smooth pavement transition along the Edison Avenue lease frontage, within a 42-foot full-width street Right-of-Way per modified City Standard Plan Nos. 104 and 202 (including an 8-foot parking lane on the north side, 24-foot driving lane, a 6-foot parkway on the north and a 4-foot wide utility easement on the south). No parking shall be permitted on the south side of the street. 2) An ADA compliant access ramp at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan No. RSPA88A. The corner curb return radius shall be 35-feet per City Standard Plan No. 207. 3) A 25-foot sight triangle must be provided at the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue. (ZSO 230.88) 4) New Edison-owned street lighting shall be provided for the frontage of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and shall be consistent with City standards. 5) At the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and at the Newland Street driveway located approximately 460-feet south of Edison Avenue, comer sight distance as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual must be provided. 6) All utilities (proposed and existing) shall be shown for reference purposes and shall be consistent with utility infrastructure plans. q. Improvement Plans for all offsite water transmission lines within the limits of the City of Huntington Beach shall be designed and prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer showing a plan and profile of the improvements. Said plans shall be submitted on mylar sheets to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Trenchless construction methods will be utilized to cross roadways sensitive to traffic disruption and drainage channels as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. (PW) r. Conflicts between the routing for all offsite water transmission lines and other existing or proposed utilities, facilities or public infrastructure shall be identified and mitigated on the water line improvement plans. (PW) (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04,CDP 02-05) s. Signing and Striping plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for Newland Street and Edison Avenue. (PW) (ZSO 230.84) t. Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for offsite pipeline construction or any other work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) u. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site; details on how no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and details on how wind barriers around remediation equipment shall be provided. (PW) (MC 17.05.150/FD Spec. 431-92) v. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) w. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) x. 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. The applicant shall coordinate all construction traffic related activities with Costa Mesa's Public Services Department. The construction vehicle routing plan in the City of Costa Mesa shall be submitted for approval by the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Manager. (MM-CON 36)(PW) y. Should the project require off-site importlexport 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. (MM-CON 12) (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) z. In conjunction with the submittal of application for a precise grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. (MM-GEO 2) aa.As the South Branch Fault (situated beneath the subject site) is classified as "Category C" by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, special studies and subsurface investigation (including a site specific seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit, to the approval of the City Engineer. The subsurface investigation shall include CPT and exploratory borings to determine the fault rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. (MM-GEO 7) bb. Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, which ever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs)that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutant runoff and to protect the adjacent wetlands. This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP)Appendix which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, and shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: (MM-HWQ 1) 1) Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and 2) BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person. 3) All fertilizers and pesticides used by the plant shall not pose any harmful effects upon plants, animals, and marine life in the adjacent wetland or to any surrounding properties. cc. Appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding, and to ensure protection of the adjacent wetlands. (MM-HWQ 2) dd. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first, an appropriate on-site drainage system shall be installed for the project that integrates permanent stormwater quality features. (MM-HWQ 3) ee. 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 double walls, sound absorbing materials, acoustic barriers, sound control curtains, and sound baffles), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to insure that noise levels at the HBGS property line do not exceed the (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) City's Industrial noise standard of 70.0 dBA and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (MM-NO 1) ff. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. This plan will be submitted to the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. (MM-PSU 6) gg. Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: (MM-CON 1) 1) Where necessary, temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April W'. 2) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. moved r modified without the approval of the 3 . Erosion control devices shall not be o ed o e P) p Department of Public Works. 4) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. 5) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. 6) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. 7) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. 8 The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. 9) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed by the City of Huntington Beach Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. hh. Construction of the project shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: (MM-CON 2) 1) Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) wastes from any engine/ equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line rinsings. 2) During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. ii. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements, the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent (NO[)to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. (MM-CON 3) jj. The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge from a facility of air pollutants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public or that damage business or property. (MM-CON 9) kk. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular water or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as specified in the SCAQMD Rule 403. (MM-CON 10) 1) On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 25 miles per hour. 2) All material excavated or graded would be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering would occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferable in the late morning and after work is done for the day. 3) All material transported on-site or off-site would be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 4) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations would be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 5) These control techniques would be indicated in project specifications. Compliance with the measure would be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. 6) Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project would be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. 11. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall ensure evidence acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works that: (MM-CON 11) 1) All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; 2) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control); 3) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas and wetlands; and 4) Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) mm. Unless underground utility locations are well documented, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. (MM-CON 14) nn. An archaeologist and paleontologist shall be selected by the applicant and the City to be available for archaeological and paleontological findings during grading and construction. A qualified representative of the Native American community shall be consulted upon for appropriate Native American findings. 5. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered. The recommendations of this report shall be reproduced on the plans. (BD) c. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue per conditions set by the Planning Commission. (DRIB) e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) f. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). g. A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application for the proposed desalination plant. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, remedial work, overexcavation/ recompaction, dewatering, water quality, and chemical/fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential and groundwater constraints. Appropriate recommendations shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. (MM-GEO 1) h. A Water Purchase Agreement shall be executed between the applicant/operator of the seawater desalination project and the City of Huntington Beach and shall incorporate the following: (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) 1) The City will have the option to purchase up to 3,360 acre-feet per year(3 million gallons per day or 4.6 cubic feet per second) of water from the Project, on a firm basis, at price equal to 95% cost of water supplied by the Municipal Water District of Orange county (MWDOC) and any subsidy received by the Buyer from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California or any other third party for the purchase of water from the Project. The term of the water supply purchase shall be 30 years with two 30- year extensions at the discretion of the City. Should the plant be unable to deliver these supplies they would be subject to liquidated damages. 2) The City will have the first right to purchase up to 11,201 AF per emergency event (i.e. 13cfs or 8.4 mgd) of additional water from the Project in a declared water emergency at the same cost as above for up to seven consecutive days per event. 3) The City would be provided a 5 cfs (3.2 mgd) pipeline connection from the Project near the Newland/Edison intersection into city facilities in the area. i. An Owner Participation Agreement shall be executed between the applicant/operator of the seawater desalination project and the City of Huntington Beach and shall incorporate the following: 1) The project developer and any future property owner, public or private, would commit to pay property taxes or an equivalent property tax in-lieu fee to the Redevelopment Agency for a period of thirty (30) years from the issuance by the City of a certificate of occupancy for the desalination facility. The tax or in-lieu fee would be based on the assessed valuation or$186,500,000 (estimate construction cost)whichever is greater. 2) The applicant will provide $2,000,000 to the City which may be used at its sole discretion for such improvements as the City Council determines will improve the quality of life in the City of Huntington Beach. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed: a. A separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for the irrigation system. (PW) (ZSO 255.04E) b. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location,type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36-inch box trees or palm equivalent(13-14 feet of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8-9 feet of brown trunk) and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW)(Code Requirement) (ZSO 232.04B) c. A buffer shall be required between the wetland areas and the containment berm, designated as open space, and planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Southern California coastal community. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) d. The Consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW) (Resolution 4545) e. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. f. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification#426-Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) g. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification #409-Minimum Access for Fire Department Access. (FD) h. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. (FD) i. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) j. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow, tamper, and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) k. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are 6'8"wide by 4'3" deep with a 42-inch wide (min.) right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54-inch depth. (FD) I. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) m. For classification within the City's Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program, a complete chemical inventory and a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a fire protection engineer, environmental hygienist, or the equivalent shall be submitted to the Fire Department. Included, but not limited to, shall be the ammonia storage tank, the Lime (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) silos and the chemical treatment facilities. These tanks and associated equipment shall be designed and installed in conformance with 2001 edition of the CFC. (FD) n. As native on-site soils are compressible upon placement of structural loads, project implementation shall implement complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures. (MM-GEO 4) o. Type V cement shall be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measures (coatings, etc.)to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. (MM-GEO 5) p. Due to the potential for ground shaking in a seismic event, the project shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). However, given the proximity of the site to the Newport- Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust Faults, more stringent measures may be warranted. (MM-GEO 6) q. Due to the potential for liquefaction within the project vicinity, the Applicant shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition)for structures on-site to assure safety of the occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997) and "Recommended Procedures for implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California" (Dr. Geoffrey R. Martin et al, May 1999). (MM-GEO 8) r. The proposed project shall incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction. Typical methods include, but are not limited to: (MM-GEO 9) 1 Overexcavation and recomp action of soils; 2) in-situ soil densification (such as vibro-flotation or vibro-replacement); 3) injection grouting; and 4) deep soil mixing. s. The site specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed project shall analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. If deemed a possibility, adequate subsurface stabilization practices (similar to those utilized for liquefaction) shall be incorporated prior to the construction of on-site structures. (MM-GEO 10) t. All applicable school mitigation fees shall be paid pursuant to State law. (MM-PSU 1) u. The Applicant will be required to pay five percent of the OCSD connection fee to the City of Huntington Beach. (MM-PSU 3) v. The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate fees for water service connections, installation, and meters. In addition, the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. (MM-PSU 4) (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) w. The Applicant will coordinate with the City's recycling representative to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. (MM-PSU 5) 7. The structures cannot be occupied,the final building permits cannot be approved, utilities cannot be released, the use cannot commence, and the Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following has been completed: a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. (FD) b. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. c. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Code. (FD) d. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. f. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. g. Secured entries shall utilize strobe-switch activated, automated gates and comply with City Specification#403-Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates. (FD) h. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and association (if any) hardware. (FD) i. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424-Portable Fire Extinguishers. (FD) j. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification#428-Premise Identification. Number sets may be required on front and rear of the structure. (FD) k. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415-Fire Lane Signs. Additionally, the site plan shall show all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) I. Complete all improvements as shown on the grading and improvement plans. (PW) (MC 17.05) m. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance with the City-approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) (ZSO 232.04D) (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) n. Applicant shall provide the City with CD media TIFF images (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy" prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) o. The applicant shall demonstrate that all measures required by these conditions to protect the adjacent wetlands have been implemented. 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW) (WE-1) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) (MC 17.05) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, at minimum in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) (WE-1/MC 17.05) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible and maintained in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetland. (PW) (EC 1) e. All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) Comply with AQMD Rule 403 articular) to minimize fugitive dust and noise to 9 PY � p Y 9 surrounding areas. (PW) h. Six foot high dust/wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the "Water Quality Management Plan" requirements. (PW) k. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. 1. Use low sulfur(0.5%) diesel fuel by weight in all diesel equipment. m. Shut off engines when not in use. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) n. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. o. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. p. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. q. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries, associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. Haul trucks shall comply with condition 8(b). (Code Requirement) r. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) s. To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: (MM-CON 13) 1) Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and 2) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. t. During construction, a security fence, the height of which shall be determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. The construction site shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. (MM-CON 15) u. Construction activities, to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas and wetlands. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines and wetlands. (MM-CON 16) v. Prior to excavation of the contaminated and other areas for rough grading, the project site shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash, piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly (recycled if possible). (MM-CON 17) w. Proper excavation procedures shall be followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and Health Standards. If applicable, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. (MM-CON 18) x. The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. (MM-CON 19) y. If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures, the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) Departments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. (MM-CON 20) z. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible time, the contractor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works and Fire Department. (MM-CON 21) aa.All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off-site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. (MM-CON 22) bb. Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. (MM-CON 23) cc. The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size, wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (MM-CON 24) dd.Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), and shall meet City Specification 422—Oil Well Abandonment Permit Process. (MM-CON 25) ee. During remediation, if any soil is found to be hazardous due to contamination other than petroleum hydrocarbons, it will be segregated, stockpiled, and handled separately. (MM- CON 26) ff. Dust and volatile organic emissions from excavation activities shall be controlled through water spray or by employing other approved vapor suppressants including hydromulch spray in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)Waste Discharge Requirements and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permit conditions. (MM-CON 27) gg. Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials, the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. For all work done in the City of Costa Mesa, the project applicant shall receive approval from the Costa Mesa Public Services Department. (MM-CON 32) hh. Construction related activities will be subject to, and comply with, standard street use requirements imposed by the City of Huntington Beach, County and other public agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist with haul truck ingress and egress of construction areas and limiting the large size vehicles to off-peak commute traffic periods. For all work done in the City of Costa Mesa, the project applicant shall receive approval from the Costa Mesa Public Services Department. (MM-CON 33) (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) ii. During periods of heavy equipment access or truck hauling, the Contractor will provide construction traffic signage and a construction traffic flagman to control construction and general project traffic at points of ingress and egress and along roadways that require a lane closure. (MM-CON 35) jj. If grading operations uncover paleontological/archeological resources, the applicant shall suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/archeological resources. The archeologist/paleontologist pre-approved by the City shall report such findings to the Planning Department and the pre-approved Native American representative, if applicable. If the paleontological/archeological resources are found to be significant, the City shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant and in consultation with the Native American representative, if applicable, for exploration and salvage. kk. Excavation for the proposed project shall implement dewatering activities in compliance with NPDES regulations. s. Pumped groundwater shall be sam pled, tested, and (if deemed necessary) treated prior to discharge. (MM-GEO 3) 9. Prior to the excavation process for pipeline construction, the contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. (MM-CON 28) 10. Methane migration features will be consistent with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Specification Number 429 and other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features shall be submitted for review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), Environmental Health Division and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. (MM-CON 29) 11. Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas (LFG)generation and migration will be completed prior to issuance of grading permits. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems below trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. Approved periodic monitoring of the monitoring network will be performed. (MM-CON 30) 12.A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be located where construction would affect roadways. The TMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures: (MM-CON 31) a. Limit construction to one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible; b. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) c. Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/routes are disrupted by construction activities, if any, and prior to initiating construction, the public shall be notified as to which bicycle routes will be disrupted and when construction will commence; d. Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible public agencies in order to minimize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; e. Prior to any partial or full closure on a street within the city of Costa Mesa's limits, a detour plan shall be submitted to the city for approval by the City Transportation Services Manager. 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; f. The TMP shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. The applicant shall submit the TMP to Caltrans and the City of Costa Mesa at the 90-percent design phase; g. Construction activities shall be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and h. Provide for temporary parking, where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. 13. The Contractor shall obtain the necessary right-of-way encroachment permits and satisfy all permit requirements. Nighttime construction may be performed in congested areas. Also, any nighttime construction activities shall have prior approval by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. Any nighttime construction activities in the City of Costa Mesa shall receive approval from the Public Services Director. (MM-CON 34) 14. Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down (e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac- out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated. It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally, the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. (MM-CON 41) 15.The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be noted in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 16. The applicant and applicant's representatives shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) 17. The applicant shall completely remove the storage tanks from the site within 12 months from the date of approval of City building permits and agreements. 18. The applicant/property owner and each successor in interest to the property which is the subject of this project shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed and until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for Coastal Development Permit. Because the project is in the appealable area of the coastal zone, there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The City Council reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. Haul trucks shall comply with condition 8(b). 6. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the City Council's action. 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 9. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid at issuance of building permits. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) 1 10. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the City Council. 11. The development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 12.A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying any building. 13. The Water Ordinance#14.52, the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (PW) 14. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) 15. Traffic impact fees for non-residential developments shall be paid at a rate of$140 per net new added daily trip at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This rate is subject to an annual adjustment. (PW) (MM-PSU 2) (MC 17.65) 16.An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) 17. The applicant is hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code 66020. 18. The applicant or its successor shall comply with all directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the adjacent wetlands, whether in the existing degraded conditions or as a restored wetland relative to the desalination plant. 19. The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In addition, the applicant shall supply Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) and any other water agency with water of quality that does not cause the agency to violate the pertinent limits of the agency's reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed project is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to water agencies. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and its affected member agencies regarding the specific requirements of the quality of the desalinated water prior to beginning construction of the desalination plant. If agreement between the two parties is not reached by then, MWDOC has the right to reject the use of desalinated water. (NOA Poseidon CUP 02-04;CDP 02-05) FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination project producing 50 million gallons of potable water per day which includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank(30 foot high), other related accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks to be replaced with one 30 foot high water storage tank and lower profile and modern structures with a more attractive design consistent with the city's adopted Design Guidelines. The project will further enhance the appearance of the area with the installation of 10 to 20 feet of landscaping and an eight- foot high block wall along the Edison and Newland street frontages to provide additional screening and a consistent and upgraded appearance in contrast to the existing improvements. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as proposed and modified by the conditions imposed is compatible with the properties immediately surrounding it which are primarily industrial in nature. Additionally, significant setbacks including Newland Street to the west, Edison Avenue to the north, the flood control channel to the east,an existing concrete berm, 10 to 20 feet of landscaping and an eight foot high block wall along the project's Edison and Newland street frontages provide additional screening from surrounding uses. Impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are also addressed to make the project compatible. 3. The proposed seawater desalination project including a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of 48-inch water transmission lines will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project as proposed and modified by the conditions of approval is consistent with the PS-O-CZ (Public-Semipublic—Oil Production Overlay— Coastal Zone Overlay) zoning district, and meets or exceeds the minimum development standards set forth therein, and is allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit and coastal development permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(Public) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.1 a. LU 7.1.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. b. LU 12.1.5 - Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass;b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c.use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; d. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls; e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and£mitigation of noise, odor,lighting, and other impacts. c. LU 13.1.8 - Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. d. UD 2.1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. e. CE 7 -Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. The project will be an improvement to the area because it will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks. The new proposed structures are more compatible with the surroundings because they are lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. There are limited views across the Huntington Beach Generating Station(HBGS) site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination project structures have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. The project is required to provide a 10-foot landscape planter along the perimeter of the site to enhance the appearance of the area. These landscaping improvements are required to be consistent with the approved landscaping improvements for the rest of the HBGS property to the south for a cohesive appearance. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the development of the desalination project and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, as proposed and modified by conditions of approval, conforms to the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objective, and policies: a. C 1.1.1 - 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. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.2 b. 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. 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. d. C 4.7 Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. e. 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. f. 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. g. C 4.7.8 - Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. h. C 4.7.9—Require the removal of non-productive oil production facilities and the restoration of the vacated site. i. 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. j. 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. k. C 6.1.19—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. 1. 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. in. C 7.1.5 —Notify State and Federal agencies having regulatory authority in wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitats when development projects in and adjacent to such areas are submitted to the City. The implementation of any Habitat Conservation Plan shall require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. Incidental take of sensitive habitat and/or species that occurs in the context of development must be consistent with this LCP. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.3 n. C 10.1.4—Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new structures to withstand ground shaking and liquefaction such as those stated in the Uniform Building Code. The proposed desalination project is located within an unused fuel oil storage tank facility constructed in 1961 and formerly owned and operated by Southern California Edison. In addition to the proposed desalination facility site,the proposed project would also include several related off-site improvements, including tie-in pipelines between the existing HBGS condenser cooling water discharge system and the proposed desalination project, and up to approximately 4 miles of product water delivery. The intake/discharge pipelines would be located entirely within the existing HBGS site. The majority of the product water delivery pipeline would be located within existing public streets, easements, or other rights-of-way in urban areas. As such,the proposed new development is located within existing developed areas. The proposed use is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan designation of P (Public) for the site. The proposed use is compatible and consistent with the industrially designated properties immediately surrounding the subject site and meets the requirements of the Coastal Element of the Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule. The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing unused 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures. The proposed structures vary in height from a maximum of 30 feet for the water tank to a minimum of six feet high for the ammonia tank. The proposed desalination project will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the HBGS site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination project structures will have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. A 10 foot and 20 foot planter along the lease area street frontage on Edison and Newland respectively will further improve the appearance of the project with attractive landscaping. In addition, the proposed pipeline alignment is situated below ground and will not impact public views or require landscaping to minimize visual impacts. As conditioned,the project is required to prepare a final landscaping plan along Edison Avenue for approval by the Design Review Board that is consistent in design, colors and materials with the landscaping for HBGS for a cohesive appearance. In addition,the conditions of approval for the project require a minimum of six percent landscaping over the entire 11-acre lease area, and that landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages include the densest type and number of trees to provide the most effective screening possible, which must be maintained to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. Landscaping within the eastern portion of the site will consist of native wetlands planting for compatibility with the wetlands to the southeast. In addition, the bottom portion of these structures will be hidden behind the existing berm along the perimeter. As noted above,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, and the design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for the tanks to achieve a unified theme. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.4 Furthermore,the conditions of approval also require that utility meters be screened from public view, that electric transformers be enclosed in subsurface vaults, that backflow prevention devices be prohibited in the front yard setback and be screened from view. The conditions further require that all exterior mechanical equipment be screened from view on all sides, and that rooftop mechanical equipment be setback from the exterior edges of buildings. The Recirculated Environmental Impact Report analyzed the potential impacts of the project on water quality generally, as well as both ocean water quality and product water quality. Based on the analysis contained in the Recirculated EIR, no mitigation measures are required to protector enhance ocean water quality. However, the Recirculated EIR contains a number of mitigation measures designed to prevent the degradation of and enhance water quality in groundwater basins, wetlands, surface water and product water. These mitigation measures are contained in the Recirculated Environmental Impact Report for the project. The Recirculated Environmental Impact Report analyzed the potential impacts to marine organisms due to entrainment and concluded that no mitigation measures were required. The Recirculated EIR noted that entrainment is currently permitted for the once-through cooling water system of the HBGS, and that the proposed desalination facility does not directly take seawater from the ocean, and that withdrawal of feedwater for desalination is from the HBGS cooling-water discharge and not subject to intake regulation under the Federal Clean Water Act(316b). In addition,the proposed project will not alter in any way existing HBGS cooling water intake operations. For these reasons, no mitigation measures are required to reduce entrainment impacts to marine organisms. The desalination project is surrounded by other industrial properties, a 145-foot wide flood control channel, HBGS, and a wetland area to the southeast. The wetland area is separated from the project by an existing berm. The project has been designed to not create any impacts to the adjacent wetlands. Nonetheless, a number of mitigation measures will be required to ensure that impacts to the adjacent wetlands are minimized. State and Federal agencies with regulatory authority in wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitats have been consulted as part of the CEQA process for the project. These agencies include, among others,the US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and California Coastal Commission. The project as conditioned will require compliance with the standards set forth in the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code to assure safety of the occupants and seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. Lastly, the project is an ocean water desalination plant that will create an alternative source of potable water. When the project is completed, it will provide Orange County with 50 million gallons of potable water per day, accommodating the needs of Orange County regardless of weather or governmentally imposed conditions affecting water supply. By building the facility and locating it in Huntington Beach,the facility will demonstrate the opportunities offered by desalination, and will offer cities, counties, and the State of California a tangible example of how desalination can become (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.5 more widely accepted throughout the state and the nation, and will encourage additional research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalination as an alternative source of potable water. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, O Overlay District,the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project meets or exceeds all minimum development standards including but not limited to setbacks,height, and parking. The project is conditioned to require compliance with all Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety Department codes and requirements. The project conforms to the City's Design Guidelines and incorporates variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The project provides buffering from sensitive uses such as residential developments through landscaping, a block wall, and increased setbacks. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the HBGS property to the south for a cohesive appearance. The project meets all the requirements of the O Overlay District. The project meets the minimum size requirements, and the project includes a reuse plan to remediate property that has been contaminated by previous oil-related use. The property is conditioned to operate in compliance with Title 15, Uniform Fire Code, and any other applicable Federal, State, County, or local rules and regulations, and must be approved by the Fire Department. Non-permitted equipment will not be allowed to be used on the project site, and all requirements for the use of an O overlay zone have been or will be met, including dedication requirements. The project meets all the applicable requirements for the CZ overlay district. The project preserves and improves existing visual resources and complies with maximum height limitations, off-street parking requirements, landscaping requirements, and other requirements. Due to the industrial nature of the project location,there is currently no public access at the site; therefore public access will not be affected by the project. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project is an infill development, which as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructure to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. This includes dedication and improvements to the project lease frontage along Edison Avenue to improve circulation in the area. The proposed project will comply with City of Huntington Beach Fire Department requirements, including the installation of fire sprinklers and fire hydrants, and impacts of the project on the Fire Department are not expected to be significant. There are no anticipated additional impacts of the project on Police protection. The project is expected to have little or no impact on libraries. The project backers will have some responsibility for roadway maintenance, and impacts on roadway maintenance caused by the project are expected to be less than significant. The project is anticipated to have a negligible impact on parks and recreation facilities within the City. Project impacts to existing wastewater facilities are expected to be minimal, and the project plans are anticipated to include a new sewer line or private sewer system to accommodate additional wastewater. A local stormwater drainage system would be implemented as part of the site facility, and stormwater would (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.6 be treated on-site prior to off-site discharge. The project would require new facilities to support operational water uses, but these uses are not expected to create significant impacts. There are no significant impacts of the project on reclaimed water use. The project would not create any significant impacts on the disposition of solid waste. The project's power demand would be less than one percent of the demand within Orange County or Southern California, and are anticipated to be less than g tY p significant. No impacts on natural gas supply are anticipated in the implementation of the project. No significant impacts on telephone and cable service are anticipated by the project. 4. The development of the desalination project and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as they will not impede any public access to the coast and public recreation opportunities in the area. All public access to the coast and public recreation in the area will not be impeded during the long-term operation of the facility as well as during the construction process with the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The site does not currently provide public access or public recreation opportunities because of the industrial nature of the historic uses at the site. The proposed project is consistent with the Public and Semipublic utility uses for which the site is designated, and is not suited for public access or recreation purposes for a number of reasons including concerns about public safety. p� � g p tY The site is located landward of Pacific Coast Highway and would not provide a connection to the coast or public recreation opportunities, as it is virtually surrounded by other industrial uses. Nonetheless, because no public access or recreational opportunities currently exist on the site,the project will not impede existing public access to the coast or public recreation opportunities in the area. The project will not impact any existing public parking or beach access and will not discourage or impact any existing lower cost visitor and recreational facilities. The project site is currently not accessible to the beach,thus no access will be impacted. The proposed project will not impede any unique water-oriented activities, nor does it involve any oceanfront land suitable for recreational use. The project involves the use of private lands that are not suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities. Even if the lands were suitable for such � visitor-serving uses,the project proposes a coastal-dependent industry use, which is not of a lower priority than visitor-serving p ty uses. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. The site plan received and dated June 1,2005, floor plans and elevations received and dated April 2003 and March 21 2005 and landscaping plan received and dated April 23 2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The landscape area on the east side of the project site(landscape area three) shall include the removal of all M o h h h a yop rum, and all be planted with a palette of plants indigenous to e Southern California coastal community. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.7 b. The architectural treatment proposed on all the tanks shall be limited to the top portion that is visible above the surrounding concrete berm. (DRB) c. The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to approval by the Design Review Board per conditions set by the City Council. (DRB) d. Perimeter landscaping for this project along Newland St. and Edison Ave. is required to be installed only along the lease area frontage. The lease area shall have a minimum of six percent landscaping of the entire 11-acre lease area. e. The landscaping and wall plan shall be consistent in design, colors, and materials with the landscaping and wall plan for AES for a cohesive appearance. f. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) g. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) h. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) (MM-ALG 1) i. Depict the location of all gas meters,water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes(as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. j. If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage"towards the sky and onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent wetlands, and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (MM-ALG 2) k. The landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages shall include the densest type and number of trees to provide the most effective screening possible and shall be maintained to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.8 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits,the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures,use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. £ A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. h. For the demolition of the three (3) 200 foot diameter fuel oil tanks, a work plan must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of work. (FD) i. In order to minimize potential demolition and construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows and other threatened or endangered species adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre- demolition nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows or other threatened or endangered species be found, adequate mitigation(such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.)will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre- demolition survey. j. In order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation(such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. (MM- CON 41) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.9 3. Prior to acceptance of grading plans for review: a. Twelve feet (12') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Edison Avenue frontage. (PW) (General Plan) b. A 31-foot radius of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue,per City Standard Plan No. 207. (General Plan) 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall submit written proof of final project approval by each applicable regulating agency including but not limited to the California Coastal Commission, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District and all applicable water agencies and cities. b. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls and walls) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department.artment. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan(RAP) based on requirements found in the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification#431-92. (FD) d. From the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR),provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells. (FD) e. From the DOGGR, provide proof of a Site Plan Review application. (FD) f. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification#422-Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) g. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit/site plan. This approved plan must be presented to obtain the required Huntington Beach Fire Department Fire Code Permit Application to conduct installation and/or removal operations. (FD) h. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number,plus identify and detail all methane safety measures per City Specification#429-Methane District Building Permit Requirements. These details shall be on a separate sheet titled"Methane Plan." (FD) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.10 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 which shall incorporate the following: (PW) (MC 3.44) 1) Franchise payments would be made to City for use of the street rights-of-way of at least $100,000 per year adjusted annually based on adjustments in the Consumer Price Index. 2) The applicant will repave the street from curb to centerline along the pipeline route, including striping and marking and raised pavement markers RPMs and slurry seal the other side of the P g g p ( ) �'Y centerline or median(with the striping marking and RPM installation) including constructing ADA compliant ramps consistent with State standards in constructing ADA facilities on all four corners of any intersection crossed by the project pipeline. This would include all missing and non-standard ramps along the pipeline route adjacent to where paving or slurry sealing is to be performed. 3) Funds in an amount not to exceed $1.9 million would be provided to the City which may be used by the City in its sole discretion for improvements adjacent to the site or along the route of the pipeline. If such payment is made through the OPA then this condition will be deemed satisfied. 4) The applicant will provide a performance surety bond and site restoration bond for pipeline construction. City will have the right to review the qualifications of the pipeline contractors prior to selection. Applicant will pay for a full time on-site city construction inspector for the duration of pipeline construction. Applicant will provide a site restoration bond to ensure completion of all project facilities and removal of those facilities in the event of any subsequent condition that prevents operation of the plant. q p p j. A corrected lease line exhibit for area"1" and the 24-foot wide secondary access easement and an accurate metes and bounds description of the project limits shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. A metes and bounds description and separate exhibit of all access routes shall also be provided with the submittal. (PW) k. Irrevocable vehicular access rights shall be established and recorded across the AES and Edison properties. The access width and turning radius criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. (PW) The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (Code Requirement) 1. The applicant shall demonstrate utilizing a truck turning template overlay that a WB-50 vehicle can maneuver on-site through the designated access route. (PW) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.11 in. A Grading Plan,prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05) The recommendations of the accepted geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities. The Grading Plan shall depict, but not be limited to the following items: (PW) 1) The parking layout shall be in conformance with the approved parking plan, and shall also conform to City Standards and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including Municipal Ordinance No. 10.40.050. No parking shall be permitted adjacent to emergency access areas in compliance with Fire Department Standard Specification Nos. 401 and 415. 2) Access for the handicapped shall be in conformance with Title 24. 3) Separate sewer lateral and sewer line to provide service to all onsite facilities. The plan shall provide horizontal location and vertical clearances and dimensional relationship with other utilities. 4) A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The water service shall be a minimum of 2-inches in size. 5) Fire sprinklers shall have a separate dedicated fire service with an appropriate backflow device. 6) Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed,per Water Division standards for domestic water service, fire services and irrigation water services. The final location for all public waterline facilities shall be as approved by the Water Division. 7) Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36"box tree. Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain(if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. 8) Final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be submitted for review and approval to the Public Works Department. The report shall also include calculation of first flush flows to substantiate the adequacy and effectiveness of all water quality mitigation and structural best management practices. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall events (storm frequencies up to a 100-year frequency). Mitigation will include adequate detention storage area onsite if the project pump systems fail to operate. The final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetlands. 9) Areas for containment shall be provided to mitigate possible spillage of any materials affecting storm water quality that may be stored on-site, and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. n. Storm Drain, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) conforming with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements,prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.12 Department of Public Works for review and approval. Catch basins shall be grated and not have side openings. (DAMP) (PW) 1) A SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of the development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all de-watering operation flows, and for nuisance flows during construction. (DAMP) 2) The applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification(WDID) Number. (DAMP) o. A Project WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval and shall include the following: (PW) 1) Discusses regional or watershed programs (if applicable) 2) Addresses Site Design BMPs (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas 3) Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP 4) Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP 5) Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs 6) Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 7) Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 8) Includes an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs 9) Upon approval of the WQMP, three signed copies and an electronic copy on CD (.pdf or .doc format) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. p. A Street Improvement Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (ZSO 230.84) The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PW) 1) Curb, gutter and A.C. paving to the new centerline of construction, plus an adequate feathered overlay section to provide a smooth pavement transition along the Edison Avenue lease (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.13 frontage, within a 42-foot full-width street Right-of-Way per modified City Standard Plan Nos. 104 and 202 (including an 8-foot parking lane on the north side, 24-foot driving lane, a 6-foot parkway on the north and a 4-foot wide utility easement on the south). No parking shall be permitted on the south side of the street. 2) An ADA compliant access ramp at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan No. RSPA88A. The corner curb return radius shall be 35-feet per City Standard Plan No. 207. 3) A 25-foot sight triangle must be provided at the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue. (ZSO 230.88) 4) New Edison-owned street lighting shall be provided for the frontage of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and shall be consistent with City standards. 5) At the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and at the Newland Street driveway located approximately 460-feet south of Edison Avenue, corner sight distance as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual must be provided. 6) All utilities (proposed and existing) shall be shown for reference purposes and shall be consistent with utility infrastructure plans. q. Improvement Plans for all offsite water transmission lines within the limits of the City of Huntington Beach shall be designed and prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer showing a plan and profile of the improvements. Said plans shall be submitted on mylar sheets to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Trenchless construction methods will be utilized to cross roadways sensitive to traffic disruption and drainage channels as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. (PW) r. Conflicts between the routing for all offsite water transmission lines and other existing or proposed utilities, facilities or public infrastructure shall be identified and mitigated on the water line improvement plans. (PW) s. Signing and Striping plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for Newland Street and Edison Avenue. (PW) (ZSO 230.84) t. Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for offsite pipeline construction or any other work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) u. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site; details on how no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and details on how wind barriers around remediation equipment shall be provided. (PW) (MC 17.05.150/FD Spec. 431-92) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.14 v. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities,truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) w. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) x. 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. The applicant shall coordinate all construction traffic related activities with Costa Mesa's Public Services Department. The construction vehicle routing plan in the City of Costa Mesa shall be submitted for approval by the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Manager. (MM-CON 36) (PW) y. 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. (MM-CON 12) z. In conjunction with the submittal of application for a precise grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. (MM-GEO 2) aa. As the South Branch Fault(situated beneath the subject site) is classified as "Category C"by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, special studies and subsurface investigation(including a site specific seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit,to the approval of the City Engineer. The subsurface investigation shall include CPT and exploratory borings to determine the fault rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. (MM-GEO 7) bb. Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, which ever comes first,the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.15 Plan(WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs)that will be used on- site to control predictable pollutant runoff and to protect the adjacent wetlands. This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum,the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP) Appendix which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project,the assignment of long- term maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, and shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: (MM-HWQ 1) 1) Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and 2) BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person. 3) All fertilizers and pesticides used by the plant shall not pose any harmful effects upon plants, animals, and marine life in the adjacent wetland or to any surrounding properties. cc. Appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding, and to ensure protection of the adjacent wetlands. (MM-HWQ 2) dd. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first, an appropriate on-site drainage system shall be installed for the project that integrates permanent stormwater quality features. MM-HWQ 3 ee. 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 double walls, sound absorbing materials, acoustic barriers, sound control curtains, and sound baffles), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to insure that noise levels at the HBGS property line do not exceed the City's Industrial noise standard of 70.0 dBA and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (MM-NO 1) f£ Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant will prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. This plan will be submitted to the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. (MM-PSU 6) gg. Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: (MM-CON 1) 1) Where necessary, temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15th (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.16 2) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. 3) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. 4) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. 5) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. 6) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. 7) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. 8) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. 9) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed by the City of Huntington Beach Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. hh. Construction of the project shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: (MM- CON 2) 1) Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/ equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line rinsings. 2) During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. ii. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements,the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent(NOI)to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. (MM-CON 3) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.17 J. The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge from a facility of air pollutants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public or that damage business or property. (MM-CON 9) kk. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular water or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as specified in the SCAQMD Rule 403. (MM-CON 10) 1) On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 25 miles per hour. 2) All material excavated or graded would be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering would occur at least twice daily with complete coverage,preferable in the late morning and after work is done for the day. 3) All material transported on-site or off-site would be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 4) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations would be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 5) These control techniques would be indicated in project specifications. Compliance with the measure would be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. 6) Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project would be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. 11. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits,the Applicant shall ensure evidence acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works that: (MM-CON 11) 1) All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; 2) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control); 3) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas and wetlands; and 4) Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. mm. Unless underground utility locations are well documented, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures,the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. (MM-CON 14) nn. An archaeologist and paleontologist shall be selected by the applicant and the City to be available for archaeological and paleontological findings during grading and construction. A qualified (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.18 representative of the Native American community shall be consulted upon for appropriate Native American findings. 5. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered. The recommendations of this report shall be reproduced on the plans. (BD) c. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue per conditions set by the Planning Commission. (DRB) e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) f. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). g. A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application for the proposed desalination plant. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering,water quality, and chemical/fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential and groundwater constraints. Appropriate recommendations shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. (MM-GEO 1) h. A Water Purchase Agreement shall be executed between the applicant/operator of the seawater desalination project and the City of Huntington Beach and shall incorporate the following: 1) The City will have the option to purchase up to 3,360 acre-feet per year(3 million gallons per day or 4.6 cubic feet per second) of water from the Project, on a firm basis, at price equal to 95% cost of water supplied by the Municipal Water District of Orange county(MWDOC) and any subsidy received by the Buyer from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California or any other third parry for the purchase of water from the Project. The term of the water supply purchase shall be 30 years with two 30-year extensions at the discretion of the City. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.19 Should the plant be unable to deliver these supplies they would be subject to liquidated damages. 2) The City will have the first right to purchase up to 11,201 AF per emergency event(i.e. 13cfs or 8.4 mgd) of additional water from the Project in a declared water emergency at the same cost as above for up to seven consecutive days per event. 3) The City would be provided a 5 cfs (3.2 mgd)pipeline connection from the Project near the Newland/Edison intersection into city facilities in the area. i. An Owner Participation Agreement shall be executed between the applicant/operator of the seawater desalination project and the City of Huntington Beach and shall incorporate the following: 1) The project developer and any future property owner,public or private,would commit to pay property taxes or an equivalent property tax in-lieu fee to the Redevelopment Agency for a period of thirty(30)years from the issuance by the City of a certificate of occupancy for the desalination facility. The tax or in-lieu fee would be based on the assessed valuation or $186,500,000 (estimate construction cost)whichever is greater. 2) The applicant will provide $2,000,000 to the City which may be used at its sole discretion for such improvements as the City Council determines will improve the quality of life in the City of Huntington Beach. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed: a. A separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for the irrigation system. (PW) (ZSO 255.04E) b. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1)with minimum 36-inch box trees or palm equivalent(13-14 feet of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8-9 feet of brown trunk) and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW) (Code Requirement) (ZSO 232.04B) c. A buffer shall be required between the wetland areas and the containment berm, designated as open space, and planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Southern California coastal community. d. The Consulting Arborist(approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.20 trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape.Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW ) (Resolution 4545) e. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. £ To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification#426-Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) g. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification#401-Minimum Access for Fire Department Access. (FD) h. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. (FD) i. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) j. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow,tamper, and trouble alarms,manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes,voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) k. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are 6'8"wide by 4'Y deep with a 42-inch wide (min.)right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54-inch depth. (FD) 1. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) in. For classification within the City's Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program, a complete chemical inventory and a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a fire protection engineer, environmental hygienist, or the equivalent shall be submitted to the Fire Department. Included, but not limited to, shall be the ammonia storage tank,the lime silos and the chemical treatment (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.21 facilities. These tanks and associated equipment shall be designed and installed in conformance with 2001 edition of the CFC. (FD) n. As native on-site soils are compressible upon placement of structural loads,project implementation shall implement complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures. (MM-GEO 4) o. Type V cement shall be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measures (coatings, etc.) to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. (MM-GEO 5) p. Due to the potential for ground shaking in a seismic event, the project shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition)to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). However, given the proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust Faults, more stringent measures may be warranted. (MM-GEO 6) q. Due to the potential for liquefaction within the project vicinity,the Applicant shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) for structures on-site to assure safety of the occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997) and"Recommended Procedures for implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California"(Dr. Geoffrey R. Martin et at, May 1999). (MM-GEO 8) r. The proposed project shall incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction. Typical methods include, but are not limited to: (MM-GEO 9) 1) Overexcavation and recompaction of soils; 2) in-situ soil densification(such as vibro-flotation or vibro-replacement); 3) injection grouting; and 4) deep soil mixing. s. The site specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed project shall analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. If deemed a possibility, adequate subsurface stabilization practices (similar to those utilized for liquefaction) shall be incorporated prior to the construction of on-site structures. (MM-GEO 10) t. All applicable school mitigation fees shall be paid pursuant to State law. (MM-PSU 1) u. The Applicant will be required to pay five percent of the OCSD connection fee to the City of Huntington Beach. (MM-PSU 3) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.22 v. The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate fees for water service connections, installation, and meters. In addition,the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. (MM- PSU 4) w. The Applicant will coordinate with the City's recycling representative to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. (MM-PSU 5) 7. The structures cannot be occupied,the final building permits cannot be approved,utilities cannot be released, the use cannot commence, and the Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following has been completed: a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. (FD) b. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. c. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Code. (FD) d. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. f. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. g. Secured entries shall utilize strobe-switch activated, automated gates and comply with City Specification#403-Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates. (FD) h. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and association(if any)hardware. (FD) i. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424-Portable Fire Extinguishers. (FD) J t3' p Address numbers shall be installed to complywith City Specification#428-Premise Identification. Number sets may be required on front and rear of the structure. (FD) k. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415-Fire Lane Signs. Additionally,the site plan shall show all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.23 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the grading and improvement plans. (PW) (MC 17.05) m. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance with the City-approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) (ZSO 232.04D) n. Applicant shall provide the City with CD media TIFF images (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped"Permanent File Copy"prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) o. The applicant shall demonstrate that all measures required by these conditions to protect the adjacent wetlands have been implemented. 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction,the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW) (WE-1) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) (MC 17.05) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, at minimum in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) (WE-1/MC 17.05) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible and maintained in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetland. (PW) (EC 1) e. All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Six foot high dust/wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the "Water Quality Management Plan"requirements. (PW) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.24 k. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. 1. Use low sulfur(0.5%) diesel fuel by weight in all diesel equipment. m. Shut off engines when not in use. n. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. o. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. p. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. q. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries, associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. Haul trucks shall comply with condition 8(b). (Code Requirement) r. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) s. To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: (MM-CON 13) 1) Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and 2) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. t. During construction, a security fence,the height of which shall be determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. The construction site shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. (MM-CON 15) u. Construction activities,to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas and wetlands. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines and wetlands. (MM-CON 16) v. Prior to excavation of the contaminated and other areas for rough grading,the project site shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash,piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly(recycled if possible). (MM-CON 17) w. Proper excavation procedures shall be followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and Health Standards. If applicable,the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) Rule 1166 (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.25 permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. (MM- CON 18) x. The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. (MM-CON 19) y. If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures,the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. (MM-CON 20) z. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible time,the contractor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works and Fire Department. (MM-CON 21) aa. All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off- site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. (MM-CON 22 ) bb. Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCA MD. p pY g Q (MM-CON 23) cc. The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size, wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (MM- CON 24) dd. Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), and shall meet City Specification 422—Oil Well Abandonment Permit Process. (MM-CON 25) ee. During remediation, if any soil is found to be hazardous due to contamination other than petroleum hydrocarbons, it will be segregated, stockpiled, and handled separately. (MM-CON 26) ff. Dust and volatile organic emissions from excavation activities shall be controlled through water spray or by employing other approved vapor suppressants including hydromulch spray in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirements and the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)permit conditions. (MM-CON 27) gg. Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials,the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, for review (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.26 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. For all work done in the City of Costa Mesa,the project applicant shall receive approval from the Costa Mesa Public Services Department. (MM-CON 32) hh. Construction related activities will be subject to, and comply with, standard street use requirements imposed by the City of Huntington Beach, County and other public agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist with haul truck ingress and egress of construction areas and limitingthe large size vehicles to off-peak commute traffic periods. For all work done in the City g P p of Costa Mesa,the project applicant shall receive approval from the Costa Mesa Public Services Department. (MM-CON 33) ii. During periods of heavy equipment access or truck hauling,the Contractor will provide construction traffic signage and a construction traffic flagman to control construction and general project traffic at points of ingress and egress and along roadways that require a lane closure. (MM- CON 35) J. If grading operations uncover paleontological/archeological resources, the applicant shall suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/archeological resources. The archeologist/paleontologist pre-approved by the City shall report such findings to the Planning Department and the pre- approved Native American representative, if applicable. If the paleontological/archeological resources are found to be significant,the City shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant and in consultation with the Native American representative, if applicable, for exploration and salvage. kk. Excavation for the proposed project shall implement dewatering activities in compliance with NPDES regulations. Pumped groundwater shall be sampled, tested, and (if deemed necessary) treated prior to discharge. MM-GEO 3 p g ( ) 9. Prior to the excavation process for pipeline construction,the contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. (MM-CON 28) 10. Methane migration features will be consistent with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Specification Number 429 and other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features shall be submitted for review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), Environmental Health Division and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. (MM- CON 29) 11. Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas (LFG) generation and migration will be completed prior to issuance of grading permits. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.27 passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems below trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. Approved periodic monitoring of the monitoring network will be performed. (MM-CON 30) 12. A Traffic Management Plan(TMP) shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be located where construction would affect roadways. The TMP shall include, but not be limited to,the following measures: (MM-CON 31) a. Limit construction to one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible; b. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; c. Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/routes are disrupted by construction activities, if any, and prior to initiating construction,the public shall be notified as to which bicycle routes will be disrupted and when construction will commence; d. Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible public agencies in order to minimize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; e. Prior to any partial or full closure on a street within the city of Costa Mesa's limits, a detour plan shall be submitted to the city for approval by the City Transportation Services Manager. 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; f The TMP shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. The applicant shall submit the TMP to Caltrans and the City of Costa Mesa at the 90-percent design phase; g. Construction activities shall be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and h. Provide for temporary parking,where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. 13. The Contractor shall obtain the necessary right-of-way encroachment permits and satisfy all permit requirements. Nighttime construction may be performed in congested areas. Also, any nighttime construction activities shall have prior approval by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. Any nighttime construction activities in the City of Costa Mesa shall receive approval from the Public Services Director. (MM-CON 34) 14. Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down(e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac-out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated.It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.28 given bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally, the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. (MM-CON 41) 15. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 16. The applicant and applicant's representatives shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 17. The applicant shall completely remove the storage tanks from the site within 12 months from the date of approval of City building permits and agreements. 18. The applicant/property owner and each successor in interest to the property which is the subject of this project shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside,void or annul any approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed and until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for Coastal Development Permit. Because the project is in the appealable area of the coastal zone,there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The City Council reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05,pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.29 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. Haul trucks shall comply with condition 8(b). 6. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be aid prior to the p g p p issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2)days of the City Council's action. 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 9. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid at issuance of building permits. 10. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the City Council. 11. The development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 12. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying any building. 13. The Water Ordinance#14.52,the"Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (PW) 14. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) 15. Traffic impact fees for non-residential developments shall be paid at a rate of$140 per net new added daily trip at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This rate is subject to an annual adjustment. (PW) (MM-PSU 2) (MC 17.65) 16. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) 17. The applicant is hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice,you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code 66020. I (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.30 18. The applicant or its successor shall comply with all directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the adjacent wetlands, whether in the existing degraded conditions or as a restored wetland relative to the desalination plant. 19. The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In addition,the applicant shall supply Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD) and any other water agency with water of quality that does not cause the agency to violate the pertinent limits of the agency's reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed project is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to water agencies. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and its affected member agencies regarding the specific requirements of the quality of the desalinated water prior to beginning construction of the desalination plant. If agreement between the two parties is not reached by then, MWDOC has the right to reject the use of desalinated water. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.31 February 27, 2006 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 2 The t C it a e Re , lopm Agency of-he City of Huno on r 0d avid regu cpvene es r tfae"purpose'cifconsiderrg thefolw�ng �Couaci « r elopm cy �daultems T e..Huntin�n Seacf Parking Author �� Civic lmpravem ration #1�' the F i ntin O BeacK 'ublic Fencing Arity are also agencies on rich Co uncil sew as ers: On 0 h Agent,these ncies Y. have items s duled When,ari nda s action by of th "':oAgen `„ ,z,it will show in parenthesis—iipt ding the hem,�.: �arnple (City Ce cii�Redevelopment agency). W BL1C'C ENTS This is the4 time of the meeting for the`Council to raceive comra nts from the )c regar �` s of interest o .n` enda ms OTHER than. ublic H " s. Generaity; Councils `, enter dialogue during this perad: Pursuant to the Brown (Open M_ eet ng)Act, the City Council may runt discuss ite . unless they e ., on ouen�, So if tau are along an item �t on the alere cari ass the f with yo :;at me ;� Ho r, 1f wish to t with �ay ous ple you` `N ., . secretary at 536= 3. Tha you forming the t�rhe to corns the counciladdre the uncil. Co tmemt strive „treat fibers of t1 public with act, and we={ what you o express concerns and ojiinions in a civil and reectFul rrrtnr Each spew";r is allowed inutes�d time may not be donat ) o oth Nd option can b �tin py,Counc!/ cy on#'bis date Mess the item is agrtdized. Comte th ,attael° pink fc n and Oe to th ergeant-A rms`(thy.Pc� Officer'lo. " ar the spews podium), Six speakers D ;PUBIL*`HE,_ NG Any,pp,p wishing to ak do an O =pubic wring is sted to cohtpfete the a ; pink form d give,it to fi Sergeant-at A,rchs locate",near the.s �� ker's Pst iium. D-1a. (City Council) Public Hearing —Approve Conditional Use Permit(CUP) No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit(CDP) 02-05 for Seawater Desalination Project (Poseidon); Approve CEQA Statement of Findings of Facts with a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and, Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program—CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 9, 2006 (420.40) Communication from the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works transmitting the following: Statement of Issue: On October 17, 2005 the City Council continued the subject request to the November 21, 2005 meeting to allow Poseidon Resources Corporation to further refine the terms of its proposed offering of benefits to the City. On November 21, 2005 the City Council continued the item to the January 9, 2006 meeting. On January 9, 2006 the City Council continued the item to the February 27, 2006 meeting to allow AES to sign the Owner Participation Agreement. Attachment No. 1 is a revised list of findings and conditions which February 27, 2006 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 3 incorporate detailed conditions regarding the Franchise Agreement, Water Purchase Agreement, and Owner Participation Agreement (see conditions 4i, 5h, and 5i). A separate staff report has been prepared regarding the Owner Participation Agreement referred to in condition 5i. Attachment Nos. 2 and 3 have been revised to reflect the continuance to the February 27, 2006 meeting. The overall project is described in greater detail in the September 6, 2005 staff report and the pipeline issues in the October 17, 2005 staff report. The following public notice was published in the Huntington Beach Independent Newspaper on Thursday, December 29, 2005: Applicant: Poseidon Resources Corporation Request: To construct a 50 million gallons per day seawater desalination project 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 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Seawater Desalination Project) is covered under Recirculated Environmental Impact Report No. 00-02 which was certified on September 6, 2005. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Seawater Desalination Project) 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Seawater Desalination Project) 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 Ocean gate, 10th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802-4302, phone number: (562) 590-5071. 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 January 5,2006. 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. February 27, 2006 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 4 • Staff report • City Council discussion • Open public hearing (D-1a. and D-1b.) ■ Following public input, close public hearing Recommended Action: — Motion to: 1. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 to permit the Seawater Desalination Project with staff recommended findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." 2. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings of Facts with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 2)." 3. "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment No. 3)." OR Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 to permit the Seawater Desalination Plant with Planning Commission straw vote findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 2 to the September 6, 2005 staff report)." 2. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with findings for denial. (Attachment No. 3 to the September 6, 2005 staff report)." 3. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 and direct staff accordingly." Mayor Sullivan announced the two Public Hearings would be held concurrently. PowerPoint reports presented by Associate Planner Ricky Ramos and Deputy City Administrator Paul Emery. Open Public Hearing, Applicant spoke, City Clerk announced Late Communications, Seventy-nine speakers. Extensive Council discussion, close Public Hearing. Recommended Action approved as amended on page D1a.9 item i and page D1a.11, third paragraph. 4-3 (Sullivan, Hardy, Cook— No) CP!' ' Council/Agency Meeting Held: 0006 FEB 16 P1 14: 55 Deferred/Continued to: i Cr_;.. : ; y 0;i �kAp r ved ❑ ConftonallyApproved e s ignat e Council Meeting Date: February 27, 2006 Department I umber: PL 06-05 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR A C TY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: PLOP CUL�H-G A T, CITY ADMINISTRATOR PREPARED BY: 06WARD ZELEFSKY, DIRECTOR PLANNING ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, PE, DI E' BLIC WOR S SUBJECT: APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 (SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: On October 17, 2005 the City Council continued the subject request to the November 21, 2005 meeting to allow Poseidon Resources Corporation to further refine the terms of its proposed offering of benefits to the City. On November 21, 2005 the City Council continued the item to the January 9, 2006 meeting. On January 9, 2006 the City Council continued the item to the February 27, 2006 meeting to allow AES to sign the Owner Participation Agreement. Attachment No. 1 is a revised list of findings and conditions which incorporate detailed conditions regarding the Franchise Agreement, Water Purchase Agreement, and Owner Participation Agreement (see conditions 4i, 5h, and 5i). A separate staff report has been prepared regarding the Owner Participation Agreement referred to in condition 5i. Attachment Nos. 2 and 3 have been revised to reflect the continuance to the February 27, 2006 meeting. The overall project is described in greater detail in the September 6, 2005 staff report and the pipeline issues in the October 17, 2005 staff report. Funding Source: Not applicable. r REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 27, 2006 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL 06-05 Recommended Action: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 to permit the Seawater Desalination Project with staff recommended findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." 2. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings of Facts with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 2)." 3. "Approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment No. 3)." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 to permit the Seawater Desalination Plant with Planning Commission straw vote findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 2 to the September 6, 2005 staff report)." 2. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 with findings for denial. (Attachment No. 3 to the September 6, 2005 staff report)" 3. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 and direct staff accordingly. LAND USE-RELATED BENEFITS TO THE CITY Since the September 6, 2005 City Council meeting, Poseidon Resources Corporation has refined its proposed offering of benefits to the City. The October 17, 2005 staff report discussed those benefits that are land-use related and this report provides an update to that discussion. In addition to the specifics of each benefit, of particular interest to the City is the guarantee of these benefits. Staff believes that a Franchise Agreement, Water Purchase Agreement, and an Owner Participation Agreement are necessary in this regard and has included these in the recommended conditions of approval (Nos. 4i, 5h, and 5i). The City would negotiate to refine and/or augment the benefits presented below in these agreements. Further, the agreements would have an assignability clause such that the terms would be applicable to a future buyer of the project. It should be noted that both the Franchise Agreement and Water Purchase Agreement executed between the City and Poseidon Resources Corporation would be subject to challenge if there were a public entity successor-in-interest to the entitlement. G:\RCAs\2006\PL06-05 Poseidon CUP CDP.doc -2- 21l3/2006 3:07 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 27, 2006 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL 06-05 The land use-related benefits that would be included in the agreements are presented below by type of agreement. In addition, intrinsic benefits not associated with an agreement for the project are listed. Benefits Addressed in a Water Purchase Agreement 1. Water Supply Purchase — City has option to purchase up to 3,360 Acre Feet (AF) per year [i.e. 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) or 3.2 million gallons per day (mgd)] of water from the Project on a firm basis, at a price equal to a 5% discount below the cost to purchase MWDOC's treated, uninterruptible potable water. (Note that without additional negotiations, this offer would provide only a nominal cost savings unless based on the MWD rate.) ■ 3,360 AF/year = approx. 20% of annual imported water purchases by City 2. Emergency Water Supply — City would have first right to purchase up to 11,201 AF per year (i.e.13 cfs or 8.4 mgd) of additional water from the Project in a declared water emergency, at the same cost as above, for up to seven consecutive days. Additional water would be available on an as-available basis. (Note that the definition of"emergency" would need to be clarified in further negotiations.) 3. Reduced size of reservoir booster pump station due to Project's high-pressure discharge to City system. The reduced size equates to $2,650,000 in avoided construction costs and an O&M savings of$56,000 annually. 4. Local Pipeline Interconnection - City would be provided a 5 cfs (3.2 mgd) pipeline connection from the Project delivery pipeline near the Newland/Edison intersection into city facilities in the area. ■ City could avoid certain MWD surcharges valued at up to $180,000/year, based on $55/acre-foot surcharges Benefits Addressed in a Franchise Agreement 1. Franchise payments for use of City's street rights-of-way for Project's delivery pipeline and connection to OC-44 ■ OC-44 interconnect fee of at least $1 million; An agreement with the Joint Powers Authority governing the pipeline will need to be executed as well. ■ Franchise payments to City of at least $100,000/year 2. Repaving of the street from curb to centerline along the pipeline route, including striping and marking. Slurry seal the remaining lanes on the other side of the centerline or median, including constructing ADA-compliant curb ramps consistent with State standards in constructing ADA facilities. This would include all missing G:\RCAs\2006\PL06-05 Poseidon CUP CDP.doc -3- 2/13/2006 3:07 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 27, 2006 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL 06-05 and non-standard ramps along the pipeline route adjacent to where paving or slurry sealing is to be performed. 3. Public right-of-way enhancements - Funds would be provided to the City in an amount not to exceed $1.9 million which may be used by the City in its sole discretion for improvements adjacent to the site or along the route of the pipeline. 4. Pipeline construction oversight— Poseidon's contractor will provide a performance, surety bond and site restoration bond; City will have the right to review the qualifications of the pipeline contractors prior to selection; Poseidon will pay for a full time on-site city construction inspector for pipeline construction. Intrinsic Benefits 1. Additional Ocean water quality testing required since water will be a source of the public drinking water supply. 2. Improved appearance and remediation of the immediate site by replacement of oil storage tanks and containment berms with an architecturally enhanced, lower profile, and landscaped facility. 3. Diversification of City's water supply portfolio on a regular and emergency basis. Environmental Status: Following approval of the conditional use permit and coastal development permit, the City Council must approve CEQA Statement of Findings of Facts with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 2), and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment No. 3). Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Findings and Conditions of Approval dated February 27, 2006 (Staff Recommendation) 2. CEQA Statement of Findings of Facts with Statement of Overriding Considerations— REIR No. 00-02 dated February 27, 2006 I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program — REIR No. 00-02 dated February 27, 2006 G:\RCAs\2006\PL06-05 Poseidon CUP CDP.doc -4- 2/13/2006 3:07 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 27, 2006 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL 06-05 4. October 17, 2005 Staff Report on Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (previously provided and not attached) 5. September 6, 2005 Staff Report on Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (previously provided and not attached) 6 Letters in Opposition and/or Support Received by the Planning Department after October 17, 2005 7. Powerpoint presentation G:\RCAs\2006\PL06-05 Poseidon CUP CDP.doc -5- 2/15/2006 3:22 PM f :y�*Ei ;�� �v1 'e-��'.�t� -a a�.� y�����X���'.L�v ��' - CX vs��� �tx;r+ � S� ��.. ., z 1��'�`"� y���m � �� �1 a k� 't � t '�s� �` -� `� � �r 3 �' � , r� � � i��'a a x�,�3�a,�v ^�zs r � z �a.s i1`�,� .,s t'��k kss '& `"s� {b, ���'"o � S �'+k,�' "�. �� '�"` � x� � �j^m, g«��r � � k � �. a �t �� �`�. '� � � � ��, �� '�.� � � .b m'� a �'�� � � '� �� - > of s � �v'a� 't 'k, ,�'�=.�� v�' �;� �1a� � �r t y�a�y'.�� ��t. �n��,�,,y����-�''�'� ; � ,�t *�'�,� ., �, t y� ���`��'�,€��'�a.zt�`':�.��� ����Yt�' 'i..,,�� '`'�` ,�h'. k .t �� § -��, �"4j y.a,#a4s 8-L���,���' xs�.sSd y'°h4��k �i � �'ta°4,^^r' �� n� f 4�g �.�.�5 x3 E '��'a �4 q S s� ,R �+ Zb � 5�x"n.�,x"s, s� t.�k.£,,. ��!a...;Y+,'�5 �','� t��+ e*Ys'r.., '.�.���.�svJ� ..'�',� g' ;�,.."�,��.€ ��',?�., ,bv�#:��:,.,�., a.E .aL�u, s.i. :.: ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Staff Recommendation February 27, 2006 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 for the establishment,maintenance and operation of a seawater desalination project producing 50 million gallons of potable water per day which includes a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank (30 foot high), other related accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of water transmission lines will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks to be replaced with one 30 foot high water storage tank and lower profile and modern structures with a more attractive design consistent with the city's adopted Design Guidelines. The project will further enhance the appearance of the area with the installation of 10 to 20 feet of landscaping and an eight- foot high block wall along the Edison and Newland street frontages to provide additional screening and a consistent and upgraded appearance in contrast to the existing improvements. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project as proposed and modified by the conditions imposed is compatible with the properties immediately surrounding it which are primarily industrial in nature. Additionally, significant setbacks including Newland Street to the west, Edison Avenue to the north, the flood control channel to the east, an existing concrete berm, 10 to 20 feet of landscaping and an eight foot high block wall along the project's Edison and Newland street frontages provide additional screening from surrounding uses. Impacts pertaining to noise, light/glare, odors, and use of chemicals are also addressed to make the project compatible. 3. The proposed seawater desalination project including a 10,120 square foot administration building, 38,090 square foot reverse osmosis building, 36,305 square foot product water storage tank, other miscellaneous accessory structures; perimeter landscaping and fencing along the project's frontage on Newland Street and Edison Avenue; and up to four miles of 48-inch water transmission lines will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The project as proposed and modified by the conditions of approval is consistent with the PS-O-CZ (Public-Semipublic—Oil Production Overlay— Coastal Zone Overlay) zoning district, and meets or exceeds the minimum development standards set forth therein, and is allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit and coastal development permit. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.1 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(Public) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. LU 7.1.1 -Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. b. LU 12.1.5 - Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adjacent uses, considering the: a. use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass;b. architectural design treatment of all building elevations; c. use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; d. enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls; e. location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods; and f. mitigation of noise, odor, lighting, and other impacts. c. LU 13.1.8 -Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and in frastructure improvements are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with existing buildings and pertinent design characteristics prescribed by this General Plan for the district or neighborhood in which they are located, and work with non-City public agencies to encourage compliance. d. UD 2.1: Minimize the visual impacts of new development on public views to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and wetlands. e. CE 7 - Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors. q Y g � The project will be an improvement to the area because it will result in the demolition of three 40-foot high fuel storage tanks. The new proposed structures are more compatible with the surroundings because they are lower in height and have a more attractive design consistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines. There are limited views across the Huntington Beach Generating Station(HBGS) site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination project structures have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. The project is required to provide a 10-foot landscape planter along the perimeter of the site to enhance the appearance of the area. These landscaping improvements are required to be consistent with the approved landscaping improvements for the rest of the HBGS property to the south for a cohesive appearance. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 for the development of the desalination project and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone, as proposed and modified by conditions of approval, conforms to the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program by implementation of the following Coastal Element goals, objective, and policies: (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.2 a. 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. b. 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. 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. d. C 4.7 - Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas within the Coastal Zone. e. 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. g. C 4.7.8 - Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil production facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way. h. C 4.7.9—Require the removal of non-productive oil production facilities and the restoration of the vacated site. i. C 6.1.1 —Require that new development include mitigation measures to prevent the degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. j. 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. k. C 6.1.19—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. 1. 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. in. C 7.1.5 —Notify State and Federal agencies having regulatory authority in wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitats when development projects in and adjacent to such areas are (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.3 submitted to the City. The implementation of any Habitat Conservation Plan shall require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. Incidental take of sensitive habitat and/or species that occurs in the context of development must be consistent with this LCP. n. C 10.1.4—Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new structures to withstand ground shaking and liquefaction such as those stated in the Uniform Building Code. The proposed desalination project is located within an unused fuel oil storage tank facility constructed in 1961 and formerly owned and operated by Southern California Edison. In addition to the proposed desalination facility site, the proposed project would also include several related off-site improvements, including tie-in pipelines between the existing HBGS condenser cooling water discharge system and the proposed desalination project, and up to approximately 4 miles of product water delivery. The intake/discharge pipelines would be located entirely within the existing HBGS site. The majority of the product water delivery pipeline would be located within existing public streets, easements, or other rights-of-way in urban areas. As such, the proposed new development is located within existing developed areas. The proposed use is consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use Plan designation of P (Public) for the site. The proposed use is compatible and consistent with the industrially designated properties immediately surrounding the subject site and meets the requirements of the Coastal Element of the Land Use Plan and the Development and Density Schedule. The project will improve the appearance of the area by demolishing three existing unused 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures. The proposed structures vary in height from a maximum of 30 feet for the water tank to a minimum of six feet high for the ammonia tank. The proposed desalination project will not impact public views to the coast. There are limited views across the HBGS site due to the height of the existing structures. However, views will be improved to the extent that the new proposed desalination project structures will have a lower profile than the existing fuel storage tanks proposed to be demolished. A 10 foot and 20 foot planter along the lease area street frontage on Edison and Newland respectively will further improve the appearance of the project with attractive landscaping. In addition, the proposed pipeline alignment is situated below ground and will not impact public views or require landscaping to minimize visual impacts. As conditioned, the project is required to prepare a final landscaping plan along Edison Avenue for approval by the Design Review Board that is consistent in design, colors and materials with the landscaping for HBGS for a cohesive appearance. In addition, the conditions of approval for the project require a minimum of six percent landscaping over the entire 11-acre lease area, and that landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages include the densest type and number of trees to provide the most effective screening possible, which must be maintained to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. Landscaping within the eastern portion of the site will consist of native wetlands planting for compatibility with the wetlands to the southeast. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.4 In addition, the bottom portion of these structures will be hidden behind the existing berm along the perimeter. As noted above, 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, and the design is carried through all the structures including the architectural screen for the tanks to achieve a unified theme. Furthermore,the conditions of approval also require that utility meters be screened from public view, that electric transformers be enclosed in subsurface vaults, that backflow prevention devices be prohibited in the front yard setback and be screened from view. The conditions further require that all exterior mechanical equipment be screened from view on all sides, and that rooftop mechanical equipment be setback from the exterior edges of buildings. The Recirculated Environmental Impact Report analyzed the potential impacts of the project on water quality generally, as well as both ocean water quality and product water quality. Based on the analysis contained in the Recirculated EIR,no mitigation measures are required to protect ocean water quality. However, the Recirculated EIR contains a number of mitigation measures designed to prevent the degradation of water quality in groundwater basins, wetlands, surface water and product water. These mitigation measures are contained in the Recirculated Environmental Impact Report for the project. The Recirculated Environmental Impact Report analyzed the potential impacts to marine organisms due to entrainment and concluded that no mitigation measures were required. The Recirculated EIR noted that entrainment is currently permitted for the once-through cooling water system of the HBGS, and that the proposed desalination facility does not directly take seawater from the ocean, and that withdrawal of feedwater for desalination is from the HBGS cooling-water discharge and not subject to intake regulation under the Federal Clean Water Act(316b). In addition, the proposed project will not alter in any way existing HBGS cooling water intake operations. For these reasons, no mitigation measures are required to reduce entrainment impacts to marine organisms. The desalination project is surrounded by other industrial properties, a 145-foot wide flood control channel, HBGS, and a wetland area to the southeast. The wetland area is separated from the project by an existing berm. The project has been designed to not create any impacts to the adjacent wetlands. Nonetheless, a number of mitigation measures will be required to ensure that impacts to the adjacent wetlands are minimized. State and Federal agencies with regulatory authority in wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitats have been consulted as part of the CEQA process for the project. These agencies include, among others, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and California Coastal Commission. The project as conditioned will require compliance with the standards set forth in the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code to assure safety of the occupants and seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. Lastly, the project is an ocean water desalination plant that will create an alternative source of potable water. When the project is completed, it will provide Orange County with 50 million gallons of (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.5 potable water per day, accommodating the needs of Orange County regardless of weather or governmentally imposed conditions affecting water supply. By building the facility and locating it in Huntington Beach,the facility will demonstrate the opportunities offered by desalination, and will offer cities, counties, and the State of California a tangible example of how desalination can become more widely accepted throughout the state and the nation, and will encourage additional research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalination as an alternative source of potable water. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, O Overlay District,the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project meets or exceeds all minimum development standards including but not limited to setbacks, height, and parking. The project is conditioned to require compliance with all Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety Department codes and requirements. The project conforms to the City's Design Guidelines and incorporates variations in form, building details, colors, and materials that create visual interest. The project provides buffering from sensitive uses such as residential developments through landscaping, a block wall, and increased setbacks. The perimeter wall is designed in a manner to create an attractive appearance and will be consistent with the wall design approved for the portion of the HBGS property to the south for a cohesive appearance. The project meets all the requirements of the O Overlay District. The project meets the minimum size requirements, and the project includes a reuse plan to remediate property that has been contaminated by previous oil-related use. The property is conditioned to operate in compliance with Title 15, Uniform Fire Code, and any other applicable Federal, State, County, or local rules and regulations, and must be approved by the Fire Department. Non-permitted equipment will not be allowed to be used on the project site, and all requirements for the use of an O overlay zone have been or will be met, including dedication requirements. The project meets all the applicable requirements for the CZ overlay district. The project preserves and improves existing visual resources and complies with maximum height limitations, off-street parking requirements, landscaping requirements, and other requirements. Due to the industrial nature of the project location, there is currently no public access at the site; therefore public access will not be affected by the project. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project is an infill development, which as conditioned and with the implementation of all mitigation measures will provide all necessary infrastructure to adequately service the site and not impact adjacent development. This includes dedication and improvements to the project lease frontage along Edison Avenue to improve circulation in the area. The proposed project will comply with City of Huntington Beach Fire Department requirements, including the installation of fire sprinklers and fire hydrants, and impacts of the project on the Fire Department are not expected to be significant. There are no anticipated additional impacts of the project on Police protection. The project is expected to have little or no impact on libraries. The project backers will have some responsibility for roadway maintenance, and impacts on roadway maintenance caused by the project are expected to be less than significant. The project is anticipated (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.6 to have a negligible impact on parks and recreation facilities within the City. Project impacts to existing wastewater facilities are expected to be minimal, and the project plans are anticipated to include a new sewer line or private sewer system to accommodate additional wastewater. A local stormwater drainage system would be implemented as part of the site facility, and stormwater would be treated on-site prior to off-site discharge. The project would require new facilities to support operational water uses, but these uses are not expected to create significant impacts. There are no significant impacts of the project on reclaimed water use. The project would not create any significant impacts on the disposition of solid waste. The project's power demand would be less than one percent of the demand within Orange County or Southern California, and are anticipated to be less than significant. No impacts on natural gas supply are anticipated in the implementation of the project. No significant impacts on telephone and cable service are anticipated by the project. 4. The development of the desalination project and approximately one mile of water transmission lines within the Coastal Zone conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as they will not impede any public access to the coast and public recreation opportunities in the area. All public access to the coast and public recreation in the area will not be impeded during the long-term operation of the facility as well as during the construction process with the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The site does not currently provide public access or public recreation opportunities because of the industrial nature of the historic uses at the site. The proposed project is consistent with the Public and Semipublic utility uses for which the site is designated, and is not suited for public access or recreation purposes for a number of reasons, including concerns about public safety. The site is located landward of Pacific Coast Highway and would not provide a connection to the coast or public recreation opportunities, as it is virtually surrounded by other industrial uses. Nonetheless, because no public access or recreational opportunities currently exist on the site, the project will not impede existing public access to the coast or public recreation opportunities in the area. The project will not impact any existing public parking or beach access and will not discourage or impact any existing lower cost visitor and recreational facilities. The project site is currently not accessible to the beach, thus no access will be impacted. The proposed project will not impede any unique water-oriented activities, nor does it involve any oceanfront land suitable for recreational use. The project involves the use of private lands that are not suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities. Even if the lands were suitable for such visitor-serving uses, the project proposes a coastal-dependent industry use, which is not of a lower priority than visitor-serving uses. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-04/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-05: 1. The site plan received and dated June 1,2005, floor plans and elevations received and dated April 7,2003, and March 21, 2005 and landscaping plan received and dated April 23,2003 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.7 a. The landscape area on the east side of the project site (landscape area three) shall include the removal of all Myoporum, and shall be planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Southern California coastal community. b. The architectural treatment proposed on all the tanks shall be limited to the top portion that is visible above the surrounding concrete berm. (DRB) c. The final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue shall be subject to approval by the Design Review Board per conditions set by the City Council. (DRB) d. Perimeter landscaping for this project along Newland St. and Edison Ave.is required to be installed only along the lease area frontage. The lease area shall have a minimum of six percent landscaping of the entire 11-acre lease area. e. The landscaping and wall plan shall be consistent in design, colors, and materials with the landscaping and wall plan for AES for a cohesive appearance. f. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) g. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) h. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) (MM-ALG 1) i. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. j. If outdoor lighting is included, light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage"towards the sky and onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent wetlands, and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. (MM-ALG 2) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.8 k. The landscaping along the Newland and Edison lease area street frontages shall include the densest type and number of trees to provide the most effective screening possible and shall be maintained to the approval of the City Landscape Architect. 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits,the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. e. All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. f. A truck hauling and routing plan for all trucks involved in asbestos removal and demolition of the existing structures shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Director of Public Works. g. The applicant shall disclose the method of demolition on the demolition permit application for review and approval by the Building and Safety Director. h. For the demolition of the three (3) 200 foot diameter fuel oil tanks, a work plan must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to commencement of work. (FD) i. In order to minimize potential demolition and construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows and other threatened or endangered species adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre- demolition nesting survey will be performed by a qualified biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows or other threatened or endangered species be found, adequate mitigation(such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.)will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre- demolition survey. j. In order to minimize potential construction impacts to nesting savannah sparrows adjacent to the proposed desalination facility, a pre-construction nesting survey will be performed by a qualified (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.9 biologist in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies. Should nesting savannah sparrows be found, adequate mitigation(such as relocation, construction noise abatement measures, etc.) will be implemented as appropriate based on the findings of the pre-construction survey. (MM- CON 41) 3. Prior to acceptance of grading plans for review: a. Twelve feet(12') of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee along the lease area limits of the Edison Avenue frontage. (PW) (General Plan) b. A 31-foot radius of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in fee at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue, per City Standard Plan No. 207. (General Plan) 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall submit written proof of final project approval by each applicable regulating agency including but not limited to the California Coastal Commission, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District and all applicable water agencies and cities. b. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls and walls) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. Provide a Fire Department approved Remedial Action Plan(RAP)based on requirements found in the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification#431-92. (FD) d. From the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR),provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all onsite active/abandoned oil wells. (FD) e. From the DOGGR,provide proof of a Site Plan Review application. (FD) f. Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification#422-Oil Well Abandonment Process. (FD) g. Installation and/or removal of underground flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks (UST) require the applicant to first obtain an approved Orange County Environmental Health Care UST permit/site plan. This approved plan must be presented to obtain the required Huntington Beach Fire Department Fire Code Permit Application to conduct installation and/or removal operations. (FD) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.10 h. For Fire Department approval, applicant must submit a site plan showing all onsite abandoned oil wells accurately located and identified by well name and API number, plus identify and detail all methane safety measures per City Specification#429-Methane District Building Permit Requirements. These details shall be on a separate sheet titled"Methane Plan." (FD) i. Prior to issuance of any permit,the applicant shall enter into a Franchise agreement with the City for the generation and transport of product water from the site, and through and across the city's streets, rights-of-way or properties which shall incorporate the following: (PW) (MC 3.44) 1) Franchise payments would be made to City for use of the street rights-of-way of at least $100,000 per year adjusted annually based on adjustments in the Consumer Price Index. 2) The applicant will repave the street from curb to centerline along the pipeline route, including striping and marking and raised pavement markers (RPMs) and slurry seal the other side of the centerline or median(with the striping marking and RPM installation) including constructing ADA compliant ramps consistent with State standards in constructing ADA facilities on all four corners of any intersection crossed by the project pipeline. This would include all missing and non-standard ramps along the pipeline route adjacent to where paving or slurry sealing is to be performed. 3) Funds in an amount not to exceed $1.9 million would be provided to the City which may be used by the City in its sole discretion for improvements adjacent to the site or along the route of the pipeline. If such payment is made through the OPA then this condition will be deemed satisfied. 4) The applicant will provide a performance surety bond and site restoration bond for pipeline construction. City will have the right to review the qualifications of the pipeline contractors prior to selection. Applicant will pay for a full time on-site city construction inspector for the duration of pipeline construction. Applicant will provide a site restoration bond to ensure completion of all project facilities and removal of those facilities in the event of any subsequent condition that prevents operation of the plant. j. A corrected lease line exhibit for area"1" and the 24-foot wide secondary access easement and an accurate metes and bounds description of the project limits shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. A metes and bounds description and separate exhibit of all access routes shall also be provided with the submittal. (PW) k. Irrevocable vehicular access rights shall be established and recorded across the AES and Edison properties. The access width and turning radius criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. (PW) The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance. The document shall be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder prior to final building permit approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file prior to final building permit approval. The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity, except as modified (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.11 or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (Code Requirement) 1. The applicant shall demonstrate utilizing a truck turning template overlay that a WB-50 vehicle can maneuver on-site through the designated access route. (PW) in. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05) The recommendations of the accepted geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities. The Grading Plan shall depict, but not be limited to the following items: (PW) 1) The parking layout shall be in conformance with the approved parking plan, and shall also conform to City Standards and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including Municipal Ordinance No. 10.40.050. No parking shall be permitted adjacent to emergency access areas in compliance with Fire Department Standard Specification Nos. 401 and 415. 2) Access for the handicapped shall be in conformance with Title 24. 3) Separate sewer lateral and sewer line to provide service to all onsite facilities. The plan shall provide horizontal location and vertical clearances and dimensional relationship with other utilities. 4) A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC). The water service shall be a.minimum of 2-inches in size. 5) Fire sprinklers shall have a separate dedicated fire service with an appropriate backflow device. 6) Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service, fire services and irrigation water services. The final location for all public waterline facilities shall be as approved by the Water Division. 7) Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36"box tree. Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain(if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. 8) Final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be submitted for review and approval to the Public Works Department. The report shall also include calculation of first flush flows to substantiate the adequacy and effectiveness of all water quality mitigation and structural best management practices. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall events (storm frequencies up to a 100-year frequency). Mitigation will include adequate detention storage area onsite if the project pump systems fail to operate. The final site design storm hydrology and hydraulics shall be in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetlands. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.12 9) Areas for containment shall be provided to mitigate possible spillage of any materials affecting storm water quality that maybe stored on-site, and to protect the adjacent wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. n. Storm Drain, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans(SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) conforming with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Catch basins shall be grated and not have side openings. (DAMP) (PW) 1) A SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of the development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all de-watering operation flows, and for nuisance flows during construction. (DAMP) 2) The applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent(NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification(WDID) Number. (DAMP) o. A Project WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval and shall include the following: (PW) 1) Discusses regional or watershed programs (if applicable) 2) Addresses Site Design BMPs (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas 3) Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP 4) Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP 5) Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs 6) Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 7) Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs 8) Includes an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs 9) Upon approval of the WQMP, three signed copies and an electronic copy on CD (.pdf or .doc format) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.13 p. A Street Improvement Plan,prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (ZSO 230.84) The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: (PW) 1) Curb, gutter and A.C. paving to the new centerline of construction, plus an adequate feathered overlay section to provide a smooth pavement transition along the Edison Avenue lease frontage, within a 42-foot full-width street Right-of-Way per modified City Standard Plan Nos. 104 and 202 (including an 8-foot parking lane on the north side, 24-foot driving lane, a 6-foot parkway on the north and a 4-foot wide utility easement on the south). No parking shall be permitted on the south side of the street. 2) An ADA compliant access ramp at the southeast corner of Newland Street and Edison Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan No. RSPA88A. The corner curb return radius shall be 35-feet per City Standard Plan No. 207. 3) A 25-foot sight triangle must be provided at the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue. (ZSO 230.88) 4) New Edison-owned street lighting shall be provided for the frontage of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and shall be consistent with City standards. 5) At the intersection of Newland Street and Edison Avenue and at the Newland Street driveway located approximately 460-feet south of Edison Avenue, corner sight distance as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual must be provided. 6) All utilities (proposed and existing) shall be shown for reference purposes and shall be consistent with utility infrastructure plans. q. Improvement Plans for all offsite water transmission lines within the limits of the City of Huntington Beach shall be designed and prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer showing a plan and profile of the improvements. Said plans shall be submitted on mylar sheets to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Trenchless construction methods will be utilized to cross roadways sensitive to traffic disruption and drainage channels as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department. (PW) r. Conflicts between the routing for all offsite water transmission lines and other existing or proposed utilities, facilities or public infrastructure shall be identified and mitigated on the water line improvement plans. (PW) s. Signing and Striping plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for Newland Street and Edison Avenue. (PW) (ZSO 230.84) t. Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for offsite pipeline construction or any other work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) u. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.14 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site; details on how no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and details on how wind barriers around remediation equipment shall be provided. (PW) (MC 17.05.150/FD Spec. 431-92) v. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) w. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) x. 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. The applicant shall coordinate all construction traffic related activities with Costa Mesa's Public Services Department. The construction vehicle routing plan in the City of Costa Mesa shall be submitted for approval by the City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Manager. (MM-CON 36) (PW) y. Should the project require off-site import/export of fill material during demolition, remediation, and construction,trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably Newland Street to Pacific Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard to I-405. Construction trucks shall be prohibited from operating on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays. (MM-CON 12) z. In conjunction with the submittal of application for a precise grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations have been incorporated into the grading plan unless otherwise specified in the final geotechnical report and/or by the City Engineer. (MM-GEO 2) aa. As the South Branch Fault(situated beneath the subject site) is classified as "Category C" by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, special studies and subsurface investigation (including a site specific seismic analysis) shall be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit, to the (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.15 approval of the City Engineer. The subsurface investigation shall include CPT and exploratory borings to determine the fault rupture potential of the South Branch Fault which underlies the subject site. (MM-GEO 7) bb. Prior to issuance of precise grading or building permits, which ever comes first, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City of Huntington Beach of a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs)that will be used on- site to control predictable pollutant runoff and to protect the adjacent wetlands. This WQMP shall identify, at a minimum, the routine, structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP)Appendix which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long- term maintenance responsibilities to the applicant, and shall reference the location(s) of structural BMPs. The applicable BMPs include: (MM-HWQ 1) 1) Plant materials that require fertilization and pest control shall be maintained in accordance with Orange County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides; and 2) BMP structures and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained on a scheduled basis by a Facility Operator appointed person. 3) All fertilizers and pesticides used by the plant shall not pose any harmful effects upon plants, animals, and marine life in the adjacent wetland or to any surrounding properties. cc. Appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding, and to ensure protection of the adjacent wetlands. (MM-HWQ 2) dd. Prior to the issuance of gradingor building permits, which ever comes first, an appropriate on-site g p drainage system shall be installed for the project that integrates permanent stormwater quality features. (MM-HWQ 3) ee. 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 double walls, sound absorbing materials, acoustic barriers, sound control curtains, and sound baffles), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to insure that noise levels at the HBGS property line do not exceed the City's Industrial noise standard of 70.0 dBA and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. (MM-NO 1) ff. Prior to the issuance of a grading h Applicant will n plan g d g permit,the App cat prepare a waste reduction p a for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. This plan will be submitted to the recycling coordinator from the City of Huntington Beach who will ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed. (MM-PSU 6) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.16 gg. Concurrent with the submittal of the Grading Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works which will include the following measures: (MM-CON 1) 1) Where necessary, temporary and/or permanent erosion control devices, as approved by the Department of Public Works, shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety during the rainy season from October 15th to April 15" 2) Equipment and workers for emergency work shall be made available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary materials shall be available on-site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate the rapid construction of temporary devices when rain is imminent. 3) Erosion control devices shall not be moved or modified without the approval of the Department of Public Works. 4) All removable erosion protective devices shall be in place at the end of each working day when the 5-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40%. 5) After a rainstorm, all silt and debris shall be removed from streets, check berms and basins. 6) Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain away from the face of the slopes at the conclusion of each working day. Drainage is to be directed toward desilting facilities. 7) The permittee and contractor shall be responsible and shall take necessary precautions to prevent public trespass onto areas where impounded water creates a hazardous condition. 8) The permittee and contractor shall inspect the erosion control work and ensure that the work is in accordance with the approved plans. 9) Water shall be applied to the site twice daily during grading operations or as otherwise directed by the City of Huntington Beach Inspector in compliance with South Coast AQMD rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). A grading operations plan may be required including watering procedures to minimize dust, and equipment procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from grading equipment. hh. Construction of the project shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) as stated in the Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP) by the Orange County Stormwater Management Program. BMPs applicable to the project include the following: (MM- CON 2) 1) Potential pollutants include but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flakes, or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator, or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water; concrete, detergent, or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine/equipment steam cleanings or chemical degreasing; and superchlorinated potable water line rinsings. 2) During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential stormwater run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.17 ii. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements,the Applicant shall prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI)to be submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)will be required for construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. (MM-CON 3) jj. The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge from a facility of air pollutants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public or that damage business or property. (MM-CON 9) kk. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular water or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as specified in the SCAQMD Rule 403. (MM-CON 10) 1) On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 25 miles per hour. 2) All material excavated or graded would be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering would occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferable in the late morning and after work is done for the day. 3) All material transported on-site or off-site would be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 4) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations would be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 5) These control techniques would be indicated in project specifications. Compliance with the measure would be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. 6) Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project would be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. 11. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall ensure evidence acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works that: (MM-CON 11) 1) All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; 2) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control); 3) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential areas and wetlands; and 4) Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and included with other notations on the front sheet of grading plans, will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this condition. mm. Unless underground utility locations are well documented, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,the project engineer shall perform geophysical (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.18 surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. (MM-CON 14) nn. An archaeologist and paleontologist shall be selected by the applicant and the City to be available for archaeological and paleontological findings during grading and construction. A qualified representative of the Native American community shall be consulted upon for appropriate Native American findings. 5. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered. The recommendations of this report shall be reproduced on the plans. (BD) c. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) d. The Design Review Board shall review and approve the final fencing and landscaping plan along Edison Avenue per conditions set by the Planning Commission. (DRB) e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) f. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). g. A detailed geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application for the proposed desalination plant. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, remedial work, overexcavation/recompaction, dewatering,water quality, and chemical/fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and protection thereof. The reports shall specifically address lateral spreading, flood control channel bank stability, liquefaction potential and groundwater constraints. Appropriate recommendations shall be provided to mitigate potentially adverse conditions. The geotechnical report shall also be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the grading plan. (MM-GEO 1) h. A Water Purchase Agreement shall be executed between the applicant/operator of the seawater desalination project and the City of Huntington Beach and shall incorporate the following: (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.19 1) The City will have the option to purchase up to 3,360 acre-feet per year (3 million gallons per day or 4.6 cubic feet per second) of water from the Project, on a firm basis, at price equal to 95% cost of water supplied by the Municipal Water District of Orange county(MWDOC) and any subsidy received by the Buyer from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California or any other third party for the purchase of water from the Project. The term of the water supply purchase shall be 30 years with two 30-year extensions at the discretion of the City. Should the plant be unable to deliver these supplies they would be subject to liquidated damages. 2) The City will have the first right to purchase up to 11,201 AF per emergency event(i.e. 13cfs or 8.4 mgd) of additional water from the Project in a declared water emergency at the same cost as above for up to seven consecutive days per event. 3) The City would be provided a 5 cfs (3.2 mgd)pipeline connection from the Project near the Newland/Edison intersection into city facilities in the area. i. An Owner Participation Agreement shall be executed between the applicant/operator of the seawater desalination project and the City of Huntington Beach and shall incorporate the following: 1) The project developer and any future property owner,public or private, would commit to pay property taxes or an equivalent property tax in-lieu fee to the Redevelopment Agency for a period of thirty(30) years from the issuance by the City of a certificate of occupancy for the desalination facility. The tax or in-lieu fee would be based on the assessed valuation or $186,500,000 (estimate construction cost)whichever is greater. 2) The applicant will provide $2,000,000 to the City which may be used at its sole discretion for such improvements as the City Council determines will improve the quality of life in the City of Huntington Beach. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for the irrigation system. (PW) (ZSO 255.04E) b. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location,type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36-inch box trees or palm equivalent (13-14 feet of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8-9 feet of brown trunk) and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW ) (Code Requirement) (ZSO 232.04B) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.20 c. A buffer shall be required between the wetland areas and the containment berm, designated as open space, and planted with a palette of plants indigenous to the Southern California coastal community. d. The Consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW) (Resolution 4545) e. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. f. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification#426-Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) g. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification 4401-Minimum Access for Fire Department Access. (FD) h. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division shall determine the number of fire hydrants. (FD) i. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) j. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow, tamper, and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) k. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions are 6'8" wide by 4'Y deep with a 42-inch wide (min.) right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 54-inch depth. (FD) 1. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.21 m. For classification within the City's Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program, a complete chemical inventory and a use, storage, and handling plan prepared by a fire protection engineer, environmental hygienist, or the equivalent shall be submitted to the Fire Department. Included, but not limited to, shall be the ammonia storage tank, the lime silos and the chemical treatment facilities. These tanks and associated equipment shall be designed and installed in conformance with 2001 edition of the CFC. (FD) n. As native on-site soils are compressible upon placement of structural loads,project implementation shall implement complete removal and recompaction of compressible soils or use of piles and grade beams to support on-site structures. (MM-GEO 4) o. Type V cement shall be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measures (coatings, etc.)to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. (MM-GEO 5) p. Due to the potential for ground shaking in a seismic event, the project shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition)to assure seismic safety to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit, including compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997). However, given the proximity of the site to the Newport-Inglewood and Compton Blind Thrust Faults, more stringent measures may be warranted. (MM-GEO 6) q. Due to the potential for liquefaction within the project vicinity, the Applicant shall comply with the standards set forth in the UBC (most recent edition) for structures on-site to assure safety of the occupants to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. These standards include compliance with California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, adopted March 13, 1997) and "Recommended Procedures for implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California" (Dr. Geoffrey R. Martin et al, May 1999). (MM-GEO 8) r. The proposed project shall incorporate adequate measures to stabilize structures from on-site soils known to be prone to liquefaction. Typical methods include, but are not limited to: (MM-GEO 9) 1) Overexcavation and recompaction of soils; 2) in-situ soil densification(such as vibro-flotation or vibro-replacement); 3) injection grouting; and 4) deep soil mixing. s. The site specific geotechnical investigation for the proposed project shall analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. If deemed a possibility, adequate subsurface stabilization practices (similar to those utilized for liquefaction) shall be incorporated prior to the construction of on-site structures. (MM-GEO 10) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.22 t. All applicable school mitigation fees shall be paid pursuant to State law. (MM-PSU 1) u. The Applicant will be required to pay five percent of the OCSD connection fee to the City of Huntington Beach. (MM-PSU 3) v. The Applicant will be required to pay appropriate fees for water service connections, installation, and meters. In addition,the City requires payment of a service fee for industrial customers. (MM- PSU 4) w. The Applicant will coordinate with the City's recycling representative to ensure that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program. (MM-PSU 5) 7. The structures cannot be occupied,the final building permits cannot be approved, utilities cannot be released, the use cannot commence, and the Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until the following has been completed: a. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. (FD) b. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. c. A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department Code. (FD) d. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. e. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. f. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber,wire,pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. g. Secured entries shall utilize strobe-switch activated, automated gates and comply with City Specification#403-Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates. (FD) h. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and association(if any)hardware. (FD) i. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with HBFC standards found in City Specification#424-Portable Fire Extinguishers. (FD) j. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification 4428-Premise Identification. Number sets may be required on front and rear of the structure. (FD) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.23 k. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415-Fire Lane Signs. Additionally, the site plan shall show all fire lanes. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the grading and improvement plans. (PW) (MC 17.05) in. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance with the City-approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) (ZSO 232.04D) n. Applicant shall provide the City with CD media TIFF images (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped"Permanent File Copy"prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) o. The applicant shall demonstrate that all measures required by these conditions to protect the adjacent wetlands have been implemented. 8. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (PW) (WE-1) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) (MC 17.05) c. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that are being graded, at minimum in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (PW) (WE-1/MC 17.05) d. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible and maintained in such a manner that there will be the least possible impact to the adjacent wetland. (PW) (EC 1) e. All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (PW) f. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (PW) g. Comply with AQMD Rule 403,particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Six foot high dust/wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.24 i. Remediation operations, if required, shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the "Water Quality Management Plan"requirements. (PW) k. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. 1. Use low sulfur(0.5%) diesel fuel by weight in all diesel equipment. in. Shut off engines when not in use. n. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. o. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. p. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. q. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries, associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. Haul trucks shall comply with condition 8(b). (Code Requirement) r. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) s. To reduce project-related construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project, the following conditions shall be implemented: (MM-CON 13) 1) Construction activities shall be limited to hours specified by the City Noise Ordinance; and 2) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. t. During construction, a security fence,the height of which shall be determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Building and Safety, shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. The construction site shall be kept clear of all trash, weeds, etc. (MM-CON 15) u. Construction activities,to the extent feasible, shall be concentrated away from adjacent residential areas and wetlands. Equipment storage and soil stockpiling shall be at least 100 feet away from adjacent residential property lines and wetlands. (MM-CON 16) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.25 v. Prior to excavation of the contaminated and other areas for rough grading, the project site shall be cleared of all excess vegetation, surface trash,piping, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials shall be removed and disposed of properly(recycled if possible). (MM-CON 17) w. Proper excavation procedures shall be followed to comply with OSHA's Safety and Health Standards. If applicable, the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) Rule 1166 permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of excavation and remedial activities. (MM- CON 18) x. The contractor shall follow all recommendations contained within the adopted Remedial Action Plan for the project site. (MM-CON 19) y. If asbestos or lead-based paints are identified in any on-site structures, the contractor shall obtain a qualified contractor to survey the project site and assess the potential hazard. The contractor shall contact the SCAQMD and the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Building and Safety prior to asbestos/lead paint removal. (MM-CON 20) z. If any hazardous materials not previously addressed in the mitigation measures contained herein are identified and/or released to the environment at any point during the site cleanup process, operations in that area shall cease immediately. At the earliest possible time, the contractor shall notify the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department of any such findings. Upon notification of the appropriate agencies, a course of action will be determined subject to the approval of the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works and Fire Department. (MM-CON 21) aa. All structures must be cleaned of hazardous materials prior to off-site transportation, or hauled off- site as a waste in accordance with applicable regulations. (MM-CON 22) bb. Structure removal operations shall comply with all regulations and standards of the SCAQMD. (MM-CON 23) cc. The contractor shall post signs prior to commencing remediation, alerting the public to the site cleanup operations in progress. The size, wording and placement of these signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Departments of Planning and Public Works. (MM- CON 24) dd. Any unrecorded or unknown wells uncovered during the excavation or grading process shall be immediately reported to and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), and shall meet City Specification 422—Oil Well Abandonment Permit Process. (MM-CON 25) ee. During remediation, if any soil is found to be hazardous due to contamination other than petroleum hydrocarbons, it will be segregated, stockpiled, and handled separately. (MM-CON 26) ff. Dust and volatile organic emissions from excavation activities shall be controlled through water spray or by employing other approved vapor suppressants including hydromulch spray in (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.26 accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirements and the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) permit conditions. (MM-CON 27) gg. Prior to initiating the removal of structures and contaminated materials, the contractor must provide evidence that the removal of materials will be subject to a traffic control plan, for review and approval by the by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. The intent of this measure is to minimize the time period and disruption of heavy duty trucks. For all work done in the City of Costa Mesa, the project applicant shall receive approval from the Costa Mesa Public Services Department. (MM-CON 32) hh. Construction related activities will be subject to,and comply with, standard street use requirements imposed by the City of Huntington Beach, County and other public agencies, including the use of flagmen to assist with haul truck ingress and egress of construction areas and limiting the large size vehicles to off-peak commute traffic periods. For all work done in the City of Costa Mesa, the project applicant shall receive approval from the Costa Mesa Public Services Department. (MM-CON 33) ii. During periods of heavy equipment access or truck hauling, the Contractor will provide construction traffic signage and a construction traffic flagman to control construction and general project traffic at points of ingress and egress and along roadways that require a lane closure. (MM- CON 35) J. If grading operations uncover paleontological/archeological resources,the applicant shall suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological/archeological resources. The archeologist/paleontologist pre-approved by the City shall report such findings to the Planning Department and the pre- approved Native American representative, if applicable. If the paleontological/archeological resources are found to be significant, the City shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant and in consultation with the Native American representative, if applicable, for exploration and salvage. kk. Excavation for the proposed project shall implement dewatering activities in compliance with NPDES regulations. Pumped groundwater shall be sampled,tested, and (if deemed necessary) treated prior to discharge. (MM-GEO 3) 9. Prior to the excavation process for pipeline construction, the contractor shall coordinate with the County of Orange's Integrated Waste Management Department in order to ensure that proposed pipeline construction does not impact drainage of the former Cannery Street Landfill. (MM-CON 28) 10. Methane migration features will be consistent with the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Specification Number 429 and other applicable state and federal regulations. The methane migration features shall be submitted for review and approval to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), Environmental Health Division and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. (MM- CON 29) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.27 11. Studies to evaluate the potential for landfill gas (LFG) generation and migration will be completed prior to issuance of grading permits. Appropriate mitigation measures will be coordinated with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Mitigation measures could entail active or passive extraction of LFG to control surface and off-site migration and passive barriers with vent layers and alarm systems below trenches and within 1,000 feet of the former Cannery Street Landfill boundary. A comprehensive monitoring network will be established along the pipeline alignment adjacent to the landfill. Approved periodic monitoring of the monitoring network will be performed. (MM-CON 30) 12. A Traffic Management Plan(TMP) shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the affected jurisdiction within which the facilities are to be constructed when the facilities are to be located where construction would affect roadways. The TMP shall include, but not be limited to,the following measures: (MM-CON 31) a. Limit construction to one side of the road or out of the roadbed where possible; b. Provision of continued access to commercial and residential properties adjacent to construction sites; c. Provide alternate bicycle routes and pedestrian paths where existing paths/routes are disrupted by construction activities, if any, and prior to initiating construction,the public shall be notified as to which bicycle routes will be disrupted and when construction will commence; d. Submit a truck routing plan, for approval by the City of Huntington Beach, County, and other responsible public agencies in order to minimize impacts from truck traffic during material delivery and disposal; e. Prior to any partial or full closure on a street within the city of Costa Mesa's limits, a detour plan shall be submitted to the city for approval by the City Transportation Services Manager. 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; f. The TMP shall be approved by affected agencies at least two weeks prior to construction. The applicant shall submit the TMP to Caltrans and the City of Costa Mesa at the 90-percent design phase; g. Construction activities shall be coordinated with other construction activity taking place in the affected area(s); and h. Provide for temporary parking, where necessary, during installation of pipelines within the AES site. 13. The Contractor shall obtain the necessary right-of-way encroachment permits and satisfy all permit requirements. Nighttime construction may be performed in congested areas. Also, any nighttime construction activities shall have prior approval by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works. Any nighttime construction activities in the City of Costa Mesa shall receive approval from the Public Services Director. (MM-CON 34) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.28 14. Prior to the commencement of any directional boring for water conveyance pipeline implementation, the applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Contingency Plan. The plan shall establish criteria under which a bore would be shut down(e.g., loss of pressure, loss of a certain amount of returns) and the number of times a single bore should be allowed to frac-out before the bore is shut down and reevaluated. It will also clearly state what measures will be taken to seal previous frac-outs that have occurred on a given bore to ensure that it does not become the path of least resistance for subsequent frac-outs. Additionally,the site-specific Frac-Out Contingency Plan will be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and appropriate resource agencies prior to each major bore. (MM-CON 41) 15. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the City Council may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 16. The applicant and applicant's representatives shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. 17. The applicant shall completely remove the storage tanks from the site within 12 months from the date of approval of City building permits and agreements. 18. The applicant/property owner and each successor in interest to the property which is the subject of this project shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees,to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: I. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed and until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed for Coastal Development Permit. Because the project is in the appealable area of the coastal zone,there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.29 3. The City Council reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Department, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday— Saturday 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. Haul trucks shall comply with condition 8(b). 6. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the City Council's action. 8. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 9. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid at issuance of building permits. 10. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the City Council. 11. The development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 12. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department prior to occupying any building. 13. The Water Ordinance #14.52, the "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (PW) 14. All existing and new utilities shall be undergrounded. (PW) 15. Traffic impact fees for non-residential developments shall be paid at a rate of$140 per net new added daily trip at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This rate is subject to an annual adjustment. (PW) (MM-PSU 2) (MC 17.65) 16. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (PW) (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.30 17. The applicant is hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code 66020. 18. The applicant or its successor shall comply with all directives, requirements, orders, or other regulatory requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the adjacent wetlands, whether in the existing degraded conditions or as a restored wetland relative to the desalination plant. 19. The applicant shall produce potable water of quality that is in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. In addition,the applicant shall supply Irvine Ranch Water District(IRWD) and any other water agency with water of quality that does not cause the agency to violate the pertinent limits of the agency's reuse permit, applicable to the desalinated water quality at the time the proposed project is ready to begin the supply of desalinated water to water agencies. The applicant shall reach an agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County(MWDOC) and its affected member agencies regarding the specific requirements of the quality of the desalinated water prior to beginning construction of the desalination plant. If agreement between the two parties is not reached by then, MWDOC has the right to reject the use of desalinated water. i (February 27,2006 CUP 02-04/CDP 02-05) Attachment No. 1.31 `IEWIC, t 3 s t.�+ a ➢ � a ex'�` �i ' � t as r �_ a' d -t za h i �" St x a� � s a r 3 ti SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT SCH# 2001051092 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF FACTS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDINGCONSIDERATIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that: " N o public agency shall approve or carry out a proje ct for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." The Cityof Huntington Beach certified the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach 9 1 9 Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (nREIRn) by adopting Resolution No. 2005-62, dated September 6, 2005. Because the decision to approve the project's Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 was continued until February 27, 2006, the City Council received new staff reports, additional testimony and late communications pertaining to the project, including new staff reports, additional testimony and late communications pertaining to the project benefits. In connection with City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05, the City approves this Statement of Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations supplementing Resolution 2005-62. None of the supplemental facts and findings change the conclusions made by the City in connection with the adoption of Resolution 2005-62. The City approves the following project components: construction and operation of a seawater desalination facility, which includes an administration building, a reverse osmosis facility City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 9 ry Page 1 of 48 seawater uesaunauon rrolect at hunungton t5eacn I-INUINU j Ut- I-AU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 building, a pretreatment filter structure, a chemical storage/solids handling building, a bulk chemical storage building, product water and influent pump stations (situated underground) and surge tank, a rinse tank, a lime silos, a wash water tank, carbon dioxide tanks, an ammonia tank, an electrical substation building, an aboveground product water tank, appurtenant facilities, and pipelines and pump stations to deliver drinking water into the regional water distribution system. Also part of the project includes the demolition of three fuel storage tanks and interior berms, a conditional use permit ("CUP") and a Coastal Development Permit ("CDP"). Due to the potential impacts to the environment and because the proposed action constitutes a project under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Huntington Beach has prepared a Final Recirculated EIR (FREIR)(State Clearinghouse No. 2001051092). The FREIR identified certain potentially significant effects that may occur as a result of implementation of the project, unless mitigation measures, project design features and/or standard conditions are adopted for the project. The mitigation measures, project design features, and standard conditions identified in the FREIR are proposed to be adopted for the project. The DREIR was circulated for public review and comment for over a 45-day period (April 5, 2005 to May 27, 2005) as specified in the State CEQA Guidelines. Public comments were received by the City and have been responded to by the City in accordance with CEQA requirements. The City of Huntington Beach determines that the FREIR, comprised of the DREIR, a list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the DREIR, comments received from the public and interested agencies, the Responses to Comments prepared by the City (including Errata to the DREIR), and all attachments and documents incorporated by reference is complete and adequate, and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The FREIR identified certain significant effects on the environment that may occur if the project is approved or carried out. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA, the City of Huntington Beach adopts this Statement of Findings of Facts and makes one or more of the three Section 21081 findings for each significant impact identified. For all but one of the significant effects identified in the FREIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. In addition, for certain significant effects that may occur, the FREIR has identified changes or alterations that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies. Those changes or alterations have been, or can and should be, adopted by those other agencies. The FREIR also identified one unavoidable significant effect on the environment that may occur as a result of the project, even with the implementation of mitigation (see Section 5.0 of this Statement of Findings of Facts). Where the decision of a public agency allows the occurrence of a significant effect, which is identified in the FREIR but is not avoided, the agency must state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the FREIR and other information in the record. Such a statement is called a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In accordance with CEQA, therefore, the City of Huntington Beach adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations included as Section 7.0 of this Statement of Findings of Facts. This Statement of Findings of Facts, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations, is adopted by the City of Huntington Beach as part of its action to certify the FREIR and approve the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 2 of 48 seawater uesailnation rroject at Huntington beacn F-INUINUZi Ur FAU I s Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a seawater desalination facility producing approximately 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water. The facility would take source water for the desalination facility from the existing condenser cooling seawater discharge pipe system of the HBGS, purify it utilizing reverse osmosis (RO) technology, discharge concentrated seawater byproduct water through the existing HBGS outfall, and deliver potable product water to the distribution system. The product drinking water will be delivered to the existing regional water distribution system to meet the needs of Orange County. A more detailed project description is provided in Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION of the DREIR. Off-site components necessary to effectuate delivery of the potable product water into the existing regional water distribution system include a water transmission pipeline alignment extending into the City of Costa Mesa and two booster pump stations (one within an unincorporated portion of Orange County and another within the City of Irvine). 3.0 FINDINGS CONCERNING IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT In evaluating the potential impacts associated with the project, the FREIR identified potential impacts that would not be significant. This section of the Statement of Findings of Facts identifies those impacts that may occur with project implementation, but were found to be below the threshold of significant. CEQA does not require findings for impacts that are found to be less than significant, and therefore do not require mitigation. Nevertheless, the following information is provided in order to summarize the bases for determinations of non-significance for the potential impacts as presented in the Section 5.0, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, in the FREIR. (Note that Section 8.0, EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT, provides an examination of potential project impacts that were found not to be significant in the Initial Study. That information is not repeated herein, but is incorporated by reference as if set forth in full in this Statement of Findings of Facts.) In some cases, the impacts addressed in this Statement of Findings of Facts are found not to be significant due to their nature. In other cases, the determinations take into account certain design features of the project. Although impacts determined to be not significant do not themselves require mitigation, in some cases mitigation measures that have been required to address other impacts found to be potentially significant and in need of mitigation will also further reduce the non-significant impacts. In these cases, the mitigation measures are noted, although the impacts would be less than significant even without such measures. Mitigation measures are referenced in this Statement of Findings of Facts using the same numbering system employed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the FREIR. Refer to Attachment B, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM for a complete listing of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. A. IMPACTS RELATED TO LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANNING (DREIR page 5.1-1 to 5.1-11) Section 5.1 of the DREIR addresses the potential impacts related to land use/relevant planning. Both topics (land use and relevant planning) are addressed in this Section of the Statement of Findings of Facts. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 3 of 48 Seawater uesallnatlon Nroject at Huntington beach HNUINUb Ur f AU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Finding for Potential Land Use Impacts The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not create any significant impacts to surrounding land uses. Less than significant impact. In addition, mitigation measures N0I-1, ALG-1, ALG-2, and CON-1 through CON-47, inclusive, furtherreduce these less than significant impacts. Facts in Support of Finding Based on the analysis presented in Section 5.1 of the DREIR, land use impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Potential land use impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features identified in the DREIR. Moreover, mitigation measures NOI-1, ALG-1, ALG-2, and CON-1 through CON-45, inclusive, further reduce these less than significant impacts. Finding for Potential Relevant Planning Impacts The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not conflict with applicable relevant planning programs. No impact. Facts in Support of Finding Based on the analysis presented in Section 5.1 of the DREIR, relevant planning impacts are not significant. The project as described in Section 2.0 of this Statement of Findings of Facts will be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and with the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. There is no need to change any General Plan or Zoning designations. During the design development stage, the Applicant will be submitting more detailed plans reflecting code and policy compliance with specific issues. The design will be required to comply with all applicable standard development conditions. B. IMPACTS RELATED TO GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY (DREIR pages 5.2-1 to 5.2-13) Section 5.2 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to geology, soils and seismicity. The DREIR addresses six topics, two of which (topography and off-site pipelines and underground pump stations) are addressed in this Section. The remaining four topics are addressed in Section 4.0-B of this Statement of Findings of Facts. Finding for Topography The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will have no significant impact on the natural topography of the project area. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding Based on the analysis presented in Section 5.2 of the DREIR, topography impacts are less than significant without mitigation. No significant landform impacts will result because the project area is relatively flat. The proposed desalination facility site consists of three fuel storage tanks on a flat surface, surrounded by containment berms of 10 to 15 feet in height. The western and southern berms would be removed prior to construction of the desalination facility, while the City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 4 of 48 Seawater uesaiination rroject at huntington beacn I-INUINUZ5 Ur r-AU I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 eastern and northern berms (the northern berm exists outside of the project boundaries)will not be removed. The site does not contain any unique physical or topographical features. Finding for Off-Site Pipelines and Underground Pump Stations The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach off-site pipelines and underground pump stations will not result in significant impacts related to geology, soils and seismicity. Less than significant impact. In addition, applicable mitigation measures contained within Section 5.9 of the DREIR, inclusive, further reduce these less than significant impacts. Facts in Support of Finding Based on the analysis presented in Section 5.2 of the DREIR, impacts related to geology, soils and seismicity for the project's off-site pipelines and pump stations are less than significant. No significant impacts will result because the majority of the pipeline alignment will occur within existing street right-of-way and various utility lines currently exist along the alignment. The pump station locations are also located in close proximity to existing pipelines. Standard conditions similar to those to be implemented for the on-site desalination facilities will apply to minimize impacts and design level geotechnical investigations will be performed. Moreover, applicable mitigation measures contained within Section 5.9 of the DREIR, inclusive, further reduce these less than significant impacts. C. IMPACTS RELATED TO HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER RUNOFF (DREIR pages 5.3-1 to 5.3-8) Section 5.3 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential long-term impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The DREIR addresses four topics, two of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topics are addressed in Section 4.0-C of this Statement of Findings of Facts. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant are: • Fertilizer and Pesticides • Water Quality Impacts to Nearby Coastal Wetlands from On-site Spillage Finding for Fertilizer and Pesticides The use of fertilizers and pesticides on landscaping at the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on water quality. No significant impact is found. In addition, mitigation measure HWQ-1 further reduces this less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The project will incorporate both native and non-native landscaping on site, as explained in Section 5.3 of the DREIR. Non-native vegetation may require periodic fertilization and pest control. The use of fertilizers and pesticides would comply with the City of Huntington Beach standards as well as the guidelines set forth in the Orange County Management Guidelines. The landscaping will be maintained in accordance with City of Huntington Beach standards. Based on the size of the landscaped areas, small amounts of fertilizers and pesticides will be needed. Use of these chemicals on project landscaping will not result in a significant impact to groundwater, adjacent Ocean waters, or surrounding uses. Moreover, mitigation measure HWQ-1 further reduces this less than significant impact. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 5 of 48 Seawater uesailnation Project at Huntington beacn rINIJINUZ5 Vf I-AL;I Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Finding for Potential Water Quality Impacts to Nearby Coastal Wetlands from On-Site Spillage Potential on-site spillage from the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will have no significant impact on nearby coastal wetlands. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.3 of the DREIR, the project design incorporates appropriate leak/spill containment features that minimize the likelihood for hazardous materials being stored, used or transported on-site from impacting adjacent uses. Moreover, nearby coastal wetlands, including the privately owned open space/wetlands area that abuts the edge of the southwest corner of the desalination facility site, are physically separated from the desalination facility by existing berms (that will remain in place). D. IMPACTS RELATED TO AIR QUALITY (DREIR pages 5.4-1 to 5.4-17) Section 5.4 of the DREIR addresses the potential impacts related to air quality. Four topics (long-term mobile source emissions and electricity consumption, chemical storage facilities, off- site pipelines and underground pump stations, and consistency with regional plans) are addressed in this Section of the Statement of Findings of Facts. Finding for Mobile Source Emissions and Electricity Consumption The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not result in significant impacts in regards to mobile or off-site energy related air emissions. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The analysis in Section 5.4 of the DREIR shows that the desalination facility would generate nominal amounts of on-site area source and off-site mobile source emissions. In addition, off- site energy emissions associated with the proposed facility's electricity consumption have been previously accounted for within local and regional planning documents as well as environmental documentation prepared for SCAQMD's Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) and New Source Review programs. Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. Finding for Chemical Storage Facilities The proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts in regards to chemical storage facilities. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.4 of the DREIR, the proposed desalination plant would use fewer chemicals of lower dosages than existing conventional water treatment plants in Southern California. In addition, based on the types of chemicals stored on site and their containment methods, odors are unlikely to emanate from the project site. Chemical storage and the use of chemicals during the desalination process are not anticipated to have significant impacts to air quality in the region. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 6 of 48 ,jeawater uesannation vrolect at Huntington beacn t INUINUS Ut- t Al:I 5 Recirculated EIR No.00-02 Finding for Off-Site Pipelines and underground Pump Stations The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not significantly impact air quality. The impacts associated with the operation of diesel-power generators are anticipated to be less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding It would be necessary to apply for a Special Application for Temporary Emergency Authorization To Operate Electric Backup Generator(s) During Involuntary Power Service Interruptions Permit.' The project would obtain all required air quality permits. Therefore, impacts associated with the operation of diesel- powered generators are anticipated to be less than significant, as explained in Section 5.4 of the DREIR. In addition, water transmission lines would not result in criteria pollutant emissions and therefore would not have any significant impacts to air quality. Finding for Consistency with Regional Plans The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not conflict with local and regional air quality planning documents. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.1 of the DREIR, the proposed project does not involve a General Plan amendment, zone change, or other change in land use, and is consistent with the County of Orange and City of Huntington Beach land use assumptions. The regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is based on the City and County's General Plan assumptions, and the project is consistent with these assumptions. Consequently, as explained in Section 5.4 of the DREIR, the project would be considered consistent with the AQMP. In addition, according to SCAG, the project is consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant.DR E. IMPACTS RELATED TO NOISE (DREIR pages 5.5-1 to 5.5-13) Section 5.5 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to noise. The DREIR addresses two topics (mobile noise sources and stationary noise sources). Mobile noise sources and stationary noise sources for the off-site pipelines and booster pump stations are addressed in this Section. Stationary noise sources for the desalination facility site are addressed in Section 4.0-E of this Statement of Findings of Facts. Finding for Mobile Noise Sources The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not generate a significant amount of noise resulting from mobile noise sources. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.5 of the DREIR, the project would generate a nominal amount of noise resulting from mobile sources as a result of employee trips and truck-generated traffic. The proposed desalination facility would employ a total of approximately 18 people, with an ' South Coast Air Quality Management District, http://www.agmd.gov/permit/em back up gen.html, November 29, 2004. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 7 of 48 Jeawater uesalination rroject at runtington beacn HNUINUZ5 UF- rAU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 average of five to seven people on-site per shift on weekdays. In addition, facility operation would require a maximum of four truck trips per day for solid waste disposal and chemical delivery. Noise generated by mobile sources as a result of the proposed desalination facility is so nominal that impacts in this regard will be less than significant. Finding for Noise from Long-Term Operations of Off-Site Pipelines and Underground Booster Pump Stations The proposed desalination project would not generate a significant amount of noise resulting from long-term operations off-site pipelines and underground booster pump stations. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.5 of the DREIR, the proposed product water pipelines would occur entirely underground. Upon completion of construction, these pipelines would not generate noise. In addition, as the OC-44 booster pump station would be placed underground, the off- site underground booster pump station is not anticipated to adversely affect the NCCP/HCP area along the eastern border of the City of Newport Beach. Similarly, the coastal junction booster pump station would both be located underground and contain an adequate amount of acoustical shielding. Impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. F. IMPACTS RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (DREIR pages 5.6-1 to 5.6-14) Section 5.6 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to public services and utilities. The DREIR addresses fourteen topics, eight of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topics are addressed in Section 4.0-F of this Statement of Findings of Facts. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant are: • Fire Service • Police Service • Libraries • Parks and Recreation • Reclaimed Water • Electricity • Gas • Telephone and Cable Finding for Fire Service The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on the demand for fire service within the City of Huntington Beach. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding It is not anticipated that project implementation would result in the need for additional Fire Department facilities. The project is not of the scope or nature to create a significant increase in demand for services requiring physical additions to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 8 of 48 Seawater uesalination rrotect at huntington beacn HNuINVJ Vr rAl:15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Finding for Police Service The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on the demand for police service within the City of Huntington Beach. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding Implementation of the project will not create a significant increase in service calls to the project area nor is it expected to result in the need for additional police facilities within the City of Huntington Beach. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Libraries The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on the City of Huntington Beach library system. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The proposed desalination project is not anticipated to have significant impacts on the City of Huntington Beach library system. Although the nearest library facility to the project site (the Banning Branch Library) is small in size, the project is anticipated to have a negligible impact on the branch. The applicant will be required to pay standard library enrichment fees concurrent with building permit issuance. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Parks and Recreation The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on the demand for parks and recreational facilities within the City of Huntington Beach. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The desalination plant will employ approximately 18 people, with five to seven people on duty during regular working hours Monday through Friday, and a minimum of two people on duty during swing shifts, graveyard shifts, and weekends. Consequently, the project is anticipated to have a negligible impact on parks and recreation facilities within the City of Huntington Beach. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Reclaimed Water The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on the availability of the City's reclaimed water facilities. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The proposed project will not require the use of reclaimed water or installation of reclaimed water facilities, as the project itself will be a new water reclamation source. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 9 of 48 Seawater uesannation rroject at Huntington tseacn HNUINUZ5 Uh FAC;15 Recirculated EIR No.00-02 Finding for Electricity The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on the electrical facilities providing service to the project vicinity. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The project would consume approximately 720 to 840 megawatt hours per day. The electricity consumption of the desalination facility would result in an increase in electrical demand within Orange County of approximately 0.8 percent, while that percentage would drop to 0.1 for the Southern California region. The facility would utilize off-peak power to the maximum extent practicable. To assist the power system in times of high demand, the desalination facility would conduct load management/shifting to reduce demands during high peak energy periods. The modular characteristics of the reverse osmosis system allow for cycling water production without shutting down all water production. During high peak energy periods, the treatment process may be turned down and water will be delivered to the system from the on-site storage tank. During off peak energy and higher water production periods the treatment process will produce water to deliver to the system and replenish the storage tank resulting in an average of 50 MGD. This shift of a portion of the desalination facility water treatment production from the peak to off-peak period of municipal power demand would help in reducing the overall maximum load on the power grid and thereby be more energy efficient. In addition, the facility would include energy recovery devices (allowing the reuse of at least 30 percent of what is consumed) and would benefit from the heated water coming from the HBGS condensers. Moreover, electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the state, and the projects electrical demand would be met by dozens of power plants connected to a regional power supply source, with many of those plants located outside of Southern California. SCE is prepared to install electrical distribution facilities to the project site. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Gas The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on local natural gas facilities. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The Southern California Gas Company can provide gas service to the proposed project via numerous gas mains surrounding the subject site. Project implementation would not result in any construction related impacts to the service area. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. Finding for Telephone and Cable The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant impact on telephone or cable service facilities within the vicinity of the project area. Less than significant impact. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 10 of 48 Seawater uesalination Project at Huntington tieacn I-INUINUZ5 VI- rAI:I J Recirculated EIR No.00-02 Facts in Support of Finding Both Verizon (telephone) and Time Warner (cable) will be available to provide service to the subject site from existing facilities surrounding the subject site. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, impacts are less than significant. G. IMPACTS RELATED TO AESTHETICS/ LIGHT AND GLARE (DREIR pages 5.7-1 to 5.7-7) Section 5.7 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to aesthetics/light and glare. The DREIR addresses three topics, one of which (off-site light and glare) is addressed in this Section. The remaining two topics are addressed in Section 4.0-G of this Statement of Findings of Facts. Finding for Off-Site Light and Glare The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not have a significant off-site light and glare impact. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.7 of the DREIR, off-site light and glare impacts are less than significant. Project implementation may result in an insignificant increase in the amount of light and glare off-site from vehicles utilizing the facility. However, additional lighting or glare inducing surfaces will not occur as a result of the water transmission pipeline or underground pump stations because those facilities will be underground. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. H. IMPACTS RELATED TO HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (DREIR pages 5.8-1 to 5.8-10) Section 5.8 of the DREIR addresses the potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Finding for Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not result in significant impacts in regards to on-site hazards or hazardous materials. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding While potential future uses may require the storage, use, transportation, and/or handling of hazardous materials, as explained in Section 5.8 of the DREIR, any such hazards would be minimized by adherence to Federal, State, and City regulations. These requirements include monitoring devices, spill control, emergency response plans, appropriate on-site safety equipment, and the proper design of all facilities. With the implementation of standard conditions and required design features, impacts in this regard will be less than significant. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 11 of 48 Seawater uesalination rroject at Huntington beacn rINUINUb Ur F-Al;15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Finding for Off-Site Pipeline Alignments and Underground Booster Pump Stations The proposed desalination project would not result in long-term operational impacts in regards to off-site pipeline alignments and underground booster pump stations. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.8 of the DREIR, the proposed off-site pipeline alignments would occur adjacent to a variety of land uses. Hazardous materials impacts due to long-term operation of the pipelines are not anticipated to occur, as the only liquid proposed for conveyance is potable water. The OC-44 pump station and coastal junction pump station would both require a diesel storage tank that would be placed underground and adequate safety measures would be implemented. Impacts in regards to the off-site use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials are not anticipated to be significant. I. IMPACTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION (DREIR pages 5.9-1 to 5.9-36) Section 5.9 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to construction. All of which are addressed in Section 4.0-1 and Section 5.0 of this Statement of Findings of Facts. J. IMPACTS RELATED TO OCEAN WATER QUALITY AND MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (DREIR pages 5.10-1 to 5.10-41) Section 5.10 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to ocean water quality and marine biological resources. Red Tides and Algal Toxins is addressed below, in Section 4.0-K, Impacts Related to Product Water Quality. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant are: • Potential Sources of Contamination in Proximity to the HBGS Intake • Elevated Bacteria Levels in the Huntington Beach Surf Zone • Concentrated Seawater Discharge • Reverse Osmosis Membrane Cleaning Solution • Impingement and Entrainment Finding for Potential Sources of Contamination in Proximity to the HBGS Intake The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not be significantly impacted by Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) wastewater discharge, urban storm water runoff, dry weather runoff, the recirculation of HBGS discharge, the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, cruise ships and fishing boats, recreation, oil and gas production facilities, the operation of HBGS, or elevated bacteria levels in the Huntington Beach surf zone. Less than significant impact on the HBGS seawater intake. Facts in Support of Finding Oceanographers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography conducted modeling studies using a computer model that simulates ocean conditions near the HBGS intake and outfall (refer to Appendix C, HYDRODYNAMIC MODELING REPORT of the DREIR). The modelers from Scripps used their many years of experience working along the Southern California coast to determine the worst case conditions that would be modeled. The worst case conditions were chosen to determine if any adverse water quality or environmental impacts occurred under City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 12 of 48 Seawater uesallnation Project at Huntington beam I-INUINUS UI- rHl:I 5 Recirculated EIR No.00-02 extreme ocean and weather conditions that were most likely to show an effect. The analysis in Section 5.10 of the DREIR shows that there will be a less than significant impact on the HBGS intake from potential contamination sources. Impact from OCSD Wastewater Discharge: The worst-case model results show that the OCSD discharge is diluted 30 million to one at the HBGS intake. Any contaminants discharged at the OCSD outfall would be diluted far below background levels at the intake to the HBGS. Therefore, the OCSD discharge does not have a significant source of contamination at the HBGS intake. As far as other constituents of concern for the OCSD discharge, the desalination facility discharge water quality would be well within the limits established in the Ocean Plan. Impacts in this regard will be less than significant. Impact from Urban Storm Water Runoff. During a 24-hour extreme runoff period only 0.0003 percent of the water at the HBGS intake would come from the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh and the remaining 99.9997 percent would be seawater. These results show that contaminants are not transported to the HBGS intake from the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh during extreme storm conditions. More detailed modeling results are presented in Appendix C of the DREIR, HYDRODYNAMIC MODELING REPORT. Impacts will be less than significant in this regard. Impact from Dry Weather Runoff.- Tidal flushing of the Talbert Marsh would have the greatest potential to impact water quality at the HBGS intake during high spring tides combined with summer El Nino conditions when currents are flowing northwest from the marsh towards the intake. Under these worst-case conditions, the marsh water is diluted 20,000 to one and essentially does not reach the intake. This is due to the fact that the marsh water is released into the surf zone and the onshore waves keep the marsh water in the shallow nearshore waters, whereas the HBGS intake is located 1,840 feet offshore at a depth of approximately 33 feet. Impacts will be less than significant. Impact from the Recirculation of HBGS Discharge: The HBGS outfall is located approximately 1,500 feet offshore and 340 feet from the HBGS intake. The potential for recirculation of the discharge into the intake was examined. The discharge consists primarily of cooling water, but a small amount of power plant process wastewater and storm water can be mixed with the cooling water. The concentrated seawater from the proposed desalination facility will also be mixed with the power plant cooling water. Recirculation of the HBGS discharge would have the greatest potential to impact water quality at the intake during El Nino storm conditions when the maximum amount of storm water is being discharged through the outfall. The hydrodynamic model for recirculation of the HBGS discharge was run using the El Nino conditions of February 1998 and the maximum allowable discharge of 1.66 MGD of generating station process wastewater and storm water. In addition, the proposed desalination facility was assumed to be running at full capacity so that 50 MGD of concentrated seawater discharge was mixed with the cooling water discharge. Furthermore, recirculation potential was examined under two generating scenarios: 1) one generating unit on- line with a total discharge of 78.4 MGD of cooling water, storm water, and wastewater, and the concentrated seawater discharge and 2) four generating units on-line producing a total discharge of 458.6 MGD of cooling water, storm water, and wastewater, and the concentrated seawater discharge. The model results under worst case conditions for a 7-day extreme runoff period show that only 0.3 percent of the HBGS discharge would be recirculated to the intake. The results for four generating units show a greater dilution with only 0.1 percent of the HBGS discharge recirculated to the intake. Based on these results, the recirculation of the HBGS City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 13 of 48 Jeawater uesallnatlon Project at Huntington beacn I-INuINUb Vr FAC:I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 discharge during storm events has been shown to not affect the source water quality at the HBGS intake. Impacts are less than significant in this regard. Impacts from the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers: The Los Angeles River discharges to the ocean approximately 16 miles upcoast (i.e. northwest) from HBGS, while the San Gabriel River discharges approximately 11 miles upcoast. The amount of dilution that occurs and the fact that the generating station intake is at a depth of approximately 33 feet indicates that contaminants entering the ocean from these two rivers would not likely affect the water quality at the HBGS intake. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. Impacts from Cruise Ships and Shipping Boats: The nearest major port for cruise ships is located approximately 16 miles northwest of the HBGS intake. Ingress/egress routes for cruise ships for Long Beach and Los Angeles Harbors do not come in close proximity to the HBGS. In addition, given the limited nature of sportfishing that occurs in the project site vicinity, impacts are less than significant. Impacts from Recreation: Any contaminants released into the ocean due to recreational use are likely to be small in quantity greatly diluted due to tidal action. It would be difficult for such contaminants to reach the HBGS intake due to its depth of approximately 33 feet below the ocean surface. Impacts in regards to recreational uses are not anticipated to be significant. Impacts from Oil and Gas Production Facilities: There are two offshore oil platforms approximately 1.5 miles west of the HBGS intake and four platforms approximately 10 miles west of the intake. There have not been an reportable spills p pp Y Y p p or leaks from the offshore oil platforms or the pipelines. A catastrophic event at one of the offshore platforms that is near the coast could affect water quality at the HBGS intake. However, given the relatively low probability based on operational history, impacts in this regard are less than significant. Impacts from Operations at HBGS: p P There are numerous water quality constituents regulated in drinking water supplies. Samples were collected from the HBGS intake vault and from the outlet of the condensers (where the desalination facility intake will be located). Although maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) apply to treated drinking water, raw water concentrations that exceed MCLs provide an indication of potential contaminants of concern. None of the primary MCLs are exceeded in the intake water and the only secondary MCLs that are exceeded are salts (TDS, chloride, sulfate) that would be removed by the reverse osmosis process. Impacts are less than significant in this regard. Cycle water is discharged to the cooling water system at various locations as the cooling water flows through the generating station. The cycle water is under vacuum so the cooling water leaks into the cycle water but the cycle water does not leak into the cooling water. There are several locations where cycle water is discharged into the cooling waters stem. The Y g g Y contaminants in these discharges will be greatly diluted by the large volume of cooling water compared to the small volume of the discharges. The only chemical of concern in a drinking water source is nitrite. The other chemicals in the discharges are not toxic to humans and drinking water standards have not been established. Because the volume of cooling water represents a maximum of 0.002 percent of the cooling water flowing through one unit at the HBGS, the nitrite concentration of 800 mg/L will be diluted to about 0.02 mg/L in the cooling water that would reach the desalination facility. This level of nitrite is well below the drinking water MCL of one mg/L. Nitrite and the other chemicals present in the cycle water discharges City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 14 of 48 Seawater uesalination Hroject at Huntington beacn f INUINhJ VI- VHl:15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 will easily be removed by the reverse osmosis membranes. As a result, impacts in this regard are less than significant. Storm runoff from the HBGS site and a limited amount of off-site urban runoff is currently discharged to the cooling water system upstream of the intake to the desalination facility. The applicant would coordinate with HBGS to reroute these discharges during construction of the desalination facility so they would be downstream of the desalination intake and not affect water quality at the desalination intake. The off-site urban runoff is from approximately 70 acres of land near the HBGS. Dry weather runoff collects in a ditch alongside Newland Street and is currently pumped into the HBGS outfall pipeline. The City of Huntington Beach plans to modify the system so that it flows into the HBGS site by gravity when improvements are made to Newland Street as part of the conditions placed upon the project by the City of Huntington Beach. Impacts are less than significant in this regard. Low volume wastes, metal cleaning wastes, and pipeline hydrostatic test water are diverted to the HBGS retention basin and then to the outfall, where the wastewater is mixed with cooling water. Currently this waste is discharged downstream of the intake to the desalination facility and would not be included in the source water for the proposed desalination facility. As a result, impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. A number of petroleum products and other hazardous materials are stored and used at the generating station. Although unlikely due to spill prevention measures and clean-up procedures in place at the HBGS, there is the potential for a spill to reach the floor drain or the storm drainage system and enter the cooling water system. The floor and yard drainage system currently enters the outfall line downstream of the point where the desalination facility will be located and would not be included in the desalination facility's source water. As a result, impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. Periodically water from the discharge vault is diverted back into the facility and reheated. This reheated water is then used to clean the discharge line of biological growths ("bio-film"). This recirculated water contains wastes that have been discharged to the discharge vault prior to the flow being reversed in the facility. The proposed desalination facility would not intake water from the HBGS cooling water system during heat treatments. In this regard, impacts are less than significant. Impacts from Elevated Bacteria Levels in the Huntington Beach Surf Zone: Contaminants are not transported to the HBGS intake from the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh during extreme storm event conditions. In addition, dry weather urban runoff at Talbert Marsh during tidal flushing essentially does not reach the HBGS intake. Although the cause of the elevated bacteria levels in the Huntington Beach surf zone has not been determined, the seawater desalination process would have the ability to remove bacteria and produce potable water meeting all State Title 22 standards. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. Finding for Elevated Bacterial Levels in the Huntington Beach Surf Zone The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not contribute to elevated bacterial levels in the Huntington Beach Surf Zone. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The modelers from Scripps used their many years of experience working along the Southern California coast to determine the worst case conditions that would be modeled, as explained in City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 15 of 48 Seawater uesannation Hroject at Huntington beacn HNUINCiS VF I-AL;15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Section 5.10 of the DREIR. The worst case conditions were chosen to determine if any adverse water quality or environmental impacts occurred under extreme ocean and weather conditions that were most likely to show an effect. The effect of the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh storm water on water quality at the HBGS intake was modeled assuming a very large, prolonged storm event and ocean currents flowing from the mouth of the river towards the HBGS facility. Normally, ocean currents flow in the opposite direction, down the coast (southeast) away from the HBGS. Extensive bacterial studies have shown that the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh appear to be the primary sources of fecal indicator bacteria to the near shore ocean. In addition, bird droppings and a reservoir of bacteria stored in the sediment and on marine vegetation may continue to be the source of bacteria at the mouths of the river and marsh. Modeling studies and monitoring data indicate that there is likely another unidentified source of bacteria in the vicinity of Stations 6N and 9N. However, three separate studies conducted between 2001 and 2002 have demonstrated that HBGS is not the source of bacteria in the surf zone. Less than significant impact on the Huntington Beach surf zone is expected. Finding for Concentrated Seawater Discharge The proposed desalination project concentrated seawater discharge will not significantly impact ocean water quality or marine biological resources in the area. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.10 of the DREIR, the proposed project's discharge would not have a significant effect on organisms living around the discharge or organisms that would pass through the area. Most of the marine organisms living near the HBGS also occur in other areas of the Southern California Bight where naturally occurring salinities can be higher than what is anticipated at the HBGS outfall. Plankton, fishes, and other water-column species would have brief exposure to the concentrated seawater discharge field, and the area of benthic impacts would be relatively small and localized. In addition, no endangered species or kelp beds exist within the vicinity of the HBGS outfall. As ocean water quality impacts and impacts to marine biological resources are not anticipated to be significant, a separate routine monitoring process is not proposed as part of the project. However, if applicable, ocean water quality and biological monitoring during long-term project operation will be conducted as directed by the RWQCB. Impacts are less than significant in this regard. Finding for Reverse Osmosis Membrane Cleaning Solution The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not significantly impact ocean water quality or marine biological resources due to the discharge of reverse osmosis membrane cleaning solution through the HBGS outfall. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As stated in the DREIR in Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, the reverse osmosis system trains will be cleaned using a combination of cleaning chemicals such as industrial soaps (e.g. sodium dodecylbenzene, which is frequently used in commercially available soaps and toothpaste) and weak solutions of acids and sodium hydroxide. The "first rinse" treated waste cleaning solution from the washwater tank will be discharged into the local sanitary sewer for further treatment at the OCSD regional wastewater treatment facility. The cleaning rinse water following the "first rinse" will be mixed with the RO facility concentrated seawater, treated waste City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 16 of 48 Seawater uesallnation vroject at Huntington beacn rINuINVS Ur rAU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 filter backwash, and the AES plant discharge and sent to the ocean. This "second rinse" 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 OCSD's Wastewater Discharge Regulations. The analysis in Section 5.10 of the DREIR shows that impacts to the local marine environment would be less than significant. As explained in Section 5.10 of the DREIR, an alternative to discharging the "first rinse" of the RO membrane cleaning solution into the OCSD system is to discharge the solution ("first rinse" and all subsequent rinses) into the Pacific Ocean via the HBGS outfall. The majority of the chemicals within the membrane cleaning solution would be either below detection levels or regulatory limits, even before dilution with other desalination facility and HBGS discharges. Dilution at a 260 to one ratio would further minimize impacts to the marine environment and would assure NPDES compliance. Impacts to the local marine environment would be less than significant. Finding for Impingement and Entrainment The proposed desalination facility will have less than significant impacts on marine biological resources in regards to impingement and entrainment effects. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.10 of the DREIR, the proposed project source water intake would not increase the volume, or the velocity of the HBGS cooling water intake nor would it increase the number of organisms entrained or impinged by the HBGS cooling water intake system. Therefore, the impingement and entrainment effects of the HBGS are not included in assessing the proposed project's effects, as these organisms would not be exposed to further screening prior to entering the desalination facility's pretreatment system. The proposed desalination facility would not have a separate direct ocean water intake and screening facilities, and would only use cooling water that is already screened by HBGS's intake. In response to City Council direction to specifically look at the desalination project's potential impacts on impingement and entrainment, an Intake Effects Assessment was completed and incorporated in the REIR as Appendix T and discussed in Section 5.10, Ocean Water Quality and Marine Biological Resources. The study was designed to investigate the potential for the desalination project feed water intake withdrawn from the HBGS cooling water system to increase the HBGS entrainment mortality and assess the significance of this potential entrainment effect on the source water. The study concludes that the desalination project will not cause any additional impingement losses to the marine organisms impinged by HBGS. The study also determined, based on in-plant testing, that HBGS has an observed entrainment mortality of 94.1 percent. The desalination project is estimated to increase mortality by 1.2 percent (from 94.1% to 95.3%) at flows of 507 MGD and by 4.6 percent (from 94.1% to 98.7%) at flows of 127 MGD. Therefore, the estimated larval fish loss attributed to the proposed desalination project would be 0.02 percent of the total population of larvae in the local area surrounding the HBGS intake. In comparison, at the minimum cooling water intake flow of 127 MGD and assuming 100 percent mortality, HBGS has an entrainment loss of 0.33 percent. The REIR notes that the most frequently entrained species are very abundant in the area of the HBGS intake and the Southern California Bight, and therefore, the actual ecological effects due City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 17 of 48 Jeawater uesalination rroject at runtington tieacn FINUINUb UI- rAC:15 Recirculated EIR No.00-02 to any additional entrainment from the desalination project are insignificant. Six taxa (gobies, blennies, croakers, northern anchovy, garibaldi and silversides) and a group of larvae that could not be identified were found to comprise 97 percent of all the fish larvae present in the HBGS cooling water system from which the proposed project would withdraw its source water supply. Species of direct recreational and commercial value constitute a very small fraction of the entrained organisms in the HBGS offshore intake. Moreover, the proposed desalination facility would not result in significant entrainment impacts even upon implementation of the new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 316(b) final rule (which mandates a reduction in entrainment by 60 to 90 percent at existing power plants with cooling water structures circulating over 50 mgd). There is a misconception that compliance with 316(b) requirements (through implementation of an improved intake screening system, velocity reduction, or other EPA-approved method) would reduce the entrainment mortality of the cooling water system at HBGS, and that the proposed project would then be responsible for a substantially higher rate of mortality of entrained organisms. The important distinction, however, is that 316(b) compliance is not based on reduced in-plant entrainment mortality, but rather is based on entrainment itself (a reduced intake of organisms at the intake structure). 316(b) still assumes a through-plant entrainment mortality of 100 percent. Thus, any reduction in entrainment at HBGS would result in a reduced number of organisms taken in for both HBGS and the proposed desalination facility. Impacts due to operation of the proposed desalination facility in regards to impingement and entrainment are less than significant. K. IMPACTS RELATED TO PRODUCT WATER QUALITY (DREIR pages 5.11-1 to 5.11- 24) Section 5.11 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to product water quality which are addressed below, in Section 4.0-K of this Statement of Findings of Facts. L. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 6.3 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential cumulative impacts. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant are: • Local Cumulative Impacts • Regional Cumulative Impacts Finding for Potential Local Cumulative Impacts The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not result in significant local cumulative impacts. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding Section 6.3 of the DREIR addresses the cumulative impacts associated with the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. The cumulative impact analysis was based primarily on build-out of the City's General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and General Plan EIR. The analysis also identified, listed and considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from the currently known probable projects at the time of DREIR publication. Section 6.3 of the DREIR specifically analyzed potential cumulative impacts in the areas of land use/relevant planning, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, air quality, noise, public City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 18 of 48 Seawater uesaiination rroject at huntington beacn riNuiNUb Ur rHL i 5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 services and utilities, aesthetics/light and glare, hazards and hazardous materials, construction related, biological resources (terrestrial only), and product water quality impacts. No significant cumulative impacts were identified. Finding for Potential Regional Cumulative Impacts The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not result in significant regional cumulative impacts. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding The DREIR notes in Section 6.3, that additional seawater desalination facilities were being considered by various cities and agencies along the Southern California coast. Because those projects are in various stages of conceptual consideration, and construction has not begun, the Final REIR does not attempt to quantify or evaluate potential cumulative impacts of all of those projects. Such an analysis is speculative at best, and is not required under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130[b]. However, an analysis is provided for certain proposed desalination facilities along the Southern California coast (see Table 6-4). The Final REIR notes that the project, together with these other proposed desalination projects, may facilitate new development in south Orange County or elsewhere. Potential growth-inducing cumulative impacts, further discussed below in Section 3.0-M of the Statement of Facts and' Finding and explained in Section 6.2 of the DREIR, are considered less than significant. All potentially significant impacts to long-term water quality and marine biological sources would be reduced to less than significant levels, as explained in Section 6.3 of the DREIR, through regulatory compliance, and project design features and implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Potential cumulative impacts upon ocean water quality and marine biological resources are considered less h i than significant. The impact of the additional electric energy demand by the proposed project is less than one percent in Southern California and is therefore, less than significant. M. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Section 6.2 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential growth-inducing impacts. Finding for Potential Growth-Inducing Impacts The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will not result in significant growth- inducing impacts. Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Finding As required under CEQA, Section 6.2 of the DREIR included a discussion of the ways in which the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach could be growth-inducing. Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Significant growth impacts could also occur if the project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. It must first be noted that the project will sell water on a wholesale basis to water agencies who in turn will sell the water to customers at retail prices. The project does not propose to sell water at a retail level. On page 3-30, the DREIR explains how the water City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 19 of 48 Seawater uesannation rroJect at Huntington beacn NNUINCiS Ur rAl:15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 produced by the proposed seawater desalination facility will be delivered into the regional distribution system operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"). The regional system operated by MWD serves Orange County and most of the South Coast Hydrologic Region. It will be up to the Orange County water agencies served by that system to determine how best to allocate the water produced by the project. The project may have the potential to indirect) induce growth because additional or supplemental water supplies will be p Y g pp pp made available to the County of Orange as a result of the project's implementation. However, while the provision of additional/supplemental water realized by the desalination facility may be characterized as reducing one of the barriers to growth, implementation of the project will not necessarily induce growth because the new water supply made available by the project may be required to simply replace anticipated reductions in available imported water supplies. Growth in Orange County will occur with or without the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. Implementation of the project will provide greater flexibility for Orange County water agencies to meet existing water supply needs during times of drought, but it is only one part of the solution to meet existing and future water needs in Orange County. Other water supplies such as imported water, groundwater replenishment, water reuse, and more aggressive forms of conservation must also be considered as part of the solution because the project would only result in the addition of less than eight percent (8%) of the existing supplies used in Orange County. With a projected population growth of approximately two percent (2%) per year, the project's water supply would soon fail to keep up with existing growth projections for Orange County. A Growth Assessment and General Plan Evaluation was completed and incorporated in the FREIR as Appendix P and discussed in Section 6.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action. The study looked at the projected number of dwelling units at build out in the County based both on the HousingElements of all the jurisdictions within the Count and the Orange J Y 9 County Projections adopted by the Orange County Council of Governments. The study also identified 12 planned new residential development projects of 500 dwelling units or more in the county which are required by law to identify and verify the water sources available to serve the project. Seven of the projects have identified water sources independent of the desalination project. The desalination project cannot be ruled out as a water source for one or more of the five planned residential projects that have not yet identified water sources. The FREIR notes that 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 general plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies. Even if the project were relied upon to serve a new development of 500 dwelling units or more, it would not foster growth in excess of that already assumed and projected in pertinent planning documents. The FREIR acknowledges that since no water supply agreements have been executed with water agencies within Orange County, the precise locations/uses where the desalinated water would be allocated are not known. Therefore, there is a potential for the project to induce growth in unidentified areas. However, all proposed projects and water sources would be subject to environmental analysis prior to approval. The FREIR concludes that in consideration of population and housing projections within the County and the recognized need for seawater desalination as a supply source within the water management and other related plans discussed in the FREIR, any impacts in regards to growth inducement would be less than significant. The project will not result in significant growth-inducing impacts. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 20 of 48 seawater uesalmation Project at Huntington beacn I-INUINU5 Ur VAL;15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 4.0 FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The following issues were determined to be "less than significant with mitigation" as set forth in the DREIR. The City of Huntington Beach finds that these potentially significant adverse impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of the existing City development review requirements, standards, codes, and the mitigation measures identified in the DREIR. Mitigation measures are referenced in this Statement of Findings of Facts using the same numbering system employed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the DREIR. Refer to Attachment B, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM for a complete listing of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. A. IMPACTS RELATED TO LAND USE/RELEVANT PLANING Section 5.1 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to land use/relevant planning which are all addressed above, in Section 3.0-A of this Statement of Findings of Facts. B. IMPACTS RELATED TO GEOLOGY, SOILS, &SEISMICITY Section 5.2 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to geology, soils and seismicity. The DREIR addresses six topics, four of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topics were addressed in Section 3.0-B of this Statement of Findings of Facts. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant after implementation of mitigation are: • Wind/Water Erosion • Geology/Soils • Seismicity/Faulting • Liquefaction Potential Finding for Wind/Water Erosion The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create significant impacts in regards to wind and water erosion during grading activities. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard erosion control practices as typically required by the City of Huntington Beach and mitigation measure HWQ-1. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.2 of the DREIR, the potential impacts related to wind and water erosion have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design considerations, standard conditions and mitigation measure HWQ-1, all of which have been incorporated into the project. The proposed project will require a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize wind and water erosion impacts. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 21 of 48 Jeawater uesallnation Project at tuntington beach I-INUINUZ5 Uh I-AU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Finding for Geology/Soils The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may be subject to significant impacts resulting from unstable soils and shallow groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the project area. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including adherence to standard Uniform Building Codes (UBC) conditions and incorporation of mitigation measures GEO-1 through GEO-5, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Findings As explained in Section 5.2 of the DREIR, the potential impacts related to geology/soils have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by incorporation of mitigation measures. These mitigation measures include submitting a detailed geotechnical report, the submittal of application for a precise grading permit, approval of the geotechnical report by the City Engineer, all dewatering activities will be in compliance with NPDES regulations, compressible soils will be removed and recompacted or the use of piles or grade beams will be used to support on-site structures, and type V cement will be used for concrete and buried metal pipes shall utilize special measure to protect against the effects of corrosive soils. Finding for Seismicity/Faulting The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may be subject to significant hazards from seismicity and faulting. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including adherence to standard UBC conditions and incorporation of mitigation measures GEO-6 and GEO-7. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.2 of the DREIR, adequate measures shall be taken to protect building foundations and on-site pipelines from the effects of seismicity, including compliance with all UBC standards and California Division of Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Special Publication 117. Additionally, special studies and a subsurface investigation (as a part of the detailed geotechnical survey) will be performed to examine potential impacts from the South Branch Fault. Finding for Liquefaction Potential The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may be subject to significant hazards due to high liquefaction potential in the vicinity of the project site. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including adherence to standard UBC conditions and incorporation of mitigation measures GEO-8 through GEO-10, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 22 of 48 ,seawater U2sallnatlOn F'rOJ2Ct at FiuniingtOn tSeacn FINUINUZ5 Ur VAIN 5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.2 of the DREIR, adequate measures shall also be taken to protect against liquefaction, including compliance with all UBC standards and California Division of Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Special Publication 117. Additionally, the detailed geotechnical survey will analyze the potential for lateral spread on-site. Methods such as overexcavation, recompaction, in-situ soil densification, injection grouting, and deep soil mixing will be performed to stabilize structures from liquefiable soils. C. IMPACTS RELATED TO HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER RUNOFF Section 5.3 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to hydrology, drainage and storm water runoff. The DREIR addresses many topics, one of which is addressed in this Section. The remaining topics were addressed in Section 3.0-C of this Statement of Findings of Facts Finding for Flooding and Storm Water Drainage The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have significant long-term hydrology and water quality impacts related to flooding and storm water drainage. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-3, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board working through the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Ana Region has the responsibility and jurisdiction to issue a NPDES permit. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.3 of the DREIR, potential impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features and mitigation measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-3, inclusive which have been incorporated into the project. The proposed project will require a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) which identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) and implementation measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). In addition, appropriate site-specific hydrology and hydraulic analysis will be performed for the project prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, which ever comes first. The analysis shall include mitigation measures, if necessary, in regards to storm water drainage and flooding. An on-site drainage system will also be installed integrating permanent storm water quality features. It should be noted that an aboveground tank would increase the total impervious area of the project site, thereby increasing the amount of storm water runoff. In order to contain storm water on-site, an on-site storm water system will direct storm water to the desalination facility's storm water system, ultimately discharging into the Pacific Ocean via the AES outfall. In addition, containment berms surrounding the northern and eastern side of the tank site would be left in place further containing storm water on-site. D. IMPACTS RELATED TO AIR QUALITY Section 5.4 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to air quality, all of which are addressed above, in Section 3.0-D of this Statement of Findings of Facts. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 23 of 48 Seawater uesallnation Project at Huntington beacn HNUINUZ5 Ur r-AU I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 E. IMPACTS RELATED TO NOISE Section 5.5 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to noise. Stationary noise sources are addressed in this Section; the remaining topics are addressed in Section 3.0- E of this Statement of Findings of Facts. Finding for Stationary Noise Sources The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create significant impacts to sensitive receptors adjacent to the desalination facility site from long-term stationary noise sources associated with project operation. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure N01-1. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.5 of the DREIR, potential noise impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features incorporated into the project and through incorporation of mitigation measure NOW. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, an acoustical analysis report and appropriate I ans shall be prepared. This documentation will describe the stationary noise generation p p p rY potential and noise mitigation measures (such as the installation of sound enclosures or placing noise-generating equipment indoors), if needed, which shall be included in the plans and specifications of the project. All stationary equipment shall be designed to meet the noise criteria as specified in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control), and will be subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. F. IMPACTS RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Section 5.6 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to public services and utilities. The DREIR addresses many topics, six of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topics are addressed in Section 3.0-F of this Statement of Findings of Facts. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant after implementation of re n miti9 atio are: • Schools • Roadway Maintenance • Wastewater • Storm Water Drainage • Water • Solid Waste Finding for Schools The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may place additional demand on schools located within the project vicinity. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-1. Less than significant impact with mitigation. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 24 of 48 Jeawater uesallnation Project at muntington beacn I-INUINUb Ur rAU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, the project does not include housing or other student- generating uses. According to the Huntington Beach Union High School District, the project is anticipated to have negligible impacts on school facilities within the City of Huntington Beach, and is anticipated to have a student generation rate of 0.0000340242 per square foot. However, in consideration of A.B. 2926, the Applicant would be required to pay a commercial fee of $0.36 per square foot for non-residential development within the Huntington Beach Union High School District, of which the High School District would receive 39 percent or $0.1404 per square foot of the total fee.z The Huntington Beach City School District would receive the remaining 61 percent ($0.2196 per square foot) of the commercial fee, and does not anticipate that the proposed project would have significant student-generating impacts or require other assessment fees or mitigation measures. The project is not expected to generate the need for additional school facilities.3 Any potential additional demand on schools located in the project vicinity has been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant will pay applicable school mitigation fees pursuant to State law to properly mitigate impacts to schools. Findingfor Roadway ay Maintenance The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create an increased demand on streets nearby the project site and an increased need for roadway maintenance services. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including conditions of approval and incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-2. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding To properly mitigate any increased demand on streets nearby the project site and any increased need for roadway maintenance services, adequate traffic impact fees will be paid by the project applicant as determined by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works to provide for additional facilities, if necessary. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, the project applicant will be required to provide certain street improvements as a condition of approval. Any potential increased demand on streets nearby the project site or increased need for roadway maintenance service has been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-2 and the conditions of approval. Finding for Wastewater The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create an increased demand on the local wastewater system. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-3 and PSU-4. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding 2 Letter, Ms. Patricia Koch, Huntington Beach Union High School District, December 2004. 3 Letter, Mr. Richard Masters, Huntington Beach City School District, December 4, 2004. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 25 of 48 Seawater uesallnatlon Project at Huntington tseacn I-INUINUZ5 UI- I-AU 15 Recirculated EIR No.00-02 To properly mitigate any increased demand on the local wastewater system, adequate sewer connection fees will be paid by the project applicant to provide for additional facilities, if necessary. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, the project would produce nominal amounts of domestic wastewater, as the plant would employ approximately 18 people. The Orange County Sanitation District has indicated that it has capacity to accommodate any waste cleaning solution that may be discharged into the local sanitary sewer by the project. Any potential increased demand on the local wastewater system has been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features and the incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-3. With the incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-4, encroachment permits will be obtained from the County, prior to work, for all work within, over and under the OCFCD and county of Orange right-of-way. Finding for Storm Water Drainage The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create increased storm water drainage. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures HWQ- 1, HWQ-2 and HWQ-3. Less than significant impact with mitigation. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board working through the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Ana Region has the responsibility and jurisdiction to issue a NPDES permit for the project discharge through the AES outfall into the Pacific Ocean. Facts in Support of Finding The Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Huntington Beach operate the storm water drainage system within the City. The system removes water runoff from streets and transports the runoff to the Ocean. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, the addition of impervious surfaces at the project site will increase the potential amount of surface runoff. However, an on-site local storm water drainage system will be included as one of the project design features. Storm water will be collected on site and treated (using a clarification process) before it is transported to the Ocean via the AES outfall. The inclusion of project design features and the incorporation of mitigation measures HWQ-1, HWQ-2 and HWQ-3 will mitigate any increased storm water drainage impacts to less than significant levels. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board working through the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Santa Ana Region has the responsibility and jurisdiction to issue a NPDES permit for the project discharge through the AES outfall into the Pacific Ocean. Finding for Water The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create an increased demand for City water service and may create impacts in regards to water compatibility, water quality and hydraulics. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures PSU-5 and PW-1. Less than significant impact with mitigation. In addition, the California Department of Health Services has the responsibility to review and approve the quality of the drinking water produced by the project. Moreover, the owners and operators of regional water systems that will deliver project water must approve and accept the blending of the project water in their system. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 26 of 48 Seawater uesalination rroject at huntington beacn 1-INUINU6 UF- f AU 16 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Facts in Support of Finding To properly mitigate any increased demand for City water service, adequate water connection fees will be paid by the project applicant to provide for additional facilities, if necessary. As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, it is anticipated that the normal domestic demand created by the approximately 18 employees at the plant can be provided with desalinated water generated on-site. Adequate backflow prevention devices will be required as a condition of receiving any water service from the City. Any potential increased demand for City water service has been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of conditions of approval and the incorporation of mitigation measure PSU-5. The product water created by the desalination facility will be blended with the imported water delivered by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). It is anticipated that the water produced by the desalination facility will be comparable in physical characteristics to the MWD water. However, prior to project operation, coordination, testing and monitoring with involved water agencies will be required as a condition of approval. The owners and operators of regional water systems that will deliver project water must approve and accept the blending of the project water in their system. Moreover, all Department of Health Services water quality requirements must be met before the blended supply can be delivered to water customers by the applicable retail water agencies or City water departments. Also, prior to project operations, all required drinking water permits would be obtained from the California Department of Health Services including a Wholesale Drinking Water Permit and an Administrative Change to Retail agencies' Drinking Water Permit. Any potential impacts in regards to water compatibility or water quality have been lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of conditions of approval and the incorporation of mitigation measure PW-1. Final project design features will reflect coordination with the owners and operators of the regional water systems that will deliver project water and address any hydraulic and surge control issues to insure that no significant impacts to regional pipelines will result from project operation. Finding for Solid Waste The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create an increased demand on solid waste disposal facilities. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures PSU-6 and PSU-7. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.6 of the DREIR, the project applicant must coordinate with the City of Huntington Beach recycling representative to ensure compliance with the City's waste reduction and recycling program, and will be required to prepare a waste reduction plan for the generation of construction and operational waste from the proposed project. The inclusion of project design features and the incorporation of mitigation measures PSU-6 and PSU-7 will mitigate any increased demand on solid waste disposal facilities to less than significant levels. G. IMPACTS RELATED TO AESTHETICS/LIGHT & GLARE Section 5.7 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to aesthetics/light and glare. The DREIR addresses three topics, two of which (site character and on-site light and glare) are addressed in this Section. The remaining topic is addressed in Section 3.0-G of this Statement of Findings of Facts. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 27 of 48 aeawater uesallnation Nroject at hiuntington beacn rINUINUZ5 Ur VAL;I J Recirculated EIR No.00-02 Finding for Site Character The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may create significant site character impacts. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure ALG-1. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.7 of the DREIR, potential aesthetic impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features incorporated into the project and through incorporation of mitigation measure ALG-1. Mitigation measure ALG-1 requires that exterior mechanical equipment be screened and setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. All such screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building. In addition, the existing berms on the perimeter of the property will partially screen the project from view. The existing project site can be described as low to non-existent in aesthetic value. As designed and with mitigation, the project will improve the aesthetic character of the site. Finding for On-Site Light and Glare The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may generate light and glare through on-site nighttime security lighting and additional automobile traffic. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure ALG-2. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.7 of the DREIR, on-site light and glare impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of project design features and through the incorporation of mitigation measure ALG-2. To mitigate impacts from light and glare, light intensity shall be limited to only that necessary for adequate security and safety, and light "spillage" onto adjacent properties shall be controlled by directional or shielded lighting fixtures. H. IMPACTS RELATED TO HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Section 5.8 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials above, in Section 3.0-H of this Statement of Findings of Facts. I. IMPACTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION Section 5.9 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential short-term construction related impacts. The DREIR addresses nine topics, eight of which are addressed in this Section. The remaining topic is addressed in Section 5.0 of this Statement of Findings of Facts. The topics where the impacts were found to be less than significant after implementation of mitigation are: • Hydrology and Water Quality City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 28 of 48 Jeawater uesalination Project at Huntington beacn I-INUINUb Ur t-AL;1 5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 • Noise • Public Services and Utilities • Aesthetics/Light and Glare • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Traffic • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources Finding for Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-1 through CON-8, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding A i s explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-1 through CON-8, inclusive. Short-term impacts in regards to hydrology and water quality will be mitigated through adherence to NPDES and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations, preparation of a City-approved Erosion Control Plan, and the acquisition of appropriate permits/approvals for dewatering activities. Overall short-term construction impacts related to hydrology and water quality will be reduced because an aboveground storage tank will involve substantially less grading and excavation than an underground tank. Finding for Noise The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to noise. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-11 through CON-13, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to noise have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-11 through CON-13, inclusive. The project will be in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and construction activities will adhere to various standards in regards to construction equipment, staging areas, and hours of construction operations. Overall short-term construction impacts related to noise will be reduced because an aboveground storage tank will involve substantially less grading and excavation than an underground tank. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 29 of 48 Jeawater uesalination vroject at Huntington tseacn VINUINUb Ur VAU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Finding for Public Services and Utilities The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to public services and utilities. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions and incorporation of mitigation measure CON-14. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to public services and utilities have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by standard conditions and through incorporation of mitigation measure CON-14. In order to mitigate impacts to public services and utilities, the project engineer shall perform geophysical surveys to identify subsurface utilities and structures, the findings of which shall be incorporated into site design. Pipelines or conduits which may be encountered within the excavation and graded areas shall either be relocated or be cut and plugged according to the applicable code requirements. Finding for Aesthetics/Light and Glare The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to aesthetics/light and glare. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-15 and CON- 16. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to aesthetics/ light and glare have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-15 and CON-16. Aesthetic impacts will be minimized by installation aesthetic screening around the construction site, and by concentrating construction activities and staging areas away from adjacent sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. Finding for Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to hazards and hazardous materials. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-16 through CON-29, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to hazards and hazardous materials have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by standard conditions, appropriate project design features and City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 30 of 48 Seawater uesallnatlon Project at huntington beacn HNUINUb Ut- I-AC;I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-17 through CON-30, inclusive. Numerous measures will be implemented to mitigate impacts in regards to hazards and hazardous materials, including, but not limited to, clearing the site of excess vegetation, surface trash, piping, debris, and other deleterious and/or hazardous materials prior to rough grading, asbestos and lead-based paint removal, and adherence to standards as administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, South Coast Air Quality Management District, State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Regional Water Quality Control Board, County Integrated Waste Management, Orange County Health Care Agency, Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency, and City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Finding for Traffic The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to traffic. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-31 through CON-36, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to traffic have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by standard conditions, appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-31 through CON-36, inclusive. Traffic related impacts will be reduced by the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan, the use of flagmen and construction traffic signage to control traffic, obtaining and satisfying the requirements of the necessary right-of-way permits, and the development of a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. The applicant would be required to coordinate with the City of Costa Mesa in order to minimize traffic impacts on applicable roadways and to obtain necessary approvals for pipeline construction within the City. Overall short-term construction impacts related to traffic will be reduced because an aboveground storage tank will involve substantially less grading and excavation than an underground tank. Finding for Biological Resources The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to biological resources. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-37 through CON-44, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to biological resources have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by standard conditions, appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-36 through CON-43, inclusive. Impacts to biological resources will be reduced by performing focused surveys to determine the potential for endangered species and other sensitive species and coordinating with the USFWS to avoid special status species or to develop mitigation if avoidance is not possible, by preparing and City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 31 of 48 aeawater uesallnation Project at Huntington beacn HNUINCiS Ur t-AU 16 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 implementing a Frac-Out Contingency Plan, and by performing a jurisdictional delineation and obtaining and complying with the appropriate permits, if applicable. Finding for Cultural Resources The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to cultural resources. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-45 through CON-47. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.9 of the DREIR, potential short-term construction related impacts in regards to cultural resources have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by appropriate project design features and through incorporation of mitigation measures CON-45 through CON-46. In order to mitigate potential impacts in regards to cultural resources, a paleontological resource recovery program shall be implemented, and all construction activities will be halted should historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources be discovered during excavation until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. Additionally, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to monitor grading operations and salvage significant fossil remains. J. IMPACTS RELATED TO OCEAN WATER QUALITY AND MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Section 5.10 of the DREIR addresses the projects potential impacts related to ocean water quality and marine biological resources which are addressed above, in Section 3.0-J of this Statement of Findings of Facts. K. IMPACTS RELATED TO PRODUCT WATER QUALITY Section 5.11 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential impacts related to product water quality. The DREIR addresses three topics, all of which are addressed in this Section: • Product Water Quality • Product Water Reliability • Orange County Water Distribution System Finding for Product Water Quality The proposed desalination project product water quality may be impacted by several factors, including ocean water quality fluctuations, red tide algal bloom events, HBGS non-routine operations and RO membrane performance. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures PW-1 through PW-3, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 32 of 48 Jeawater Uesannation Project at Huntington tseacn rINUINUZ5 Ur I-HI:I Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Facts in Support of Finding The product water of the proposed seawater desalination facility may be impacted by natural changes in ocean water salinity, temperature, turbidity and pathogen concentration. Typically, ocean water salinity and temperature changes are triggered by natural seasonal events. As discussed in DREIR Section 5.10, OCEAN WATER QUALITY and the Watershed Sanitary Survey (Appendix E of the DREIR), the intake ocean water turbidity and pathogen concentration changes are mainly driven by rain events. In order to maintain a consistent quality of desalinated product water, the applicant would be required to obtain a drinking water permit from the California Department of Health Services (DHS) that would address monitoring of source water quality and its effects on product water quality. The applicant has been working with DHS for the last four years to obtain such a permit. In August 2002, DHS issued a conceptual approval letter for the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. The desalination facility intake water quality in terms of turbidity (which is a surrogate indicator for potential elevated pathogen content) and salinity would be measured automatically and monitored continuously at the desalination facility intake. Instrumentation for continuous monitoring and recording of these parameters would be installed at the desalination facility intake pump station. In event of excessive increase in intake seawater turbidity and/or salinity, this instrumentation would trigger alarms that would notify desalination facility staff. If the intake pathogen count reaches a preset maximum level, this instrumentation would automatically trigger chlorination of the source water, thereby reducing the source water pathogens to acceptable levels even before the water reaches the RO treatment facilities. In addition to the automation provisions, turbidity and salinity would also be measured manually by the desalination staff at least once a day and the intake seawater would be analyzed for pathogen content at least once per week. In the event of elevated intake seawater turbidity, laboratory pathogen content analysis would be performed more frequently. In addition to the intake water quality monitoring instrumentation, the desalination facility pretreatment filtration facilities would be equipped with filter effluent turbidimeters and particle counters. This equipment would allow facility operators to continuously monitor pretreatment filter performance and to trigger adjustments of desalination facility operations to accommodate intake water quality changes. Desalinated product water quality would also be monitored continuously for salinity and chlorine residuals and would be tested frequently for pathogen content. In summary, desalinated product water quality would be tested in accordance with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations (Title 22) and the DHS. Product water quality impacts due to ocean water quality fluctuations are not anticipated to occur upon implementation of the design features described above. The desalination facility would be designed to maintain high quality potable water (consistent with regulatory standards) in the event of a red tide event. As explained in Section 5.11 of the DREIR, it would have a number of provisions/barriers to protect against the passage of red tide- related algal organic compounds through the treatment processes. These include a deep intake configuration to minimize algae entrainment, the chlorination of intake seawater, an enhanced coagulation of intake seawater, a microfiltration or dual media sand filtration algae barrier, microfiltration or dual media sand filter covers, a cartridge filter algae barrier, the RO City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 33 of 48 Seawater uesannation rroject at Huntington beacn F-INUINUZ5 Ur FAU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 membranes, a final disinfection, and an emergency facility shutdown procedure. Also, there are no documented cases of red tide health or safety problems associated with the operation of RO seawater desalination facilities worldwide which is indicative of the capability of these systems to perform reliably and effectively under red tide conditions. Unusual activities at the HBGS, such as seawater emergency intake pump shut downs and failures, electricity equipment malfunctions, excessively high temperature of the cooling water, etc., may impact product water quality and desalination facility performance. The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach would have six different provisions incorporating several protection/notification devices to account for non-routine operations at the HBGS: ❖ Automatic control interlock between HBGS pumps and desalination facility intake pumps: The shutdown controls of the desalination facility intake pumps would be interlocked with the HBGS pumps, so when HBGS pump operation is discontinued to prepare for heat treatment, non-routine or even routine pump shutdown, this would automatically trigger an alarm at the desalination facility along with shutdown of the desalination intake pumps. After this emergency shutdown, the intake pumps would have to be started up manually, and the operations staff would be required to check the reason of shutdown with the HBGS staff before restarting the treatment facility intake pumps. ❖ Continuous Intake Pump Flow Measurement Devices: Seawater intake pumps would be equipped with flow meters, which would record the pumped flow continuously. If the intake flow is discontinued for any reason, including non-routine HBGS operations, this would trigger automatic intake pump shutdown. ❖ Continuous Intake Water Temperature Measurement Devices: The desalination facility intake pump station would be equipped with instrumentation for continuous measurement of the intake temperature. Any fluctuations of the intake temperature outside preset normal limits would trigger alarm and intake pump shutdown. This monitoring equipment would provide additional protection against heat treatment or other unusual intake water quality conditions. ❖ Continuous Intake Water Salinity/Conductivity Measurement Devices: The desalination facility intake pump station would be equipped with instrumentation for continuous measurement of the intake seawater salinity. Any fluctuations of the intake salinity outside preset normal operational limits would trigger an alarm and initiate intake pump shutdown. This monitoring equipment would provide additional protection against discharge of unusual fresh water/surface water streams in the facility outfall. ❖ Continuous Intake Water Oil Spill/Leak Detection Monitoring Devices: The desalination facility intake pump station would be equipped with instrumentation for oil spill/leak detection. Detection of oil in the intake water even in concentrations lower than 0.5 mg/L would automatically trigger an alarm and initiate intake pump shutdown. This monitoring equipment would provide additional protection against unusual intake water quality conditions. ❖ Routine Communication with HBGS Staff: The desalination facility staff of each shift would be required to contact HBGS personnel at least once per shift and enquire about unusual planned or unplanned events at the HBGS. If non-routine operations are City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 34 of 48 Seawater uesallnation vroject at Huntington beacn t-INUINU j UF- f AL;15 Recirculated EIR No.00-02 planned at the HBGS, the desalination facility would be informed and would modify desalination facility operations accordingly. Implementation of the six provisions described above would minimize impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. As the RO membrane elements age, their rejection capabilities decrease. This may trigger a change in product water quality from the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. The RO system membrane performance would continuously monitor feed seawater and permeate conductivity and the differential pressure through the membranes. If permeate salinity (i.e. total dissolved solids [TDS]) concentration exceeds the design level, membranes would be cleaned to recover their original performance capabilities. In addition, an average of 10 to 15 percent of the membrane elements would be replaced every year, thereby maintaining the product water quality at a steady level. The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach would produce product water with lower TDS levels than that currently delivered to Orange County water purveyors by MWD. The TDS product water quality estimate of 350 mg/L is based on the use of high-rejection seawater desalination membranes at the second year of desalination facility operations. Typically, during the first two years of facility operations, the average product water quality TDS concentration would be lower than 350 mg/L. After the second year of operations, a portion (typically 10 to 15 percent per year) of the desalination facility membrane elements would be replaced to maintain the product water quality close to the target TDS concentration of 350 mg/L. Membrane replacement is a standard approach commonly used in seawater desalination facilities to maintain product water quality at a long-term steady target level. In addition, chloride and sodium are estimated to average 180 mg/L and 120 mg/L, respectively. These estimated water quality levels for TDS, chloride, and sodium are well below the newly adopted narrative water quality objectives in the amended Basin Plan and when the desalinated water is integrated into the water supply system it is unlikely that recycled water would exceed the amended Basin Plan narrative water quality objectives. The desalination facility would use industry standard eight-inch desalination membrane elements, which are available from a number of specialized membrane manufacturers. The membrane element manufacturers and their products pre-qualified for this project are: - Hydranautics (SWC3 or better) - Filmtec/Dow (SW30HR-380 or better) - Koch/Fluid Systems (TFC2822SS or better) - Toray (SU820L or better). Key design membrane element parameters common for the products of these suppliers are: - Membrane Type: Spiral-wound, thin film composite; - Applied Flux: eight to 12 gpd/sf at recovery rate of 45 to 50 percent; - Nominal Salt Rejection: 99.6 percent or higher; - Applied Pressure: 800 to 1,100 pounds per square inch (psi); - Maximum Pressure Drop per Element: 10 psi; - Maximum Feed Water SDI (15 min): 5.0; - Free Chlorine Resistance: less than 0.1 mg/L; - Operating pH Range: two to 11; and City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 35 of 48 Seawater uesallnation Project at Huntington beacn VINUINUJ Vr VAU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 - QA/QC Membrane Production and Testing Procedures. The actual membrane element that would be used for the proposed desalination facility would be selected during the detailed engineering design phase of this project. The product water projections are performed for two conditions: new membranes at facility start up and membranes at the second year of facility operations. All projections are completed for low flow scenario conditions in terms of intake water salinity and temperature and membrane performance characteristics. At the beginning of the desalination facility operation the TDS concentration of the RO system permeate is projected to be between 226 and 308 mg/L, and at the end of the second year of desalination facility operations is projected to be between 257 and 349 mg/L (based on projections of product water quality and membrane performance in accordance with modeling specifications provided by two of the four membrane suppliers, Toray and Hydranautics). As previously indicated, the permeate water quality would be maintained at a second-year operations level over the entire 30-year period of facility operations by replacement of a portion of the membrane elements every year. It should be noted that the projections above are for the water quality of the RO system permeate as it exits the desalination system. Prior to distribution, the desalination facility permeate would be conditioned by lime and carbon dioxide for stabilization and corrosion control, and with chlorine for final disinfection. The addition of these conditioning chemicals would increase the final product water TDS concentration by 30 to 50 mg/L. Therefore, at facility start-up the TDS of the product water delivered to the distribution system is expected to be in a range of 260 to 340 mg/L, while for the entire 30-year period of facility operations the TDS concentration would be in a range of 300 to 400 mg/L and would average 350 mg/L. The projections presented above are developed using conservative assumptions for the type and performance of the membrane elements, intake water salinity and temperature. The applicant's previous pilot testing experience in Tampa and Carlsbad and the actual performance of the same Toray membranes in Trinidad indicate that the membrane manufacturer projections carry a safety factor of 10 to 15 percent and the actual product water quality is always better than that projected by the software. Advances in membrane technology over the next 30 years are expected to yield membrane elements capable of producing water of TDS concentration below 300 mg/L for most of the useful life of the desalination facility. Therefore, the projected product water TDS concentration of 350 mg/L is a reliable and conservative estimate of the potable water quality that would be delivered to the distribution system by the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. As described in Section 3.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, the facility would be capable of meeting all drinking water standards through multiple treatment processes, which include: pretreatment filters; cartridge filters; reverse osmosis membranes; and product water conditioning and disinfection facilities. A comparison between the product water quality of the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach and the DHS primary and secondary water quality standards is presented in DREIR Table 5.11-3, PRODUCT WATER QUALITY COMPARISON. Review of this table indicates that the desalination facility product water quality meets all current DHS water quality MCL standards. The project would also be consistent with all requirements of the SARWQCB Basin Plan. Thus, impacts in this regard would not be significant. In addition to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which sets the primary and secondary MCLs for water quality constituents, the California DHS has established health-based advisory levels, known as "action levels", for specific chemicals which may be found in drinking water. As City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 36 of 48 Seawater uesallnation Project at muntington beacn rINUINUZ5 Ul- rAL;1 5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 explained in Section 5.11 of the DREIR, boron is the only compound that is detectable in the product drinking water from the seawater desalination facility. After the reverse osmosis treatment process the desalted water boron level is approximately 0.6-0.8 mg/I, which is below the DHS action level. Impacts to the product water quality are less than significant. Finding for Product Water Reliability The proposed desalination project product water reliability may be impacted by earthquakes or other unscheduled outages. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measure PIN--4. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding The desalination facility operations would be fully automated and key systems would be provided with redundant equipment and controls per the requirements of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. In the event of an underground booster pump station power outage, the booster pump station would be equipped with on-site power generators that would allow their operation to continue even if the main source of power supply has been interrupted. The desalination facility would be provided with two independent sources of power supply, which includes an electrical power grid and/or the HBGS auxiliary reserve bank to assure uninterrupted operations during emergencies. The desalination facility would be manned 24 hours per day, 365 days per year by skilled and certified operators, which would coordinate facility and pump station operations with that of all other water purveyors delivering water to or operating the water distribution system facilities. As a part of desalination and pumping station operations, the operations staff would develop an earthquake mitigation and preparedness plan, which would be coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach. This plan would define coordination measures to assure continuous facility operations and water delivery under earthquake emergency conditions. The desalination facility would be designed with one standby reverse osmosis train to provide additional reliability of water production and supply. Typically, desalination facilities, including the existing desalination facilities in California, are designed to operate with all available reverse osmosis trains in operation at all times. During the times of potential outages caused by scheduled or unscheduled maintenance or emergency events, such as an earthquake, these 9 Y q facilities operate at reduced capacity or are down for a certain period of time. The proposed desalination facility would be designed to produce 50 mgd of product water with 12 RO trains, and would be constructed with an additional 13th RO standby train, which can produce up to 4.2 mgd of water at any time. This additional train would provide increased reliability and redundancy that exceeds current reliability standards and common practices for desalination facility design. The proposed desalination facility would be the first facility in California with such additional production standby capacity and reliability provisions. The issues of reliability of the supply and emergency service provisions would be dictated by the terms of the institutional agreements negotiated with the regional water purveyors (including MWDOC and Metropolitan Water District) and by the terms of the water supply agreements negotiated with potential customers that would purchase the product water produced at the desalination facility. Thus, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant in this regard with mitigation. In addition, the project represents a benefit in regards to water supply reliability for Orange County as it would be a new source of supplemental water supply that is drought-proof. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 37 of 48 Seawater uesailnation Project at Huntington beacn 1-INUINUJ Ur 1-AU 15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Finding for Orange County Water Distribution System The introduction of the proposed desalination project product water into the existing Orange County distribution system may result in impacts in regards to blended water quality, corrosivity, chlorine residual, disinfection byproduct concentration, taste and odor or hydraulics. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures PW-5 through PW-9, inclusive. Less than significant impact with mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding As explained in Section 5.11 of the DREIR, blending could have water quality improvement benefits, especially if the receiving agencies are predominantly using imported water, which has higher levels of TDS, sulfate, hardness and disinfection byproducts than desalinated water. The desalination facility would produce drinking water of very high and consistent quality, which meets or exceeds all applicable regulatory requirements established by the EPA and the DHS. The desalinated water would be produced applying state-of-the-art seawater RO membranes which are capable of removing practically all contaminants in the source water: turbidity; taste, odor, color, bacteria, viruses, salts, proteins, asbestos, organics, etc. Currently, EPA recognizes RO membrane treatment as a best available technology for water treatment and for meeting future water quality regulations. The desalinated water would have approximately 100 mg/L lower salinity (i.e. TDS) than the existing drinking water. The lower drinking water salinity would result in better taste and lower overall water distribution system corrosivity. The desalinated seawater would be softer than the existing water sources. Softer water has a number of benefits such as: better taste; formation of less calcium deposits on household appliances and cutlery; and lower detergent use. The desalinated water would have order-of- magnitude lower disinfection byproducts, such as total trihalomethanes and halocetic acids, or TTHM and HAA, respectively) concentrations than the existing drinking water (refer to the DREIR Appendix N, DISINFECTION BYPRODUCT FORMATION STUDY). Disinfection byproducts are well known carcinogens and their reduction in the drinking water as a result of the blending of the desalinated water with other water sources would be an added benefit. The blending of desalinated product water with existing distribution systems has less than significant impacts. As stated above, the proposed project would include several features to accommodate changes in ocean water quality and red tide algal bloom events. In addition, in regards to corrosivity, blending the desalinated product water with existing water from other sources may change the water quality of the blend in terms of its corrosion effect on the existing water distribution system. When evaluating potential short-term and long-term impacts of blending treated waters from different sources, one of the most important considerations is the potential for corrosion of pipes and residential fixtures. Excessive corrosion over time might lead to colored water in homes, stained fixtures, pipe failures, and non-compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule. In 1992, the EPA promulgated the Lead and Copper Rule to protect drinking water consumers from excessively high concentrations of lead and copper in the drinking water caused by corrosion of household and public building plumbing systems. The rule sets limits for lead and copper in samples collected from faucets with risk for elevated lead and copper concentrations. The limits for lead and copper are 15 µg/L (micrograms per liter), and 1.3 mg/L, respectively. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 38 of 48 Seawater uesalination vroject at Huntington beacn rINUINliS VF rHl:I J Recirculated EIR No.00-02 Similar to all other potable water sources in the distribution system, product water from the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach would be chemically conditioned at the treatment facility prior to delivery to the distribution system to mitigate its corrosivity. Lime, in combination with carbon dioxide, would be added for post-treatment stabilization of the RO water as a source for pH and alkalinity adjustment and hardness addition. A corrosion control study describing in detail the type and amount of corrosion control chemicals planned to be used for this project are presented in Appendix O of the DREIR, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CORROSION CONTROL STUDY. The product water from the seawater desalination facility would be suitable for delivery through the existing water distribution system and would be comparable and compatible to the other water sources currently delivering water to the same system. Prior to delivery to the water distribution system the desalinated water would be conditioned using lime and carbon dioxide to achieve the following corrosion control driven water quality parameters, which are known to be consistent with water currently distributed throughout Orange County: • pHof8to8.5; • Langelier Saturation Index (LSI) of 0.0 to 0.5, and • Alkalinity of 40 mg/L or higher. These water goals are established based on current practices of the MIND, MWDOC, and most water agencies and municipalities in Orange County. The water goals are rooted in the Safe Drinking Water Act's water quality standards. These water quality goals would be achieved by the addition of the following chemicals: • Lime at dosage of 25 to 50 mg/L (average of 30 mg/L) • Carbon dioxide at dosage of zero to 30 mg/L (average of six mg/L) Adopting this proven corrosion control strategy would result in a non-corrosive product that can be seamlessly integrated into the system. In addition, a corrosion monitoring system would be installed in the proposed transmission pipeline at points of interconnection with the existing water distribution system to ensure that the proposed corrosion control measures are effective and adequate. As such, impacts in regards to corrosion are not anticipated to be significant upon implementation of the design features described above. The desalinated product water would be disinfected prior to delivery to the distribution system. Chlorine, in the form of sodium hypochlorite, would be added as a disinfectant to meet DHS water quality standards for potable water disinfection. The desalted water would meet current imported water disinfection methods so as to not change any disinfection protocol currently being used by water agencies. As explained in Section 5.11 of the DREIR, the desalinated water would be chloraminated by sequential application of sodium hypochlorite and ammonia to achieve a chloramine residual concentration at the point of delivery to the distribution system is in a range of two to 2.5 mg1L. A detailed description of the proposed chloramination process is provided in Appendix N of the DREIR, DISINFECTION BYPRODUCT FORMATION STUDY. This study confirms that after blending of the chloraminated product water from the desalination facility with disinfected product water from other sources, the chloramine residual of the blend meets the target level in City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 39 of 48 Seawater uesaunation rroject at Huntington tseacn rINuINVS Ur t-AC;1 5 Recirculated EIR No.00-02 the distribution system of two to 2.5 mg/L. As such, impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. As explained in Section 5.11 of the DREIR, blending desalinated water with existing sources of supply would result in a product that is comparable to existing supplies and meets all disinfection byproduct limits. Desalinated seawater contains lower levels of organics than existing Orange County sources. Therefore, blending of desalinated water with other source waters in the distribution system would have a beneficial effect, and would lower the overall disinfection byproduct concentration of the blend. The results of Appendix N in the DREIR, DISINFECTION BYPRODUCT FORMATION STUDY confirm the beneficial effect of the desalinated water on the blended water quality in terms of disinfection byproducts. As such, impacts in this regard are not anticipated to be significant. In regards to hydraulics and/or pressure surges, implementation of the proposed project may have hydraulic impacts on the regional water distribution system. A total of three pump stations would be necessary for operation of the project: 1) a product water pump station at the desalination facility site; 2) the OC-44 underground booster pump station in unincorporated Orange County; and 3) the Coastal Junction underground booster pump station in Irvine. Project implementation could potentially alter the flow rate and pressure of multiple transmission lines serving the vicinity. Based on hydraulic modeling performed for the proposed project, the following water transmission mains in the project vicinity are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed project (it is assumed that all facilities discussed below have design features to prevent hydraulic surges): ❖ East Orange County Feeder#2 ❖ Irvine Cross Feeder ❖ Coast Supply Line ❖ Aufdenkamp Transmission Main ❖ Tri-Cities Transmission Main ❖ Newport Beach Wells Supply Line 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 OC-44 connection point: 1) west of the proposed 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 psi); and 2) 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 fps. All flow rate, pressure, and velocity changes, which may occur in the existing pipelines, are within pipeline design specifications. In addition, the hydraulic characteristics of the East Orange County Feeder No. 2 (EOCF #2) may be affected in one of two ways, depending on whether the pipeline segment in question is north or south of the Coastal Junction (the point at which the Tri-Cities and Aufdenkamp Transmission Mains connect to the EOCF #2): 1) north (upstream) of the Coastal Junction, the flow rate within EOCF #2 would decrease (this decrease may allow water pressure to rise, but the resulting change in water pressure would be well within allowable design pressure for the existing pipeline); and 2) south (downstream) of the Coastal Junction, the direction of flow would be reversed, the water pressure would rise, and the flow rate would increase to a maximum velocity of 3.6 fps. Based on the hydrodynamic model, the pressure class of the existing pipeline is of sufficient strength to accommodate changes incurred by the proposed project. Thus, impacts in this regard would not be significant. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 40 of 48 Seawater uesallnation Hroject at Huntington beacn HNULNU6 Ur r-AL;15 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 Appendix D of the DREIR, PRESSURE SURGE ANALYSIS, provides a discussion of potential impacts of the three pump stations associated with the project. The report includes the effect of pressure surges on: ❖ The proposed desalinated water 42-to 48-inch pipeline (between the desalination facility and the OC-44 transmission main) ❖ East Orange County Feeder#2 ❖ Irvine Cross Feeder ❖ Coast Supply Line ❖ Aufdenkamp Transmission Main ❖ Tri-Cities Transmission Main Analysis concludes that in the event of a loss of power to the booster pump stations, a low- pressure wave is predicted to propogate out from the discharge site of each booster pump station and into the associated pipelines. As the water travels toward its applicable destination (reservoirs, demand locations, and booster pump stations), the low-pressure waves cause the pipeline pressure to fall. Simultaneously, a pressure upsurge wave is predicted to propagate out from the suction side of the OC-44 and Coastal Junction pump stations. Following the loss of power to the pump station located at the desalination site, a vapor condition is created in the desalinated water conveyance pipeline. When the product water conveyance pipeline is re-pressurized by a reflected waterhammer wave, any vapor cavities that are formed would collapse, and may create extremely high local pressure spikes that may damage the pipeline, resulting in premature corrosion and the development of leaks. When subjected to negative pressure, a leak could become a source of pathogen intrusion. If the piping does not have sufficient strength to withstand a full vacuum, the pipeline could collapse under such low pressures. To eliminate large negative pressures and the possibility of vapor cavity formation in the delivery pipeline system above, surge protection measures for proposed project facilities are recommended as follows: ❖ Incorporation of pressurized surge tanks at booster pump station locations; and ❖ Vacuum relief and air release valve improvements. Hydraulic modifications recommended for the existing water distribution system include the following: ❖ Hydraulically operated isolation valves; ❖ Elimination of existing valves; and ❖ Pressure control valve improvements. Additional modeling would be performed during the design phase of the project to confirm that the proposed project would not have significant impacts on regional water transmission facilities. Moreover, the applicant would be required to coordinate and consult with agencies having facilities that are potentially affected by desalinated seawater from the proposed project (including MWD) to obtain institutional agreements prior to project operation. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 41 of 48 Jeawater uesallnation vroject at Huntington rseacn rINUINU6 UF- rAC;16 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 IMPACTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION —AIR QUALITY Section 5.9 of the DREIR addresses the project's potential short-term construction related impacts. The DREIR addresses nine topics, one of which (air quality) is addressed in this Section. The remaining topics are addressed in Section 4.0-1 of this Statement of Findings of Facts. Finding for Short-Term Air Quality The proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach may have adverse short-term construction related impacts in regards to air quality. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified in the DREIR, including standard conditions, project design features and incorporation of mitigation measures CON-9 and CON-10. In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and California Air Resources Board have jurisdiction over stationary and mobile emission sources, respectively. Even after incorporation of mitigation measures CON-9 and CON-10, the Project will result in an unavoidable significant impact in regards to short-term construction related reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOJ, and carbon monoxide (CO). Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible additional mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the DREIR. The City of Huntington Beach is adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section 7.0 of this Statement of Findings and Facts to address this impact of the Project. Facts in Support of Finding Construction related air quality impacts will be mitigated through preparation of a dust control plan and adherence to City standards and South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 402 and 403. As detailed within Section 5.9 of the DREIR, and despite the implementation of standard conditions, project design features and mitigation measures CON-9 and CON-10, significant and unavoidable short-term air quality impacts remain. The proposed project is anticipated to exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds in regards to short-term air emissions (remediation, demolition, construction). Mitigation measures will be implemented, but these measures are unable to reduce ROG, NO,,, and CO emissions to a less than significant level according to SCAQMD thresholds. Thus, air quality impacts in this regard are considered an unavoidable significant impact of the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. This impact is overridden by the project benefits as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 7.0 of this Statement of Findings of Facts). There are no feasible alternatives that could avoid this significant impact. Moreover, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and California Air Resources Board have jurisdiction over stationary and mobile emission sources, respectively. 6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21002 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, an EIR must assess a reasonable range of alternatives to the project action or location. (a) Section 15126.6 places emphasis on focusing the discussion on alternatives which provide opportunities for eliminating any significant adverse environmental City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 42 of 48 Seawater uesallnation Project at Huntington beacn I-INUINCiS UI- FAC;15 Recirculated EIR No.00-02 impacts, or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternative would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. In this regard, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. (b) As with cumulative impacts, the discussion of alternatives is governed by the "rule of reason". (c) The EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained, or does not contribute to an informed decision-making and public participation process. The range of alternatives is defined by those alternatives, which could feasibly attain the objectives of the project. Accordingly, Section 6.0 of the DREIR analyzes various alternatives to the proposed project in evaluating the opportunity for avoiding or substantially lessening environmental impacts. Section 6.0 of the DREIR provides descriptions and analysis of each alternative in adequate detail to allow the decision-maker(s) to evaluate the proposed project in comparison to identified alternatives. As directed in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c), an EIR shall include alternatives to the project that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project. A specific objective of the project was to provide a reliable local source of drinking water. While water conservation efforts have resulted in successfully stretching the existing water supply, and more gains from conservation are projected for the future, conservation in and of itself is not a "source of drinking water." It must also be emphasized that although an objective of the project is to provide a reliable local source of drinking water, most of the project objectives emphasize development of a drinking water source that is "independent of," "decreases pressures on" and "minimizes demands on" existing drinking water supplies (i.e., imported water supplies and local groundwater supplies). (See the list of project objectives on page 6-1 of the DREIR.) Desalinated seawater is unique because it does not fall into the categories of either "imported water" or"local groundwater." In contrast, water reuse projects are dependent on existing water supplies because, by their very nature, they "recycle" existing imported or local groundwater supplies. In addition, water reuse projects do not produce direct use potable/drinking water. DHS will not allow recycled water to be used as a direct use potable water source. Because there are no feasible alternative water sources to evaluate that meet the objectives of the project, an alternative water source "alternative" was not included in the DREIR. 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 DREIR notes (at page 6-1) that with the exception of short-term air quality emissions associated with construction activities, "all potentially significant impacts" (which includes potential impacts to marine organisms and water quality) can be "mitigated to less than significant levels." Therefore, it is not anticipated that increased conservation efforts or any alternative water source (assuming there is one) will avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts when compared to the project. Section 6.0 of the DREIR evaluates five alternatives, including a "No Project" alternative, "Alternative Site" alternative, "Alternative Ownership and Operation" alternative, "Alternative Project Design" alternative, and "Reduced Facility Size" alternative. The "No Project" alternative conflicts with the primary purpose of the proposed project. It is not being considered and has been rejected by the City for the following reasons: The "No Project/No Development" alternative would: City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 43 of 48 Seawater uesaimatlon Hroject at tiuntington beacn t-INUINCUS Vt- t-AL;I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 • not meet basic project objectives; • not remediate petroleum hydrocarbon contamination known to exist on-site; • not minimize demand on existing imported water system; • not create ecosystem and biologic resource benefits due to decreased pressures on existing water resources; • leave the existing degraded, abandoned fuel oil storage tanks in place; and • not preclude site development of a similar or worse nature. Table 1 ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS Alternative Impact Summary Matrix Alternative Impact Meets to the proposed project) Feasible Objectives (compared p P P J ) J No Project/No Development Less Yes No Alternative Site Equal/Greater Potentially No Alternative Ownership and Equal Yes Yes Operation Alternative Project Design Equal No Yes Reduced Facility Size* Less/Equal Yes Yes 'Environmentally superior to the Applicant's proposal The "Alternative Site" alternative would potentially result in impacts greater than or equal to those of the proposed project situated in Huntington Beach (depending on site-specific conditions). This alternative would implement the project on either a site adjacent to the proposed subject site (identified in the Initial Study/NOP for this project) or within the City of San Clemente, City of Dana Point, or in San Onofre. This alternative is not being considered and has been rejected by the City for the following reasons: The "Alternative Site" alternative would: • not substantially reduce identified impacts associated with the proposed project; • not avoid the unavoidable significant impact for short-term air quality; • result in potentially greater impacts for those alternative sites requiring a new ocean intake/outfall; • may result in significant aesthetic and/or marine biological impacts; and • would have greater impacts due to sensitive surrounding areas. The "Alternative Ownership" Alternative would not change any of the design or operational features of the project. Rather, this alternative consists of the exact same project owned and operated by a public entity. The project proponent, a private entity, has already obtained lease rights to the site through negotiations with the current land owner(AES Huntington Beach, LLC). For this alternative to be feasible, a public entity would first need to negotiate with the applicant or otherwise obtain lease rights to the site. Assuming that lease rights of the site were acquired by a public entity, this alternative would result in the same environmental impacts as the proposed project (under private ownership). This alternative is not being considered and has City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 44 of 48 Seawater uesaunation Nroject at riuntington beacn I-INUINUZ5 Ur NHL 1 J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 been rejected by the City because no public entity has shown any interest in acquiring the lease rights to the site. Moreover, if a public water district obtained the necessary property interest in the HBGS site by condemnation or negotiation and chose to construct a seawater desalination facility, the City would lose the ability to permit/review the overall project and site design details, and would only have limited permitting authority for secondary approvals such as encroachment permits, per the California Government Code. In fact, the water agency could build a seawater desalination facility on the site even if the City changed the zoning to preclude such a use. In addition, the public entity would complete and certify their own EIR on the project. The EIR could be certified by the public entity over the objections of the City. The "Alternative Project Design" alternative would incorporate a different method of desalination (such as multi-effect distillation, or MED) or an alternative seawater intake collection system (such as vertical wells, Ranney wells, infiltration galleries, and seabed infiltration systems). The MED alternative is infeasible due to the extreme height required for operation of the vertical tubes (300 feet) and the dependency on an electrical power plant for generation of steam. Alternative intake methods are infeasible primarily due to the number of vertical/Ranney wells necessary for a 50 mgd project. A vertical/Ranney well system would require at least 24 individual wells situated either on the beach or nearby, spaced at a minimum distance of 200 feet and would require pipelines to interconnect each facility. This would result in significant construction-related and long-term operational impacts due to large-scale disruption of the beach and/or coastal areas. Other alternative intake methods, such as an infiltration gallery or seabed infiltration system, would also be infeasible due to significant land use and/or marine biological impacts (a 1.8-mile, 22-acre area of disturbance on the beach required for an infiltration gallery or a 23-acre excavation area on the seafloor for a seabed infiltration system). It is also important to note that none of these alternative "beach well' seawater intake systems have ever been successfully designed, permitted and operated in the United States, while the technology and track record for traditional seawater desalination has been demonstrated in the United States and internationally. An alternative discharge location (the Orange County Sanitation District [OCSD] outfall) was also analyzed as an alternative. This alternative is also rejected, since OCSD has indicated that they do not have the capacity to accommodate the waste stream from the proposed desalination project. The "Alternative Project Design" alternative is not being considered and has been rejected by the City because it would: • Not substantially reduce impacts in comparison to the proposed project; and • Be either technically or financially infeasible to implement. The "Reduced Facility Size" Alternative would reduce the output of project water to approximately 25 mgd. The design and operation of the proposed desalination facility would generally remain the same. However, this alternative would reduce the size of the facility, the amount of seawater required to produce water, and the amount of concentrated seawater discharged back into the HBGS outfall. The 25 mgd alternative would not significantly reduce potential environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project. In addition, this alternative would result in a substantial decrease in the amount of desalinated water that could be produced, and thus a substantial increase in the cost of the desalinated water. While the Reduced Facility Size alternative may result in slightly reduced impacts in comparison to the proposed project, the 25 mgd alternative would result in providing water at a cost that would not be acceptable to Orange County water City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 45 of 48 Seawater uesaiination rroject at Huntington beacn riNUINUs ur- r-AL;i 5 Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 purveyors, and would not produce a sufficient amount of desalinated water to meet projected future demand. Implementation of the 25 mgd alternative would not avoid the project's identified unavoidable construction related air quality impact, and would reduce the water quality benefits of the project as proposed. As such, this alternative is not presently under consideration. The "Reduced Facility Size" alternative is not being considered and has been rejected by the City because it would: • Not provide a sufficient amount of water that would meet the projected future water needs; and • Reduce overall water supply reliability that is sustainable and independent of climatic conditions. 7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, decision-makers are required to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. In the event the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable". The CEQA Guidelines require that, when a public agency allows for the occurrence of significant effects which are identified within the Final REIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall seek in writing the specific reasons the action was supported. Any statement of overriding considerations should be included in the record of project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination. To the extent the significant effects of a project are not avoided or substantially lessened to a level of insignificance, the City of Huntington Beach, having reviewed and considered the information contained within the Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report for the project, and having reviewed and considered the information contained within the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds that such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in consideration of the following overriding considerations discussion. The City finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to a less than significant level where feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the project are either infeasible because they have greater environmental impacts, do not provide the benefits of the project, do not eliminate the project's unavoidable significant air quality impact, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible. The environmental analysis undertaken for the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach indicates that, while mitigation measures would be effective in reducing the level of certain short-term air quality impacts, the project may still result in significant adverse impacts in regards to short-term air quality. It should be noted that the project's unavoidable adverse impacts would occur under current General Plan designations. The City of Huntington Beach, as lead agency and decision-maker for the project, has reviewed and considered the information contained in the FREIR prepared for the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach and the public record. The City finds that the benefits of the Project include the following: City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 46 of 48 seawater uesaiination rroject at Huntington beacn rINuINVS Ur I-AC;I s Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide a reliable source of potable water to Orange County that is sustainable independent of climatic conditions and the availability of imported water supplies and local groundwater supplies. The Project offers Orange County's water agencies up to 50 million gallons per day (MGD) or 56,000 acre-feet of water per year to include in their portfolio of available water resources. Water conservation efforts have resulted in successfully stretching the developed water supply, and more gains from conservation are projected for the future. Still, the California Department of Water Resources predicts that the South Coast Region (and the entire State) will face significant water shortages by the year 2020. While the amount of water produced by the Project is only a small percentage of the current 650 MGD (710,000 acre-feet per year) Orange County water demand, it is an important drought-proof, renewable supply that will enhance the overall portfolio of water resources available to Orange County water agencies. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide product water that meets the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the California Department of Health Services (DHS). ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will reduce the salt imbalance of current imported water supplies by providing a potable water source with lower salt loads for blending with existing supplies. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will remediate the subject site of on-site contaminants resulting from approximately 35 years of use as a fuel oil storage facility thereby protecting the health and safety of those in the surrounding community. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will create ecosystem and biological resources benefits that may accrue due to decreased pressures on existing water sources. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) has identified that Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin has been overdrafted by more than 400,000 acre feet due to drought conditions of the last three years. The Project could offset withdrawals from the groundwater basin during dry years, allowing the Groundwater Basin to recharge. The Project could also offset demands on imported supplies transported from the Colorado River and/or Northern California, allowing more water to remain available for use in environmentally sensitive areas in those locations. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will minimize demands on the existing imported water system. Southern California could not exist without its extensive imported water supply system. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"), together with many local water agencies, operates numerous water facilities to transport, store and recycle water supplies to meet the needs of Orange County and the surrounding Southern California region. Given the announced cutbacks of water supply from the Colorado River and the continuing environmental water demands on the State Water Project in Northern California, the water produced by the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach could be dedicated by Orange County water agencies to simply replacing existing water supplies for current Orange County residents and future generations. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide a continuous monitoring and protection of the Pacific Ocean water in the vicinity of the HBGS intake pipeline located offshore from Huntington Beach. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 47 of 48 Seawater uesalination rroject at riuntington tteacn I-INUINUb Ur I-AL;I J Recirculated EIR No. 00-02 ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will serve high quality desalinated water through portions of the City distribution system and provide a drought proofing of 33% of the City's imported water supply. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide a local emergency water supply. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will improve the aesthetics of the area through the demolition of three unused 40-foot high fuel storage tanks and replacing them with lower profile, modern, and more attractive structures. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will install perimeter improvements including a 10 foot (Edison) to 20 foot (Newland) landscape planter and an eight foot high wall along the project's street frontage for an overall cohesive appearance with the HBGS facility along Newland Street. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will improve the circulation in the area through the dedication and improvement of additional right- of-way along Edison Avenue. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide a new source of long term annual property tax revenue for the city, especially the redevelopment zone located in the South East area of the City. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide a new source of long term annual revenue for the city from Franchise Agreement. I ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide higher water pressure in a portion of City's distribution system, thereby allowing the city to realized a cost savings. ❖ The Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach will provide these benefits at no cost to the tax payers. Based on this Statement of Findings of Facts and on all of the evidence presented, the City of Huntington Beach finds that the benefits of the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach (as described above) outweigh the adverse short-term air quality impacts associated with the construction of Project (as described in Section 5.0 of this Statement of Findings of Facts). City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 Page 48 of 48 s tti�'sLi�' . Jv .��" '� �� �-L�'" 3 -'� '�.� s �``a -t � ��� - �� i 4 �a��.✓ �� ,5 .a 3 � t'a - i.. Pe���� f'., � �� u'���✓� tk�'� � s �'x� ti$ ,,,.,`� [ s��� �� `"'d*ate`„ �� i ri4�.� f� �i,�'S�' ,��� a e. Mkt Y t as l <; fs . i 53gERR, r k r a a y SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT AT HUNTINGTON BEACH SCH# 2001051092 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document, which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, this Mitigation Monitoring Program includes the attached MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST that has been prepared for the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that all applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure; and 3) retention of records in the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach file. The City of Huntington Beach certified the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach Recirculated Environmental Impact Report ("REIR") by adopting Resolution No. 2005-62, dated September 6, 2005. Because the decision to approve the project's Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 was continued until February 27, 2006, the City Council received new staff reports, additional testimony and late communications pertaining to the project, including new staff reports, additional testimony and late communications pertain- ing to the conditions of approval. In connection with City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05, the City approves this Mitigation Monitoring Program supplementing Resolution 2005-62. None of the supplemental information changes the conclusions made by the City in connection with the adoption of Resolution 2005-62. This Mitigation Monitoring Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the project, but also allows the City of Huntington Beach flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps: • The City of Huntington Beach distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 1 • Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the EIR, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures. • Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to City of Huntington Beach as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. • Responsible parties provide the City of Huntington Beach with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. • The City of Huntington Beach or Applicant prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts. • Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals. Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring Program, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City of Huntington Beach. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, program redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. City of Huntington Beach February 27, 2006 2 2L o k � \ ILU j \ { { \ { { \ { { ~ 0 2 2 IL o � 0 ƒ Uk 0 � - - - - - - - - - - . LU ■ Q 0 K k } elf of \ \ § } I � �v � a tc £ o � ƒ ƒ & . �/ CL ( aE = z & , \ n k � 0 , o z = = m LLu > V- = w 1 O a E£ am$ . 0 § o { :k o @JCL . < �� § $ - c 0 c .2 / 7ƒ E : m � k m � 2 / Zz § 2 f 7 aLUa. g U \ k LU -J < I @ � 7$ m F- = c � ® \ § $ E2 2 � m = _ m = �2222 � � mc0 o �/ \ gym / ° : . : mom 4 6 � 3 %- 6 * % / 6 & 6ya6 � c = - = § ac & _5 _ � 65 _ z '9 > � ja2 " a >, ® o = c % c � Eu � e w w = EEm22 ® � °= 2 = ■ ex q .2 3 � . / " 0 = ° E � = > a) _ � o ■ ue = = � c7 � « � � 2 E _� ems - em � = a) o c D W R = � CDcu o � E � = om o 9 tp o g o � o �g � g c = � # W c w -- o 2 $ ® �- � � « E g o / o r { @ . 2 « ° - 22 � ® ° =5ac22 ,- G % a5 § @ & � @ �a0 � < - - am ■ w _- CU .- a) _ � = o = = � o � - m = m \ w Cu = '5 , _ § .- _ c � � o = = � = c e = Im � _ R c - mao7E± f2 � E 2 aa)cu 7E co _ c _ - >1 � t c % w z o � ` � mG= a7$22 � � 00 f � � ' � � o � � \ / K2 - 0 \= � 0) m ¥ = n > _ / _ � � 0 , 2o � m � ® � a o � �_ � �_ �± e � k@ = °a 2te� M CCEe2 a 3 c . oa 2 e oe= � $ \ E � E / $ - 2 $ = a-0) :3 0 = : n . oaae = o ■ « « � E % aoe = C � Eoo _ : o � cem � ce �p6l2@ ° ° � oE ° ® » 2 k5 \ o < � � » � � Q � � 3Ro : � = � RMCL ca e � sc3a« e = � oR2 £ = I ■ m a) � 0 q L : m ■ ui z ui 0 O OR . � � k { { { \ { { \ \ } \ \ \ \ \ ou� z ! , , , ; ! , , ± CL & , , J ) _ / , 7 § . g § - - ) QO r - - - - - - - - - - - - LL \ � w 0 Q J J J / \ / \ ( \ } \ / Ew z ■ Q o z w { { . J ■ - J - k \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ( [ ( ( ( ( ( ( ƒ ( ( [ ( / / XL) :f oz 2 % 2 em ƒEE ƒE / tf�k k k L 5I3 833 z & . k % / 3 / df ' 0/ w 2 == o \= o � u . 1 «/ £ � 2 IS \£ L \ _� \ , 0 �/ k z = CCc . = Cg w L) CL o a CL. 0 z e & � R k2 " \ c LU � � � :/ d � 2 = �� Z / 7c k � � k & § 0z - Lu § § a � \ \ W� « 0 I � 2 . / § § \ I o _ 2cm � i� \ Q) = =- oa) ast0) o �Sc- m �A7 :: = e �9 ( a) CD LU � ECU.. CCL0 a / ff = 0 -=2 - � % Em 2 � 5_r U) 3 � E � S0MM -< CD - =m \ LU ) / 7 b IZ // / � &> fa) E } § C � e - tome ea = o = a) _ �a) c k ® - _ - � @a/ ES � � - Q� 0 - -0 -0 a_ ® o # w z CL mCL _ Z- E g 7 ) 2 # D£ z a G � o � g2 § f � J_ U) Eco@ t � > _ a) f ca = 5 (-) �_ _ o a) o � E2ef = § : . m2 $ C § mac = oa) —C $ f £ fE= * oa) $ ge / � � � .. _ US 0- U) 0- .0 :s � � o w 0- I n m d d co $ $ O 2D f \ by . % 0 / N � } } E - - - \ - - - - - q « - » 2 2 § - LL o @ � � � - in - - - - -- - - - - 0 ELU z ■ Q o � � e LU - - - - - - Q , ; ! _ _ R \ \ \ k \ k k \ \ \ \ \ ( ( ( \ / �L) oz ƒƒ { kk 5 / c �caCL 6I3 . z a r � � � \ C, . � E ƒ kt7 £ \ � 0 k \ E f w O / E£ EAU) � Mo § 0 kL § a % . z co �k . t U) @ 2 zzw a / 2� CL � � . k UJ I ■ � 7 \ _ I 2 � ��d kkkkkƒ¥ � k\ 0- w gGW � � \$ tE § / & _ = G2 3 ° r — a -0 ° o td m % @ � 44 � tk0m mCL 2 % Z w & v 2 k ( 0 .ta ƒ20w0 mu ka= � $ � � § 0 t5 / / � R - ƒ( k \ ƒ S ® wk / � cL0E 7 S = c = ■ « e � mr = mm � � � c0wW = k m � o� = emu J % a2eEmoS -aco I # j � E ® m � 0 . . / zW 311 o 0 k � % LLI z \ { { { { \ \ } \ \ m \ { ~ . Q 2 \ / z j o P Q - - ƒ k 0 � ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - b � w z o § e , w - - - - \ - - k \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ { ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( / 2 � 7 ow ƒ � 2 0 :/ CL ■ _ om z co ui CD / k\k � 7 LU� LU ƒ t / $ / % z �notf t � E O / E3EM$ 0 W o $ 0 qL } § � E E k w § I -i + R zz � a 7 22CLLU k § � I � \ � a) q ± 2alcu \ / k m co� \ CL\-\\ m go m C ' wcnra o / 2 LU 2S # d9a0 _ % w 2 E22222§ § U . >� Ste0 a 3 � 2 \2k / ® / / g moo y 5q $ �q2 \ � &a ƒ \ / \ _\ ƒ � $ . / 2 % ± £ k � / } \ ~ 0 Q « ® a s » ± 9 Q \ 2 2 , ƒ _ Q % § o k - - - - - - - - - - - ± IL 0 � a a E r r s LLI 0 Z w k { k { { f _ $ elf lot / ) - - - 0 - � IS ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 0 . oz 2q2 . � w . ƒ Eq 0$ . 0 2 ( / � w ¥ � � \ m o mom © � �� f\ w a0Ed o . z0 0 . 2 � C) 0 2a c � 0 co2k . 0 3 zZ � 0 7 a2a \ y §� ff § / f m a) a) o , o , ca = = czu) = eo = = a) m a) CD 4 / A - = k � = � cEa = 3e = � 6 = - 0 § - 0 9 2222 G � 0 $ o » S\ ® � : IcaCL 0 — ° \ � � ° ® Ueee - e - ® � D_ = q ¥ � � foEq = � � § \ o£ k7o � � aco wa)- moo = m$ o o 0 ® � ' E ° ° > ° 6 2 � ° 0) a) 0 2 - $ « & _ � -_ - 0 _ I oc. o � � \ 2 � � = ES2o ?$ = 0 �� / \ � CLr- E- i � § �� @ _ § � ft $ - 2R / �: _ t °: ko � ~ k § § a \CL0L d 0 % w z o® � $ � \ E2 � = &dam � 20 7 ( o n2 2 / k \ / - 'Esn 2fr-.—>0 dfz\z 3 O _ c2t = = � § > mom \ M $ = Daum ; Qamc ; (D—S2 a > 0 r _ -= & o +£ go00CMWCacooaog2aa£ m@ � e ƒ j0 c E ® co o / Ow z � o oYq } } \ } \ } \ } } \ } \ ~ Q « ® ± § z 2 a G . _ - / / Q « k 0 � - - - - - - - - - - - 0 � LU z o w t \ DIC - - - - - Q ` - - - - ) \ § \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ k 0 \ / ( ( ( ƒ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 0 £ � 2 2w ƒƒ / B2 55k $ E e = c w � �k \k� = w2 § = o oq . 0k OmE0E z � � g � 5 � w \ a CL.= aI m � z o § f kg / 3 \ E � a± a) 0 & 0 IL ■ cm ƒ % g m & E n �- 2 R zz � 7 22 � LLI LLI \ § CL W I m _ a 0 = _ � _ _ 0) _ cum >, , _ � m � L) .2Cr % - gym a � § mXCD & �o w cu E-Lm �� c o2 § ° tee 7 a2 cm : e,2 _ 22 ® ® a2 » 222 � g0 � ( \ c 000 :3 oe@va 0CU = ± @ k \ k \ �/ ( 2 k / ] \2 / :0-o E2 I C: ®/ 5c) 0 02 E I.. mO = £ E00 § � \ © z � 33q ƒ 'r o> 0r- m 'a 0 a 2 =c) a � = 0c - = � = _ _ � § 2a M ; f � ) m = BCD -a% � &am2@ ' md : � % � $ » M a � gQ-.- 0- uoo � � o = ; < E £ N £ Im (nS » maomEa » a$ amk � ƒ M0 \ _0 $ at $ / 2 � e 04 q k k { - s a- �\ - § 2 2 � � � � � � � _ � o § - - Q k LL w_ � � - - - in - - - - - - - - - 0 � LU z ■ Q 0 � « § u { { t / M - - ) 0 R \ \ § \ \ } ) \ \ ) ( ( [ ( ( ( \ 0 / Ek5 \ C � . \k k \\ - 3 /3 f33 � LU » C (D \ a) / a� & wz \_ ° Cl � � 0 - 0 � = (a�� � � � � � E � � { � 2 o « 21E0E 0 E0 Ee z Eck \ k3\ » = t4t � a w BR =. 0-mq 80CLEd / � O z 32 37 0 k\ \ � b aaa R5 % 0 bL) \ E � £ G : 2 $ : LU co k a) w R 2 z z (n a / 2 � « m w k LU � � � � a) I � 0 7S 7 cc 2 $ ° &�I « 6 ® = f2 & E666CD - r-- 2 % 67 ' & aLuE ta) m -L) -0 » 2 £ < amo2 § = - - ' - ® _ E _� § - � 0 >1- � t » � - o / 222222 = � : _ ± � _ _ � o - � o » f § \ � � § § o� Rg � § k �� 7 ƒ_ m0a- E0-wCok § \ ° o % /t « _ _ == w I � « � � $ - mom = o r � � ) cu 0M / Eb � 2 °/ 2/\ k % � � ° f - Q � � mme . e 0 o � �- f \ �° ° g5kn « � = moo N o = CL - » # _ -0 _ (D @ $ 2 « � 2e mom = = m m cu — w E 0 0 / 7 >1c ° o \ = mole = / ■ 0 � / _ « 0 -P -r— ® 2a/ £\ I 2 - = � : mac SE22 - - g - ■ £ 2 - � a � f, r- Q) 2 = ®-0 � = wa) " ® : c � k # � � 0 � 2 ' » ' = c # w z t ' ® 2c \ « E % - � � � Egƒ� e2� m22222m B2K « � §�� 0 � R � � - = � � 0 ® t = � @ \ o�$ # � c � �- (D 6 - a ° 2 2 � « a) U) ƒfE = § # m §� � \kfk � � 2 » � � to _ _ � � a 22 § OZ = � q ° ° ° e® - = � � � o uE = 2a2 m22 � aai � as = y 22 $ 37CL 00=1@a3 % GCL-0cc 7d/ § ƒ ¥ £ /�/ 7\ Ja / $ &2 \ ± t : f f \ / / \ $ _\ / It $ / 2 � S.z 31, 311 (D 0 B � LU { { {cl \ \ \ { { { { ~ Q « ® ± z _2 isJ / J J / q ow 0 LL a)Q w k � � - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 p ui z � Q o � z L { I I - - ) ) i - - - k \ -0 \1 \ / / \ \ \ \ \ ( ( ( ( ( ( ƒ ( { ( ( { / WL) £ = f � w ƒƒ 2 0 55 \ � ua § 33 . z a o w � ? C) \ \ 0 . �CD �LL / E » t 4 = . D E O / E£ E3$ o . Mo % 0 � w } 0 $ � E / ui� k t c � � » R R zz � a E 22 < 16 w k § §I . \ _ I 2 cq % 66 B 6 1« _0mm = o 00 * 2 2c ua � g � : m _ 2= #2 — § § £ 2 / £ . . _— � 0 " _ m _ # o m o � _ § I2 ■ m0 rj ' 0 c . _ 0 � cEU � o � = � E � � a � oo = c 0E 7m � = o6 m o (D E eee= 22mM .- 0 2 2 « E — _ _ o > » — m = _ b cw § kRcEC ' U) CL ® � � 2 = = c m m ° o o �J — ° ® _ a- g \ = �: o � ° m # co % § m z § w amu � J2 & . m c > = = fc — �* ° ° c � — tS � ?£ 2 § _ o co 0o cCD (Dma/ a . ga o � � : r7:m = m66 \ _ f \kt5CO cn ■ « = o � = � co = @0000 R $aco1- o = Ca£aau « ƒ \ 2 b 2 0 � ) o � 0 0 � \ � - - - - - - - - - k q z j } } 2 ~ « ® I o ob 2 a & , _ , Q Q / Q _ � o -k ƒ U 4 0 � - - - - - - - - - - - 0 � LLI z g K Z w { { o o. I # ■ � 2 - - ! - - - - - Q ] # o R ) 1 \ k \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ( { [ { ( [ \ F { ( { / �L 02 / ƒ ƒ . E � « * ■ \ a) Occ � L) = 0 \ wy \ = o C.) § M 32 LL \cn f \ w C) o zo § / 2 2 WLLI .2 ko dCL .00- comui � F- / Zzw 4 7 22 � J k Wa LU 7 � < « 5b\ f- a Mon- C2ka � 2M0a0Ca £ « o� a E >0 o o m = E_ = o - : ea)-. � 2 w g § o # U)CL cu c 0)CA / � ca CL _ m - / � - mo gd . 2 = $ . - ° Mo 0- $ � 2 § fmE ƒ § % @emf � = ` 3 = k\aam 021 co % � w 0Mo0) . - o » � � � a) c § � EE � a� (D m@ § � K_ _ - I # w z o o =o = = m = §77 $ = a � � � � � = z � < 2 m ■ - #c ° ® °£ ° gam - I / § § ± � o a) V o (n .- g c £ _ @ - c < § / � \ � D (D r0k� � G7� - cmCyE2 0 0 y _ § &= > Cm gREEMCL 0 - m « « E m f \ k 0 / J 2 $ . / 2 % o 0 } ui �\ { \ \ } } \ } } } } \ ^ Q - » ; 2 2 & J J / . 2 g 0 - - - - - / Q « 0 L - in - - - \ - - - - - - 0 z � Q o E K z e § . » _ \ § § Z \ § Z Z § o } \ k ) \ \ \ ( ( ( ( ( 0 . oz /f { . 02 » ta ■ >1 ma B33 z 2 LU § a U3 ƒ 5 . � � 222 3 o /R �o 0 _ �- m w R» 5 � 0 0S22 ; Cl.m a) � k . m < o 0 ° zZ � _ E 2LUC z ƒ0 I � � 7 I o r e = em � o a) $ � 0- WQ. o c a o C -0 (D & 6 § 5 = o � m � � c � _ ._ � � g = = = o . . � C � _ c � n � E — £� — ca § � m = (a c_ _ / 2 0 � ? ac . _ CO— � ae2 ¥ % @ CL . I@t - 0 C: m 0 NBam ° _ � = Um � E c3: 0) r _ . o m .� I ca 0 5co = � � o a) C: 2 : . o > o ) m _ ( � • : o . = E� . a = _ {� « mom = = = fm . � � £ _ /\ ® ` _ gp m 2 _ � 2o � o = = � � Vim _ r_ ® cm ate— M C13 ® 2 < M— C E \ � SIc a® m �2 Ea)= ° = � E(D 2�oo = E / 2 � k6 ƒ � \ w o _ m _ � � = 2E o � f _ e® _ w � m -00 0 � � � EE =± S ® &5t2 « 22 moo = oc -0 cLE c c g � � � . cm2� uoe ®± � � c = � 2 § � � eoo E c / Re 2 7w z . > � EE » -ate 25 — m � C = � = » ' _ D2 � m a � — � _ ® m �= = � � a 7 � 5\G2 �� 0. a) 28a 0 - o o @ \ � «£ � — � _ _ _ - - o o � e �� � ` o© § ca r @ � � §5 [ ogo2OD.-O . o � oSlE � u _ = O � � o =t — u � m � 707O as = • CO a= C _ a2 . CL. (D s / c — m e 2 » ER0. mR « CL » 0) = u . < Q = Q.: = mQ) ca c 0 m ƒ m0 ? _0 ƒ � . $ 0 2 � c o \ k U } \ { \ { { \ { \o { \ \ CN 7 � , � ± �_ q 0 ® / U « - - - - - - - - - - - - � _ a. 0 ® \ / / ( \ / \ / ( / / � uj z . 0 Zz a w t - - - 0 « - - � R \ / \ k \ § \ \ \ } \ } ( ( ( M c 2 �U � c { c £ F- LU ƒ ƒ § 0 0 CUCL a33 M �� � d\ 0LU � / t / « cu 0< 5 m U. �� k\ E q / E£ z � U) 0 ao» e ■ 0 —5— M co / 0)\ � q0 f $F- / a zz � a 7 a § C 3 LU / I . \ § I � * . Wm5, - k � /9 w 00 ta .- a2 ■ Ea$ e » r7E � 7 § d 2 cn = 0.m £ m 7 a) % 2 w ® § E ®§ ± \ � � 3 § � ■ f CL.0 \ E cn � 22 f £ ` ® � 0) __ a) [ 6 . / � 5 � . LE ° ° � � = 0 E oR$ &7 / f 2 / 0 2 / m ■ I . / % % c 0 0Y \ L � k - - ) - - - - - - \ E3zo \ k ± � - 2 2 IL 2P 0 / - - - (L 0 0 L � z o Z LLI IR R R R 9 R \ { ` IS - - - - - - Q / ; ; _ R \ \ \ \ k \ \ \ } \ ( [ F- w / [ ( ( { ( [ ( � £ c £ � L ƒ ƒ / d2 0 CL O ƒ 3 z ) c # �� �CL QU � tE w I $$ 0co z » c2 w B2E W co Qg Dg% o B � .2 ■ � E /0- . g co M� c § Zz � 3 w � 7 a2a % w - \ cu �k / k t =� = o ; - r » a) o' � � = (0) CM 2c % § c § $ :� : 32o = BS M .9 :5 �9 w % cc=L) z6gAC (1)10 ° ° � = { E � 2 MCMCL ® Gk « 7 � = 2 £ p = k . a) _ $ � 2 Gokq // / � k % � � r5 � k � \ k %\ +7 / § ' Z « « » » � � @ ¥ °= S ° ® = = _ \ m E_ % a m _ o c n = ® 2 = ■ « a � - a >� = o ccncnc = c = (D � c = c + w z © s r- § \ \k2 \ @t2 / 0CU—CD / 3 a :3 cCL > - 0@ _ � . � _ \ cI o $ ) 0 o � � � a - T9Ew 0 qg // & & �- � � : c _ 1 % *� cu CL � r c = ?ecc - ? 0 = a) = 0CLMaCLoma) cm ® 5 ® § m = aoa 5 2 CLmcLo) z- mrL > mu £ ocaEgkE = 3 a� (n . f m } \ / m 2 z . U LP) f R B � � LLI ~ cu z 2 / _ / _ ) § OF- 0 A ® - - - - - - - - - - 0CL b pw z � Q o § w { k \ / Of 'If / . \{ a,: / /Im elf{ }{ \ R 7 ! ! ! [ ( ( ( ( ( ƒ ( ( ( ( / CD oz / ƒ k \ k 55m O33 wa% 7� . r e = �¥ c _ o ujz \ = \ / � L I % E= o m2R6 # LL / z �\ 2 w e2a \ 3 0 § o cn . og a\ y E� .2 § a \ EI I Cco 7 z 2 Lur � « m § § Z � w oLu E 2 LU $ — 2 < �N \ � ffii � � . @ � fk § � e9 & 2 0 = � � = w � aR CL cc = 2 �= wok± % U 2 0 ' o m2a) � — _ BCD a) / c aa@d � � > _ � Q- g - 0 m eoo wwo= E = m= m Co � Z � / � X �0 U \ kit'0 � � a _ ® 7 0 � £ CL 0E2 0 % w z 0) -2 e &3 £ � C 2V g / ƒ � � p g § � �q� � § . 7 2 a aem = = a) b % L y � 0 � Co r :3 0 :3 _ U) U £ =o � m £5 a a -0C = coC f k \ _\ ƒ � CO � . / ow k � \ L � � = z ~ � - » z z _ oLLO ® - - - - - - - - - - � IL b � LU z ■ Q o J E ` - Q - - - - - - - o , Q \ ) § § § ( { ( ( ( ƒ ( ( ( ( ( ( 2 k2 kF �� M0-E E \k k \\ k \ 33 f / 3 z o E & , 77 & , w � t 0 * fCL � �5 ƒ o o$ 0mEka » ° K LL z » = t = alb �f = w O3Em$ & 4 ORE � § § \ � § k 0LLI L / / ( a/ 2 § a \ EI % EI � E : » § 7 a) - k (n § « � 2z � k I% � k k f � CL CL k CL \ _ < « � q ± § \ �/0 2 $ z , /9 w — E 0- 0 a)— CLE 2 w \ \ r f Q ° . _ o6 « � uE � � � 2 « m �e $ E mCL I « w » o@eo » � g �2 = o � / E « \ ate\ = 2 « k0 c � a a) a) £ " y 22 $ / eCL / eS ƒ C%4 Cl) _0 U) ? / % % e 0 t � % E W � - - - - - _ - - - - \ 2 3 § f ( » . 2 2 CL @ \ _ 9 � ® 0 / A � ® - - - - - - - - - - - 2CL LL ELLI z o p K § , I { - Q - - - - - o Q ® § \ ( \ \ F / �C) 2 = £ F-w . 3 a) 0 ƒ (Da) � w w 0 � © / . C) 02 iq E@ z § o L) m Io Oo FRo ( > & � / / o — o = o = o .tm e gg c = �E . � u ' &moo £ o � � 3 -0 = Co � o moom4 m � 2Z � 7 U) W � \ / � CL CL . yo 2 / §\ A@ ¢ - t7 \ °o0 =3E k \ ° ° ƒ\® 0 ":) 0 m o o CO) a I o a s c (D % 2 w % £ » ® � = E c ■ § � � % = mSk0C) § o = oR = _ % w § f \ k33% 2\ � ± k 0 = f 7 � § 2 f m . k m � m o0I « cuM '= UL) � I \ ® $ � I 0 2 % o 0 � Y % 0 _ _ k k - - - - - - - - . ~ « - 2 a 2 O P § - - ƒ U % � � � - - - - - - - - - - - - p_ w 0 B � 0 E LU I I I ■ ` of w of Of w f - - - - - k \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \1 \ ( ( ( ƒ ( ( { F- \ ( ( { / t = t 2E 222 0 ¥ 5 \ ■ ® Ca. O33 _ � ui� uz § = o � w I % D � �� E \ � B / CO k o 3f ■ Q CO 0 - = 2 ELU a0 §0 . 0 ■ C % m � k / 22 � ? U) W � ) LU XC a) 0 2A / wcna � � /2 w - E2k ¢ 5 / o § k \� / Gaff ) o = m ■ k < ca 0ca /} 3 k0 ) \_§ k/ @ § / \ CL E_ /\ fk � mGE _ a . o 22 � & SG f < 0 § 5 _> m ■ / oR 0 B � \ 0 z \ } } \ 2 Q ¢ ®1. ± / / z 2 § O � Q D LL. k ^ - - - - - - - - - - - � LU z o P z « § 0 - - - - - - 0 \ { \ } \ / } / } / / / o , ; 1 ; ; ; ; 1 [ / Rv C: � - 0 }L ƒ k . 0 25U � § 33 _ . � Q / z � _ � 0 I (D z 02 § \ LU 0aCL . . � z � 3k � 0 0 : � � W OLLI 0 0 0 a) -i _ ■ � CLM � 2 / ® U � § % . < 0 ( :k \( :\ /o u uoa o0 Co § � � Ef � ( � @ t � k 2 / k/ \ � f \ $ ƒ � © q6@ - »FfL f z k � /% CL 2 � / k � Ik( kk $k � § u R E 2� @ . � I c k U I U oR z & CD 0 � { %UJ LU .} \ \ \ { \ \ \ \ } ~ 0o - z 2 ) / / / q oPLL 0 ® O - - - - - - in - - - � CL 0 L � z 0 i p § *E , � t R { M - - - - cl - o U - - - _ - - - - - 0 , Q § § § § \ d § / §o } [ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( $ Fe ( I = � v 7� 0z � u /ƒ / / ƒ E 0 55 \ ¥ ta » 22 / 8c = OE = f ƒ 7 % vz ) — � tk L I c � I $2 \ i § b ¥ 23 z » c \ ) w R » c2 OS. . 5a ' � z0 k / ? kLU /\ ( E � 0 _ � E7 ƒ a) mP 2 « a 0L \ § a2 « t w < co LUa m k LUC k � � § < 2 I t en = ® �2 = = ® 00 R *© — o � � _ � m0C"o ate ° ter0 _ ° 3 § — % 0. a) � R » & E a2 \ § ƒ \ � : o \ / / S3 / $ m /:2 0 o m m p k f $ G 2 E a % $ f « $ j ¥ z « ar � 8c � m0 =4:- $ m \ � 3 k ■_ § ƒ 0/ 2 &/ kt0 &EE ? Ea) . w m = E \ z a / M a) :3 \ Ek0) 772 I % 7 $ A e2 0 @ ® )0 � � . R � aac = o { °5 ® 2E 0 �kcc 0Co — Co 0' o «0 % 2.m < a u » _ =R = Ike & & m = \ 2 b w 0 d / � } LO < O kU \ p � . % Z \ \ { Q « ® » 2 2 G gp § LL w ^ - - - in - - - - - - - LL 0 LU z . S o . « Z , w k { t. � - J k \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } \ } \ [ [ [ t- ( ( ( { ( $ ( ( 2 \ E � 23 - IIE d2 00 ■ �ma co a) & , E & ■ L) LUu z IZ ufcam ) Lu2 IEL kkcoE � t- 39a w » f/ Eco3 � Mo A)0 k L } § a % ■ E m Lu0 = mp / Dui § a ■ jLcn f k w ƒ I a _ � \ � a2E7 \ \ / ± 3 & 6 § £w\ � iJ : 7 : 4 ® 777777 @ # $ \ R22a) . � Ea) oc . 0 - oem _ ® cooa. o . _ ' _ � � � -a / w E � ce _ £2 = =� � � g = = ° = � = 7d = % o = � = - > u _ o � � _ _ a) - m �� � m = GRo = &2a) ( - � 6 § § 5 \ �tf § � E23 § cCD � CL\ f7 � 2 \ / - 7 = 2 � - 2at - ff t p z m E E 2 E w :3 E u : § � S � ) E '2 �� �- � � 0 C o � = a) ' 2 w G Q2 a)0)&_ � a @ _ Z6 m oa - b = _ � 0 - o = m \ ■ \ cog a = & 22M0 » � � E / ME f ® 33 : ( ® % £ � § = f % w 2 2 � c kr ° e2 � eeeeE@± 2 7 £ k22 ƒk � \�� / 77 $ R m o = oaE � ocb2 �% 2 / a2 - � _ . eb £ � » 2Q . o � a m � � _ « � of e o13 o a� _ o � • » - . � -; -6 @ o �� L) 5 = ® = _ -6ma ea § CUm00D 6 # a c2 = � f = eo � � M 2 = � [ o - \ SB7 � = � . mM % _ _ » D- a) 5066 � rb= � 0m00 : aCL0 � 2 = a) m � 5 - o 2 M0co a) = a) = = = = = e = _ U) 0 .2ucoe0 � � mma gmc « o = f & f \ f § 0 U) . $ / 2 � » c B � C) Ul j Q z 2_ ® o \ } \ k \ \ \ \ \ \ ° Q e ± k E � - - - - 0 � ■ z � p g Q § , w { R & R & t R R . ■ - I - - k 1.o \ \ \ \ \ \ o \ \ \ ( k ( ( ( ( ( / 0w /ƒ k B$ » 5U ° C Q33 % � � ) \ ; wz \ _ 0 0UJ 0 � § 72 LL w z # z Wo £ \ o ow @gJ 2w km@ � 0- \\\ ƒ \ � k « � \ owm IL § a « 2 � t a § � q LU I m I t c w a) = cco m � n -c o o - & a /} gm .e � . « z _ � � .55 — \ \� I6 3 2 okemcILso U) C � ® _ m 2 \ fa/ 2222o 0 � � 0 2 6 a) c m - o c a o % z w £ § @ q * / � % 3£ 2 ® �k � f § � 2 c # o ■ £ E - : m = = pa) "0m \ w z ° G w r2 /g \ 2E a)CLE 2 � c - co� 2 _ e � tU = -cE - _ 3 R■ « _ � . 0: f§ 2 $ C .0 C ( C o ono= o , 0o y co cc I % Q 0czin00045E ? f ■ ca j � co \ CD 0 : m ■ ■ z ui 0 U 2 � c o � Y \ LU k } \ } { \ } \ } \ } } } ~ U « ® ! 2�1 2 a G Q Q Q 9 Q , § oLL - $ Q E - in - - - - - - - - - OIL 0 � LU z . ■ � o K z ip , w I ■ - 0 - - - - ) - - R o \ k \ \ \ § \ \ \ \ \ ( ƒ A? ( O 2 ¥ 0z 0 . � . . � \ v � ■ � o < LL z w c z � MQ kR . 2a 0 � / qp ZZ � E 22 � k � LLJ a I @ m a) q ca -c M70 = � � f $ ± 7f & a2 » { I6 �A a77k £ § & � 5t: k g \ e # 0 a �= o0) m2m � _ . » � _ � � eee 0 > � E - 2 = � f . - _ - � � CD _ _ � � C LU / »® 2S \ =- � � f\ 7 is row 0 % 0 ® � � > � Eo � � t: .@ _ 0 o c - ® 2k � � 3 � E\ � _ / � ^oao . ° � 2 � m c r � � � e » = � oE = Emco -? a) -0 yg q o § 6 > a = = 2 � Ge o � � = o = 3m 2 - o - cn _ a _ M a £ _ : M _ cuo = o - � � = ter o � Q > a) z « . _ _ � O_o -a a7 � o # � m m ® U) � � of § £ c � 0 .6 00 -C f m LU 2 { � a) wm2 w � � � = a � �� m � g - cn ems E ee o � w .0 CL e � � ± ge ° © 2 / 55 � 5 $ � ° � � m2e / � / \ w z 22E4 � m5 &a = 532=® KU) � k � d $ ° o � � a) o —cDm � 2 [ _ 0 0000C � _ . >0 ° ° ° mV o oa � gE � \ a � � = c - omg » uo -� � - o2 � eeep - � _ » = a � onc . 0000 < uaoEm w oE2 £ » = £ w ' E400 < (D3: CLe < 5 = co = . - \ / kk f / � \ zD f to o % 0LLI z \ } j \ \ { \ \ } j \ . o o � ® � z 2 0 § -k Q ƒ %_ 0 � - - - - - - - - - - - 0 � LU z o Z , uj \ R R t R I - f - - - - k \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ ( E � 0z ew 02 . � z 04 w � a LLJz ■ LL, . o � L E 0 o kuj § a . g z (D 22 « / ZZ � 7 22a. k 2ILI t - t c ® « � a2 &= = ® = �6@etg £ \ § f � 82 £fac: fo= £ » « aM \ E/ '� ° % / 2 � p $ $ ESEU) CL w 3tca 0 \ £ � § E _ � _ �_ % . . o m Ew _ _ � � ■ � - o ° � � 0) 0) a ■ � = eo : 0 22 a) oa) m m2 - m= & .2 � = @2 0 � En M _ 0 0 = u - - w $= ` � _ 0 ° 0 ® « c - o 0 a) 2222 ° ° £ ` r - � 2 . c = : - e o6 m � p � � = � fMcn r- coo ` r f o - u � m 0 _ � : _ _ % Z w � m2f$ � G § fEb ° ° § 2 &2\ ci-0 % � foa ° f o � - Ok?# ° § o m � = m - � � o «CD- e � t � » � � f � � � u = � _ = o« 03: mom _ » tee oo m = Q ca 2 a= o= c @ � � . @ - \ � � � _ � ce 2 . g w z = E = m = : ea E= E - oo « = u � = - � t = ° 5qR § & ® ® � o m m � = aum ° � t = e2 (nCU Q cQ) (D W £ _ � o urn - ** ° 7 3 � 2 o £ CL CDbeg / Se$ & \ §/ ( S/ SEBEa � k\k CD Ca3g3 :22 � / � / J a a a a a a a a a a a a O OY N W w = o o = o Z = U o o o N U Z O g T C Q L C � � Z ZLL a O O O 0 O 0 O O I"' = U y N in N in y N N fn N G) QO w W 0 Z 0 Z Q Z L C L C C C C L C C C L R' K d' K K K Q l C t C i= t t C O � C � O w = E Z Q o - 'C :-- CU N N Um0 LU N U WZ :3 C o L) w a) CD LO LL Z w Z W 0 0 OW a) 0 a m U Z w0 N J m C � � } C O Z Z ~ 0' a2 wQ JW a. N _ 0- O — CL c) -0 ow oo cna> Ca) a> - w � L L23 LL 0 O m OO 'N O � "-' "� a) f6 M — c N m ——O c C O U p N Q O a3 •N Q a) U -0 -0 O ,Q U 0o W L . E C f6 O -a E � M E o y N a) � a � �� 6w a- a) E a ac o c o �n 'm o - L -o oY E > L 0 3 3 ai as o U a> -C EErn o maL o � O � `� vi oCu>_� � � O _ � � o °> .0 c) o C a o C C2 � E a? odQ o a� `� U cn m o � -0 � a o N o (D U � m o E U aa) iaZ w o o m 0 � m00�0 > � a��i ' 2 � � 0 3 �, rn( 3 > c(aa . o � m 3 cc c L 3 5 o . CO C v - C O > U •- C N Qa) U U o ca E o - c o a) a iii vi m in - U vim Loa) O U) Z N � - L E E v � a � `a a� � = o in cli 7a) c c -0(M >c rn O a � o o 5 .. o w � a�o � ' a � o � e(D (� L (6 o rn a) L m .. C m C C E •a Q N C a) _ a) a) 0 �. (C U L C C S C Eo E Uoas o _ - � > •�- � . _ a .- - - v, was nU � .o v, - E n3 E ._ d C > •.- U- .�. a> as 3 .�.- 3 �. Q o 'o a�i `° @ � QD oo ash 0'3 C O U nmd (A < -02m 0-o • _ fQ C1 H I— i N O (n OC 0U U 2 � 51 . 51 3110 0 B � C) U - - - - - - - - - k LU 3 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } } } \ \ \ 04 b � z 2 a 3 2 ƒ QB ® in - - - - - - - - - - - � L. a. o LLI � w z 90 o z w k tt . ` - u \ 0 § / . ) } \ \ 0 £ c £ ow . ƒ 0- 0< 55 \ (Da O33 \ LUL � 0 \ \ � � f$ { $ L� >� k \ 2 E 6 / Ed / zQ 3 \ � Q / � � kw 2 \ f 0 2 � 2 % 7 m m < 0 Zz � LU� LUa. k / � a. CL CL < . 7 . . � � ) kƒ \57 \ k �2 ƒk$ Efa kb � ° � f � ƒ k & f# g00M00 � 0gCo ' 9 _ _ _ � � « P - - � o � — / w = 2 - -CL) Ea � E0 ^ g = o _ oC: 2 I CL ■ _ ® 2 (nCD _ = 6 = oILa) O ' occ� E g — e2 42 _ , _ o � _ � a ono " R - gym o z _ e0 a) =R ® o = _ � $ � % 5 is a) � 53 � r — _£± �I m — n = ® $ o o6 m Bna c ee § ® tom a � a2 = »� - - — = f o $ 2 « » _ o � 2 --: ' a /— $ a) . _ cc o % w � c � 00 £ c2 � — M � Cc -0 = ok kL)0-> 2 / � IM(n .2 ® � ' 2 —a O = Eff /_ kJ \ 77/ � 0 � § � 2 mc = 0 � � K 0) co 2 2 2 § � [ [ 3 ) \ � 2 — 2 a I � � 2 e m o »2 . oEip _ c o � � _ = u ® am2 � �o = � ml = CD e � 2k _ _ . oeEo a « k a E § �f0mga@ \ § 277 § /\ƒ \ƒ / k k a � � �z � m40m0o z5mI — = mo � . u � _ CO0 j 0 m o U 2 � o 0 O � C) LLI - - - - - -2 O ! \. - 2 CL % J Q _ S g pLL § ` p ` - - - in - in - - - - - IL 0 ELU z o Q z w { 02 - J 2 Z § § § § § § § k \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ k \ ( ( ( ƒ ( ( ( ( ( ( ƒ ( / { c £ 0E ƒ ƒ E � < 0 Co LLJ » �6 / \ LU o � _ ® c UJ . � a) a)� � < \ mf4 � E O / E£\ 0 % M �2 o < d � \ 70) CL � k / ZZ 7 2 � CL \ y � � u f � 0. L \ — < 2 o£ 2:1 E75 \ a) : � �� ec / w $ .0E / § 2ES $\ Q) � Z 2 2 / \ \ k� ƒ a) ƒ � tea : 2U)< f LLI 0 0) C: � 2 / � 3 . ° m zCl) 2a A bka = c y 22 � 3 f f m � o U (D I-- S, S, o o \ 0 k k } \ } \ \ \ } } } \ \ \ 04 ± « 2 2 o P § - - - - - - -1. - Q O ® - - LL - - - - � a 0 ELLI z o � g w { R t & I R R S. ` 02 - - f - - - - - - - o cc � } \ \ \ \ \ } \ \ \ r . « r r r r r r 0 / \ z Ew / ƒ k / ƒ E \\ k \/ k . f33 qm z = ' k \ ƒ\ q w £ o o � � � ƒ t £« Q ' LL \� k \ M @7 w f / E£ o4 % 0 � cb \ 0 E Ew �_ / 00 0 . § k o ■ E \ / � k & a t < y )/ § f 2 zLu ƒ¥ / 7 a ) \ § c Wq � 70 g = f � g 70M kk cu _ 0- 0 - « m Q -a mom 2 ƒ fM i § 7� / \2 2/ w � = e ® @f Q- $ a § m4m \ \ ¥ Ef go / § 0 2 2a) —Fa0 t � 0 ' 2 « C.) cz ° o ° B CL CoCLa \ � � \ w_ L -0(1) L)L)0 - k k 0 \ < . _& _ � » ® $ 2Ef2 « > A 2 mk2 > Cc -0 k= k . e £ E a L< C 0 0 � 2 k 0 ` y e0) a �<Om - o< aa ego f n o / � 0 0 ± Q U oR o % $ ® U \ _ ! LU « � 2 2 / g � 0 - Q b u ® - - - - - - - - - - - ± LL 20. 0 Lw z o < k 3 ` 7 ` D - T ) - - \ U ` - .2 « o ƒ ( / ( / 0o WL) E � o � 7 / § � 7 ±� � : ) / DEC) �� 7a/ / 0 c � � Lu . � , z . off / 0 7 % Ft k ) o ' a) a) � w R \ � o C z? � 2 k/ 02 a) mCa Lu� « / B§ � 2 7 22CL G u) w / � 0. § a - m « = m ccc � -0 c c , � � f m9 $ Ca) foal = u = M. \ § ( : § f $ $ = � '/9 m = mo ® - - mwF � » o � o = _ - = 0e Io T16 mm = ee - C § ma):= = � � a20 m § ) d-(D -0 E2 � 2 ± k = � � f &§ S g d CO 2 � _ @ c E # m a c c m _ � « Co Co E ° 8 / % Z � � � § ° � -0.2 Cu o § � » oCL cCa0D-aa m = 2c � 2E # u z - m 2 a = 38e b = &oo 3m@o? R > o > @ $ - �<�= 4 = � ._ £ E® : � o oa \ na ; � &4 ® = mE > E � z a)> 2k $ • § � V 2 0 = om » � � � - . 22 $ - 0b22E/ c :s0 0 S \ k k ( %¥ 2 } 2 § 2 ¥ ƒ \ 2 b h o / � \ O ow z@ c 0 Lu 0 = k \ \ k } { \ \ { { \ \ { o Q « - b 2 2 \ jCIS 0 0 - ƒ k � b � Lu z 0 e K z so { ■ � M - - - - - - - o \ \ k \ \ / \ \ / ( \ / / ( ƒ OR ( ( ( ( 2 0w . \ƒ k I 0$ ¥ > M m CL ga) w � 0 � / a�q w§ \/ ¥/ U UJ 4-a) � �� f \ w � ko ) § 0 � � 00 cm cn 0 0 @ � ■ § kf . t z 3 � � . \� � % �wCL � k f ir a. L % — < t � 5 , � .z � c = � � = �¥ -0 0E . » 0 33z / 3CU CU kG & 05 o < a / w � _ � = of E{2 22 � e 2 ■ RAm � � wEoa = � � em a � _ o 2 m 03 � (n U) U) \\ m ƒ . ¥ % Z w CD w k 0 0 &k � � E-le - < 2t5 - = G momm* f \ c � 0 ° ® � �0o3: -0 /? 0 % w z o CD2) 3 {-020 0 . S � o t\ �£� mo q �^ S m. . Em = g e / = kk a -� Co a) � c � C )=3 )m tdCDcn _ -0 U < w m m L - a�� y§ f 0 } � 0 m � O o zc k � \ 0 uj \ \ } \ \ \ \ } } \ { ^} Q - o o o ± 2 a g P § - U y . � LL � � - - - - - - - - - - - - w 3 z � © ^ ^ w { t ■ � ; § § Z § § § o , Q \ } \ § § \ § } § § § \ / oz 777 � w E2 » 5M cuCL 833 2 m ® � k \ . 0 ULuui \ 02 5 � 2 « z c g Z5 w ORco4 0 IL / w � / za :2 ko \ � p a = m « 0 CD 0LU < k U) � ) / cr2 / \ §m o � q � m � m �� , cn .0 2ao ( 3Z fEt � 2 22 � � ��/� \ / k �k \ c Ma) 2Ia ® cam J= = Z $ aw 2 w c � 22� � / ° f & \ 2 7\ E :/ t & �'a E � 0 c .k � 2 co LU M �\ � � \ k § ) 0) % � j � eEI f �� /� Ga2 -C t = = 0z eCL� = ooccu £ o \ k 0 ƒ J U O Iz / cD ƒ 0 3 ■ � % / r m 7 . . , /# 72a0 \ jj / ® \ m c > 3 / » 7 ] & SERt� � E ® I - 0CD70 \� k \ kk ) # �� k / — e o o — < — n m § § F o a e — a _ 0 . \ § aPr:3 = — o < :3 — CCU _ CD � = � < . m z m � n � � — E = � � c = � =® cnno = o _ \® Ed &(Q7—:3® m � mCD § _ § M � _ � � / � \ CD oC _m = _c ® � craf m = c_ CD moo z — m = « gym — nE 7gkn ¥ e & * sE22cEk2 §J PR n § — o = = o � nm _ # nm < CD _. c _ _ � CL � _ _ ' = < o — < � CDCD M o -u � w ° ° — - K � k � @k2 � f $ 9 fCD oQ at a2 o m � \ a § / g ƒCD CD 2E § -0 :3 / § \ \ a $ \ 0a \ � \ at E CD k2 % m ƒ \ « r- m a \ m Co Mm0 3 \ � 2 § \ _ ) dm a) z 7 en ic � z &_ ; 0 7 � § o @ -p= Eo m. 0 - 0) z \\ 22a Co §kf0 zm w 7¢ m © . z -0 / k && $ 2 m -q \ zo :3 n X :3 < z c 7 D { | 2 v 0 - - - - - - , n - - - - , z > k 0 0 m - - - - - - - - - - - » % q CD z z / - » nq So o. . - . - - - \ K z . m n � � \ \ Im \ \ Q \ 22 \ Q \ \ \ \ z z� � � � � � � q Q 0 (D ƒ 0 f 3 2 / n m ' -p a � 0 & @ » § > O m(0 _ o r � - m (D m 0 g m a' § < >__ & - q - » § $ k /7# f $\777¥ � � ¥ qEE¥ a �� 2 °° 2 ® ° ° o CL $ 7 ¢ �*f / � � _ \ ---0)— � � & gGEcn 3oo' � CD ] � � n � o < 0 z m � � CD E ° � m ® i0 § E E � E _ � ] - gym@ ■ ® ' R CD CCD � CD - CD - - m � _ � � < Ea- m - - _ cn = mn � = = e E ■ E »a x S & q0 - oa= E ao mm \ 2nw CL S ƒ ] Sm ±\ GE � g � � > 2 & m oo � a � = � ® � � r \ &7 ] E / � � CD 0a) C ® q Q � aX < � § @ Pk n � �_ ® k & o =_ _ = mo c _ = - nomE .. = c � mmCD = m � � osE � = �a3CL m § - a � n � � § c o R � � - � n p = o « ] 8 \¥ ~ - � = - oncn � < 2= $ $ E iE m o7 � � k ] - - mm = m � 7 ° mm = 7 � n =® D (Dc CD $ § A ° @ = era f cn = &° CD CD 0— (n o E x ¥ R= � $ e m E e RCD CA :3 CL CD E $l< 7 � \ a o % � 22 a .// EZ7 2 R � � � 0 �/ � E 0m m z . 7 (D FD � 2 ■ &cc 0 Q � �= Eg m & E\ � « z R \ eEa >o $3 \ qI m 0 om � = § zm / & a79 q � k = = g $ W � a � � $2 � I m -1 CD \ 02 (a cc � z .= 7 Q ) ) 7 ) ) ) � 0 _ . R . 0 - - - c Z ou { \ \ { 0 z z D > 2 Q 0 mq - - - - - - - - - - - - « % q 0 \ G 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - p m o 20. OM. 7o k \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CO) wQ 0 CD 0 � k G § n DO O - es .ae�—< am�\ E (D $ BJ � ' && § e& E2? o £ > < / ] o m — CDa CD & m ID cE 7amn = ® o-_ = z m = n M < n > m = w m M / &— E oy = x ao — = o - � � = k = nmmn — z o ng _ = o z= m = aoMMMM57 - ooa£ cn �oo a m< ] / g z a - o < 2.nE � n o = £ � K= r = CD , � � m — � =r = n nnC \gSeE ■ oom o ID =rO ° 2in CD & a Q � mCD nom0 - 0 o � — - o — — 2:r — gya m @ : R ~ 0 = — = o0 ] (a 9 ° cn �6g §E 2 i \ p/ ± CDa e R ° / I& < E ƒ ° - —m \ = ® = ; &-- 0 00 � 3 ƒ C mm m0 7 ® a & B o Er 0= CD 0 — m / eE9m % D A2 ¥ ƒ / \C �nm 3 C CLoem . a _ 0 k kg % � ƒ 0c rM a e E � a > Mo 2 0 2 -qS2 7 7 / fr, 7 z 7 a0 3 k / M2 E� q 0 : \ § - 0 / 02) z n \ E ® 0 / a \ƒ m0 _ z 0m ' z -0 / ■ 3 -o kz CD � . /\ m Kq ec « z e 7 � ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 0 . o - - - R Z _ R 0 k & k z > 2 O B � 2 0 / \ - - - - - - - - - - - 2 % k cr 22 [ § ! r Q ■ Q - > 00 \ \ \ \ \ \ S. So \ \ \ \ z \ 0 �M k 1 So Q {f \ \ { Q { Q \ } \ \ Cl) E / M ƒ 0 . 5 § - % � m - ' � S � aR \ o EE � a ® g \ ) Jƒ E = k 7 ± � \ e « O 5 = = oco < E onen nm ? E & Q CLm _ � =3 a- qo : a J .� a . q@ / § z m \ E � G & » EmkkB _ B E a- k � — ■ � e \ ± egg ° ° ECcnCD knS 0a00 R � 2� G � go� a = ao CL ;r 0E CD cn \ kCD co 3 w -a CD � �7 � k= -< En c _ � CD = _ � � = -u ® ik � ƒ \ 7\ f *.&,z _ c - m \o § 3 $ \ k / ) 3E $ gR \ ) \ 7 ~ \ 0 :3 . c n§ � M a =1 > C% =3 � S � z2 0 / } � D % / 0 m % z 7 « o . i 0- � o &= q § 0 ) kz Q /\ z o3Mo > O zq = I k � » i7 \ zk � (P m « cIQ $ CD ■ k0 0 G) 2 z0 21 o Q _ ) ) ) ) ] ) ) ) ) ) ) ] ; ! 0 - - - n - # - - - # - o - - ! c ; ■ f f f i m , z -4 > H � Q 0 m3 n O % m - - - - - - - - - - - ® o k CD , \ z z § - § ƒ - r C ■ | ! ?o K 2 % - - - . - - - - . - - p m e 7o CD E � 9 4 { { { \ \ # \ \ \ \ \ q E 0 cD ? 0 3 Do fJ-0Em7GE2a # @S & erlaE& � ® g � / FCD mk \ § § \ / Pai \ / / t ° $ \ \ @JA u EC e ]= m � � a � E E - c c = = o = e - o (n 0 § � oE & k7J \ ¢ / $ i°ƒƒ �S � � � (na) :3 = £ 5 &- mj0q ® EE co 7 / E %CL En CD � / C ; kk c PO q g % nm � M,l< CD CD n = a ; a @ :30, 7 � Eo � \ & g ° ° a $ o � CC 7 a m n ® ° 0(2 e E CD a m \ ECL CD CD 0 ƒ §kkpf% \ \a { \ k N \ 3 . § ■ � \ m� J � ZZ E =3 � E 0m m z 0 ] oE $ ic c - Ea � Z k R Er C - o 2a / k2 7 z Q \� \� -n o2ea . 0o / a % m k I o ice \ z 0) 7 �$ z CD W ' k ¥ a $ 2 CD� § \ z 0 n ;u �3 « z. cc Q ) ) ) ] ) ) 7 ) ) ) 7 ] /- v o - - - - _ n - - f { 9 $ z I D > z 0 m2 , 0 2 - - - - - - - - - - - a 0 CD , K z � ( \ ■ 00 } } \ } \ { \ o e m0 \ 0 m ƒ 0 § a § rm /( r / 0 0 5. kCL CD CD= ■ Ema:- mzj \ fT 3 \ / < \ m \o n o2d =a* o = ■ 2 � an == � c - � m 2 & ƒ fE � ± & a:30Z - @ @o m k E « m n c 0 o R E77 = = 2 » - c o = o e - 9 03 & m o 2 ~ & e"D w0 -� &° k &Cb CC Elm � \ / / % ; \ \ ( M \ X\ ZZ / � 22 \ _ 7 0m $ z 7 ac c ic 2 0- m 5.1 �� 0 ) k § D i \ zƒ/ % M:3/ zX = m / 7 �9 z �. oo CD-0 /l< ic 3 m2 \ :3 z o . : � n ■ � z (a7 D 2| | 0 - -o . n G 2 ! \ ■ f f k z I D > z Q 0 m2 2 n 0 > ƒ - \ - - - - - - - - - - 0. 0 2 ( ■ zz } } k 00 Er - - - - - - n m . m n --1 C) F � z 0 0 CD ƒ � w m u 00) m � = o om - m0 � n Q SE \ / CD=CL 0 k8 � —E.a0) R $ O _ ] E — - s (n s � n � ma= m® - 7 % p � % ® --/ ®\ C— , -0eEa- 0CDm — \= cz m \#D- 6 CD — m mE < � � & CD D0) , - 0 m = nm C nCD :3& mom@ — § za) n o = CD 2 �2 % \ e \ % @o n aa—\• m � CD eEo 8 A \ m . CD acn 0):3 CL gy m § 0 U= &£. ° 7 & 7 = a & 9f (D0. L f ~ \ / 3 / \ 72 0 rM § k \ DM0 R 0 zz E 0 0) 7 e Om % z 7 e � ao ic \ / Tz / � g 0 0 R ' � z D 0 2 / 2 0 2 \ z tqI® t � I� o2me o2Ca C)o / a0I / a0I mM ice \ ice \ zm 2 �\ I 2 m C � � z 0 /l< 0 \l< ic \ & a \ & a ®2 � 0 CD / \ \ \ n � CO J� « z S S ® ) ) ) ) ] ) ) ) ) ) ] ) ; a R a R 0 0 0 E - - I n } - - - - c z § 2 Q o qq 2 - OD - - - - - - - - - - 9 f \ \ RK a - ■ 2z ; ; G z ? 2 m o d R � � o { \ \ \ } \ / \ \ \ \ \ 55 B 0 (D ƒ a - � k _ m § n m \ 7k7 �CC /fCD CD - 0 - C - 2 g \ Rk \ � § \ƒ k � k /\ 5:MMM \ © ? CD Qn w7r n � e � C23 = � o � � \ \ 0 ::r @ � � � q cn �� :3 UT (D 2 / m ® \ � « E8J § � CL=r z # CD 00 ;u C _ � � � � CD7 > m c _. e = ne � a 7 / e cn PR 9. 0 \ ( / / ® ?� �cn CD CD Cl) $ 2 2 mo 0) m � —= � / a m 60 & 7 \ k \ $ % 0.=r 7— CD � \ a) CD % � / 2 r- m \ \ > m 3 0 \ > � c co / Jm % z / % ic k5 � o \3m § o ) 0z 0 o@I= == — n m @» m \» \ z z � M. < \�� § f / E / G)k 0 m — n0 z0 c CD qE § / % z. � CD CD � � o k2 \ \ \ zo n ;a CC . Q ] ) ) ) ) ) ) ] ) ] ) ] � 0 R - - R - 0 - S & f f { 1. . z � D . I 2 Q 0 mq ¥ 0 O D n - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 q � zz _ � � � � � � ? � Q ■ m S - - \ \ k ® \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ IS \ \ o \ } \ \ \ \ } \ \ \ \ q z 0 CD ƒ z % I � � r � c # » » E2 / E & Em a aRn : Em � � ; o d © 0E � ® q o CL $ 0 / �¥ A £ E = z mw :3 CD a m 2 s = ngnW m E 0 :3 o 2 > 2 CD — . m � E30 A @ Pq n » m g � E c o _ � 2fgc q m o ƒ § / :3Rr / � \_ - ¥ \ ƒ % m I 72 me \ . 0 k � � � ( \ ou ° 0m CD z 7 Ao ic ka � o /� mq = o ) �z , Q 0 0 M z _ < I .3 o . � 0 \% qGi m2 ± � & \ zm � cp 9 E } � � ? z. � p / . mya > o ? -aI m \ \ q \ zo n ; 5 = « z c 7 ) 7 ] ) ] ) ) ] ) ) ) ) 0 - - - B. - c f m I > > z 0 0 mq � - - - - - - - - - . - - ® % q _ . - ■CD 2z [ \ 0 0 0 \ ? r o ■ \ - - - - - - - - - - \ � k \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .0 \ \ \ 0 o \ f \ \ \ \ \ } \ ]� \ 12 1 q E ;a « 0 § � k m « = co@cp = m < a �= - Q CD En\ � En CD = mimeo -- am - > E � 27e5 = > = wm® a / ( � $ m < aF ;Z $ min =e . � & o � $ 0 S_ m ] ate ° :3 CD z m � 2 \± -. a J & \ § m- E C CO CD D 2L = Cmn aasC� » @ po m CDaca ao = � n - a . c � 7 ao - gym o 1) CD0 - k \ wcnc E 00 CD � 8 6� JE ± § &,< CD0—CL § \ � m � � a 03 . 7I me 5 # > g - & $ Z2 / � 2% \ co 9 0 m 2 z 7 ic kk � o : ƒ \ 0 2 z 0 ; ' o I e2, == Eo m 2)0CD � z oe ka/ CDDw m n_ z Q $ n � � (D =$ cc � � . o �§ z CD-0 /l< ic 2) ga > o \ / f z0 = e nX 5= < z c 7 Q ] 7 ] ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ] ` 2 0 0 - - - - n - - - - c f { f { ƒ , � D > 2 0 0 m2 � \ - - - - - - - - - - ®CD 0 % q` z 2 z ■ Q - > no \ - - - - - - - - - - 01 } § z \ m nw \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 CD / 0 � / ƒ 3 \ElECDS2 -0aED72 — = CD r -0 /EE - / g \ a CD � c = o m � n � CDmk ° - m = ; = C — � t / E \ \ $CD D=r 7 \®CD \j � ggE } � � CD 0 C7 E o� )ƒ CL C 2J k 20 a)7 § g -noc - - DD ƒ / a � (j SecC_ 2) \= 3 /§ m a : co 2t RE w : / m o/ a &3 & � E ° _ ° R® 2 $ 2 o a I \ o \ & m = m0CDo c n _ � nm » c � \ m ƒ = & 7nEgy � CD0cn :3ma 7r = « 7 E cn ° a� & ° � C& m] : —C ' mS ° ° � - 5 CC o R m o — w _ 627 . Cm D CD ~LCD m7F' 2) < lee $ \ \_ CD { 2 mcn 0 k � � \ 0 � � � co 7 Om a) z 7 Ao ic . k5 � o :3 CC m ƒ � 0 ; 2 SJ , D E79 z kE �o m § � / z0 -n � n . ( � ic CD m � CD -0 / ■ k � a C) 2 § k _q \ ƒ \ zo � � nM 5= �a c 7 Q ] ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ] | 2 0 - n - - - c ® f 1. { f f 0 z a 'az > > z O 0 mq ¥ n - O D - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 CD 0 c \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / � ■ Q - ® n o \ 0 z \ 20 E \ \ ] r � 0 0 (D ƒ i z Z ■ � k § § u n � / 00) =\ 7 £ % £ aeE2 o u \ > _ _ � = d2 » = E \ $ / > � O 3 ow :3 m « 0-- CD 3 � $ J $CL B CD _ _ :3cn z m@ cn CD — CD ® � _ � � m � / co \ 7 ) & qr \ E = 3 >Ch � & q & 2 ° omm - w c GG � CD / § � 6 \ \ m � / / k�$ # ( maik7 � \ \_ C \ � � m \ 2 } 2 cn M \ k \ > m0 2 0:3E � zz E . >@ ) ) � � CD Om w z 7 A � ® _ k0 ® � 0 k / /; 50 CD 3 2 0 § $ ' o @r2E \ CD0 m > : �;L 7 = � « -n 20 § � ƒ \ § w � m2 07 / & \ § cn— =rc z � BCD ~ � � CD 7s 0ic CA) 9 \ 9 z 0 / 0 /l< ic k & a k & & 22 3 3 = m =i \ ) \ \ ƒ \ zo n ;a 3a dg � z g g ® ` 0 - 2 n } \ & , z � D > 2 0 0 mq - - - - - - - - - - - 2 § % q CD _ - 0 \ \ \ \ / � ■ 1. k\ - - - - - - - - § - . 2. 0 k n 20 \ E � \ \ \ \ \ } \ { \ \ 9 } E \ CD ƒ 0 % = omE�D HCD 0 -0 o CD CD a m - =cm =r- 00o = E � _ � � / § � 0cD0) 3 k M7 o = = � m � f & CDRn z mm � CD w :3 E 0 =3 2 = _ / \ K � E�� � \ ® z k \ a & k / a k 7 a . _ 777i »3G2pCD m 27 DJ kCDaa s C ) C� CDCLD 0 a / CD % X r 22 m �m CO) \ . 0 k �z - § � > � CD co ° dm 0) z 7 CL = 0 . § � \ \k � v § $ o � c2. E0 � - zM = = = «7 \_ E & �oB0 2 �k \ zn/ � m ic � 0CD � m A \ z CD / ic El -a > 2 CD \\ qk CO co � z co7 . 0 - - . � n f { « m a a \ a \ \ a \ a a \ a Z 2 Q q3 . % 0 O - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 CD K Er z2 ? / \ } ( 2 w - . - - - , - - - - p 0 m & qo ■ k \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ R z / CD ƒ 0 % § r m 7 ƒ /\ & 3 § 9 ? IW =r - c = = t � g \ n » & t § 0 ƒ= aE2 ® & ° ® ° § 7 n ± = Q & \ s0 ; __ % _ \ � o C $ ED 0 � 0AC � CD (D0 / k » (D � 3 z mR : ] N) � c - o :3 =3 = o BCD � \ E CD � 0R7 / E / q �� q \ CD k (D o & R g� 222 & § � 2 = nn � c ® ::r00 < 2o m 27 \ CD = m �\ ik / / $ § / k\' � _ � , _ ma _ , < » � 0 , a a _ n k 0 ƒ \ « � M a � E -u 3 a ® mo e \ 22§ / e co ° Jm % . z \ cn e \ \ o / \d mz ;u -1 :3 :13 \ 0k , Q c0E0 m o/ : z q\ Ea > o . �2 / ƒ z ■ n $ 2 & nic $ @9 � z � 4W 0 $2 3 m � \ ƒ \ zo 2s 0 ;a : z = 7 Q ) ) ) ) ] 7 ) ] ) ) ) 7 ; - o ` o - - . . � - - . n - - - - f c , z § z Q 0 mq . � - - - - - - - - - - - ® % q CD \ } z z \ \ } \ } } } } } } \ \ > 00 % m \ � o ® r k { \)\ \ \ \ q E 2T o o B � % 0 { \ \ { \ } \ \ { \ { { ^ Q « - » ■ � ; \ § z 2 a ; o § - - k ` - - - - - - - - - - - b � LU z o r « z LU . { { { I 0. IR II ` of - Q - R ( ( ( ( ( { ( ( ( ( ( ( / £ � £ o � ƒ ƒ § 0 < :\ 0- a) . � w CD � / � 0 z » LL � caE z 2 w 0 � � LU a /'0 o ' � kd 2 k \ « , O / ZZ § 7 a2 < k c Wq % 0 3 � $ � k m � — \ N 22mE2e2 puj = = = m — ± � 0 3 :3 0 0)\ _ D m2 $ % = c _ § $ � m 00C co co ƒ 2 & & 02 � � � m R 2 \ / a & c a - 2 $ 2 / \ 3 7 ) m ca 0 � � 7 © Q0 0C y f � ca) o / � = m m L) -0 7 \ U) o \ 2 % m p � \ E w / - _ _ / \ \ { _ E 3 z , ) ) ! ! ~ ®lo d0. Im 00 ® 00 10 » z 2 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ M \ \ \ / � 2 0 � LU z s g « § LU { & 0. # I v \ - \ \ \ { \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ( ( r « ( ( ( ( ( ( ( { . c a 0E : MC 0 m 0 � » / a � � Q 0� \ a) z � » =4: E O / Ede \ . � /2 �/ za :t m wk \ « 0 / zz § 7 22 < \ . / � � 0 . \ § 0 _ / 0 § k - caa)m � # fk\ $ \ k CL9 L ® 32m " & o £ meo 20 2 3 ( \ £ �ffCM / / a � # CM0EntCOC »± = gym E . S $ a 5 ° � -5 L) am m a) � � LU \ / c � \k �/ �� k\ m2 / o f % w z % mot = = � » - \ EOee� � {� a k . < ® f / \ /E \ f0 -0 0 \ ( /\ � mx = � » 0m � o 0 0 o cmaw a = a ( = o41aeOccJg � w I m / > 0 f 0 O z . . (D C) tY % \ \ } \ { \ \ } . Q « ® b z 2 a O ® 0 / e ■ - « - - - - - - - - - - - « o u � a 0 P LU z o « § e . w { { ■ ` Of- - . - \ o Q - - - - + 5 - R \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o ) \ \ ( { ( ( ( w ( ( (CD [ ( ( E E �C: 0 Z LU \ ƒ k . /ƒ k B $ » 5 \ \ ti » $ E S2 eco Oct z co w , (D. w0� z » C$ a £ Gƒg6/ � � � , C 0 aE � ƒ Siig Q> � o 0L « § % \ f4 2 w / %%CO E E Ef � a CL 2 og E % > 20wf / Qa ma) c CL ƒ \ \ f IL o co ■« O a) E � � � . w w � � / \ 7 cu » _ w 0 � = — o = = _ © 72 g : $ m03E - 2£ \ G ƒ / ƒ 02 ± / / w # I ° -S � Emoo © o . =CL G2m2 ° a)tm"0 �r 08a) \ o 0 2 ) \ 2@ / &@ q E 2 \ m m . o C m .0 e e & e \ 2 70 .2 k / °� � D �7 � = / \ f = m — 0 a k / 3 � ( \ afmm § e / C »$ ( � % m :$\ 7 oa § on — et � q � 2 � � _ $ _ Q . . o = o = om £ 7m = f 2 $ a-aL0 m43 $ 2p 2@ a Q) E U)Q :3 cc / / . / . _\ U) 0 0 / % % m o 0 � \ LLI LU { } } } } } } \ } } } } ~ Q 2 2 / ) , ) _ 9 \ \ \ \ / U. O - - - - - .� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ otL o LLI o . K < g & & & { - - - - - - 0 } } / / / / / / \ / / / o , ! § § \ ( ( ( ( ( \ 0 k� 7f { � £ � w ƒƒ E 0 0 ■ caCL I a) a) LU m @ � k\± � �� \ & \ \ � \ ///q z � § \ 42 \ \ /\ 3/ ! w I < 02CL= om0w 0 zQ a ) 0 o � Er w 2 ° 0 % % c � 5 £ Ck E CO « o 0L U c E 0. M c k � LU a � k § 20 I 2 ¥ ¥ � � o � � , c a) (n _ a) m a) a) cn _ ® » o : m $ � 0 - c22 £ 0)ca = a ° © qk* / � = m _ m � - § ko k _ § /\ / ° 7� \ = 0 - ° 0�� &{ 2oc� o I ■ m » oo = - gym �cc = �® oe _ ® . � w Ia = _ . _ 0 $ _ L = I . m � k a 77 ® 0 -0m0) » � . . 7222 \ ca0) 0-5 2 (D « w _ _% 2 *= m - a) ackc »� _ c � ■ � ok2cn £ Eo �° oc g o = 2 � \ w z 77 .22) /ƒ / ) y . \\ &o22a)E0 :3 a) o_ � � � e 3 £ 13 £ � E MCL CO 0 . E ca e = 0O) wM � 0E = mot . \ RE # eE � � �5 = £ k2 $ Qua) (DE- 0EEaE / a- ESL cLE>, \\ E / § k R o ƒ � 0 Q zT) o Y w a a ¢ a a ¢ a a ¢ a a N Z w Z g 221 2 N g U Q - M a zZLL g r O U N f9 fq N N in N f0 N N N In s 0 a 0 � LLI z go O z a Q Z C C C C C r r C i w d' K (2 K R w U - - - - - - - 0 2 2 2 2 g f 2 `o C t t t t tz �U OZ F- w z0 OQ z o z ,f, w } 2U w z Uw OQ w z w C7 z0 0 OM zw Oa U z w0 o m~ m c O Z Z w CL 2 c wa 2 g ns apo w Ucaa)iVCU � rnm � oocCOL E .0 o .� � cm .- aa) c W � a) � 'U) � Qca? ca� Uo � o ocE o G to >,oCD cnC� cpm mw EvoEo � 0 0 d- Q cTi - m o m LL m e > > aJ Q z is c c =`— U Q—J m t N p O o •r- a) m c � g p 0 aci � � o aci w � o 8 � Et � 3 m o E o a c W Z QU m cm o c C o i `as Z Cc a) Y 0) a) 2 o - rn cn - o 'p O N a)= m U)i � .o co � ,a� N � o 0 -� o co .E a E a c p +; H � � = mmcam . rnE � CDc � c � ' (D o o w o m o - ca c I m o a) a) -Q .� V a� o c 3 E � Elm = 0 E mb �. E -0 m 0 �U � s cam° a.�a 3 = 0 U zD) E B � U kEW © - - - - Lu \ \ \ \ } \ } \ \ \ \ z 2 a G _ ( _ § 2 o - § - 1. 9 - - - ƒ QA ® - - - in - - - - - - -- 20. 0 Lu E z . � � o « § , { { ■ ` M - - - - - - - -o - ` - - ) ) � \ \ \ \ j \ \ / \ )§ \ \/ } \ f [ I � 0 of ƒ E7 0< » _ _ g ƒ ( / o = = &Ga6 � : = ƒ < 7 7 Luz � 557\ � Lu ® £ o §o t ± © ¢ = � cf ] c w OREka2 o £ a 6 2 z 2 � _ o a) I - gig �0 4 r = \ � u a /ui 2 0 ° 0 C / IL L) m M < § § zz \ f U)W � , \ \ Lua 3\ £ § < 0Q cu o = � o a) = coon o 0cow c = � � = $ & & g � £ 4 &a2 § � oaa ` - � � � &a � = c % § �- UCa a) a 0aO /9 �2 'a 2 � = = - CD o CuCL a) = � a _ _ w E - = o a) ems t� � = 0 o -eo � == � o � - e - � - c ® 0 2 0 o R @ ° £§ k CL. > = m CL 4) e R _ � o o� - a - m = ma- _ - 0- 22 »» � = £ _ = E : = CO CD o0 0 « � - » a) ® = = 2 = o o = c ._ e o to 2 2 � 7 �f/ %% 2 ° p � \® §» R u : - qg § c § � = ° ems = - coQ CL ■ 2 « � a � - Cc: -0 = c = � o _ f � � � » _ � � m - = = 2 ) � mcmo� e : k oC . _ m a) eCO (D 0 000 m » � _ . CD o = _ = 2 � c : uI = aac £ f ® = 7 / = $ - § = ¥ a ' 2E2 '( 2>(D +t /t - co -0 / / � 7 � e222222 ° ° 6 ° § £ 0oo0 0 $ $ § e :2 _-co 0 0Gf0k � k � o � o � $ o \ 3 « = ■ = - � u _ � � �I � u � of = a � �e = . « _ � � oon � ca ® % Ea) r_ a) cct2 = $ ? m 2 0 < FL"o—E CO) a c.) Lp E . . , . . f \ k z ° U) 0 O J v d v d d d d 0O O Y a a a ¢ a a a a a a a ¢ N m 0 z E 2 2 2 $ N � U a _ cv Z Z d o 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 =3 LL O U N Vl N N 0 N fA f0 N f/J f� N � 0 LL IL O i=- w z o G F Q Z W a m a $ R $. R R n n n $ Alf 0 Z } �U Oz Fq Z a 0 z N Z LO W} � U w Z Uw �a Oa LL z w O zo W O OM zw Oa U Z w0 N m ~ CD a } Z Z wa IL 2 a 0) c c waD W = g i� 0agU a) c c _ _ L u> U co a) ca a) ) >n co ! a� � a) a) ,L o o c � Oc rn 6yG Oo 9 oU O U)i O ca> >1 a) � O o � m CU Q CY) M ca O .— L cc Cl) L)W _ O � ° 3w a. 0aa a- a) c) mm a _ UioE ° 6o a C Q � Q� a oL) w o m � coo C -c c 6 a) � � � 3a 0 . Co o ` c° � � `� O E � m = y`6 - Lam= a) mm w > o = 6 � cm ww O o S ca > —w o o c o Lm E 0)E a) •� W Z O_•� N C . a) •O O 7 > L ''O O 7 •`� L i0 O N O O C C a L C L Q. 'C O L O7 a) '0 O a3Um m i '� E v _ 0. oin � � co 0 U a_ U:r 3 0 o coin mH as CL.;— (n Q :� ~ i c0 a • • 2 V � � � U 2 D » c o k \ \ \ w 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 2 I 7 a. o L O LL CDa. 0 Lu 0 2 , � Q o $ z } \ o - - e . e e w e e e e w e e e / �v £ c2 ow ƒ � 0 /$ > � � ) / GIc � � ca)ƒ 2 0k � kD 0 » � o z ® » c 3 B \£ z � q 0 ry . @2 00 :3 . d � \ \ \ a ■ � em2 z ) -jk . C) m « Bz - 2 § 7 � C \ � LU a 0k § of � $ . � � � f & § § m & � 2 6@26 ± f CL a) _ § % $ E % 2e226 £ 52 �9 LU « Sƒ\ S0 E C-L = � § E2 -0CL " { 2 2 � = gym = �t $ � =mac 22 = - 2522Ef\ � � « _ c D 2 _ g = - CCL tee °s 00 -a 0 2 % go (D >_ % .2 % 2 � /E k ® \ ° > � � _ ± � ® ° ® \ \ ale 2ƒ = )} a) CC .- Ea) E :2`m ± ) _ co a) CD . � C - c . a =_ > a) � o >1 = eC c \ f � ƒ/ E $cn / § �22 & tea) R2 § ke2 \/ k� E � � ® - ° / a2 � 2 ± � 2 £ § . mV g eoo �o»= o . _ � I � c ._ � < � 2 % Ef7k # f � � �\ \ o@ / � � r $ eaa -$ mm6. ƒ n j 0) . 0 mw o U Ow E . % \ \ \ j \ } \ 2 \ } \ } ^ Q # ® ± 2 2 § , , / , , 2 O p ƒQ O ® - - - - - - - - - - - 2 (L b LLu z � Q g z 0 w { \ { I ; - - - § o 10 o \ ) 0 / d § § d / / } / ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( { / � v oz \ k � E � I & E §2 5 \ \ . _ CL B33 6 # r 7k\ \ : E/ k w z 5 5 ° C:75 � � § 7\ \ƒ $ / f2 LL 0 � f \ � &\ 2E\ c w \ / CL mcdE3\ f � . zo a 0 c � a :g � kk � �k 0 « Q Z Z W § 7 22 ( \ / W IL 0 \ § Q � / 265 & ± ±\ ea 6 $ t »2 � �& kEE52 & @NM CL � _ � = e � � � . � ma cc = . _ CLo . .CD w @ � § = 6 ® — � E 2 § f \= GGJ\ %= � � = JCL I � w � � (n - - 2wo30 § : 0 oC = U) c = a) 6e — o = � . 0. mcm � e cca m � ol - 0oc = ome o § o m 2Rr020m 9 a) a) 0- a) kmu � mo — ± CD CD m w 2fk ¥ ] � k2 ) \ � 7 � E CUD (D � � Da) r_ ■ 0 m 10 _ cn L) cn 2 c � � = 5� % _ — a — o = c =3Mco gene 2 cn § E / ) = b/ _ m7@ 0 0 2 � E (Dr- a) o@c =ae = � _ ■ \ Ro0io � o � R #� = E £ 2ECu-- a) : > 0 = a § 2 ) r ma = cu �:,. u � z 5 •r =om— 2 f _ = MO CLe£ m f . \ / � / _0 ƒ � . 0 / 21-- o � o Y k \ / / / / / \ / j \ 04 2 = z o o o ! ^ ¢ -o. » % § q z z o � � � O ® - - - - - - - - - - - � IL b LLU z o R § w om . om om om { o. omk ` - - - - - - - Q - - - ) - 2 § § \ \ \ § \ \ §) \ \ ( { { ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( / Fv . { c £ of ig § 02 f » _ � 2 :} / O = c 2 LU < � z \ _ °® _ © U I ° t« 4 LL \� k \ kc w og E7 � ■ Fo 0 � \0 � ■ � 5t w § I � E § rD « o E CO � � c 2Zw g \§ � / / � IL 0 § O _ \ \ q 5 ± £ &£ £ § gb2 \ § z � = a &\ af � � — _ _ = wu o2222ca c = 3 & G > m 9 »— ) = � m50 « 7« : 9 om o I � ® o cr me = o = = 2I & Io M � ®� > E = S §2 ® a)a) M oo g' cc / c � a) a) oa) c � � £ o = gam ® a o -0 e 2 � 2 aI a) CD � � m « f £ to ® u > COo � / mom § I ƒ � LU ' nt \\ / . { ± %y & 7E : /{ 2 � c < o t § mw z C: >» 5a £ o � ) § = _ < c333 £ 2 a) n ooee0omm o a— o= o :3 Q (D o = OCLcnLomE » 7 2kga)(Acn § « � O = � k < ± / k� >1CD 2 $ i2 :3m0ofkf ¥ . % o e o= E% E % a % _ =I cL 4 u a m > ƒ \ n : U) 2 a o o k E q z , q ® b 2 2 a \ _ ) 4 \O ® - - - - - - - - - - ±\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 2L. CL o p: ui ■ z ■ � 0 « z w IOR 1. t { I { ■ ` . J 2 ; § § § ; o10 Q \ \ § / § / / 2 F- LU ƒ ƒ & . \ \ a) , oIc & . k & 2 � � / � \ < % � � ƒ 52 $ \ 0 % @moo = LL »� f4ac w \ 2 a).2 0 z o z /2 � § 2a /t 0 kk co � k § _ « � o / zz § 7 cn � � \ / � a. 0 # U � / 2 cu 0 . 0 § E $\ f66 22 � � ° ° �\kmm ) _ » Sf « W $ \2 . § o m U) u — 0 = _ 2 & ° 0 § % w 2 ck 2t 70 ° $ @o 0 1 \ 00O \# E - 22m § 7k� o / \1500 f 7 oa . \ 5 # 2c iF- $ § & y a) 0Fn c@ - - � c � � _ u � m2 � _ = = e ƒ § k / 0 $ � 0 O z T 5z » o k � � LLI z \ \ \ { } } \ } \ \ { } ~ Q z 2 (L o B ® - - - - - - - - - - - � M o Lw 2 ■ � o z w { I s � - Q - - R \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ / 0 \ ( ( ( ( ( ( M ( M ( ( ( / oz \/ { � w IIE 0 cc Da 0cc . - w � � c /\ m o � \ 0 LL »� f 4 w q / E/ � 20 § \ o 0 - cn - � w .2 B % S § a) Lu-jk « / zz - 7 2 AIL y mW g :3 I _ < 0) C-4 # a \ k62 � § E* ) 5 \ E - 0 =.r_ K- cm CC/) 2g � aatJ ± g /5 § a �9 / = gam = � � C ® �2 § � ° � t2 � e � ® / £ ± / � g / � \ � 2 - � >1 12 w / � � � 32 / f � f ± m2 / o £ B ° ° f 23@ � _ @ = JCL I § � $ { = 0 =3 F- E - - = E £ m - m § f § ° � M , MMM m � - ° oc � m � � m ® aka � 2f °a . 2 � = $ mom = ° » > o g - 7 ® a= � _ E = ems a) • Z 0 0 _= e8 ° ° ® - cam y= o ma • n � ua0) = - u o ƒ � � � e ® � / \ f © � E / EE =- : 3aa � &- - 0 .- � / =/ Q �Cc _ �� - ao ° & = 2 ems ' / � » � E ® ot % � % w z < @ = oR� c # = 0co CO -0 \ ® / E L) ® r7 � mu / = 2 $ 13 o / ° a = . � o- E -0 a- - a = � � - � CDU) - ES § o = > e ■ ee = E7 � = ' � m � ® = o$ _ o � a � » = ® � _ � -0 eac O _ mot & - = 5 ® o ° � smcu � � ce ¥ca) C: b2cm » am �\ 0- 0 22 % / SE42 \ S@ $ &/ Ee3f8 \ # 0w 00g �a24nO -OW f § nca0 m ƒ 0 / a) \ O ow / Y $ LLI \ { \ \ { { \ { \ / / / \ o � § ! , , z 2 0 P b ® - - - - - - - - - - - ± oc a a. 0 0 oc 0 s s e 6 » e. r e r e » � ■ 0 J § w { } / \ \ / - R } \ { ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( / / �� \ƒ k /ƒ k 0 » t \ . 0 2 E :@ E D = c omo z 2 uv \ f ¢. \ 0 o.2 z clam EE $ § 2m LL a) � �j / \ �ƒ � � � cm—a o == w / % % E0 = o % Q23 \ z 7 § � 0 6t§ . \ k / o _ opt 02t ka. � � � � bEc o E c 2 :3 / a- a./ m wE I m � 0L � . . : 2M « c a a\ 16 16 I � a- 7 \ _ I I t c # c = Q = a) = a) oa) c � = # c - 0 o q o f 2 w m ® _ /= c r- o / $ _ § o f o m »0 '9 co # q &$ - RG - S - = ma- @ � _ o LU g u m � a) (D m $oq _ ? = r a. Cl ■ . 0 « 2 : »$ 0o2@7 � f = = m » o ® 2G ( � g .� 3 [ >, _ " .- = m = o o m 2 � � � 22c § 722 ® § 7 2 = CLg o 2 ƒ 2 Va)E � = m � o % S ° ° 222 m � r0CL 0 0 m � £ § ak o0CL ) E = U oo »_ _ a) . ua 2 k a $ w z 0 � � - _ � � �m = 2 mua m o � mo � a � aa) a @cues ° = o 5 R & m - = o ® � 7 » = �� ƒ & 20 . « : 44 � f = § c a r % � 0 6 � 2 � m � � ca a)C b � 6- gy m y = o - ca) CL " o ma ® ova) = a _ = W- 0C, & ocnmouE = = Q- £ = cac » £ % \ I ■ j 4 o 0 m ■ o o O 2 % o 04 LLI / \ } / / } / \ _ z .z a 9 QO LL ® - - - - - - - - . - - - L oIL O P LLI ■ z s � o K E ` k ! ° - o« - o \ ) \ \ \ ) \ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ƒ / cm oz \/ ) E � IIE 0 � :/ � _ Qoc z o u * 2� $ r LLI Q O ' 02 0 oz = I ? LL §k \ k/ \2 z � __ a) ( CD E CD / EE232 2 7c � Mo Ot : W2 0 / «\Viz a� � § E 0- Io _jk m « 7 ; 0 zZ E LLJ CL m LLJ k § � : I � « � 2 , aU) o— a a � 0)CO c cm cITm — � a) LL = acc_0 o9 mEte & c0iF 4 � c00 = ° IT IE-Cmae £ £ � _ �9w CCL > uwmc « E5 o m = ggm � � ao E � 2 0. 2 § � � > 2k § � S § � & tic@ �0 % # 7 . £ 72 � � R § � _ c /3 � § \ & E° 6E� � ® ) o \ 7'a5E0-- ° ° = � $ k . : � $ fq § c � mm ® � 5 a) @ /7f « 22° /� Ek3 � 0)C 3 ƒ � g � 2 = 7 $ � ± ° 0c -0 - a > o0ZZm $ �k / � E 0 c % w z 0 �¥ ® �% - 2 £ � = @Scf o2 'a a)=, = 2 S � o \ $ t7k = \ $ 2c72E@p \ § 2 &/f [ 222 — maEcc E c a � G # m % = = o { : o = a ) ± q b @ # / @5 ® 6 $ E 2m = = m — � o= � _ » � ' ® o � � � o » = aM (D 2 _ o � m = � � 400a £ � R = � � � � 5 = = � � « � @com m f n : � T) k . oY A LLI LU k \ \ { \ { { \ \ \ \ \ \ ~. Q « ® . S 2 q 2 z o - 2 / Qb ® - - - - - - - - - - . 0a 0 ELU z 0 P z w { ■ at al� - . Q R \ \ § \ \\ / § / d 0 -1 [ ( ( [ [ ( ( ( � c LU cc Q « 0 ■ �° ° 5D 2 � L66 $ . L0 0 E o » O Qz cI ? LL U� C (D0t moo= LU / % EE3K . 2� % 00 02 � 7 \ \ z a m0 C7 . 0 . 00E � a / ate/ � � k 7 4 ZZ � 7 2LUa. \ § UJ � i I . \ � t = = o = � — . » 2 k § E— § \ � � 0E / § ESe0o2 (ƒ ofa « / LU ® ago — CLm & E5 a) u - 2 a) Q) mSO a) ca - � o > � = m = fc a ■ 0 7 = � w0 f > o mc � � — _ _ « _ >, o CLCa me = m o o6 / § u t _ mm §gmJ22� a' a : ° @c @ = 2 � 55m � e20 — = a) � 2 � m m � f\ \ ° $ 5 *ge \ a) 0 / $ % ® 0 -0777? f � _ = o © = = ._ mom % w 2 M EIS a) o % � � a) 2t6 = Et o a 2 � E 2 - � § k � �± k � CD.2 � � 15. 7 ca ® tee = E � � §- - � � — = - 7 = ®/ 99 0 0 a) o _ ._ � = 0 0 % 2 0 � � � M � - < aazk ¥ = �23-= « u EEboEk J � a � � � � # j 0 : m ■ o U oR 2 S" _ B � \ E wLU \ - E 3 ! ) ! | | ! ) z 2 / / 0 F- 0 - - A ® - - - - - - - - - - L � IL 0 p LU 0 2 / s � 0 . . « § , . Lu { t { { { v & - . _ ) o Z 0 , £ o \ § § § ( ( ( [ ( ( ( ( ( ( . ( ( CD / v -c £ ct � LU ƒ ƒ § 3 « » t \ ■ » � � LU > \&} . 0 - cam wz \ = o o < OmE0 \ E O / Ed 0 % � B 0 {k E �M a � � � 0 % ( k ¥ 2 a- Ea3 \ z co Mk « kwx E CD $ tea k � a- CL CL \ 2 L cm (DC C: _ Ma) »� - - m@m �9 w \ \ �� k� K\k\ � § / ¥ m � � \ � k \ k / = G0 o = ma) eo ' _ ` a) ® gym cowCr C § 0 cu �02 � m _ § ° / / 2Ga2 ° a) :3 m7 $ f $ d < c ftmE /\ � = = CL- = ® = u ow 0o = = o ® J@m ° ° � m ° « $ t 2 2 « c . �® f m - & - _ _ U) \ w @ 70mm C3 3� ° � @ 2 ` ® aaJ § � � � c ■ ■ �- � 3 = um o = o � o � % w z � 252E { 6E � � � �2\ = 2 - � c = $ 2 � G2G = R 2 m a) E ° c § = = es = = a o ° 2 � .> . } / / \ /� /« � 7G� G � k\ / 2 � ° 7k2E2 � S c < § c ° ° . 22 $ a2 cLEa)2.mm5 § 2 �/ 2f \ =$o-0— \2k/ ff ƒ mf b z 5 U) 0 O 2T Szo o B � 04 ui \ \ { \ { \ { { \ \ { j \ ^ 0 0 « S z 2_ IL \ ge 02. 0 LL 0 ^ -- - - - - - - - - - - ELU z o z SO , , u { { I ■ � - Q - - - - Im o � \ § 0 § § § [ ( ( [ [ { ( ( ( { [ 7 ( / �� 75 { _ £ 0w f ƒ / B $ 55 \ ■ @2 OEc e w & G . ? ALL, o � 5 LL »roc E O / f & . Wc 6L \ og &w 2k3 0 \ § � m Q ( � k 7 Lu / zL � 0 7 CL k � a I m \ � £ �§ S2 ƒ± m % NE % ¥ 2 ° $ ± � \ eeee0 (aa) - & § /9 :3cc- 0 E ' g ® �§ &@ � wm >:3 £ ' \� ® rg _ � . ova. . � 2 E/ � �2mCLE � a22 a� � � 0 .2mD)oU) 0C = _ m oo - = Q- = ° ° 2 5m ° a & � Lpo m � eE o 0 M -0 -0 CL � � � _ 8- cc ° ° �- � 22Eemca gd m = = - ma o Imo : 3 ccccc13) c # � � < o.c -0 00 ° ° Cka) 0 � $ \ 2 = ® aS / c � m � 00.:Eo-0 0) 0 cno -- � 6 c o / ace = � o � © Z. � o # �� Ea) n _ = 0mc � \ z ® o 0 m 0 _ M 2 W Z. ? 2 cu - o e o o a 2 � o_ e055= RE@ 2 « « g � 50 (n m � CLg EE � 2 = 0 ® E ■ o � .- � o � c � o o § � � « _/ « $L£ � _ © .- 2 - cCUe50 ' 2a / a aCLC £ 00) =t = . = o = m0C � W ?- k2 J 3J £ o » eu � CL2 � E£ 2S700. e$ cMSo /25G ƒ cu z _04 / � 0 \ ow zT c 0 0 � \ LU LU z } . } { j { \ { \ } { 04 { { 00 § z 2 a § oR 0 - - k ^ - - - - - - - - - O Ew z sQ o E ! ! { om ■ ` J : - - - - - - o, § - R \ \ \ \ \ \ } \ \ I } } ( ( ( ( ( ( ( [ ( ( ( ( oz � LU IIE I = E \ tf \ . . \k k a) a) q33 w ' 2 @ 2 ® 0 2 Uk oC75 E - CZ ? M § »33 $ § q \ƒ GIf2 o § a) \ a) z o2f a a) (Da) Occ w occcaE0E QccmE0 z 7 ± o o0 e § 0 /t % \ � D- / c � ■ ass »o 3c2 zLLI g » o UEU) /# 2 n0- 3 � 5 � « « a) -JP _ k E CO < m § � 0 CL 2$ < / 0 / a. LU � IL 2_ § � « a t / § = 6 � RG & % � a0) _ » a (D _ 5,W " Ma) � � [ \ � / < \ � ƒ /\ � � S a = . o � o ° ° / g � � ± > R E ° § $ @ 7 2.%%%c ■wa�d ■ -� a � � e � z - ' ® a22o# G Q2EQ2§ m 00- 0 2 k � � = .a)2 < ® o � T : eQ zoo I ® rnoe cow ) ec = = - a) > 2 L o 1oom1 2ƒ o EL.E0tc a1 ma) u ■ mm = m ._ 2 .0 a zmo § = 0M-0 a Ez = > � o $ 0 / 2 c2 /3 S - - : - ° w CcR c = : - 2 = 3 § � m :§ 2 a) 0C: a) ffkw0 =- woa = o � @2m0) 0cu ce a \ okzcct f ? 7 z cu a) 0 0 \ o O oR z � f \ k � \ LU LLI j \ \ { \ \ } { { ^ / 2 2 a o P W Q O ® - - - - - - -1. -c. - - - � IL b . � ui z g � o « z wR S. I & § § - - - o - o , lo § / 1 § § § ( ( F ( ( / o £ c £ f . ƒ fa) K2 55U » cca- Bj3 LU CD z� � cAoQ L) 6 . �w z = - £ c \§ \ §ƒ k 0 « £ m2 _ � z 0tmo w / EEec zo Q o \ 0g /$ k7D p ■ m O0 ; §a / 0E0 ■ kk0- mU) / -jp / I mp 0 / B § � \ 7 2 ■ a. « � CL �a t oC4 mm � .� 0offomo c0 .� � _ _ = o & � - = tCU _ r w ow0 ® ® a 7 a) O # g 0 = 0 22 0 (D :3 a - 0000 (a2ea = 2 � = 0 - 0) EL) . � m ® 2a q o6 m � � � 0 = a- m -0a—a Fo 2 « a) a) e � 2 � § SkS % ° Jt � co cw 2 - # E ° 2 2 kB ± bE � £ = � E £ d 7 � § p CL(D � f $ o CL cc / (D ■ � % uc � .§ owD 'r- - ems = 2 % m $ g = (D - cn0) m = 70 = 0 .- 0a) m a= E = M � mom = a .0Fn �: - roco ƒ to 4— \ / z _f / 0 / 2 % c 0 % Z LU 1-7 _ LU \ } \ } { \ \ \ \ { { { ~ oU 2 . 7 g § " . C.p w Q E - - - - - - - - LL - - - CD IL 0 ELU z o r z Q }, S. � _ , , , , , iF E M - - - - - - Q ` ) R \ ) \ \ § \ \ \ }1 \ / { ( F- ( ( ( ( / £ ct �LU ƒ ƒ 7 0 AMC . . 2LO � 2A2 w L) 6 ' o . £ QE 5 % \ $ t § 2 ƒ% D LL :3 CM-0E E L / % § Ea zo & § \ B g . Lu 0 Eb CrCLƒ \ § � Ka � 2e \£ / k / \ a- iI / j . a) � k / « c / Zzw I CY) 0W « _ a W � \ t = »= c — � a (D o , ea) a) � � � = a) 0EAC . Sz = � � � — � _ � _ _ /9 — m � � � � m ® — � X2 Su) Se w = 0como u � £ - 2 — e � >,— e— a ■ o &ocL# � �: 2 »2c0 � a) ® o ® � _ c a 0 \ f > \ 5 0 § / § 0 f/ % / k § ! / ® ƒ SS cLeGa) o = U)0) co ± / Ea@ � � f � 3 £ 7 : m � !E § ■ m � 2 u 0)— o � 0ca % w z a ° 2 .0002 #2 / = # a= ef R m omE # / tee � _ & = o — � � o = oo E o � _ _ a � �� oo 0 g ® ef � Oa r g22222224)Co -0 o _ m � E 2 22 $ 0 0-0Fne &: 5 / 75 f co 0 7 a) 0 E : m ■ 0 0 oR z T » E % Q LLI - _ - Ic - - - - - - - - - � E3 � ® cc z 2 oR L)O ® - -- - - - - - - - - - 0 w 0 L � z � LLI I Ioa t { W, elf R / / \ \ \ ( ( ( [ ( ( [ ( ( ( ( ( ( 0 oLU z � o « � z % � L . LUz ■ LLJ o� z w � zQ 02 . ui 0 I � � m � � 2 B § � . E 2 0_ k � a \ - � q ± &e � i % ¥ @fa2 ® « 2ba5tmc" � § aF�c a) § @ + % 6* 666 /9 ® » aoe ® - o ao _aQ) �= - o £ - E : =- t = w 2 mmE0 = (n@aE = t _ � o � - : es c � � o -0 � � � � � mCLfb � o a � D eea) ® � > > � o g2 ° � e = a � _ _ > _ � o � � - aCom > a �oCL 0c _ c _ = o L{� = mbG E > yam = o % p 0ao » a) « o 22 CO ® 0j = / 0 \ S ° « �f § :sE � �£ $� e § _ E±_ w ° � f 2 = mmoam � ' o � c � � £ = Cc4) CL0 E 3 w _ � 0U) � � � tee.® ® �=2 5 � $ CLU _ � 6- : � 2b pf = c2 � � c � o { $ @2 � § a) I % w z a �g ® ® �t ��« �� » � oEm �2 $ cq ' 2 ago ° CL4) $ � / k 2 $ � o ocrr-0 ® J2o22 � E \ � 2CL— 'Lu Ry x :36m0 @3 ® W2 ) ' m � oa E �a � o � � E � � � �eE255 � � a= = = L) (1) = 3C � 0R § R : 20 �o § ƒ � \ z � » » o o B � 04 I k \ \ \ } { \ } \ \ { \ \ \ ~ , o « ® » 26 z k 0- 0R 0 ƒ O LL © gIL 0 � LU z o z LU I I I { . � � M - - - - - - - - - U ` - \ o ) ) - \ \ \ \ \ \ } } } j \ } \ » e t w e e e e e e e t e ( � � Z yc { � LU ƒ ƒ K 0 »5 \ CL 833 z )r Cc � � J\ k §e 2cc 22 LL »� _ w O / f § � . z_ Mo c ow O � w 2 0- 0 R7 7 z ca§ -j ° m / Zz 2 7 2Ma. / k � 2 . :7 . 7 _ Ia a) cm f \ 3 � (D(D C: 0 > �£ 2 ± 3 § 62:5\ & a 0 - M0W- � 0C 2 %0 fEE ¥ � 22kfcc = - � : a) 0_ ® � � eCL 75 co E � S � %a2 (D CL U « � ) 265M0 -r- ° « § U) _0 0 § f ± E� /F . u > 0cc " > M = o CL ® - - �c � 503 o . m � � CL0 ( 2 0 c c � � � ® ce �- - c § -® � £\ 06 =&2 � t � f � _ m � cc . 00 m goo ca o > � _ mo c � o = o _ E cc � � o . 2 « [ Tm � _ - oc = e { = k � � ca � � � � � 5C) ® 7- emu / (n 3 ƒ ■ LU \ c � a) CL � � %= # m � » tea 2 & ao � � = cam eao52 � w ■ ¥ � am 2 a) mm02R c L)2 £ $ a)a)- c 7 tie �2 0 % � 2 t � = E a) E . � mc § - E & c c� £ � \ � � t » m .:ba = � 2 $ � o ® § ° GFa) r- , CD CL> � C a) 00M = 0 �G � / E cn E oa p 2uE � aze � amaoA = CLm : E � � �< E £ o» � =_ cm2 �� co= mot o - ■ « ® o § 2 f \ �2 6 5 > p § x y % . < a E � _ cu to f E a e 5 a) » (D . ƒ \ / z ° / \� 3 2q f \ . . b � . C\l ULu / k z \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ » � 2 a 3 , Q Q O § ` ƒ � - - - - - - - - - a.LLI O pw z so o z _ LU I / 2 = £ o� . ƒ ƒ q 0� 2ga cu C e33 , z cn 2 LU wz w k ® / z w o u Q U- it \2 E E b / Eƒ k� C § w R � \ 0 � . % & � o m ca/ uj -j� z_ _ ED ■ / ZZ � 7 cl /UJa 2 \ . k LUa / \ k I CL t - -j < 2 « o = ( m - o (n a) co 0) � 2 e o = m - a # F �2e � � /9 w w CL.—= - EG fm as � �� I � ■ ■ R o � � a) a) 6 % W ca) © S & $ / 2 K 5 Ef /2 � // $ CL \ a � [ f / \\ k / m 2a - 0 � ® E -cn CL % z w 7 � cCU ® ± n � « = a) m eƒ § ■ ■ k U �aaRUte : £ 4 « P\ m2m2 of / Cl) � J J a 72f { y � � op = / cm 0r- 0 o \ � 2 LU k 2 % , = cE � o < : � < 0 < 4 : ■ � Mma c e « 0M .r � 2 t � S = JCL > Ma . , I cu � \ \ n q z to = o zD) E \ ol _ - - - \ o 2 § \ ko \ 2 2 2 @ _ IL o P § - - ƒ k_ U ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - b � LLI z ■ � o « § I, , I_ I, I� 1 2 ` { / - . R ) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ) § \ \ ( [ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( [ ( ( / � >- oz ƒ ƒ \ � w 0 » tc 2 2E . Omc } 0k U0 £ - '- � k � /� \ / \ L >, - E g w a / D- 0 § � o o � L LLI K� . ■ kk � m � / 2zC . 7 a § CL \ / W - o f ■ CL CL CL _ < # 2 =« a) a) = * , _ a) \ = = _ m £ c � = Cl)c —0 3 eta » 2 ¥ � : � £ $o § i.« %/ � �3 $ E3 / ft �± o ± m % © oo25 =T / o %7> kk: \� \ % � � t\ »� ^/ ) « k - § / �/ƒ � E£ � � � ® 2'a o �_ - - c � d co a c � $ U20 CD CD E2o .2 = u2 � m moo® » » ° o6 m = _ � * 00 o � f E = E � � t SE �.� _ a) § z « ecm � = g � : � a) E 7 w amn £ � � � am 2 � / » � a � � £ � a &e % £ b : - fE _ a ■ = og � § � U) mw »5 { S § � � o g § » . _ & ° a) m c % w z © ±kik �� § = � �t ° 22 ® kt%#± 2a = /' mot£ e0 a 2 � 0 2& $ bee -# @ &�/ E m0) ma) = � 0 = :3EE 2 � @ § 5 � E ca \ � mE CL iEa)0a) Ea � f5 « � I = : » oa � k �I a e »= � � f k2 $ 2 £ £ u 0)0, 2E &k /£ $ S . f m0 ^ _f / � ƒ / C9 � zN o I_ W w o o o = U o 0 zz a e e e Is o o o 0 0cu ao U � NLL C9 LL a 0 w z 0 Q -L C O C t C C C S. w a n a U - - _ - - - - ol 0 d Z � U Ow z0 Oa z o z w } 2U w Z w 00 aQ z w t7 zo O OM Z w Oa v z m w0_ a) m ~ 00 Q O Z Z m C w L O w J a s = g co a) �T+ a) ' N a) -0 "a-- N T tm u) Q a) N _ a) — L i G a) _ .O a) c .c >,C a) ?� 6 w •c •y M O Y - 3 Q) C c U Y L a) Y m O M O ° co O O f6 O ` ° m U m O p Q. T m — O ° m O y m L 3 '- o w ° � c ¢ rna) c a) cYi �cq �= c � 3 E y o o ° 2 Q— c c- a) �' c E do Qom w m Q� � �C� m Q-o � �CD c a) r- a) c m . o a�i '0 O C N `n a�'i E m nE ° � ° in � w vi o 3 = ° � a) a) a) vi U) E m c — Qua a) mz w Eovan 3E a) ° ° a=i Eco � �` a) a�i3 - CU o .� ~ ~ U '� CDo 15 m cM � m �t ° °° Q� - 3a o m Qc o f° nn � � E r o • ° c � ' c E a c —ucai W Z ca c c "- cY6 v1 7 N C O ` i) �n D p N c E E m E 'S °� 0 3 V C N .0 O L O E .� O cio � � - c c ° � • a) m co a) a ° 5o �' QoCL � ° ° ° m ° a) O c y m v) m o . v) min s - 3 � Ua �cn Qa) E ter_ a c o E u) L) c Qom . ° Co Q a) s 0 _ B 0 F- m 0 O U L) U z � o J d d d d d d d o O Y a a < a a a a a a a a a N a a LLI 0 V a g g V o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z n Of— CT) in N f%1 QLL O LL W 0 f" z � 0 0 z ~ Q Z r r Cpp C C C i C C CpO CpO w O. ¢ 6 6 OO. ¢ 6 OO. ¢ O. 6 K 6 g+ W W - - V Z� � U OW 20 Oa H z w � � U 111 z Uw � 0 OQ LL z w 0 z_ 0 M 0 0 — _ R F— z w 0 C' U z N w0 o m ~ m o Zz � zw � � O c a2a. C LU J w n. r x� N N C O cLa N a5 •� 7 O ca C C O �C "� �C C a) ca Y cc O rn C C C o f c6 .c p C N 'U 00 � cnoa) co w 0,.o 'ca f6o asm 0 � �w3 a) � O � c —a) cotea) ai0m3 _ � o � .o E Q w cc o cm arc �� �- v, c o o � � L ns c N m o c cc (D c � »- cm °3 a�• E Q E (D m C .> > � v o Q'o c`O) N N o .�'C Oaf N � @ o cn N oc OE � (D E E nE cam o o _ m -2cn6 � m � 'ia = ' E I) E `6 � � c m cZ w c `� � ccaa � ma- � o ,o � coa 0 � �Hc0ain '5 ')i0t5C', � Q1�- � oa�� a) wo om " ono "_ c c c E � o c a) a� o o ioW z Eo Erna> ca� "> °� a`> � vi ' °? o � ,� a Ea) cnEoca� •> :> � mu�im } fA N Y a) Y 3 0 p al C Q a5 V O V C E y C a) Y a3 f6 Y � m O O V 7 N o 'C0 0) 3 � Q w c '« oa .S nn� o 3 0U � � > CL-0 8 � - ..o o E :`� m ° '0 nav � :? in . cc o H O U) U C9 F- Z N r co O Y a a a a c ¢ a a a a a a a N W V - - - - - _ _ _ - - r` Z = Z g N m ZONIL CD ao U- a 0 0 � it z g � O z a a z r r o r z W a 8 g o or IxC� at of - - o g 0 0 0 0 - - - - e - t t to t t t t t t O zr O z � q zQ O z N Z W � �U W z U W IXa OQ a z W O zo WO OR z W Oa U z WO m Q O Z Z w W a. 2 a c W J � a S g m oQ - . yNcc n � 6ornm m co W E m � : • O cu U' Ca) Uc C c Ch 7 m c —\ "Om a) E a a ` � a a) o cc ° ' a cn n-a = n Lmo cn � E o mT o E m Em °) LZ a> o cu ca' W 30 o (D CC CL y (A c a) .ou? v E Q1L-- g o ° 3H '� L ° n � c c� c � Am -0 m m M-• C � .O C _ C O f6 i a• a) ' m m (n O O m a .LO U a) O — cL m a) a U O a c c (n a) 7 a) (!1 c O N W Z ° m t0/J <6 L O .0 p C N O m 3 0 O O O � C V ;m N 'a 3 Q 0 7 N m O p V N O C a) C L ' O a) a) a C 0 0 L C O (6 O m N 2 ° m 7 7 .'C-. O` fLC S c fU6 r • . _ m V H w m .� O � () z D » k uj b � s \ \ } \ { { ~ . 0 Q « ® ± §2 7 Ow 0 Q b LL L) ® - - - - - - - - - - - oIL LL Euj z o Q z e w { - Q - - - - - o , � ® / § § § § § § / $ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( [ ( t- ( .2 / oz \ / k Z � IIE ICE _\/ Q. \\ CU k \ 33 333 M / k / ~ wz CLm � � \ca) / LL \� f \ ftk \� f \ w \ / E£ / §$ § / E£ _z 7 a � § 7r � @ o m Ig \ 0 o\ zCL � @ 2 ko } o m � k 0 Z z � 0W « £ t k � � � 2 O f � a. k L \ < « » a) _ _ >,- ® a) _ § = © 2 = e � 5aa) �o a)a) > k E00 - 6cƒ e2 co- = MM " 0 § o cLEa � t � m � E@ra � P $ ~ 8 � 2 � I o ° = ca) m = oc o = ® c oo = � _ QU) 0 /o / 77 $ o Mc = g - S 00 CO t Eeeee - �-0u � a ¥ tcn » c a) � 5 2 « m � E mu oxen = ® a) a) - (aU) _ _ = e m w ' m � � £ V) � 0) a) > - £ m 7= @0.- U) U _ E � & m ® ® m ± � ° o � \ \ �± A77f ƒ ƒ § \ £ * _ � _ � _ � = m m . m z cnRRt � � �% � . > F � (D 2 0)— $ ' 0 7 (D 2 = (0 - m a) 0 �_ � � c � 2a ' / � ?\ E = ® E Sf' ° ° / � \ r a—L) 2ya \ e � � � � m � Q � - £ m � $ ono m � � ear a) a) o = = � = a == o4 = oaa � Q. 16 = 0 2 aU) cr e 3 kf b m 0 / W ƒ / O 2T) c / � o Y Q uj / \ w Q , _ _ { _ _ 2 2 _ 2 2 2 f-� � = z , ! ) ) ) ! ) 04 ® z z z G / , ] 0 P § - i Q b ® - - - - - - - - - - - L oa b LLU z ■ Q o K z z , w ƒ IR RDof : - - - - ool, ) § ) ) ) _ 0 � 2 oLLJ d2 55a O ± 3 LU � � ID 20LU \ U 2 � � � / t / \ k\ �2 ± � E $ \ £ = - CLm w \ / E£ 43 ƒ _z Q A) �o 0 CO 0LU / \ z oa. bm § o m Mk 0 zz 7 �� 0 k / � ILCL . CL \ - < , � = ® m a) -o m � § � c � u § a = § ooaz - o � �9 = o � 2c a) o _ C� 'CGum � d- 2 M .0 E / � � k \ \ E = Em = � _ � £ a0R � $ � / o Eo2 � E t � c � c � oo o e � Z ° 22m lee e oQ) - - e ( o # w c r � 0c i-a E2 ' % E � : eiCL— CL co � k $ CL0 / 2 ° � q § o ° t= a) E U) a) 2 cn a) ° =a = g07 �£ c ® q 7 3 � R k ° kk ¥ : % c-EU) k � _-F m � < o amino o � » o ._ Xo « m = \ u2 � Rmo � 3g = CLga) Scc f mQ _f / � / 0 oR 2 � o L w E 3 z , ! ! ) ) ! q! 22 0 � z z \ O 0 - - o Q & K � ® - - - - - - - - - - E � IL 0 z o K z Q } k It - - - - - ) Q - - - o - - - a o \ § ! Q § d § §o > § ( ( ( ƒ ƒ ( { ( ( F- ( ( / oz / ƒ { � w . 0 0 �22 ace LU � /6 } CD r- L) � � / t / / k \ 0$ 0mE $ \ & LL w 5 / k£ \ CL� } z � � � �o = w � � 0 a § G Io 0) -jk 0 22w U) W � k f L \ — < � C14 00 00 ° � � ƒ § 0 _ . 7 = \ 9 � o : a a77— � § § � c � 22 k -000 ¥ 0. M � f¥ 7 o0 2 \ Q22w'Fn(D0 ® %/ § E$ ■ = z < m = cc = — _ » � -0 _ �= 3 % w a £= — 333 ° § � a e � ■ 27 � @ abaJ ® � k8 � 2 § % w z a — E0) a) E � £ ekkk A ° ° -Fa _ C a a a.. 02 & 2 — o ? E2 ' { £ 2ba § ca o £ o \ ° M � � ° ' � 7 > � � \ b � ea & k ƒ & &:« Sk & EE@3t \ k ® 0 U) ƒ O 2 a o C) . by % LLI LLI \ \ { \ \ \ { \ { ~ 2 j i - m z k CL / } \ j Ow 0 D LL ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - O LU 0 \ � Q o E z ` w t ■ - k \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ { ƒ / ( f / 0 Z® , ■U c � � d2 25 \ * 5 \ ■ » 2y �$ E . zn � « a o 2y E62 = o / UZ - C $ \ k ) % \ -C k0 Uw Oat » meU I ¥ f y « LL 0c / \ki £ 5 ® ° 2 « 2 m m E t (n 3 \\ k3k30 f / k£\\ z f $ R c c �� .a \ / k . o % E % k 0- o 0- O ! \ \ f . . = m « / ZZ 7 2M � ? £ y ® W q E z � a. k L % 0) C4 § &32 ± 2 « E2 § CmE/ k &d £ f § § $ 2 & « �� � e . e u � o - @ - _ � ceae = k\ k /2 u \° 7 � $ � cE / $ / o = a ~ 0 CL0- ` � � )® $ _ � o § ° 2� k® 17 \ Ec287ƒpa) / t £ = ° ± ± � o c t = � ° � � 20 um = gym � � = ME tea ' ga � �� ® C$ �_ 224) � 0 22a� _ � - � f - = - o £ _ _ - m = M � c � c . # z w 7E r £ Of - � g\ c ° I '2 � = ¥ mo - ® ® o � _ § � ■ CL2 � % oa � o � £ - 2 f , § a % c'-0 @t\ & $ c % w z ocu ct5i7 _8@o$ 6a ®« QSa a27t__ 0) EC 2 a) w � 2k \ o&_ 1E.9E § Eg � S � � _ « e : I = o E ca R § = c = c = � 2 � @r « 2 = � ® a £ c § / SS > CL0) 0 n ? e « ' og@o@f ° = 00mmM2e % § o � ' o2oo ® E2f ° � 0 / 5 a E » = o � _ Ew � 0- a= -0coCLa_ u � 2 . � a= . . SEE = I $ % / � ƒ 7 O z E B � \ \ - - - - - - - - - ® 0 z : & ± « ® z 2 / ) \ J , § o 0 , D b ® - - - - - - - - - - LL � CL 0 � LU z � Q o . . z z _ w 0. IOR Im ■ ` \ \ }0 1 . R } 0 \ \ \ \ \ } I . � 7c { oz 3 02 » _ o : (D / O = c F- 6 ¥ LU t ~ � z _ LLJ U. � c w < 0 CD k Wo @ � Z: o � % \ a0 \ ) -ik / zz2 7 2 LU 2 < \ / LU � I k m ® » � � = m , c , = � = � � � 0 , � » 2 - m � ° e$ § � > mg 7 p6 § £ _ = % GE0= $ uc � _ � - m '9 = mo M2 CL X C0 � qk - &° -- CU -- Ea � o no - > o- a » o © a= � � = R ° ° ° a) - - 22 ■ 2 = % a 2 7ua of« Gg / �� = o � ua) _ c = ® c cn � o ' � { , 5m .- m � k/ / o = ) = S g d n m : _ # m - c . « m _ c = m = 0 7 m ' 2 « = a@ak mE § g � m - m 3: � mmc � - � . I w 5CU T . mom 7 » 2 � � E 55 _ moo § EI ° g a2 ° ° ° c - o ; � = E : ' � c c � EcnCD- 0 & _ � � � aa ° a = $ oc £ = # $ g \ � �_ aL)Q) 0) a) - 822 \ƒ � E / ° § I � -000 o a) "0 ƒz &3CLii::; § G � � > E a= ° \ - � » � 22 @f - 22 ¥ § - Uc = = = m2akm �aCLow 2 y & � % - - - - o = 3: � , a � m@ � 2a)2o mco (1) f ca0 > m ■ ƒ \ F- _z � m J C) Y < a o O N �= w w ti Z = U N OU z Z Z a O 0 ao IL LL W 0 0 z � o O z a z w o C I O Z r Ix OW zQ O z °p w � �U wz U W 0:5 OQ u. z w a z O OR Zw Oa U z w0 � m ~ m Q ZZ � W Q C WWa 2 0- CD � U oZ W N c0 111 Z Cl) -� O d � CD _ L O � = U t Spa ru i Y y3. ', 6 a iT. F E. €a`ti' ... p;�i � ."�. ?r vs.� q.�., a. eta.�.,✓r ,,.eke.i.`.. ,.,u,< a?, :,e,.. October 17, 2005 Staff Report on Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 (Previously provided and not attached) Available from the City Clerk D1 . 166 ,A, < r 6 2005 Staff Report ort on p Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 and Coastal Devel opment ment Permit No. 02-05 i ed and not attached) d(Previously Prov Available from the City Clerk DI . 168 7' tSR s s€ Yr ea,' zw, to a i c a isq " ig t From: Lugar, Robin Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:01 AM To: 'Peggylc05@aol.com' Cc: Ramos, Ricky Subject: RE: Poseidon water project Thank you for your correspondence. A copy of your email will be given to the City Council when they receive the agenda packet for this item. Robin Lugar Assistant City Clerk ----=Original Message----- From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:58 AM To: Lugar, Robin; Esparza, Patty Subject: Fw: Poseidon water project -----Original Message"--- From: Peggylc05@aol.com To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org CC: normw@modernpublic.com Sent: Wed Dec 07 08:56:04 2005 Subject: Poseidon water project Dear Council Members and City Clerk, I strongly urge you to vote YES to approve all of your staffs recommend actions for the Poseidon water project because: You will lose all municipal control and all tax revenues from the project when the Metropolitan Water District government agency takes over and constructs the very same project at the very same location. The project has no risk to the taxpayer. it is a privately owned business. Huntington Beach will lose a much needed 50 million gallon emergency water storage facility which would increase public safety in an emergency to help prevent water disruptions in the event.'of a . disaster,, as was witnessed in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. HB will lose the discounted rate of 5% below the cost of MWD water for 3 million gallons per day of water into-our system. We will be doing our share help to save the wetlands in the Sacramento Delta watershed, which has been seriously degraded due in part to our unquenchable thirst for more water. As you know, protecting wetlands is important issue to many members of HB. The project is properly zoned. it will make improvements. to a blighted area without utilizing the redevelopment agency. It has no serious long-term negative impacts to the environment or the community. It will establish a new business partner which will bring new jobs, opportunities and prosperity into HB. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. City Clerk, please place my comments into the public record to be available for the council when the final vote is taken. Peggy Christensen D1 . 170 From: Lugar, Robin Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:33 AM To: Ramos, Ricky Subject: FW: Request for approval of the Poseidon water project -----Original Message----- From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 7:41 AM To: 'kennita@kennita.com' Subject: Re: Request for appro val of the Poseidon water project Thank you for your correspondence. A copy of you email will be given to Council when they receive the packet for this item. Joan Flyn City Clerk -----Original Message----- From: Kennita Watson To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org CC: Kennita Watson Sent: Wed Dec 07 07:10:40 2005 Subject: �ubject Request for approval of the Poseidon water project J Dear Council Members and City Clerk, I strongly urge you to vote YES to approve all of your staff's recommended actions for the Poseidon water project because: 1) You will lose all municipal control and all tax revenues from the project when the Metropolitan Water District government agency takes over and constructs the very same project at the very same location. 2) The project has no risk to the taxpayer.. It is a privately owned business. 3) Huntington Beach will lose a much-needed 50 million gallon emergency water storage facility which would increase public safety in an emergency; helping prevent water disruptions in the event of a disaster such as were witnessed in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. 4) Huntington Beach will lose the discounted rate of 5% below the cost of MWO water for three million gallons per day of water into our system. 5) We will be doing our share to -help save the wetlands in the Sacramento Delta watershed, which has been seriously degraded due in part to our . unquenchable thirst for more water. As you know, protecting wetlands is an important issue to many members of Huntington Beach. 6) The project is properly zoned. 7) it will make improvements to a blighted area without utilizing the redevelopment agency. 8) It has no serious long-term negative impacts to the environment or the community. 9) It will establish a new business partner, which will bring. new jobs, opportunities, and prosperity into Huntington Beach. ty pla Thank you for your consipuberation lic record tofbeyavaiillable• for1theCcouncillwhen thecf nal my comments into the public vote is taken. Signed, Kennita Lane Watson D1 . 171 From: Lugar, Robin Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:30 AM To: Ramos, Ricky Subject: FW: Poseidon Water Project -----Original Message-"--- From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 3:10 PM To: Lugar, Robin; Esparza, Patty Subject: Fw: Poseidon Water Project -----Original Message----- From: James Rushing To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Tue Dec 06 13:20:12 2005 Subject: Poseidon Water Project Dear Council Members and City Clerk, Please vote Yes to approve the Poseidon Water Project. I understand the project is privately owned and will not be a risk to the citizens of Orange County. The Million of gallons water per day will help our thirst for more water, allow more water to flow to the wetlands, provide a storage fracil.ity in the event of an emergency, and provide jobs. We will be doing our share help to save the wetlands in nheartctamonro d due i degraded P watershed, which has been seriously deg s Delta wetland know , protecting As you P unquenchable thirst fo r more water. Y is important issue to many members of HB City Clerk, please place my comments into the public record to be available for the council when the final vote is taken. Signed, D1 . 172 From: Lugar, Robin Sent:Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:29 AM To: Ramos, Ricky Subject: FW: Poseidon Water Project -----Original Message----- From: Flynn, Joan Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2005 9:57 AM To: Lugar, Robin; Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Poseidon Water Project -----Original Message From: Chuckest@aol.rom [mailto:Chuckest@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday, December 06,2005 8:23 AM Subject: Poseidon Water Project Dear Council Members and City Clerk, I favor a YES vote to approve all of your staffs recommend actions for the Poseidon water project because: We will lose a much needed 50 million gallon emergency water storage facility.This could effect public safety in an emergency, I.E.,-New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. We will lose municipal control and all tax revenues from the 2`' project when the Metropolitan Water District government agency takes over and constructs the very same project at the very same location. As a privately owned business the project has no tax impact. HB will lose the discounted rate of 5%below the cost of MWD water for three million gallons per day of water into our system. The project is properly zoned. A blighted area of HB will be privately without utilizing the Redevelopment agency. It will establish a new business partner,new jobs,and added prosperity into HB. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. City Clerk, please place my comments into the public record to be available for the council when the final vote is taken. Sincerely, Chuck McGlawn D1 . 173 From: Lugar,Robin Sent:Wednesday,December 07,2005 8:28 AM To: Ramos, Ricky Subject: FW:Poseidon Project -----Original Message----- From: Flynn, Joan Sent:Tuesday, December 06,2005 9:59 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Esparza, Patty; Lugar, Robin Subject, FW: Poseidon Project ----Original Message— From: Dr. Michael R. Edelstein[mailto:DrEdelstein@ThreeMinuteTherapy.comJ Sent:Tuesday, December 06, 2005 8:26 AM To:jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Poseidon Project I support the privately funded Poseidon desalination water project in Huntington Beach.I ask that the council members vote YES to approve all of the staffs recommendations for the CUP&CDP. Please have these comments entered into the public record for consideration on the day the final vote is taken. Dr. Michael R.Edelstein D1 . 174 sudkid.ff� ► r'der�FoLmda-00A Fou"admHuntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter November 15,2005 To:RBF Consulting 3536 Concours,Suite 220 Ontario,CA 91764 Re:Response to Comments for the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach SCH#2001051092 Attn:Mr.Kevin Thomas,Environmental Services Manager- Dear Mr.Thomas: Thanks for receipt of the above referenced document,and the OpPortun'ty to review the response from RBF to our comments regarding some of the environmental concerns with the.Poseidon proposed desalination project 's eared be included in the ]t 1 that g lions �8 "tional clarifications and correc There are however,a few adds ERRATA section of this document; Response No.22e-confuses the electrical terms"energy"and"power" Units of electrical power are kilowatts(kW)and Megawatts(MW)• Units of electrical energy are kilowatt hrs. (kWh.)and Megawatthrs.(MW1i)• More properly stated the energy used to produce 50 MGD of dOWinated water is 30 MW x 24 hrs. or 720 MWh.The energy used to produce 1 gallon of water is therefore 720,000 kWhJ50,000,000 gal-or 0.0114 kWhJgal. day to the e family of four d y Within our service area the average discharges approximately 400 gal.per within our district is over 120 gal.per day per sewage discharge system.The average water usage produce person,or 490 gal.per day per family of four.Therefore the total amount of energy �,997 Wh water for a family of four for one year is 480 gal.per day x 365 days x 0.0114 kWh./gal• or etrt of Energy Internet site"Non-commercial Refrigerators Certified to the Energy The US Depattm the Annual Energy Use(kWh)for 16 CM Ft refrigerators ranges Commission as of 10/23/2005"reports from 439 kWh.to 441 kWh. The comment; `The amount of energy re9 tired to produce desalinated water for one family per year is the family's refrigerator.in one year-"is approximately the same as the amount of energy�a for desalinated water_ misleading,and grossly understates the energy D1 . 175 . WV j2:0t S6eZ-92-A0" water or One More properly stated,"The amount of energy required to produce desalinateda or of one year."family per year is more than 4.5 times the amount of energy used by the f y g i hope that these comments and suggested corrections prove useful,and that you will share this information with the technical staff at RBF• Also,should you need any further information or clarification regarding seawater desalination energy issues,feel free to contact the undersigned- Sincerely, ' ' Don Schulz(562)430-2260 Executive Committee Member Surfrider Foundation Huntington Beach/Seal-Beach Chapter CC:Ricky°Rsmos Associated Plattner City of Huntington Beach „ 2000 Main Street Hmdngton Beach,CA 92648 Attachments: 1) "Energy and `Capaeity'' California Energy' Commission 2003 .Envir0nmental Performance Report. 2) U.S." Departmentof Energy Report "Non-COMgIeYCia1 Refrigerators Certified to'the Energy.Commissioa as: of 10/23/2005 P.O.Box 3087,Long Beach,CA 90303 DI . 176 WO Z£:OT S00Z-9T-ROH _ h �r S��F � � - -{�T�-c tom,,-+SES'• , *ram"-� �zr �` •��rq <�t�^..`,c4 � t+-ucEc. �i75 ' •. �,-��j '�4'Si."'�'iS�4 i Spu�, uk Y � �� �•;�' z'p �' 2 ��j^ �`:i�Lc1.__-Y c$7,-r � � ,,:�._ �54 r.,.r„ � ,��,'.-'' "�y.r b- < 22 _-�5 Al -' ' `,�-'� .-.fit y� ME t' r}.,l'...s•1._.t?.. �..�"� 1. �.� c .� cra .`i��4_.t., W �.S Icy ���. �/' «'-�' �,'(� 'C� -'!4 '�S`L2.• �,p ` 5 � � �•o ,QUAv� gpO�i � �' S �' e•�N �r �' N S SOP O Cl two t0 M Nm � � � � � , , � .� .� � � � � m � �� � °� � � �.- .- r� cor- apt-�tr �.Q► fiy�111 N N t�V N N N N N N N N N N N lh /h, N N N iV C7 N N H N ra m r. ti � r• �NyNNNNODtor: r- tirN-r- � cD � � aP smh 1SU tp � tG � W � � � NR'VN � r � rrr .r �- � rrrr O► no 4*uu"A N1'p r- r r r r r r r * 10' C Gam. m Fy CCC C Cssr C O O c = ci ooc��' m • °' c� SIasi m Q N C?N44 4gly Re z0zOQ zZZzO �ZzO wits uo�rl Z z z a z z z 0� 0 r i C?;C? � o .aaiww 751 zzzvzzz 178 Wy gg:0 i g00Z-9 i—/tiON efi l ao s � IN Is pW qM asn a m S:NN iV N N N N.N R? M �W !I C�1 On"`w� mm � � co� c� � cfl� � S � � � v NJ <m� aolmmmmm : ma4.v�n W ccfli fl s 4Anola"GAIW e- rT - rrTtri� 4 moo 19 � - a o0 0000�go.o 1 zzzzzzzz000 :.. D1 . 179 wa s�:eT �eOz-9i—nor+ From: Esparza, Patty Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 10:11 AM To: 'norm@ModernPublic.com' Cc: Flynn, Joan; Ramos, Ricky Subject: RE: Poseidon Project Public Hearing CUP/CDP Thank you for your communication regarding the Poseidon Project CUP/CDP. Tonight's agenda item (E-14) is not part of Public Hearing, but rather a Consent Calendar item that will allow the release of additional items to the public as they become available. Your communication will be held and distributed as part of the agenda packet for the Poseidon Project Public Hearing on January 9, 2006. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 714-536-5260. Patty Esparza Deputy City Clerk -----Original Message---- From: Norm Westwell To: City Clerk; City Clerk; djones@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Sun Dec 18 22:13:35 2005 Subject: Poseidon Project Public Hearing CUP/CDP 10/18/05 Dear Council Members, I strongly urge a vote YES to approve your staffs recommendations for the Poseidon CUP/CDP. You are quite of aware of the several benefits for HB. Any risk is extremely small. The impacts to our coastal waters are insignificant. Failure to approve this private enterprise will ultimately lead to government development of the exact same project outside your purview. I urge you to wisely vote YES to approve the CUP/CDP for the Poseidon Project. City Clerk, please place this communication into the public record for consideration. Thank you. Merry Christmas. Respectfully, Norm Firecracker Westwell - Huntington Beach, CA normw@ModernPublic.com \ / THERE IS A PRICE FOR BEING FREE j Torch of Liberty, enlightening the world www.ModernPublic.com it's your government - GET INVOLVED! D1 .180 From: Esparza, Patty Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 10:13 AM To: 'krises@truwest.com` Cc: Ramos, Ricky; Flynn, Joan Subject: FW: Poseidon Water project Thank you for your communication regarding the Poseidon Project ratheD2. Consent Tonight's agenda item (E-14) is not part of Public Hearing, bur aCalendar item that will allow the release of additional items to the public as they become available. Your communication will be held and distributed as part of the agenda packet for the Poseidon Project Public Hearing on January 9, 2006. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 714-536-5260. Patty Esparza Deputy City Clerk -----Original Message----- From: Kris Westwell To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Sun Dec 18 22:19:11 2005 Subject: Poseidon Water project 10/18/05 Dear Council Members, I am in favor of the Poseidon Desalination Water Plant in HB. Please vote yes to approve this project. We need water. Please put this into the public record for the hearing on this item. Kris Westwell krisw@truwest.com D1 . 181 From: Esparza, Patty Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 11:33 AM To: 'pamelagoodgirl@yahoo.com' Cc: Ramos, Ricky; Flynn, Joan Subject: Poseidon Resources Thank you for your communication regarding the Poseidon Project CUP/CDP. Tonight's agenda item (E-14) is not part of Public Hearing, but rather a Consent Calendar item that will allow the release of additional items to the public as they become available. Your communication will be and distributed as part ro Poseidon se P '7ect Public Hearing on January 9, 2006. of the agenda packet for the P o if you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 714-536-5260. Patty Esparza Deputy City Clerk -----Original Message----- From: Pamela Goodgirl To: jflynn@surfcity-hb:org Sent: Sun Dec 18 22:17:06 2005 Subject: Vote yes for Poseidon Resources Dear Council Members and City Clerk, . I strongly urge you to vote YES to approve all of your staffs recommend actions for the Poseidon water project because: you will lose all municipal control .and all tax revenues from the project when the Metropolitan Water District government agency takes over and constructs the very same project at the very same location. The project has no risk to the taxpayer. It is a privately owned business. Huntington Beach will lose a much needed 50 million gallon emergency water storage facility which would increase public safety in an emergency to help prevent water disruptions in the event of ,a disaster, as was witnessed in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. HB will lose the discounted rate of 5% below the cost of MWD water for 3 million gallons per day of water into our system. We will be doing our share help to save the wetlands in' the Sacramento Delta watershed, which has been seriously degraded r due in part to our unquenchable thirst for more water. As you know, pec g ds is important issue to many members of HB. The project is properly zoned. It will make improvements to .a blighted area without utilizing the redevelopment agency. It has no serious long-term negative impacts to the environment or the community. It will establish a new business partner which will bring new jobs, opportunities and prosperity into HB. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. City Clerk, please place my comments into the public record to be available for the council when the final vote is taken. Brandy Jackson D1 . 182 January 7, 2006 I Susan Hughes 21771 Impala Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 JAN 10 2046 Gil Coeper t4ity Of PU t City of Huntington Beach Council o 2000 Main Street fhice Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i Dear Mr. Coeper, I am writing to express my STRONG opposition to the Poseidon project. I am asking you to do the right thing for the environment and for the people who live along this coast. Please do not make your decision based on what may be prudent financially in the short !i term. There are reasons why many people feel it is more desirable to live in Newport Beach or Laguna Beach than in Huntington Beach, and those reasons have a lot to do with decisions that have been made over the years by the respective City Councils. I am asking you to make your decision with an historic perspective and with your place in that history in mind. i One of the upsides of this issue has been that I and many of my neighbors feel that we are much more aware of the actions of our City Council and we have a much better idea of whom we are voting for or against in the City Council elections. The citizens of southeast Huntington Beach will be watching Monday night's vote very closely to determine who actually represents the people of Huntington Beach and who represents the industrial,big business interests from out of the area. �I PLEASE VOTE NO!ON POSEIDON! ;i Respectfully, i it i jl i I NNE AECVE 10) JAN 1 2 coo(afyr j o �u€x I i f /, I i C Joyce Gouin 4942 Seapine Cir. j Huntington Beach,CA 92649 . j i _f l 1 I SANDRA GEMS,pLA,NNING RESOURCES 1586 MYRTLEW OOD COSTA MESA,CA. 92626 PHONE/FAX(714)754-0814 December 30,2005 Honorable Mayor Dave Sullivan and Members of the City Council Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,Ca. 92648 se Permit No. 02-04,Poseidon Subject: Conditional U Dear Mayor Sullivan and Members of the City Council: Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04. This letter Y Responsible Desalination. ed on behalf of Huntington Beach Residents for R Po ub m itt is s approve Poseidon Resources Corporation has requested that the City of H ondoo Beach ration of a seawater Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 in order to allow the constructs 1� desalination plant on property at 21730 Newland Street,Dental Impact Report SCH No.ted in the PS blic) Zoning District in the City of Huntington Beach. Environmental p project and certified by the City of Huntington Beach. 2001051092 has been prepared for the In accordance with Section 241.10 of the Huntington Beach Zoning Code: An application for a conditional use permit or variance may be approved or conditionally approved if,on the basis of the application,plans,materials,and testimony submitted,the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator finds that: A. For All Conditional Use Permits. e establishment,maintenance and operation of the use will not be vicini 1. The in the tY r residing'n o g orki detrimental to the general welfare of persons working nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood; 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will.not adversely affect the General Plan; provisions of the base district and other 3. The proposed use will comply with the P cific condition required for the applicable provisions in Titles 20 2 s5 and any pe proposed use in the district in which it would be located. B. For Variances... C.Mandatory Denial. FaLlure to make all the regui s added�n�s under(A1 or (Bl shall require denial of the application [emphas Page 1 of 7 discussed in my letter of October 17,2005(Attachment 8),Finding No. (A)l cannot be made As dirtsSimilarly, appears that due to specific,identified detrimental made eithereinasmuch as the propos d Poseidonlant Findings No. (A)2 or(A)3 cannotlan Land Use appears to be inconsistent with the HuntingtoPnlBea hicli do no Generalt allow generalEnd trial uses on an Code, and Local Coastal Program Land Use , the subject property. Thus,Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 must be denied. Huntin ton Beach General Plan desi hates the ro'ect site for utili uses. The . The Land Use Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan designates designation therojectsite to: Public use(Attachment 1). As stated in Goal LU 14,the purpose Achieve the development of a mix of governor ne ds Huntingtonl service, )onal Beach's educational,and religious uses that support the residents. This Public use designation generally permits the following: nistrative and related facilities,such as public utilities, Governmental admi infrastructure,religious and similar uses. schools,public parking lots, which specifically designates area 4G,then This is refined further in Table LU-4 (Attachment 2 , P Edison )ant,now AES, oes not identify any for utility uses and wetlands conservationlodment on the site must theP other permitted use. Thus,in accordance with the above policies, P be a utility use,except for the portion of the site desjgnatted or wetlands conservation,and such use must"support the needs of Huntington Beach s The Huntin ton Beach Local Coastal Pro ram desi nates the ro'ect site for Public uses. The Land Use Plan of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Programdesignates followin the project site for Public use(Attachment 3). This designation generally perm Governmental administrative and related facilitie an su public ups tiesY schools,public parking lots,infrastructure,religious untin ton Beach Zonin Code desi pates the ro'ect site for Public and Semi- ublic The H uses. The Huntington Beach Zoning Code places the project site in the PS(Public-Semipublic)District (Attachment 4). As provided under Zoning Code Section 214.06(Attachment 5),the following uses are permitted in the PS District: PS DISTRICT LAND USE CONTROLS: P=Permitted L=Limited(see Additional Provisions) Commission PC=Conditional use permit approved by Planning Page 2 of 7 ii TU=Temporary Use Permit —Requires conditional use permit on site of a conditional use P/U—Req Public and Semipublic PC Cemetery Cultural Institutions PC Day Care,General PC Government Offices L-1 Hospitals PC Maintenance& Service Facilities L-1 Park&Recreation Facilities PC Public Safety Facilitie s PC Religious Assembly ZA � Residential Care,General PC Schools,Public or Private PC Utilities,Major PC Utilities,Minor P Commercial Uses Commercial Parking Facility L -3 Communication Facilities L4 Eating and Drinking Establishments L-2 Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Services L-1 Accessory Uses. P�J Accessory Uses and Structures Temporary.Uses TU Animal Shows Circuses and Carnivals TU Commercial Filming,Limited TU Trade Fairs P Nonconforming Uses L-1 City-owned facilities are permitted;all other facilities require a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator. (3673-12/04) L-2 Permitted as an accessory use in a cultural,educational,hospital,or medical institution occupying no more than 5,000 square feet,only if there is no separate entrance or sign. L-3 Public parking permitted,but commercial parking facilities on City-owned land require a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator. (3673-12/04) L -4 Onlywireless communication facilities permitted subject to Section 230.96 Wireless Communication Facilities. (3568-9/02) It is noted that desalination facilities are not included-in the above list of allowable uses in the PS uses. Utility uses are permitted,however. Zoning Code District,nor are general industrial Page 3 of 7 Section 204.08,Public and Semipublic Use Classifications(Attachment 6),includes the following definitions of utilities: R.Utilities,Major. Generating plants,electrical substations,above-ground electrical transmission lines, switching buildings,refuse olle t i on transfer, ater recycling or disposal facilities,flood control o g wastewater treatment plants,transportation or communications utilities, and similar facilities of public agencies or public utilities[emphasis added]. S. Utilities,Minor.Utility facilities that are necessary to support legally y minor structures such as electrical distribution established uses and involve onl lines,underground water and sewer lines,and recycling and collection containers. Planning conformity cannot be determined without definin Poseidon's status as a ublic utili s not a At the heart of the planning conformity issue is whether Poseidon i as follows: public utility. Section 216 of the California Public Utilities Code defines a utility "Public utility"includes every common carrier,toll bridge corporation, (a) lion telephone pipeline corporation,gas corporation,electrical corpora P corporation,telegraph corporation,water corporation,sewer system corporation, and heat corporation,where the service is performed for,or the commodity is delivered to,the public or any portion thereof (b)Whenever any common carrier,toll bridge corporation,pipeline corporation, telephone gas corporation,electrical corporation, hone corporation,telegraph P corporation,water corporation,sewer system corporation,or heat corporation performs a service for,or delivers a commodity to,the public or any portion payment whatsoever is received,that thereof for which any compensation or ipline corporation, gas corporation, common carrier,toll bridge corporation,pipeline rP electrical corporation,telephone corporation,telegraph corporation,water oration,or heat corporation, ublic utility corporation, sewer system corpthhe commission gulatio and the subject to the jurisdiction,control,and re provisions of this part. (c)When any person or corporation performs ationanmunic palityy service for, or o her poh ri al elivers any commodity to, any person,private corpo subdivision of the state,that in turn either directly or indirectly,mediately or immediately,performs that service for,or delivers that commodity to,the public or any portion thereof,that person or corporation is a public the ity subject to the ovisions of this jurisdiction,control, and regulation of the commission P part.... specific" ublic"intended to receive the drinking water To-date;Poseidon has not identified any sp P to be produced except,possibly,the City je t rep atedl indicates that no end n Beach. In fact,the userhas been Impact Report(E1R)for the proposed project repeatedly Y identified and that no contract exists with any existing water purveyor. Page 4 of 7 fi Huntington Beach staff has stated that Poseidon is not a utifi . e City Huntington Beach staff has stated repeatedly that Poseidon is n ctor Robert Beardsleyt tindicated Council study session of December 8,2005,Public Works Dire that Poseidon was not considered a utility. f Similarly,Costa Mesa City Council Agenda Report IX.3,prepared for Costa Mesa's November i 1,2005 City Council meeting(Attachment 7)states: h Costa Mesa staff has researched the Project applicant's authority for the lic right-of-way within our City.Based on placement of pipeline in the pub disc ussions with the City of Huntington Beach planner for the project,the applicant,Poseidon Resources Corporation,is a private entity and is not considered a utility and therefore would notbe governed by the Public Utilities Commission(PUC). t list the 1 Im act Re ort(EIR)for the proposed project do es s no Accordingly,the Environmenta p P Public Utilities Commission as a respondsiblelaeY E IR aposed pears consider the proposed oject were not a utility,it would be no different from any other i project to be an ordinary industrial use,as Page 5.1-11 of the EIR states: RELEVANT PLANNING The project proposed evaluated within this EIR proposes to implement a 50 mgd desalination facility within an industrial area... In addition,in the list of general plan policies applicable to the propose project ind,Pages ustrial 5.1 8 and 5.1-9 repeatedly identify policies applicable only to industrial uses o y commercial uses. Re uired use permit findin s cannot be made to approve the roiect as anon-utili . es that findings be As noted above Section 24 1.10 of the Huntington Beach Zoning.n oandelanning if a use permit made that a proposed project does not conflictuse appears to be a existing zo 1private industrial use,not a proposed is to be approved. In this case,the utility,which would not be permitted under the adopted general plan and zoning. upport the needs General Plan Goal LU 14 above would also require that a utilityje `Beach Cif Councilf Huntington Beach's residents". On December 19,2005,the Huntington had additional water to found that the city had adequate water to meet its needs and thceri the �Tywithin the boundaries of in an area not Y new hom es to be built . hundred e serve over three h r which th B each. There is thus no identified need for additional Ovate the City of Huntington proposed desalination facility would fulfill. Page i I If Poseidon is planned to become a utility,the EIR is deficient. In accordance with Section 15124 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA): The description of the project shall contain the following information but should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact... A statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR (1)This statement shall me ,lude to the extent that the information is known to the Lead Agency, (A)A list of the agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision-making,and (B)A list of permits and other approvals required to implement the project. (C)A list of related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal,state,or local laws,regulations,or policies. To the fullest extent possible,the lead agency should integrate CEQA review with these related environmental review and consultation requirements... As noted above,the project EIR fails to identify the Public Utilities Commission(PUC)as a responsible agency for this project. The EIR also fails to discuss the implications of Poseidon operating as a utility onto identify the portion of the public to be served by the proposed project. This precludes any meaningful analysis of the growth inducing impact of the proposed project or other impacts associated with the rights to be conferred upon Poseidon should it commence operation as a utility. ro the operate proposed project as a utility,then the EIR must identify the If the applicant intends to o p p I� portion of the public to be served and address any PUC approvals that may be required. To eschew identification of the ultimate water user and blithely forego any type of PUC scrutiny or ,possibly when construction is underway and discussion until some unknown point in the future the project is a fait accompli,would cause the project to be addressed in a piecemeal fashion. This is contrary to the purposes of CEQA which requires that an EIR address the whole of an action(Guidelines Section 15378). As stated in Section 15378(c): The term"project" refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term "project" does not[emphasis added]mean each separate governmental approval. CEQA prohibits the type of piecemeal approach to project analysis undertaken here(Bozung v. - 84 99 Cal.R tr. 745,492 P.2d 3 Cal.3d at . 283 2 p supra, 1 p Formation Com., sup P Loca l Agency F L oJ' g 1137). Page 6 of 7 4 E The ro'ect must not be a roved while si nificant uestions remain. ct is not a utility at present,if it is proposed that While it appears that the proposed proje Poseidon become a utility at some point in the future,numerous issues remain to be addressed. 1. Is it intended that Poseidon become a utility? 2. If not,how can Poseidon be approved to build and operate on the AES site? 3. If so,what approvals will be needed from the PUC? 4. If so,what additional environmental documentation is proposed in order to address PUC approvals and inducement of growth in the area to be served 5. Will the PUC be required to approve any agreements between Huntington Beach and Poseidon that would cause Poseidon to become a utility? 6. Would PUC approval be required for any special water rates or other financial incentive to be provided to the City of Huntington Beach by Poseidon? 7. What additional benefits would accrue to Poseidon if it were to become a utility, including but not limited to achievement of zoning conformity,right to use public streets, and any special taxation status? 8. What is the monetary value of any such benefits? 9. Does Poseidon propose to share any such value with the City of Huntington Beach? It may be noted that absent PUC approval,imagined benefits of the project may prove to be ephemeral. The a lication for the 3roposed Poseidon facilitl must be denied. st d that As noted above,in order to approve Conditional UsPermit g�ia1 plan�4,the a uti city lity usenwould be the project will not conflict with the City g andpermitted on the project site, staff has repeatedly indicated that Poseidon is not a utility. It would ect therefore be an ordinary private industrial h Section 241110,denial ofltted use,on the subj the application for Conditional property. Therefore,in accordance Use Permit No. 02-04 is required. Yours truly, Sandra L. Genis Attachments: 1. Huntington Beach General Plan land use map 2. General Plan Land Use Element Table LU-4 3. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan 4. Zoning map 5. Zoning Code Section 214.06 6. Zoning Code Section 204.08 7. November 1,2005 Costa Mesa City Council Agenda Report IX.3 8. S. Genis letter of October 17,2005 Page 7 of 7 FROM : BillsHartgeAX SYSTEM PHONE NO. : 714 840 5076 Nov. 08 2005 04:14PM P4 .y a } aIRIpTrp. . t , e4eb CA 92649 Rc�.21, 205 }�y Coupcij pp4rd Mempvrs 1 spoke to you at the city council meeting of Oct. 10, 2005 to support the proposed Desalination facility in our city. I spent most of my allotted time explaining my reasons for your approval of the permit for construction of the project. Recently the Rocky Mountains received an unusually small amount of snow depriving the Colorado River, which supplies Soouthern California approximately 50% of its water. The state water system normally supplies the other 50%. In addition, had a good wet year and were able to make up for the minimal volume from the Colorado River. It is conceivable that if both watersheds are reduced in the same year, Southern California would be in trouble water-wise similar to Santa Barbara after its water supply came to a halt when Lake Cachuma, its sole water supply dried up due to lack of rain. After much study of alternatives they chose to contract for a portable desalination plant at a great expense. After that experience, the City bought into the State Water System. I have knowledge of water matters from two sources. 1. As a civil engineer in Huntington Beach Department of Public Works from 1960 to 1979, I was involved in the design and construction of the water system. I retired as Director of Public Works in 1979. NOU-08-2005 15:57 714 940 5076 96% P.04 'FROM Bi11sHartgeAX SYSTEM PHONE NO. : 714 840 5076 Nov. 08 2005 04:14PM P5 2. 1 was elected to the Board of Directors of the Municipal Water District in 1982 and served until 1994. The board was involved not only with district matters but also regional ones. In conclusion,I urge you to grant approval for the construction of the Desalination Plant. Yours truly, Henry `Bill' Hartge Resident Huntington Beach NOU-08-2005 15:57 ?14 e40 50% S?> P.05 'FROM : BillsHartgeRX SYSTEM PHONE NO. 714 940 5076 Nov. OB 2005 04: 13PM P2 Bill Hartge 17121 Edgewater Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714 846-1190 Nov. 8,2005 Mayor and City Council of Huntington Beach and City Administrator I recently sent a letter to you supporting the Desalination Plant in Huntington Beach citing a major shortage of drinking water Southern California if there were droughts in the Rocky Mountains simultaneously with one in Shasta Mountain area in Northern California. The possible earthquake in Northern California described in the enclosed copy of an article in the Science Section.dated Nov. 3,2005 of the Orange County Register increases the odds of a possible water shortage in Southern California. I feel more compelled to ask you to do the right thing. Please vote for the permit for the construction of the Water Desalination Plant in Huntington Beach_ Sincerely, Bill Hartge NOV-08-2005 15:57 714 e40 5075 95% P.02 'FROM BillsHartgeAX SYSTEM PHONE NO. 714 8405076 _--�_r Nov_ 08 2005 04:13PM P3 'I'Dze Orange County l2,E•gister Focus.f SIE1rlCE.` Thursday,rr 3,,2005 . News Delta quake may ..crippip: A r: ®v DON THOMPSON cost$100 million to:rgpaii:An,;°;thtec�.state.Senate..cgmir�ittQes.,....districts.Cities�vould.have.`to: THE ASSOCIATED PRESS eaFthc(ucLke cUUld !e&d Co'th"e1a & �. .r>zagrutude earth use attertiye water sources;.' collapse o1F ino sect ill l�ns'o ,. :quake 4POR cv�lapse .'!ev and:resori:to t-attozii g,Snot3r: SACRAME14TO•A major North- levees, which chnnnei �Ipt`>� ees;flood:�E`i deli;? Ct�and said. ' ern California earthquake ern Criforriia rimers on theii dxnxe �00 znlles cif cutiL ``' Tle ,atdtie:ingtiways aixrlu. could severely damage the ion to San.i?zalnisco`�aa,si�33 Canal !even About 3,Oba rai7robd trseks woiytd`be sub � , eerofJoaqin nvU;;lireoi of th ni3aQ rSacramento-San z ge f gaa sDelta levee system and jeopar- Caiorna deparmetofw dwdbe�ood °natural: Ptrleurh dine the water supply for ter.'Resourp".. Bona of,gdl, 'phe ruptixrerl...9�vees:.`51so have a shut dpwn )Jhmage :. two-thirds of Californians for tons of the water.are anri x!#y w�iitd alw �,siNLvVAer CO:rush :.cotild react'$30;°li3tlion o��.. more than s year, a top state used in n.raae Couriy into the'rroer systerni;:¢using 15ve yearn,.Szww said wafer official says" "Wo think ]T'4 a plaUsib1Q an i�nrhediateshutdowu of.the Last year, the unexplained scenario of what could happen pumps that send avater soutf� coitapse. of a single levee shut in the delta,. .Snvw.said. to Saar�T. quw Valiiy%rmers water.purnpigg for days and Snow't014'a,Qui1"hexrruig:al ands hern,California`watex teartiinove-wriew.�tei�agev°^`� y Nou-08-2005 15:5? ?14 e40 50?6 96% P.03 i r E , I Ice— i i o 6-1f Z - - d A - """ -- --- - '� ----- - -- --- -- 1 - -•� i it - i -- - -- - - - -- Bazant, Denise From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 6:05 PM To: Bazant, Denise Subject: FW: sewage spill question FYI -----Original Message----- From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:58 PM To: Emery, Paul Subject: FW: sewage spill question Per the request of Council Member Keith Bohr. -----Original Message----- From: Bohr, Keith Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:32 PM To: Fikes, Cathy Subject: FW: sewage spill question Please forward to Paul Emery. Thx -----Original Message----- From: "april jackson" <aprilwrites@msn.com> Sent: 1/18/06 8:48:38 AM To: "kbohr@surfcity-hb.org" <kbohr@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: sewage spill question Dear Mr. Bohr, The recent sewage spill in LA County is prompting me to wonder how would a long-term spill affect the pumping of the desalination plant? I would imagine it would have to temporarily shut down. I ask this because of the 2000 closing of the state beach from Brookhurst to Beach Boulevard due to sewage in the water. The cause of the plume of sewage was reported by the LA Times and OC Register to be the pipeline from the power plant -- the outflow from the sewage treatment plant off Brookhurst was being sucked back into shore by the power plant. I would like an answer to this question. Please advise me if there is someone I can contact directly with Poseidon who can answer this (and other questions) I have regarding the effects of the desalination process on our ocean. Thank you. I appreciate your time, April Jackson 1 f 5111 IVangrum Driv H,zntinprton Beach, Calif. January 14, 2006 64 9 ? g Attn: Mayor Dave Sullivan CAI } Re: Water Treatment Facility I hope you will consider your decision on thlb }nro e c r very carefully because our beautiful beach is the best tourist attraction we have for our city and we do not think it -wise to blight this area with a -=rater treatment facility. The waste runoff could endanger the health of swimmers and surfers and cause lawsuits for unknown future maladies . Construction of pipelines would disrupt the city for months or longer. I do not understand why all of a sudden Huntington Beach has become the experimental target for large corporations . Are we an easy mark? Example : the telephone company cent11T strung high speed cable lines throughout the city accomn�led 1P,rith metal boxes in our parking strips . Warning labels on the inside door panels for the workers regarding radiation exposure 1" 45c�me to wonder how safe these are for the residents . Do these companies care as long as they get their installations? Why aren't other cities competing aggresively for the treatment facility if there are so many lucrative benefits to be had? What of the mysterious collapse or whatever the story for this same outfit in Tampa? Have any official enquiries been made? What went awry there? Will Huntington Beach receive any of this new water? Cr is it all for other destihations? With all this new income will we residents be gifted with the deletion of our own water meter rental fees from our water bills? Having been a resident here for over forty years , I had assumed m-,T meter has been naid. for many times Yes, I realize we need the dollars , b-at at what price? This may be progress in the making, but there is such a thing as over-developing a pleasant seaside town. Hesnectfully submitted, P. Pearson t V% QI -� IM - t wg� 1900 pacific Coast H�'-Apt 10 " � $ y -fi-gt ft Bk CA 92648 f r Treatment Facility 001 **"***S—DIGIT 92648 FIRST CLASS a Eve 9 Oscar Dobkin U.S. POSTAGE s,CA92648-9942 1900 Pacific Coast Hay Apt 10 PAID Huntington Beach, CA 32648-39Si TMG 1 ��a�a aa�a�r0�aaa�aa�,aa�raal�a�a�aaala�aaaal�aaa����aaaaa�al� C"V—e' c> t - �+�. -mot- �{'' 'Y""' C9 f �- 1 / I. 0-h- 7 (4A44-i>e HUN ING ON BEACH WATER TREATMENT FACILITY END 0 RMSED BY: ■ Orange County Taxpayers Association A; Orange,County Association Of Realtors ■ Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce ■ Orange County Business Council ■ Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building.. Pacific-'West Association of Realtors _ and Construction Trades Council ■ . State and Federal Elected Officials ■ range County Register N s-� ■ More th 5000 untington Beach Residents ke�-.e e a [ g Y a� w '`+ FICE ial {r .w .� ar a s- OW 411 s ` tly, } ea 4nd GoaSt" a . ------------- I nbers will voting ICDP)/Conclitional �t �ffz4- 0, ed the prop gcre a Coastal Commission,�� 0-6 u p ' assres built into the r eftt to our City. I E �y ze .A A `�`�' ■ Nearly $70 Million to the City of HB O'' 0-0C # \1J ■ Guaranteed Local Safe Water Supply ■ No Risk to Taxpayers ■ $3 Million in Water Savings r $54 Million in Property Taxes ' r $1.5 Million in Utility Taxes ■ $2 Million in City Directed Grant Fund ■ $1.9 Million in Street Enhancements 'Dollars realized over 30-year period of agreement 'X' N Page 1 of 2 Ramos, Ricky From: Ramos, Ricky Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:27 AM To: 'Ccmullenhb@aol.com' Cc: CITY COUNCIL; Culbreth-Graft, Penelope; Emery, Paul; Zelefsky, Howard; Broeren, Mary Beth Subject: FW: vote AGAINST water treatment facility!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tracking: Recipient Delivery 'Ccmullenhb@aol.com' CITY COUNCIL Delivered: 1/19/2006 11:27 AM Culbreth-Graft, Penelope Delivered: 1/19/2006 11:27 AM Emery, Paul Delivered: 1/19/2006 11:27 AM Zelefsky, Howard Delivered: 1/19/2006 11:27 AM Broeren,Mary Beth Delivered: 1/19/2006 11:27 AM Bazant, Denise Delivered: 1/19/2006 11:27 AM Hansen, Don Delivered: 1/19/2006 11:27 AM Bohr, Keith Delivered: 1/19/2006 11:27 AM Cook,Debbie Delivered: 1/19/2006 11:27 AM Sullivan, Dave Delivered: 1/19/2006 11:27 AM Green,Cathy Delivered: 1/19/2006 11:27 AM Coerper,Gil Delivered: 1/19/2006 11:27 AM Hardy,Jill Delivered: 1/19/2006 11:27 AM Dear Catherine and Charles Mullen , In response to your questions: 1. The city has prepared an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA)with the developer of the seawater desalination facility for approval by the city's Redevelopment Agency. The OPA would commit the project developer and any future property owner to pay property taxes or an equivalent property tax in- lieu fee to the Redevelopment Agency for 30 years. The OPA also includes the developer's offer to pay the city $2 million to be used by the city at its sole discretion for city improvement projects and another $1.9 million for improvements adjacent to the project site and along the pipeline route. There are also other benefits such as an option for the city to purchase water at a reduced rate as well as additional water during an emergency. The details of the project benefits are outlined in the Jana 9, 2006 City Council staff reports which can be obtained at the city's website www.surfcity-hb.org or by calling the City Clerk at 536-5227. 2. The water pipeline proposed to be constructed with this project is significantly smaller and different than the sewer line constructed by the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD) and therefore not anticipated to create the same impacts and disruption as OCSD's sewer line. A detailed discussion of the pipeline issue is provided in the Oct. 17, 2005 City Council staff report on Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 which can be obtained from the city's website or the City Clerk. 3. As noted in item no. 1 above, the city has the option to purchase water from the developer. 2/15/2006 Page 2 of 2 4. The certified Environmental Impact Report for the project states that the project will not have any significant impacts with the exception of short-term air quality impacts during the construction process only which is typical of any large project in the city. The project will also have the added benefits of cleaning the contamination currently at the site as well as generating additional ocean water quality testing since the ocean will now be a source of public drinking water supply. Please feel free to contact me at 714-536-5271 if you need further assistance. Ricky Ramos -----Original Message----- From: Ccmullenhb@aol.com [mailto:Ccmullenhb@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:43 PM To: dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org;jhardy@surfcity-hb.org; kbohr@surfcity- hb.org; hbdac@hotmail.com; cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; dhansen@surfcity-hb.org Subject: vote AGAINST water treatment facility!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have lived in Huntington Beach for over 30 years in the 92646 area. We are VERY MUCH against the water treatment facility for the following reasons: (1)There is no guarantee in writing of tax or other benefits to H.B. (2) Roads and streets would be torn up (again) and this could cause sinking later. (3) None of the water made would be for use by H.B. residents (however).... (4) H.B. would be responsible for the clean-up of any polutions that occur. We are verymuch against granting Poseidon the right to further er endanger our beaches and enviornment with their plant. Sincerely, Catherine F. Mullen---& Charles T. Mullen 2/15/2006 s N N •- p O � ._ O ■_ i; a LL p;!j om \\ . S ry / L O � AMA " ,-\. ........ O � O h 'o N Q, � to 06 ._ y- LMO > p 'a ._ Z � O 13 L. -0W t) r. cs a) w MO m 4) - 0. CL MENEM C� C� s � V LO p ._ 0 ♦, O L Q � � N � s ti O .W O . E v m li p 0 CL - }+ 0 00IN. v �,,� _ cn '> � _ = p .L 4 ,� O W C� c� CL C O 0 ' o L y_ L i cr i •� 4 ) i 0 CL.� 0 0 L� o v � ° Cl) L = Q a a� o � o � � ° — y- � c� o ° as t� as p � ° � p V o cn CD CD CD Q p i s CV p C� M Np " p Np O W 1` p O � O " O •- N N p p N 0N � i� O � � N 't� O _ a) Z 0 '- 04- 4) r _ ) OZ i o OMl OIL a 0 0 0 Lc) - _ Q O U0 0 I C) CL ca p W CL �-- o o � CL O .o p o C 0 � � N a �' a� ._ O LL LL w s o cn cn .� A-A �. c� � w ._ 14�.— .— N N •� _ _ N O v .. 0oomft � V L. O � 3 = � a � N co O v v � C ui O � _ �_ = L L •— O M m �, ',.aa) O =_ cn O v � 0 O •= v O O O E O > .0 .U) 'N CL' a N N •�W 3 � .� M t 0 GD (1) '— L- 0 > Z 0 0 O L Q ; 0 Q ,N ui ci LO z4) 4) 0 0 0 O •- ._ L 3 m IL N M •�C BENEFITS TO THE CITY • Benefits proposed by Poseidon for a Franchise Agreement: 1 . Franchise payments of at least $100,000 per year to the City. 2. Repaving of streets along the pipeline route including constructing ADA compliant curb ramps where missing or in place of existing non-standard ramps. 3. Funds would be provided to the City to be dedicated specifically for City projects in the southeast area of the city with priority given toward enhancements along the pipeline route. 4. City pipeline construction oversight including requirement for a performance and site restoration bond, pay for an on-site city construction inspector, and review of pipeline contractors qualifications. = L O � N � L r Q ° U � ° L N s .� L w cr O o cm 3 0 rCC CL r O � 'L E N 4 � V L a � L. = M U) +4) CL+ >+ U; 'vs _ 4.0 �a .. � 4-o C � Q = v W � ui co CC N M L U QC a x O a) s LU %Nwmo = 0 E a� o � v N E LL .C' Lij z o > Lij L v v co = C .o a a 3 � L O L CL 0 Z O H Q H Z w w O z w RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: PLANNING SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04/Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 Seawater Desalination Project) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 27, 2006 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not A plicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached ❑ Not Appiicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ElNot Applicable (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Not Applicable (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Certificates of Insurance (Approved y A roved b the Cit Attorne Attached Ely y) Not Applicable hed ❑ Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Attac Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Attached ElNot Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) AttachedNot Applicable ❑ Commission Board or Committee Re ort applicable If a Attached El p ( pp ) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached Not Applicable ❑ EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) ( ( ) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: HZ:SH:MBB:RR GEORGE E. MASON RECEIVED 21641 BAHAMA LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92646 1006 FEB 2( PM 3: 4 b F Y OF February 21, 2006 ;T C i- ; p,C e j City of Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Subject: City Council Agenda Item for February 27, 2006; Poseidon Desalination Facility Mayor Sullivan and City Council Members Bohr, Coerper, Cook, Hardy, Hansen, and Green: This letter addresses the electrical power required to operate the facility and tries to put those projected energy figures in perspective. The desalination facility is projected by Poseidon in their Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to consume 780 megawatts of electrical power daily. The calculations on the second page of this letter show that generation of this electrical power will consume about 7,600,000,000 BTU of energy per day. What does this expenditure of 7,600,000,000 BTU per day of energy correspond to? • Electrical power: My electric bill last month indicated I used 500 KWH. Poseidon requires the electrical power of 46,800 homes. • Natural gas: 1 therm (the billing unit on your residential gas bill) is 100,000 BTU. Poseidon will use electrical power generated at a steam driven power plant that will require 2,280,000 therms of natural gas per month. My gas bill last month indicated I used about 90 therms, so Poseidon uses the natural gas energy of 25,300 homes. • Gasoline: The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency' says 1 gallon of gasoline produces 117,000 BTU. Poseidon requires the equivalent energy of 65,000 gallons of gasoline per day. Other residents and experts are addressing the adverse environmental impacts expected from approval of this facility. I agree with those environmental concerns and strongly recommend they be seriously considered as you deliberate this proposed project. 1� /a� 7 'US EPA at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgecon.htm � Cv i ' 4 The below calculations show how the 7,600,000,000 BTU consumed daily by the desalination facility was determined. • The Poseidon EIR states that the facility will use 720 - 840 megawatts of electrical power per day (MWD). Assume an average of 780 MWD. • 1 megawatt (MW) is 1,000 kilowatts (KW) of electrical power. • The U. S. Energy Information Administratio& says 1 kilowatt (KW) of electrical power delivers 3,412 British Thermal Units (BTU) of energy to the end user. • The U. S. Minerals Management Service' says steam power plants are about 35% efficient in converting BTUs from any source (natural gas, coal, etc.) to electrical power to deliver that 3,412 BTU to the end user. • At 35% efficiency, 9,748 BTU (3,412 / 0.35) is required to generate 1 KW at the power plant or 9,748,000 BTU for 1 MW. • The proposed desalination facility requires 7,600,000,000 BTU (9,748,000 x 780) converted to electrical energy at a fossil fueled power plant to generate 780 MW per day. The time has arrived for you to deny the request of Poseidon Resources to build a desalination plant in Huntington Beach. The energy to be consumed by this desalination plant will come from non-renewable sources. It is just this type of wasteful energy consumption that has created the high energy demand that is so prevalent today. The time is now to reverse these inefficient practices by recognizing improperly planned and unnecessary projects and denying them permission to continue. Please deny Poseidon's request to build this facility. Thank you for your continuing efforts in support of our City. George Mason 2 US EIA at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electrical power/page/prim2/charts.html 3 US MMS at http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/kids/Watts/Appendix/2.%2OElectrical power.pdf Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:16 AM To: Flynn, Joan; Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Desalination Project A few emails came in after the last batch I brought down. I will forward them to you. -----Original Message----- From: Randy [mailto:rbrunol@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 2:34 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Desalination Project January 9, 2006 Dear City Council, We are urging you to vote NO on the Poseidon Desalination Project. It's not about the water, the money, the taxes. It's about the people of Huntington Beach, and we do not want it. Sincerely, Randall & Victoria Bruno 22152 Wood Island Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 968-4084 1/10/2006 ✓ Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Mrdi [mrdi2003@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:39 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: arnesarmy@aol.com; Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon HB City Council, I am a home owner, for 34 years, in South Hunt. Bch. After digesting the Posiedon proposal, I find myself very concerned, as you must be, about the preservation of what is left of our beach community, as well as the integrity of our coastline. It seems the City Council is attracted to every opportunity to increase tax revenue, without long term consideration for the environment and the quality of life of the citizens of Hunt. Bch. Perhaps our Surf City moniker should go to Santa Cruz, It seems we are assuming a reputation for foul, polluted and closed beaches. I am, as a homeowner and concerned citizen, adamantly opposed to the Posiedon Project. Regards, Michael B. diDonato Yahoo! Photos - Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover Photo Books. You design it and we'll bind it! /0 1/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: mike gee [mgeel@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday,January 09, 2006 6:36 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Stop Poseidon As a resident for 37 years, I beg you !! The sewer line on Bushard was enough !! The Ascon Dump will have some ugly surprises. Please do not approve the Poseidon Project. Michael W. Gee a /0� 1/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Willow Spirit[oneearthunity@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:27 PM To: Flynn, Joan; CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat;Fikes, Cathy Subject: Poseidon Desalination Project Greetings Huntington Beach City Council Members, The Poseidon Desalination Project really has to place here in Huntington Beach nor anywhere else. Poseidon's Desalination plant construction would produce unacceptable pollution as well as cause massive negative impacts that could do lasting and irreparable harm to the residential and commercial areas that it effects. Do all Creation-Kind a favor and vote no on poseidon Monday, January 9, 2006. Love and Health to All, One Love, Kristy Kirkland 22032 Rockport Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events,holidays,whatever. 1/10/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:21 AM To: Flynn, Joan; Esparza, Patty Subject: Poseidon -----Original Message----- From: Carrie L. Martin [mailto:c_martin@losal.org) Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 3 51 PM To: <dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org>; <gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org>; <jhardy@surfcity-hb.org>; <kbohr@surfcity-hb.org>; <hbdac@hotmail.com>; <cgreen@surfcity-hb.org>; <dhansen@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: <pdapkus@surfcity-hb.org>; stevencarrie@verizon.net; citycouncil@surfcity-hb.org Subject: January 9, 2006 Dear Members of the City Council, I have been a resident of Huntington Beach for over 40 years. I live in southeast Huntington Beach adjacent to the Ascon dump area. I am extremely concerned that the City Council is considering approving a desalination plant for southeast Huntington Beach. My husband, my two children (ages 3 & 5) , and I enjoy the lifestyle that Huntington Beach has to offer. I run on the weekends along the bike path, my husband surfs daily, we enjoy family bike rides to Edison Park and the beach. We moved to southeast Huntington Beach for this reason because we enjoy the outdoors. Residents of southeast Huntington Beach have had their fair share of industry nearby. We have the Ascon dump, the massive and noisy AES plant, the terrible smelling sanitation plant, and (still talked about) the possibility of the Banning bridge going through our neighborhoods. I know that we moved into this area aware of these industries; however, I don't think that we should have to have one other large industrial plant near our homes. PLEASE do not approve the desalination plant for Huntington Beach. We appreciate our wetlands, parks, beaches and beautiful Huntington Beach. I plead with you not to add another detractor to our city. We love our city and that is why I've been here for over 40 years. Please vote NO on the building of the desalination plant. Sincerely, Mrs. Carrie Martin 9171 Haiti Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-962-4595 -T-1 d (3 P�14 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: KAY MYLOD [kaymylod@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 8:47 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: astounding attitudes 1/9/05 To the City Council: After having watched your meeting, CUP vote disappointingly delayed, I am wondering if you all really know how you came across tonight regarding donations made from poseidon to Bohr and Hansen. You all went on and on about how they pull out their checkbooks for various contributions to organizations; the statement made by speakers about council members receiving donations from poseidon has nothing to do with how generous they are or will be in the future. I paid for copies of donations to council members from city clerk's office and saw the amount and names of persons making contributions to these two. It may be legal, but it does not look good to the citizens--it really does not. The flipflopping on statements also puts doubts into we citizens minds. I believe each council person needs to emit no indication that they will not vote fair and square on such issues as poseidon. The only councilperson who disclaimed and was embarrased by the flyer received in this household this pm from "Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility" was Debbie Cook. Why did not the rest of you disclaim such a crass action by poseidon? I am really losing faith in the facility of getting a vote protecting this city after these actions took place. I am contacting the two main hotels on our shores tomorrow and asking them how they feel about the possible loss of revenue from tourists in the future if this misadventure goes through. It is really stunning! I am really having doubts about city government in this city. Kay Mylod, Huntington Beach, CA & A� 0/��Pas 1/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: sharon.mccall@accessbusinessgroup.com Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:33 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Please Vote Against Poseidon My partner and I live in HB, near the intersection of Newland and PCH. This region of HB is already blighted by industry. Additionally I read that negotiators have deadlocked over how much utility tax is required. Poseidon, which previously insisted it is building a"water treatment" facility, now claims to propose a"water pumping"facility that requires only a 5%utility tax rate. But the city says the tax rate is 100% ($800,000 annually). A costly lawsuit is practically guaranteed. Finally, Poseidon has reportedly pulled all promised perks, including a new library and senior center. Other promises of huge property tax intakes and cheap water have already been shown to contain more holes than the faulty water filters that Poseidon used at its failed Tampa Bay plant. How is this going to help the city?Also, based upon the previous experience of Poseidon in Tampa Bay, why should we expect it to be any different? We will be in attendance at this evening's council meeting. Have a wonderful day! Sharon McCall & Carlos Montez Phone (714)421-4319 Email; sharon.mccall@accessbusinessgroup.com 1/10/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:20 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Fw: Coastal Water Plant -----Original Message----- From: TGMcClary To: JFLYNN@surfcity-HB.org Sent: Tue Jan 10 20:46:45 2006 Subject: Coastal Water Plant Please do not approve this plant. Our coastline is much too valuable to allow an industrial plant to be built on it. Also Costa Mesa will not permit their streets to be dug up for the water line. Where will this high priced water be sent? Remember what happened to their plant in Florida . We don't need a white elephant sitting on our coastline. Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Rob Norquist[rorquist@homgroup.com] Sent: Monday,January 09, 2006 4:42 PM To: CITY COUNCIL D k Cathy Cc: ap us, Pat;a , Fikes, C y Subject: Poseidon City Council Members, I wanted to take a minute to express my concerns about tonight's vote on the Poseidon desalinization plant. I have been to every meeting, and plan on being there tonight. I will make it short and sweet. People express their concerns as to why they don't want it, but for me it is simple. I do not want another commercial use that will leach off of, and prolong the life of the AES power plant. It is such an eye sore and is clearly not good for the air or the ocean. It sure seems that the secrecy by Poseidon as to who is backing them that AES has something to do with it. They stand the most to gain from it being there. Call me a nimby if you want, because that is what I am. 1 would hope that each of you feel that you are there to represent the opinions of the local residents. From the meetings I have been to there has been an overwhelming showing of residents against the project, and most of those for the project are being paid to be there, or will have a financial gain if it succeeds. Please vote against the CUP for Poseidon. Thank you for your service and time. Rob Norquist y c'? � Xq 1/10/2006 � J Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:19 AM To: Flynn, Joan; Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Poseidon -----Original Message----- From: AUGUSTINE R PEPI [mailto:apepi29@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:02 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Dear Huntington Beach City Council 9 Y I was told by the council office that no phone calls regarding opinions on the Poseidon project would be accepted. Therefore, this is my formal notice to the Huntington Beach City Council, I DO NOT support approval of the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project. Sincerely, A. R. Pepi 21902 Kaneohe Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 1/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Wednesday,January 11, 2006 9:47 AM To: Flynn, Joan; Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: poseidon -----Original Message----- From: rydon2 [mailto:rydon2@socal.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:21 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: poseidon hi,if after all this time they can not even get the paper work right,what makes them think they can build anything.they should be made to pay for all the wasted time these extra meetings cause.please put them out of their misery and vote no if you ever get the chance...thanks for your time...don ryburn I � GX 4" 1/11/2006 Esparza, Patty From: m selna [m2seina@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:09 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: m2seina@earthlink.net; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Desalination Proposal Dear Mayor and Honorable Council Members: I am writing to urge caution in your decision regarding the the proposed Desalination Facility to be located at the AES Power Plant. My concern is that the proposed technology, though innovative, is not cost effective at this point in time, rendering the product water uneconomical and unlikely to be purchased. I am a resident of HB and own a home within a few blocks of the proposed facility. I have been a practicing water quality engineer (registered Civil Engineer in CA) for 35 years and am a former chair of the City's Environmental Board. I understand the technology very well and the alternatives for more economical water supply. Water conservation and water reuse would be far more economical approaches. Demineralizing reclaimed water would be a superior approach and would not carry the environmental concerns associated with desalination of ocean water. The Orange County Water district and Orange County Sanitation District are currently constructing an 80 million gallon per day facility to accomplish reverse osmosis treatment of reclaimed water to be used for groundwater recharge. This is a more prudent approach. It is easy to conclude the proposed project should be approved because it is a private venture and they are to bear all the risk. In my career I have seen many proposals such as this. Ultimately, the users will pay the high costs of technology that is deployed before its time. Membrane technologies of the type proposed will be cost effective in the future and will have their appropriate role. . . . .when water is even more scarce and expensive. Don't saddle your constituents with a project that will produce water that is 2-3 times more expensive than more conventional approaches. It is attractive to be on the leading edge but even more attractive to be in that position with a project that makes economic sense. Best regards in your decision process. I am available to answer any questions you or staff may have. Sincerely, Michael W. Selna c,2 In ,41�V11 Esparza, Patty From: Janis Thompson Ofox.thompson@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:41 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Poseidon Please vote NO on desalination plant. Janis Thompson 20561 Pebble Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 /0'tl ), h� 1 - gad City Clerk Intern From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 6:20 PM To: City Clerk Intern Subject: Fw: Poseidon Mailer Received Jan 9, 2006 -----Original message----- From: Ralph Tuckfield To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Mon Jan 09 17:42 :29 2006 Subject: Poseidon Mailer Received Jan 9, 2006 We received a mailer today that suggested we contact the City Council Office to express our support (opposition) of the Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility. The mailer was confusing to me. We are of the opinion that that even though the mailer never used the term "Poseidon", it was addressing the Poseidon Desalination Project. If that is the case, we wish to express our concern that the City Council thoroughly exam and consider the negative risks (Physical & Financial) that this project seems to have. Until the City has shown that they are protected from assuming the responsibility of another costly failed project, We are very opposed to the project. We do understand that there is some upside to the city, but the track record of this company is certainly a poor one and we do not believe our city should be willing to be exposed to the risks that it presents. Thank You for asking! Mr. & Mrs. R Tuckfield Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Lora Wood [Iwood56@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 5:01 PM To: Green, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL; Cook, David; Hansen, Don; Sullivan, Dave; Coerper, Gil; Hardy, Jill; Bohr, Keith Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Against Poseidon Regarding the Poseidon project: It's not a good fit for this area--we shoud be DE-INDUSTRIALIZING the coast of Huntington Beach, not adding to the industrialization. This project needs to go where there aren't already established residences and public beaches. Don Hanson, as far as my family and many of our neighbors are concerned, your political career is toast if you vote for this. We voted for you to represent our area, and with a vote for Poseidon you are a traitor to SE Huntington. In addition to the facilitybeing an eyesore to our area our streets will be torn u for likely over 2 g Y � p Y years. This technology isn't proven, and even IF it works, the water produced will be very expensive. I believe federal grant dollars are a big controlling factor behind all this, and those voting for it stand to gain financially. Why don't you put your community ahead of your own deep pockets fo once-- The Wood family Yahoa_!__DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less /02 A� �J 1/10/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 12:13 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Fw: Poseidon Desalinization Plant Proposal -----Original Message----- From: Mark Nedleman To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Mon Jan 09 16:53 :33 2006 Subject: Poseidon Desalinization Plant Proposal Dear Ms. Flynn, I wish to express to the Huntington Beach City Council my strenuous objection to the proposed desalinization plant. It's not needed, J p p it's another form of corporate coddling and tax giveaways and it's another form of privatization of our diminishing commons (e.g. air, water, earth) . Please pass my remarks along to the city council members. Many thanks, Mark Nedleman A (6 J " ` TOPPER HORACK 21742 FAIRLANE CIRCLE RECEIVED HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 2006FE 21 PM 2: 00 714-963-5200 (PHONE/FAX) thorack@socal rr com �j Y t- EAACN 4 / 21 February 2006 City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington beach, CA 92648 Subject: Poseidon patent Mayor Sullivan, City Council: Hardy, Bohr, Coerper, Cook, Hansen, Green In looking at the OPA, Owners Participation Agreement, there were some areas that are not either specific or in the publics interest the way they are written. Section 217: Page 15: Part 3: Use of the Site, Section 302, a., #5 "The participant shall help assure that construction of the Project, including but not limited to the Pipeline, has no impact on the quality of life in the City by paying the City, within five (5) days after the closing of the Participant's construction financing for the Project, the sum of One Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,900,000), which may be used by the City in its sole discretion for improvements adjacent to the Site or along the route of the Pipeline." Amendment: The $1.9 million dollars are to be paid towards any (not for all) liabilities arising from issues related to the impact of Poseidon on the quality of life in Huntington Beach. The amount does not represent total compensation for all quality of life issues. Any negative impact of the project on the community remains the sole responsibility of Poseidon or its successor and not that of the City of Huntington Beach or any other public entity. The purpose of this amendment is to protect the taxpayers from paying for damages to property or human health that can result from the negative impact of Poseidon on the community due to digging up of the streets, industrial accidents, negative air quality, etc. Section 217: Page 15: Part 3: Use of the Site, Section 302, a., #6 The Participant shall pay to the City the sum of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) which may be used by the City in its sole discretion for such improvements as the City Council determines will improve the quality of life in the City of Huntington Beach, These funds shall be paid prior to Completion. Amendment: The money is due at the completion or prior to completion of the project as determined by the City of Huntington Beach, by Poseidon or its successor and according to a schedule set by the City. The project is to be completed within a two year period starting February 27, 2006 or the date a construction permit is issued. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the open ended nature of the current statement, assure the City the promised income within a reasonable period, give it a chance to collect from a new developer or from a successor in case Poseidon fails to complete the project or sells the permits to another entity. I do not feel the Planning Staff along with Poseidon have written a document that protects all of the citizens and taxpayers of Huntington Beach. One only has to look at the problems with the OCSD pipeline along Bushard. If this project is to go forward, then the citizens of Huntington Beach need to be protected against any legal action or receipt of promised funds in the future. Sincerely, V / Topper orack TOPPER HORACK RECEIVED21742 FAIRLANE CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 9264 61006FE821 Ph 2: 00 714-963-5200 (PHONE/FAX) thorack@socal.rr.com 20 February 2006 City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington beach, CA 92648 Subject: Poseidon patent Mayor Sullivan, City Councill: Hardy, Bohr, Coerper, Cook, Hansen, Green The patent that Poseidon is proposing to use suggests that there is a way to mix feedwater and maximizes efficiency and product water quality. The patent requires diverting water that is withdrawn for cooling around the generator (that is NOT used for cooling)—to be mixed with the warmer water that supplies the desal facility. The mixing produces a temperature that maximizes water quality while reducing energy demand. The question this raises is 2--part. Either: • Poseidon intends to utilize their patent. This would mean that there assumption about marine life mortality is wrong. In fact, then marine life in the water diverted around the generator would die in the desal facility's pre- filtration system. • Poseidon does not intend to utilize their patent. This would mean that they are not employing the most efficient system. If so, they have not minimized the energy demand (and the associated environmental impacts). Which is it and has Poseidon told the City and the general public which they are going to utilize, the Patent or not use the Patent? Has anyone asked? If so what was their answer? Page 2 is from the Poseidon patent site. I have listed below the following information from the site. Sincerely, Topper Horack J 4 A http://Patft.uspto.gov/netacqi/nph- Parser?Sect1 =PT02&Sect2=HIT0FF&p=1 &u=/netahtml/search- bool.html&r=1 &f=G&1=50&co1 =AND&d=ptxt&s1 =Pose1don.ASNM.&0S= AN/Poseidon&RS=AN/Poseidon Poseidon patent site: The present invention relates generally to desalination of seawater and, more to methods and an apparatus for desalination of seawater using particularly, PP 9 reverse osmosis membranes. The desire to make drinkable, potable water out of seawater has existed for a long time. Several approaches can be taken to remove the salt and other chemicals. Water distillation is one way to approach the goal, but may not be commercially feasible. In this approach, water is heated to separate the solids from the liquid and therefore remove the salt solids. Another approach is electrodialysis in which the ions forming the salt are pulled by electric forces from the saline water through membranes and thereafter concentrated in separate compartments. This approach is also very expensive. A third approach to desalination is through reverse osmosis. This method uses pressure to force salty feed water against membranes which allows the relatively salt free water to pass through, but not much of the salts or other minerals. But due to the high production and capital costs, desalination systems are not widely_used for making large scale supplies of public drinking water. Efforts have been made to increase the efficiency of reverse osmosis systems in general and specifically, with respect to a desalination system, to lower operating have n directed efficiency of and fixed costs. Some efforts a been d ected at the improving the effic a cy the filtration systems, other efforts have been directed at the design and application of filter membranes, multi stage filtering and nano-filtration methods. Other efforts have also been directed at improving the efficiency of other aspects of a reverse osmosis system. For example, some efforts have been directed at the membrane filtration system replacement method by monitoring the silt density and at the application of particular feed water pressures. Each of these efforts may increase the efficiency of the desalination system, but these efforts may not sufficiently reduce the cost of the system for use for public water supply. What is needed is a desalination system that processes seawater into potable water more cost effectively for use for public water supply. Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:13 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Fw: Climate fears,water shortages haunt Europe -----Original Message----- From: Arthur Bergmann To: gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org; dcook@surfcity-hb.org; cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; dhansen@surfcity-hb.org; kbohr@surfcity-hb.org; jhardy@surfcity-hb.org; jflynn@surfcity- hb.org Sent: Tue Jan 10 09:58:41 2006 Subject: Climate fears, water shortages haunt Europe Dear Council Member, Below is a news story appearing on Yahoo News regarding water shortages in Europe. I thought this might be of interest given the vote that is coming on the water facility. It is the evolution of business and society that everything is becoming a global commodity. Oil, information, employment, and water. I hope that you will see the need for this facility and vote to give this to Huntington Beach for the sake of it's current and future residents. Regards, Arthur Bergmann (15th Street resident) Climate fears, water shortages haunt Europe By David Evans Tue Jan 10, 7:33 AM ET PARIS (Reuters) - France and Spain are ringing alarm bells over the climate, fearing a repeat of last year's drought that sparked deadly forest fires, costly crop failures and widespread water rationing in southern Europe. France's environment minister has said three dry years in a row have left the country facing possibly record water shortages this year. "This could be a very difficult year, and perhaps a record in terms of drought, " Nelly Olin said. The European Environment Agency (EEA) says water shortages and soaring temperatures in southern Europe are becoming the norm, and its climate models suggest much of the continent may start to become drier as deserts advance. "Across Europe, climate change already appears to be impacting many sectors of society, " the EEA said in its latest outlook report. "Higher temperatures and more intense droughts are producing a rising trend in the number and severity of forest fires in the Mediterranean, " it added. Many scientists say emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from cars, power plants and factories are building up in the atmosphere and driving up global temperatures. Fires were a particular problem in Portugal last year, claiming the life of 18 people and destroying 300,000 hectares (750, 000 acres) of forest. In Spain, fires also raged last year, special wells had to be dug in the south of the country and crops were decimated. Spain has already announced new water management measures, including construction of a new desalination plant in the parched southeast. Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega has said another year of drought is likely. WATER RATIONING Olin said France's water table was now seriously low after a heatwave in 2003 that killed thousands of people, a dry 2004/05 winter and low rainfall for much of last year. Autumn 2005 rainfall was 50 percent of the average in some parts of the country. "Even if it rains heavily in the next two and a half months, the water table will not be fully replenished, " she said. France imposed water rationing across the country in 2005, slapping irrigation curbs on farmers and hosepipe bans on the public. Olin said even harsher curbs would be enforced this summer if water levels remained unchanged by the end of March. French farmers, who faced criticism last year over their high water use, have said this year they may switch out of crops like maize that need a lot of irrigation. Britain's Environment Agency has warned that a winter with low rainfall in southern England could cause a "serious drought, widespread environmental damage and restrictions on water use. " Spain's National Meteorological Institute (INM) says the drought persisted in the first quarter of the new water year, which runs from September to August. "The forecasts, at least what we can see in the next month or two. . .do not allow us to foresee a situation in which it rains as much as is necessary to solve this, " said Angel Rivera, the INM's director of forecasting. Spain's water reserves stand at just 45 percent of capacity, recent Environment Ministry data show. Spain's cereal crop was devastated by last year's drought, while hydroelectric power generation -- one of the cheapest and cleanest ways of producing electricity -- fell to its lowest in 48 years, according to grid data. 2 City Clerk Intern From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 8:50 PM To: City Clerk Intern Subject: Fw: -----Original Message----- From: m.broekman@verizon.net To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org CC: m.broekman@verizon.net Sent: Mon Jan 09 17 :14:50 2006 Subject: To the Huntington Beach city Council: to the city Council Minnie and Marcel Broekman want to let you know that we support the Huntington Beach water treatment facility. This e-mail will serve instead of individual e-mails to -- Dave Sullivan, Gil Coerrper, Jill Hardy, Keith Bohr. .Debbie Cook, Cathy Green and Don Hansen. Signed Marcel and Minnie Broekman 8815 Yuba Circle 1102 a Huntington Beach CA 92646 telephone 714 969-2291 m.broekman@verizon.net i Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:24 AM To: Flynn, Joan; Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: In Favor of Poseidon Seawater Desalination Facility -----Original Message----- From: Pam Chapman [mailto:pchapman@socal.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:45 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: In Favor of Poseidon Seawater Desalination Facility Please represent me by voting for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Facility. I would love to take long hot showers and not have to worry about the water supply. This is a chance to show long range planning. Sincerely, Pam Chapman 9062 Niguel Circle Huntington Beach 1 Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:32 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Fw: HB Water TreatmentFacility -----Original message----- From: Wally Porter To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Tue Jan 10 16:30:29 2006 Subject: HB Water TreatmentFacility Please add my name to the list of supporters of the new water treatment facility. Wallace B. Porter 16222 Monterey Lane #175 Huntington Beach, CA. 92649 , Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Linda Sladek [Linhonda@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 9:23 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: HB Water Treatment Facility This is a request for all council members to support the Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility. Linda Sladek 10382 Monitor Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 1/10/2006 City Clerk Intern From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 8:52 PM To: City Clerk Intern Subject: Fw: Public Hearing City Council Meeting Cancellation... -----Original Message----- From: JBJCWOODS@aol.com To: dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org; dcook@surfcity-hb.org; cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; dhansen@surfcity-hb.org; kbohr@surfcity-hb.org; jhardy@surfcity- hb.org; jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Mon Jan 09 16:22 :45 2006 Subject: Public Hearing City Council Meeting Cancellation. . . Dear Mayor and City Council Members: I was planning on attending and speaking at tonight's hearing on the HB Water Treatment Facility. As a surfer, swimmer and boater living in Huntington Harbor, I am passionate about clean, safe water. As a native Southern Californian, I am passionate about an adequate local supply of safe water. I am very disappointed I will not have the forum to share my thinking. Obviously, I will make every effort to attend and speak when the meeting is rescheduled. However, I have taken the liberty to enclose my statement notes, in case I cannot attend your meeting. Thank you for your kind attention, ongoing support and most importantly for listening. . . Respectfully, James B. Woods 16178 Bimini Lane HB CA 92649 714.840.7779 City Council Meeting-January 9, 2006 INTRO: Good evening City Council Members and thank you for the privilege of speaking. I am a retired Aerospace Executive and College Professor. I have degrees in Engineering, Management and Law which help me to understand the multi-disciplined decision you will make on the HB Water Treatment Facility. I surfed in HB during my teens and have been a resident/homeowner for 35 years. I am simply a concerned citizen with no business or political agenda. Critical infrastructure investments with typical long-term risk/reward paybacks often extend beyond elected leaders' term's of service. I commend you for getting a decision on water desalination infrastructure to this point. Despite 2/3 `s of our planet being ocean, potable water remains our scarcest and most life-essential resource. Supplies from the Colorado River, coupled with restrictions on Northern California agriculture-use water have protected us from severe supply shortages in Southern California. The Western States are now in our sixth year of drought. Our neighboring states suppliers will eventually have to meet their own constituents' needs and reduce their lucrative water exports to So. Cal. Agriculture is critical to California's export economy. Eventually agriculture must get their share of the state' s limited water supply. Our Governor noted the State has not made a significant investment in water infrastructure for 50 years. Weather and political forces outside our control drive our water supply. Despite a record 32 inches of rainfall last year, we have, only temporarily, dodged the supply bullet! Avalon and Santa Barbara have planned and partially implemented reverse osmosis, sea water desalination systems to address their shortages with mixed results. These two neighbors have a 100% zero growth policy which limits their exposure to shortages. Thankfully, HE is a growth city and we need to provide water for our future growth and prosperity. As an avid boater, I use Reverse Osmosis, RO, seawater desalination and it is 100% safe and effective. It also is getting more efficient every year due to technology curve advancements. HE scrambled to get through the energy crisis of 3 years ago but the price of our energy went up permanently! Scientists warn us that WATER is the coming resource shortage crisis. Paying higher prices alone will not guarantee adequate supply rationing. WHY should HE take the risk-reward where other cities will not? Three key reasons: 1) POLITICAL WILL: Our voters and you, our elected leaders, take a longer view. Witness our investments in rebuilding our pier, renovating our downtown area and preserving our Bolsa Chica Wetlands. 2) WATER CULTURE: As a beach and surfing community we highly prize clean water resources. Witness our new outlet investment for our Tidelands flushing and our support of the Surf Riders and Friends of the Bay Foundations. 3) LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION: Geologically, unlike Avalon and Santa Barbara, we are blessed with expansive underground aquifers in which to collect, store and distribute potable water. We already have an adjacent Power Plant throwing off cooling water as part of our water supply chain. We already have a water treatment facility capable of turning waste water into potable water. Linking a new Desalination Plant with our existing AEG Plant, our Hyperion plant and our Aquifers into a closed-loop system will give us a world- class water supply management system. With your leadership, we can guarantee our current and future needs for a local safe water supply! Council Members, we can literally make Safe Water a RENEWABLE RESOURCE! So, I say, let's complete the job! Strike your best financial, legal and environmental terms with Poseidon Resources for the Water Desalination Treatment Facility..-AND I SAY BUILD IT! Thank You, James B. Woods 01/09/06 2 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:02 PM To: Flynn, Joan; Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Desalination Plant -----Original Message----- From: sp150mph@aol.com [mailto:spl50mph@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:01 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Desalination Plant I support the Desalination Plant project.... Norman L Spong 18611 Park Meadow Ln Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 ...... Imo' 1/10/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:53 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Fw: Poseidon Project -----Original Message----- From: George Mezei To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Sun Jan 15 11:41:24 2006 Subject: Poseidon Project Dear Council Members and City Clerk, I strongly urge you to vote YES to approve all of your staffs recommend actions for the Poseidon water project because: You will lose all municipal control and all tax revenues from the project when the Metropolitan Water District government agency takes over and constructs the very same project at the very same location. Theproject has no x privately owned risk to the taxpayer.er. It is a atel o ed P J P Y p Y business. Huntington Beach will lose a much needed 50 million gallon emergency water storage facility which would increase public safety in an emergency to help prevent water disruptions in the event of a disaster, as was witnessed in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. HB will lose the discounted rate of 5% below the cost of MWD water for 3 million gallons per day of water into our system. We will be doing our share help to save the wetlands in the Sacramento Delta watershed, which has been seriously degraded due in part to our unquenchable thirst for more water. As you know, protecting wetlands is important issue to many members of HB. The project is properly zoned. It will make improvements to a blighted area without utilizing the redevelopment agency. It has no serious long-term negative impacts to the environment or the community. It will establish a new business partner which will bring new jobs, opportunities and prosperity into HB. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. City Clerk, please place my comments into the public record to be available for the council when the final vote is taken. Signed, George Mezei Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:43 AM To: Esparza, Patty; Lugar, Robin Subject: FW: Water Treatment Facility -----Original Message----- From: tomgateway@aol.com [mailto:tomgateway@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:34 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Water Treatment Facility My wife and I support building the subject facility. Tom Hohman 6296 Sunnyside Circle, HB 92648 I i 02 / -�0,G ,kI ..� 1/17/2006 I t CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION Office of the City Clerk TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk pl�—' DATE: February 27, 2006 SUBJECT: LATE COMMUNICATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FEBRUARY 27, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Attached are the Late Communications to the City Council received after distribution of the Agenda Packets: Public Hearina D-1. Communication submitted by Tom Luster, California Coastal Commission dated February 27, 2006 Re: Proposed City Action on Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05— Seawater Development Project recommending that the City, at this point in their review, not take action to approve the proposed project, but instead reevaluate the prof conformity to the LCP. Communication submitted by California State Lands Commission dated February 24, 2006 commenting on the intent of the California State Lands Commission in considering 4 resolution on once-through cooling at California coastal power plants as it relates to desalination facilities and a draft resolution which would have declared that, starting in 2020, the Commission would not renew leases for facilities relating to once-through cooling for coastal power plants. Communication submitted by Nossaman, Guthner, Knox& Elliott, LLP dated February 241, 2006 titled Supplemental Response of Poseidon Resources Corporation to Writfen Public and Councilmember Comments Entered on the Record Subsequent to the Close of the September 6, 2005 Poseidon REIR Hearing. Three(3) communications were received without stating an opinion of support or opposition to the project, but contain either additional information or questions to the Council,'including: Communication submitted by Craig Justice dated February 24, 2006 titled Poseidon CUP/CDP Conditions Communication submitted by Barbara Scott Alcott dated February 27, 2006 titled Please make sure tonight 2127 Communication submitted by Marie Trout, Fish-Net Productions,Inc., dated February 19, 2006 titled Poseidon and Pentagon One-hundred sixteen(116)'communications were received in ouaosition to the approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit(CDP) 02-05 for Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project: Unknown Name Sylvia & Fred Woods Glenna Touhey Mr.&Mrs. R. P. Heflin Joe Geever, Surfrider Foundation (3 communications) V.Hutchinson Mesa Verde Community, Inc. Irene Russner Cheryl&Steve Bastian The Coponiti Family Hedda & Richard Schwim Dr. and Mrs. Scott Swanson Ron, Myriam, Steven and David Telles Edward DeMeulle Kaelyn Jenkins Dave Hamilton Unknown Tim Geddes Russell, Ellen, Alex and Derek Bostelman Rick Gravley Alyssa Gravley Michele Burgess Marc Irvin Carolyn Ross Michael Ross Charles and Suzanne Rosen Nancy Buchoz Arthur Weiland Frank Pekary A. B. Johnson Socorro Hubbard Helen Tvelia Tom Rasmussen Pat Myles Anne De Vusser& Family Steve Stafford Lori Costigan A. J. Diliberto, CFP James Hunnel Nancy Koch Karen Kuchinski Dick Lenell Marjorie A. Powers James P. Powers Milada Roberts Charles and Maryann Rozzelle Mary Surprenant Jan D.Vandersloot, MD Yen-ning Kao & Kuo-ti Kao Ross & Diane Miller Cindy& Chuck Newman Kimber Smith Fidler Bill & Bunny Wetzel Unknown Vicky McGavack RN,,CQHN-S Steve & Darlene Clifford' Norman and Ellen Randall &Victoria Bruno Lois N. Whelan Hatala Family R. Iturrlaga, Ph.D. Bernice Malkin Jerry Miller and Rosemarie McKowen-Miller Lynne Baker Lena and Steve Hayashi Bobbie Miller Anatoly Brohin Alice& Scott Toth Chuck Allen Doris Bailey` Curtis L. Stelley Varini de Silva Robert V. Harris and Mary-S. Harris Carolyn and John Lewis Kim Barone Don Farmer and Janet Barkawi Norman and Ethel Bergman John Quinlan David & Elena Hedlund Scot Oschman Gary Benedict Betty Jean and Jennifer Percival Unknown Dave Whitaker Charlie Hunt Christopher Condon Tom Simpson Carole K. Lung Katherine Stoddard Frank Provost Robin Dujanovic Darren Magot Jim Dishon Patricia Pope Glenn Selvin Joseph and Joan Ongie Ric Button Earl L. Brashears Fernando and Ramona Kobbe Pat Myles William & Sarah Cerri Ed and Sharon Anderson Dan Bon Unknown Phillip Empey Barry Repsher Kay Mylod Meg Watson Claudette Ruzicka Betty Angell The da Silva Family Julia Hughes Tom and Carol Welch Ann Harvey Ms. K. Shawn Thompson-McGarrigle, PE Jim Moreno Thirty-one (31)communications were received;in favor of the approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 02-04 and Coastal Development Permit(CDP) 02-05 for Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project: Gary& Linda Wheaton Rick& Dee Taylor Dallas Weaver R. T.&Suzanne Rubel Harvey Levin Henry Bill' Hartge Bob Kramer Steve Harrison Walter Reed Bob& Kathleen Dutton Jess Carranza ` Cliff Stone Lisa O'Loughlin Wendell and Sue B. Warner Craig and Christy Impelman Dean S. Williams Tom Polkow Pat Clynes Chris Costello Robert& Nancy Harrison Steve & Betty Holden Richard Koiander George Nierlich Larry J. Rolewic Jim and Joyce'Wilson Robert A. and Carol A. Hardy Clifford &Barbara Anderson Claire and Siegmund Grozinger Robert Harrison Nancy Harrison STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 VOICE AND TDD(415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 February 27,2006 City Councilmembers City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 VIA FACSIMILE(714)536-5233 and E-MAIL Re: Proposed City Action on Coastal Development Permit No. 02-05 —Seawater Desalination Project. Dear Councilmembers: In reviewing the Request For City Council Action for the above-referenced project,posted a few days ago on the City's web site,I found a substantial error that I must draw to your attention. That document's anal sis of whether the proposed project conforms to the City's Local Coastal Y F Fo P J �' Program(LCP)appears to be based partially on provisions that were never adopted or approved as part of the City's LCP. The analysis also omits several key LCP provisions that apply to the proposed project. Therefore,the City's analysis does not reflect the proper standard of review for the LCP and is not adequate for determining the project's conformity to the LCP. The analysis in the Request For City Council Action cites a mix of provisions, including some that the City proposed to incorporate into the LCP but that were never approved by the Coastal Commission and were never adopted by the City'. The analysis also omits several approved and adopted LCP provisions that should properly be applied to the proposed project. Below are two examples: • Use of a proposed provision rather than the adopted and approved provision: The City's analysis cites Coastal Element C 6.1.1 as: "Require that new development include mitigation measures to prevent the degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water." The language above was p=osed by the City in 1999,but the version actually approved by the Coastal Commission,adopted by the City, and as currently stated in the certified LCP reads: "Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water gualiU, feasible, and at a min imumJl prevent the degradation of water quality ofgroundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water."[emphasis added.] Background:The Coastal Element of the City's LCP had been certified by the Coastal Commission in 1985. In 1999,the City submitted a number of proposed LCP amendments to the Commission. On June 14,2001,the Commission approved a modified version of those proposed amendments,and on September 4,2001,the City then adopted those modified amendments through approval of Resolutions#2001-57 and#2001-58. On November 13, 2001,the Commission concurred that the City's acceptance of those modifications was legally adequate. om t �rtfG. ���"'/10V r Letter to Huntington Beach City Council re: CDP 02-05 February 27, 2006 Page 2 of 3 Using the proposed version rather than the adopted and approved version creates a substantial shortcoming in the City's analysis, since that analysis includes no findings as to whether it is feasible for the proposed project to enhance water quality. Those findings are clearly required to determine whether the proposed project conforms to the correct version of this applicable Coastal Element provision. The City's analysis omits LCP provisions that apply to the proposed project: The analysis omits several Coastal Element policies that were approved and adopted as part of the 2001 LCP update and that clearly apply to the pryo,sed project. These include Coastal Elements C6.1.2,C6.1.3,C6.1.4, C6.1.6,and C6.1.12 . Some of these provisions, for example,relate to ocean water quality, and while the City's analysis includes a brief description of the project's effects on ocean water quality(see page D-IA.11), it does not evaluate the project for conformity to these applicable Coastal Elements. This omission results in the analysis being inadequate for determining whether the proposed project conforms to the LCP. The two examples above are from just one part of the LCP,the Coastal Element's Water and Marine Resources section. It appears that the City's analysis also includes a number of additional errors and omissions from other sections of the LCP(e.g., it does not evaluate the proposed project for conformity to Coastal Element C.8.2.4: "Accommodate coastal dependent energy facilities within the Coastal Zone consistent with Sections 30260 through 30264 of the Coastal Act."). Determining the full extent of these shortcomings will require more extensive. review by the City to ensure its analysis is complete and adequate. The basis for these errors and omissions is not clear—initially, it appeared that the City was perhaps using an out-of-date copy of the LCP or perhaps using the proposed 1999 amendments rather than the approved 2001 amendments. However,the analysis includes some provisions that are found only in the approved 2001 LCP, so it is not possible to tell what document the City used as the basis of its analysis or why some of the 2001 LCP provisions were mis-cited or omitted', 2 C6.1.2: "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." C6.1.3: "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." C6.1.4: "The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters,streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored." C6.1.6:This Coastal Element is a lengthy and specific provision requiring a number of stormwater and runoff control measures,Best Management Practices,public participation elements and other measures applicable to the proposed project. I C6.1.12: "Periodically review the City's policies on water conservation, including the Water Conservation Ordinance,to ensure the use of state of the art conservation measures for new development and redevelopment,and retrofitting of existing development, where feasible and appropriate, to implement these measures." 'For example,the analysis cites Coastal Element C6.1.13: "Encourage research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalinization as an alternative source ofpotable water. Participate in regional studies and efforts Letter to Huntington Beach City Council re: CDP 02-05 February 27, 2006 Page 3 of 3 Regardless,even though it is not clear why the City's analysis of the proposed project uses a mix of adopted and non-adopted Coastal Element provisions,and why the analysis omits some applicable LCP provisions, it is clear that the City's analysis does not conform to its approved LCP and that the analysis provides an inadequate regulatory or legal basis for the City to approve the proposed project. At this point in your review,we therefore recommend that the City not take an action to approve the proposed project,but that you instead re-evaluate the proposed project's conformity to the LCP using the full and correct set of LCP provisions. I am unable to attend the City Council meeting this evening,but am available(at 415-904-5248 or tluster�7a coastal.ca.gov)to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Tom Luster Energy and Ocean Resources Unit Cc: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department—Ricky Ramos where appropriate.". This provision is from the City's 1999 proposed amendments and was included in the approved and adopted LCP from 2001. The analysis also cites Coastal Element 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." This language is from the 2001 LCP as modified and approved by the Commission and adopted by the City. It replaced the following provision from the 1985 LCP that was included in the City's 1999 proposed amendments: `Approve only that development adjacent to wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas that does not significantly degrade habitat values and which is compatible with the continuance of the habitat." FEB-24-2006 FRI 03:09 PH FAX NO, P, 02 . IWIF Or(',A1Jr0K0A ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor CALIFORNIA STATE EXECUTIVE OFFICE LANDS COMMISSION 100 Howe Avanuo, 5uife 100-south Sacramento, CA 95825.8202 IL CRUZ M. SUSTAMANTE Lioutcriont Governor PAUL D. THAYER, Executive Officer STEVE W SILY, Controlicr (916) 574-1800 Fax (916) 574-1810 k- MICHAEL'C, GENEST, Director of Finurice CaliFornio Way Sorvico TDD Niono 1.800-735-2929 Voice; f1totio 1.800-735-2M SENT VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL ('714) 536-5233 February 24, 2006 rn -I*ho, Honorable Dave Sullivan ry Ma yo r Cily of Huntington Broach _44 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 9 Ln Dear Mayor Sullivan: I have been asked to comment on the intent of the California State Lands Commission in considering a resolution on once-through cooling at California coastal power plants as it might relate to desalination facilities. At its February 9 meeting, the Commission considered a draft resolution, copy attaolied, which would have declared that, starting in 2020, the Commission would not renew leases for facilities relating to once-through cooling for coastal power plants. The Commission is concornod about the impact from once-through cooling on environmental resources on public tide and submerged lands, over which the Commission has juri'sdiction. At the February 9 meeting, the Commission directed staff to gather additional infbrni<'ition, consult with relevant state agencies and to conduct a meeting of stakeholde-os. The Commission asked that a resolution, which may be rewritten, bo brought back to the Commission for its consideration at its next meeting, in April. The; resolution presented at the Commission meeting was focused only on once- through cooling and was not intended to affect any desalination facility including the one pi,opose,d at the AE'S power plant in Huntington Beach. The AES power plant has a ioasr-.� from tho Commission for its once-through cooling facilities that will expire this year. As written by staff, the resolution was not intended to affect the Commission's renewal of that lease. 7-7 FEB-24-2006 15:06 95. P.02 FEB-2,4-2006 FR I 03: 10 PH FAX NO, P. 03 The l-lonorable U7vc Sullivan Ft"A,)rLaary 24, 2006 Page 2 Please let me know if 1 can be of father assistance on this matter. r�^^Sincerely, PAUL D. THAYER Executive Officer Atinc",hment (10: Huntington Pearh City Council Cindy Aronberg, Office of the State Controller FEB-24-2006 15:06 95% P.03 FEB-24-2006 FRI 03: 10 PH FAX NO. P. 04 S*IML'01 CALIKJRNIA ARNOLD S(;HWARZENLGG ER.Governor CALIFORNIA STATE l EXECUTIVE OFFICE ow Av lwe, 100-South LANDS COMMISSION 100 IlSaco ramcenLo, CASLIfte 95825-8202 PAUL D. THAYER, Executive Officer CRUZ M. RUSTAMANTr, deutenant Governor* (916) 574-1800 Fax(916) 574-1810 STI,VIE Wl:S'Q.Y, Controller MKMArl C. GENF.s'r, birecior of Financc California Relay Scivice TDD Phone I-BOO-735-2929 Voic(,Phone 1-800.735-2922 STAFF PROPOSED RESOLUTION BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION REGARDING ONCE-THROLIGI-4 COOLING IN CALIFORNIA POWER PLANTS WHEREAS, The California State Lands Commission and legislative grantees of public fill-St' lands care responsible for the administering and protecting the public trust lands underlying the navigable, waters of the state,which are held in trust for the people of California, and WHEREAS, the public trust lands are vital to the recreational, econornic and environmental values of(O"olifornia's coast and ocean; and WHIERCAS, the commission has Aggressively sought correction of adverse impacts on tho biological productivity Of its lands including, litigation over contamination off the Palms Verdes Peninsula and cat Iron Mountain, the adoption of best management practices for marinas and litigation to restore flows to the Owens River; and WHEREAS, California has twenty-one coastal power plants which use once-through coolino, the majority of which are located on bays and estuaries where sensitive fish nurs,e�des for many important species are located; and IWI i,ERFEAS, these power plants are authorized to withdraw and discharge approximately 16.7 billion gallons of ocean water daily; and WHEREAS, once-through cooling harms the environment by killing large numbers of fish and other wildlife, larvae and eggs as they are drawn through fish screens and other part,, of the power plant cooling system; and WHEREAS, once-through cooling also adversely affects the coastal environment by raising the temperature of adjacent water, killing and displacing wildlife and plant life; and WHEREAS, various studies have; documented the harm caused by once-through cooling including one Study that estimated that 2.2 million fish were annually ingested itlt() Oighl. SOLI the rn California power plants during the late 1970s and another that ez-:dimat(-,*0 that 157 tons of fish were killed annually when all of the units of the San OnLyfre Nuclear Generating Station were operating; and FEB-24-2006 15:06 95% P.04 FEB-24-2006 FRI 03: 10 PH FAX NO. P. 05 WHEREAS, regulations adopted under Section 316 (b) of the federal Clean Water Act recognize the adverse impacts of once-through cooling by effectively prohibiting new power plZants from using such systems; and VWWERE'AS, tho Governor's Ocean Action Plan calls for an increase in the abundance and diversity of aquatic life in California's oceans, buys, estuaries and coastal wetlands, a goal which can be bottor met by eliminating the impacts of once-through cooling; and WHENE-AS, members of the California Ocean Protection Council have called for con)idc,rration of a policy at its next meeting to discourage once-through cooling; and WHERCAS, the California Energy Commission and the State Water Resources Control Board havo the authority and jurisdiction over the design of power plants and are c:,ondUcting studies into alternatives to once-through cooling, such as air cooling, cooling with treated wastewater or recycled water and cooling towers; and W1•lERFA,S, in its 2005 Integrated Energy and Policy Report, the California Energy Corntnis,lion adopted a recommendation to work with other agencies to improve cisses sment of the ecological impacts of once-through cooling and to develop a better c}pproac:h to the; use of best-available retrofit technologies; and WHEREAS, the Commission recognizes that the coastal power plants currently utilizing once--through cooling rnake an important contribution to California's energy supply, but helievea s that the elimination of these cooling systems, through conservation, cronvorsion, construction of new facilities, or utilization of other sources can be feasible and will be facilitated by establishing a deadline for this to occur; therefore, be it Resolved by the California State Lands Commission that it urges the California f:-nergy Commission and the; State Water Resources Control Board to expeditiously complete all necessary studies and develop policies that eliminate once-through cooling frorn all new sand existing power plants in California; and be it further Rosolved, that the Commission shall not approve new leases or extensions of existing le it i s for facilities associated with once-through cooling after 2020 and calls on public grrantE:r; of public trust lands to implement the same policy for facilities within their juriscJirtion; and be; it further Resolved, that the Commission's Executive Officer transmit copies of this resolution to tltr; Chairs of the State Water Resources Control Board, the California Energy Corrami!;slon, and the California Ocean Protection Council, all grantees, and all current fesseox, of public trust lands that utilize once-through cooling. 2 FEB-24-2006 15:06 95% P.05 LAW OFFICES NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP SAN FRANCISCO SUITE 1800 WASHINGTON.D.C./VIRGINIA THIRTY-FOURTH FLOOR 18101. VON KARMAN AVENUE SUITE 600 50 CALIFORNIA STREET 2111 WILSON BOULEVARD SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111.4799 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612-0177 ARLINGTON, VA 22201-3052 (415) 3 9 8-3 6 0 0 TELEPHONE (949) 833-7800 (703) 351-5010 FACSIMILE (949) 833-7878 LOS ANGELES AUSTIN TEXAS THIRTY-FIRST FLOOR SUITE 2000 445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET JOHN P. ERSKINE 100 CONGRESS AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-1602 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701-2745 (213) 612-7800 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (512) 3 7 0-4 9 7 7 (949) 47 7-7 63 3 SACRAMENTO EMAIL jerskine@nossaman.com REFER TO FILE NUMBER SUITE 1000 915 L STREET February 24, 2006 270210-0005 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-3705 (916) 442-8888 VIA HAND DELIVERY N Mayor Sullivan and Councilmembers Huntington Beach City Council M City of Huntington Beach11 ran 2000 Main Street, 4ch Floor ` •,� Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (=1 cry Re: Supplemental Response of Poseidon Resources Corporation t&Writtep Public and Councilmember Comments Entered on the Record Subsequent to the Close of the September 6, 2005 Poseidon REIR Hearing Dear Mayor Sullivan and Councilmembers: We are providing, on behalf of Poseidon Resources Corporation("Poseidon"), responses to several issues raised in written public comments submitted to the City of Huntington Beach ("City") City Council and by Councilmembers during Council discussion, following close of the September 6, 2005 public hearing on the Recirculated Environmental Impact Report ("REIR"). This letter supplements responses to these comments previously provided to the City Council by City staff and consultants, and Poseidon Management and its consultants over the course of the lengthy entitlement process on the pending CUP/CDP applications for Poseidon's Seawater Desalination Facility. 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-04 Meets Requirement of Section 24 1.10 of the Huntington Beach Zoning Code. October 17, 2005 letters from Sandra Genis, Planning Resources, and John Earl, President of a group called "Residents for Responsible Desalination,"have stated that"the establishment of the proposed project will create air pollution emissions detrimental to persons residing and working in the vicinity" and or"detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood," asserts similar impacts from noise, roadway congestion, possible dewatering associated with the water transmission and other items claimed to be ei 258057 LDOc NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Mayor Sullivan and Councilmembers February 24, 2006 Page 2 similarly detrimental to the neighborhood, and concludes that the City Council cannot make the findings required under Section 24 1.10 of the City's Zoning Code for the Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"). These assertions emanate, in our view, from a misreading of the City's pending action on the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Section 7.0 "Statement of Overriding Considerations" in REIR No. 00-02 (Seawater Desalination Project), states (REIR Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations,pg. 45): The environmental analysis undertaken for the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach indicates that, while mitigation measures would be effective in reducing the level of short-term air quality impacts, the project may still result in significant adverse impacts in regards to short-term (construction period) air quality. It should be noted that the proiect's unavoidable adverse impacts would occur under current General Plan designations. However,the Findings of Facts also state, based on all evidence presented at the Council's September 6, 2005 hearing and subsequent to that hearing- including the benefits provided in the Owner Participation Agreement to be formally considered at the Council's February 27, 2006 CUP/CDP hearing—that: ...the benefits of the Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach (as described above) outweigh the adverse short-term air quality impacts associated with the construction of Project. The adoption of Statements of Overriding Consideration ( SOC ) for short-term construction period air quality impacts are unavoidable in project EIRs throughout the non-attainment, South Coast Air Basin. As stated by City staff, SOC's for such short-term construction air quality impacts have been adopted throughout Southern California and on numerous EIRs in the City. If non-mitigated construction period air quality impacts overridden through appropriate adoption of an SOC could be utilized as a concurrent finding for denial of a conditional use permit("CUP") under Zoning Code section 241.10,the City would be unable to issue a single CUP for any development project in the City for which an SOC had been adopted. There is simply no legal basis and no precedent for the notion that an impact under CEQA, properly addressed within a certified EIR, provides a simultaneous rationale for a CUP finding of detriment. The City Council should not equate transitory or short-term impacts of construction activity that, of necessity, occurs on every development project, with the type of detriment associated with ongoing establishment and operation over a long period of time of the proposed land use, which would need to be identified to justify a denial under Zoning Code section 24 1.10 A.1. 258057 1.DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX &ELLIOTT, LLP Mayor Sullivan and Councilmembers February 24, 2006 Page 3 2. CEQA Requires the City Council to Consider the Project's Economic Benefits. At least one Councilmember has publicly raised a question as to whether or not the City Council may consider the project's economic benefits when making the findings required under CEQA for project approvals. Of course, CEQA is primarily concerned with environmental impacts and not economic benefits. However, in this case the City Council is required under CEQA to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations ("SOC") in addition to making certain environmental findings regarding the level of significance of the project's potential environmental impacts. It is the SOC that invokes consideration of the project's economic benefits. The REIR identified that this project may result in unavoidable short-term air quality impacts during construction. The REIR stated that this construction-related impact could not be avoided despite the implementation of several applicable mitigation measures(page 5.9-36). Moreover,the REIR concluded that this construction-related impact could not be avoided even if the "Reduced Facility Size"alternative were adopted (pages 7-23 and 7-24). Consequently, section 21081 of the CEQA statute requires the City Council to consider adoption of a SOC before it may approve the project. Section 15093(a) of the State Guidelines for Implementing CEQA details the specific procedure to be followed when considering a SOC. "CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable,the economic, legal, social,technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects the adverse environmental effects may be considered 'acceptable."' (Emphasis added.) In keeping with the clear mandate of CEQA law, City staff has properly identified the full range of project benefits that must be considered by the City Council in connection with the SOC. Representatives of the applicant will be available to discuss those benefits at the public hearing. 3. Poseidon's Financial Capacity to Perform; Financial Instruments Posted. Poseidon has previously presented its corporate profile in its presentation to the City Council on September 6, 2005, including information on its principal investor, Warburg Pincus. Poseidon has indicated that Warburg Pincus has a wide array of corporate, institutional, and private equity investors (such as Boeing Corp.), including various public retirement funds such as Cal Pers. 258057_1.DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX& ELLIOTT, LLP Mayor Sullivan and Councilmembers February 24, 2006 Page 4 Perhaps the strongest indicator of Poseidon's capacity and commitment to perform and to see the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Facility through to completion is its track record in the City of Huntington Beach from the year 2000 to date. Poseidon has expended over$6 million to date on project management and administration, engineering,environmental,permitting, legal counsel,planning consultants and City processing fees. Approximately $600,000 - $800,000 of this total has been for Poseidon's required reimbursement for City staff costs, as well as entitlement application and processing fees. Given that Poseidon has patiently endured a never-ending gauntlet of entitlement requirements, additional City peer review and scrutiny, seven Planning Commission hearings, five City Council meetings, numerous community outreach meetings and scores of individual, community, staff and Council briefing sessions over the past six years, it should be self-evident that Poseidon is committed to this important water supply project, and is keenly interested in its completion and successful operation. 4 Private Ownership of Desalination and Other Water Treatment Facilities is Prevalent;No Multinational Treaty Exemptions from Environmental Regulations for Privately-Owned Facilities. The Coastal Commission's staff has continued to insist that"due to provisions of international treaties (NAFTA, GAT, GATT)"privately-owned or privately-operated desalination facilities "may escape certain locally-imposed health and environmental standards." (May 26, 2005 Coastal Commission letter of Tom Luster, Energy and Ocean Resources Unit staff member,to Ricky Ramos, City Project Planner). The City Council should be aware that private sector firms currently provide water and wastewater services through various municipal arrangements to over 50 California communities. The investor-owned water utility sector is the domestic water supplier to one-in-five Californians, according to the Water Partnership Council. Furthermore, one-half of the existing California desalination facilities listed in the March 2004 Coastal Commission report(Table 1) are privately-owned. The Coastal Commission staff s May 26, 2005 statement referenced above, and the discussion in the March 2004 Desalination Policy Report regarding "multinational trade agreements" overlooks the fact that NAFTA, GATS and GATT treaties specifically exempt environmental measures taken by a member state to protect the environment. NAFTA, for example,has numerous built-in safeguards to assure that environmental protection measures are fully applicable to private seawater desalination facilities in California. 258057_1.DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Mayor Sullivan and Councilmembers February 24, 2006 Page 5 Notwithstanding the presence of these safeguards, the March 2004 Coastal Commission Desalination Policy paper, in an imprecise comparison, ominously pronounces that: In a case pending before the NAFTA tribunal, (Cavelian)Methanex Corporation, maker of the gasoline additive MTBE, is seeking$970 million in damages due to California's phase-out of that additive, which Methanex characterizes as a barrier to free trade. The Coastal Commission report then goes on to conclude that"Coastal Act policies as applied to private (multinational) desalination facilities could potentially be interpreted as barriers to free trade if the Coastal Commission imposed permit conditions that were overly burdensome or subjective..." The Coastal Commission staff has not cited a single example of a private water company or sponsors of private desalination facilities that have received or even sought any dispensation from environmental laws or regulations in California, or any exemption from Coastal Act provisions. Moreover, as to the pending Methanex decision referenced in the 2004 Coastal Commission report, a three-member NAFTA tribunal dismissed the Canadian methanol producer's claim on August 9, 2005. According to an August 10, 2005 State Department press release,the decision"represents a vindication of the prerogative of states to take action to protect public health and the environment without running afoul of the investment protection provisions of international trade agreements and investment treaties." 5. Emergency Water Supply Assurance. Members of the public and at least one Councilmember have questioned what might happen to the City's contracted emergency water supply from the Seawater Desalination Facility during a declared water shortage emergency. Legally and practically, what happens in an emergency depends in large part on two factors: the type of emergency and the source of water supply that is impacted by the emergency. The California Emergency Services Act(commencing with Government Code Section 8550), directs the emergency response actions that may be taken at the State, County and local level. As would be expected, any powers vested in local public officials are subordinated to the Governor's powers if the Governor decides to exercise emergency powers. In that instance, all local governmental agencies (including water agencies and other special districts) must"render all possible assistance"to the Governor. If the water shortage emergency is the result of an earthquake that damages pipelines or other important facilities in the Orange County water delivery system,the 258057_1.DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX& ELLIOTT, LLP Mayor Sullivan and Councilmembers February 24, 2006 Page 6 answer to the question will hinge upon the extent of damage to the Seawater Desalination Facility. Because the Seawater Desalination Facility and water transmission pipeline will be among the most recently constructed components of the Orange County water supply system, compliance with current building codes and construction in accord with the latest earthquake safety standards will result in a greater ability of the facility to withstand earthquakes and other potential disasters. However, it may be the case that a significant earthquake damages both the Seawater Desalination Facility and other facilities in the Orange County water delivery system. In that scenario, it is foreseeable that the proximity of the Seawater Desalination Facility to the City water system will result in fewer and less extensive repairs being needed, as compared with potential damage to miles of pipeline in the existing countywide delivery system. To understand further benefits of this new source of emergency water supply to the City requires an examination of how the other City water supplies could be impacted in a declared emergency. Huntington Beach obtains a large part of its water supply from the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin. The City(and the other pumpers in the County) claim historic water rights to continue to pump water from the Basin to meet the reasonable and beneficial needs of its citizens. However,those rights have never been legally adjudicated. Instead, Huntington Beach and the other pumpers consented to legislative formation of a special local agency—the Orange County Water District—and have (with little protest over the years) agreed to the regulatory actions taken by OCWD to safeguard the continuing availability of groundwater. If a local emergency (localized groundwater contamination for example) threatened the City's existing groundwater supply today(without the benefit of the Seawater Desalination Facility),the City would be in the position of relying on non-groundwater sources of supply over which it has no control. A lesser percentage(approximately 35%to 45% of the City's supply)has been historically obtained by the City from the Metropolitan Water District("MWD") of Southern California through its local member agency, the Municipal Water District of Orange County ("MWDOC"). This water is imported by MWD and delivered through pipelines to the City. Either MWD or MWDOC (or both) could determine, by action of their governing boards under Water Code Section 350 (and over the objections of the City),whether and how to deliver imported water during an emergency. Cities and counties do not have express authority under the California Emergency Services Act or other statutes to modify the actions taken by local water boards. Only the Governor has express authority to suspend or modify actions taken by local water boards. If a local emergency threatened the imported water supply to the City of Huntington Beach,the City would need to rely on actions taken by MWD and/or MWDOC. The water produced for the City by the seawater desalination facility, however, would not be under the control of MWD or MWDOC (except for product water those entities may contract for in supply agreements with Poseidon). In other words, action taken by MWD or MWDOC to declare a water shortage emergency would not impact any separate 258057_1.DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Mayor Sullivan and Councilmembers February 24, 2006 Page 7 agreement that Poseidon has with the City to provide emergency supply. Those agencies only have control over their own water supply. Only the Governor and, arguably in a regional or local emergency, the County of Orange or City of Huntington Beach could take action to direct water produced from the desalination facility to specific uses. The City is,therefore, in a much better position to deal with an emergency event that impacts the existing water delivery system with the Poseidon seawater desalination facility than without it. 6. Poseidon's Project Does not Limit HBGS's Options for Cooling Technology. The question of what happens to the Seawater Desalination Facility if AES ceases operations or changes its technology(e.g., "Once Through Cooling") has continually been raised during these proceedings, and Poseidon and City staff have addressed this issue publicly on more than one occasion, including formal responses to written comments on the REIR. Now it is being asked again because of a draft resolution regarding once through cooling in California power plants that the State Lands Commission will consider at a future meeting. This is not a new question. The May 26, 2005 letter from Coastal Commission staff member Tom Luster asked whether approval of the Seawater Desalination Facility would impact the power plant's ability to change to an alternative cooling system. This question implies that the Coastal Commission has adopted a policy on once through cooling. We would note that Mr. Luster testified at the February 9, 2006 State Lands Commission meeting that his comments on the matter were not authorized by the Commission. Nevertheless,the City has addressed a potential conversion to alternative cooling. Response to REIR comment Zan(as found in the Final REIR approved by the City Council on September 6, 2005) states: "The proposed project would not affect the HBGS' ability to convert to an alternative cooling system and would not affect operation of the generating station. In the event that the HBGS once-through cooling water system is decommissioned,the project applicant may need to assume ownership of the intake and outfall. Refer to Response 1 g, above." Response I g states: "In the event that the project applicant were to assume ownership of the existing HBGS intake and outfall for any reason,the ownership transfer would be treated as a separate project. The transfer would be subject to applicable CEQA and regulatory agency permit requirements. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for such a transfer would occur at that time. In addition, future potential operating scenarios of HBGS are speculative at this point." In the same way, future potential actions of the State Lands Commission are speculative at this point. The state-wide debate has only just begun and the detailed scientific evidence that must be considered and weighed has not yet been presented to the State Lands 258057_1.DOC NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX&ELLIOTT, LLP Mayor Sullivan and Councilmembers February 24, 2006 Page 8 Commission. In the case at hand, it is interesting to note that the Huntington Beach Retool Project Entrainment and Impingement Final Analysis,prepared by the California Energy Commission(and made a part of this record of proceedings when it was submitted to the Council during the August 2005 workshop on the REIR), does not identify decommissioning of the HBGS once through cooling system as a necessary or preferred alternative for mitigation of any HBGS entrainment or impingement impacts and, as stated above,the Coastal Commission itself-despite extensive staff interest in alternative cooling-has not taken a formal position on the matter. Finally, Poseidon has committed to obtaining independent permits and approvals from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Coastal Commission and other agencies with regulatory authority over this project. The success and continued operation of the Seawater Desalination Facility requires the existing ocean infrastructure to retrieve seawater as source water for the facility, however it is not dependent on the once through cooling technology currently being employed by the HBGS. We hope this information provides additional legal and policy guidance on the referenced issues. We will be available at the February 27 City Council hearing to address these issues in greater detail as necessary. Sincere Jo . Erskine OSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP Ronald A. Van Blarcom of VAN BLARCOM LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN JPE/rst cc: Penny Culbreth-Graft Paul Emery Howard Zelefsky Mary Beth Broeren Jennifer McGrath 258057_i.DOC Esparza, Patty From: Craig Justice [justice@lagunabeachcity.net] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 9:48 AM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon CUP/CDP Conditions Importance: High Dear City Council Members, for your consideration, I believe an important condition may be missing from Section #4 of the CUP/CDP - unless I missed it. Should the project go forward, it seems appropriate they satisfy this requirement before grading starts. Condition: Obtain California Energy Commission permits and approvals. The CEC has told me that the CEC permit for AES units 3&4 expire in 2011. They will need to apply for permit renewal. In addition, if AES facility modifications (to support the deal plant) are completed after the new permit is issued, this will trigger the need for a CEC permit amendment. Another consideration are impacts units 1&2, which are not currently covered under a CEC permit. Modifications to shared facilities between units 3 &4 and 1 & 2 such as the discharge line, could possibly trigger the need for a CEC permit for units 1&2. Regards, Craig Justice i 1 Albers, Patricia From: baalcott@earthlink.net Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:47 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Please make sure tonight 2/27 when you make the decision about Poseidon please consider the following four points: 1. You must make certain that there is legal representation for the city of HB and its residents to protect us from any problems with this company and this whole project and make public who this legal representation is. For example: Make certain that the City of HB and its residents are legally protected against any problems that arise with Poseidon: a) should they file bankruptcy, and the desalination plant doesn't work make sure the residents of HB don't pay for repairs and work to get it working again, b)should they file bankruptcy, and the project isn't finished, make sure the residents of HB don't have to pay for the project to be finished, c) etc, etc, 2. make certain that Poseidon is flush enough to finish the project and see it through to production. 3. The technology that Poseidon is using is the most functional and that when technology is upgraded, that the company Poseidon is responsible for implementing it and not the residents of HB. 4. That the environmental impact is minimal and all the reports are based on facts and not emotions. I have attended most of the council meetings and watched on TV and researched Poseidon and it worries me greatly. I am a software engineer, not an environmental or other type of engineer so I don't have the expertise in this field. I am also not a financial person, but with Poseidon's background and history, I want this city council to really look at the impact this will have on all of the residents of HB. Please consider all of the above and more if you think of anything to add to this before you make a decision. Sincerely, Barbara Scott Alcott 17421 Ojai Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 714-375-1940 CAJ v 1 Honored members of the City Council Page ] of 4 Albers, Patricia From: Marie Trout [marie@waltertrout.com] Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:28 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon and Pentagon Honored members of the City Council! The Pentagon made a report a few years ago that was leaked to a paper in the United Kingdom outlining the worst case scenario of Global Warming effects. It is believed by many that these trends are already starting to be seen with the violent storms and the overall change in the weather pattern. As forecasted by this report, and by many signs we already see, we all know that water shortage will be a staple of the future, and the better we can address this without adverse effects on our environment,the better. I am hearing conflicting messages regarding HOW MUCH water the Poseidon project will make available for Huntington Beach itself. If, as the Pentagon report allegedly states, water shortage is going to be a major factor threatening our security, because of the scarcity of water availability, I think the plant can be a good thing for Huntington Beach IF and only IF certain points are addressed and secured for our citizens. l. Making sure that Huntington Beach gets water rights, so if needed in the future our City does not have to buy for top dollar, when the water will be sold to the highest bidder, but that our City is guaranteed a certain amount of water either for free or at a fixed affordable rate. 2. That any future potential clean up costs will be covered by Poseidon NOT tax payers 3. That we take every precaution to make the Poseidon adventure gentle on our environment to save our beaches and our being a tourist destination. I hope that you will take great care in your decision making process and please consider the future as well as your legacy to our town as much as the immediate gain and advantages. My main concern other than making sure that our ocean stays healthy is that Huntington Beach secures rights to a good amount of water if and when needed. After all, this plant that will undoubtedly be an eyesore, a polluter, and a stench fest for us living close by! Here is the article in the Observer for your viewing"pleasure". Below this"paste"are a couple of links to other similar articles about the Pentagon report. Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us • Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war • Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years • Threat to the world is greater than terrorism Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York Sunday February 22, 2004 The Observer 2/27/2006 Honored members of the City Council Page 2 of 4 Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian'climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts,famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies.The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,'concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again,warfare would define human life.' The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration,which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority. The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall,who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Climate change should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions. Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like.Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change. Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon.They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change. A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch. One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible. Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change. 2/27/2006 Honored members of the City Council Page 3 of 4 Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office-and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism -said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.' Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored. 'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence.The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,'added Watson. 'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,'said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace. Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020'catastrophic'shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war.They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure,famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated. Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.' Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said. 'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.' So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign. The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed'Yoda'by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence. Symons,who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'it is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.' Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,'he added. 2/27/2006 Honored members of the City Council Page 4 of 4 Below are a couple of links to further explore this topic: http:l/www co.,r..mandreams,org/headltnes04/0222-01 htm_ http://www.yale.edu/ysec/ILEC/itec.xex/ilec/news/GWoped.pdf Thank you very much for your attention to this and for serving our community well! Marie Trout Fish-Net Productions, Inc. Personal Managemnet Walter Trout www.waltertrout.com 2/27/2006 'z� HBWater Treatment Facility Ed Laird Suzanne Beukema Noble Waite Cathy Mescbuk Dear Huntington Beach Residents: We need your help! The Huntington Beach City Council has reviewed Poseidon Resources'proposed Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility since 2001 —and now a crucial council meeting takes place on Monday, February 27th. Contact your City Council members and urge them to vote in favor of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP)/Conditional Use Permit(CUP). The city council certified the Environmental Impact Report on September 6, 2005. On February 271 it will consider final approvals for land use permits. The Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility offers valuable benefits to our community: Nearly$70 million to the City of HB— d Guarantee 1 Safe Water Supply No Risk to Taxpayers $3 million in ater avings $54 million in Property Taxes Cf $1.5 million in Utility Taxes L!f $2 million in Ci -Directed Grant Funds Cd $1.9 million in Street Enhancements ^ Because of the secured benefits the facility has been endorsed by: • The Orange County Taxpayers Association • Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce • Orange County Register • Orange County Association of Realtors • Orange County Business Council • Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades Co ci • Pacific West Association of Realtors • thousands of Huntington Beach residents We urge you to voice your support for this project to the City. Mail the enclosed,postage-paid postcard showing your support for the ma fits the Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility brings to our community- Sincerely, 1 ��,��,<r;'?�eJ°�,'�'� � C%iL• l Ed Laird Suzanne Beukema Noble Waite Cathy Meschuk 419 MAIN STREET, SUITE A• HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92648 _- '° U CIS w H 0 03 bo 4-4 o o a� � o a� O O ; � CJ cn 493 u.� U o v f .-�- 5e� a2 C E Q1 12 2006 FFB 24 PM I: 45 SU4ni;" i(3 Etkc` j" i February 24, 2006 TO: Huntington Beach City Council FROM: Surfrider Foundation VIA E-Mail RE: Poseidon Desalination CDP No.02-05(Seawater Desalination Project) Dear City Council Members: We are writing on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation and our more than 45,000 members —all of whom are dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of our coast and ocean. We first want to thank you for your careful consideration of this letter. Please accept the comments below in regards to the Coastal Development Permit(CDP) for the Poseidon Huntington Beach Desalination Facility. As detailed below and in the attached letters,the issuance of a permit for this desalination facility would violate the policies of the California Coastal Act and the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program(LCP). Furthermore,we ask that you consider the issuance of the CDP within the context of the numerous concerns about the inadequacy of the Recirculated Environmental Impact Report(REIR)that were raised by Surfrider Foundation and several environmental organizations, numerous state and federal government agencies, and members of the general public. Among many inadequacies,the REIR failed to fully inform the public of- - the interrelationship of the proposed desal facility with the Huntington Beach Generating Station(HBGS),the foreseeable future of the cooling water intake structure at HBGS, and the associated impacts to marine life attributable to the proposed desal project as a"stand alone" facility; - a clearly identified need for the project and a reasonable range of alternatives for meeting that need—including greater reliance on future wastewater recycling, water conservation, and stormwater retention; - the increased energy demand, both for this project proposal individually and for the multiple statewide ocean desalination proposals cumulative) of reliance on p , p p Y ocean desalination as a new source of fresh water supply. NATIONAL OFFICE-PO BOX 6010-SAN CLEMENTE,CA 92674-6010 (949)492-8170-FAX(949)492-8142-www.surfridenorQ-E-MAIL info a@surfrider.org 1 We have described in the two attached letters how the issuance of a CDP for this facility will violate the City's LCP. Briefly, the attached letters document: - the City's goals, objectives and implementation policies on alternatives for fresh water supplies that call for implementation of water conservation,wastewater reclamation and stormwater retention—as opposed to the clear City policy to encourage the study of desalination production; - the misinterpretation of the standards for compliance with CEQA versus compliance with the City's policies in the LCP. In particular,the standard for minimizing impacts to marine resources does not demand a finding of significance and does not allow for after the fact restoration. Per this writing,we are including for your consideration the LCP language regarding the maintenance and restoration of marine water quality to mitigate adverse impacts on marine organisms. We are also including language on energy production and the City's clear policy for encouraging alternative sources—as opposed to permitting projects that exacerbate the limits of existing energy production. Again,thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Joe Geever Don Schulz Regional Manager Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation Surfrider Foundation 8117 W Manchester Ave, #297 PO Box 3087 Playa del Rey, CA 90293 Long Beach, CA 90803 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (Please consider these comments in addition to those submitted in the attached letters of October 17, 2005 and January 9, 2006) LCP § C6 —Water and Marine Resources The Staff Recommendations for"Findings and Conditions of Approval" (Findings)refers to LCP policy C 6.1.1: "Require that new development include mitigation measures to prevent the degradation of water quality of groundwater basins,wetlands and surface waters."See: Findings, Attachment p. 1.3. This quote is inaccurate. The actual language in the LCP is: "Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and at a 2 minimum, prevent the degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water. LCP§C 6.1.1 [emphasis added]. Furthermore,the LCP also includes several relevant policies to "...mitigate the impacts of human activities on marine organisms and the marine environment...."See:LCP§C 6.1 (Objective). These more relevant policies that were not included in the Findings include: - C 6.1.2: 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. - C 6.1.4: The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and,where feasible, restored. The misquotation and/or omission of relevant policy in the Findings precludes thorough consideration of the CDP. The Findings go on to suggest that, "Based on the analysis contained in the Recirculated EIR, no mitigation measures are required to protect ocean water quality."See: Findings,p. 1.3 However,there is no similar finding that mitigation measures to enhance water quality have been considered—as required in the misquoted LCP policy. Furthermore, there is no similar finding that marine resources will be maintained, enhanced or restored—as mandated in the LCP. Once again,the Findings have confused the standards for compliance with CEQA with those of the California Coastal Act. Reliance on the Recirculated EIR conclusions about "significance"is insufficient for analyzing compliance with the City's own LCP §§ C 6.1.2 and C 6.1.4. In conclusion, even the Recirculated EIR found that the discharge of cleaning solutions and concentrated brine would impact the biological productivity of the zone of dilution surrounding the discharge conduit by displacing certain species. This adverse impact could be exacerbated if, according to the Statement of Facts and Findings, "an alternative to discharging the `first rinse' of the RO membrane cleaning solution into the OCSD system is to discharge the solution(`first rinse' and all subsequent rinses) into the Pacific Ocean via the HBGS outfall."These cleaning chemicals include industrial soaps and weak solutions of acids and sodium hydroxide. Approval of the CDP would violate the LCP without thorough consideration and documentation of whether the discharge of concentrated brine and cleaning solutions met all the policies contained in LCP policies C 61.1, C 61.2, C 61.4,et seq. LCP § C 8 —Energy Facilities Local Coastal Program policy C 8 sets the goal to: "Accommodate energy facilities with the intent to promote beneficial effects while mitigating any potential adverse impacts." An example of the policies to carry out the goal includes: "Promote the use of solar energy and encourage energy conservation."See: LCP§C 8.3.1. 3 It is well documented in the record that ocean desalination, despite claims of improvements in efficiency, is still the most energy demanding alternative for fresh water supplies. The EIR documents that the proposed project will require 35 megawatts and that this demand will create an estimated increase in the Huntington Beach load of approximately nine percent(9%)over existing demand. See: Draft REIR§ 6.0,p 6.24. The REIR fails to compare the energy demands of wastewater reclamation. More importantly, the REIR fails to document the potential energy conservation that could be realized from aggressive pursuit of water conservation and stormwater retention programs. As noted in our previous letters,these programs have been documented in the Urban Water Management Plan published by the Municipal Water District of Orange County as sufficient means to meet the fresh water demands of the region until the year 2030 planning horizon. Therefore, approval by the City Council of the Poseidon Huntington Beach Desalination Project proposal would violate the City's clear policy to "...encourage energy conservation." Attachments: Letter from Surfrider Foundation to City of Huntington Beach(dated October 17,2005) Letter from Surfrider Foundation to City of Huntington Beach(dated January 9,2006) 4 RECEIVED 2006 FEB 24 PM t: 46 Id Surfrider ` . , C Foundation. January 9, 2006 TO: Huntington Beach City Council (Via e-mail) RE: Poseidon Desalination CDP No. 02-05 (Seawater Desalination Project) Dear Huntington Beach City Council: We are writing on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation and our more than 50,000 members. Surfrider Foundation is an environmental organization dedicated to the restoration and protection of our coasts and oceans. We want to thank the City Council for your consideration of the following comments. We continue to believe the FREIR for this project is woefully inadequate and that recent revelations about the design and potential operation of this facility raise significant environmental concerns that have yet to be fully analyzed. Nonetheless, even assuming the FREIR is adequate, for the sake of analyzing the Coastal Development Permit(CDP),the project's identified impacts violate the City's Local Coastal Program(LCP). A non-exhaustive list of concerns include: 1)the policies adopted in the LCP clearly identify preferred alternatives for meeting the freshwater demands of the area, and this project is inconsistent with those delineated policies. Furthermore, as noted in numerous comments on the FREIR,this project is inconsistent with the regional Urban Water Management Plan produced by the Municipal Water District of Orange County—which identifies a freshwater supply portfolio that is consistent with the Huntington Beach LCP policies. 2)New information suggests that the FREIR did not fully disclose the design of the project proposal and consequently omitted components that will exacerbate existing impacts on marine life and associated marine ecosystems. Furthermore, even using the impacts documented in the FREIR,the CDP fails to recognize the different standards for analysis between CEQA requirements and the policies of the LCP. Finally, full disclosure would include an analysis of the desalination project as a"stand alone" facility. These broad points are outlined in greater detail below. Once again,thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to a thorough response. Sincerely, Joe Geever Southern California Regional Manager Surfrider Foundation 8117 W Manchester Ave #297 Playa del Rey, CA 90293 NATIONAL OFFICE—PO BOX 6010—SAN CLEMENTE,CA 92674-6010 (949)492-8170—FAX(949)492-8142—www.surfrider.ore-E-MAIL infoksurfrider.org 1 ') ANALYSIS of POSEIDON CDP & LCP CONSISTENCY 1) "Alternatives" Analysis and LCP Consistency As we have noted numerous times in previous comments on the environmental analysis of this proposed project,there are several alternatives for meeting the future demand for freshwater in the region. Briefly re-stated, the need for this project can be met through greater efforts at water conservation, wastewater reclamation, and stormwater management. In fact,the regional water purveyor,the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC),has also identified these alternative sources of freshwater in their recently published Urban Water Management Plan. MWDOC has concluded that future demand for freshwater can be met through these alternative sources. Importantly, these alternatives also have associated environmental benefits, including reduced urban runoff from irrigation conservation and stormwater retention, and reduced ocean discharges from expanded wastewater reclamation. The "Request for City Council Action"(dated January 9, 2006)recommending approval of the Coastal Development Permit(CDP) cites the consistency of the proposed facility with Section C 6.1.13 ["Encourage research and feasibility studies regarding ocean water desalination as an alternative source of potable water. Participate in regional studies and efforts where appropriate."] There is no other reference to LCP policies on alternative sources of potable water cited in the Request for City Council Action. LCP Section C 6.1.13 The Request for City Council Action(hereinafter"Request") seems to imply that the proposed desalination production facility is consistent with the LCP policy encouraging research and feasibility studies: "By building the facility and locating it in Huntington Beach,the facility will demonstrate the opportunities offered by desalination, and will offer cities, counties, and the State of California a tangible example of how desalination can become more widely accepted throughout the State and the nation, and will encourage additional research and feasibility studies regarding ocean desalination as an alternative source of potable water." See: Request Attachment 1.6. In effect, the "Request"has characterized a production facility as somehow participating in and/or encouraging research and feasibility studies. This bold assertion is not substantiated in any way and is, on its face, counter-intuitive. Research and feasibility studies are already being conducted in other locations around the State of California. It is unclear how the construction of a production facility, prior to the conclusion of on-going research and feasibility studies, is "participating" in these regional studies. Furthermore, it is unclear how the construction of a full-blown production facility encourages"research and feasibility studies." Common sense and a reasonable interpretation of the City's LCP would conclude that research and feasibility studies be conducted prior to 2 the development of production facilities. Therefore,the implicit conclusion that this project proposal is consistent with the policy contained in the City's LCP § C 6.1.13 is flawed. LCP Sections C 6.1.12, C 6.1.14, C 6.1.18(c) Maybe more importantly,the analysis of sub-Section C 6.1.13 in the Request for City Council Action is taken out of the context of other relevant policies contained in that Section. A more comprehensive review of the City's LCP indicates a broader policy of encouraging implementation of alternative sources of freshwater supplies—as opposed to the policy to study ocean water desalination. For example: LCP § C 6.1.12 encourages water conservation implementations; LCP § C 6.1.14 encourages implementing wastewater reclamation projects2; and LCP § C 6.1.18(c) encourages flood control projects that provide percolation to existing groundwater supplies3. As noted in our comments on previous iterations of the EIR and REIR, the environmental benefits of these alternative sources of freshwater supplies were not thoroughly considered. This absence of any analysis in the environmental documents, combined with the limited citation of LCP policies in the Request for City Council Action, has precluded a thorough review of critical issues surrounding the approval of a Coastal Development Permit. Therefore, the Request for City Council Action is arguably incomplete and misleading, and approval of the CDP would violate the comprehensive policies referenced above and codified in the City's LCP. 2) Entrainment/Impingement and LCP Mitigation Policy There are several issues raised in the administrative record on this project that are relevant to the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit. - First, the Request for City Council Action confuses legal standards in the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)with the clear policy of the City's own Local Coastal Program. - Second,the Request for City Council Action concludes that the withdrawal of ocean water for the desalination facility is not regulated by the Clean Water Act § 316(b). That is exactly the reason why the proposed project needs to be analyzed as a"stand alone"project before any permits are issued. - Finally, it has come to our attention that the Project Proponent has a patent for an intake method to mix the hot water from the generator's discharge with cooler water 1 Coastal Element, §C 6.1.12:Periodically review the City's policies on water conservation,including the Water Conservation Ordinance,to ensure the use of state of the art conservation measures for new development and redevelopment,and retrofitting of existing development,where feasible and appropriate, to implement these measures.(emphasis added) z Coastal Element, §C 6.1.14:Encourage water reclamation projects,including household wastewater reclamation,and the use of reclaimed water for purposes such as irrigation,where feasible and appropriate. (emphasis added) 3 Coastal Element§C 6.1.18(c):New flood control projects and substantial reconstruction of existing flood control facilities shall,to the extent feasible: ... [c)] Slow water to encourage percolation through the use of off-line detention basins or other similar structures....(emphasis added) 3 that by-passes the generator(see additional discussion below). Because this method apparently improves the overall energy efficiency of the desalination process,the Project Proponent will likely implement this newly patented process at the Huntington Beach facility. Therefore,the additional marine life mortality from the by-passed portion of the desalination "feed water" should be analyzed both in a newly recirculated EIR, as well as reviewed for consistency with the LCP. Additionally, because CEQA § 15126.4 requires an analysis of feasible energy efficiency measures, a revised EIR must also review how this patented process would affect energy use of the proposed facility. LCP § C 6.1.19 versus CEQA Review The Request for City Council Action has confused the CEQA requirement to mitigate "significant" impacts to the environment with the stricter policy in the City's LCP to provide "maximum feasible mitigation measures to minimize damage to marine organisms...." The City's LCP states: "Prior to the 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." See: LCP § C 6.1.19. The proposed project is a new facility in that it is taking seawater and pumping it through pre-filtration and reverse osmosis filter trains over and above the existing uses of seawater for cooling the Huntington Beach Generating Station. Importantly,the City's LCP policy does not require a finding of"significant"impacts to trigger the mitigation measures. In contrast to CEQA,the City's policy requires maximum feasible mitigation measures to minimize damage to marine organisms due to entrainment— regardless of whether that entrainment mortality is considered"significant." In the "Statement of Facts and Findings"the City documents that: "The desalination project is estimated to increase mortality by 1.2 percent(from 94.1%to 95.3%) at flows of 507 MGD and by 4.6 percent (from 94.1%to 98.7%) at flows of 127 MGD." See: Finding for Impingement and Entrainment, page 17 of 48. The "Statement of Facts and Findings" goes on to conclude that this mortality attributable to the desalination facility is "insignificant." Id. The reasoning employed in the "Statement of Facts and Findings"has applied the wrong standard. There is nothing in the City's LCP that requires a finding of"significant" impacts before triggering the requirement to provide maximum feasible mitigation measures. Therefore, the CDP should be denied until the project proponent identifies and provides maximum feasible mitigation measures for at the very least the damage to P g rY g marine organisms admittedly attributable to the project. Further, the additional water that would be used due to the patented process described below may, in fact,increase entrainment impacts to levels that would be considered "significant" under CEQA; however this has not yet been addressed in the EIR. 4 Clean Water Act § 316(b) and the California Coastal Act The City has mischaracterized recently adopted regulations on cooling water intakes under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act § 316(b) and has not thoroughly analyzed the implication of these regulations to the co-location of the proposed desalination facility. The "Statement of Facts and Findings" argues that, "[T]he proposed desalination facility would not result in significant entrainment impacts even upon implementation of the new U.S Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) 316(b) final rule (which mandates a reduction in entrainment by 60 to 90 percent....)." See: Statement of Facts and Findings, page 17 of 48. The City then goes on to imply that"[immplementation of an improved intake screening system, velocity reduction, or other EPA approved method"would bring the HBGS into compliance with those regulations without having any implications on the co-location of the desalination facility. Id. First, the City's analysis has not fully documented the recommendations for reducing entrainment contained in the final rule on 316(b). The limited choice of"improved intake screening" and/or"velocity reduction" are, in fact, methods to reduce impingement, not entrainment, and have little to do with meeting the rule's"performance standard"of reducing entrainment by 90%. Furthermore, HBGS has not been granted a permit under the new rule. It is foreseeable that,within the realm of alternatives for meeting the new performance standards in the 316(b)regulations, HBGS will have to dramatically reduce the volume of its current cooling water intake. Obviously,this reduction of volume will have a direct implication on the operation of the desalination facility, as well as the marine life mortality that is attributable to the desalination operations. In the "Request for City Council Action"the City goes on to argue that"withdrawal of feedwater for desalination is from the HBGS cooling water discharge and not subject to intake regulation under the Federal Clean Water Act (316b)." See: Request for City Council Action, Attachment 1.5. This reasoning is precisely why it is critical for the City to consider the operation of the desalination facility as a"stand alone"plant. Should HBGS reduce the volume of cooling water intake by 90%to meet the requirements of the new 316(b)regulations,the result would be the elimination of the required 100 MGD for the co-located desalination facility. Furthermore, if the City's interpretation of the Clean Water Act is correct, any additional withdrawal of seawater to feed the desalination facility would not be regulated by Section 316(b). Nonetheless, the additional withdrawal of seawater for the desalination facility would be regulated by the City's policy on new or expanded seawater pumping facilities. See: LCP § C 6.1.19. Given that the future of the existing cooling water intake system at HBGS is speculative, and it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be dramatic reductions in the volume of cooling water from HBGS available as feedwater for the proposed project, the CDP must"require the provision of maximum feasible mitigation 5 measures to minimize damage to marine organisms due to entrainment" prior to approving a Coastal Development Permit. See: LCP §C 6.1.19. Substantial New Information on Feedwater Intake There is new available information on"feedwater"methods of operation that is relevant to the review of this proposed project and is not contained in the administrative record. This new information is relevant both to the previous certification of the REIR and to the applicable policies in the City's LCP. We have recently become aware that Poseidon has a patented process to improve efficiencies by mixing the hot water from the generator's cooling system discharge with colder water that is diverted around the coastal generator. See: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sectl=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search- bool.html&r=1&f=G&1=50&co 1=AND&d=ptxt&s 1=Poseidon.ASNM.&OS=AN/Poseid on&RS=AN/Poseidon If this is the method Poseidon plans to employ, it raises new and significant issues regarding marine life impacts that were not discussed in the FREIR. For example,the marine life mortality attributable to the water being diverted around the generator's cooling system and mixed with the desalination facility's"feed water"is above and beyond the mortality identified in the FREIR. To be clear, if Poseidon plans to employ their patented method for increasing plant efficiencies,the FREIR is fatally flawed and once again needs to be revised and re-circulated.We request the City fully explore this question and determine whether or not Poseidon intends to utilize the methods identified in their patented process either now or in the future. Furthermore, should Poseidon plan to employ its patented method for feedwater intakes,the policies contained in the City's LCP § C 6.1.19 are applicable to the increased seawater intake that would not be used for cooling water at HBGS. 3) Conclusion In conclusion, we want to emphasize that the inadequacies identified in the REIR by numerous organizations and agencies, including California Coastal Commission staff,have precluded a thorough consideration of the policies contained in the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program. Given the now apparent need for further evaluation of this project before approving a Coastal Development Permit(CDP), we strongly urge the City of Huntington Beach to revise and recirculate the Environmental Impact Report. Alternatively, should the City choose to review the application for a CDP given the available information, identified in he comments we strongly urge the denial of that permit based on policieside ied t above. 6 c RECEIV ED 2006 FEB 24 PM !: 47 sur a� Y ; Foundation, U:�'� C 3! TO: Huntington Beach City Council FROM: Surfrider Foundation DATE: October 17, 2005 RE: Poseidon Desalination Facility-- Statement of Overriding Considerations & CDP/CUP Dear City Councilmembers: I am writing on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation and our more than 45,000 members in regards to your upcoming decision to permit the construction of the Poseidon desalination facility in Huntington Beach. As you know, Surfrider Foundation is dedicated to the restoration and protection of our coasts and ocean, { Huntington Beach, like many areas of Southern California, is faced with the intractable problem of water pollution that threatens human health and healthy marine ecosystems. Beach closures in Huntington Beach are far too common—degrading local quality of life and undermining the City's efforts to become an attractive tourism destination. Furthermore, marine life populations and healthy marine ecosystems are experiencing dramatic declines. Sound public policy demands a holistic approach to meeting our future water supply needs, improving water quality in our local waterways and beaches, and restoring our marine ecosystems. For the reasons stated below, the Huntington Beach City Council should find that the project proponent has not adequately demonstrated a need for this project and that the stated benefits do not outweigh the impacts. Furthermore, the proposed project is not consistent with the City's own conditions for a Coastal Development Permit. I Sincerely, Joe Geever Southern California Regional Manager Surfrider Foundation No Need for the Proiect The most relevant agency to determine the need for the proposed project is the Municipal Water Department of Orange County (MWDOC). MWDOC has made it clear in their ��- � 7-- C r comments on the REIR that the proposed project is not a component of their long-term planning efforts, and that, "The statement that the `No Project' alternative does not meet [future water management and supply needs] is misleading, incorrect and self-serving." See Final REIR, pg 148. We agree with MWDOC, and numerous other similar comments,that the"Project Description" and the "Need for the Project"are so narrowly defined so as to preclude reasonable alternatives that are environmentally preferable. Given that there is no need for the project, and as discussed below, alternatives to this project provide environmental benefits of direct interest to the residents of Huntington Beach, the proposed project does not provide benefits that override the documented impacts. "No Proiect Alternative" Benefits MWDOC's recently released draft Urban Water Management Plan(UWMP) identifies several components of an integrated water supply portfolio that will provide direct benefits to the residents and visitors to Huntington Beach. The draft UWMP identifies plans to invest in water conservation programs and wastewater reclamation projects, among other plans, to meet projected water supply needs for the 2030 planning horizon. Importantly,the supply portfolio does not include supplies from the proposed project. It is well known that wastewater reclamation has the added benefit of reducing ocean discharges from Orange County Sanitation District. Furthermore,recent studies by the Irvine Ranch Water District have shown that water conservation from improved residential irrigation practices can dramatically reduce urban runoff. These benefits make the "No Project Alternative" an environmentally preferable alternative, while simultaneously meeting the region's projected water demands. Given that the MWDOC draft Urban Water Management Plan identifies an alternative for meeting the projected demand for freshwater in the service area, and that this alternative includes components that can reduce impacts to local beach water quality, the CUP/CDP should be denied. Furthermore, as stated in a letter from attorney Rose Zoia dated October 13, 2005, the REIR identifies alternatives to the proposed project that are environmentally preferable and that meet the objectives of meeting regional water demands, and therefore the project as proposed should be denied. Coastal Development Permit Compliance According to the recently released documents for consideration of the CUP/CDP: 1) "Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval" October 17, 2005 cites the City's rule C 6.1.13,which states that decisions should encourage "research and feasibility studies" for desalination. Attachment 1 at 1.3 J ' The City seems to argue that building a production facility will somehow encourage research and feasibility studies elsewhere in the State. See: Attachment 1 at 1.6 This is an illogical interpretation of the City's requirements for granting a Coastal Development Permit. First, granting permits for a full production facility prior to the conclusion of numerous research and feasibility studies statewide is, in effect,putting the "cart before the horse." The State has invested over$16,000,000 in Proposition 50 funding to, among other things, further research the best technology for implementing ocean water desalination. Building production facilities does nothing to advance on-going research statewide. Furthermore,the construction of a production facility will eliminate the ability to encourage "research and feasibility studies"within the City's own jurisdiction—arguably the intent of the City's own Local Coastal Program. 2) C 6.1.19 requires "maximum feasible mitigation measures" to "minimize damage" to marine organisms for new or expanded seawater pumping facilities "in accordance with Federal and State law." See: Attachment 1 at 1.3 It is critical to note that the existing cooling water intake is not in compliance with existing federal law. During public comment on the REIR, an HBGS representative clearly stated that upgrades would be necessary to comply with the newly promulgated Federal regulations for implementing Clean Water Act § 316(b). So,by definition,the facility cannot currently meet your requirement to reduce impacts "in accordance with State and Federal law." Therefore, depending on future upgrades to the existing cooling water intake,this desal facility may be a "new or expanded seawater pumping facility" -- according to the conditions of C 6.1.19. For example, should HBGS reduce their cooling water intake volume to below 100 million gallons a day to meet the performance standard for reducing entrainment by 60 to 90 percent,the additional water withdrawn to supply the desalination facility would be a"new or expanded seawater pumping facility." Your proposed"Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations" attempts to interpret 316(b). See Attachment 2 at page 17 (5 full para). This interpretation appears to argue that entrainment can be reduced by 60 to 90% without reducing volumes of intake water below 100mgd. However,the possible methods cited in your report are either not fully explained or are irrelevant. Entrainment is, for the most part, a function of volume. It doesn't take much velocity to capture floating larvae and fish eggs that can't swim against the suction. So, reliance on velocity reductions may bring AES into compliance with the CWA 316(b) regulations' performance standard for impingement, but it is not reasonable to assume that velocity reduction would meet the performance standard for entrainment reductions. The example proposed by the City in the"Findings" is therefore confusing and/or irrelevant. r ' • It is not clear how entrainment can be reduced by 60 to 90% without dramatically reducing volume. Consequently, it is unclear how HBGS will meet the performance standards of 316(b) and still provide 100mgd for Poseidon. The staff report also seems to suggest that an"improved intake screening system"will meet the performance standards. Yet, there is no documentation of what that screening system might be. It should be noted that some screening systems may potentially reduce entrainment by prohibiting smaller organisms from entering the cooling system, but simultaneously increase "impingement"rates by simply capturing and killing more marine life on the screens. In short,the report does not offer significant evidence that HBGS can comply with the current Federal regulations and continue to withdraw the 100 million gallons a day for the proposed project. Furthermore, it is important to note that the City's language is more restrictive than the language of the current CWA 316(b)regulations. Huntington Beach's language mandates "mitigation to minimize damage" -- and this differs from the current Clean Water Act 316(b)regulations. The CWA 316(b)regulations allow"after the fact"mitigation to restore marine life impacted by the cooling water intake --under certain situations where the rule's performance standards cannot be met. The City's requirement to "minimize damage" is a"before the fact"mandate. It is unclear in the proposed"Statement of Facts and Findings"how the proposed project will meet the strict mandates of C 6 1.19. The City's continued reliance on segmenting the proposed project from the foreseeable operation of HBGS is in violation of your own planning regulations. The City should deny the CDP until AES is in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act 316(b) regulations--as called for in your LCP. Furthermore,AES and Poseidon should demonstrate that they have employed the "maximum feasible mitigation"to "minimize damage to marine organisms"before a CDP can be approved. Conclusion We very much appreciate your consideration of these comments. We encourage you to take a holistic and forward-looking review of the proposed project. We want to emphasize that denying the CDP for the proposed project is not a statement opposing all ocean water desalination facilities—either in Huntington Beach or elsewhere. In fact, denying the proposed project in its current state is simply encouraging further research into ocean water desalination technology and practices before permitting irreversible environmental impacts. MESA VERI)E COMMUNITY, INC, R E C E I E 1) A Nov.Pr,,,,>fi* Group Established 1965 "To Inform, 6_1v afe trwd Hecn.Wf Mesa V '_006 FEB 23 PM 3: 33 February 16, 2006 Mayor Dave Sullivan Y C & City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Proposed CUP for Poseidon Resources Dear Mayor Sullivan and City Council Members, This letter is a follow-up to my letter dated January 7, 2006, the contents of which expressed Mesa Verde Community, Inc., (MVCl) concerns about several pending issues surrounding the CUP for Poseidon Resources. During the January 7, 2006, Huntington Beach city council meeting, several of the MVCl Board Members had the opportunity to hear public input on the Poseidon Resource proposal. Based on the public input given during the meeting, further investigation on our behalf, and the concerns stated in the aforementioned letter, we are adamantly opposed to the approval of the Poseidon Resource proposed project. A desalination facility must be able to either connect to an existing distribution system or construct new pipelines or a distribution system to get water to the end users. This cost will vary by location, size of the service area, and other factors. This is a significant cost in much of coastal California, where most water delivery systems were engineered to move water from inland areas to the coast, not the other way around. Poseidon Resources proposed distribution pipeline is slated to run through the city of Costa Mesa, despite the Costa Mesa City Council having voted to oppose the pipeline. Poseidon Resource's proposal to build a large pipeline through the city of Costa Mesa has significant drawbacks including but not limited to the following: a. Significantly limits traffic on Adams Avenue for a number of months; b. Disturbs environmentally sensitive Fairview Park; c. Creates unacceptable levels of dust, air emissions and noise affecting our community. Noise at 50 feet from construction would be 92.2 dBA(Table 5.9-11 p.21 DRIER) equivalent to a small jet engine at takeoff. Many homes in your city and ours are less than 50 feet from the proposed construction; • May result in damage to walls and buildings due to vibrations from excavation and compaction equipment; • Does not provide plans or economic concessions for future pipeline repairs due to leaks or breaks within the city of Costa Mesa; mesa Vercie Community, Inc, P.O. Box 4102 Costa Maws,CA 92628-4102 (949)225-4296 J) c� MESA VERbE COMMUNITY, INC, Non-Profit rou Established 1965 • There are no benefits to the city of Costa Mesa contained in the Poseidon Resource proposal. The city of Costa Mesa will not be the benefactor or recipient to the water produced by Poseidon Resources; • The developer(writer) essentially stopped the detailed analysis of impact issues at the Santa Ana River while the distribution route extends into Costa Mesa beyond this point; and • No evidence uncovered that indicates Poseidon has consulted with any of the following: a. Costa Mesa Parks &Recreation Commission (Fairview Park); b. Costa Mesa Country Club; c. Fairview Developmental Center(a State of California Agency); or d. Orange County Fairgrounds (an Orange County Agency) Based on the Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act, drafted by the California Costal Commission in 2004, a desalination facility requires some level of anti-fouling treatment and regular maintenance and cleaning, which will vary based on the desalination method used, the type of materials used, and other factors. Additionally, like other water sources, once treated water is in the distribution system, it must be kept clean until it reaches the end users, so there are ongoing costs associated with maintenance and cleaning the water supply system. When various sources of water are mixed in a distribution system, they must be chemically compatible. For example, mixing water treated with chlorine and water treated with chloramines may cause problems in the system and to the end users. It is known that saltwater desalination facilities require a variety of chemicals and compounds to treat the water, clean the desalting equipment, and prepare the desalted water for distribution through the water supply system. Many of these compounds are neutralized or removed from the waste stream before being discharged,thought some may remain. Chemicals used during the desalination process included chlorine, ozone, or other biocides,various coagulants, acids, antiscalants, and others. Additionally, some materials used in the pipes, filters, or other structural elements of a desalination facility may corrode during the desalination process and add metals or other compounds to the discharge stream.. Finally, compounds or elements that occur naturally in the water column, or that may be present due to pollution, will be concentrated during the desalination process and may be discharged at levels up to twice the concentration in the source water. The desire of the Huntington Beach City Council to move forward with this project may be the potential revenue source to be derived from your decision. However long-term cost impact is a major factor that should be considered, even though it is difficult to determine the full economic cost of any source of water. Providing a water supply generally require both the relatively direct and easily determined economic outlays such as the capital cost to construct treatment plants and pipelines, the costs of operating and maintaining a water supply system, and the cost of electricity needed to pump water from one location to another- as well as indirect and non- Mesa Verde Community, Inc, P,O. Box 4`102 Costa €sa,CA 92 29« 32 9 )225- 2 2 MESA VERGE COMMUNITY, INC, Non-Profit Carts ,'�'.'staHished '1965 `To?n&irm, ducate and Beautify Mesa lards monetary costs that are usually more difficult to determine- such as the environmental costs associated with exporting water out of an area(e.g., fewer fish, smaller wetlands, societal costs (e.g., fewer recreational opportunities, decreased tourism), the costs of centralized infrastructure instead of dispersed systems, and others, These indirect costs may result in more significant economic, social,political, and environmental effects than the direct economic costs and or proposed benefits. This project does not address the long-term growth-inducing potential. It does not address or assess capacity of water delivery lines, delineation of the service area, disclose legal instruments or provide a growth level plan for the area or other similar measures as it relates to the pipelines to be used for distribution or the distribution route. We ask that you reconsider your previous decision and not issue a CUP for the Poseidon Resources proposal. Respectfully, 4A 01- Darnell Wyr Charlene shen or Arlen nes ady rennaman President Vice-President Secretary Past President i Dave Kinkade Shettler Robin Leffler ,/ Joe P narisi Treasur *La p Government Relatior� Neighborhood X�eUHIH4.rgan7elow At Lare cc: Costa Mesa Mayor, Allen Mansour & City Council Members Mesa Ve-de Community, Inc. P, . Box 4102 Chats Mesa, 49)225-4296 3 D 661 RECEIVED 2006 FEB 23 Pp 3: 33 olno( balr-d a,�, hot& "y Gc I n ?- o� w( rr✓� CU'n-'pu' rf`�" �yhu�-e � /' J p�/I/i✓U��t�F�2 lM�a rf �"(jk / cJ �� 4a�- Ml n iM 01) j 11 O"A l �-uofuiw � f p. �/�.�a fig&nyof � � hadoA alp YOUR 1t f u r ' = �IE1<Sl'—GLA$8Iv1AlL PEFiM�'t`1�1Q�6i7 HU1�1C�16TC�NS�AfCA '� -1?fi�S-fi�4(,1<�Itt1LL-�iE#��1I5"B�l�i3i3F{ES�1=E �� �T©N s # t 4" F 4 h Y Q Y�eox approval of Iuunt�n.gan$ ch 'Fxei ��e�� I want tR ctr tine � r a ThOn t Z z r T0'd %L6 S6L6b96bTLT ZT:6T 900Z-ZZ-S3d c u fvc I L P/4SE- Pl- 0 LL N i Fi rn � W cup �J J TO/TO 3Jdd 8nNH9S H 6 S6L6b96bTLT ZZ:LO 9O@Z/ZZ/ZO From:Fred Woods To:Huntington Beach City Council Date:2/23/2006 Time:2:39:28 PM Page 2 of 2 r...•.•.ti•::.•.•.•i.•.•:•i:v::.••}•:•:r.5:•}}}5:•}}r it {:;. J:•: :. �/� r.. f: i. •� ''... i ?I.•� ''•I......: V}:?••, J.•'•} ••rQ •••:':•r .•J'• r A r ?• :•: :�/ ., }:r r:::. r:: ::r r.: h.. F.{': v� :�:•}: :%.L�!•: {'{' v f i ? :.: �'S Y:,. :•.r}'•} r •'Fi� r.. ••i:•Y' .F •: �yp� ..1L.. ..v..�•$'r'. v •L. ••.. till?•:I., '•/'' 1' L t ... ..:..1 •:;.•:•:•rim :.: ..';.• '' . {}'ii' y�,�y }.:�'• 'L•'S\. f ..r. Syy�}�•{-•{r'' 'K% .'v. .�J'� gip{ £ j,'ry{+y�� •J.•:•::::•::•::•}:{•;:•;.: { { y� y'#. >Jfi? '%:i# '.{.,n...47a\%::Y/.J. :L,:•r.,,•:/.vr.v:•.•:•: •r: ,•:: •.: :! •:. ..N•.Y.V:!•:::::.Y. y: :•:: :;{.,.-..::•:rlL:•:•}:{�:•*.:.}:'}:'}}:.•.•.•:e. ••..•............... r.'? .J•.•!.r• ..J...-... r•:j•• . rl:rrX•I}.1Yr....•r..l. ...!•..... ••:F:fr..%.,•:..:••...::..•..:. . ..:r::r.•rJ.,••rJ::r.1. . ..r.::.• ..r............ . :•} {%:•:::. •.•r: •l:r::rrrvr:X:.•.•::::::.Yl:........• ..J............... :........ '%:v:�::ii{%}:%:%:•::�:i::%�:%:?. ..L_... ..r.r:•:::r.L•:J:.•4•::.4•. .4 r ..,. ..J........La,.. ..,......... . :a•X.. •.:,• !? F: y,�u�a'�.'�y. !}f, ..Lr•• ::{.. .J•. .!.. •.,• •:: .�'• :•:Sr ,•:r.•.• {?. -: �f Y': J ]�' J. SC1 # .: 1 �( .r .r " ''..4 . ..•♦ ...v ti• �{ y�:L•`.•��.J1•(];y�; f.Ji1:'' k' ..fid.......... . . k. .:r{•,r:...::r a.....ya:fr.•:ti?�S%%%}'r:?%::. .:1.;Y.:: . .S..,V.W.':: r::}}' }}��.a�� :'•�.?•! •L: �?'Y:•. ..r.:.....:}:}' ..75 ............ •.,. •. ,•- •w..•I. .r,. ,.L:• .!•: F. •:! f.;l.r:.•:l.•:lr:••:r::r.•:... :•„•••: .. .. •,}:?ti}%i:•?''' ::1. a: •.L. . ':1.? :•J .•.r... •}}rf:•:f. •r:frr h.! •rN:Ir:r:t: :?•l: L J. .L,. • ..L �n :•l' S'. .. r SJ rn•:• ...,.. •., .. ..t • }••}: .v:.. ..fir....rNL . 5. 'S.: X•' :%�•: •:.•..'�.+•.•. •:.1 ., ,{{h S�r•.�.^.,�.,{�,.,'.a,:^,'. ..,L...... .!!.. 1l.!••:: •.141•::.}}•... . ..y,.. . .,:•?:}:•:•: '•y,•y}}}•... •.•F•:.v.. :•}}'F.,...,.:v:.•}:ti•}:.v•.•r.:•y Sr•a•.L ......'••':• ,r•..•:F,::•r•J:J.:?•.•.•:}. r...J..l........... . •?:•:. :•:r.:•.•:... ..,.:::::.•:.. .r.. ::r.::•!: •Lvw:• .v• .%}.•r :•:.J•: .ir. ��,r ..,.,,'.�,'.•,.•,�•,' :r(• ��,/./ ?:r}}:::... :?r'.:{:;i.v.:::}:;{'r,{Y,�}`'K} :.Yr,a. 'S:47' '}:+l:': ��\'•T�.'�••. :P.:{•:: ..:J.. ' : :> `?' p .r.: !.. •. Yh::::.•:::• ::::•::•::::.. .. :: .. ..J:•.•.•.:•.. •'•l •Yh'J.• w :•J.':::.: :............ ••V:•:.V::.. >i •:%'r:: •.•.tS.: %{$:::::�r r% ar.. :, J.r:yF' vrr Sv.4v w.w,,•Lhv.....7„w?X,:w,,a:{•. •lrlti'....%::%SS, %%iyf '}r" '•., �,�p •':�1%f;5'ii��'tiS'•l'"},•} ;{Y.{{.{ti,4,•;:•{L�:::;Y�.'•l.'L•:: :•!J.. .f.....:•rr:... ..v:. ..h••: K!/• .rr:'1•.• \• ., ,• fir:{ ..r.`.�F'.•.. :}.. 4}•.: :}}}•::::r. %J'!•'SS:•• ••v: ? ..r.} •. ..:%++C•::•:•::•:.;.. ::}.•.v: ..rrl }:•:L•rJ•v:r.,1•:r•.... ..r.. •}}:•:•: .,?L•:: ••:}:.•}.•r:•: J..r:{{....::.:.::::.... . {.}% ..yy....,,�� W.•.M 1KKv.:.}r.5,r ♦:rl,,,r}.,rf�''%•r,.}• •4d�•{: .r''a'}. :rr.V•• •}'? }:•}: }r •r a;?f'-:L:::::r:.:1/.'. '''✓.r{;*' \ ..! , - Jay!. ''ir. {Jj�: ..':n}:,+v'�:y:-r1:•." .. !}. ..{\.. y� }}l!}:Y•.{JI'FA'{VYi�•A•.,YF.:.-.? ` ,}'., ..,.r^� .:.V:.•,..'r •::,.. .:! • .F-•. r:5}:?•}}:. ..:..• ::,.L••:::::.. :.......:,h•:::•:::.Y•.L•:,Y.V.V::::•?•:.. :,,•.Y,:V:::. ::r 4!. . •Y:r:•.YL•.i :'jl...•}J:;;.'::•.Ll•:�.Y�52%�'•f�f# .J.•:. '' N : r;{:}} }rh- rJJF.I.'.•A•,r',:,.,.,4';•' 1�,KWl�}:??.': ?:....:,••:l.V.'.•1.,:•JI:.Y::.:lrr.•.•1•.•:. ••::...: /:.Y}:Y:•?Y. :r::r.:Y:.1•::l::::.V•Y:•.•::::::.1:•i:.:•••!::•.L•:•Y:4•:•Y:r,•✓::rr:. r.VXi r. •:•:::r::::•,•:r:r::rN.rrrr. .I.................................•..... • •Fit:•. .:.............::.......• ....... .............. h •. ::.•:.:v:::. :•}%':v::::l:.Vr.V.,,,•:rv.,•r.•.':r.,,,,, ::::rrrr:••.•:...•....,...-....r ..y......•... ..... ..rr.r.,j4 • •:.F,: * N:r:::. S// ':%:vi'r'.%''::%7%. Y ; )tiG vritif r •.: :•::::.:Y•::::hV.•.. . '•}'Fr't {:: ''•.. .L •:Y'• ::fl::.V:::f.�• V.Y::.V:::::J::h:•.". .tkY:•:{? }:ti} ?V}. J.:rNrAJN.{Yr JGF•:{K'NN:rAM1' ':1I:IIItNW.`'r'/Ht�b♦'b�i•'♦'YMa JJ! •'FFJ.!•'. ..Y....�rJ.L.............................' \ •}} ' }:•1 :' {?•} ;.J !:. ':•J•:•:•'' . 1 };ti} ;: }:Y.. ... \•: :?\ .�j�I p� J •: :•}:'• :: \' ,:•:j'. :1•r... •',$, •••• •K... :?! r• '• ••,,•,., ..,Y:•:. l ��}} jj�� ... :• ..J.. l +)fit�c ••• r ..�a�a.•.'}XY}, r• %J .f.. .!i •r Jr:r. ,r! •::....:_'... :{�•r '. i'i%r•}:{• •r.• r. rJ.:rr r.•.r.•r••.v..���C•ar. .r..Xrf r. :'r.� :r,... Sti• FJ•. .J. ..L•• 3./. JC.{•5.. •Jr:.r• r!.•Y.a•... •.r... :it}r{:$:{'.L '.., r? .::'.•.J...r.•. ..r..v.......{.{.. r. ..Y.:r•,r. . .v r.,r r,':'v}: r. .{.r�' %J:•• ..v::.L..vrLYvr••.:fY•'a::.•r.•f•..1......:.vr::.v. ....•.'.:;: •:!:r.:{;{r� :.,fo.?•.v:!.:L••••!:. .F,•-.Il •.v•. {•.•:✓.?•1rkv.; L{f-r ..;.t f, r{r r„r.,r ,J.::•':. L Il,.••...; ;{i .'W,.L .,�. .x,.. .¢Jr' �a?�fiY::f•: :,,v. '.{t h•. :•:v ??• :•-x. :r :•�?-rIr's�l tr: 42. .:;F:,*.* ,; {• {::.• ,••.}}•.,•- {r.}'.•r•.•.;.•:.;.}•:.. ..LV,•:Y.. .1.}}: : .. r. :5.•. L: ./V ,•.f.:?a•.,4K... :..41 .L:`.:.:.`.V:;•.•.`}:•:':{•:':'' l ?•r•:::rr •:: ;:.. }- •: :. :. f �. > / t N :: . * i r s i O s �. w. S. t: 6 '� r r.L / 'a f .GM•? L11''aF.1F1 �' .... •1. �. l t•`Zv F..� 'FJw F'Y ' >.v tj .j r, 7.C.. /i ;/- ¢ r J Y: ate. _r,;c :Y }J ' .._:. . t '. .. /- Y -..e ... ;. - • - tit � '• .:0; 'FJ G y .J: � •�t'}. - •z: i/ /J !C..sr t!L.?"• � }?• �i„a7!L/{.xry { ., �t J`-J t �{,,. J t7� ff+ CI'' ....; >.. t ZYl r rr r 2a � . ! Gv .... , ...: ,../...,.:..:....:r;.•. ! v} '. ::..;,...: ! ;2?➢:.;•w•::,1'SL.i ?'�•y L I.:•,.r Ti...J.1*s :::.. J. ' Y: ... ..Jy1••::: v. \:: c.. a.. ...!.. .. :..... :..................................•::.: ..�. .t.. '.5,.. ... , ' �•`:: .':; f.",. Q a Y (Y' .. ,••�4•• /. / •• j .r 'f' ti F �/ r7 . �.. . .. . .....�......':....... ........... .. ..... .. ...o:..I......I,r,, ..: ::i:: ..:...:..:::.:... .1. /:.:. :I:: ._Ni. .�. . .. ...... ............ .. ,.:.w.,•.,............,,a.::. GA i r fir' 4, r�,.. x �� j {a r .�` ti w �r�` ... F &. �� '.. .r.. . .. ... .... ....�.... .. J .;.. . ♦+u Yt.�,t'7. r... Sr' 'f1s'Z"'�,-\ Jv r ....t{x4 / ,{'2'�=`+Y r' 'w .�' -?t.� > aj > ! / �2 c S d�Lrdz$�? Y Y . +"",(_>,✓. t,..� i' - �•. ..,,,,.lv w y�.1, ..j'J�✓ .+y� vi4.x {7'�'G,�.ti ff A lS ''%N ..,,-,-•: > .,F .rarNL'nS:�` , /„ N X I �. ,t, `f /t..�. �IJ?..� r. 4 < , . FU? . .� _ �, ',. rq : ^l✓LL/c+�s.. iLJf9.�y..ifii L`-•=J r J2 iY ys- :. I ..{ 4. s 'die rr. �t'le. �f/k / } .� ' - ->J Mgr. R'J. ✓x. .`?". } E ` 'r t. r } F V;,.I. c /N �`L`' �a Y'L�s¢ n''},.Lr��,(Y wr f.} \'.-J J� o !. + ' FEB-23-2086 14%32 714 968 3725 i 94% , )KIn—n -� I a A =7C= 3 -Z = � 4 �= HE 24v' $ r a s # a Pike Expedition.November 1806,Rocky Mountains �a� l 5PQ tin yin 714 elf 0e - (al . 9064 � «...a«s.`32wsusas reed l At 2006 FEB 24 P 06 446(4.., ate.) 004 PAP OIL. ".Aa�Ale goo • V.Mokbimm smawwM IA _ G r'� f-/ - fewB ►Cat!MM t , �11► Wotef 's �ftedtment y . �f BFacillty x 4 Ed Lgir j ezarine Beukem iyoble Waite coth uk Dear Huntington Beach Residents: We need your help! The Huntington Beach City Council h&'*Avi��oseit kes-oupces'proposed Hunt ngton BAWVW ter. Treatment Facility since 2061 -and now a crucial council meeting takes place on Monday, February 27th. Contact your City Council members arid urge them to vote in favor of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP)/Co di6on Pse errhit( UP). ". Y The city council certified the Environmental,Impact Report on Septenter 6, 2005. On February 271 it will consider final approvals for laid use permits. " - ' a 4� ' The Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility offers valuable benefits to our community: Ed Nearly $70 milliog to the CityvfiH$a. a '"` lk C� Guaranteed Local Safe Water Supply ' Cf No Risk to Taxpayers C� $3 million in Wger Savirt_gs CI $54 million to Property Taxes Qd $1,5 million in Utility Taxes _ •= 'af 42 millioi n(lity-Directed Grant Fu�ndsk $1.9 million in Street Enha'ncetnents 4 a Because of lhe�se�wed begeflts the facility„hass,keen,endorsed by: • The Orange County Taxpayers Association • Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce • Orange County Register • Orange County Association of Realtors •! Orange County Busihess Council Los Angeles/Orartge County.Buildift and Constiuctidn trades Council • Pacific West Association of Realtors • thousands of Huntington Beach residents % « � 0 1k, % + We urge you to voice your support for this project to the City. Mail the e elosed,postagawlvi'd postcard s w*ing your suppof t fair the many benefits t ie on B&ch� ` Water Treatment Facility brings to our community. Sincerely, �_ � ,�� � ,.. 71���•�,�Qom- M LaiTcfi -: Stazanile Beukema Noble Waite Cathy Meschuk 419 MAIN STREET, SUITE A• HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92648 y,Fob m. 'THANK YOU I ETI�R N` ,- -,GT6N BEACH a`" ' Iur�tYngtn Beaclesents vrarited to take th7spportnity to thaw you fo"dour ndeabl support of`theIuntngtoac water�tnt desaimation face will bur':Huntington each community Nearly$ 4 mttin to#fie City of.HBf ** Guaranty l ocfaf6 Water Supply. No Risk to Taxpayers $3ll�o in Wt Savings ��� Mill10,1 In p roperty f axes $1 S mtllinn Utrlity Taxes - ��� �; $ m lionJUAuecte Oiac�dBunas � $;f Aw g aus ] l ne Zts h begin 'I'm l by: - cr Tle $° �T�paerssI ti , RN b €{ x A It PPI ra , Q #t� iTlgOlne l.o Anles� e z G '� xn austruonx #ades Council a ancf thousands of`Huntirigton Bew �sidents thank these clrgan� ttons anci the tousnds of�n€livivais foi their s rt and for their lead c shI ®ur ©mmunity t ltavc been �nztr ort to bruxg flateittd taZR x Benefits to out'City si►ce 2( u�orc norruufxcup theuut�ngtQ Bach Watereat Ea�ty,ptease gu tv tlie web atr hlfrea#ralur cats an, try© � usuppoTT kXe,' 3 5 '3 1, Z c 3 45 � 9 s 31j a�ens= 'Os kidoii Resources At?VERTISEMENT t I� a44, o r� �a c /C. o G ' rV EID w � f V 2006 FEB 24 PM 5: 00 ww .. ya Z i 'i C February 24, 2006 Mayor David Sullivan & City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Sullivan & City Council; We The Coponiti Family urge you to vote NO on ;the Poseidon Project. This project is bad for the city and bad for the citzens of Huntington Beach. Our beaches and our environment are more important then some desal project that we as a city will not get the water anyway. Please don't sell Huntington Beach to the highest bidder we elected you to represent us (your citzens) this progect is not in anyone's best interest execpt Poseidon and South Orange County. Please do what we elected you to do vote NO! ! on this project and send Poseidon somewhere else. Thank You. Sincerely, yt, 67 Patrick A o on ti Maria 0. Co oniti Patricia M. Co P P P 6372 Bellinger Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3370 (714) 846-0827 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Gail Swanson [gswanson@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 5:11 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Posiedon Dear Council, It's Saturday afternoon and my husband and I just returned to our SE HB home - a few short blocks from the beach. We love our neighborhood. We are strongly against Posiedon! Driving home today from Newport Beach to HB today on PCH we tried to imagine why in the world SE HB should have to endure another plant! Imagine driving on PCH from classy Newport Beach to HB - first is the sanitation plant, power plant, ascon, oil holding tanks and THEN you get to the new development of HB! What an eyesore for first timers, tourists and all of us to have to drive by all the time, not to mention live next door too! Thank you Dr. & Mrs. Scott Swanson FREE Emoticons for your email! Click Here! mom 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Rod Telles[rodtelles@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 5:28 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon We have been HB residents for over 20 years, living in South HB, an area the city council has never supported or protected. We are burdened by the power plant with fumes and noise pollution, smells of human feces from the near by OC water treatment plant, the Nesi Superfund Toxic waste dump that has never been cleaned up, underground methane gas, and off Magnolia we have bacteria closing our beaches. It is not fair that you now want to dump another pollution-causing project on this part of our city, using the zoning excuse it and to erode our property value and quality of life further. And don't forget this is after 2 years of tearing up Bushard and removing ground water from the soil underneath our area and destabilizing our homes. We are adamant about our strongest urging of a NO vote for this Poseidon Project. If you combine the salty hot water coming from the proposed desalination plant with the human feces-containig water dumped by the OC treatment plant, NOBODY will want to buy in this area. And you are trading our future quality of life for a modest annual income to the city...a rather dubious thing to gamble on considering Poseidon's horrendous record with other desalination projects. We are only four voters in the Franciscian Fountains tract, however, there is a silent group of our fellow homeowners and family you will be injuring. We love this area and don't want to move and we DESERVE for you protect our interests, not just your pockets. Why haven't you considered instead to rezone Huntington Harbor so you can place it there...is it because you would not risk dealing with these powerful rich residents? We know you have the authority to rezone for that purpose. And although we are only middle class down here, we DESERVE to preserve our quality of life!!!!!And we will stand up for it. Rod, Myriam, Steven and DavidTelles /o, i .7q 2/27/2006 _.._ Mb Esparza, Patty From: Edward DeMeulle[ed@demeulle.org] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 8:31 AM To: HB City Council Cc: Jill Hardy; Keith Bohr; Cathy Green; Dave Sullivan; Debbie Cook; Don Hansen; Gil Coerper; SEHBNA Group; Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon CUP/CDP Hearing 2/27/06 AMIL jai hbcc-presentation- 20060227.pdf... Once again we return to the question of the Poseidon Desalination Plant. I am enclosing a PDF of my presentation that has been revised to better explain my thoughts on what is possible to integrate the southeast with the downtown in providing visitor-serving commercial uses that would be compatible with the vision of HB as Surf City. EMERGENCY SUPPLY OF WATER? I question the notion that the project would supply HB with an emergency supply of water. My understanding is that MWDOC would commandeer any supplies of water to manage in the event of an emergency. Realistically, we don't need cities fighting with each other for supplies during an emergency. AESTHETIC ENHANCEMENTS ARE INSIGNIFICANT I understand that some of you view the aesthetic enhancements that Poseidon has proposed as a benefit to the southeast. It really isn't. The reality is that it is a facade over an industrial complex that ideally shouldn't be there. In other words, it's like putting lipstick on a pig. HEAVY INDUSTRY IS A TERRIBLE USE OF VALUABLE COASTAL REAL ESTATE Times change. HB once had a great deal more heavy industry on the coast. We need to wait for the time to return the property to non-industrial uses. Other 50's era power plants in So Cal have been decommissioned and regulations are tightening further. BRING THE SOUTHEAST INTO THE VISION FOR HB Do you want the concept of visitor-serving commercial for tourism to stop at Beach Blvd? What about the rest of the beach? The City has become very concerned with sales tax revenue. Do we want to tell tourists "use that beach too, but shop over here"? Is that our long-term plan for the southeast? The more additional industry you add to the area, the more likely it will remain industrial. Patience is a virtue. Hold out for the vision of Huntington Beach that includes the southeast. Edward DeMeulle <ed@demeulle.org> fr . LIJ 7� "My interest the future because am going to spend the rest of my life there. Charles Kettering `,�'n'*-��y'�'b.�a fr;:* ,�-,�,`?,�. .t: ✓<k w.3;��.; � .€w`.�� �, ` �:.v-',r,- ,� ,� .„•.� .�s; vs"' m..G� zk°:"":.• ,��*F;, }>�`'� �`,''r.��x�' .; _ ,�° "`�' b'��,- a .�:�:. t-,a°a }.r.t, e .,.; s� .?.;:• ,_^,-„ c ,a t......, a ;f":�,-n g�'K"`.. y ,rx '��°"'i �w^.,.a:5;"`x�s=' r""4 �„�. ,`'e-; s' x``.w,-�;,�r-' µ " i� wry.� �.'� �, •'., ; �S c '�?• .y 7x 4. a{a„ e a. x 4 H � V , ' a e l 0-4 or, Or 1 x n`"?�•�' �. x�*a ,**' �_.,;,�: `� ^s � ..��,ifi �,.a"�,rx a+a adrz.,.• '.r�` w�', x'd 'fix f &�. �.:�-., {�.,r s�..., to ,r,� ^<. ,.,�? �; ;"�:�.� '�e+ au";�- .� ,d� r s I � y ., �'�A � .; [� r •"cad' «r,�" �i.. � F _.� w " a� � R r,v«,s, k rr_dam ..fir �fC'r„ �., g ..r,�• 'v �n .r�„, ��:.g=��t�,: '��°a� :a�ax,!� ��. .,� 7t,. �.-<m� ,z+� '�` « -�r�, `��.,� r,t^a,'a� w ;.:a>.. << stir ,p P e e r yy ,• 7l` .tom �� R 3 � �• t _ .n+a +i°/r � � q i t., ;t. � .x,;.a '` - ,? ,_,, '`n .'F; �- r� n'�r `-.'a � r� ��,� "',�^�-��' av ,:?a^ r y�G.»,�'§" ��.i' �' �'.s?�„ -.:�,a:�;• �, �'s'�'%ax A Better Use Bricktown — Oklahoma City • Once-rundown warehouse district redeveloped into fashionable shopping area. • Canal through shopping area provides walkways and adds a central theme. fns..r�%b rf3 $3 t �4 ., � { xm • Canals are already present in HB, however their current place is as a "necessary evil" • HB could do something similar to Oklahoma City and transform a negative attribute into a positive one • Extension of this idea throughout the city may even be a possibility "°' r—� ct cz U ct ct ct ct u ct ct ct . � by ctCt U OIL i • Esparza, Patty From: rootrville@surfside.net Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:30 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: HB H2O treatment facility As a life long resident of HB and local Californian I feel strongly opposed to the Poseidon's desalination plan. There is so little open coastline left in Southern California, we must consider ourselves very lucky to live near such a beautiful section of it. It is OUR responsibility to protect it. The water treatment facility is not in OUR (HB's )best interest; it is not the right plan for our beautiful beach. We need to stop further industrialization of our coast. It is your responsibility to protect Our air, OUR property values, OUR ocean, OUR shoreline. You have been voted in by the citizens of this great city to watch over it and protect it at all costs. I'm not sure you realize just how many residents of HB completely oppose the desalination plan. Please vote against this----you must remember how lucky we are to have this place, how many people from all over come to visit because of it's beautiful shoreline----you must protect it. Life long HB resident, Kaelyn Jenkins 6/7/7 /1�Q-eU pro Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dave Hamilton [dehamilton@earth link.net] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:17 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org; DSULLIVAN@socal.rr.com;jhardy@surfcity-hb.org; hbdac@hotmail.com; kbohr@surfcity-hb.org; cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org; dhansen@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Project EIR & OPA February 25, 2006 Huntington Beach City Council Dear Mayor Sullivan and Councilmembers: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" is an apt saying when applied to the Poseidon Resources dealings with the City. The City was fooled first by the Poseidon Project EIR which set a new low as to the meaning of"adequate" in CEQA. Shame on Poseidon. The City is now being fooled a second time by the terms and conditions of the Owner Participation Agreement(OPA). The Poseidon OPA is a basket case of problems. It wouldn't surprise me that Poseidon is mostly responsible for the OPA's authoring. Many of the clauses/portions are rather strange in the way they're written. Some of these clauses/portions contain Poseidon's"bribes"to Huntington Beach. Each seems to contain its own sense of sarcasm--thus the language: 1)"The Participant...has no impact on the quality of life in the City by paying the City...$1,900,000..."; and 2)"The Participant shall pay...$2,000,000 which may be used by the City in its sole discretion...as the City Council determines will improve the quality of life in the City...". By the way, the words "sole discretion" in no way would exclude in ways mandated by City Charter, City ordinance, or City regulation. The words "sole discretion"are superfluous. Indeed, the funds are qualified for use in the first instance"for improvements adjacent to the Site or along the route of the Pipeline." I envision the City will be in a law suit over the spending of these particular funds before this Project is completed. (That is, if it is ever completed.) Also, if one scrutinizes, "The Participant...has no impact on the quality of life in the City by paying the City...$1,900,000...... does it mean Poseidon will no longer be held responsible if the Poseidon plant is deemed a nuisance after it is built and operating. This clause is written such that Poseidon will have"paid"the City for the privilege of negatively impacting the quality of life in the City! Furthermore, the OPA is deficient in many areas while three stand out: 1) Indemnification; 2)Assignment; and, 3) Insurance. The indemnification terms are very weak. Poseidon only indemnifies property owners suffering damages resulting from pipeline construction to those property owners adjacent to the pipeline. If a resident's foundation becomes cracked from construction dewatering and settling and the property does not border a Poseidon right-of-way, too bad. Plus, there are no indemnification terms for the operations phase of the Pipeline. For example, the pipeline ruptures and its water floods entire neighborhoods. As it is, according to the OPA the residents of those neighborhoods would surely be up against the tried-and-true"Act of God"defense by Poseidon. The assignment clauses go on and on. One would think, by their mere length, such clauses would cover most contingencies. Nonetheless, these clauses do not cover the case of Poseidon's bankruptcy, which, from its history in Tampa Bay, is very likely. This was not an oversight. It was purposely left out. Poseidon left the single reference of"involuntary"to cover its tracks as if such reference would expand to cover bankruptcy. It will not. However, the naive can be told it will. Note: The vast majority of corporate bankruptcies are considered "voluntary" in a legal context. As to insurance terms in the OPA, $5,000,000 of insurance coverage is totally inadequate when median home ,)XJ k 6 � .— X/4- 2/27/2006 Lw, i °�i a,J J. Page 2 of 2 values exceed $600,000 per home. $50 Million in coverage would be more appropriate to protect Huntington Beach residents. All in all, the OPA is a basket so full of holes it won't hold its own weight, let alone any left-over salt from desalination. The City of Huntington is being fooled a second time by this Agreement and Poseidon. Shame on us. Regards, -Dave Hamilton, Huntington Beach resident 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Lastresort167@aol.com Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:37 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: POSEIDON............ Please Vote ....NO.... 2/27/2006 C Esparza, Patty From: Tim Geddes [timgeddes@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 11:33 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Please Ignore Misleading Support Letters on Poseidon Huntington Beach City Council Dear Mayor Sullivan & Council Members: I wish to take issue with the several "support" letters that you have received for the Poseidon desalination plant that simply parrot Poseidon's utterly misleading propaganda points with no real attempt to deal with actual issues that have caused so much opposition and contempt for the project. A typical example is the recent letter from Huntington Beach resident Tom Polkow which was posted on the "hbelection2004" Web site. Mr. Polkow's first mistake was to characterize the approval step as "progressive". There is nothing progressive about this project what- soever. Building upon the outmoded and inefficient power plant technology of the AES site, Poseidon plans to use an outmoded, inefficient, and energy-intensive process that is anything but progressive in the desalination industry. Mr. Polkow's contention that the Poseidon project will "bear no substantial burden upon the city" (followed by his laughable contentions) is totally unproven speculation, and has been countered by dozens of residents and interested parties who have gone to great lengths in describing these "substantial burdens. " As far as Mr. Polkow's contention that Huntington Beach will have the "bragging rights" of a tourist attraction as the home gg g g of the nation's largest ocean water desalination plant, one might ask the residents of the Tampa Bay area if they were promised the same "bragging rights" when Poseidon pitched its project to them. More unproven speculation and "blue sky" wishful thinking. I would ask Mr. Polkow and other Poseidon supporters how compatible such as major threat to our coastal environment would be to the tourist attraction quality of our ocean and beaches. As far as Mr. Polkow's contention that coastal communities should endanger their environment, degrade the quality of life for their residents and community, and kowtow to greedy private industry outside special interests in order to somehow "take reponsibility" for cultivating their own sources of ruinously expensive and energy- costly water of potable water is misguided at best and dangerous at worst. There are many other ways for coastal communities to participate responsibly in dealing with any projected water crisis. Mr. Polkow writes "The time to develop and establish this new ocean water desalination infrastructure on the California coastline is now. " He goes on to write "Let's make the city of Huntington Beach a leader, not a follower, in this foresightful (sic) and necessary endeavor. Actually, the time is not now for this place or this technology. If it is to be "test-driven" on the California coastline, a more ) Iv appropriate site would be the Carlsbad area which does not ����l�l have the same potential for community-wide catastrophe if / T- (a ?if/YIG1i , 1 Poseidon's claims are not realized and things go wrong. Let's not make the city of Huntington Beach a "guinea pig" for this unproven and wholly speculative private industry project. Let's put our "foresight" (I didn't find the word "foresightful" in my dictionary) to better use and not gamble away our future. Mr. Polkow parrots the Poseidon party line that this project is somehow a "necessary" endeavor. It is by no means a necessary endeavor at this time. With any projected water needs from desalination sources at least twenty years away, we have ample lead time to develop the most modern and efficient ways to proceed with this technology before our water needs become "acute". Mr. Polkow makes the absurd premise of "No risk, no gain". As if learning how to fly somehow justifies the risk of jumping off a cliff! Any careful examination of all the arguments will totally belie the contention that the risk in this deal is all upon Poseidon". Our community assumes enormous risks and not only the ones that come with failure. The potential is enormous for damage and degradation to occur during the construction of this plant and its pipeline. The community, especially those in Southeast Huntington Beach, will be heavily affected, and no "bribes" or token monetary compensation will alleviate the massive negative impacts our residents will be forced to undergo for the privilege of seeing Poseidon's potable product go elsewhere. Based upon what we have seen so far from the behavior of the applicant, we should indeed send this "entrepreneur" packing. There is no evidence that any other water district has shown the willingness to independently undertake its own same-technology desalination plant construction at the AES site (spending over $250 million to produce way too expensive water that it doesn't currently need) at this time. Mr. Polkow's alarmist contention to the contrary is totally unsupported. In short, Mr. Polkow's letter and ones similar to his, show either a bias for the applicant that ignores the facts and the reality of the situation, or (worse) a contempt for our community in the furtherance of a private industry agenda that is only concerned with economic clout and political influence. I urge you to ignore these self-serving and misguided attempts to foist this project on our community, and to, instead, take into consideration the best interests of the residents you are sworn to represent. Thank you for your attention, and for hopefully voting to reject this project. Sincerely, Tim Geddes Huntington Beach (714) 962-5924 2 Esparza, Patty From: Ellen Bostelman [bostelman@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:22 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: poseidon Dear City Council Members, We are longtime Huntington Beach residents. We are very connected to this fine community and active in the schools, Ayso, Boy Scouts, Junior Lifeguards, etc. Huntington Beach residents are the envy of everyone who isn't able to live in this outstanding city. In addition to our lovely beach, we now have fine restaurants, shopping and resort hotels to attract tourists and income to our city. We need to preserve and promote Huntington Beach as the jewel of the California coastline. We need to keep our water and air clear and our coastline free of any more industrial eyesores. We urge you to put a stop to the Poseidon Desalinization plans. Sincerely, Russell, Ellen, Alex, and Derek Bostelman T CJ Esparza, Patty From: Rick Gravley[rgravley@jenningstech.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 10:06 AM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes se Subject: Opposed to Desalination I am a local long-term HB resident who uses the water and ocean almost everyday, as do my kids. Please do not vote for this plant. Please consider the alternative ways to get more water at much less expense. We aren't against more water - however we strongl believe that this isn't the right way to get it at this time. Please don't for for this. Rick Gravley 714*536*9991 I Esparza, Patty From: agravley[agravley@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 10:01 AM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Desalination Plant-Opposed Dear City Council, We want to express our concern about the proposed Desalination Plant that is up for vote. We are against it under the current circumstances and ask that you take our concern into consideration during your vote. We are a HB resident and use the ocean and environment on almost a daily bases. Please do not vote in favor of this plant. Thank you, Alyssa Gravley 714*849*1987 �. (617171-IU AJ/ L11-Pol �r 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: MABURG5820@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 12:50 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Dear Council Members, I urge you to vote NO on the Poseidon plant for the following reasons: 1. We have enough industrial mess in southeast Huntington Beach already. 2. We don't need any more stuff dumped in our ocean. 3. The Poseidon plant isn't conducive to making Huntington Beach a tourist destination. 4. I'm tired of our streets being ripped up for everybody else's projects. Sincerely, Michele Burgess IN FOCUS WITH MICHELE BURGESS Extraordinary Adventures in Exotic Destinations Travel with a professional photographer to exotic world places 20741 Catamaran Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646-5513 714/536-6104, mobur95820@aol.com Visit my Web site at www.infocustravel.com L / � �'IN1u �/ Ci /ate 2/27/2006 "C Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Marc Irvin [mirvin11@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:37 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon I am firmly AGAINST the proposed desalination plans for Huntington Beach. Please stop the further io o n industrialization along the shore. This is not an encroachment against our precious resources and g P g effective alternative for water treatment plans. Thank for your consideration and please recognize this email and everyone else voicing the same opinion as weight on your decision. Marc Irvin 8341 Atlanta Avenue Huntington Beach, CA AJI LX�) OAJ 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Carolyn Ross[gardengirl01 @hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:34 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon To my City Council Members: I am writing to ask you not to allow the Poseidon Water Treatment Facility in our city. I believe that this will be a blight on our community. It has the potential to pollute our beautiful coastline. Our coastline is what sets our community apart and makes it special. We must guard this valuable resource. It will pollute our air because it is run by the antiquated AES plant. Every day this plant spews pollution all over our city. Allowing Poseidon will mean that we will never be free of AES. I believe that our city should take back its Southeast coastline, not condemn it to industrial use forever. There is hope for this art of our city: Ascon will be cleaned a in the foreseeable future, AES is P p tY P antiquated and will hopefully be shut down in the future. Please allow this part of our city to also be a wonderful place to live. Do not sell it out for gains used in the rest of the city. I understand the need for money to fund the services our city provides, but please look for it elsewhere. Once again, please do not allow this in our city. It is wrong for all of Huntington Beach. Sincerely, Carolyn Ross 21612 Polynesian Lane Huntington Beach 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Mike Ross[mike@sensorex.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:40 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Carolyn Ross; Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Water Treatment Facility To my City Council Members: I am writing to ask you not to allow the Poseidon Water Treatment Facility in our city. I believe that this will be a blight on our community. It has the potential to pollute our beautiful coastline. Our coastline is what sets our community apart and makes it special. We must guard this valuable resource. It will pollute our air because it is run by the antiquated AES plant. Every day this plant spews pollution all over our city. Allowing Poseidon will mean that we will never be free of AES. I believe that our city should take back its Southeast coastline, not condemn it to industrial use forever. There is hope for this part of our city: Ascon will be cleaned up in the foreseeable future, AES is antiquated and will hopefully be shut down in the future. Please allow this part of our city to also be a wonderful place to live. Do not sell it out for gains used in the rest of the city. I understand the need for money to fund the services our city provides, but please look for it elsewhere. n in lea n this in city. It' wrong for all of Huntington Beach. Once again, se do of allow i s our c t is o a 9 , P Y 9 9 Sincerely, Michael Ross 21612 Polynesian Lane Huntington Beach 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Budman321@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:22 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon My wife and I are adamantly opposed to the Poseidon project. We want you to VOTE NO on this project. Here are some of the reasons: 1.Poseidon failed, to this date, to successfully fabricate a similar desalination plant in Florida. 2. The project was not put out for bids from other companies. 3. The water in Huntington Beach is great as it is. Read the $500,000 pamphlet put out by our own DWP. 4. The water will be used by the South Orange County. Let them build their own plant. 5. By the time this project will be completed it will be obsolete, pollute the air and the beaches, tear up the streets and generally change the existing ambiance of a surf city to an industrial area. 6. This project is NOT a necessity. Besides reduces the value of our property, we can think of more useful ways to use our tax money. Thank you for considering our opinion. Charles& Suzanne Rosen 21041 Beckwourth Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 k� L/7-7-L 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Nancy Buchoz [nanbuchoz@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 9:10 PM To: city.council Cc: gail; bpbr@socal.rr.com; Karl Tahti; Jennifer Mustafa;jimmaddux; LONUSZ; lorryhiggins@earthlink.net; sltyler39@yahoo.com; Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: No on Water Treatment Facility Dear City Council and Mayor Sullivan, Please vote no on Poseidon. There is no reason large enough to have this project. We should address the need for water if and when we have a problem. Why are wetrying to fix a situation that doesn't exist. There are too many questions that haven't been answered. Too many unknowns. Just say "NO". Our neighborhood is counting our elected officials to hear us. Over 1400 residents sent in a yellow postcard in October asking you to just say "NO". Please respect our neighborhood and do the right thing. Vote "NO" on Poseidon Thank you Nancy & Tad Buchoz 9001 Rhodesia DR Gail & Scott Swanson 9062 Rhodesia DR. Paula & Bob Brown 9061 Rhodesia Dr Marilyn Ellison Rhodesia Dr Bob & Jeannete Stewart Bahama Lane George & Judy Johns Bahama Lane Jim & Shannon Maddux Chubasco Lane Nassar & Jennifer Mustafa 9022 Rhodesia Drive Shirley Earley 9002 Rhodesia Dr Laura & Craig Peterson 9032 Rhodesa Dr Karl & Heidi Tahti Regatta Circle MaxBo 0 Bowman Kaneohe Lane Sandy Tyler and Family Bobbie Cirlce The Wetzel family Bobbie Circle Ken & Lisa Roberts Bobbie Circle Larry & Cindy Onusz Bowspirit Lane 2/27/2006 � ; ds Page 2 of 2 Jim & Lorry Higgins Pier Drive Mario & Michelle Molina Bahama Lane & the entire FASHION SHORES neighborhood. (Magnolia & Hamilton) Nancy Buchoz nanbuchoz@earthlink.net 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Art Weiland [artweiland@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:55 AM To: H.B. City Council Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Water Treatment plant Just my two cents. Please vote NO on 2-27-06 on Coastal Development Permit. I would need proof of the benefits listed by Ed Laird, Suzanne Beukema,Noble Waite, and Cathy Meschuk. Sincerely, Arthur Weiland 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fpekary@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:52 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Adventure Dear Members: Enough already! I have seen this beautiful city of 35 years ago turn into an overbuilt monster. Leave us alone. The negatives are too many. Just not needed! I think you all know this but for some reason you interpret this project as progress. But in what direction. Quality of life is important to the residents. I don't give a hoot about visitors. If you vote in favor of Poseidon, I will devote all my energies to your defeat in the next elections. No on Poseidon Frank Pekary 20331 Morristown Circle Huntington Beach, CA 714-9640895 M/Y) 2/27/2006 V Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: A BETTY JOHNSON [bettyj23@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 8:10 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon (Ad)venture City Council Members: Regarding Poseidon Desalination Plant in H.B. If you can show us where this company has made ANY profit on previous ventures, then it could get a go-ahead. If not - it's a plain 'NO" Vote. Sinerely A.B. Johnson 9102 Hyde Park Drive Huntington Beach CA 92646 �C1 �-Y? - � } 2/27/20 06 v Esparza, Patty From: Socorro Hubbard [shubb@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 9:38 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Jeffrey Hubbard; Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon project vote Hello City Council members, I am writing to you about the Poseidon project. I know you will be addressing this on Monday. I wanted to share some of my thoughts on this controversial project. I know Poseidon is "giving" H.B. all these "wonderful benefits" if we o.k. the project--"much needed water" to our city and economic gains. This reminds me of our statewide past "energy crisis" and the vote here in H.B. to allow AES to start up the second half of the facility (b/c it was not being used) a couple of years ago. There was so much hype about how we here in H.B. would get reduced electricity rates and all these economic benefits during the "energy crisis". What happened after that YES vote for AES soon became an all-out assault on us consumers and the fall-out of Enron! ! Remember that? There was no electricity crisis except the one that was created by CEOs so they could get millions of times richer than they already were. Today we still have terribly high electric rates, and now, high gas rates! Where did we (consumers) benefit, especially in H.B. with AES's additional start-up?? We are still paying dearly for that. And that is the whole point--we, the consumers, have to pay dearly for all these "wonderful massive industrial projects with benefits" to our city because of the votes our city council makes. Please remember us--those who elected you--because we seem to pay for the "mistakes" when you vote on these type of "mega business deals". Don't you think we have enough mega business projects along our beach--O.C. Sanitation plant, AES, and Ascon toxic dump site? I guess it is best to fill up all that "empty land" there next to AES with another huge plant because we want to become "H.B.- Industrial City" (and very easily bought city by mega companies) instead of H.B.-Surf City! I am simply amazed that no one can see through the "smokescreens" and the powerful lure of money! Isn't is obvious why Poseidon is willing to give us all of these benefits? They are buying us, or should I say, buying our yes vote! You might not believe this, but why then are there not thousands of cities clamoring to get Poseidon to build in their city (if this "deal" is so good) ?? Do you know they tried this same project in Tampa, Fla. ? It didn't work out as planned. It would be beneficial if you researched that project in Tampa. Hopefully, you will all see that the "economic gains and benefits" of the Poseidon project are not really what they appear, but are in reality a way of buying H.B. for their own economic needs-----to get this darn project built here because there is no other city willing to have it! ! ! ! Let another city be the "guinea pig"! We live here and our children will be here after--we all will have to deal with this and any consequences that will come up for the rest of our lives. Will you guys be here for that? Please vote no on this Poseidon project. There are plenty of cities that can have this project--Poseidon will eventually find a down-in-out, cash strapped city with nothing else going for it that will take them in. Let's keep our "Surf City" title--it will be much better for us all in the end. Thank you, Socorro Hubbard 1 0 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Hdthb@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 11:12 AM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Water Treatment Project For a variety of reasons I do not support the Poseidon Project aka The Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility. Please do not vote for it. Thank you Helen Tvelia 20202 Princeton CXircle Huntington Beach CA 92646 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: TomRas[tomras@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 11:36 AM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Council Persons- How can you even consider this plan when there is no way (at this time)to get the water out of the city? Haven't we had enough road construction ,etc. for awhile.? I think we can reconsider this plan and why hurry h with i ? At this time-the pipeline will stop at the Caost Mesa border. This should tell are we in a u ry to go ahead th t e p p p you something. A concerned citizen Please vote no. Tom Rasmussen 7 6 6�1 Zak - �� - 2/27/2006 _. _ fi, Esparza, Patty From: Rex& Pat Myles[RMYLES@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 11:36 AM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Fw: letter Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:31 AM Subject: letter > The letter we received from "City Water Facility HB" looked like an > official city department and I responded to the council thinking it was. > After finding out from the City Treasurer's office that the city had > nothing to do with it and calling the number given me by the Public Works > Dept. it is answered ":Poiseidon. ". That shows what a TRICKY outfit they > are. Please vote against it. > Sincerely, > Pat Myles > 892-6714 > E-Mail: rmyles@socal.rr.com Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Anne De Vusser[adevu_2@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 12:29 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: POSEIDON our fa*vU,Ly Lwes,d irecy acro-s-k fYoiw th&propov,& Uat-er rreatvv znt F ". We.,are'vcry strorq y opp o-se&to-thi�k p rotect. We already must put up with the dirt and noise from the AES plant. Not to mention the traffic on Newland Street. We would be greatly unhappy being forced to tolerate the inconveniences generated by this project to supply other communities with water. Not to mention the damage to our ocean and surrounding wetlands! Very truly yours, Anne De Vusser & Family 21851 Newland Street Huntington Beach CA 92646 Get MSN Messenger with FREE Video Conversation -the next best thin to o being there! 2/27/2006 5 Clc��G�1�er� Ddzrn m Ouwe vwco �r�n E SiAf4v� AT Thy p�var�S �N9 cuP 7�' Ts KW Or Tufq__ 'I II�e Qr�e P�s� 1�ms e�tSl I , +3 TIC ST� T� m�" �eG?' w�U. ReGve w+s�c y.� �� C�1 PR-G-Pi�� SS - �N oiftru�p � PFRT of � {;uqL Ne�b cAI i 4JS B� �Re. �Ss 3's VDTep t� J Nb l l� 1A1 p ill nre� ThTSTVT T , C� G i� Aclti No pos-'s 1 ova _...._ _.... .. _.._. _.... _ _.._.... ..... _. __ ..__.. ;j.;__. qw �P Aeb D� 7veD 1A;S crnilf+o��s r��i Re��/ ��D 1�I� Ne6acP�;�N W'e c,� iiN1S+be.P P6��Lem ?a '(1;�1�(�9a wNeRe. Adis Pt�'f �s Bei�r6 Q�'i( I�M� (vvT O�c- 5a 'fGeuv �ownlS �^� TMe, T13e PReA Nvro ��s T� �c M6��eRip,L 5 e47) 5� �� Na �Qeelie�l T� �i+ie"f(�T� oft c cri Lo bU�in15 G� STQ�G� `f� �jS CUP . w� R4La�1a� OoNIreNT-5 Sam . ,- zNw() Q�� � N6Vio t q O eNitt/ � W �P1�15�E �6�ai�t 71 � SS3 9 zS2 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: SeasideArt@aol.com Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 10:04 PM To: city.counci@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Please Vote no on Poseidon Dear Mayor and City Council members, There are several obvious reasons not to want the Poseidon Desalination Plant built on our Huntington Beach shoreline, pollution, industrialization versus tourism, etc.There is one reason that should be the most obvious— Poseidon's track record.When I have something built, I want it done by someone who knows what they are doing. Someone who has made many before, successfully.The only desalination plant that Poseidon has built doesn't work properly(Tampa Bay).They want us to believe that they can build one in Huntington Beach that has twice the capacity and will have no operational problems. I don't think that they should be trusted to try it. I personally do not want a desalination plant built on the shores of Huntington Beach. I am concerned about our environment,the ocean, air, and streets the pipeline would travel through. If there was a need for desalinated water, the Water District would be planning to build a plant. I have lived in Huntington Beach for more than 30 years. Our greatest asset is our beach, please keep it that way. Please Vote no on Poseidon. Lori Costigan 21652 Seaside Lane 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: A.J. DILIBERTO[ajd1000@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 12:35 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon I have done my best to get both sides of this equation and wanted to provide you with my thoughts. First, from the negative side, there seems to be two main issues. The first is the environmental issue and the other is the"there's already enough industry in HB" issue. I have also heard other smaller voices showing concern with government involvement and the city not being compensated fairly. Personally, I have no experience in environmental issues, so I can not comment on that. The industry issue has merit, but considering the location, I'm not sure that's a major issue. I am VERY concerned about the government's involvement and "the deal". On the positive side we have the need for dieselization(Colorado water being phased out)and potential revenues to the city. tend to like the idea of desalinization, so I'm looking for reasons to favor this deal. However, I must say that THIS deal is wrong. Poseidon does not have a very good track record, and as such, presents too much risk to the city and residents. i have heard some say that Poseidon burdens 100% of the risk, but we all know this is not entirely true. If there is a major screw up of some kind, the city may have to stop in to provide funding and protect the tourism. HB can not even rule out a Tampa Bay debacle in the event funding dried up and there was a 1/2 built desal plant on the ocean. Why is there a rush to do this? Why not just have this company find another place to do this and if/when they can show signs of success, we could reopen negotiations. There is really not a major benefit to the city commensurate with the risk we are taking. In other words, if they fail...again—we have more to lose than we will gain if they succeed. When a solid company,with deep pockets, and a track record comes knocking, let's open THAT door. Why take a chance on a company with a proven record of not having enough money and not getting the job done. There is absolutely no reason to gamble with Poseidon. No reason at all. Even the money is not enticing enough to woo you. it's small potatoes compared to the potential for loss. VOTE NO. You must. Wait for a better deal. Others will come along(they always do), especially if you outline the reasons for saying no are based on the city erring on cautiousness. We would LOVE a desal plant, but we feel this is not the right time for HB to get involved. If I understand politics, i would assume the votes are already set and that this is a yes, but I must encourage you that this deal is not the right deal for HB. VOTE NO and open the door for other companies that pose less of a risk. A.J. DILIBERTO, CFP® Q 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: JAMES HUNNEL O.hunnel@woridnet.att.netj Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:21 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: hbindependent@latimes.com; Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Posiedon-"NO" You let our city sewer system deteriorate to the point we, the taxpayers, had to pay a fine of $250,000. You could not hire a legitimate contractor for the Sports Complex. Costing the Taxpayers an additional $$'s Now you want to let a company with a proven track record of failure in this field go forward with their proposal based on a promise of tax revenues to the City. With our City officials being arrested for DUI Real Estate Fraud Graft and corruption We the taxpayers would welcome a responsible position from the City Council Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Nancy Koch [nancy@ltalltrees.com] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 12:34 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: no on Poseidon Please vote no on the Poseidon plant. Nancy Koch No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375/Virus Database:268.1.0/269-Release Date: 2/24/2006 o � f 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: klzk@aol.com Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 10:11 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: No on Poseidon Dear Leaders, Please do not condemn the Brookhurst/Adams area of HB to more ghetto ambiance. We have already suffered tremendously in terms of inconvenience, pollution, congestion, graffiti, property value decline and auto accidents. Ironically, many of the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods such as Meredith Gardens and Park Place are attractive, large and well kept,(my home is approximately 3400 square feet) Until very recently, the adjacent aging strip shopping centers had been allowed/encouraged to deteriorate to the point of condemnation. I'm guessing if that kind of neglect had happened in a residential neighborhood, there would have been such uproar that the city would have found a way to intervene: either through fines or eminent domain. I'm also guessing if such blight and squalor had happened to commercial interests near downtown HB, where Pam Houchen and her real estate cronies owned property, the devastation and decay would also have been promptly short circuited. Additionally, in the last fifteen years, I can't tell you how many times out-of-town guests have commented on how poorly run Huntington Beach must be to allow such blighted and vacant business eyesores. Not very good public relations for for a city that wants to attract tourist dollars for one of its main thoroughfares to look so unappealing. It is truly embarrassing how this city focuses on only one area and wears blinders to most of other areas. Do the realtors, politicians and outsiders who own much of the downtown property really deserve such preferential treatment for their nighborhoods? Re: the Poseidon proposal-- I ask you to be honest with yourself. If your house, or your neighborhood for that matter, sat at Brookhurst, would you really want all the mess, noise, and pollution the tearing up of Brookhurst is going to entail? Furthermore, do you have any idea how hard it is to get out of Meredith Gardens at 8:00 in the morning since there is no traffic light controlled exit. Do you have any idea how exacerbated this problem will be with the tearing up of Brookhurst and surrounding streets. Do you have any ideas on how heavily traveled Brookhurst is? Since Huntington Beach will not directly benefit from the Poseidon Treatment Facility(in other words, the treated water is not for us) and the fact theat the Poseidon People have such a horrible track record, I cannot believe we are even considering this project. For our city to go forward with this kind of looming disaster of a project, I am convinced there must be kickbacks, incentives, or graft(call it what you want) --okay, so maybe it's only free lunches--but the whole thing makes no sense!!! I beg of you to put the local homeowners best interests first. Let's stay focused on tourist dollars. Sincerely, Karen Kuchinski Meredith Gardens Resident 64- ` 0,0p 2/27/2006 �� YO Albers, Patricia From: Dick-Ellie Lenell [dienell@mindspring.com] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:14 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Water Treatment Facility Dear City Council Members: I want to give my input on the vote for the Water Treatment Facility. I am opposed to it. As far as I can tell the main advantage is that it will bring money ,to the city. But I don't trust the council to spend this money wisely. We don't need more foolish projects like the Sports Park. The only way I would reconsider would be if the council made specific comensurate reductions in taxes and fees to residents of Huntington Beach, that have been initiated in the last decade. Not a general promise of lowered increases, but specifically identified reductions from current levels. I haven't heard of any plan to do that, so I stand opposed. regards, Dick Lenell, 40 year resident of Huntington Beach � o Page I of 1 Albers, Patricia From: JIMCPI@aol.com Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 9:50 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Plan Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members: I strongly oppose Poseidon's plans for a desalinization plant. It will add pollution to our beach and to our air. It will make our claim to be"surf city" unjustifiable and hollow. It will increase health risks of our Huntington Beach citizens. It will negatively impact the quality of life in Huntington Beach. It will hurt our property values. It will decrease the attractiveness of Huntington Beach to potential visitors, tourists and home buyers. The actions each of you take regarding this plan will weigh heavily on the minds of Huntington Beach voters. Respectfully and sincerely, Marjorie A. Powers 22121 Luau Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: JIMCPI@aol.com Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 9:50 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Desalinization, opposed! Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members: I strongly oppose Poseidon's plans for a desalinization plant. It will add pollution to our beach and to our air. It will make our claim to be"surf city" unjustifiable and hollow. It will increase health risks of our Huntington Beach citizens. It will negatively impact the quality of life in Huntington Beach. It will hurt our property values. It will decrease the attractiveness of Huntington Beach to potential visitors, tourists and home buyers. The actions each of you take regarding this plan will weigh heavily on the minds of Huntington Beach voters. Respectfully and sincerely, James C. Powers 22121 Luau Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Milada Roberts [milroy99@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:13 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: poseidon As 35 year H.B.residents we wish to express our concern over the proposed Poseidon project. Due to Y p p p p J the negative impact on our city therefore we urge you to vote NO .Roy and Milada Roberts Do You Yahoo!? Tired of Spam?Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Charles & Maryann Rozzelle[RozzMar@Rozzelle.com] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:54 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: NO ON POSEIDON Dear Council Members, We are opposed to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in Huntington Beach. Do not support this project! Our city already has the AES Power Plant and the Sewage Plant that dump 750,000,000 gallons of waste into the ocean at Huntington Beach daily. Poseidon's plan will make our ocean dirtier and jeopardize Hunting Beach's tourism industry. PLEASE VOTE NO ON POSEIDON!!! Charles and Maryann Rozzelle 9402 Daytona Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Email- rozzmar cat rozzelle con 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Mary Surprenant[Mary.Surprenant@quantum.com] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 8:09 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: NO on Poseidon Desalination Plant VOTE "NO" on the Poseidon Desalination Plant. Do not further industrialize Huntington Beach and use the ocean as a refuse for the proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant. Enough is enough!!! Save our Coast. Remember when HB was known as"tin can" beach. HB has made improvements to saving the coast. Do not regress. A California Beach native and HB resident for over 20 years. Mary Surprenant 21811 Kiowa Lane Huntington, Beach, CA PH 714-964-2424 �j 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: JonV3@aol.com Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:37 PM To: hbdac@hotmail.com; DSULLIVAN@socal.rr.com; Hbmissjill@aol.com; gicoerp1 @gte.net; cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org;jhardy@surfcity-hb.org; dsullivan@surfcity- hb.org; PPcgreen@aol.com; dhansen@surfcity-hb.org; kbohr@surfcity-hb.org; city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: City Council Agenda Item D1a,D1b Poseidon Desalination Project: DENY 2-27-06 Dear Mayor Sullivan and City Council Members, This is a request that you deny the CUP and OPA being considered tonight. This proposal is premature in light of recent developments concerning once-through cooling permits being considered by the State Lands Commission. Once-through cooling is the method used by the AES plant and the cooling pipes are proposed for use by the Poseidon Desalination Plant. If the AES pipes lose their permits in 2020, then Poseidon's operations may also be eliminated or severely curtailed. The State Lands Commission considered a Resolution opposing once-through cooling in California power plants at its meeting on February 9, 2006. The Resolution is attached. The Resolution was postponed to the April meeting, and 1 suggest the Huntington Beach City Council move to support the Resolution, as the once-through cooling method is an outdated, destructive method that causes damage to marine life and is being phased out. Meanwhile, approval of the Poseidon desalination project is premature and will complicate the phasing out of once-through cooling, both because Poseidon wants to use the pipes,with the same adverse marine life impacts, and because Poseidon will take up land at the AES site that will be needed for alternative power plant cooling methods. The EIR should be considering this new information,therefore I request that a Supplemental EIR be required, and that any consideration of approval of the project be postponed until after the State Lands Commission makes its determination. I also think it is appropriate to recall that a motion made by Councilman Hansen and seconded by Councilman Coerper at the end of the September 6, 2005 meeting was to approve the EiR but deny the CUP. I think it is now appropriate to support the second half of the motion to deny the CUP.As the Minutes of that meeting show: "A substitute motion was made by Hansen, second Coerper to certify the EIR and deny the CUP/CDP" Hopefully, the Councilmen will now vote to be consistent and deny the CUP/CDP. Huntington Beach has much to lose, and little to gain, by approving the CUP. The future of Huntington Beach is an ocean-related surf city, dedicated to tourism and residential values.A destructive desalination plant and power plant utilizing antiquated cooling pipes should not be part of the future vision of this great city. Thank you. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 8101 Newman, Suite C Huntington Beach, CA (714)848-0770 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: gordy kao [gkkao@surfside.net] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 7:53 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Save Huntington Beach... Stop the deal of Poseidon's Desalination plans Dear Mayor, Councilmen and Councilwomen: We are against Poseidon's Desalination plans the reasons are as following: 1. Further d evaluate our property, the plans is only less than 1/2 mile from residents area. 2. Pollute HB's air and increase noise level. 3. Use ocean as a dump, pollute world famous beach. 4 . Condemn a large portion of HB.s shore to industrial use forever. 5. Tear up our streets to lay miles of pipe to get water to south Orange County users. Residents and home owner Yen-ning Kao & Kuo-ti Kao 21342 Sand Dollar Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 / �o 1 Page 1 of l Albers, Patricia From: Ross Miller[RMiller@mazdausa.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:43 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: No on Poseidon City Council: We are writing to encourage you to vote NO on the Poseidon project. While the potential revenue for the city is appealing, it is not a sure thing and we feel it would be unwise to add yet another industrial enterprise to our beach front when one of the city's stated goals is to make our beaches as visually appealing as possible. Regards, Ross .4 Dione Miller FIB ill RJM erHBCA socal.rr.com 2/27/2006 Maize Page I of I Albers, Patricia From: cindy newman [cnewman@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:10 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: NO on Poseidon We urge you to vote NO on Poseidon. We have attended the city council meetings and will be there tonight. I've heard nothing to change my opinion. The slick pro- Poseidon malier sent out last week with the pink card was deceptive. The pink card didn't even mention the word Poseidon and neighbors had to call me to find out what it was all about. I hope the majority votes NO tonight and we will note any council member who votes for it. Sincerely, Cindy and Chuck Newman HB residents AI 2/27/2006 Tourism or Desalination? Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Kimber Smith [kimber@smithfidler.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:09 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Tourism or Desalination? Dear City Council: I am writing to express my negative views as a long-time Huntington Beach resident and business owner regarding the proposed desalination plant. We have tried so hard to build our image as a tourism destination to the world. Yet we continue to industrialize our fair beaches in the southeast section of our city. Last year, a feature article on Orange County appeared in the front page of the travel section of the most widely-read paper in Australia, The Australian. Here was the excerpt on Huntington Beach: Heading down Main Street to the pier, we pass the surf museum on our right, followed by the Surfing Walk of Fame and about 100 surf shops with so many specials racks on the footpath that people are forced to walk on the road, which is, of course, normally the province of skateboarders. At the pier you can look left or right and see endless beach somewhere in the haze, punctuated by offshore oil derricks. At the northern end there is a wetlands park that stinks to high heaven, and at the southern end is a wide concrete gutter known as the Santa Ana River, which spews all manner of garbage into the River Jetties surf break every time it rains. (excerpt, The Capital of Cool, The Australian, May 7, 2005) The article then goes on to wax the beauty of South Orange County — where the water from the desalination plant will go. Is it fair to give South County not just our water, but our tourism dollars too? Please consider what we will lose as well as the possible gain when making your decisions this evening. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kimber Smith Fidler 20012 Midland Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714.968.8401 5- a �/0 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Bill &Bunny Wetzel [wwetzel@socal.rr.comj Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:13 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: wwetzel@socal.rr.com; Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon LET ANOTHER CITY BE THE ONE THAT TAKES ACHANCE ON THE TECHNOLOGY.. VOTE NO ON THE PROJECT! 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: JBookout Dbookout1 @socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:30 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: No On Poseidon My vote is No on Poseidon ..................No on the HB Water Plant.................NOT in our backyard........ 2/27/2006 Message Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: McGavack, Vicky[vicky.mcgavack@hoaghospital.org] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:10 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Adventure Just like the movie,the Poseidon Desalination plan sounds like a disaster to me. I am a 30 year resident of HB and an RN who has worked for Hoag Hospital for 30 years. For the past 15 years, my job has been to assure the employees, volunteers and physicians have a safe working environment. This includes air quality, ergonomics, infection control, exposure control, chemical monitoring, etc. The chemicals required to desalinate the ocean water are extremely toxic. I know, because some of those same chemicals we must manage in our hospital. The volume of chemicals for a desalination plant are exponentially larger than a hospital and therefore run the risk of a bigger concern for exposure to our environment and spills into our ocean. I am writing for the first time to my City Council asking that you vote"NO"tonight on the Poseidon proposal. I live in the vicinity of the AES, treatment plant, and toxic dump. How much more do we have to endure as South East HB residents. Thank you for taking the time to read my e-mail and hear my concerns. Vicky McGavack Vicky McGovack RN, COHN-S Manager Employee Health Services Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (949) 764- 886 fax (949) 764-5808 Please note that the information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act(HIPAA). If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil penalties. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by replying to the message and delete the material from any computer. Thank you, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and its Affiliates i 6 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 3 Albers, Patricia From: SDJDClifford@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:19 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Project To: HB City Council Members From: Steve and Darlene Clifford Subject: Poseidon Project Date: February 27, 2006 The City of Huntington Beach should not be the site of a desalinization plant. We adamantly oppose this project for Huntington Beach. The Poseidon group wants to fulfill their corporate objectives at the expense of the City of Huntington Beach and we need to stop this project now! We are a relatively small familycommunity, and Poseidon is attempting to intrude on our Y� P 9 community, thinking that we are an easy target. They have us pegged as pawns for their aggressive marketing campaign in exchange for supposed financial promises and other unsubstantiated promises. We already have too many major undesirable utilities and facilities in our area of South Huntington Beach! We have the ASCOT Land Fill, which contains environmentally toxic materials, the Sanitation District, that pollutes our fresh air, and the Edison Power Plant, that constantly creates pollutants. We do not need yet another major facility contributing to an already cluttered environment, adding yet another eyesore in South HB, nor do we want more construction and disruption of our streets and traffic flow for the length of time proposed!!!!! All of the streets where Poseidon has proposed to install the waterways are the main arteries/streets we, residents in South HB, use every single day to commute to work and to all activities with the children. We have just endured two years of torn up streets and inconveniences in our area of South Huntington Beach because of the Sanitation District Maintenance Project and before that project was the construction improvement on the river channel. This type of disruption causes heavy traffic backups, detours, and chronic inconveniences. Additional disruption of the use of our 2/27/2006 Page 2 of 3 streets for months/years on end, is completely unacceptable!! Our HB community, which would obviously be impacted the most by this project, would probably be benefited the least in the use of the treated sea water, because the processed water would be sent to benefit other areas, rather than being used for our own city's needs. Because we happen to have a generating plant that is needed for Poseidon's project, they have specifically targeted us in their pursuit of world desalinization conquest. This doesn't mean, however, that we, the residents of the small coastal, mostly bedroom, community of Huntington Beach, should have to bear the burden of some corporately lucrative environmental pipe dream of the Poseidon Resources group nor should we bow down to their aggressive marketing tactics!!!! Lastly, as the leaders of the HB City Council, please do not give in to Poseidon's promises and corporate muscle they have flexed on our city. There are questions regarding the financial impact this project would have long and short term. The projected income from profits of the operation to our city has not been proven. Even if there may be some so called annual "revenue," think about the price we, as a city, would have to pay in many ways in order to gain some supposed revenue. How would it really affect the echo system of our oceans and sea creatures? It is not worth it! Poseidon's operation is obviously purely for its own corporate benefit, and they do not have our city's best interest at heart as we obviously have. I'm sure every city council looks for ways to improve city revenues, but this is not the answer. In actuality, what financial benefit would Huntington Beach really receive from this project??? So why would this project be needed for more revenue? I'm sure there have been ample residential and commercial developments in HB over the last 10 years to keep pace with our city's expenses. The views and issues stated above have been expressed to you by multitudes of residents at city council meetings, and the message has consistently been that our residents do not want this project! I would hope that the HB City Council would look out for the best interest of all of its residents, and would not sacrifice the quality of life of its residents, while falling into Poseidon's trap. Poseidon is trying to use our city as a platform from which to continue to launch its own private corporate objectives, with no concern for the immediate environment in which we Five! The idea and enticement to add a 2/27/2006 Page 3 of 3 few trees around the proposed facility for improvement of aesthetics is very weak and is really a joke compared to the intrusion of our city as stated above. The so-called environmentally oriented company has no regard for the degradation of the quality of life for residents of HB, and would dare to operate at the expense of the quality of life for the residents of Huntington Beach. Additionally, how do all these various issues, stated above, contribute your conclusion that this project, in Poseidon's words, "is in keeping with the city's vision of Huntington Beach as a world-renowned tourist destination"? Their brochures sent out to the residents are Seriously, the visitors preposterous! Y to our city don t care at all about this project; they're here for business or vacations. The above issues don't support their claim. We, as home owners and 30 year residents in Huntington Beach, vehemently object to your entire project!!! Poseidon needs to go somewhere else to build their aggressive project!!! 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: to sono[normanni2001 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:36 AM To: HB City Council Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Opposition to Desalination Plant As a resident of Huntington Beach for 45 years, my wife and I are OPPOSED to Poseidon's plans for a Desalination Plant in HB. Do NOT support this project. Our city already has the AES Power Plant and Sewage Plant that dump 750,000,000 gallons of waste into the ocean at Huntington Beach daily. Posiedon's plan will make our ocean dirtier and jeopardize Huntington Beach's tourism industry. Let alone the upheaval that it will cause for the couple of years to build it. Thank you, Norman and Ellen Do You Yahoo!? Tired of Spam?Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Randy [rbruno1@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:21 AM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Water Treatment Plant Dear City Council, We are requesting that you please vote NO on the Water Treatment Plant proposed by Poseidon Resources. We've lived in the City of Huntington Beach since 1971 and do not want more industry and disruption in our part of the city. Sincerely, Randall & Victoria Bruno 22152 Wood Island Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 968-4084 V062 0�q 2/27/2006 RECEIVED 2006 FEB 21 PM 12: 18 .j CIA ti ;T0 ' - Lois N.Whelan 21211 Amberwick Ln_ Huntingtn Bch,CA 92646 Jay ILI --�--- ��;� ,ter �, -�-� ��. - �.--,--�..�• �� , ® . s� 8r f 'wy ounce ` to secure t es+e enet or our, 71'i,S Sincerely; Name: Address_ City,State and Zip Code: -: cr rn Phone Number: - E-mail: Z&d , c� --- c rn rw r Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 2:13 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Poseidon Project -----Original Message----- From: SpecScan@aol.com [mai Ito:SpecScan@aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 2:12 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Project Huntington Beach City Council, The proposed desalination treatment facility represents a dangerous alternative to produce water not needed now, nor in the future. The only beneficiary are the companies involved in the desalination and energy providers to run the process. There are many aspects involved in the desalination process that have not been disclosed, such as the waste (salts, organic matter, particles, etc.),to be discharged in the effluent after the reverse osmosis. In coastal oceans sea water contains—33 grams of salts in one liter,— 1 million marine bacteria per milliliter and—5 mg of dissolved organic matter per litter. Multiply these numbers by the thousands and millions of gallons to be processed daily,to have an idea of the discharged outflow of residuals. These are massive quantities that will definitely affect the water quality of the surrounding beaches. My vote will not support a project of this nature. R. Iturriaga, Ph.D. Biological Oceanographer Phone: (714)403-4675 Fax: (714)378-0493 Email: specscan@aol.com iturriaga@spectrascancorp.com 2/27/2006 `� Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 2:44 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Poseidon -----Original Message----- From: Bernice S. Malkin [mailto:SG9@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 2:24 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Please take a stand and vote against the proposed Poseidon venture. That is something that at present is ill- considered and will not improve our city. Beachfront property is at a high value these days and should not be used to enrich industry while that same industry defaces our city. Thank you. Bernice Malkin C7 2/27/2006 (-�-� Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 2:45 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Vote Against Desal Plant! -----Original Message----- From: RMM4RE@aol.com [mailto:RMM4RE@aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 2:38 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Vote Against Desal Plant! Dear Council, Both my husband and I are against the desal/Poseidon plant in H. B. because 1. Advertising is deceptive--millions of$to city but no mention that the large amts. are over a 30-year period. If advertising is deceptive, what else is?! 2. Wait for better technology. Yes, we need to plan for future water needs, but don't be the test mouse. As technology improves, usually cost decreases. 3. Add lists no cost to taxpayers. More than just money is a cost to taxpayers--how about loss of quiet enjoyment of your neighborhood and surrounding area, loss of business income--all while streets are dug up. When a project was going on outside our tract on Brookhurst, the project time was listed as 6 mos. &took over 1 1/2 years. Let's not forget danger to pedestrians and drivers. 4. A supply of water in case of earthquake, etc. We are happy to know that the desal plant will be exempt from a natural disaster with its supply lines in tact. 5. If public utility takes over desal plant, Poseidon will keep paying fees in place of property taxes. How do we know Poseidon will have the funds for this? If you have an answer for this, remember Enron. 6. Intelligent Costa Mesa has denied permission to lay pipes through Costa Mesa. So what is the new plan? 7. HB does not, in our opinions, have a good record on projects such as the sports complex, the new sewer pipes with cracks, condo conversions---so let's not add the desal plant to the list. 8. Oh, and once these supposed millions of dollars of street improvements are done, is the city going to change its current tact and begin to maintain the new streets and, you know, repair and clean up the trash there? 9. We would like to know where is the line of other California coastal cities clamboring for this plant?! 10.From Beach to the river, our coastline on the land side is embarrassing, and this includes the relic that is the AES plant. Please vote against the desal project. Thank you. Jerry Miller and Rosemarie McKowen-miller 2/27/2006 ... Albers, Patricia From: Lynne P Baker[lynnebaker@juno.com) Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:15 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Dear City Council Members, I want to urge you to vote against approval of the Poseidon desalination plant. I believe that the impact on our city will be negative. Thank you for your consideration. Lynne Baker 21721 Branta Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Lena Yee Hayashi [lenahayashi@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 9:15 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Dear Councilmembers, We are residents of Southeast Huntington Beach and we do not want the desalinization plant, Poseidon. Our City does not need the water and if this plant will be providing water for South County, it should be built there. Please vote against Poseidon. Lena and Steve Hayashi 9572 Castine Drive 92646 714-963-3771 r 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: BLMiller[Bmillerl7@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 11:20 AM To: Huntington Bch City Council Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Opposing Poseidon l am a resident of Huntington Beach since 1971. Love the city and do not want Poseidon to put in the treatment plant here. You have been told of the many reasons as to why it would be unwise to allow this plan to be approved. Please believe those who have expressed opposition and not the Poseidon staff. I watch city council meetings on Channel 3(even when it lasts until the wee hours if necessary)and I see how"slick"the paid staff can be in their presentations. Sincerely, Bobbie Miller 9332 Tahiti Cir. 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: anatoly brohin [anatoly_rrr@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:36 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: poseidon Dear Sir/Madam As a responsible resident of Huntington Beach I am categorically against further industrialization of Huntington Beach coast. Poseidon desalienation plans must be stopped! Anatoly Brohin 21341 Compass Ln, H.B. 92646 Yahoo! Mail Use P_hotomail to share photos without annoying attachments. 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: Scott Toth [sweetchops@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 7:54 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus;Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon We are South East HB residents, please DO NOT allow Poseidon to be built in Huntington Beach. Alice & Scott Toth 21871 Oceanview Lane p.s. Why were the barriers taken down along Magnolia between PCH & Banning? 1 Message Page 1 of I Albers, Patricia From: Chuck Allen [CAllen@southlandind.com] Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:22 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon City Council Members I am requesting that you vote NO on the Poseidon CUP & OPA ! The benefits of this facility DO NOT outweigh it environment and community impact. Water conservation measures and grey water recycling are far more economical and environment responsible methods to conserve water. The city should consider the adoption of the USGBC LEED rating system for it existing building and new construction. Encouraging the use of LEED sustainable design measure in all new construction projects in the city and providing developer concessions for their successful implementation of sustainable design enhance the city image as an environmentally responsible steward. Chuck Allen 8881 Stilwell Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Opp a 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: dorisbailey@earthlink.net Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 10:59 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon I can't understand why we are even considering this Desalination plan. Their past record stinks and I have yet to find a resident on the east side that is in favor of this. I am unable to attend the council meeting but I just want you to know that as a resident of Huntington Beach since 1967, I am very unhappy with the council and I am sure with the rest of the majority of unhappy residents our opinions with be heard loud and clear and will show in the next election. Doris Bailey 8381 Lomond Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: cndstelley[cndstelley@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 12:15 PM To: HB City Council Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Desalination PLant Proposal Importance: High As SEHB residents since 1979 we are among the victims of pollution from the Sanitation and AES plants. We don't swim or fish in the ocean 1.25 miles from our home!AES pollution has been reduced. However, running it's old antiquated generators full time could increase it! We believe the Sanitation District will continue to have the same or more affluent pollution going into the Ocean! We know that Poseidon Desalination Plant will add pollution to the ocean see(www.hbdesalfacts.org ! To preclude adding more pollution to our Ocean we ask each one of you to vote against the Poseidon Desalination Plant Proposal ! Curtis L Stelley Diane G Stelley 9422 Rambler DR Huntington Beach CA 92646 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Ceylonxprs@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 2:18 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Re: Poseidon's Desalination plant As a tax paying resident of Huntington Beach I am totally opposed to this planned project. We have seen the pollution and problems created in Los Angeles country with all the industry and chemical plants there. I have just returned from two funerals of people living LA that died of cancer.There is a definite co-relation to the toxic environment and one's health. PLEASE DO NOT PROCEED WITH THIS PROJECT! SAVE OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY FROM INDUSTRIES THAT CAUSE CANCER AND OTHER DANGEROUS ILNESS. A concerned and worried resident. Varini de Silva 9542 Dumbreck Drive Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 Tel: 714-964-6896 Fax:714-968-4296 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Mary Harris [vernjoharris@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 6:00 PM To: city.council@surfeity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Desalination Plant Please stop the Poseidon Desalination plans for the plant in Huntington Beach. We do not want or need the treatment facitlity to further industralize our beach and/or pollute our ocean and air. Sincerely, Robert V. Harris and Mary S. Harris 21731 Dirigo Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Jwlhot57@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 6:08 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: (no subject) Dear City Council members: I am absolutely opposed to Poseidon's desalination plant in Huntington Beach. I moved here from Redondo Beach seven years ago to enjoy a more open and accessible beach. I admired Huntington Beach's citizens and City government for not selling out to the land developers who ruin beautiful coastlines like they have in the beach areas from Santa Monica to Torrance Beach. As a resident and voter.1 urge a no vote . Do not further ruin this coastline and devalue our beautiful coast. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn and John Lewis 18716 Stratton Lane Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 714 375-1124 Vo � 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: Kim Barone [kimbarone@hotmaii.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:32 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon As a concerned citizen of Huntington Beach, I am very opposed to the desalination plan. It seems quite obvious from all the contoversy surrounding the decision, that it is a bad decision, and should be terminated. Has conservation even been addressed as an option? From the literature that I have read, it seems that there are many more negative effects than positive effects associated with the Poseidon plan. I hope the City Council votes against this plan once and for all and moves on to other issues and alternatives to meet future needs of our city. From a concerned citizen, Kim Barone Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Don Farmer[dfarmer@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:40 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon I am against the Poseidon Project-- how can you really trust AES after the fiasco of them putting a"double tax" measure on the ballot and fooling the public into belieiving it !!! NO NO NO Don Farmer and Janet Barkawi dfarmer ix.netcom.com Why Wait? Move to Earthl-ink. 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: nibergman@netscape.net Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:45 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: development in Southeast area Dear City Council, My wife and I are upset at the prospect of a desalination plant in our area. Likewise we are watching the Ascon field with apprehension. This is and should remain a residencial area. Please help protect our property value and quality of life by rejecting this plant and by not letting the former dumping ground further degrade our environment. Thank you for 'listeninng. ' Norman and Ethel Bergman 8851 Satterfield dr HB, 92646 Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free I More Storage I Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com I Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Jack Quinlan Uquinlan@socal.rr.com) Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:12 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Water Treatment Facility All Council Members, Today I received a letter from the Water Treatment Facility people explaining all the wonderful monetary benefits we tax payers will receive with their new plant. That is great but no one mentions the addition of more ugly along PCH. When traveling south on PCH, you pass all the nice looking hotels but when you reach Beach Blvd. You come upon an ugly boat yard, then an ugly trailer park, next is an ugly power plant, then you reach the ugly sewer treatment plant. I think we have more than our share of ugly along our beautiful beaches. How about sharing some of the ugly and send them down to Newport or Corona Del Mar. PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS FACILITY. John Quinlan 9412 Mokihana Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 962-0430 iquinlan@socal.rr.com 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: David and Elena Hedlund [elvid@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:31 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: david hedlund; Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: poseidon/no members of the city council,my wife and 1, residents of surf city huntington beach since 1977 are totally against this unproven desalination project,please vote against it yours truly David and Elena Hedlund 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: Scot Oschman [soschman@usc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:47 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Vote No on Poseidon Deslination Plant Dear City Council Members: As a long-time resident of Huntington Beach, I urge you to vote no on the Poseidon desalination plant at your February 27th meeting. Best regards, Scot Oschman 21232 Banff Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-969-0566 soschman@usc.edu 70 Albers, Patricia From: Gary Benedict[gbenedict@socal.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:00 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Please do not vote for the Poseidon Resources Coastal Development Permit/Conditional Use Permit. We have enough problems in SE Huntington Beach without adding more. � 1 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Jenniferpercival@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:53 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: (no subject) Dear City Council, Please consider the concerns of Betty Jean Percival and Jennifer Percival at 21022 Strathmoor Lane. We do NOT agree with the Poseidon Desalination plans in our city. Thank you for your consideration, Betty Jean Percival and Jennifer Percival I 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: betssander@juno.com Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:54 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Desalination To our respected city council: I have lived in Huntington Beach since 1960 and have seen the city grow and grow. Some good some not so good. This issure of desalination for me has to many unanswered questions for me to support this venture. I can only hope that you use the voice of the people who put you there. I also hope that none of you have slipped into the trap of personal gain or greed over this issue. A conserned citizen of HB 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: Dave W [dwhi62@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:15 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon I am writing to express DISAPPROVAL of the Poseidon Desalination plans. I have not seen any evidence that the construction of this plant will benefit or improve mine or my family's life. It will not lower my taxes, improve my neighborhood, increase my property values, decrease traffic, cleanup the ocean, or anything else. All I can see is private industry profiting from using our city, and enriching certain select private individuals or parties. Additionally, we get another ugly industrial plant, dump by-products into the ocean, and creat traffic congestion during construction. Unless it can be PROVEN that it would materially improve the life of the great majority of ALL the citizens of Huntington Beach, then I vote NO to the construction of this plant. Dave Whitaker 17672 Prescott Lane Huntington Beach, 92647 Do You Yahoo! ? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: CHARLIE HUNT[ceahunt@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:54 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon To the members of the HB City council: I am registering my opposition to the planning and support of a Water Treatment Facility in our neighborhood. I am asking the council to do the right thing and vote against continuing the planning and entertaining of this proposal. Charlie Hunt 8822 Satterfield Drive 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: christopher condon [chriscondon1 @earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:55 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: HB Water Treatment Plant Dear Council Members: You have the power to change Huntington Beach forever on Monday, February 27th. Her future is in your hands. I have lived my entire life within 10 miles of Huntington Beach and was fortunate to finally buy a home here three years ago. I have seen Huntington Beach go from a gritty oil town, to a place where families have now flocked to. You are to be congratulated on the many accomplishments in our city's recent past. Now, is another turning point for our wonderful city. Do you vote for a private company to come in and take over prime real estate to build an industrial plant or do you look further down the line and see what could be done with this property instead. I hope you continue use the wisdom that has helped us get where we are today, and deny Poseidon's plan. You have heard plenty of negatives about Poseidon's past problems and plenty of negatives about their newest proposal. Please look forward and look at this incredible area of real estate. One of the last in such close proximity to the coast. There are many uses that this area can be used for that will generate tax dollars for the city and enhance the life of its citizens. Let's continue to make Huntington Beach a place where people want to come to play and live. Please deny Poseidon the right to build their industrial plant in our great city. Thank you. Sincerely, Christopher Condon 714-964-8953 P.S. Say NO to Poseidon 1 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Tsimpsonhb@aol.com Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:08 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Tampa Bay Desalination Plant, Florida Water Technology-Tampa Bay_Desalination Plant, Florida I attended the last Poseidon city council meeting and was appalled at this council's inability to open the meeting for the limited purpose of hearing public input on the record and hearing the presentation of Poseidon. I was very impressed by the information presented by the New York investment banker,as you should be also. Additionally, the bantering about by the council and Posiedon over the agreement to continue the vote was just plain sad. And now I read the web site listed above. HOW can you even begin to consider this company and project for our fine city? From the looks of the downtown area Promenade, the construction project at First and PCH, the new hotel between the Hyatt and the Hilton, it appears that you are bent on selling this city to the highest bidder as fast as possible and at any cost and risk.. If you were going to hire a company to care for your child, grandchild, or parent, would you consider a company with the history of Posiedon? For the record, I am APPOSED to this project and company. And, I have serious doubts that this council and planning department have the knowledge or ability to make a decision on a project with such a potentially damaging and long lasting impact on our city and our lives. With all due respect, Tom Simpson Huntington Beach resident since 1981 I 1 �C)( AA 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Carole K. Lung [cklung@surfcity.net] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:33 AM To: pdapkus@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Poseidon To the city council: In theory, I support the idea of desalinization; however, I have no confidence in this company. When I searched the internet, 1 only came up with negative comments about them. I would hate to see the city support a business that is going to drop an expensive project in the city's lap. Given the city's track record for ending up with businesses that cost the taxpayer money, I say to all of you buyer beware. Do not move in haste on this and find out what the company is really about. Additionally,to have the water sent out of the city, seems like an imposition on our community and shoreline. Carole K. Lung e 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Kathy Stoddard [kstoddard@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:26 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon I am completely against this project being placed in our neighborhood. We have the Newland power plant and the Brookhurst"poop" plant. Is this not enough for this beautiful coastal city? Why even put multi-million dollar resorts in the area if they are going to ruin it by this Poseidon project. The residents of South Orange County stopped the airport at the El Toro marine base-so now what's wrong with them taking some responsibility for their own water. I moved to HB 25 years ago and 11 years ago moved to South Orange County and have just moved back and bought a home in South HB. The majority of people in South County don't feel they should have to have this type of facility at their beaches. There is arrogance in how they feel about this type of thing. Also,for obvious reasons of pollution of the air and ocean I am against it. Sincerely, Katherine Stoddard Homeowner and mother of 2 elementary school children � a � ' � C'C `--" opl)ek- 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: frankprovost[frankp@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:02 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: poseidon the only way to get an objective look at this project is to get the results from florida and not look at a one sided view from the company who is trying sell this project to the city.if you look at this issue from some one who has nothing to gain your only conclusion should be a negative vote on this project. Page I of I Albers, Patricia From: RDujanovic@aol.com Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:43 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; dhansen@surfcity-hb.org; dsullivan@surlcity- hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org; hbdac@hotmail.com;jhardy@surfcity-hb.org; kbohr@surfcity- hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus;Cathy Fikes Subject: NO ON POSEIDON... i!! Councilmembers, Regarding Poseidon:As I was reading the arguments-both pro and con -in today's local newspapers, several questions come to mind: How does Poseidon intend to get their water to South County, their intended target market? Costa Mesa has rejected a pipeline through their city.Where's the pipeline going to go when it hits HB city limits? If Poseidon can't get their water to South County customers(who are yet to be determined), how will that generate a tax base for HB?Will HB then be burdened with overpriced desalinated water? With so many questions left unanswered, the Council has no choice but to reject this project. Please protect the interests of HB and vote NO on Poseidon! Robin Dujanovic 714-964-8575 Phone 714-964-8615 Fax rujanovic@aol.com 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Darren [dmagot@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:05 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Please vote NO on Poseidon! Importance: High Dear City Council Members, I would like to express my concern about the Poseidon project. It appears from the mailing literature that the group opposed to the program is very under funded compared to those in favor of the project. I received a very basic mailer in black and white from the group trying to stop the project. 1 then received a color mailer with postage paid card to return to the group that is in favor of the project. You will hear from a lot more people in favor of the project. Don't let this make you think that this group is the majority! Point: Please don't overlook that fact that the playing field is not level when it comes to this project. It is focused on money, like all programs, but the percentages do not make sense. We should be getting more money if we are going forward with the program. The price that we are going to pay is just not worth the destruction that will result from this program. Please just take a walk on the beach in front of the site just once before you vote! What you see will help to keep you focused on the real issues. Thank you for your time and consideration. Darren Magot 9061 Niguel Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-323-1032 l 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: Dishon,James(HP-Outsourcing) Pames.Dishon@hp.comj Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:20 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: No on Poseidon Dear City Council members, As a 22 year resident of Huntington Beach I am very frustrated and disappointed by our city council and their seeming willingness to degrade my South East HB community! We barely get one polluting eyesore closed (and not even cleaned up yet) while you are considering another project to replace it. Many of the present city council ran on the campaign promise to clean up HB beaches and yet you are willing commit to increasing the mineral content and salinity of the very water and beaches you committed to protect. Shame on you! Please do not let the short term greed for tax revenue entice you to make a long term decision to industrialize South East HB. I am one of the many residents who elected you to represent us, now my property value and long term pride of community depend on your decision. We do not want this project in our neighborhood, please DO NOT ALLOW the Poseidon Desalination Plant Project to be implemented! ! ! Thanks Jim Dishon 21011 Galbar Cir Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 L 0 1 Albers, Patricia From: patricia pope [patricia_cb@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:21 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Water treatment facility I am a long time resident of Huntington Beach and I am strongly opposed to the building of a desalinatiion plant in this city. Before the concil approved this I think it needs a great deal more consideration. Patricia Pope 4761 Hermanson Cir. Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/Ol/ Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Glenn Selvin[glenn@commercialrelocationcompany.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:21 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon desalination plant I'm a resident and business owner here in Huntington Beach,and am most certainly against adding a desalination plant to our already ugly coastline. We already have a sewage plant, and an Edison plant, and most certainly, don't need to add this to our coastline. Perhaps,for a change, Newport Beach could take this one on? Let them enjoy the ugliness, as well as the hit in their property values. We already have an industrial looking coast line... let Newport step up for a change. Please also visit our website at www.commercialrelocationcom an .com Glenn Selvin President Commercial Relocation Company, Inc. 16182 Gothard St.#B Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647 tel: 714-596-0502 ext. 11 fax: 714-847-0530 cell: 714-904-0530 gle�mmercialrelocationcompany.com www.commercialrelocationcompany.com 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: Joseph Ongie Dongie@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 200611:36 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: No On Poseidon Plans Dear HB Council Members; Once again we wish to express our views on permitting the Poseidon operation to encroach on our city. Please don't allow the Poseidon venture to go forward. If you would visit this part of our city you will see the extent of pollutable sources there are here. . .the Edison plant, the sewer plant, the Santa Ana river runoff all contribute to the spoiling of our air, water and habitat plus all representing a visual blight on the southeast Huntington Beach neighborhoods. Of course the river flow can't be altered but the rest of them including the proposed Poseidon plant can be addressed. We urge you to vote against the Poseidon nightmare. Joseph and Joan Ongie 9411 Mokihana Dr Huntington Beach 92646 1 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Ricbutton@aol.com Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:40 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org. Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: PLEASE VOTE NO ON POSEIDON DESALINATION PLANT PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE POSEIDON DESALINATION PLANT. AS QUOTED IN THE "INDEPENDENT" NEWSPAPER THURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2006"HOWEVER,AS GENEROUS AND APPEALING AS THIS LIST SOUNDS(THE BENEFITS), A HARSHER REALITY STILL EXISTS, AND IT IS UNARGUABLE: SOUTHEAST HUNTINGTON BEACH ALREADY IS OVERLY BURDENED BY INDUSTRIAL SITES, INCLUDING ASCON-NES1,THE AES POWER PLANT AND THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRCT." PLEASE PROTECT OUR CITY AND BEACHES AND VOTE NO ON POSEIDON. I HAVE BEEN TO EVERY COUNCIL MEETING AND I CAN SEE WHAT POSEIDON IS DOING. THEY DO NOT MIND WAITING AS LESS AND LESS PEOPLE THAT ARE AGAINST THEM SHOW UP BECAUSE MOST OF US HAVE JOBS AND FAMILIES TO TAKE CARE OF AND WE CAN NOT GO TO EVERY MEETING ESPECIALLY WHEN NOTHING GETS ACCOMPLISHED OR THEY LAST UNTIL EARLY MORNING. THE LAST MEETING TOOK OVER AN HOUR OF?????JUST TO TELL EVERYBODY THERE THAT THE COUNCIL HAD DECIDED TO NOT VOTE ON POSEIDON. I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO COME MONDAY 2/27 BECAUSE OF PRIOR RESPONSIBILITIES AND I AM SURE THERE IS A GREAT NUMBER OF HUNTINGTON BEACH VOTERS AGAINST POSEIDON THAT WON'T BE ABLE TO MAKE IT, BUT BELIEVE ME THEY WILL BE HEARD IN THE NEXT ELECTIONS. VOTE NO ON POSEIDON! SINCERELY, RIC BUTTON 8642 HATTERAS DR. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 (714)969-9030 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: EARL L BRASHEARS [armidahb@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:58 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Southeast H.B. Neighborhood Assoc.; Debbie Cook; Connie Boardman; Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: D.Hansen-Stop Poseidon !!!! The Huntington Beach City Council should not vote for a major construction project with a company that has a record of failure in desalination like Poseidon has. What kind of safe guards will be part of any contract the city signs with Poseidon? Will there be a bond put up by the contractor to cover any delays and/or failure to perform ? Will there be a 10%down payment then 20%paid when construction is 25% complete, 20%when o 0 0 0 construction is le he 5 complete and 20 when project is complete. The 50/o complete, 20/o when 7 /o omple a /o p � p balance of 10%would be paid after one month of successful operation. Huntington Beach does not need another incomplete project with no way to require the contractor to "perform" and complete the project. 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Fernando Kobbe [fkobbe@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 2:42 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Dear Council h lived i h h change over he years. We have We have ed n Huntington Beach since 1970. We have watched the City ha ge o t � 9 waited for the day when the AES power plant will be removed. We may not live to see it happen; but it will happen. We see a beautiful stretch of coastline from Beach Blvd.to the Santa Ana River that will be developed as a destination resort. It will have beautiful homes and beach front luxury hotels. These homes and hotels will add far more to the city tax base than an ugly power plant and a desalination facility If Poseidon is built; this stench of prime coast may be lost forever. If Poseidon is built, someday in the future you will look back and ask, How did we let this happen? Sincerely Ferdinand and Ramona Kobbe 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: Rex & Pat Myles [RMYLES@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 4:24 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poiseidon Number : I am very much against the Poisdon plant. All you have to do is research this company - their history in other places and you know it is a bad idea for our city. Number 2: I am outraged at a letter we received today from the City Water Facility supporting the Poisdon. I can't believe a city department would be allowed to take sides in this controversy and the city treasury should be repaid from their personal funds for the money spent on the letter. Number 3: I want this letter to be an official record on the next council meeting and that it go to each of you and I respectfully request that you vote against the Poisdon facility. Thank you Sincerely, Pat Myles 6241 Royalist Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647 phone: 7114-892-6714 E-mail: rmyles@socal.rr.com Page ] of 2 Albers, Patricia From: BUDGETBIL@aol.com Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:02 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; RFRD@hbdesalfacts.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: SUBJECT: Poseidon Desalination Facility- NO, NO, NO SUBJECT: Poseidon Desalination Facility— NO, NO, NO Dear Council Members: It is rare we write or even call about the plans and dreams of the Great Minds of the Huntington Beach City Council. However, after the total disaster of the `Famous Sewer Pipeline' running from Banning Street onto Bushard (to who knows where) and all the damage done to homes, walls, and properties, it has also made for a bumpy and irritating ride from Banning onto Bushard to Adams. Adding this mess to the asphalt resurfacing done in our neighborhood, which looks like grade school kids had a `play day', I must ask - has anyone from the city taken a look at this job? The company doing it has been back to our street a least once or twice a week every since they started. The street now looks like an oversized checkerboard, the asphalt topping still sheds, ending up on the sidewalks, in my garage, my car and even in the house. Rest assured, the first time these `tar marbles' get into our carpets, my wife will be the one you will have to deal with. With all of the above already in need of fixing, I cannot in good conscience support in any way the Poseidon water treatment adventure. We received in the mail a pink form along with a few one-liners about all the money the city would be raking in, but at what cost? Property devaluation, ocean dumping, pollution and relegating a large part of our beautiful shore to yet more industrial use. The destruction of our streets to lay pipe to other communities in Orange County is unacceptable, especially for Poseidon use. One only has to look at Poseidon's track record in Tampa, Florida. The Tampa Bay project was decommissioned pending repairs. Poseidon's bungling left the plant over$40 million over budget. Poseidon's partner went bankrupt before closure for repair, the plant produced at only 20 percent capacity. Poseidon chose unproven technology that caused pre-treatment problems. Poseidon hid important data from the Tampa Water Authority. We ask that you do not approve or allow the Poseidon water treatment plan to happen. William and Sarah Cerri 9561 Borba Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714 963-2543 2/27/2006 C f `J- CIO Page I of I Albers, Patricia From: Ed [eandersonlO@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:28 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Please reconsider letting this desalting plant go forward, don't let us be the victims of a scam like Tampa Bay was faced with. Ed and Sharon Anderson 40 years residents of HB 2/27/2006 Page I of 2 Albers, Patricia From: Dan Bon [dan@nirve.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:49 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Project Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, am writing this email to voice my vote against allowing Poseidon to build a desalination plant on our oceanfront. While the notion of an influx of substantial tax dollars may seem appealing I feel that long term, the City of Y pP 9 9 Y Huntington Beach and its residents will pay a heavy price for the short term gain. The city has done much to improve our downtown waterfront over the past 15 years transforming it from a sleepy little surf town to a world class tourist destination. It would be a shame to commit the section of PCH south of Beach blvd. to forever being an industrial backwater.This last portion of our coastline stands in stark contrast to the beautiful stretch north of Beach Blvd. and Newport Beach to the south. As the governors of this city I look upon you and your responsibilities as being no different than that of a company CEO and its board.You are entrusted to make good long term decisions for the shareholders, in this case the property owners and residents of the city. If the AES lease expires in 2018 as mentioned in your last televised meeting on this subject, and AES has a history of closing down its power plants once the current lease expires, you should be looking forward to redeveloping this portion of the city from industrial land to beautiful coastline complementing what has already been done to the north. It seems that the city council has a history of ignoring and undervaluing this section of the city. I have lived in Huntington Beach since 1982 and in that time nothing has been done about the toxic waste dump on the corner of Magnolia and Hamilton, only a lot of talk with no action. Incredulous that in all that time that time no action has been taken to remove the toxic substances and reclaim this valuable piece of beach property. An additional irritant is that the water generated by the proposed plant is destined for south county, not for Huntington Beach except in an emergency. If south county needs the water then they should build the plant where the water is needed. Locations such as San Clemente, San Onofre, or Dana Point come to mind. San Onofre would be ideal as the power plant in that location also draws sea water for cooling. But the reality is that they do not want to have this eye sore and potential environmental problem in their back yard. They would rather it be in ours and not spoil their coastline. Further, even if this was a good project, it is unbelievable that the city council is considering granting the work to a company that has already failed at delivering a similar plant in the Tampa Bay area. I recently visited this area and the residents are not happy about the cost to the citizens for a plant that is defective and still not operating. Considering doing business with a company with such a bad history of performance would be cause for termination if a similar situation were to take place in the private sector. Lastly, I watched with much disgust during the televised meeting as residents from parts of the city not affected by this decision accused those of us who live south of the proposed plant of being NIMBY's. The real NIMBY's are all those that acted in this manner during the meeting as they want to make sure this project doesn't go through their backyard. My family lives in a house which backs Hamilton.The proposed pipeline would go directly behind the wall that separates our backyard and the street.After enduring over two years of construction work, ground shaking from the pounding, the dirt,and street closures due to the sewer upgrades, no one in this area looks forward to more of the same. I think those that were so quick to point the finger during the meeting would sing a different tune if the project were to go through Sea Cliff. 2/27/2006 Page 2 of 2 1 feel it is your fiduciary duty to the citizens of Huntington Beach to think tong term about reclaiming south PCH and making it a part of the city that is complimentary to the rest of the coastline immediately to the north and south. I urge you to do the right thing and reject this project. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Dan Bon 9321 Neolani Drive Huntington Beach CA, 92646 714 608 6281 2/27/2006 Albers, Patricia From: cikhb@verizon.net Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:39 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: poseidon To the city council I would like to express my oposition to the water treatment facility, I strongly oppose it for multiply reasons. We do not know with any certainty the effect on the envirement, or the fish in the ocean or the water temperature. South Huntington Beach has enough to contend with, without adding something else to possibly ruin our property values. We need streets repaired not torn up for a project that will probably not even benefit Huntington Beach. The beach is what we are knowen for and our biggest asset lets be careful what we do with it. Irene Kussner a long time resident of this fair city. Thank you op--(c C C 1 Albers, Patricia From: phiilip empey[phillip_ee@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:37 PM To: city.council@surfeity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: water treatment facility please keep the SURF in surf city. HB has enough water. I think it is a bad descision to try to fix a non existing problem. i heard about a similar water treatment facility in Florida that has not yet come to function properly, and it kills countless numbers of sea life in the process. Thank you for your time-i am a college student and a local hb surfer who urges you to not give in to the money hungry. Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-uri.com/go/onmOO200471ave/direct/Ol/ pj 1 Albers, Patricia From: Barry Repsher[brepsher@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:17 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: poseidon project Poseidon. . . .Please vote NO. I have spoken to many of my neighbors about the upcoming vote by our representatives at City Council, we all agree that this project has too many flaws, please vote No. Thank You Barry Repsher Seabury Tract Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: KAY MYLOD [kaymylod@hotmaii.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:21 PM To: CITY.COUNCIL@SURFCITY-HB.ORG Cc: Pat Dapkus Cathy Fikes Subject: Another disgusting flyer 2/22/06 To the City council: What is going on. Are you aware more flyers are going out to citizens to be presented to you from the Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility. I did not see this facility up before the Planning Commission or you people for a green light. Is this really legal. And I notice the name of ED LAIRD at the top of the page. What is going on. I anxiously await February 27, 2006 to see what happens with this poseidon company. I can only take from the votes you cast who cares about the city and citizens and who looks out for your own pocket books and future benefits from these people. This is disgusting. We citizens are watching, Carefully and Closely. Kay Mylod, Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 Wes<- 2/27/2006 HBWater Treatment Facility d Laird Suzanne Beukema Noble Waite Cathy Meschuk Dear Huntington Beach Residents: j�- r We need your help". ! trp rc, a h-j t ".s I The I luntington Beach City Council has reviewed Poseidon Resources'proposed Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility since 2001 -and now a crucial council meeting takes place on Monday,. February 27th. C:onuAct your C"ity Council members and urge them to vote in favor of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP)1Conditional Use Permit(CUP). Iiie cat, council certified the I-rivironmental Impact Report on September6. 2005. On l chruar� — it will consider final approvals for land use permits, The Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility offers valuable benefits to our community: if Dearly $70 million to the City of HB Guaranteed Local Safe Water Supply Cd No Risk to Taxpayers C $3 million in Water Savings i S54 million in Property Taxes l $1.5 million in Utility Taxes Cf $2 million in City-Directed Grant Funds C SI.9 million in Street Enhancements Because of the secured benefits the facility has been endorsed by: • The Orange County Taxpayers Association • Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce • Gran e Coin Re ter • Oninoe Countti Assoc61ion of Realtors • Change County Business Council • Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council • Pacific West Association of Realtors • thousands of Huntington Beach residents We urge you to voice your support for this project to the City. Mail the enclosed.postage-paid postcard shooing your support for the many benefits the.Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility brings to our community. Sincerely, z Ed Laird Suzanne: Beukema Noble Waite. Cathy Meschuk 419 M ate; S rkts T. St i rr.A• HuNTI aGTON BrAt H.CA. 92f,4S Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:24 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: HB Water treatment facility -----Original Message----- From: Meg Watson [mailto:megwathb@msn.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:15 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: HB Water treatment facility Council Members, I am urging you to all vote no on this facility. We have endured enough in this city. Why are you willing to industralize our beaches for years to come? What happens to the chemicals used in the process of delsalination? What if South County does not buy our expensive water? What if the other cities are not willing to have their strees torn up to accommodate Poseidon pipes? Please reconsider your votes some of you are up for reelection and we will see to it that your are not put back into office. Respectfully, Meg Watson 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:26 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Vote against Desal Plant -----Original Message----- From: Claudette Ruzicka [mai Ito:h2olvr@msn.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:26 PM To: City.Council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Vote against Desal Plant City Counci: Please be advised that I am a resident of Huntington Beach and am fully opposed to the Desal/Poseidon plant. I live in a fairly quiet neighborhood and I oppose the disturbance the plant will assess to our area. The advertisements for the plant have been totally false and deceptive. The plant will be exempt from natural disasters, along with the teardown of more streets, and the reduced value of our homes with the plant in our area. Since I have lived in Huntington Beach for over 15 years, I cannot begin to list all the city taxes I have been forced to pay for your foolish and financially challanged ideas. We as a city are the laughing stock of cities surrounding us. Every city is debt free except Huntington Beach because of all the foolish, brainless projects you have accepted in our name. I vote against this project and I expect you to do the same. Sincerely, Claudette Ruzicka 9911 Star Drive Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 N 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:27 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: HBwater treatment facility -----Original Message----- From: betty angell [mailto:angellbetty@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:25 PM To: City.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: HBwater treatment facility The discussed area is a poor choice for a water treatment factory. A lot of money is being spent to clean up the contamination at Magnolia and Hamilton. The Coastal Commission has designated this area in Huntington Beach for protection of wild life, and now there is a designated hospital for restoring health and life to coastal creatures along the expanse of the site discussed in tonights debate. New expensive homes are being built between Beach Blvd and this site. Great progress has been made by the Coastal Commission to preserve the habitat of wildlife in this area. Please reconsider this neighborhood as a poor choice for a water treatment factory. My name is Betty Angell. I'm a 43 year resident and I proudly worked for the High School District for most of those years. �- � � / 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:40 PM To: Lugar, Robin Subject: FW: POSEIDON PROJECT -----Original Message----- From: Janice da Silva [mailto:jdasilva@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:44 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: POSEIDON PROJECT DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS, DO HOPE YOU ARE GOING TO VOTE NO THIS EVENING ,ON THIS PROJECT. IF IT FAILED IN FLORIDA, WHY DO WE WANT TO WASTE MONEY ON IT, IN OUR CITY. LET SOME OTHER AREA ON THE COAST DO IT. THE da SILVA FAMILY 17/� 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:40 PM To: Lugar, Robin Subject: FW: Desalination Plant -----Original Message----- From: Julia Hughes [mailto:juliamh_99@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:37 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Desalination Plant Hello to All, Please don't approve this plant. We have enough pollution from the Water plant at Brookhurst and PCH. If you want tourist to come to HB and enjoy the "Clean" beaches don't approve plans that may contaminate our coast line. I live at Bushard & Adams so I am on the south side of HB near the beach and I'd hate to have to take my children to a different city to enjoy our ocean Why can't they build and operate their plant further south past all the populated beaches where people go? Thank you all for reading this letter and I hope and pray that you make the best decision for our great city and don't let them build the Desalination Plant here in Huntington Beach. Sincerely, Julia Hughes-Concerned citizen of HB Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:42 PM To: Lugar, Robin Subject: FW: POSEIDON -----Original Message----- From: WESTRECSCA@aol.com [mailto:WESTRECSCA@aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:04 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: POSEIDON We live in a neighborhood adjacent to the proposed plant, and are NOT in favor of another industry on our beach. NO for Poseidon! Tom and Carol Welch Kaneohe La. ?/7 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:41 PM To: Lugar, Robin Subject: FW: Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility (Poseidon) -----Original Message----- From: Ann Harvey [mailto:annharvey@firstteam.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:18 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility(Poseidon) Councilpersons: NO,NO,NO I have several concerns. It has been so long since I first heard about this that I'm not sure I remember correctly whether there were financial problems or problems with the operation of the facility that this company built in Florida. Either sort of problem is a serious concern. I live between the power plant and the sewage treatment plant. We seem to get more than our share of inconvenience from these large facilities. The streets were torn up for many months from the new sewer line and eventually we will have to put up with problems from the oil mud dump clean up. Now,this, too! Yes, I knew these were here when I moved in and I overlooked the noise, odor and inconvenience but that doesn't mean the neighborhood will welcome a new large plant in our midst. A new water facility in conjunction with the AES plant means that that outdated dinosaur will be with us all that much longer. Huntington Beach doesn't even need the water from the facility. Aan fiarc ety 9361 za ,Jolla CW f zwou z00,* B�ac7 2/27/2006 I oppose the Poseidon Plant Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:40 PM To: Lugar, Robin Subject: FW: I oppose the Poseidon Plant Importance: High -----Original Message----- From: Shawn Thompson [mailto:sompson@ci.irvine.ca.us] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:07 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: I oppose the Poseidon Plant Importance: High Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: oppose the Poseidon plant. I don't believe that it is financially viable. The price we Californians pay for water is still too low. Thus the City will: 1. NOT receive the financial benefit it might expect from this deal; and 2. The surrounding neighborhoods will be saddled with a problem similar to the NESI site: the land the plant occupies will become unused and unusable. I also don't believe that anyone can accurately assess what the long-term impact to the surrounding water quality will be no matter how thick the EIR is. I predict Huntington Beach will become known as "Sludge City" for the constant beach closings we will experience. Please vote AGAINST this project. Sincerely, Ms. K. Shawn Thompson-McGarrigle, PE Senior Civil Engineer 9121 Bermuda Drive a 4Z-7 2/27/2006 FROM :JIM MORENO FAX NO. :714 8923939 Feb. 27 2006 04:09PM P2 Jim Moreno 15262 Stanford Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (714) 892-3939 February 27, 2006 Honorable Mayor Sullivan City of Huntington Beach Dear Mayor,wlliv I am concerned about the vote your council will be taking tonight regarding the proposed Poseidon Desalination Plant in the Southeast portion of our fine city. I ask that you vote no and kill this project. Clearly, this poorly prepared and mal-documented multi-million dollar project will allow for more growth in other regions of this county where water is not plentiful and its delivery problematic. Monies from extensive inland development will not help Huntington Beach once liability "deep-pocket suits begin. The risk to our city, on the long term, will result in lengthy legal battles with any benefit going to law firms. As you know our city has received enough bad "ink" about poor decisions made by our elected officials, Your Council has to take a long and hard look at the track record of the company proposing this project. Our city should not be recorded in the history books as one involved in another project with this company which soured and cost Huntington Beach taxpayers millions. This project has the potential of ruining our beach giving the residents of Southeast Huntington Beach another black eye. We will lose tourists and our pristine beach. Please vote no. Sincerely, 7/oG Ji �oreo C: Honorable City Council Members /,0057 ®pl0� S 1!m orenweearth InLneE P.O. Box 37-15 • Huntington Beach, CA 92605-3745 cam., FAR-�7-�G�G�6 15 56 714 e923939 95% P.02 Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:39 PM To: 'gwheaton1 @earthlink.net' Subject: Re: Water Treatment Facility Mr. Wheaton -- Agenda packets were distributed to the City Council on Wednesday evening. However, the attached correspondence will be included as part of late communication that will be distributed to the Council and made available for staff members and the public. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Gary Wheaton To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Fri Feb 24 14:33:07 2006 Subject: Water Treatment Facility My wife and I support the water treatment plant. Huntington Beach needs to drought proof our city. As a former Navy man I ran the water treatment plant on Navy ships. The process is simple and non- polluting. We don't know what the future may bring but we need to be prepared for future droughts. We need your support for this important project. Gary and Linda Wheaton 20141 McKinley Ln. 963-1449 6"Y Rick & Dee Taylor 16661 Wellington CircleMS FEB 23 PM 4: 23 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ; f Y { s U •, Yc.r .7 C i i TO THE HB CITY COUNCIL: WE WANT T E POSEIDON PLANT PLS VOTE FOR 1TV9 THANK YOU. .mob �y //---- _.... ............._._......._..__��_,:..,__ ._ ....:.......„... w42 UA � dW6rLai 4 7l p h . i�� � ,w�1 � it��� �•1 ,fir�'� ��, f,�lN/, �'i on III m IAA A' �dIj W UA � N I c7 z wA Wi r. .�R; ::• Ul a Lu ct W Nd.) W �^ m V U � Via W W W 0 cn LU �:• i w F O _ 'q i rw 4 Q 2 Z C`n Z Cl m Z A1, QL Z FEB-27-2006 10:12 P.01 FROM : BillsHartgeW SYSTEM PHONE NO. : 714 e40 5076 Feb. 24 2006 04:10PM P2 EV 2006 FEB 24 PM 5100 Henry 'Bill' Hartge 17121 Edgewater Lane C .. Huntington Beach CA 92649 ` y 0,'' 714 846-1190 Ui� T�s, _v Feb. 24, 2006 Mayor Sullivan and City Council Huntington Beach, CA I spoke to you at the city council meeting of Oct. 10, 2005 recommending support of the proposed desalination facility in our city. In my letter, dated Nov. 8, 2005, I stated that recently the Rocky Mountains received an unusually small amount of snow depriving the Colorado River, which supplies Southern California approximately 50% of its water. The state water system, which receives most of its water from the Shasta Mountains in Northern California, supplies the other 50%. Shasta had a good wet year and was able to make up for the minimal volume from the Colorado River, In addition, in the above letter, I brought to your attention an article in the Science section of. the Nov. 3, 2005 Orange County Register. Lester Snow, director of the Calif. Dept, of Water Resources stated at a joint hearing of three Senate committees that "a 6.5 magnitude earthquake could collapse 30 levees, flood 10 delta islands and damage an additional 200 miles of levees. The ruptured levees would allow salt water to rush into the river system causing an immediate shutdown of the pumps that send water south to the San 7oaquin farmers and So.Calif water districts. Cities would have to use alternative water sources", Snow said. Mr. Snow also said, "Damage could reach $30 billion over five years". The possibility of an earthquake in No.Calif, described in Mr. Snow's article, would increase the odds of a possible water shortage in So. Calif. Considering the potential of water shortage to So. Calif. including Orange County and the city of Huntington Beach, as stated by Mr. Snow, if I were a City Council person of Huntington Beach, I would jump at the opportunity of getting a new firm supply of water as proposed by Poseidon Resources Corp. This potential far outweighs the negativism the council has been exposed to for many months. On Oct. 21, 2005, I sent a letter supporting the Desalination Plant in Huntington Beach citing a major shortage of drinking water in So.Calif if there were droughts in the Rocky Mountains simultaneously with one in the Shasta Mountains in No.Calif. I feel compelled to ask you to DO THE WISE THING. Voting YES would show the citizens of Huntington Beach that this council is taking a step in looking out for the best interest of the citizens of our community. Regards, Bill Hartge ll l FEB-24-2006 15:51 714 840 5076 96% P.02 Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:05 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Support of the Poseidon Resources Project -----Original Message----- From: Brenda Anaya [mailto:banaya@m4strategies.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:57 AM To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Subject: FW: Support of the Poseidon Resources Project -----Original Message----- From: WALTER REED [mailto:honeybunchl933@msn.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 4:01 PM To: Brenda Anaya Subject: Re: Support of the Poseidon Resources Project I am in total support of the Water Treatment Facility, will not be attending the meeting, but you have my vote. Thanks, Clara Reed Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:34 PM To: 'deweaver@surfcity.net' Subject: Re: Posidon Mr. Weaver -- Agenda packets were distributed to the City Council on Wednesday evening. However, the attached correspondence will be included as part of late communication that will be distributed to the Council, made available for staff members and the public, and become part of the Public Record for this item. Thank you. Joan Flynn, City Clerk -----Original Message----- From: Dallas Weaver To: dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org; dhansen@surfcity-hb.org; kbohr@surfcity-hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org; jhardy@surfcity-hb.org; cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; dcook@surfcity- hb.org; jflynn@surfcity-hb.org CC: banaya@m4strategies.com Sent: Sun Feb 26 17:05:14 2006 Subject: Posidon I am writing to express support for the Posidon project. We can use the tax revenue and getting Newland fixed up so I can at least safely ride my bike to the beach is a high priority in the 92646 zip area -- my neighbors agree. All the environmental and other arguments against this project appear bogus. I do have an experience and knowledge about the environmental area and have no connections with this project beyond talking to the supporters (no money, no contracts, no promises, etc) . All the environmental issues that have been raised relevant to the marine ecology are insignificant and can be proved to be so. In terms of energy, I found a statement that the "California state water Project to Los Angeles" used 9.2 kwh/1000 gallons. That translates to the equivalent of lifting water about 3, 000 ft in elevation (pressure head times amount of water= energy) -- about what it would take to get it over the mountains. Desalinization of seawater requires about 1000 ft equivalent to equal the osmotic pressure of 5% seawater, which means that a well designed plant should be able to operate at about 2000 ft of lift equivalent. In other words, desalinization with RO membranes can use less energy, or about the same after it is re-pressurized to distribution line pressure, as MWD water that the city purchases. This means that energy is also a bogus issue. To say that we don't need the water fails to take into consideration the water security issue being created by dependence upon water from Northern California, where some political activists would like to use this issue to further increase the net cash flow of tax revenue from Huntington Beach and Orange County to Sacramento and the Bay Area. The requirements of using massive amounts of water on a dry lake bed in Owens Valley is typical to what is going to make us more dependent upon Northern California Waters, which are more subject to political pressure. The state water project is already costing So. California almost as much as desalinization (we are effectively subsidizing cheap agricultural water from the same water project -- they only pay about 5% of what we pay for the same water from the same water project) . If we put Posidon in, they won't be able to extract more money for subsidizing than they already are. We will have a viable choice and not be subject to political games. Dallas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTE Address change: The hatchery is now dismantled and I am doing the consulting from my home address -- semi-retirement but staying active in aquaculture, environmental and waste treatment issues. 1 E. Weaver, D Dallasa r, Ph. . Scientific Hatcheries 8152 Evelyn Cr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-960-4171 Cell 714-614-3925 deweaver@surfcity.net www.ScientificHatcheries.com 1--A /�I•v) lam 'i C�4- C� z Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday,February 27, 2006 8:23 AM To: 'helenharv@hotmail.com' Subject: Re: Re HB Water Treatment Facility Mr. and Mrs. Levin -- Agenda packets were distributed to the City Council on Wednesday evening. However, the attached correspondence will be included as part of late communication that will be distributed to the Council, made available for staff members and the public, and become part of the Public Record for this item. Thank you. Joan Flynn, City Clerk -----Original Message----- From: Harvey & Helen Levin To: dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org; dcook@surfcity-hb.org; cgreen@surfcity-hb.org; dhansen@surfcityhb.org; kbohr@surfcity-hb.org; jhardy@surfcity- hb.org; jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Sun Feb 26 20:55:42 2006 Subject: Re HB Water Treatment Facility I encourage you to favorably consider the proposed HB Water Treatment Facility which is scheduled to be voted upon on Monday, February 27. It is my opinion that this facility will be a benefit to the community, the City and the county. Harvey Levin 8566 Sierra Cir. #911-D Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:22 AM To: 'rkramer@pacificinsulation.com' Subject: Re: Water Treatment Project Mr. Kramer -- Agenda packets were distributed to the City Council on Wednesday evening. However, the attached correspondence will be included as part of late communication that will be distributed to the Council, made available for staff members and the public, and become part of the Public Record for this item. Thank you. Joan Flynn, City Clerk -----Original Message----- From: Robert Kramer To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Sun Feb 26 19:42:54 2006 Subject: Water Treatment Project Please okay this very needed and worthwhile project before we loose out again like we did with Costco! Thank you for your consideration, Bob Kramer 4802 Curtis Circle, 92649 And 20152 South New Britain, 92646 Office (323) 837-1563 Cell (213) 713-1938 Fax (323) 728-5489 Page l of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Steve Harrison [srharrison@socal.rr.comj Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:54 PM To: City.Council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Water desalination City Council, I urge you to vote for the Poseidon ocean water desalination plant. Regards, Steve Harrison 9302 Greenwich Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 l 2/27/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:24 AM To: 'gennews@hotmail.com' Subject: Re: We Support the HB Water Treatment Facility Mr. and Mrs. Dutton -- Agenda packets were distributed to the City Council on Wednesday evening. However, the attached correspondence will be included as part of late communication that will be distributed to the Council, made available for staff members and the public, and become part of the Public Record for this item. Thank you. Joan Flynn, City Clerk -----Original Message----- From: Gennews To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org; jhardy@surfcity-hb.org; kbohr@surfcity-hb.org; dhansen@surfcity-hb.org; dcook@surfcity-hb.org; gcoerper@surfcity-hb.org; dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Sun Feb 26 21:11:28 2006 Subject: We Support the HB Water Treatment Facility Dear Mayor and Council Members, No doubt you will hear from numerous residents during the Monday, February 26 City Council Meeting. We cannot attend but want to let you know we support moving forward with the proposed HB Water Treatment Facility. Bob & Kathleen Dutton Huntington Beach, CA Lugar, Robin From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 9:30 PM To: Lugar, Robin Subject: Fw: Support the HB Water Treatment Facility -----Original message----- From: Flynn, Joan To: 'jcarranza@socal.rr.com' Sent: Fri Feb 24 21:29:10 2006 Subject: Re: Support the HB Water Treatment Facility Agenda packets were distributed to the City Council on Wednesday evening. However, the attached correspondence will be included as part of late communication that will be distributed to the Council and made available for staff members and the public. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Jess Carranza To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Fri Feb 24 19:02:09 2006 Subject: Support the HB Water Treatment Facility Asking you to support the HB Water Treatment Facility. J Carranza, 19731 Waterbury Ln, Huntington Beach, CA 92646. jcarranza@socal.rr.com /O M � / � 1 Lugar, Robin From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 9:31 PM To: Lugar, Robin Subject: Fw: H.B. WATER TREATMENT FACILITY -----Original Message----- From: Flynn, Joan To: 'cliff40_98@yahoo.com' Sent: Fri Feb 24 21:30:53 2006 Subject: Re: H.B. WATER TREATMENT FACILITY Mr. Stone -- Agenda packets were distributed to the City Council on Wednesday evening. However, the attached correspondence will be included as part of late communication that will be distributed to the Council and made available for staff members and the public. Thank you. -----Original message----- From: cliff stone To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Fri Feb 24 19:28:28 2006 Subject: H.B. WATER TREATMENT FACILITY YES, ON THE NEW HB WATER TREATMENT FACILITY! ! ! CLIFF STONE Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. �a 7 A 114� Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Lisa O'Loughlin [loloughlin@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 11:20 AM To: pdapkus@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Desalination Project Please approve the desalination project on Monday. Huntington Beach needs the water and the tax revenue. Thank you, Lisa O'Loughlin HB Resident t 09 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Sue B. Warner[SWWarner@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 9:19 AM To: pdapkus@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Desalination Project Dear Councilmember's, My husband and I are much in favor of the desalination project for the many benefits that it will bring to Huntington Beach. Please bless it with your approval on Monday. Thank you, Wendell &Sue B. Warner 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Christy Impelman [imptop@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 7:13 AM To: pdapkus@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Desalination We need the desalination water treatment facility in Huntington Beach. Besides the service it will provide the tax dollars are greatly needed. Please vote yes on Monday. Craig and Christy Impelman 20161 Azure Lane H B 92648 f 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dean2doris@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 4:53 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Dean2doris@aol.com; Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Water Treatment Facility Proposed by Poseidon To all members of the Huntington Beach City Council- As a 35-year resident of southeast Huntington Beach, I enthusiastically endorse the water treatment facility proposed by Poseidon Resources. The proposed project makes a great deal of sense. It will make good use of the land, facilities and capabilities currently in place at the existing power generating station. It will produce a product(i.e. fresh water)that is greatly needed by the local region. At the same time it will add to the tax base and it will do so without any taxpayer investment or risk. The inconvenience caused by the construction of the water treatment facility and installation of the associated pipe lines will be very real but it will only be temporary. Proper planning should minimize the temporary disruption experienced by its neighbors(and I'm one of them). Once the completed project is up and running, the impact on the local neighborhood should be insignificant. Unlike other projects proposed in the past, the functioning water treatment facility will not add materially to the local traffic congestion. The quality of life enjoyed by the residents of Huntington Beach should not be adversely affected if the physical facility is soundly engineered. Most objections to the project are emotional in nature and are not based on science or experience born out at similar facilities installed elsewhere. As a long time resident in the immediate area, I am strongly in favor of the Poseidon proposal for all of the above reasons. I urge the members of the Huntington Beach City Council to vote in favor of the Coastal Development Permit(CDP)/Conditional Use Permit(CUP). Dean S. Williams 21651 Hanakai Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7928 714-968-6070 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Thomas Polkow[tpolkow@mindspring.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 8:46 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Please Vote to Approve the Poseidon Desalination Plant Dear Mayor Sullivan & HB City Council Persons: Please do take the progressive step to approve the construction of the Poseidon desalination plant. This is a project which will bear no substantive burden upon the city -- beyond the normal annoyances of any major construction -- with negligible (if any) impact to the near- shore waters or air, all while providing great economic and aesthetic benefits to the city. Not to mention the security of having a drought-proof"in-house" fresh water source, as well as the bragging rights and tourist attraction of being the home of California's -- in fact the nation's -- largest ocean water desalination plant! Your "yes" vote will also begin the long overdue process of California coastal communities taking the responsibility of cultivating more of our own local sources of potable water, instead of continually leaning on inland sources of fresh water to supplement our ground water, both of which may not be there in the future to the degree that we require them. The time to develop and establish this new ocean water desalination infrastructure on the California coastline is now. Not when the need is acute, and when we have to play catch-up. Let's make the city of Huntington Beach a leader, not a follower, in this foresightful and necessary endeavor. "No risk, no gain", and the risk in this deal is all upon Poseidon. We have only gains on the table in this deal, but will only lose if this entrepreneur is sent packing; likely to be soon replaced by the OC Water District, which has expressed it's own desire to build a desalination plant on the same AES site. However in their case, with no financial benefit to the city, and with no real oversight or control by you folks, or the citizens of Huntington Beach. Thank you for your attention, and for hopefully voting "yes" on this project. Sincerely, Tom Polkow Huntington Beach (714) 969-2353 2/27/2006 � �C�/� Page 1 of 4 Albers, Patricia From: Thomas Polkow[tpolkow@mindspring.comj Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 9:14 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Learning From the Tampa Bay Desalination Plant Dear Council, I ran across this webpage which assesses the actual effect of Tampa Bay desal operations on it's surrounding marine environment, and thought it would be important for you all to read (if you haven't already) as you will surely hear many dire and hysterical predictions tomorrow night from the Poseidon opposition, regarding it's likely effect on our own coastal waters. Predictions which are simply not in line with the facts of the matter. Sincerely, Tom Polkow Huntington Beach (714) 969-2353 http://www.tampabavwater org/Wagersuppfy/tbdesalprotect.aspx Environmental protections, safeguards and monitoring ensure there are no adverse effects from the desalination plant. Permitting The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's(DEP)permitting process was lengthy and extensive. Over an 18-month period, DEP reviewed scientific research and public comments regarding the desalination plant and eventually more than 20 environmental and construction permits were required from local, state and federal agencies.The plant's operations plans have met or surpassed every requirement for every permit. Other agencies, organizations and citizens concerned with protecting Tampa Bay, including the Agency on Bay Management, the Hillsborough County Water Team, the Audubon Society, the Tampa Baywatch and Tampa Estuary Program also reviewed and commented on submitted materials. None of the groups is opposed to the Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination facility. Safeguards The plant has two protection systems to monitor the salinity of the source water, desalinated drinking water and concentrated seawater discharged back into the bay. Measurements will be taken in several areas in and around the plant. An early warning system alarm will sound if the blending ratio of the seawater being returned to Tampa Bay falls below the normal blending ratio of 70-to-1. The plant's second alarm system will instruct plant operators to check, adjust and if needed, shut down affected Y C� l 2/27/2006 Page 2 of 4 areas of the plant if the salinity level of the discharge reaches the DEP's salinity discharge permit level. Monitoring Tampa Bay Water conducts permit-required hydrobiological monitoring programs(HBMPs)for the Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant as well as the Tampa Bypass Canal/Hillsborough River and the Alafia River.These comprehensive monitoring programs were developed to determine if initial predictions of environmental effects of these various water supplies are accurate and provide an early warning of potential changes. The HBMPs monitor water quality, vegetation, benthic invertebrates,fish and other parameters in the Lower Hillsborough River,Alafia River, Palm River/Tampa Bypass Canal, McKay Bay and areas in Hillsborough Bay near Apollo Beach and the Big Bend power plant.The HBMPs are coordinated with other agency monitoring programs to maximize use of available data. These monitoring programs use recent and historical data to develop a comprehensive baseline report against which post-operational data can be compared to identify any potential changes or trends. Costing about$1.2 million annually, thousands of samples are collected, including continuous salinity measures every 15 minutes. The HBMP reports and related documents are provided to regulatory agencies and posted to Tampa Bay Water's web site. Tampa Bay's Salinity Although the plant's discharge is roughly twice as salty as Tampa Bay, it does not increase the bay's salinity because it is diluted 70-to-1 in up to 1.4 billion gallons of cooling water per day from Tampa Electric's Big Bend Power Station before being discharged back into the bay. Salinity in the plant's discharge is, on average, only 1.0 to 1.5 percent higher than Tampa Bay's. This slight increase in salinity falls well within the natural, yearly salinity fluctuations of Tampa Bay, which vary from 16 to 32 parts per thousand, or by up to 100 percent, depending on the weather and the season. A Cumulative Impact Analysis for Master Water Plan projects that used a desalination plant with twice the production capacity(50 mgd)of Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination as its model found that even if all of Tampa Bay Water's proposed Master Water Plan projects were implemented simultaneously, the salinity of Tampa Bay would still not increase beyond its normal, seasonal variations. A U.S. Geological Survey of the Big Bend Power Station area determined that salinity will not build up in Tampa Bay because it flushes often. "Water Transport in Lower Hillsborough Bay, Florida, 1995-1996,"found that each time the tide changes, more than 200 times as much water enters or leaves the bay as circulates through the power plant. The report also found that enough water flows in and out of the bay system near Big Bend to properly dilute and flush the plant's discharges,further preventing any long-term salinity build-up. Pilot Plant Tests To ensure the protection of Tampa Bay, a pilot plant, 1/1000 th the size of Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination was built to test plant operations and identify any potential adverse environmental impacts on the bay. Separate, independent studies were conducted by the following organizations using the pilot plant: Mote Marine Laboratory, Danish Hydraulic Institute, University of South Florida(USF), 2/27/2006 Page 3 of 4 Savannah Laboratory/STL Precision, Marinco Laboratory, and Hillsborough County. Each study was approved by the Florida DEP and conducted in accordance with DEP methods by a DEP- approved laboratory. Each study examined the possibility of a specific, potentially negative environmental impact on Tampa Bay. Researchers studied the nearfield (close to the desalination plant)and farfield (areas away from the plant such as Hillsborough Bay). And, each study concluded that the desalination plant would produce high-quality drinking water without hurting the bay's water quality or marine life. Salinity Mote Marine Laboratory and the Danish Hydraulic Institute performed salinity studies using a pilot desalination plant, 111000 th the size of the Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination facility.To measure actual salinity changes in Tampa Bay, scientists from Mote Marine Laboratory collected data during the 2000-2001 drought.The unusually small amount of freshwater entering the bay because of the severe drought was combined with a worst-case power plant operations scenario(only two of four of the power plant's condensers working), and operational data from the pilot plant were used to determine potential long-term salinity changes in the bay. Based on Mote Marine Laboratory's research, the Danish Hydraulic Institute reported that, under these extreme conditions, a 2.5 percent increase in salinity is predicted in the area closest to the power plant and desalination plant and this would quickly dissipate. Biological Marinco Laboratory of Sarasota tested the toxicity levels of saline-sensitive animals such as mysid shrimp and Gulf silverside fish using concentrated seawater from the pilot desalination plant at a dilution ratio of 1:1 (one part seawater concentrate to one part normal"seawater). Researchers found no long or short-term increase in mortality at the 1 A dilution level, leading them to conclude the plant would not harm saline-sensitive marine life. Under normal operating conditions, the dilution for the seawater concentrate will be 70:1, and at least 18:1 or 36:1 even with two or three of Big Bend's cooling units out of service. Chemical Savannah Laboratory/STL Precision of Miramar, Florida, conducted tests to determine if undesirable chemicals already in Tampa Bay, which could harm water quality or marine life,at higher levels, would be concentrated in the desalination process and discharged back into the bay. Researchers tested the discharge from the pilot plant for 200 compounds, none of which exceeded the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's water quality standards for Tampa Bay. Circulation and Dispersion in Tampa Bay The University of South Florida (USF), with Dr. Mark Luther as the principal investigator, studied the bay's circulation to determine if desalination-related changes in salinity could change the currents in Tampa Bay. (Saltwater is heavier than freshwater so changes in salinity could affect the bay's currents and the time it takes to flush the bay.) Focusing on the farfield (areas away from the power plant and desalination facility), USF researchers found that desalination plant-related changes in the bay's salinity were so slight,that even if all of Tampa Bay Water's current water projects were to be implemented simultaneously,changes in circulation were not significant, and 2/27/2006 Page 4 of 4 "There is no reason to suggest that the flushing time of the bay would be altered in a significant way." In other words, because the salinity of the bay normally varies widely—from 16 parts per thousand to 32 parts per thousand—depending on the weather and season, any change in its salinity linked to the desalination plant, even if all of Tampa Bay Water's current Master Water Plan projects were implemented simultaneously, would fall well within this range of salinity and, therefore, have no effect on the currents, circulation or flushing of the bay. Hillsborough County 's Independent Study Hillsborough County 's own, independent study into the potential environmental impact of the desalination plant concluded that, "The marine ecology of the areas of major biological concern will not be affected by the desalination facility operations." 2/27/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:17 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Poseiden Desal Plant -----Original Message----- From: Pat Clynes [mailto:pat@rpereativedisplay.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:16 PM To: pdapkus@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Poseiden Desal Plant I am an HB resident & fully support the Desalination Plant. Patrick Clynes 1 Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:21 PM To: 'ccostel to@ecoresou rces.com' Subject: Re: Seawater Project Dear Mr. Costello -- Agenda packets were distributed to the City Council on Wednesday evening. However, the attached correspondence will be included as part of late communication that will be distributed to the Council, made available for staff members and the public, and become part of the Public Record for this item. Thank you. Joan Flynn, City Clerk -----Original Message----- From: Chris Costello To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Mon Feb 27 12:55:36 2006 Subject: Seawater Project Dear Honorable City Clerk Flynn, My name is Chris Costello. My address is 17112 Harbor Bluffs Circle #C, Huntington Beach, CA 92649. I have lived in Huntington Beach for over 35 years, and attended Wardlow Elementary School, Edison High School and Orange Coast College. I have watched our City transform from Strawberry fields, dairy farms, drive-ins, oil- fields and our small airport into the New City Hall, a Library, a Resort, a Sports Complex, Shopping Centers, various industries both large and small, to now Million dollar tract homes. Now having worked over 30 years in the oil, construction, and the water industry, I too have contributed to these changes in a positive way, by addressing long term environmental issues, safety, quality and budget concerns along with the cares and concerns of those who live within the various communities that I have worked in. I believe that controlled growth by both the Government and Private sector should be allowed for the betterment of all of us and of our advancing society. I also believe that in order for our City and Community to continue to move forward we need to heed the recent call of our President to both lead and embrace advances in technology and science. I too hope to do this by participating in overseeing the Design and Build of the Seawater Reclamation Project that Poseidon Resources has been under taking for quite sometime now. We all have a great opportunity to participate in a very exciting water reclamation project that will affect the lives of thousands of people from various professionals, manufacturers, vendors,, constructors, and local merchants to the simple laborer and the people of California who will benefit from this water. I am currently working in- Burbank, CA on an EPA Superfund site that is reclaiming 13 million gallons a day of contaminated water and turning it into drinking water and prior to that, for over 3 years I was the on-site Vice President overseeing the Design and Construction of a 5 million gallon a day Reverse Osmosis Plant in San Juan Capistrano. This project at a cost of 25 million dollars was awarded the best on time and under budget project by the Southern California Public Works Association. As a final thought, and as it was with those who sought to travel upon the Mayflower with incredible courage, great hopes and dreams, we also must pot forget those, who stood upon ��7 a the docks and shores and lamented their folly, only to eventually hear of their success. The ship of "Progress" sails forward upon uneasy waters for those who dare to venture upon it and carry the responsibility of doing that which is right and by accomplishing the journey set before them. Clean potable water is vital and critical to all of our survival and I ask that you consider a Yes Vote on this project as it will affect all of us in the very best way. Thank you. Best Regards, Chris Costello 714-206-8525 Ps: I have attached an article on the San Juan Capistrano Reverse Osmosis Project that appeared in ENR Magazine. 2 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Robert Harrison [rharrison@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:00 AM To: HB City Council Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: HB Salt Water Desalination Project Dear City Council, As 36 year residents of southeast Huntington Beach,we am very concerned about the HB Sea Water Desalination Project. This project will provide a safe, quiet and environmentally friendly means of providing drinking water and generating revenue for Huntington Beach. There are approximately 125,000 registered voters in Huntington Beach and their primary interest is fiscal responsibility. Please don't be swayed by a small vocal minority who are threatening to prevent you from being reelected. Please do the correct thing, vote YES for the desalination facility. Best regards, Robert& Nancy Harrison 9332 Greenwich Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 z 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 12:54 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility -----Original Message----- From: Steve Holden [mailto:sholden@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:47 AM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility Members of City Council, We would appreciate your consideration of approving the action items required for the Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility. As well as securing water supplies, the financial benefits to the city are substantial, and no risk to taxpayers. Steve and Betty Holden 949 loth Street Huntington Beach, 92648 714 536 7423 2/27/2006 �S 7� /LT Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: kolander rich [rkolander2000@yahoo.com) Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 7:17 AM To: city.councii@surfc4-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Hello City Council Members, Looking at what are neighboring communities are doing to create dependable sources of water for the future, Rep Gary Miller of Diamond Bar has as his goal for 2006, create 62.5 billion gallons of water for the region.Rep Dana Rohrabacher has secured funding of$2.25 million for the Orange County Water District for a vital water conservation program, $650,000 for the Long Beach Water Dept. for a water reuse program and $1.25 million for Long Beach to construct a seawater desalination plant.Is Huntington Beach going to join our neighboring communities in providing safe dependable drinking water as recommended by City Staff, The Chamber Of Commerce and others or are they going to join Tim Geddes and the other opponents who have no data to back up their positions? Richard Kolander Huntington Beach resident Brings words and photos together(easily)with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail. It seems that everyone has a nickname. Huntington Beach is known as Surf City and The Southeast Huntington Beach Homeowners Assoc should have the nickname of The "Whiners." No matter what development is being proposed here in Huntington Beach, they whine about it. And every event is elevated to a Category 5 catastrophe in their minds. The Poseidon Project is no exception. Now, to support any position it must be Built On Bricks of data. That is certainly not the case with the statements opponents make in their flyers. They say "Under international treaties, the public could lose the right to hold an operator accountable for pollution." The problem with that statement is the "poster child" for this argument, the Methanex MTBE case was decided by NAFTA in August 2005. The NAFTA decision held that environmental health and safety laws could not be overturned by the trade agreement. The argument should have been closed, but it simply does not serve their goals to accept the decision. They need a grand conspiracy theory to embellish their weak arguments. The opponents also claim "The Poseidon plant would create blight and discourage tourism, thus harming our local economy." Does that mean the tourists who have been visiting Huntington Beach over the years will continue to return because they find the rusting oil tanks are enticing? It is hard to see how improving the appearance would be a negative for tourism. Opponents also say "If there is a desalination plant, it should be located closer to the areas it would serve." The site was selected because it's more economical to share the components of an existing facility than build a new one from the ground up. And speaking of building a new facility, the half Billion dollar taxpayer funded Ground Water Replenishment System, known as GWRS, is a Toilet to Tap system that will supply drinking water to north and central Orange County. Metropolitan Water District is also kicking in a 90 million dollar 25 year subsidy to keep the price of water stable, because they feel the cost of water will spike in the coming years. GWRS will salvage some of the 240 million gallons of wastewater discharged into the ocean every day and treat it. The new GWRS will use ultra-violet rays and reverse osmosis to treat the wastewater. The purified water from the groundwater basin is then pumped to the surface and will be treated with chlorine and other chemicals before it is used by the homeowners. As with any new innovation, we conquer the challenges that face us, we make our world better. Innovations in every field make us healthier and better than we used to be, and let us do things that used to be impossible. Even things like the light bulb, a computer in almost every home are now taken for granted. Just like turning on your faucet at home and getting pure fresh water. We should all complain less and celebrate the innovators who bring us a these improvements in our lives. Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:19 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Fw: Proposed Huntington Beach Water Treatment Plant -----Original Message----- From: Brenda Anaya To: jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Mon Feb 27 13:09:51 2006 Subject: FW: Proposed Huntington Beach Water Treatment Plant -----Original Message----- From: George Nierlich Jr [mailto:GNierlich@mmsa.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 12:46 PM To: Brenda Anaya Subject: Proposed Huntington Beach Water Treatment Plant Although I cannot attend the council meeting tonight, please convey my support for the proposed Water Treatment Plant ! This homeowner supports the plan. George Nierlich 19097 Flagship Circle Huntington Beach Albers, Patricia From: Larry J. Rolewic[irolewic@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:43 PM To: city.councii@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon Desalination Project Dear Huntington Beach City Councilmembers: I live in Long Beach, CA and I understand Poseidon Resources, Inc. plans to build an ocean water desalination plant in Huntington Beach. I fully support this project as a way to help provide fresh water to the Southern California area, while reducing the ever-increasing demand for water from our precious rivers. I feel this project will have little detrimental impact on the environment, and I urge you to approve of this project. In addition, my father, who lives in Carlsbad CA also understands the need for additional sources of fresh water in the ever expanding development of land in No. San Diego County, and he heartily endorses this desalination project also. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Larry J. Rolewic 2165 Termino Ave. Long Beach, CA 90815 latt 1 Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 2:26 PM To: 'WJimandJoyce@cs.com' Subject: Re: Water treatment-do it! -- Agenda packets were distributed to the City Council on Wednesday evening. However, the attached correspondence will be included as part of late communication that will be distributed to the Council, made available for staff members and the public, and become part of the Public Record for this item. Thank you. Joan Flynn, City Clerk -----Original Message----- From: WJimandJoyce@cs.com To: dsullivan@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Mon Feb 27 14:01:02 2006 Subject: Water treatment - do it! Dear friends on the HB City Council, We will be with you in spirit this evening! Consider us in the stands cheering you on to put the final OK on this plan. Thanks for listening! Jim and Joyce Wilson, 19350 Ward St. #40, HB 92646. T Page I of I Albers, Patricia From: Bob Hardy[rhardy2@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 3:03 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon As citizens of Huntington Beach, now for over ten years, We find those opposed to this facility using the lamest of excuses for their cause. We beileve this facility, along with many others are needed to offset our reliance on Colorado River, MWD and our own wells for fresh water. We are in favor of the facility though we will be inconvienced by street excavation, but no worse than the sewage project recently though our area of town. Robert A. Hardy Carol A. Hardy 20612 Lavonne Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714v 378-0028 7t& 2/27/2006 Page I of I Albers, Patricia From: Bill [billanderson@socal.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:38 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility I support the Poseidon project which could very well solve future Huntington Beach water shortages. Many of the individuals and organizations that oppose the project are against anything that would result in a benefit to the city. They have previously opposed Wal- Mart, Home Depot, Downtown development, the new Sports Facility to name a few. Please vote based upon actual study results and not hearsay or unproven statements and allegations. Thank You, Clifford & Barbara Anderson 30 year Huntington Beach residents No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375/Virus Database: 268.0.0/267-Release Date:2/22/2006 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Claire Grozinger[sgrozinger@socal.rr.comj Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:55 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Support for Poseidon Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, We urge you to vote for the Poseidon Resources'proposed Water Treatment Facility. The facility offers benefits to our community both in new revenues for the city and a future local safe water supply. Sincerely, Claire and Siegmund Grozinger 608 22nd Street, HB 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Robert Harrison [rharrison@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:04 PM To: HB City Council Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Ocean Water Desalination Project Dear City Council, As a concerned 36 year resident of southeast Huntington Beach, I urge you to vote FOR the Poseidon desalination project. Thank you & best regards, Robert Harrison 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Albers, Patricia From: Nancy Harrison [naharrison@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:46 PM To: HB City Council Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Dear City Council, There are approximately 125,000 registered voters in Huntington Beach and their primary interest is fiscal responsibility. Please don't be swayed by a small vocal minority who are threatening to prevent you from being reelected. Please do the correct thing, vote for the desalination facility. Very truly yours, Nancy Harrison 0 2/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fran Leibowitz [franleibowitz@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:37 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon We are STRONGLY OPPOSED to having a Water Treatment Facility along our beachfront. As an area homeowner for 29 years, we feel that our HB waterfront will become too industrialized/commercialized. With Ascon in the neighborhood, we don't need anything else to pollute our air or our ocean. Nor do we need our property value to drop. Finally, we do not need to have our streets torn up to lay pipe and further pollute our air wtih dust, dirt and whatever else gets dug up. What about the Wetlands and their wildlife??? *****Destroy or damage our beachfront and your destroy or damage our tourismfff PLEASE DON'T DESTROY WHAT NATURAL BEAUTY OUR WONDERFUL CITY STILL HAS LEFT! A� 3/1/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Elahraf@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 6:13 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Elahraf@aol.com; Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Please Vote NO on Poesidon Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: As a scientist, , I urge you to consider the scientific facts and the negative environmental, energy implications of Poseidon's proposal on the ocean and community health. When I hear individuals say that they have not seen scientific evidence of the damaging effects of desalination projects, I intend to believe them. They have not read the immense scientific evidence. It is not because of the lack of scientific literature. Please do the right thing and vote NO. Thank you for your consideration. Dr. Amer El-Ahraf Professor of Environmental and Public Health 21572 Kanakoa Lane, HB, CA 963-3292 A-'_> 3/1/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: cathunterl1@netzero.net Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:37 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: POSEIDON HELLO, PLEASE, I DO NOT WANT THE POSEIDON r r►r THANKS, INA HUNTER 21311 SEASPRITE CIRCLE HB 92646 714-962-1209 Call Anyone,Anytime,Anywhere in the World-FREE! Free Internet calling from NetZero Voice Visit http://www.netzerovoice.com today! CL 3/1/2006 Page 1 of 1 I� Esparza, Patty From: Kevin M. Bertolini [kevin@9321ss.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 6:01 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Poseidon I am 100% against this plan. Stop waisting our money and lowering my property value. Kevin Bertolini L't nj/ C >7 e ,'/7L) 3/1/2006 Esparza, Patty From: N. M. Doyle [irisheyesaresmilingl8@msn.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:46 PM To: city.counciI@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: No on Poseidon As a resident of South HB I urge you to vote NO on the Poseidon Desal plant. Thank you. �u�,►1 c�i�7G1� 1 age I o Esparza, Patty From: The Kegans [petera.kegan@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:44 PM To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Pat Dapkus; Cathy Fikes Subject: Water Treatment Plant Dear City Council Members, My wife and I are totally against the proposed new water treatment. Just about everyone I have spoken to in our neighborhood is also against the proposed water treatment project. PLEASE DO NOT DO IT! Regards, Peter& Enet Kegan 714-968-7068 �r 3/1/2006 RECEIVED FROM AS PUBLIC RECOF- MR ,LNCIL MEETING,, CITY CL RK O FICE February 26, 2006 JOAN L FLYNN,CITY CLERK Dear City Council Members, As a former board member of Save Our Bays, Air and Canals (SOBAC) a non-profit environmental organization in the Tampa Bay area, I am familiar with Poseidon Resources. In 1999, Poseidon Resources was teamed with Stone and Webster in a partnership known as S&W Water to design, build and operate a 25 million-gallon per day (mgd) desalination plant on the shores of Tampa Bay to be completed by 2003. The project was marketed to taxpayers as "no risk" since the $100 million plant was supposed to be designed, constructed and operated by the S&W Water team. The plan was for our regional water utility, Tampa Bay Water, to purchase the plant after several years of successful operation. By waiting until the plant was successfully in operation the risk to the taxpayers was considered non-existent. Our group was very concerned with the location of the desalination plant. The plant would be discharging 20 million gallons of highly concentrated salt brine and pre-treatment chemicals per day back into the estuary. But while we were watchdogs for the environment, it seems that no one was watching out for the taxpayers. S&W Water (and later Tampa Bay Desal) was highly successful in its public relations efforts. They managed to not only squelch any opposition by environmental groups like ours but also anyone who raised concerns in the financial arena as well. All questions concerning the costs of the desalination plant were met with heavy-handed publicity tactics designed to discredit the motives of the questioner. Even when its first partner, Stone & Webster was going out of business, Poseidon managed to convince Tampa Bay Water that the desalination plant would be completed on schedule and within budget. It was only after obvious milestones were missed that Poseidon would have to find scapegoats to point their finger at. Our group was one of those that Poseidon pointed to as a cause for delay at one point but they screwed up by egotistically telling a reporter in an interview that "SOBAC's challenge was completely ineffective in making any difference to this project". Sometime after the Stone & Webster bankruptcy, Poseidon partnered with Covanta Energy and created Tampa Bay Desal. It was expected that this partnership would eventually complete the construction of the desalination plant. Again, Tampa Bay Water was duped into believing that things were going well under this partnership all through the construction. It was only during the testing phase, which was already many months behind schedule that Tampa Bay Water finally began to question the delays. It seems that the testing showed that some extremely fine organic material from the bay water was not being scrubed through the many stages of the filters. This required the expensive membranes to be cleaned more often which greatly accelerated their life. It didn't help matters for them that Covanta's parent company was having dire financial troubles and was facing bankruptcy as well. At some point Tampa Bay Water final) of fed-up with thepropaganda p i p Y Y9 P and the foot dragging of Poseidon Resources enough to pay them $10 million to walk away from the project. The entire risk for the plant now lies squarely on the shoulders of the Tampa Bay area taxpayers. Tampa Bay Water has hired yet another contractor to fix the problems of the plagued la ued desal plant. The contractor has estimated it will cost another $30 million dollars to fix bringing the total cost of the plant to $140 million. They cite equipment problems like pumps that are corroded completely through, galvanized iron fittings instead of stainless steel like the designs call for and other shortcuts that were taken during construction. I think it would be naive to believe that Poseidon knew nothing of what was happening in the construction arena. They were, after all, the one constant throughout the project. As of this date, our desalination plant has only produced water during test runs not for production use. And the plant is not scheduled to be on- line until sometime next year, four years after the original scheduled production date. Tampa Bay Water is also telling us that when the plant finally does come on-line it will be so costly to run that they only plan to use it during dry/drought conditions; a far cry from the $1 .44 per thousand gallon price that was originally projected. I strongly urge you and your neighbors to read through the history of Tampa Bay's desalination plant before making any commitments. You can do this by visiting the website of the St Petersburg Times (www.sptimes.com) and searching their archives for articles related to desalination, Tampa Bay Water, and Poseidon. Their archives are free to search and you will find many articles that have been written over the years. It seems we will be paying for our "no risk" desalination plant for a long time to come and have very little to show for it. Sincerely, Steven Jones Past Director Save Our Bays, Air and Canals Apollo Beach, Florida r y RECEIVED FROM 01, 011 AS PUBLIC RE R FOR COUNCIL M TING Viro 11011 g OF . .: aF CITY C RK• FICE 'PRESS 4 FOUNTAIN VALLEY,+ GARDEN GROVE_:HUNTINGTON BEACH*IRVINE'� LOS ALAMITOS O NEWMCITYCLERK EM SEAL BEACH TUSTIh • 0 • • Desalination deeisio n Huntington Beach ' council to vote Monday on permits r y for Poseidon plant, first of 24 neededr I for water project. u � By RACHEL OLSEN ` xY and JEFF OVERLEY N THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER � < HUNTINGTON BEACH A pro_ posal to build the country's largest desalination plant w could get the first of many cru- cial permits Monday. For more than four years, _ Poseidon Resources Corp.has sought approval for a desal- ination plant at Newland FILE PHOTO:LEONARD ORTIZ,THE REGISTER Street and Pacific Coast High- SITE: Poseidon Resources wants to build a desalination plant next to the AES power plant in the way that would produce 50 foreground.The facility would remove salt from ocean water to produce drinking water. million gallons of drinking wa- ter a day. But Councilman Gil Coer- A Critical Step I VOICES The City Council is ex- per .said he would probably I petted to decide Monday support the project. What: A special Huntington Beach I whether to approve land-use "Based on what staff has City Council meeting on land-use I I "People are coming in here permits for the $250 million presented ... it looks good for permits for a desalination plant I by the thousands,and project.That vote would come the city,"he said. proposed by Poseidon Resources somebody's got to furnish When: 6 p.m. Monday four months after the council At this point, the differing Where: City Council chambers, them the water....There's approved the project's envi- tax estimates are not a prob- Whe Main St It will be shown on only two options: No. I is to ronmental impact report on a lem, said Billy Owens, Posei- 2000 . use your wastewater and 4-3 vote. don senior vice resident. It HBTV-3. p More information: , recycle the wastewater, and One of the issues that has would be worked out as the I the other is the desalting of slowed the approval process project is approved and moves http://www.surfcity-hb.org/ I the ocean water." has been the question of how along,he said. Government/agendas/ much the city would gain from Owens said the city permit, council agendas.cfm NOBLE w A I T E, the project. And despite one of 24 permits Poseidon FORMER HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNCILMAN months of negotiations, city needs, is the first critical step 1995 and successfully built and company officials are still in a long process. Poseidon seven reclamation and waste- _ "Essentially I'm against it at odds over the project's fi- would also have to go through water treatment plants. The I because Huntington Beach nancial benefits. the approval process with fed- corporation's only attempt at doesn't need the water. The Poseidon says it would pay eral and state agencies, such desalination, in Tampa, Fla., technology is in a state of about $1.8 million annually in as the California Coastal Com never materialized. The pro- I flux right now,and Poseidon 'taxes;the city says it could be mission. ject was decommissioned has had such disastrous !i owed roughly$2.6 million per While supporters of the pending repairs and eventu- ; results in Tampa Bay._... year. project talk about a need to ally bought out by the area's live here because it's close At issue,officials say,is how address future water de- water authority. Poseidon I to the ocean, and I don't Poseidon would use the elec- mands in the county, oppo- blames the public agency for I want it to be an area of tricity it -buys, which deter- nents worry about the effect of the deficiencies. pollution." mines tax rates, the plant on ocean ecology and <Several council members the corporation's track record CONTACT THEJOHN SCOTT,WRITER: yy H 0 LIVES NEAR THE. said Friday they Were Uri- With desalination. (714)445-6696 or I PROJECTSITE certain how they would vote. Poseidon was .founded in rolsenCjocregister.com RECEIVED FROMState of the Beach 2005 ' AS PUBLIC RECORD R rPlCll ME I'of 14 OF �- CITY OLERK OFFICE JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK tiumicerF undaon ti postcards _ry) contact Selec -f The Home Beach Indicators Methodology Findings Beach Manifesto State Reports Chapters Perspectives For CZMs Bad and West Coast Islands Great Lakes Gulf States North East Mid Atlantic —South East FLORIDA WATER QUALITY North Carolina _ Water Quality Monitoring Program Florida Rating ..............._._...__.._...._..........._.__....................- South Carolina BEACH Act Indicator Type ............ Georgia The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act Beach Access _.........._.._.............. ........... Florida (BEACH Act) signed into law on October 10, 2000, amends the water Quality Beach Description federal Clean Water Act (CWA), incorporating provisions to reduce Beach Erosion Beach Access the risk of illness to users of the Nation's recreational waters. The Erosion Response -Water Quality BEACH Act authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Beach FillShoreline Structur Beach Erosion (EPA) to award program development and implementation grants Beach Ecology -Erosion Response to eligible States, Territories, Tribes, and local governments to Surfing Areas Beach Fill support microbiological testing and monitoring of coastal Website Shoreline Structures Beach Ecology recreation waters, including the Great Lakes, that are adjacent to Explain th Surfing Areas beaches or similar points of access used by the public. BEACH Act Website grants also provide support for development and implementation of programs to notify the public of the potential exposure to disease-causing microorga coastal recreation waters. EPA encourages coastal States and Territories to apply for B Grants for Program Implementation (referred to as Implementation Grants) to implern and comprehensive coastal recreation water monitoring and public notification program 406(i) authorizes appropriations of up to $30 million per year through fiscal year 2005 implement beach programs. For 2005, the total funds available for BEACH Act grants w million. Funds are allocated to the states and territories based on a formula which uses that are readily available and verifiable: (1) Length of beach season, (2) miles of beach number of people that use the beaches. States must submit their grant applications by year. The available allocation for Florida in 2005 was $537,390. Much of the following discussion is taken from NRDC's report Testing the Waters, A Gu Quality at Vacation Beaches, July 2005. Up to and including 1999, the state of Florida did not require any monitoring of ocean waters. In June 2000, the Florida legislature passed S1412, which gave the Florida Dep Health (FDOH) the authority to initiate a statewide beach monitoring program and clos issue advisories if standards are exceeded. Beginning in August 2000, the FDOH receiv annual allocation of$525,000 in recurring general revenue for the program. These sam along with an additional $540,000 in federal BEACH Act grants, were available for the 2004. Local health departments in 34 of the state's 35 coastal counties (Jefferson Coun accessible beaches) received a portion of these funds to monitor an average of nine sit enterococcus and fecal coliform. The FDOH posts monitoring results for all 307 beache http://esetappsdoh.doh.statefl.us/irm00beachwater/default.aspx In August 2002, the FDOH expanded beach monitoring frequency from once every two per week with the EPA grant monies available through the federal BEACH Act. Florida a using the geometric mean enterococcus standard required by the BEACH Act to determ advisories. In addition to the enterococcus standard, Florida also tests for fecal coliform http://www.surfrider.org/stateofthebeach/05-sr/state.asp?zone=SE&state=fl&cat=wq 1/3/2006 i s Desalination Another type of facility that could prove harmful to marine life is a sea water desalination plant. These plants typically suck in millions of gallons per day of seawater (and the marine organisms living in that seawater) and purify the seawater to provide a source of drinking water using reverse osmosis technology. The byproduct of this process is a brine stream that is about twice as salty as seawater. In Tampa, the nation's first seawater desalination plant built to serve as a primary source of drinking water began providing water for residents in 2003. At full capacity it is designed to generate 25 million gallons a day of drinking water. The plant has experienced major difficulties in operating at design capacity due to premature plugging of reverse osmosis membranes, and the long term economics and reliability of the plant remain in question. Tampa Bay Water has tightened monitoring of the plant, and a$1 million program to detect whether the plant's operation is harmful to marine life is in place. Previous studies have indicated that the plant shouldn't have any adverse impact on the Bay's salinity or sea life. Texas and California are also watching the plant's progress as officials in those states consider whether to move ahead with desalination plants of their own. RECEIVED F 1 � AS PUBLIC RECO COU IL EETI OF-T CLE C OFFI¢E MEMORANDUM ,LOAN L FLM,car CLERK TO: Mayor Dave Sullivan, Mayor Pro Tern Gil Coerper, Council Members Keith Bohr, Debbie Cook, Cathy Green, Don Hansen and Jill Hardy. FROM: Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D., 16291 Magellan Ln, HB 92647. 843-6387. SUBJECT: The Poseidon Plant will add pollution to Huntington Beach. DATE: February 27, 2006 Mr. Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen of the City Council: My name is Joseph Mastropaolo. I have been a resident of Huntington Beach for 40 years. The supposed benefit of the Poseidon Plant is to produce more fresh water to support an increased population for Huntington Beach. This is to let you know that it will do the opposite. Poseidon will decrease this city's desirability for residents, industry, and tourists. First and foremost, there is no need for more water. Here is the headline from the O.C. Register of January 17, 2006, "O.C. has plenty of water. Last year's rainfall has raised the aquifer so high in some places that water is seeping above ground." We do not need Poseidon. The wells are overflowing to the surface. There are two ways to pollute an ocean and Poseidon will do both. One way is to kill the plants and animals that purify the ocean's natural waste. The second way is to add waste that will overwhelm the purifiers. The electric plant already kills the purifiers and HB is polluted. Surprised? Disagree? Go out on the Balboa pier and you'll be in for a shock. You'll see crystal clear water, you can see the bottom and every fish. In my 40 years in HB, I have never seen the bottom from the HB pier. My children and I never knew whether there were fish where we were fishing. First, Poseidon will pump even more water than the electric plant and together they will kill even more of the purifiers and pollution will increase. Second, Poseidon will filter this dirty water, it will clog its filters early, it will backwash the filters dumping the waste by the intake, which will clog the filters even sooner with more frequent backwashing and more pollution. The filters will wear out faster and faster raising the cost of the water until it is not cost effective. Third, Poseidon will dump salt thus raising salinity and killing fish, some of which cannot swim away, like sand crabs. Fish have body fluids lower in salt than the ocean and use their salt excreting glands to rid their bodies of the extra salt from their drinking and eating. As Poseidon dumps more and more salt, salt glands will be overwhelmed and the fish will die and add to the pollution. Sea birds have even lower salt in their body fluids and eating salty fish will overwhelm their salt excreting glands and they also will die. We have a surplus of water. Poseidon will add pollution three ways. I urge a NO vote. � Y STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,Governor CALIFORNIA STATE EXECUTIVE OFFICE LANDS COMMISSION 100 Howe Avenue, suite south Sacramento, CA 9582825-8202 PAUL D. THAYER,Executive Officer CRUZ M. BUSTAMANTE, Lieutenant Governor 21W (916) 574-1800 Fox(916) 574-1810 STEVE WESTLY, Controller TOM CAMPBELL, Director of Finance California Relay Service TDD Phone 1-800-735-2929 *' Voi a 800 7 +29 RECEIVED FROM AS PUBLIC RE MRR OUNCIL MEETING OF CM CLEW OFFICE STAFF PROPOSED JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK RESOLUTION BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION REGARDING ONCE THROUGH COOLING IN CALIFORNIA POWER PLANTS WHEREAS, The California State Lands Commission and legislative grantees of public trust lands are responsible for the administering and protecting the public trust lands underlying the navigable waters of the state, which are held in trust for the people of California; and WHEREAS, the public trust lands are vital to the recreational, economic and environmental values of California's coast and ocean; and WHEREAS, the commission has aggressively sought correction of adverse impacts on the biological productivity of its lands including, litigation over contamination off the Palos Verdes Peninsula and at Iron Mountain, the adoption of best management practices for marinas and litigation to restore flows to the Owens River; and WHEREAS, California has twenty-one coastal power plants which use once-through cooling, the majority of which are located on bays and estuaries where sensitive fish nurseries for many important species are located; and WHEREAS, these power plants are authorized to withdraw and discharge approximately 16.7 billion gallons of ocean water daily; and WHEREAS, once-through cooling harms the environment by killing large numbers of fish and other wildlife, larvae and eggs as they are drawn through fish screens and other parts of the power plant cooling system; and WHEREAS, once through cooling also adversely affects the coastal environment by raising the temperature of adjacent water, killing and displacing wildlife and plant life; and WHEREAS, various studies have documented the harm caused by once-through cooling including one study that estimated that 2.2 million fish were annually ingested into eight southern California power plants during the late 1970s and another that estimated that 57 tons of fish were killed annually when all of the units of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station were operating; and : r WHEREAS, regulations adopted under Section 316 (b) of the federal Clean Water Act recognize the adverse impacts of once-through cooling by effectively prohibiting new power plants from using such systems; and WHEREAS, the Governor's Ocean Action Plan calls for an increase in the abundance and diversity of aquatic life in California's oceans, bays, estuaries and coastal wetlands, a goal which can be better met by eliminating the impacts of once-through cooling; and WHEREAS, members of the California Ocean Protection Council have called for consideration of a policy at its next meeting to discourage once-through cooling; and WHEREAS, the California Energy Commission and the State Water Resources Control Board have the authority and jurisdiction over the design of power plants and are conducting studies into alternatives to once-through cooling, such as air cooling, cooling with treated wastewater or recycled water and cooling towers; and WHEREAS, in its 2005 Integrated Energy and Policy Report , the California Energy Commission adopted a recommendation to work with other agencies to improve assessment of the ecological impacts of once-through cooling and to develop a better approach to the use of best-available retrofit technologies; and WHEREAS, the Commission recognizes that the coastal power plants currently utilizing once-through cooling make an important contribution to California's energy supply, but believes that the elimination of these cooling systems, through conservation, conversion, construction of new facilities, or utilization of other sources can be feasible and will be facilitated by establishing a deadline for this to occur; therefore, be it Resolved by the California State Lands Commission that it urges the California Energy Commission and the State Water Resources Control Board to expeditiously complete all necessary studies and develop policies that eliminate once-through cooling from all new and existing power plants in California; and be it further Resolved, that the Commission shall not approve new leases or extensions of existing leases for facilities associated with once-through cooling after 2020 and calls on public grantees of public trust lands to implement the same policy for facilities within their jurisdiction; and be it further Resolved, that the Commission's Executive Officer transmit copies of this resolution to the Chairs of the State Water Resources Control Board, the California Energy Commission, and the California Ocean Protection Council, all grantees, and all current lessees of public trust lands that utilize once-through cooling. 2 QA �ose25� � c�an4 -F o � ou � «A �c � �4P vao �c uJ- e Lo do. o c ��^ � a-1 C� iS cd dt O{ WELCOME TO A MEETING OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The public may address the Council/Agency on any item on the agenda or other items of interest during the section of the meeting devoted to PUBLIC COMMENTS. There is a time limit of three minutes per speaker. A speaker may not use the time of any other person. If you would like to arrange a meeting to discuss your matter more thoroughly, please contact the City Council Office at(714) 536-5553. The public is invited to address the City Council/Redevelopment Agency on PUBLIC HEARING agenda items when those items are called before the Council/Agency. As noted above, providing any of the following f information is voluntary; however, it will help the Council/Agency or the staff to contact you after the conclusion of the meeting, if necessary. 1 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY " DATE: GROUP AFFILIATION (optional): YOUR NAME: TELEPHONE: (Optional) Please tint ADDRESS (optional): U Street City Zip Code ` PUBLIC COMMENTS Agendized Items(exclusive of D Fill in Agenda Item if speaking on specific item items)and non-agendized items PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY AGENDA ITEM NO. D D Items(if you would like your comments to be part of a specific public hearing record, you must speak during the public hearing portion of the meeting) The City Council/Redevelopment Agency is interested in your comments; however, policy does not permit taking immediate action on non-agendized items brought to the Council/Agency through Public Comments. WHEN COMPLETE, PLEASE GIVE THIS FORM TO THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS (the police officer who is located near the speaker's podium.) The City Clerk will call all speakers for both Public Comments and Public Hearings at the appr riate time. All proceeVs are re rd ^ t t V _ CDC'D N J � N O O O� O T CD (wD 0-n �v I-- �-n o O � y CD CDIN-i 's o � CD bd c (wD �m" 0 0 � n all CD CD CD . � O � � O u � u �4 �4 sGe � rn tz) Er cc� m` a �"C7 e^�9 O J rn i ■ P c; M = art F Gp [ -6 '5 ► rn lJ y T � c C qr m nQo ca O • S. [n V lL m rv^, ve t m S ZE N G� STAFF PAPER U l� U -i (b m � 2 'CD con , CD > Lo 0 M � o i con ar'i 0 m 0 IN cn o c 0 M CID w r, ' \� O � \ , p fD -7 'C S; [ O \ V 0 m 2) n 7 CD w 77 O N • � O � l�l • 3 (D (p N • in 3 ,.�. � v � U4 O � A� • � �' � v CD O � • � Z m � mG) c m cr [7 G� m CD m c omo c r.m r- 0 COMMISSION REPORT ro G)ja � x CD c y .w T V cD y ICDCD � � o CDCD N O � � CD p v� V►1 v� CD � O ,. CD "�. M CD CD CD CD CD • c CD � c �, ►� CD Q CD CD Omni 0 CD CL �. �. �o D � O� N w � O 011* N w �► O °oT� O O O O O O O O O O O cD n 5� 0 DQ OP7' c o O 7 ow fD Can o N '14 c (D a 0 r+ o o fD (D o n cn rn V 1 0 fD N Q 0 003a w f n V � 002 0 V y ' CD CD CD . CD ►� CD CD �•CD 0 �. CDCD O ~ CD C CD ' CD 00 CD C C O CD �• � ' CD Cl'4 (wD CD o �• cD O cn O PD • Omni co CD � co CD CD CD CD � CD CD (� tr r r3 'i- r i Ir o lq con OIQ cam+. cam►. con con concon con a4 NO (� �►. O "WA, co, O � coo O z o �' O na time NJ TCF s K CO - ,, a, CD s CD 10 r! C Di Ca K3 0 cn N3 .106 Ln .4 i C Et� CD N umbw of wells 4 I'l Q C� 71) MIi11ions CFM Or 0 i y 77 -41 zZ� SR -pro. T r� L L � � 0 Number ofWelix tl f S' Er r fadibm tr 0 C� ay 6} h � � O O CD O CD Now ICD CD LLI 6 rn (� N . • CD lei � � • ►�--� v� CD s C ij W Pi 0 CrQ t'I� ` r O � n O o cD OConc� � C � CD M qt R, C.0 In rn Cj 0 Lie OL N un N ILA I.-- fA • C-0 CIS: qr 0 PD -c-, Z3 pa CL = ecl E; r) t�4 LA CD un cr rMIL CD un X CD �'' O 0 c: t7i ItL PW LP wa n Uri O o6i rl tG 0 • 'mac= � � g � 4` O 4 4Lt x nocog3 ' ❑ATmac zz �-+a '1 m- ac) nn <m r y• to CD � za (ODPt d CD W • tft*, - CD n o ON N O n co� O � N � J (� O cr . c� C CD � � r CD o �: � • CD � • CV con c� ►� 7� '14 r--r cry o d � y i zoo, �' �' (D 00 CD CD CD CD 0 CD '� CD O CD n O O O CD d CD � n rD � O O s, n n W O CAD CD CDc�D ell ell CD CD CD CD CD CD ►� o CD O CD cr CD CD CD IrD CD CD CD (D PD tt lot n - CD CD CD . d4 �C O d4 cr �--� • CD CD P CAD CD �? O �-h c � O � O ►-� CD ► ''� . 0 CD �--r CD CD ° CD CD Gq • CD Cr CD n CD p CD � cry o • CD �C CD ° M..r • }, c o c CL ►� �z CD rn m w tr a W- o fA 'a 10 rt m IQ a rt rt rt m F•, m LO w £ '0 rt a ri rt co m CP m LO rt Fh rt O Ft w :: r- O P. 0 0 :x C ti � O ~J W' m tr M m O• u y 1 M U+ C m m a F O x' w t7 < M m n m < a r 0 m 0 m m cn P. m Q< F ri rt w H C W IC a tr --'0 O rt Ft rD r T} 10 G d W- m w n C rt m n rt W O m rt r M p n m a M 0 tx O Q M w a r m r m n � a r• wm '< mQ - mC7 � r+ -- ioM --rommo — mtrmmMrtM m m m m FS tr W W h N• F,10 N Ffi 0 F'• n m w r+ Fh m t3 M m W-Id m 0 to 0 0 �a m N o m •-3 n F. H r o n e a r o P C W m •-a ka O 0 0 Fh O " 0 } 0 0 0 M O ri n 0 F- Ft 'C LO 0 w w t•h rt ' J n O 1-'• m t-h O G W n Fh to O rt t-h F+• m rt LO M a �r rt m n m 0 tt, m F-- o rt G rn w n o o o ro tr -0 W- w -0 tT n m m rt w n m rt n a rt o ]r M O r- rr w w M Fh M M m o M n O o o O a 4 :3, w O o m n '< F- m Ci F M a •rt rr n rt G 0 0 I-h 0 a W- < a O G m 0 a O 0 rt z 5 r < m n a y O' a' :�r 0 0 < rt m < rr < ! N m H. Fh r+ a a a F-h w w rt m t7 a r- m rr 0 r n F a P. O• tti W- w h m m O rt m rt F'- R 10 ❑' M w r O to M :�r a M a 5., m O m a rn rt N m M m r+ m o• rt 0 m rt a "C it a rt r- n r rt r (6 a m m m z H. tr a a m IY• a m rt G rt m rt a s rn rt N ti r m G 'o M tr O 'e O G m r+ rt M 0 rt 5• rr 10 rt g G m rt m H. m F Fr. 5 M Fh 0 4 Fh a :j M Ft'o o m m M O C a 0 '< m tr a m n n 0 u; F• o m r 0 £ m 0 F o O G rt m CA M ta V. to L7 a r 7' p rt rt M Ft O Ft m 0 M C a C 10 C7 m CL •< m a < m ro rr F•- w rr a s Ch ffi (n to M n F'- O P. a n m 0 0 F F En < to :7 M •C1 m rr rt m ft m '< w m a a P"' rt m a H a C Fh 0 0 - r w m rt a a a O p a w F' m F•• tT to r 0 O M is n rr w m M rr C1 M m M r+ m m n O m w to m o g a rtm m a n a m n M 0 0 F• w M m m O `< ::5 m rt O w P. w � F• m w w G m a o M w rt a rt w e m a a M a in rt3� n M r 0 n M m rt p r 0 M a F M m a m C rt `• O m a rt rn M a m r 0 :�. w D a r m u O rt n ro m a r m rt M r C •• O' G m 0 M n • rt 0. rt M F'- G n m m m M m M +* a 0 m n m m W la w rt m a F ca m m m m ID a n m a o M m m w :I M o m p w N %Q a & :1 G m O n M 0 m rt n --r rt p :J �j m ` m p O n rt < F w m a W to M m n w �j m n m to 0 n CL M :3- m m o 0 r� ER m rt m %O m m m C IQ '< O $ n m a w- w M tt m rt m Or M- m m 0 w a 0 rt O H.l< O S w m rt rt in O r+ w O m tf 0 10 a rt G O 0 Fh w M rr O a r• p B x rt P. £ a w r n o M 4 a rh 0 0• rr FA w a m -0 m w G a F•- m tl rt 0 Fh m '< M l< a m a ro rt H. O rt r• N M r+ M rt Fh m 10 M O a C :r 0 rr O O G %Q m r m m l m Fh rt a £ m 0 w C n G n rfi rh m is 0 V m 'a w ` x n F=� • Ca w R' O m P. m In O m rt m rt O 0 G rt m m V to O O a C rt a M w n m rt M rt M m ii G C. M O a O M 0 n is m a M G m N (D w pj r• o 'd � H- N iq rt rt rrs m ro rr m rar m R m V he F O Ft rt n M M tD m m nr P- m a 0 F• a m a 0 1.....� O rt r w O m 0 0 m a p m o n o rn x m � a N V m u0i l_ M m rt m O m m rr 't7 M o t o m 0 C 11 JJ m m rt C �' min e w s;. w n m o m m N- n W m � m p- p- m m m m n M w- tt a n m 0 M M a O M (n O• rt 'O m M m tr w t-.h rt M 0 G m 0 w 0 rr O a n 0 w £ M M H. M P. � N M 0 o rr W 0 4c HO a 0 a 'C M En m W F'- O w r W r n n a N V1 CT a M H rt 1•!i to rt •o r m M n m w rt O w m < rt H. m M L3 m a � m r rr � rt rt � M Ww nrt m w � rtrtrnm Mrtrt on k< H {]. p a rt w 0 10 a P, rt m a s �' t1h O a m X m � rt F'- �a m C o tr o rt M o 0 = rt rt a o m 4 rt m M L< rt r m rr m w m a F' r m m M "5 r•h m W } m ft Fh it M m rt n m rt 0 P. fn 0' u r o m M e m rt a rh ry a :y G tr :31 0 tt n F' G o n 0 rr 10 a O a 0 H- m �l w m m lQ 0 M f hth p 0 p 0 rt �� M n a m m w•F m w m M m m C M m rt 0 F rt TS a s r+ p rt a u N O O W `• rt 0 w m 0 rt O rr n P. M W n o- rt a n a o Fh u m G w m m v w W a W O rt w- r+ rt rt r- F'• m w rt G rt n w rt < < fl W m O ]" ::r n m 0 w a w a m rt r* O w 0 m m m a m a m O O m rt O F a i V CD � � Uri v�• r--r � CD � � � CD Z CD P CD ° CD Y �s ii. J p•:''t s( y I •n_ .i 1 y I � WO 0 22 m _ CD ' c ca 00 M iy c� N � CD < < C7 CD CD -� CD V =3 cn • N Ta O 4 �y =3 cn � O (D �, Q CD rt : � . o w � � � C 00 CD � 0- 0 o � CD M c� O ' ' � CD � < = U) CD a -� C)_ (D —� (D NCO � (D I <C 4z oc -. O O =3 0) (D-. CD' w Q = M C: rt CD C:(n 0) 3 0 rt 0� O 0) CD n rD O cn 0 rn CD rt r _ -, 0 o � T' n 0 --hWUl � � � � CD _ D aj. C n (D O -p �. O r r-F- -- O r (D M c�O CD o (D CD � 70 CD � � � o- (D � --I� u (D —h 73 CQ 0 (D "< 0 - �C o O o O 1 � m (D (� CDCD 0 CD, -1 0 CL x CD Q) CD 0 CD rt -1 (D %:;Z CL (D 3 N � rt � O (n O a, (D O rt � O �• rt ( CD Cn 0 CD O � � r..r � r--r � � � p 0 � � n x LA) - n r-r =; O c N Q I (D I --h IOL CD 0 _. 0- O r CD 0 = � =3 M �0c.n = rn C 0 0 C CD 0) :3 X CD D) �' BCD C 0' M O CD -'h CD 7D 0 CD `G 0 -1 o _ 1 < -0 rn —n p _ CD0 � � . -0 Q n• CAD W CD 0 c _0 X cn D- C: — rt O w <� (D CD CDrr -S �' CD CD � O cn' 0 o-1 CD p r-r rr o �" =� F)' rD � * Cn • m o =3 =r CD CD �0 ET , — — n CD owl 57 CD CD -' CD I -n -1 (n r+ r+ -n Cl)CD ( \ 3 v :E CD cn �e O rn 3 (. CD C: CD CD -f cn ca.O CD CD CDL o - _ c n �o T. CD 3 2) CD cr - CD O CD O =3' U O O '� CD =3 r-4 0 = CD i r� Q Q DJ n O .�+ rf 3 3 C :3 rn - v CD o o CD CD co CD � 1 O ,- L 0 — CD n' CD =- �G -1 Q) =3 CL cn o n cn v CD � —� , — 3 CL CD 1 � CD—t, CD v O CD 0 rn v CD CL Cl) CD C CD z g CL �' �_ o , CAD �+ 3 CCD 0 CD 3 O Q �. CD O3 CD N 0 r -� r r ° � Z ° o ° � 0O sv CD M- v 3 — -� C — CLO CD — . 3 0 —• p Cn Cn .�, =• CL n n n O — �- � O CD � -• CD O 3 In O CCD O 1 — O C w CD cn — cn w ° C: ° =r �-�- w 3 n CD < Mol CD O• ° Cn cm cn CD CD o n cr c o c- c 0 cn • • ;u KO CD M X 0 Cow o > �_ > � CD iv 0 o° o ° CD � � CD CD— m0 :3 3 o — o � � CD r-E- W O r :E 56 O n n co 00 v -4 tt o0 CD O cn CD 'o--0, W N N 0 = S C dD � It CD • O Q p 3 CD3 N C --� . � \ 0 0 -0 ) CD 0 � oo � ota = * C ocD3 � D � 0 cr o CD cn O m O cn CD CD C < CD --n cn O ch —. O c CD 3 O 1 CD � Y � � t ; -1104 4. y u �o Lt ,f > i P' s f r' us"; r � itl It t �R�YAIR"A f wa s* .� 1 4 3 J I t �. 4 � �i a 3 s E if Yr # A A # # A # • 1 # A • i # ! # • • # 1 # # • ! # ! • • # # • # # A ! # # s� r. v i x i Aft -�/ SAft AmAS ME yx: f F ' , 11�11,WllllrP' As Alt Ah 0 Dow 0 • • Aft Am A • As Alk • • • ® • ® • • • r fir w, AM AS AM A11 AlkAi • AI► p `. �� �3 �1 � . � � �� � (�j }-+� �� 1- Introduction Wn!" A pipeline is necessary to transport product water into the distribution system . f: Pipeline construction does have a short term inconvenience to the public. � We have developed an action plan to minimize community . ' impacts and quickly address { concerns ` i a+. R v PI CL Co CT9. CL S30 CD rr � r b k V VP � L1 Aa � cn C7 co Yeo i O e :-9pr Characteristics of a 108 - 1 10 Inch Sewer Pipeline Ashok- . 13 ft. Trench Width . 20 ft. Trench �✓� � � Depth - � I . Extensive Excavation . Major Trench Dewatering �. i • • ,• d g�tiir • o- ,, - ; � e . ■ » ■ . . ,. . � S ;§ _ /$��i\AQie�HHI I■■ 1■■ i � 0 - �& �& Characteristics 108 - 110 Inch Pipe V111- -4 AWN I" s " a �+'" A� � e K, Ok— v r+ �j N _ OY { nt S P 4 d r. t e• � � F 30 I CD ,v C .ry} w cm g C CD r ED � n ' CAD CL vo �. �r MW cn s� a. ,x CD � 1RIgl�14lt��ll�illpj� ■ � � .�,�+•�,•�..* a, � x Y � to i.Y: ■ vs . (3ravity Pipes Fressurized Because the desal water Gravity pipes, like those is pressurized, it is not used by OCSD, must reliant on gravity flow. angle downward to Pressurization allows for maintain proper flow. flexibility in depth location . I } 4 Costa Mesa lw PRIMARY _ - '' DIAMETER Jana-I - r, PRIMARY �I ![ r Fk�� � �vA ;P NAflY AtiERNA a�T��rarFob._ t" ( ar PRIMARY r 41P rfAA4yy;._ p :ry n - fit _ wa��,arrr'�N"����rr 11 "��i�i�■� �u. _ iALTERNATTVEJi T � a {B r Jul. POSEIDON RESOURCES CORP SEA WATER f)ESA NA_TION i>tjcj A HUNTINGTON BEACH rfi GENERAT_1#]1d p --i mml CD APPROXIMATE DEPTH. BELOW GROUND SURFACE 2 : \ 1111111 Ln ml 0 . \ < . _ ; . 7 � �#. Nuisance OCS D was required to use well pumps to lower the groundwater table by 10 ft. The desalination pipeline will not require alteration .......... .. #t of the groundwater table. f nuisance water is encountered sump pumps will be employed . Traffic r n�r The City will have oversight of the pipeline construction including Traffic Plans. The maximum amount closed at any given time will only be two lanes of traffic. All streets or intersections will be w, opened to traffic at . a I I times. Sf .r Construction will not I fir occur during peak traffic hours. Construction I of Similar Sized 42 " 48" Pipeline kr i 07 IK • p, � '� Via. � � „� =�' t W x 'Aid - S TM °r r Pipeline/Ascon i to mom 11; at ASCON Berm Hamilton Avenue Fence J5' 6' 50' Cables 8" City Sewer . • 1 2 Water 48' u.. Pipeline/Ascon Site Pipeline construction in the Ascon area is expected to take two weeks. Soil, Air Testing & Groundwater Level Verification Prior to Construction Current Groundwater Level is 14 ft. Below the Surface. No Dewatering Operation Like Bushard Sewer Trunk Line Project. Ambient Air Quality Testing During Construction Any Contaminated Air, Soil or Nuisance Water Encountered will be Managed in Accordance with City, State and Federal Regulations i-,# ipeline/Ascon ROMMINNOWN, "W Berm Stability Precaution will be Taken to Ensure No Berm Impacts T-77 Continual Sensor ¢ 7RROW +.ra Monitoring to Ensure w Berm Integrity Coordination with DTSC and Property Owner i111W pilh! Ad mr A .0 17 hr n.. N �F t �i> w K o 0o , V �r �v.vv .vvvv .- .....__ � 0 �'� a' :yr yrV:.r. r= o O _.. .. . CD CD CDCD cDcn CD. CD V CD Bore and Construction r To cross the Santa Ana River one bore pit is required The maximum amount closed at an given time A� `fir t1 a rV y g 3 . will be two lanes of traffic , d No street closure at u anytime Construction expected to p t be completed in �approximately four weeks WMWAN ■Hipeline The pipeline route is four Tv miles long, but the pipeline will be installed in p hases. Phasing Construction Ensure Smaller Areas of Inconvenience at a Time. ° 4 Approximately ten to twelve months to complete construction. i . . Construction to begin in : FY 2007. Uonstruction Public Notifon Surveying Traffic Control Notification Letter . Sent 2 Weeks . . Prior to Construction � r p v x W: Construction Will Occur Dui e ffi rpiamm4pm) Construction Excavation Closing Pipe Laydown Backfill Trcnch Trench FIV ITTV16-am Y low" Y 4 kk- Y � g a40, ;= us r � � z� :. �,, �. - � �,� ��� x z r . .: � �..� a .. �f, ,� n�- ,. , .. � � � ., �. � #r� �r -�- ��. .� �,k. � � � �. � � x � '' _"���"�"'s�., �: .a` , �s.# » �, Minimize Community Inconvenience "Tight" Specifications that limit: . Work Hours . Work Areas k . Phased Progression - . Ensure Contractor � Response Time Traffic Control Plans ` Documentation Inspection o� ' _ --� 0CD o o Y CD .. o {` o o, 4 rn CT CD o ; . z � w CD m m r� \V uonclusion Community Outreach will be a Priority. Pipeline installation is a common occurrence in � � City streets. aF y N 1 Pipeline installation will a_ k _ have full city oversight. All city codes and standards will be upheld . Huntington Beach Water Treatment Facility Desalination Project February 27 , 2006 Poseidon Resources Water ro cts It Cranston, RI • Municipal Wastewater Treatment Project • Largest Privately Financed Wastewater Plant in US 4; •• __ ' ►, ' `- ` w Tampa Bay, Florida } -- • Reverse Osmosis Desalination Project • Largest Desalination Facility in North America TIT PEMEX, Mexico • Industrial/Municipal Water Reclamation Projects r • Largest Private Owner of Water Facilities in Mexico � k Under Development ] � Huntington - ' �. �2 Beach CA Ow Vj g x Carlsbad, CA 4 Monterey County, CA - � . Freeport, TX Desalination Industry Contributions/Awards OWN MMW Research • "2005 Grand Award", by the American is Academy of Environmental Engineer' ��in . for state-of-the-art research in the field of environmental engineering for our workr. a completed at the Carlsbad Seawater ,.. Desalination Demonstration Facility . West & Central Basin Desalination a4. Demonstration • Affordable Desalination Collaboration - (ADC) — Power Reduction Research • Carlsbad Pilot Plant — Performance and Water Quality, Corrosion, etc.. Water Quality Standards • United Nations WHO Desalination Health Standards Committee — 2005 and 2006 f x . Increasing Need for Water 11.. *"*"A' .""111 "P 1, 1 11 Cost of Imported Water is Increasing Cost of Desal is Decreasing Traditional Supply Sources are Limited and Constrained The Federal Government, State of California, Regional and Local Water Agencies are Strongly Supporting Desalination Projects The Seawater Desalination Project is . . . A Water Treatment Plant — Proven Technology Water Supply for the Future — An Insurance Policy r Business That Shares the City's Interest in Protecting the Coastal Environment Low Profile Business Requiring Few City Services e� F4 #� ■ ■ ■ a sanitation plant rt . v .w=li Vie � �`4 •,i:;, :...� � � ... �.;. -0s "tf v. w� Fn .mod. `"' � �. M� � •�. Ft � - t r _ wo- x, . . . receiving s . . . requesting waivers . . . amaging th +e ocean 4 ' � z . . . extending the life of the power or Preventing it From Meeting Clean Water Act Standards . . . tech nological ly obsolete once built Huntington Why ■ Intake and Outfall Infrastructure Already in Place Access to Seawater California Costal Act Policy Twa Encourages the Use of Existing { Infrastructure and Co-Location 1996 General Plan and 2001 CDP Zoned Public Service (PS), �a Which Includes Water Treatment Plants Access to Regional Water Distribution System .. Project Held Accountable E I R Certified by City r �� ,� �fFIM asyi rili'i Eft4 ',iV Extensive Public Input and Debate Water Treatment is a t. Permitted Use under x General Plan and Zoning Code vsa No waivers or Variances to City Codes & Ordinances Poseidon ' s Commitment to City Increased Monitoring of the Ocean Water Quality Restoration Bond for Facility Removal if Operations Ceased Binding Offer to Sell Long-Term Water Provide Emergency Water to the City Poseidon has Signed Owner's Participation Agreement Negotiate in Good Faith to Execute Necessary Agreements to Insure City of the Benefits Associated with the Desalination Project Benefits to the City Water Supply r Emergency Water Supply Site Improvements Financial Benefits Water Supply � Additional Local Water Supply for City . Drought-Proofing City — Invaluable . Preferential Rate of 95% of Imported Water Supply Costs ; Initially $ 100,000 /yr, $3 Million over 30 years . 3 Million Gallons per Day, Equals 20% of City's Imported Supply . Reduction of OC-44 Maintenance Costs (TBD) Emergency Water Supply y Additional 10 Million Gallons per Day for Up to 7 days of Emergency Water per Event r Water Connection with City Water System . Will enhance Emergency Water Deliveries . Defer Construction Costs of $2.65 Million . Will Reduce Energy Costs $56 , 000 /yr ($ 1 .68 Million over 30 years) Site Improvements Removal of Oil Tanks �- Soil Remediation on-site y Construction of Lower Profile Water Facilities — Significant Visual Improvement y New Landscaping on Newland and Edison Way y New Street Lights On Edison Way, Participation in Widening and Paving Newland and Edison Way Pipeline ROW Benefits y City Streets Repaved and Slurry Sealed y Sidewalks Repaired , Landscaping Replaced Handicap Ramps added to Intersections y Incremental Value to City $ 1 . 9 million Construction (2-yrs) — Economic Benefits :- Sales Tax during construction$ 1 . 5 million , Orange County y 675 lobs per year - Direct 275 lobs per year - Indirect Estimated average earnings per job are $54 , 000 Operation — Economic Benefits �= 18 full-time jobs @ Water Treatment Facility Annual Real Estate Taxes .- $ 178837650 S E RDA: $ 111301 1 90(net to RDA) y Annual employment (jobs) 350 ;= Labor income $ 18 . 0 million Other income $7 . 0 million Indirect business tax receipts $3 . 0 million y 322 jobs per year — Indirect Financial Benefits to the City MINNOW Year 1 Cumulative (30 Years) Water Price Discount $100,000/yr $3 Million Franchise Agreement Fee $100,000/yr $3 Million ROW Enhancements $1 .9 Million $1 .9 Million City Directed Grant Fund $2 Million $2 Million Property Taxes $1 .8 Million $54 Million Utility Tax (Poseidon Estimate) $50,000/yr $1 .5 Million Subtotal $5m95 $65 .4 i Mllion Million Financial Benefits to the City Continued . . . . 11 mill -11 r Year 1 Cumulative (30 Years) Subtotal from Previous Slide $5.95 Million $65.4 Million Construction Contingent Items Booster Pump Station $2.65 Million $2.65 Million Avoided Pumping Costs $567000 $1 .68 Million OC-44 Interconnection (JPA) TBD TBD and Operating Costs TOTAL $` 8w656 $6913 Million Million Next Steps y If Approved By The City, . Regional Water Control Board Discharge Permit . State Lands Commission Lease Approval . State Department of Parks and Recreation Easement Approval . California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit Whyit Makes Sense for Huntington Water Supply for the Future — an Insurance Policy GP, Zoning and CDP Specify Water Treatment and Desalination Project Permitted Use — No Waivers . � : Local Control — Direct zmxyx Benefits with No City Risk