Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 1 of 2 - Bolsa Chica Project - Negotiation with City fo r . � C1ITf� � �NJ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Zj1coKXEc7- /nfic--O �n«J 1 CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION. Rt�rrR���YG U'W3� ,emu-IY 6 TwcroN uAcr� 70 lak OC eS•S PE�2.7�'/ /7 5 d /9� 7D �/j7P��i erIPS.S OF �SSUeB TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Dave Sullivan, City Council Member P S C���.&n) DATE:' April27, 1998 G�OG�IG'✓LmEA1 LS"/L✓P.R-� SUBJECT: H" Item for May 4, 1998, City Council Meeting 4/22/98 Koll Letter Issue: A letter was received from Koll Communities to Mayor Shirley Dettloff dated April 22, 1998. The letter contains some key inaccurate statements. Since the letter was copied to almost every agency that might deal with the project, it is imperative that the city respond to Ms. Dunn of Koll and copy the response to all the agencies. Motion: Direct staff to respond to incorrect information in the April 22, 1998, Koll letter. DS:lp xc: City Council Ray Silver Mike Dolder Attachment F Rpr 22 '98 13:58 P.02/03 Ko11 Communities April 22, 1998 Shirley Dettloff Mayor, City of Huntington Beac 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92 A8 i Re: Bolsa Chico Wetlands,Warner Mess, Weider.Regional Park and Annexation Dear Mayor Dettloff: Thank you for;your letter..dated.�pril 7, 1998:requesting.our cooperation in establishing direct communication and coordination with the City of Huntington Beach regarding.our Warner Mesa development. u also asked.that we_.notify you of related permit applications to be filed by us. a have also received copies of letters you have sent to other public agencies indicating,thiat our property is likely to.be annexed into the city. We genuinely .share your desire or cooperation and communication, but thus far have been frustrated and thwarted:in our attempts to do so,with the City. For example, it has been over seven weeks since vie responded. favorably to your request to continence discussions on possible annexation of our property,:ygl np discussions have commenced. In addition, we have learned that the City council.has. refused to process any permit applications submitted by us,-citing inadequate"staff time" as the reason, Yet"staff time" has been mandated by the City.council to follow every permit :application we request of other agencies. Further, "staff time" has been mandated to regularly meet with the opponents of our project and resppnd to their issues. Let me reiterate that we are most-interested :in a timely, fair.process And particularly concerned with what is.best for the now residents of our community and the residents of Huntington Beach. We believe tliat participation of LAFCO and the County of Orange will greatly enhance the coordination-and communication process between us. Please let us know,when and Where these discussions may begin. 95 ARGONAUT,SUITE 200,ALISO VIEJO,CALTFORN'TA 92656 (714)472-58U0 PAX(714)380.8982 Apr 22 '98 13:58 P.03/03 1 Page two April 22, 1998 Letter to Mayor Dettloff In the meantime,-however, until. :fair_process is initiated;and,communication between us begun;'I am sure you wiff..under that we will continue to-respond to those regulatory agencies that have legitimate .permitting authority over our project and make responsiveness to their regWreme is our priority. We hope to hear front you soon. V truly ours, i Senio ce resident LDA cc: City Council Members II Ray Silver, City.Ad> iinis;�.ator Melanie Fallon, Commuoity Development Director Daryl Smith, Acting public Works Director Dana Smith, LAFCO Honorable Sun Silva, Sup lmsor,.County of Orange Tom Mathews, County At Orange California Department of Fish and Game Gerald Thibeauit, State Re glonal Water..Quality Control Board Michael McManus; Cal`I ...a Department of Transportation Ken Berg,Y.T.S. Fish and-. Idlife Service Donald McIntyre, County Sanitation Districts of.Orange I I i 1 i cityhb.dw I City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALI FORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Telephone(714)536-5553 April 7, 1998 .. Mr. Richard Schubel, Chief Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9011 Wilshire Blvd., 1 lth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Attention: Eric Stein,Project Manager Subject: Permit Applications for Development at Bolsa Chica in the Huntington Beach Area Dear Mr. Schubel: I am writing you at the direction of the Huntington Beach City Council..The City of Huntington Beach surrounds Bolsa Chica,which is in the City's sphere of influence,and we will soon be discussing with the Koll Real Estate Group,which owns or controls most of the upland Bolsa Chica area, a possible annexation of their property to the City. It is important,therefore,that the City and the public be fully apprised of all proposed projects,their associated permit applications,and the requirements for those permits and have the ability to comment and provide input on them. Since the area will likely be annexed eventually,it is quite appropriate that the City be given the opportunity to review and comment on all permit applications. This is to request your cooperation in advising our City Administrator of any and all permit applications and intended actions with respect to activities in the Bolsa Chica area. As to the Nationwide 7 Permit sought for the Bolsa Chica drainage structures,the City has the following concerns: 1. Degradation of the visual quality of the bluff and bluff face visible from Pacific Coast Highway due to the large structures themselves and the bluff stabilization work required. Anjo,Japan SISTER CITIES NC%l 7.ralan4l 2. Disturbance to wetlands and wildlife habitat from the placement of structures in wetlands and the water quality and velocity of water to be discharged into the wetlands. 3. Potential water quality impacts for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands..and Huntington Harbour (we recognize that redirecting runoff to other discharge points is likely to result in the waters ultimately entering into the Wetlands and Huntington Harbour anyway). We request that this application be handled as an Individual Permit,rather than a Nationwide Permit and not be acted upon until after certification of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program by the State Coastal Commission, and issuance of the Permit by the State Regional Water Control Board. We believe that processing the application for a Nationwide Permit would be contrary to the public interest. We have also been advised that the Corp could reassert jurisdiction(as you did in 1994)to again extend to all of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, given the drainage structure impacts on the wetlands and waters of the United States. We would appreciate hearing from you on this question. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Shirley Dettloff,Mayor City of Huntington Beach cc: Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director Daryl Smith,Acting Public Works Director Lucy Dunn, Senior Vice President, Koll Real Estate Group Thomas Mathews,Director of Planning&Development Services, County of Orange John Sibley,Director of Public Facilities&Resources, County of Orange (G:admn1tr/398mst7) id �7IQg laR/Kk5-A4MIn� Council/Agency Meeting Held: VAppr erred/Continued to: e ❑ onditionall Ap roved ,❑ Denied .D&�°� Clerk's Signature Council Nfeetin-g MatT" April 6, 1998 Department ID Number: CD 98-17 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Y C-' SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator 61kcl PREPARED BY: MELANIE FALLON, Community Developmen Dire to 0 DARYL SMITH, Acting Public Works Director ��. .1 =" c' SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE LETTERS TO CORPS OF ENGIN RS, ORANdf COUNTY, THE KOLL COMPANY AND OTHERS REGARDING PROPOSED BOLSA CHICA DRAINAGE STRUCTURES Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: At the March 23, 1998 Council meeting, City Council directed staff to revise subject letters to (1) provide for the Mayor's signature and (2) incorporate suggestions of Council members and those who spoke on the matter at that meeting. Funding Source: Not applicable Recommended Action: Motion to: "Authorize Mayor to sign letters to Corps of Engineers, the Koll Company, the County and other permit issuing agencies requesting an opportunity for the City and public to review and comment on all Bolsa Chica permit applications." . APPrOV9.0 AS RrAenoeo BY IMOLU-51014 OF A00ITign4L vi/oR.olu& OWE SELIEVd 196 "rhw Prbeessige. 'I'lie. APALie-4-6 rJ As A NFIrrianW IOd pErenj yyot)�.D V. Con-MAti.Y To PJ81.►c I►nyxe-S717" ALSO -M POT R Stnr E ndS I n ae Qa a sT►nG 1-Hu U .S. PrR.mY edRPS of 6061neees -Tb Rz-"GE-1 11fele ,7'w?15 D i I?T'I 6 M W -ME MCSA IF IT 1's DsTrr nY n 8D 11'1 r one "I ima - e'*4 RPID 70r1 sbwri vid . 6- 1- 1 (ahr ov%( o lab ', JUJ f4^ ass 'f REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 6, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 98-17 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motions: 1. "Do not authorize the letters regarding the proposed Bolsa Chica drainage structures." 2. "Authorize staff to prepare alternative letters." Analysis: On March 23, 1998, the Council considered proposed letters to be sent to the Koll Real Estate Group, the Corps of Engineers and other permit issuing agencies asking for the opportunity for the City to comment on Bolsa Chica development permit applications. The Council asked that the revised letters be brought to the Council for approval on April 6, 1998. There is no information on the subject. Environmental Status: Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Draft letters 2. Action Agenda from March 16, 1998 City Council Meeting 3. March 9, 1998 memo to City Council with two original draft letters RCA Author: CD98-17.DOC -2- 03/31/98 9:12 AM ATTACHMENT 1 J� .r City of Huntington Beach * 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Telephone(714)536-5553 April 7, 1998 Mr. Richard Schubel, Chief Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9011 Wilshire Blvd., 1 lth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Attention: Eric Stein, Project Manager Subject: Permit Applications for Development at Bolsa Chica in the Huntington Beach Area Dear Mr. Schubel: I am writing you at the direction of the Huntington Beach City Council. The City of Huntington Beach surrounds Bolsa.Chica, which is in the City's sphere of influence, and we will soon be discussing with the Koll Real Estate Group, which owns or controls most of the upland Bolsa Chica area, a possible annexation of their property to the City. It is important, therefore, that the City and the public be fully apprised of all proposed projects, their associated permit applications and the requirements for those permits. Since the area will likely be annexed eventually, it is quite appropriate that the City be given the opportunity to review and comment on all permit applications. This is to request your cooperation in advising our City Administrator of any and all permit applications and intended actions with respect to activities in the Bolsa Chica area. As to the Nationwide 7 Permit sought for the Bolsa Chica drainage structures, the City has the following concerns: 1. Degradation of the visual quality of the bluff and bluff face visible from Pacific Coast Highway due to the large structures themselves and the bluff stabilization work required. Anjo,Japan SISTER CITIES XX aitakere. \e%c Zealand 2. Disturbance to wetlands and wildlife habitat from the placement of structures in wetlands and the water quality and velocity of water to be discharged into the wetlands. 3. Potential water quality impacts for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Huntington Harbour (we recognize that redirecting runoff to other discharge points is likely to result in the waters ultimately entering into the Wetlands and Huntington Harbour anyway). We request that this application be handled as an individual, rather than a Nationwide Permit and not be acted upon until after certification of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program by the State Coastal Commission, and issuance of the permit by the State Regional Water Control Board. We have also been advised that the Corps'jurisdiction may extend to all of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, given the drainage structure impacts on wetlands and waters of the United States We would appreciate hearing from you on this question. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Shirley Dettloff, Mayor City of Huntington Beach cc: Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director Daryl Smith, Acting Public Works Director Lucy Dunn, Senior Vice President, Koll Real Estate Group Thomas Mathews, Director of Planning&Development Services, County of Orange John Sibley, Director of Public Facilities&Resources, County of Orange (Similar letters to be sent to): The County of Orange County Sanitation District State Department of Transportation State Department of Fish& Game State Regional Water Quality Control Board U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service State Lands Commission California Coastal Commission (G:admnitr/398nnD) -A,j J' City of Huntington Beach (4��U 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Telephone(714)536-5553 April 7, 1998 Lucy Dunn, Sr. Vice President Koll Real Estate Group 95 Argonaut, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Re: Development Permit Applications Dear Ms. Dunn: The City Council expressed considerable concern in learning from citizens that your company's representatives have applied for state and federal development permits without an opportunity for the City to review and comment. These applications relate to the major drainage structures that would discharge surface runoff from Bolsa Chica Mesa development areas into Outer Bolsa Bay and other wetland areas. As you know, the City is especially concerned about Outer Bolsa Bay and the quality of waters that enter the City's Huntington Harbour area. Some permit applications may not specifically require referral or notice to the City. However, we are seeking your company's cooperation and that of all regulatory agencies in providing the City and the public an opportunity to be informed and to identify concerns that might be resolved through direct communication and coordination. In light of your company's recent letter expressing a willingness to discuss potential annexation of your company's property to the City, notifying us about permit applications seems appropriate. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Shirley Dettloff, Mayor City of Huntington Beach cc: City Council Members Ray Silver Acting City Administrator Melanie Fallon,Community Development Director Daryl Smith,Acting Public Works Director (G:admn1tr/398msf8) Anjo,Japan SISTER CITIES A aitakere. New Zealand ATTACHMENT 2 , #6) 03/16/98 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 6 C. (City Council) Report Re: Status Of Koll Company Application To U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers For Permits To Construct Drainage Structures Discharaina To The Bolsa Chica Wetlands Communication from the Acting City Administrator in response to Council's direction for staff to report on the Koll Company application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a "Nationwide Permit"for six(6) outfall structures which would carry surface runoff from the proposed Bolsa Chica Mesa Development to points of discharge into Outer Bolsa Bay, the lowlands pocket area and the Warner Avenue Pond. The applications were submitted in the name of the county as well as Koll Company, as these facilities would become the responsibility of the county upon dedication by Koll Company. Drafts of proposed letters to be sent by the City to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies included for Council's review. Draft letter included from Acting City Administrator to John Sibley, Public Facilities and Resources Department Director requesting assistance to the city in coordinating planning and development in the Bolsa Chica area. Recommended Action: Approve the proposed letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Subiect: Permit Applications for Development at Bolsa Chica in the Huntington Beach Area and approve the proposed letter to the Koll Real Estate Group. Subiect: Development Permit Applications, and authorize staff to forward to the appropriate agencies. [Amended Letter To Be Returned For Council Approval—(In meantime, Letter to be sent by Mayor Dettloff, when prepared by Mr. Fisher, consultant, that advises Corps of Engineers that a letteris to be provided to them regarding CouncEls concerns)] C-3. (City Council) Review And Accept City Treasurer's January, 1998 Investment Summary Report (310.20) Communication from the City Treasurer transmitting the January, 1998 Monthly Investment Summary Report for City Council review and acceptance. Recommended Action: Review and accept monthly report. Following review of the report, by motion of Council, accept the Monthly Investment Summary Report for January, 1998, pursuant to Section 17.0 of the Investment Policy of the City of Huntington Beach. [Approved 5-0-2(Garofalo,Julien —out ofroom)] (6) �... age 14- Council/Agency Agenda -03/02/98 (14) t H-6. Submitted By Council/Agency Member Dave Sullivan (City Council) Proposed Service Agreements/Permit Requests/Franchise Requests-Koll Real Estate Group-Bolsa Chica Project (440.60) Communication from Councilmember Sullivan addressing the delay in the Koll Real Estate Group Bolsa Chica project due to Judge Judith McConnell's favorable ruling on February 20, 1998, on the Bolsa Chica Land Trust/Huntington Beach Tomorrow Lawsuit alleging that the Coastal Commission did not allow adequate public input on the Koll Bolsa Chica project. �(�)] Recommended Action: Direct the Acting City Administrator to direct city staff to stop all city staff efforts to evaluate or process any proposed service agreements or requests for permits or franchises for the (KREG) Koll Real Estate Group's Bolsa Chica project until KREG has gone back to the California Coastal Commission and received approval. [or until Judge McConnell's decision is reversed, with exception that discussion between staff and City Council can be held regarding annexation issues with information referred to Bolsa Chica Subcommittee (Dettloff, Green, Sullivan and Planning Commissioner Ed Kerins) for evaluation and report to the full Council- 7-0) (2) The Community Development Director to phone Corps of Engineers to obtain information regarding Koll's application to Corps for a National Permit that would remove local input and if time sensitive that it be agendized for March 9- 7-0 (3) Councilmember Harman requested information regarding whether City can be reimbursed in the annexation process for all previous costs of staff and funds] H-7. Submitted By Council/Agency Member Dave Garofalo Council/Agency Adjournment [at 11:35 p.m,]To Monday, March 9, 1998, at 5:00 p.m., in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. [and excuse City Attorney and staff who must recuse from participation in closed sessions 4-3 (ABSENT: Green, Julien, Sullivan)] Council/Agency Agendas And Minutes Are Available At No Charge To The Public At The City Clerk's Office By Mail And Through Paid Subscription. Complete Agenda Packets Are Available At The Central Library and Library Annexes On Friday Prior To Meetings. Video Tapes Of Council Meetings Are Available For Checkout At The Central Library At No Charge. CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street-Second Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 Internet: http://www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us (14) ATTACHMENT 3 '�. CITY OF HUNT NG I TON BEACHO _ INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator o?e..,� SUBJECT: Bolsa Chica Drainage Structures/Koll Permit Application DATE: March 9, 1998 At your March 2, 1998 Council meeting, you directed staff to report on the status of the application for permits to construct drainage structures discharging to the Bolsa Chica wetlands in conjunction with Koll's Mesa Development Project. With assistance from our Bolsa Chica consultant, Bob Fisher, staff has obtained the following information and have drafted letters for my signature. If the Council prefers, it could be prepared for the Mayor's signature and agendized for Council authorization at the March 9 meeting. Koll's consultants wrote to the Corps of Engineers on September 29, 1997 and January 21, 1998 seeking a"Nationwide Permit" for six(6) outfall structures which would carry surface runoff from the proposed Bolsa Chica Mesa Development to points of discharge into Outer Bolsa Bay, the lowlands pocket area and the Warner Avenue Pond. The applications were submitted in the name of the county as well as Koll, as these facilities would become the responsibility of the county upon dedication by Koll. The drainage structures would range in size from 36" to 72" and would be constructed as part of the mass grading and infrastructure development to be approved by a Master Coastal Development Permit (MCDP) to be issued by the County. The MCDP would follow the Coastal Commission certification of the County's Local Coastal Program. That certification has recently been delayed by a Superior Court order requiring a new commission hearing on the LCP. The proposed drainage structures appear to raise some important issues for the city which are set out in the attached proposed letter to the Corps of Engineers. Staff and Mr. Fisher are continuing their inquiries of other agencies. The Council will receive reports as the information is available. Staff has also prepared a letter (copy attached) to Koll, the county and other agencies stating that the city should be notified of any and all development permit applications. These materials are submitted for Council's review. This matter will be returned on March 16 under City Administrator's report requesting approval of the letters and authorization to send them to the appropriate agencies. Attach. 0030688.01 ! i r . _ DRAFT March 9, 1998 Mr. Richard Schubel, Chief Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9011 Wilshire Blvd., 11 th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Subject: Permit Applications for Development at Bolsa Chica in the Huntington Beach Area Dear Mr. Schubel: I am writing you on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach. This is to request your cooperation in advising the City through my office of any and all permit applications and intended actions with respect to activities in the Bolsa Chica area. As to the Nationwide 7 Permit sought for the Bolsa Chica Mesa drainage structures, the City has the following concerns: 1. Degradation of the visual quality of the bluff and bluff face visible from Pacific Coast Highway due to the large structures themselves and the bluff stabilization work required. 2. Disturbance to wetlands and wildlife habitat from the placement of structures in wetlands and the water quality and velocity of water to be discharged into the wetlands. 3. Potential water quality impacts for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Huntington Harbour(we recognize that redirecting runoff to other discharge points is likely to result in the waters ultimately entering into the Wetlands and Huntington Harbour anyway). The City of Huntington Beach surrounds Bolsa Chica, which is in the City's sphere of influence, and we will soon be discussing with the Koll Real Estate Group, which owns or controls most of the upland Bolsa Chica area, a possible annexation of their property to the City. It is important, therefore, that the City be fully apprised of all proposed projects and associated permit applications. -- y 0030690.01 W:f appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Ray Silver Acting City Administrator cc: Lucy Dunn, Koll Real Estate Group Similar lettes to be sent to: The County of Orange County Sanitation District State Department of Transportation State Department of Fish and Game State Regional Water Quality Control Board U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service c Z � . 3 0030690.01 (DRAFT) March 9, 1998 Lucy Dunn, Sr. Vice President Koll Real Estate Group 95 Argonaut, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Re: Development Permit Applications Dear Ms.Dunn: The City Council has expressed concern in learning from citizens that your company's representatives have applied for state and federal development permits which may not afford the City an opportunity to review and comment. These applications relate to the major drainage structures that would discharge surface runoff from Bolsa Chica Mesa development areas into Outer Bolsa Bay and other wetland areas. As you know, the City is especially concerned about the quality of Outer Bolsa Bay waters that enter the City's Huntington Harbour area. Some permit applications may not specifically require referral or notice to the City. Therefore, we are seeking your company's cooperation and that of all regulatory agencies in providing us an opportunity to be informed and to identify concerns that might be resolved through direct communication and coordination. y �.r V ' f a = In light of your company's recent letter expressing a willingness to discuss potential annexation of your company's property to the City, notifying us about permit applications seems appropriate. In the same spirit of information exchange, I am enclosing a copy of my memo to the Council on the most recent permit application concerns. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: Letters to Corps of Engineers, Orange County, the Koll Company and others regarding proposed Bolsa Chica drainage structures. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: SpaceOnly) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Community Development Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director DATE: April 3, 1998 SUBJECT: Late Communication, Item C-2A on April 6 City Council Agenda After further review of the draft letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which is contained in item C-2A of your agenda, I have clarified the language pertaining to public comment on the Corps permit. Therefore, attached you will find a substitute letter(with changes in bold and underlined) to be used in your deliberations. x c � MSF:JR C:)--�n rn Attachment ►V � _ n O � (498msf4) 1 ' City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 = _- OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Telephone(714)536-5553 REVISED LETTER April 7, 1998 Mr. Richard Schubel, Chief Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9011 Wilshire Blvd., 1 Ith Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Attention: Eric Stein, Project Manager Subject: Permit Applications for Development at Bolsa Chica in the Huntington Beach Area Dear Mr. Schubel: I am writing you at the direction of the Huntington Beach City Council. The City of Huntington Beach surrounds Bolsa Chica, which is in the City's sphere of influence, and we will soon be discussing with the Koll Real Estate Group, which owns or controls most of the upland Bolsa Chica area, a possible annexation of their property to the City. It is important, therefore, that the City and the public be fully apprised of all proposed projects, their associated permit applications, and the requirements for those permits and have the ability to comment and provide input on them. Since the area will likely be annexed eventually, it is quite appropriate that the City be given the opportunity to review and comment on all permit applications. This is to request your cooperation in advising our City Administrator of any and all permit applications and intended actions with respect to activities in the Bolsa Chica area. As to the Nationwide 7 Permit sought for the Bolsa Chica drainage structures, the City has the following concerns: 1. Degradation of the visual quality of the bluff and bluff face visible from Pacific Coast Highway due to the large structures themselves and the bluff stabilization work required. Anio,Japan SISTER CITIES aitakere. \ems Zealand 2. Disturbance to wetlands and wildlife habitat from the placement of structures in wetlands and the water quality and velocity of water to be discharged into the wetlands. 3. Potential water quality impacts for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Huntington Harbour (we recognize that redirecting runoff to other discharge points is likely to result in the waters ultimately entering into the Wetlands and Huntington Harbour anyway). We request that this application be handled as an Individual Permit, rather than a Nationwide Permit and not be acted upon until after certification of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program by the State Coastal Commission, and issuance of the permit by the State Regional Water Control Board. We have also been advised that the Corps'jurisdiction may extend to all of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, given the drainage structure impacts on wetlands and waters of the United States We would appreciate hearing from you on this question. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Shirley Dettloff, Mayor City of Huntington Beach cc: Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director Daryl Smith, Acting Public Works Director Lucy Dunn, Senior Vice President, Koll Real Estate Group Thomas Mathews, Director of Planning&Development Services, County of Orange John Sibley, Director of Public Facilities&Resources, County of Orange (Similar letters to be sent to): The County of Orange County Sanitation District State Department of Transportation State Department of Fish& Game State Regional Water Quality Control Board U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service State Lands Commission California Coastal Commission (G:admnitr/398mst7) �1 CIA OF HUN GT 'N B EACH, INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION JII0/y00 Cl lWeeZMr Clnended /e7Tere. 74 be re-yyvr l ee46 FGx CoWIG� o�dD,QO✓a.L 1/IN McA.764e Zellm -a Ge TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council whin pre,,ngred �7 h&-, C'or�sd� Mat udv,sesCo a_ ar 44 ireeel'S FROM: Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator o2e-) OO ewe") SUBJECT:SUBJECT: Bolsa Chica Drainage Structures/Koll Permit Application DATE: March 9, 1998 At your March 2, 1998 Council meeting, you directed staff to report on the status of the application for permits to construct drainage structures discharging to the Bolsa Chica wetlands in conjunction with Koll's Mesa Development Project. With assistance from our Bolsa Chica consultant, Bob Fisher, staff has obtained the following information and have drafted letters for my signature. If the Council prefers, it could be prepared for the Mayor's signature and agendized for Council authorization at the March 9 meeting. Koll's consultants wrote to the Corps of Engineers on September 29, 1997 and January 21, 1998 seeking a"Nationwide Permit" for six(6) outfall structures which would carry surface runoff from the proposed Bolsa Chica Mesa Development to points of discharge into Outer Bolsa Bay, the lowlands pocket area and the Warner Avenue Pond. The applications were submitted in the name of the county as well as Koll, as these facilities would become the responsibility of the county upon dedication by Koll. The drainage structures would range in size from 36" to 72" and would be constructed as part of the mass grading and infrastructure development to be approved by a Master Coastal Development Permit(MCDP) to be issued by the County. The MCDP would follow the Coastal Commission certification of the County's Local Coastal Program. That certification has recently been delayed by a Superior Court order requiring a new commission hearing on the LCP. The proposed drainage structures appear to raise some important issues for the city which are set out in the attached proposed letter to the Corps of Engineers. Staff and Mr. Fisher are continuing their inquiries of other agencies. The Council will receive reports as the information is available. Staff has also prepared a letter (copy attached) to Koll, the county and other agencies stating that the city should be notified of any and all development permit applications. These materials are submitted for Council's review. This matter will be returned on March 16 under City Administrator's report requesting approval of the letters and authorization to send them to the appropriate agencies. Attach. l� 0030688.01 DRAFT March 9, 1998 Mr. Richard Schubel, Chief Regulatory Branch U.S.Army Corps of Engineers 9011 Wilshire Blvd., 1 lth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Subject: Permit Applications for Development at Bolsa Chica in the Huntington Beach Area Dear Mr. Schubel: I am writing you on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach. This is to request your cooperation in advising the City through my office of any and all permit applications and intended actions with respect to activities in the Bolsa Chica area. As to the Nationwide 7 Permit sought for the Bolsa Chica Mesa drainage structures, the City has the following concerns: 1. Degradation of the visual quality of the bluff and bluff face visible from Pacific Coast Highway due to the large structures themselves and the bluff stabilization work required. 2. Disturbance to wetlands and wildlife habitat from the placement of structures in wetlands and the water quality and velocity of water to be discharged into the wetlands. 3. Potential water quality impacts for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Huntington Harbour(we recognize that redirecting runoff to other discharge points is likely to result in the waters - ultimately entering into the Wetlands and Huntington Harbour anyway). The City of Huntington Beach surrounds Bolsa Chica, which is in the City's sphere of influence, and we will soon be discussing with the Koll Real Estate Group, which owns or controls most of the upland Bolsa Chica area, a possible annexation of their property to the City. It is important, therefore, that the City be fully apprised of all proposed projects and associated permit applications. 0030690.01 T • • We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Ray Silver Acting City Administrator cc: Lucy Dunn, Koll Real Estate Group Similar lettes to be sent to: The County of Orange County Sanitation District State Department of Transportation State Department of Fish and Game State Regional Water Quality Control Board U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 0030690.01 (DRAFT) March 9, 1998 Lucy Dunn, Sr. Vice President Koll Real Estate Group 95 Argonaut, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Re: Development Permit Applications Dear Ms.Dunn: The City Council has expressed concern in learning from citizens that your company's representatives have applied for state and federal development permits which may not afford the City an opportunity to review and comment. These applications relate to the major drainage structures that would discharge surface runoff from Bolsa Chica Mesa development areas into Outer Bolsa Bay and other wetland areas. As you know, the City is especially concerned about the quality of Outer Bolsa Bay waters that enter the City's Huntington Harbour area. Some permit applications may not specifically require referral or notice to the City. Therefore,we are seeking your company's cooperation and that of all regulatory agencies in providing us an opportunity to be informed and to identify concerns that might be resolved through direct communication and coordination. i In light of your company's recent letter expressing a willingness to discuss potential annexation of your company's property to the City, notifying us about permit applications seems appropriate. In the same spirit of information exchange, I am enclosing a copy of my memo to the Council on the most recent permit application concerns. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator REC[IV[D 3 O� CITY CLERK aA CITY or Koll HUNTINGTON REACH,CALIF. Communities Z 2 PM 998 February 26, 1998 Mr. Bob Eichblatt D VIE City Engineer ,� 2 jVv� City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Huntington Beach, California 92648 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Dear Bob: - The purpose of this letter is to confirm the fact that the City of Huntington -- Beach has elected not to serve water to the Bolsa Chica development nor will it allow a private water company to provide water by way of a pipeline within Huntington Beach streets. This conclusion is based upon the following actions taken by the City of Huntington Beach: 1. In March 1997, the Council unanimously rejected a proposal by Koll to provide over $8 million of water infrastructure for the City in exchange for providing water service to our development. 2. In May 1997, the City issued a permit for temporary construction water to our water well drilling contractor. The City subsequently revoked the permit and shut-off our water connection on the grounds that the water was being used "outside" city limits. Yet, the City continues to provide water to Sunset Beach residents, the Woodman Pole Yard (directly on the Bolsa Chica mesa), Aera Energy and many others "outside" city limits. 3. In July 1997, our engineer submitted construction plans and requested approval for the placement of an 18" water pipeline in Bolsa Chica Street to serve water to our development project. In a letter from you dated October 15, 1997, you,advised that in order to construct and operate the pipeline the City would require a franchise agreement with the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company. 4. On January 27, 1998—more than six months after our initial request— you advised us that the City Municipal Code does not have any provisions for a franchise agreement for a water pipeline. However, the City of Newport Beach recently received approval from the City of Huntington Beach to install a pipeline through Huntington Beach streets to obtain water from a well field in Fountain Valley. Our pipeline project is directly analogous to.Newport Beach's request. The pipeline will be constructed to PUC-regulated utility standards and operated by a PUC-regulated company, Southern California Water Company. 95 ARGONAUT,SUITE 200,ALISO VIEJO,CALIFORNIA 92656 (714)472-5800 FAX(714)380-8982 Mr. Bob Eichblatt Page 2 February 26, 1998 Based upon all these actions, and more not detailed in this letter, there is no other reasonable conclusion to reach except that this City does not desire to provide water service to our project, nor to allow a pipeline to be constructed in City streets to enable a private water service provider to do so. In light of this conclusion, please be advised that our Company will pursue all legally available options to secure water for our development. Very truly yours, KOLL COMMUNITI rdetrd Vice President cc: Mayor and City Council Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator 3 r �r r -�D CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 3 i CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION, TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Dave Sullivan, City Council Member -D5 DATE: February 23, 1998 SUBJECT: H-Item for March 2, 1998, re: Bolsa Chica Land Trust Statement of Issue: Judge Judith McConnell's favorable ruling on February 20, 1998, on the Bolsa Chica Land Trust/Huntington Beach Tomorrow Lawsuit alleging that the Coastal Commission did not allow adequate public input on the Koll Bolsa Chica project will result in a delay of the Koll project. Huntington Beach staff should not spend any further time on evaluating Koll service proposals or permits for the project until or if the project receives Coastal Commission approval. Recommended Action: AppY-o v cal. n- a Dir-eet"City Adwiaisutffattor to dif:884 Gity sUE to stop aH city staff efforts ate or process s mi �il, me-+ +h r. Ae-+i nqq G` cad m;n i shra-4by to d i re e-+ C� y Stw r-F -i-o s-f,�p at l c� Fy ,S+ft F eFFoe.T'S To-'e-/4LF Ue oR Process Amy PIfoP eD SG""1e.VeCG ,a�reemen DS:pf oK REQue5-rS POM PP-Rrn irs OA- FK^Nct+tseS FOP,. -1f+ (KR dG) AWLi- �EI`tL ESTpTF rRocP'S, $oi.5l� C�+lc/+ ��eo �T UnTiL KkHC. HMS Gone, 3p.01C Ta M+� C UFoe-rJA COASTFtL ,Commt5siOn AAD iC2j RPpro✓AC. 6t UtITi L -TUO& S rnecDnnet, ' DeCl si'60 (s le vet-sap , W iTt+ cxeep'n on Ttt T 71 t 5 s s ►^ 8 zrw.e e n i6TPrFF A-AO C!T`1 Ca L)n e.i L. c n-n G e w e j-D �r�pcRniUG Rnn��Ar"r7`�m lssoe5 WITtir NPo mfTi0r) r1--r-eie,Ran 7D BoL.5A 5J8e0m1-rTEr(je-rrZF-F, &reea, SoLLLdPrn Rnn PLAnninr�. Commi s►`oner r-b tEl�,i45) FORL QlALU w,rt oO AA30 PL PDA-T TD "Tt-t Cs Fti,[.t. co t�nc i�-- a P P�o%� '"fHrE Cbw.�.rwVnt q Der aizpmen-r �t4ee,,aJ� -7b flfonQ7 C kPs OF' EAG rOeekS -m czTn !kJ ,Ur-ozmpt-nor Rlr�Pt 1 6 koLL:5 hPPLI 'C A-Tton Tv CoKPS FDk., R. N f}-T1 o n AL 'Pf4eM l r • TH-RT l OOLD PUM o V e- LOCAL- !kW u r A IGLU !F rim��SEn5171 V� -rWr POP- -M A k" 9 c3 ppyo vac{ —i--0 ( CS one d rh ern b-e r 4aft-mct n 'r u e&+,P-d m r-a► m A-i-1 an ce'GA" e. w4e1-14 K- CATTY C.Prn (Se- PejM60ESED IjS T01t�- wrnntx)N-rian Pm Fbe- ALL Pk,9 r Us Ca 5TS OF ST)qP-F FU r\oS / sa J�� L A N D T R U S T BOARD OF DIRECTORS NANCY DONAVEN March 2, 1998 PRESIDENT RECEIVED FROM CONNIE BOARDMAN AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT l�iE OF PAST PRESIDENT COUNCILOFFICEI F THE CITY CLERK �• FLOSSIE HORGAN The Huntington Beach City Council CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK CO-FOUNDER 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SANDY GENTS BUCK MARRS,PHD Dear Mayor and Councilienbers, JUANA MUELLER There is an "H" item offered on the agenda tonight by Councilman Sullivan which the Bolsa Chica Land Trust wishes to support. EILEEN MURPHY ROCHELLE PAZANTI This is the item vbich puts off consideration of any services for the Koll Real Estate Group's project until it has been fully permitted. LYNETTE PRATT JAYSON RUTH As you wort likely know, the project has been completely remanded to the Coastal Commission. It will most likely take another year for JAN VANDERSLOOT,MD the project to be processed. In addition, the Roll Group has CO-FOUNDER indicated that they will be appealing Judge McConnell's decision. ROBERT WINCHELL,PHD This will add to the time for the permitting process. In short, it seems that the City staff should be working on things ADVISORY COUNCIL which are immediately necessary for the City rather than on matters SENATOR BARBARA BOXER wb i rh may happen. RALPHBAUER, Thank you for your consideration. IMMEDIATE PAST MAYOR HUNTINGTON BEACH Sincerely, ROBERT SHELTON,(RET) GOVERNMENT RELATIONS `.._ CONSULTANT JANICE L.KELLOGG, CEO 'anc7 DdveD KELLOGG SUPPLY, INC. President WALTER W.NEIL,DIRECTOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,ARCO VINCE KONTNY,(RET) EXECUTIVE FLUOR r CORPORATION LOCAL SPONSORS: GARDEN GROVE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL, HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW,ORANGE COAST LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS NATIONAL SPONSORS: THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE,THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY,SIERRA CLUB,SURFRIDER FOUNDATION 207 21ST STREET • HUNTINGTON BEACH • CALIFORNIA 92648 • (714) 960-9939 • { 116 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH u COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL VIA: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: RAY SILVER, ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR6WJ DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1997 SUBJECT: RELEASE OF INFORMATION ON THE BOLSA CHICA WATER SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES At the Monday, February 3, 1997, regular City Council meeting, staff was directed to release to the public the reports prepared for presentation to the City Council on the water service delivery options for the Bolsa Chica project. Attached are four documents which were prepared for that purpose. Initially, staff was planning to have the Boyle Engineering Corporation prepare and present two studies to the City Council on the issue of water service to the Bolsa Chica project. The first two attached documents are in draft form and were never finalized. They are entitled, Issues Paper-City Benefits from Bolsa Chica Water Service, and Issue Paper-Outside Provision of Bolsa Chica Water Service. These two draft reports were never changed in this format. The information from these two drafts was revised and provided the background for the video presentation given to the City Council in closed session on Monday, January 13, 1997. The hard copy-of the video presentation is attached and is entitled, Water Service Delivery to the Bolsa Chica Development. Lastly, I have included a hard copy of the video presentation given to the City Council in open session at their meeting on Monday, February 3, 1997. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please feel free to contact the City Administrator or me. 2 :2 Attachments ,c. = 01 c �hr" 4= MC3,< �_" rn a CZ e) , &Ler -A1 4�YYi1 �1tS�L'�r�S �ic�, art- •���9'� DRAFT p Issue Paper Outside Provision of Bolsa Chica Water SerVice City of Huntington Beach Client Representative Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director Jeff Renna,Water Operations Manager Boyle Engineering Corporation Project Manager William R. Everest,PE Project Engineer Richard B. Bell,PE QaoF ESS O'ev pFESS1JN� BENpEl�Eyx c, W r ho.18322 m ` �•C 1908i UP. 06/30/97 � * �P- 9/30/37 � d'l CIVIL CIVIL 'TFOF CAUFOQa FOF CAUF��` OC-H10-250-40 December 1996 �3©4�LE 1501 Quail Street, Newport Beach, Caiifomia 92660 Table of-Contents Executive Summary.........................................................................I 1.0 Introduction...............................................................................2 2.0 Potential Outside Sources-of-Supply........................................2 3.0 Southern California Water Company Service...........................5 4.0 Evaluation of Cost of SCWC Service.......................................6 5.0 Comparison of SCWC to Huntington Beach Capital Costs ...13 6.0 Potential Impacts on the City of Huntington Beach...............14 7.0 Intangible Considerations.......................................................15 8.0 Conclusions.............................................................................16 PIA rJ �a N+ {� List of Tables Table 1 Outside-of-City Source of Supply for Bolsa Chica Development Table 2 Bolsa Chica Development Water Demand Table 3 Bolsa Chica Development Storage Requirements Table 4 Conceptual Level Capital Costs-Facility Elements (CCCI-LA 3Q96 6550) Table 5 Conceptual Level Capital Costs SCWC-BCD Supply Alternatives I I I List of Figures Figure 1 Alternative "Outside-of-City" Sources-of-Supply to Serve the Bolsa Chica Development Executive Summary A conceptual level study was conducted to estimate the approximate cost of service to BCD by a purveyor other than the City of Huntington Beach. This study reviewed a range of potential purveyors and sources-of-supply,and concluded that the Southern California Water- Company would be the logical alternative purveyor to BCD should service not be taken from the City of Huntington Beach. An analysis of three alternative wellf elds within the existing service areas of the SCWC in Los Alamitos,North Seal Beach,and Cypress were reviewed. Alternative transmission routes and facility requirements were evaluated and conceptual level costs were developed for each alt tive. The�pital costs for the SCWC alternatives ranged from $�3 million to$�I million. In comparison,if the City were to charge the BCD a Capital Facilities Charge of$2400 per EDU,the cost to BCD for City of Huntington Beach service would be$7.9 million for 3300 EDU's. T..h—e GFG should be reviewed I I f I City of Huntington Beach 1 MOYL.E 1.0 Introduction This paper addresses the provision of water service to the Bolsa Chia Development(BCD)by an entity other than the city of Huntington Beach. Key issues addressed include: 1. Potential purveyors and sources-of-water supply 2. Conceptual level capital costs for service by another entity 3. Comparison of capital costs to city water service charges 4. Impacts to the City by an outside purveyor 5. Intangible quality of service considerations The primary focus of this study is a review of how the Southern California Water Company(SCWC)might provide water service to BCD. Our study indicates that the SCWC would appear to be the more likely candidate other than the City of Huntington Beach to serve BCD. As part of this review,a conceptual level evaluation of other potential purveyors and sources-of-supply was also made. A discussion of our findings and conclusions follows. 2.0 Potential Outside Sources-of-Supply l 2.1 Range of Alternatives Potential"outside of City"sources-of-supply that could be developed to serve the BCD were identified and reviewed These options include the potential development by the following entities:New Entity 1. Developing Local Supplies 2. Outside City/District 3. Private Company(SCWC) Since the focus of this study is directed to the third alternative,water service from SCWC, it is discussed in more detail in Section 3. The range of other potential alternatives are briefly described in this section. I City of Huntington Beach 2 B� fir--_Sis c� �3 2.2 New Entity Developing Local Supplies On-site desalted saline groundwater could be developed by a new water entity(e.g.,county water district, etc)formed for the BCD. but this alternative is more costly for primary water service when compared to other available options. On a life cycle cost basis,this approach would be about 2 to 3 times more costly than groundwater and conveyance options. Consequently,this option does not appear to be a practical course of action for BCD. 2.3 Outside of City Water Service Water service could be provided by development of groundwater and imported water supplies located outside the city and conveyed to BCD by either wheeling through the city system or through a dedicated transmission pipeline(s). This service could potentially be provided by nearby.Cities,Water Districts,or private water companies. Table I provides an overview of these alternatives. This table compares source of supply locations,groundwater quality issues,transmission,potential purveyor,and other remarks on these potential range of supply i options. Nearby Cities and Water Districts are unlikely candidates to provide water service to non-contiguous areas located outside their corporate boundaries and spheres-of-influence. Reasons include possible L charter/rules restrictions,LAFCO constraints,local opposition due to possible appearance of subsidy,over development of groundwater in their local area and penalty costs of reduced well yields and higher lift costs,unwillingness to conflict with a neighboring city,and other intangibles that affect the provision of an affordable and reliable source-of-supply. The remaining option is potential service by a private water company. Since the Southern California Water Company is the nearest private water company to BCD,this issue paper focuses on SCWC-BCD supply alternatives. City of Huntington Beach 3 BD�LE Table 1 OUTS I DE-OF-CITY* SOURCES-OF-SUPPLY FOR BOLSA CHICA DEVELOPMENT Alternative Wellfield Location Quality Issue Transmission Purveyor Remarks I On-Site Saline Local Private or Local High Treatment Cost Water Agency 2 No. Seal Beach TDS,Mn Isolated from H.B. SCWC Constructability? West Los Alamitos (I 5,000'_<L<_42,000')** PCH Permitting High Headloss 3 Cypress TDS,Mn? Purchase capacity in WOCWB#2 SCWC Capacity Availability? New Pipeline in H.B. Capacity Cost? (L=20,000'±) - 4 Westminster - Purchase capacity in WOCWB#2 Westminster Looking for Financial New Pipeline in H.B. )kssistance/New Revenues (L=19,000') 5 Fountain Valley - New Pipeline- Fountain Valley Wellfield Constraints (L=29,000'5) Probable No Interest OCFD R/W or Streets 6 Other Cities/ Variable New Pipeline Purveying City or More Costly 4 Districts Longer than 3,4 or 5 Local Water Agency Probable No Interest '`` *Non Huntington Beach ** Shorter length assumes conveyance through Seal Beach system to PCH @ S/S of Anaheim Bay with tie-in to Seal Beach 16-inch pipeline in bridge. City of Huntington Beach . 4 M� 3.0 Southern California Water Company Service 3.1 Overview Water service from SCWC would require development of a source of supply with conveyance to BCD. At issue are several water service considerations: cost of service,reliability of service, impacts on the city,permitting and approvals including licensing agreements for encroachment within city streets,and intangible considerations such as water quality,service responsiveness,etc. The focus of this study is a review of how SCWC might provide service to the BCD,the range of capital costs to provide service,potential types of impacts to the city, and a review of intangible service considerations. 3.2 Candidate Sources-of-Supply We do not know how SCWC would plan on providing water service to BCD,but we can identify supply sources that would be potential or likely candidates for development by SCWC. Groundwater would i likely be the cornerstone of water service to BCD. SCWC may wish to only provide groundwater service as this would be the least costly approach. However,basin equity considerations would argue that they should also plan on providing imported MWD water at an annual rate equal to 25 percent of the BCD annual demand. Likely groundwater development areas that could be developed by SCWC are located in its existing service areas in Los Alamitos, Cypress and Stanton. Development of new groundwater sites in the north Seal Beach area in conjunction with the City of Seal Beach is another alternative. Imported water supply could potentially be obtained and delivered through acquisition of capacity in the West Orange County Water Board Feeder#2. At issue here is the availability of adequate capacity. City of Huntington Beach 5 f k•I 1.a 4.0 Evaluation of Cost of SCWC Service 4.1 BCD Water Demand For this evaluation,a review was made of the BCD water demands as prescnted in our letter report of January 30, 1995 to the City. In that report,the average annual demand ranged from 1,440 to 1,600 gpm. For this analysis the 1,600 gpm demand level was assumed. 9.0 The primary sources-of-supply for BCD have been assumed to be sized to provide supply at the maximum day demand. Previously, IWA,.the engineers for the BCD,assumed a maximum day to annual average day peaking factor of 2.44. The coastal influence and proposed higher densities and limited irrigated areas planned for BCD, would cause the maximum day demand ratio to be less than the 2.44 peaking rate average for the entire city. It is our opinion,that SCWC would reach similar conclusions,and would size their delivery system based upon a maximum day to mean annual demand ratio in the range of 1.65 to 1.85. For the purposes of this evaluation,a maximum day ratio of 1.75 haseO been assumed. The maximum day demand is then estimated at 2800 gpm,or approximately 4.0 mgd. Required fire flow is assumed to be 3500 gpm for commercial developments planned within the BCD. A summary of water demands are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Bolsa Chica Development Water Demand a• 02 Average Day Demand 1,600 gpm 2.30 mgd 3.56 cfs Maximum Day Demand @ 1.75 2,800 gpm fb3�mgd b7.RS cfs ro Maximum Day Plus Fire Flow 6,366 gpm n/a n/a� Peak Hour Demand @ 2.00 MD S?600 gpm 8Yb6�mgd IY4 cfs City of Huntington Beach 6 ASOVLE I I 4.2 BCD Storage and Booster Pumping Station Requirements On-site regulatory and reserve storage that SCWC may likely require to serve BCD is estimated based upon the daily regulatory volume estimated at 25 percent of the maximum day volume, fire flow reserve estimated at 3500 gpm for 4 hours, and one average day of emergency reserve. It should be noted that MWD recommends that retailers should have storage available equal to seven average days of demand in the event of an outage or shutdown of its feeder. In this case,this storage could be produced from the groundwater basin and thus a lower on-site storage level would probably be used by SCWC in its analysis. The required storage is determined to be 4.0 mg,as shown in Table 3. At the BCD,a booster pumping station will need to be installed at the terminal reservoir to provide peak flows. The governing condition for this case is maximum day demand plus fire flow,or 6300 gpm. Table 3 Bolsa Chica Development Storage Requirements Operational @ 25%MD 1.0 mgd i. Fire Reserve @ 3,500 gpm @ 4 hrs. 0.84 mgd Emergency Reserve 1 average day 2.30 mgd Total 4.14 mgd 2y C.1 ) 4.3 SCWC Groundwater Supply Alternatives - The likely areas for development of a groundwater supply are located. in the west Los Alamitos area,north Seal Beach area,or in the Cypress area near Katella Avenue between Valley View and Knott Avenue. City of Huntington Beach 7 BOLE • �'Y p C =4 b � k Groundwater in the west Los Alamitos and north Seal Beach areas is generally found to have excessive manganese and in localized areas. higher TDS. Manganese removal would likely have to be provided and should be considered as potential cost to the project. Yields in this area from existing wells are less than 1,000 gpm. To the north of this area,one well developed north of Katella Avenue has a capacity of 2,250 gpm. The potential Cypress wellfield site is located near the Stanton wellfield where higher TDS water occurs. Yields in the Stanton area from existing wells are all less than 800 gpm. In both areas,good aquifers are found to a depth of 1,300 feet or deeper. The deeper aquifers tend to be warmer and produce colored water. For this evaluation,we would assume that SCWC would .develop wells to shallower depths to avoid the colored water problem. For the Cypress area,it is assumed for this evaluation that new wells may yield up to 2,000 gpm upon completion of development. Both areas experience significant deterioration due to biofouling, corrosion and encrustation and an allowance for deterioration needs to be considered in developing a supply for BCD. For this evaluation, a well yield of 1,500 gpm is assumed. To meet the maximum day demand three wells would be required,two operating to meet maximum day flows with one standby well to provide source-of- supply reliability. The supply rate would be 3,000 gpm or 6.7 cfs. _ This rate is used to size the most economical diameter transmission pipeline. 4.4 SCWC Imported Water Supply Alternatives As mentioned above, in order to maintain equity in the groundwater basin,imported water would need to be provided,such that groundwater would constitute approximately 75 percent of the annual supply and imported water would account for the other 25 percent. The only available imported water supply source that could be tapped is from the West Orange County Feeder(WOCF). Delivery from the WOCF is provided through the two West Orange County Water Board pipelines. Capacity in these pipelines is owned by four cities: Garden City of Huntington Beach 8 f3iQ�L.E Grove(7.80%), Huntington Beach(52.50%), Westminster(25.40%) and Seal Beach(14130%).''Rated capacity in WOCWB#2 decreases from 47 cfs in the upstream reaches.to 27 cfs in the downstream reaches. SCWC would need to acquire 6.7 cfs in this line,or 25%of its capacity. It is our understanding that 6.7 cfs capacity may be available from the participants for purchase by SCWC. The current existing value of both WOCWB Feeders 1 &2 has been previously estimated at $5,200,000. We do not have an estimate for WOCWB#2. The cost for capacity acquisition by SCWC would be determined on a reach- capacity basis for the WOCWB#2 pipeline,using a realistic replacement cost basis with perhaps some allowance for depreciation. The$5,200,000 value is based upon a replacement less depreciation cost basis which may not meet with the concurrence of the pipeline owners. We grossly estimated that the SCWC buy-in cost would be around$800,000 plustminus 30%for the purposes of this study, If capacity is not available to SCWC in these lines,then SCWC would have to construct a parallel line from the MWD West Orange County Feeder,assuming capacity is available in the MWD line. This would add additional cost to the SCWC alternative. 4.6 Transmission Routes There are several potential transmission alternatives to serve BCD. The primary routes shown on Figure 1,are: Alternative Transmission Routes 1. Southwest Los Alamitos Wellfield-Seal Beach Boulevard to PCH to BCH(isolated from Huntington Beach) 2. North Seal Beach Wellfield-Bolsa Chica Channel R/W or Bolsa Chica Road to BCD with/without WOCWB#2 Connection(Partially through Huntington Beach) 3. Cypress Wellfield-Katella Avenue to WOCWB Feeder#2 Through Huntington Beach to BCD(partially through Huntington Beach). City of Huntington Beach 9 �iD�LE if, '. :,!♦ �:YY:•,. :� .,�. .,y,,. ' ' 7 ,.�. �.Y, • �L„•AT v� •\'i'•' ( ::�'1. �• .,r:•. ti. .':;•j rrrs.�; :��, 7 ,e- '��. Z? .;r:: ,'..:•• ':y;• :'u,�:: j^ •. 1•„ r�% R M••\�' ia' :t'' .lir•�1<, {�•1., 'i�,•,,f� 4}'.• hl ,'jt:'•1` 1•,•` r..• `,_ ,�,,4 • l •\,v 5 .�i1,';,` .;.,• a_ ::�' ��� •'arr•�'A ` '�" fS+•. 1 �•3'? �:r• C, 1 •n '�\� +,i•�(f• 11.; •`' .;4:i, ��.1•r��r,1;•Y.•�r•,' ,� ..xtdrf a:,•.+../,�`, ;'. W r r•t}}� •' �'. ••r •'\. a p• •�Ir%�j�•'+, �,�, 'f' ;':.•\ '• t .,�1• •• ', .�'�:i' r r�< ert:�y:''4•: wti .,..'Y• �%', Z ,�1 :S:••• ,y.•w.�a, r•' •t;i„ ', rb�;,A r tn,•s9. }"3 .s M `\`' t1; 1{" .1 '1;. y :d, vs. .4�:•;';;'• •Y•, •Lw �Q ir't.. W �S ,,.��Y ,t• �.• :� .'. .�• .•L� � .1�',� a�. :�j•,'.wi'•'�,�� 'y��.v � �` •r Y. ,i, 'y ;:rtti•- J': •:"4i: U�r \ � � c :i^ti' `'• a •x•, r•' •�•'aK' �L::•^• it �.'l • s; i .;i/:i.r%` '' •d,:.:�♦� /' .tom:r• s, � '`• ...., � '^ �•t;: 'ft' :/e` `�' ',;i: •i�. :'i ••1�r• 1. r �• +1.. �' �!, l,`'.1 yd' .• N O O •',4i.{'+.r '? A ?.y •/t• .. .�•�iy, ;�• .•r�,r3!. •t .,• {,o'„i' '' ., .K;';�?s:•, +r.;; a:�'.4) ''1,•' ,y�.,' ,'frrj Cl) I 'f W :.... I .J •�ia'; �'• '''Y/•' •t:''�'i!'t f� `R.% Lr':l��sf:,'t{•� >�,'�;1, �,/,. .y. %.3,• :i� t'�' yy .:p .,�j♦• � t!•`,•:•'i��`;; .;Zs?;%i'�'f",s'-:'.' "'• r . .,Y.,�, '�I+,'• '.,. •:�,r •:�♦•:•,��� 'r•;r..•J,'4� �,�t.:• ..'��!' J Q, �+;.•:'• t�•� a .t.t;yyyy,r. _�. �,;�_\ .� �(i a`,'; _�$ ;�� 7 ' } .,j� �. 'i'r '••�: •.<;°�:;'• :' ' •'1 !:• ;�� ,. Yj,l,e�.'}-^ 1 Vy: 4,�, '•;ilJ?;;•'titri, :. - .}� •1: -, t, + ► i4:•k• )4 r_ .}` f^ 1 • a"+'3 \•. 1•�r: . r+, y:•S LL t -.�'i�'C'1 '.t:�% ^r .a• '°' `�. V 1•,,./ \ •r,. t 4+�s•. �\'.1: :x:r� �v\ 'ri:\ t•., �j, � s:°r `L :? ,: g;�. t ,, •:;4 ,: `•,�;•, ,:' :f .. r �a yr}•a. .; d=.;i•a. y �: �y : Q .' .<l.`• i, �,r , ••t. �,. ± 'L.,,y.,t. '1•r '' J.i J. �ii•�• ^(.v � LL ..us iir. ro•^ ,• ty,s�� `�.y77. ,,ti% 1�,',• r `,>ai rr1r'�y •;, �I %ZL� ty• i.. Z�'�1,'t�''' •t• ;,�'�:R:v.• ;� '\ 31J O •Ir`\`' • J,�% 4• •, •,. ,{:r,,. �, j\. .•j.r".yl�'••�., ��� ,�, lid <♦G 'Qr',;• ::r' ..}s• I— � 4 i. :.�'••t;:3�.yy'C�,.. .,,'Mi.wtr�s.�S} a� l ::'+,'y:• 'r}•.'�r.j 'r' '.f., ..�; '•r'..•;♦•*1 .Y }' �• •i,� yv.•' ;i♦�`� t: '� I 't':: `�`.IS'y� {ti '�•y>:�~��•�-:1. :a`f1'::ti'• ,..' .c,. a f i•�^�'�• .,i• ``\, pX.r'ri`, t ,,' :r '• '1 :, /'fi r`,• •� - ...a.:a.'�; W LL U `,(�• ,,,,¢idFy'� C'.'8h �i�_' i ` ,,.i: .,: .. •,?;�- ''J,•y1 .1}.•k • .} � ••.r\ I ; .~•-0 • r VJ t'`�5�;': .�:y'a~�t�:v'' '•i4r,'•::i(If.,'s�: � f•!1` ;�:`.. `�d' �4•' i:�=�•' ^.;J A;;��Rlt3. .•�•� _:•:'C,,,,t; , ,_ �,..,::', •'L �h O E"4 11 '•�.'' r`,.a} ��2IR.,t�i,,�. ,C �. •.;ti ..y.. 1 �4 .f (,♦ LIJy .v, '�`� r1;1• •, ��r. {" it 'r;\ Z W O tit'• �:'' ':,•• ,, t'.;" � 4ti,#,. f.y•�t�s {. LL LA- co �- _=r�: <n:\•, i:��v• ,:''�tli ,�may ♦ is •' i'}s,�!: ti.�'''� •j•' � 'rf ..,, .j�f � i..`•1;•'�:x• (�1•;.. �:3.^ :.��,',`; a4`Y,'•i � \'.�y'�•�:Y'•;: ••q•.;•JJ:•• *.'�I "a1 W :j\J r}ter r: \'� ' l• 4 , "�'1 ~ j rt',�'� :1' r ,:`:Y \. i. 'a�.'`\V. �ti , D W :IS s,.',! �j{ ,•. ``♦ ,r� �,,'t• �O I., �/,••;,�'•` ''yam �` .i�;� r• y i;' •• • 7•' (� La W >Y ,' �•2'T'1�2. 'i':.�,..,o,,St Y+.�.r,�{ tti J,:j�,� \ '�• "i�1.• ' :'C....,.�� .!y..`• ;\',f e t V d•+iV r• �. : IL J O Z .R:I;.ti.irL:. iwr `l h•4$.=, ',i7A .T.�+• 1 W ll. Q J •� '�, •.+� J ui .ti,,, •rJ,�..r •r• ,\ .,. 'i,+,t: .,� "�r,��•., 1yy•W. ':r •,•a:'( ,',� � •,r+. t .2..1 � Li. ,'-� �. l �"�'1�"� .(a :\..��.,';ti.�;y�,���• c,� xl�• ?j.ti -� , �i, �+'"�•• ••ti .,qi*• ,1 .,? cr. J 4t is rt %` =r ti;i. J y•a 'q.;r•�,,;: ,. jai' , :.' W y I:�#' , ! U. V W H op �'ia'•r•` ^a�,,,�'� 'T ♦i�► ♦S • ;�,.. .;' , w f�•,V Iww=• ♦R.' ,/ :Vt J � ', ` �d�,,{•"r', 'Y•1: � �.r/ LU Dim ,QI) cr- \�y ,fir '• ,j. r'. 1,I \, t. f.. W .../� J 1' , 1.!5 y'3s .;'�• ;ri' .i :n l• •?L: a • ••t . - t,' u n N O `•i%.�`. �'�r�;'!:',;Tq '• fit•� •' is,..' .•,. �roif�'i ', ��i/ •' •;• .'�T Mf�� y`.'ti �ii �—.. o u) N •��'J'.,,�K��..�4;•.�t%�wt,•i•�'{/�y,. ,�. ,� �`, a :'� :I.;:ro;��i�/� }• r� `�,i+s.'.1, � �J � (j,� lJ� tti ' % .+'f.ti"•ti f • .•, '`• « �) ti 'ti'• .V�i//r ✓� '. r`,r hOa�'•j' C cr. f A... �.• /•'♦' ''`.,, I �A\ 1`' W. ; .'e,`fs' •Jrb�r♦♦iZ ��. ,;• %• r' �a•w.a••r (� z V �,\'..�:L�t�i.i'�+},�rl�x'..r").��(� r, itit.r�• ♦ 'fir, :.� •r, •i' 'a i .� �.•• ef .)�•,i• s,R�;�7 �j�'y.yh'F��)?♦.Tf�i♦ y�,.:,;.••e.a .ti1!.�• '�, , � i .`.•,• _ N r p.'•C �i. N 'a ♦�'1•; Y,a ii 4r ,.'♦�,•.r. !... Y• '; ,�' •a '•.. � � 'V'1 1.} r� Z ♦', V'7 eta tip,1«'�h• ��!'v.r�•'2�4��'i:•:�j..i t +�. 7a . •�..Y' i. t• •, r rai,..' = Under alternative 1,delivery of water from the southwest Los Alamitos area would-follow Seal Beach Boulevard to PCH. We understand that the City of Seal Beach maintains a 16-inch pipeline in the PCH Anaheim Bay Bridge to serve the Sunset Aquatic Park. We conducted a brief hydraulic analysis assuming a 16-inch line from the wellfield to BCD with only BCD maximum day flow. The headloss over this length of pipeline(8 miles)at 6.7 cfs would be about 200 feet,requiring a discharge head of approximately 350 feet. This would be too high to wheel through the Seal Beach system. Therefore,we have assumed that a new 20-inch line would need to be constructed from the wellfield to BCD. The 16-inch line in the Anaheim Bay Bridge could possibly be used. This alternative would be isolated from Huntington Beach and would not have any provision for imported water delivery. Under alternative 2,delivery of water from the North Seal Beach wellfield would proceed southerly either along the Bolsa Chica Channel right-of-way or within Bolsa Chica Street to BCD. A connection along Westminster Boulevard from the WOMB #2 would need to be made to include imported water service. Under alternative 3,delivery of water from the Cypress wellfield would be conveyed through the WOCWB Feeder#2 and then through Huntington Beach streets to BCD. 4.6 Conceptual Level Capital Costs Each alternative supply from SCWC to the BCD would require the following project facilities: wells and collector lines,transmission pipeline(s),and terminal storage. Some alternatives will likely require treatment for iron/manganese. Depending on well location, it is possible that treatment for color and possibly for TDS could be required. However, for the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that no other treatment would be required. City of Huntington Beach 10 BOLE Table 4 w. Conceptual Level Capital Costs-Facility Elements (CCCI -LA 3Q96 6550) Facility Quantity Unit Cost Capital Cost 1. Wellfield 1.1 Wells 3 @ 1,500 gpm S 750,000 S 2.250,000 1.2 Collector Lines 12"@ 2,600' 8.00/in/ft 250,000 16"@ 2,600' 8.50/in/ft 350,000 1.3 Metering/Connections 1 400.000 400,000 Subtotal S 3,250,000 1.4 Fe/Mn Treatment 1 @ 4.3 MGD 1,200,000 1,200,000 Subtotal S 4,450,000 2.Transmission 2.1A West Los Alamitos 16"@15,000'(PCH) 11.00/in/ft S 2,640,000 2.1 B West Los Alamitos 20"@ 42,000' 10.00/in/ft 8,400,000 2.2 No.Seal Beach 20"@ 24,000' 10.00/in/ft 4,800.000 20"@ 5,500'WOCWB#2 Intertie 10.00/in/ft 1,100,000 WOCWB#2 Capacity 6.7cfs 840,000 840,000 WOCWB#2 Connection 400,000 400,000 Subtotal S 7,140,000 2.3 Cypress 20"@ 20,800' 10.00/in/ft S 4,160,000 WOCWB#2 Capacity 6.7cfs 840,000 840,000 WOCWB#2 Connection 400,000 400,000 Subtotal S 5.400,000 3.Terminal Storage 3.1 Steel Tank 1 -4.0 MG .45/gal S 1,800,000 �._ 3.2 Pumping Station I -5,600 gpm BPS 800,000 800,000 Note: Unit costs have been varied for different degrees of construction difficulty for the various routes. A summary of conceptual level cost estimates by facility element are shown in Table 4. Total conceptual level capital costs by supply alternative are shown on Table 5. The total costs for the SCWC alternatives range from about$13 million to over$21 million. The variation is primarily a function of how much new transmission pipeline would be required. City of Huntington Beach 11 BOri�.E Alternative supply costs are shown by source wellfield. The indicated lowest cost supply alternative from the West Los Alamitos area assumes wheeling through Seal Beach's water system with a new pipeline connection to the Seal Beach 16-inch diameter pipeline located in the Anaheim Bay Bridge on PCH. The cost of this alternative is$13 million. Based on the required supply rate, it would not appear technically feasible to wheel this flowrate through the Seal Beach system. The"Through Seal Beach"sub-alternative assumes that a new dedicated 20-inch diameter pipeline would be required from the wellfield to BCD. This is the highest cost alternative at$21 million. These two options bracket the transmission cost of groundwater from the West Los Alamitos area Furthermore,this alternative has no provision for imported MWD water supply. The North Seal Beach wellfield alternative is shown without and with connection to imported water. The cost for these alternatives ranges from$17 to$19 million. The Cypress wellfield alternative is estimated to cost$15 million. City of Huntington Beach 12 MOYLE ?7) 1`t Table 5 Conceptual Level Capital Costs SCWC-BCD Supply Alternatives Supply Alternatives' Facility Element West Los Alamitos North Seal Beach Cypress S.B.Wheeling Through S.B." w/o MWD w/MWD w/MWD Wellfield $ 3,250,000 $ 3,250,000 $ 3,250,000 $ 3,250,000 $ 3,250,000 Wellhead Treatment 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 - Transmission 2,640,000 8,400,000 5,900,000 7,100,000 5,400,000 Terminal Storage 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 • Subtotal $ 9,690,000 $ 15,450,000 $ 12,950,000 $14,150,000 $ 11,250,000 Contingency @ 35% 3,310,000 5,550,000 4,050,000 4,850,000 3,750,000 Total $13,000,000 $21,000,000 $17,000,000 $19,000,000 $15,000,000 /n1e14e ego /'�1616�cg+ /y0ae,eeo i /uea eg• /27000 eoo 1 By Source-of-Supply Wellfield 2 New pipeline through Seal Beach 5.0 Comparison of SCWC to Huntington Beach Capital Costs The estimated capital cost of service from Huntington Beach for BCD is the product of the applicable Capital Facilities Charge(CFC)and number or equivalent dwelling units. Assuming that the CFC charge is $2,400 per EDU,which is derived from the 1995 Master Plan Update, we can estimate the charge to BCD for water service from the City of Huntington Beach. This CFC probably should be refined before establishing the cost of service for BCD. Using the$2,400 per EDU charge at 3,300 EDU's results in a capital service charge of$7.9 million. This CFC is$5 million to$13 million less than the SCWC supply alternatives as configured and estimated in this study. City of Huntington Beach 13 QO�LE • 6.0 Potential Impacts on the City of Huntington Beach 6.1 Isolated Service From City Should BCD obtain water service from SCWC(or other outside entity) that is isolated from the city the primary impact on the city would be financial. In this case the city would not derive revenue from its Capital Facility Charge to construct water system improvements,thus resulting in a higher CFC or deferral of some facilities. 6.2 Transmission Through City Should BCD obtain its water supply from the SCWC (or other outside entity)which requires construction of facilities through the City,direct impacts on the city would fall into two categories: construction related and financial. Short term construction related impacts include disruption of traffic flow and commercial activity,noise and dust,and other construction effects. Long-term construction impacts would be permanent dedication of space in city streets for SCWC facilities. This locks out space for future city improvements. Financial impacts to the City would be the same as in 6.1 less the cost r _ of licensing agreements and/or encroachment fees derived from permitting and approval of the project within city streets. The City would be entitled to recover costs of permitting,construction impacts, and permanent dedication of space in City streets,as well as provision for assistance,emergency service,or damage from outages that could possibly occur. The City would likely be expected to provide an emergency interconnection to serve the BCD should the SCWC transmission or supply be out-of-service for more than a day. The City would also benefit from such a connection given the fire and emergency supply problems the City now has in serving Peter's Landing and Huntington Harbor. city of Huntington Beach 14 MOYLE J 7.0 Intangible Considerations J Surrounding the provision of service via a single transmission pipeline from a source-of-supply located several miles away from BCD raises several intangible,but real impacts to the City and BCD water service. These include lower supply reliability,poorer water quality,and probable reduced time responsiveness to field work due to the further distance and time required to travel to BCD. A single transmission pipeline provides no redundancy and is - vulnerable to outage from various causes. The on-site terminal storage would provide only one day of emergency storage and is insufficient should the pipeline be taken out of service for more than one day. Connection to the city water system grid would provide multiple sources of supply and connection points providing a more reliable delivery system. Water quality from wells located in the city is generally superior in quality than that found in the West Los Alamitos,North Seal Beach or Cypress areas. These areas have either iron/manganese problems or higher levels of TDS than groundwater produced in the city. Treatment may be required for these sources either initially or in the future. Should BCD be served by SCWC without connection to imported s MWD water,this would give rise to the equity issue of groundwater basin management and groundwater rights. The ability of SCWC to obtain capacity in the WOCWB Feeders is a critical issue in this analysis. Can SCWC obtain the required 6.7 cfs and can they negotiate a price based on the valuation work done by others? If not, then substantial additional costs would be encumbered by SCWC in order to provide imported water to meet 25 percent of the annual demand to serve BCD. City of Huntington Beach 15 BO�LfI= F.4 1 ` I 8.0 Conclusions 8.1 Capital Costs The cost of supply from SCWC to BCD would be significantly higher than the cost of service from the City. 8.2 Reliability and Service Issues A single feed system is less reliable than multiple connections to the city water system grid. 8.3 Water Quality Issues The sources-of-supply available to SCWC appear to have poorer water quality than groundwater produced by the city. City of Huntington Beach 16 MOYLE Issues Pali er -- City Benefits from Bolsa Chica Water Service City of Huntington Beach City Administrator Michael Uberuaga Director of Public Works Les Jones City Engineer Bob Eichblatt, PE Water Operations Manager Jeff Renna Boyle Engineering Corporation Project Manager William R.Everest,PE DRAFT OC-H 10-250-30 October 1996 MOYLE 1501 Quail Street, Newport Beach, CA 92658 Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................I Background..........................................................................2 City Benefits from Bolsa Chica,Water Service...................3 Joint Purpose Facilities........................... 4 ............................. City Needs Without Bolsa Chica Water Service.................5 OtherIssues..........................................................................6 Executive Summary Several benefits could result if the City of Huntington Beach(City) provides water servicd to the Bolsa Chica development(BCD),as follows: 1) The City would not have to construct separate,nearby facilities to meet City system deficiencies in emergency storage,fire protection,and operational storage; 2) The City would avoid incurring an additional capital expenditure of about$7-T million to construct these facilities; 3) The C.I.P. adopted in the 1995 Master Plan Update would remain on schedule,and additional inflation costs of about$2A million would be avoided; 4) Costs to maintain the existing system could be shared by the City and the BCD,with an opportunity to reduce the City's existing customer allocation by about 4 percent. City of Huntington Beach 1 B��ILE Background Potential water service to the BCD has been analyzed in the Boyle Engineering Corporation(Boyle) 1988 Water Master Plan and the 1995 Update. In addition,Boyle conducted a reanalysis of water demands and facilities requirements for the scaled-down BCD considered in January 1995,on the assumption that the City of Huntington Beach(City)would provide water service to the development. The 1995 Update Report included the development of a refined Capital Facilities Change(CFC)to be assessed on new customers connecting to the system. The CFC was developed to recover costs for facilities which must be constructed for new development,and to recover costs related to the development's benefit received by connecting to and using the existing system. At the present time,the City has not made a final decision regarding whether or not to provide municipal water service to the BCD. The City could derive specific benefits from providing Bolsa Chica water service. The Issues Paper focuses on describing and evaluating specific benefits to the City resulting from provision of water service to the BCD. City of Hunfington Beach 2 B��LE -City Benefits from Bolsa Chica Water Service The following benefits could result if the City provides water service to the BCD: 1) Emergency storage for both the BCD and the City's Peter's Landing/Sunset Beach service area; 2) Improved fire protection for the Peter's Landing/Sunset Beach area; 3) Improved operational storage for the Peter's Landing/Sunset Beach area; 4) The adopted C.I.P. developed in the 1995 Update remains on schedule; 5) Costs to maintain the existing system could be shared by the City and the BCD; 6) The City could enforce design criteria and standards on the BCD to confirm that the facilities design will be acceptable to the City. City of Huntington Beach 3 MOYLE Joint Purpose Facilities nw We have compared the estimated costs of on-site and off-site water facilities related to the BCD;with the estimated revenue from the CFC expected to be assessed��o�_na__the development. Based on the proposed development level of6 dwelling units and the CFC of$2,400/DU developed in the 1995 Update,the CFC should generate about$9-.9- million. yJ The estimated capital cost of related water facilities construction for BCD is summarized below: Estimated Capital Facility Cost(S NI) Y 1) Bolsa Chica Reservoir(rd MG) 3.2 .?.3 2) Bolsa Chica Booster Station 1.9 / J 3) Transmission Main J'a 10 TOTAL 6.4 y. G /.6 The City would incur an additional$1 million to extend the transmission main to Peter's Landing/Sunset Beach. Developer- provided facilities usually benefit only the development. In the case of the BCD facilities,they would be located close to areas of local deficiency in the City system. The master plan reports have documented the following City system deficiencies near the BCD: 1) lack of emergency storage,2) inability to reliably meet fireflow requirements in the Peter's Landing/Sunset Beach area,and 3) insufficient operating storage. In this instance,the BCD facilities would serve a joint purpose--BCD needs and City needs. If the BCD does not receive City water service and is not implemented,the City would be obligated to construct separate facilities to meet City needs. City of Huntington Beach 4 QQ�LE City Needs Without Bolsa Chica .Water.Service An analysis has been conducted to define and estimate the costs for separate facilities to meet the City needs. Similar to other areas in the City,the Huntington Harbor area has no emergency water supply. The 1995 Update identified a City-wide need of 26 million gallons(MG)for ultimate emergency storage. The allocated emergency storage needs for Huntington Harbor are approximately 1.4 MG. The Peter's Landing/Huntington Harbor area water system cannot reliably meet fireflow requirements. The required fire storage is approximately 2.2 MG. The Huntington Harbor area water system is also deficient in not being able to meet peak hour demands reliably from operational storage. -The allocated operational storage needs are approximately 0.8 MG. The total City reservoir storage needs would be 4.4 MG. In addition, a booster pumping station and transmission main would also be required,similar to the facilities needed to meet the BCD needs. The City would also have to obtain a one-acre site for the new facilities. It is assumed that these facilities could be located in the Huntington Harbor area. Capital costs are summarized below. Estimated Capital Facility Cost(S 1Vn 1) Huntington Harbor Reservoir(4.4 MG) 2.5 2) Huntington Harbor Booster Station 1.8 3) Transmission Main 2.0 (a) 4) Land(1 acre) 0.8 s c"i c N TOTAL 7.1 A V (a) Assuming reservoir/booster station is located at Peter's Landing or near Warner and Pacific Coast Highway. City of Huntington Beach 5 f3Q�LE w ` Other Issues Two other issues should be discussed when evaluating City water service to the BCD. *If�$City does not provide the service,and necessarily obligates$ J million to meet nearby City needs,it will not be possible to maintain the 11-year C.I.P.construction schedule adopted in the 1995 Update(Table 5). In lieu of implementing Project 5 (Overmyer Reservoir Structural Improvements)and Project 6 (Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster-Stage I)on schedule,it would be necessary to delay these projects by about two years,since an equivalent capital investment would be required to construct the Huntington Harbor facilities. The resulting increased inflation cost related to this delay is projected at approximately$2.4 million. .2,p If the City does not provide water service to the BCD,there will be a lost opportunity for the BCD developers to share in the costs of maintaining the existing City water system. The portion of the CFC related to "buying into"the existing system is$1,380/equivalent dwelling unit(EDU). For the proposed 3,300 EDU,that amounts to ? s� $4.5 million. If only 2,900 EDU are approved,the developer contribution to the existing system use would be$3.3 million. The lost opportunity to reduce the City's existing customer allocation would be about,34 percent. City of Huntington Beach 6 MOYLE 17 .... ...... Ig gg> -�x MR l.... g.;-g R� ................. ........... ... ............................ . i.......... . ........... ... .................. - ----------- ...........�%............ ............. m ................ Rk:, A, ............. .......... ............ ji,-�%................................ %% -M.: 4% k x w % R-g AM Kwooll ON. % 60 Q r% % ........\mMi��3kxa 2 *",*,n::k, % ............... ON %g ................. ----- ........ . .......... %W r.. ------------- ............... ........... 0.W." ................................. .................. .... ................................ .... ........... 1XV24:2 ......... ......................... X. X. ...... .... .................*""-'-'-"'*........ . ........... ...........N . ........... .................... ............................... ......... ......... .............. ......... .............. ......... .......... ............ ........... .... ...... .......X ......... ......