Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
File 2 of 2 - Bolsa Chica Project - Negotiation with City fo
(9) 01/20/98 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 9 E-913. (City Council)Adopt Resolution No. 98-6 -Amends Previous Resolution Re: Acquisition Of Street Right-Of-Way For Goldenwest Street Widening -(Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement Area) -Borghetti -Adopt Resolution No. 98-6 - "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Resolution No. 97-52 Relating to the Public Interest and Necessity of Acquisition of Portions of Property Located on Goldenwest Street in the City of Huntington Beach, California Identified as Assessor's Parcel NO. 110-211-02, for the Purposes of Conducting Roadway Improvements." Submitted by the City Attorney (Amended resolution includes specific statutory language relating to acquisition of remnant property.) (Adopted 5-0 (Green: Absent, Garofalo absent from room] F. Administrative Items / F-1. (City Council) Receive And File Bolsa Chica Report Update Transmittal of a Bolsa Chica Report Update requested by the City Council at its December 15, 1997 Council meeting. The report relates to the proposed Koll development of the Bolsa Chica and updates the City Council on four aspects of the Bolsa Chica project, specifically; the Water Pipeline, Environmental Processing, the role of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and Service Agreements. The report was prepared by the City Attorney, Community Development Department, Public Works Department, Acting City Administrator/Fire Chief and the Library Services Director. Recommended.,Action: : Receive and File Bolsa Chica Update Report. land direct the Acting City Administrator to return to Council with ar cost-benefit analysis of annexation and authorize the Acting City Administrator to write Kull Co. regarding their receptiveness to annexation and request a written response -- 7-01 F-2. (City Council) Receive And File Report On Holly-Seacliff Infrastructure Reimbursement And Obligations Communication from the Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Acting Assistant City Administrator-Fire Chief, and City Attorney transmitting a Report on the Holly- Seacliff Infrastructure Reimbursement and Obligations including: 1. the timing for completion of reimbursement determination; 2. the timing for completion of the infrastructure obligations; and 3. the feasibility of guarantees, e.g. bonds, to insure that the infrastructure is completed. Recommended Action: Motion to: [(I)]Receive and file Report on Holly-Seacliff Infrastructure Reimbursement and Obligations. [and that the City Council subcommittee meet in the next 30 days and formulate a plan according to items in the Slide Report which is to be used as a working outline -- 6-0 -- Green: Absent) (2) If requested by Acting City Administrator Retain outside legal counsel to interpret City's obligation under the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement, in particular evaluate what the term "Best Effort" and "Fair Share" mean and if necessary assist in preparation of the City's case should the city go to arbitration 6-0 (Green: Absent)] (9) Council/Agency Meeting Held: /1,20 p� ��`�-�VV0.6 0 Defe rex d/Conted ®'Approved ConditipnaWE= ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature a-am Council Meeting Date: 01/20/98 Department ID Number: CD98-1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, Acting City Administrator4&J f PREPARED BY: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney Sc--ee-- -�•�w� MELANIE FALLON, Community DevVPTent Directo LES JONES, Public Works Director MIKE DOLDER, Acting Assistant City I traitor/Fire Chief RON HAYDEN, Library Services Direc SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE BOLSA CHICA REP T UPDATE Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: At the City Council meeting of December 15, 1997, the Council requested that staff prepare a written update relating to the proposed Koll development of the Bolsa Chica. The purpose of this transmittal is to update the City Council on four aspects of the Bolsa Chica project, specifically; the Water Pipeline, Environmental Processing, the role of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and Service Agreements. Funding Source: Not applicable. C— Recommended Action: _ Motion to: ; rn�mrt "Receive and File Bolsa Chica Update Report." n Alternative Action(s): Direct staff to provide the City Council with quarterly updates regarding the Bolsa Chica Development. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 01/20/98 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-1 Analysis. 1. Water Pipeline In July of 1997, IWA Engineers, representing Southern California Water Company, (SCWC), submitted a set of plans to the City of Huntington Beach for an 18 inch water main in Bolsa Chica Street, running south from the City of Cypress to the Bolsa Chica area. In anticipation that the Bolsa Chica Development would not annex into the City and in order to deliver water to the Bolsa Chica, the Koll Real Estate Group (KREG) formed a private water company known as the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company (BCMWC) which will ultimately be owned by the residents of Bolsa Chica. Based upon the analysis of the Planning, Engineering and Water Divisions as well as the City Attorneys Office, we have identified the following issues that must be addressed in order for a water transmission line to be constructed to serve the Bolsa Chica: 1. Since the pipeline extends over one mile in length, an initial environmental assessment must be completed and either an environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration will be necessary. 2. Normally, private water companies offering water service must obtain California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approval before they may extend their water facilities outside their existing service area. Initially, it was concluded that CPUC approval would be required in order for SCWC to extend its service area into the Bolsa Chica. However, it appears that KREG has avoided this requirement by proposing instead that it will own the water pipeline that will run from the Bolsa Chica to the boundary of SCWC service area. The sale of water will occur within the SCWC service area, and consequently, they are not extending their service area. This means that CPUC approval may not be required. Staff has formally asked the CPUC to comment on this matter. 3. All community water systems require Department of Health Services (DHS) approval. According to our best information to date, the BCMWC has not yet applied for DHS approval for its mutual water system. 4. In order to build a water pipeline through public streets, the BCMWC will require a city franchise. Currently, the City Municipal Code does not contemplate issuing such water pipeline franchises. However, a proposed code amendment is being drafted that would allow the City Council to issue such franchises. If the Municipal Code amendment is adopted, it will still remain up to the City Council's discretion whether to grant a water pipeline franchise. If a franchise is not granted, the BCMWC may condemn the necessary right-of-way through City streets to construct a pipeline. However, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.330, City Council consent is required before any such eminent domain action may be filed. CD98-1.DOC -2- 01/13/98 1:48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 01/20/98 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-1 The current proposal by KREG, to organize a private water company for the delivery of water to Bolsa Chica, would not require approval from LAFCO. LAFCO's purview is limited to boundary and service arrangements related only to public agencies. If Bolsa Chica requires annexation into the Orange County Water District, for the purpose of receiving groundwater, or annexation into Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) in order to allow for the purchase of imported water, LAFCO would have authority to approve or deny annexation(s) into these agencies. Status of Water Pipeline Applications Plans for the proposed pipeline have been submitted for technical Plan Check by the Public Works Department, however it is on hold pending approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Environmental Assessment. KREG has not submitted an application for either of these actions. Emergency Water Interconnection Upon receiving a request from IWA, City Staff met with them to discuss the potential of an emergency interconnect. When there is mutual benefit, this interconnect is a common occurrence between public entities and provides for emergency water supply in the event that disaster affects the water supply in either jurisdiction. While this is a normal courtesy between cities, it is unique for Huntington Beach to have this relationship with a private utility. In any event, a decision to provide emergency interconnect would be made much later in the process by the City Council and is presently held in abeyance. Physically, an emergency interconnect is made by connecting the two separate systems with a manual valve. The valve cover is then welded down to prevent usage except during an emergency. If. Environmental Processing Presently, the County of Orange is in the process of considering two separate but related environmental documents for the continued development of the Bolsa Chica. Preliminarily, the County has indicated that they are proceeding with an Addendum to their certified EIR for a Master Coastal Development Permit (MCDP). The MCDP is needed for all on-site pre- construction activity (i.e. grading and infrastructure). MCDP precedes the filing of tentative maps and actual construction of homes. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require public notice or the solicitation of public comment when a lead agency decides to prepare an Addendum to a certified EIR. The staff believes that the County of Orange should prepare a Supplemental EIR in order to provide for public comment and has requested a meeting with County Staff to discuss this topic (see Attachment No. 1). CD98-1.DOC -3- 01/13/98 1:48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 01/20/98 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-1 In the opinion of the City Attorney, a supplement to the environmental impact report the County originally prepared on the residential project should be completed. The original EIR only analyzed the creation of a mutual water company using ground water within the Bolsa Chica project itself, or obtaining water service from the City of Huntington Beach. It did not analyze obtaining water service from Southern California Water Company (SCWC). However, since then, KREG has established the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company (BCMWC) to provide water service to KREG's Bolsa Chica residential development. Accordingly, the County should prepare a supplement to the EIR analyzing the (SCWC) alternative. In the course of preparing that supplement, the impacts associated with the water line itself should be analyzed. In preparing its own supplemental EIR, the County should ensure compliance with SB-901. This recent legislation was intended to ease the conflict between land use planning agencies and local water purveyors. Under SB-901, the County, as the local planning agency, is required to consult with SCWC, which will be the retail water supplier in this circumstance. SCWC is to provide information to the County indicating whether its most recently adopted "urban water management plan" provides for sufficient water over the next 20 years to meet the anticipated demand of the Bolsa Chica project. If the current plan does not contemplate this use, then a revised plan will be required before the County can approve the supplemental EIR. A supplemental EIR should be prepared by the County, as it was the lead agency for the original project. Consequently, it is left to the County's discretion whether to analyze the entire SCW alternative or the water main issue only. The KREG is also seeking environmental clearance for a water pipeline to serve the Bolsa Chica. KREG has submitted an initial study to the County and City in anticipation of a mitigated Negative Declaration being adopted by the County and City. Because the water pipeline is designed to traverse several municipalities, the processing of the permits is rather complex. The portion of the water pipeline that is proposed to be placed in Huntington Beach streets will require a separate Coastal Development Permit and the appropriate Environmental Review. The City will be the responsible agency with respect to CEQA for this segment of the water line. The remainder of the water pipeline which will pass through the cities of Westminster, Seal Beach, Garden Grove and Cypress will have the County of Orange as the lead agency. Prior to any action on the City's Coastal Development Permit, the Planning Commission will first have to decide on the appropriate level of environmental analysis. In processing this permit, the City acts as the responsible agency and initially should rely upon the environmental document the County prepares. If the environmental analysis is insufficient for purposes of the Coastal Development Permit, the City has the following options: CD98-1.DOC -4- 01/13/98 1:48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 01/20/98 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-1 A. Take the matter to court within the applicable statute of limitations (which is between 30 and 180 days depending upon the process the County follows); or B. Prepare its own environmental documents if the County did not consult with the City during the preparation of its own EIR; or C. Prepare its own environmental documents if the project has changed in a substantial way since the County first analyzed it. The City Attorney's office has prepared a comprehensive legal opinion (see Attachment No. 2) which analyzes various aspects of the environmental review process for both permits KREG is seeking. It is important to note that determining the appropriate level of environmental analysis for a project is oftentimes a judgment call by the decision making body. III. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) The Local Agency Formation Commission was originally established by the State legislature in 1963 to oversee the jurisdictional boundary process for local governments (cities and districts) and the formation of new jurisdictions. Until the early 1990's the role of LAFCO was limited to its authority to approve or deny jurisdictional annexations, detachments, formations and other changes of organization related to jurisdictional boundaries. During the late 1980's, however, concern arose over what appeared to be an increase in the use of contracts to provide services outside of jurisdictional boundaries, particularly to new development. Some saw the use of such contracts as a way for new development to avoid the LAFCO process. As a result, legislation was later approved to add Section 56133 to the California Government Code. Government Code Section 56133 requires that a City (or district) may provide "new or extended services" outside its jurisdictional boundaries, but only if it first "requests and receives approval" from the Local Agency Formation Commission. Thus, LAFCO may deny the City its ability to provide services outside its existing boundary. The Local Agency Formation Commission is composed of seven members. Six members are appointed to represent various levels of local government: two from the County Board of Supervisors, two from City Councils, and two from Special Districts. The seventh member is appointed by the six elected officials as a "member at large". Several public service issues related to Bolsa Chica will come under LAFCO's purview. While it is not generally wise to presume in advance any action to be taken by an elected or appointed body, it is possible to review the decisions they must make in light of legislative intent. The following provides analysis of the kind(s) of action LAFCO may be expected to take on the several issues related to Bolsa Chica. CD98-1.DOC -5- 01/13/98 3:08 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 01/20/98 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-1 Annexation Annexation of property into a city cannot occur without consent of the majority property owner(s) - if property owners representing 50 percent or more of assessed value protest an annexation, LAFCO must stop proceedings. If LAFCO were to deny city service contracts or, more likely, condition such contracts upon annexation, KREG would have three options to pursue: 1) continue to work through agencies other than the City to insure services are provided; 2) annex into the city; or 3) enter into an annexation phasing program and pre- annexation agreement with Huntington Beach. Annexation to a city may be initiated either by resolution of an affected city or by petition of a property owner. As noted above, if protests are filed against the annexation by owners of property representing 50 percent or more of the total assessed value of the area to be annexed, the annexation cannot occur. The LAFCO process involves the following steps for an "uninhabited" annexation such as Bolsa Chica: • Initiation (By city resolution or property owner petition). • Review by LAFCO (LAFCO can approve, deny, amend and/or condition the proposal). • Completion of proceedings by a Conducting Authority. (Typically, for a city annexation, LAFCO authorizes the affected city to act as the Conducting Authority. The law does provide, however, that LAFCO may authorize the county as the Conducting Authority. Annexation Agreement An annexation agreement could be negotiated between the City and KREG setting forth KREG's development rights and when it annexes to the City. If a pre-annexation agreement were to be negotiated, staff would recommend that annexation should occur as early as possible. This is appropriate because land use application, mitigation, and building fees would be paid to the City. Generally, it costs the City more to service residential areas with municipal services than they provide in property tax revenues. A partial offset is provided through the receipt of land use, mitigation and building permit fees. However, if early annexation is not achieved, the City will not receive these fees, and consequently, the ultimate annexation of the property to the City will be even more costly. CD98-1.DOC -6- 01/13/98 1:48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 01/20/98 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-1 A less traditional approach to annexation would be for KREG and the City of Huntington Beach to enter into agreement to phase the annexation of Bolsa Chica over a period of time. This approach has the possibility of meeting the objectives of LAFCO, and could provide advantages to both the City and to the KREG. A pre-annexation agreement could be approached in a couple of different scenarios. The first scenario would be to annex the Bolsa Chica as soon as possible prior to the approval of the tentative maps and the second scenario could occur after tentative maps and grading plans are approved by the County, and vested by KREG. In any case, if annexation were to occur, it should occur prior to issuance of building permit for two reasons: it provides the City with the ability to assess appropriate fees for services, and it eliminates LAFCO's concern that annexation take place prior to the area becoming "inhabited," which would trigger an election requirement. It should be noted that if annexation is contemplated, water service will ultimately be provided by the City and consequently, any infrastructure to address water service should be built to City standards. Bolsa Chica is already located within the City's sphere of influence. Moreover, once the area is developed, the residents within Bolsa Chica, and not within the rest of the City of Huntington Beach, would vote on whether to annex to Huntington Beach. IV. Service Agreements The City of Huntington Beach is considering to provide both fire and library services to Bolsa Chica. The fire agreement involves a Letter of Understanding between the City of Huntington Beach, the Orange County Fire Authority and KREG. Library services would be provided through a contract with the County and KREG. Both agreements provide advantages to the City in return for provision of services to the area in question, and both agreements would require approval by LAFCO. The principal and founding legislative intent for LAFCO is to encourage orderly growth and development and to insure that public facilities are provided in the most reasonable and cost effective manner. In reviewing any proposal for service delivery, whether by annexation or through contract, LAFCO will review and consider all service options to determine the most appropriate public service approach available. In the case of contract services, the legislative intent is also made clear in the Government Code (GC Sec. 56133):LAFCO may approve contracts for service outside a jurisdictional boundary only "in anticipation of a later change of organization." Contract services are, as a rule, regarded as a means to provide necessary public services during some interim period of time, until the appropriate public agency can incorporate the service area into its boundaries and commit to the long-term extension of orderly services. CD98-1.DOC -7- 01/13/98 1:54 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 01/20/98 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-1 For these specific contracts, LAFCO will also certainly note that Bolsa Chica is an unincorporated island. The area is surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach and, as such, would be most efficiently served if annexed into the city for all municipal services. Long-standing statewide LAFCO policy continues to encourage the annexation of unincorporated islands into the municipal boundaries of surrounding cities, and Orange County LAFCO policy appears to be consistent with this direction. LAFCO has the authority to approve, deny, amend and/or condition a request for a boundary change or extension of contract services. Given its statutory direction, it is possible that LAFCO would condition approval of the proposed service agreements upon assurances of eventual annexation of Bolsa chica into the City. Huntington Beach is the logical service provider and the public agency best equipped to provide all necessary municipal services. It would be consistent with the role of LAFCO staff to recommend a phased annexation plan and/or pre-annexation agreement between KREG and the City of Huntington Beach prior to approval of the fire or library service contracts. On February 24 1997, the City Council held a workshop to review the status of the negotiations for possibly providing certain municipal services to the Bolsa Chica Local j Coastal Program (LCP) area and to receive information on water service issues. The City has been negotiating with KREG, the County of Orange and the Orange County Fire Authority to provide library and fire protection services. The following provides the historic background as well as the most current status of the service agreements. Library Service During preparation of the Development Agreement, between KREG and the County, for the Bolsa Chica development, the City, County and KREG agreed that future residents of the Bolsa Chica would utilize the City's library facilities. The City, at the direction of the Bolsa Chica Subcommittee, began negotiation with the County and KREG to establish a means for recovering the costs for providing library service to the Bolsa Chica. At that time it was estimated that the average size unit (2,000 sq. ft.) would generate the equivalent of$300 per unit from the Community Enrichment Library Fee (CELF) if constructed in the City of Huntington Beach. On January 9, 1996, the County Board of Supervisors approved an agreement between the County and City of Huntington Beach which provides the City with $100 per unit for the City's library capital costs and 70.5% of the annual library district fees it would receive from the Bolsa Chica development. The $100 per unit constitutes all of the library capital fees which would be received by the County from the Bolsa Chica development. This agreement offsets a portion of the City's costs for providing library service to the Bolsa Chica. CD98-1.DOC -8- 01/13/98 1:48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 01/20/98 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-1 In the early summer of 1996, the City reached a tentative agreement with KREG to cover the remaining $200 per unit capital costs. This agreement, signed by KREG, requires KREG to pay the City $200 per dwelling unit prior to issuance of building permits. The funds are to be used by the City for library capital improvement costs, including future costs as well as debt service costs associated with prior capital improvements such as the Central Library Expansion. While the agreement requires KREG to pay any adopted increases in the CELF (in effect at the time of building permit issuance), it does not address payment of any new library fees, such as the Library Development Fee (LDF) which was adopted by City Council and went into effect on November 3, 1996. The LDF is an additional library fee charged to new development in the City. The fee is assessed at $0.25 per square foot for residential and $0.03 per square foot for commercial/industrial. (The LDF is estimated to generate approximately $500 per unit in the Bolsa Chica based up the average unit of 2,000 square feet). KREG has tentatively agreed to pay the additional LDF fee pending final agreement. Fire Service City Staff, Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), and KREG believe that there is a mutually beneficial opportunity for the City to provide fire service to the Bolsa Chica. The OCFA currently does not have adequate fire protection facilities in the Bolsa Chica area and would need to provide a new fire station in the Bolsa Chica (prior to construction) to serve the project. The Bolsa Chica area is surrounded by the City, including the City's fire protection system. Due to the project's proximity to the City's existing facilities and resources, the City can provide a more efficient and higher level fire service to the Bolsa Chica. The City is proposing to provide fire, rescue, emergency paramedic and ambulance transportation to the Bolsa Chica area in exchange for funding provided through the transfer of a portion of the County's Fire Fund Property Tax and developer funded capital contributions. The City, OCFA, and KREG met on January 13, 1997, and developed a list of general understandings for the provision of fire/medical services. A summary of the general understandings, which will serve as the basis for developing the fire/medical service agreement for the Bolsa Chica, is as follows: • The City will provide fire, rescue, emergency paramedic and ambulance transportation services to the Bolsa Chica development at a level deemed appropriate by the OCFA and the City. • OCFA will annually pay the City 80% of the Fire Fund Property Tax for the Bolsa Chica area. (Estimated revenues at build-out are $600,000 to $700,000 per year.) CD98-1.DOC -9- 01/13/98 1:48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 01/20/98 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-1 • Upon receipt of one-time capital funds from KREG, OCFA will pay the City a one-time capital contribution as partial funding for the relocation of Huntington Beach Fire Station 8 to the Graham/Production site already owned by the City. (Capital fund revenues available to the City are $1,250,000.) • The Fire/Medical Service agreement in the Bolsa Chica area would be mutually agreed upon and irrevocable for both parties. In conjunction with the Bolsa Chica development area agreement, the City and OCFA will develop a separate agreement for the nearby Sunset Beach and Surfside Colony areas. The following is a summary of the service provision understandings for this agreement: • In consideration of capital fund payments from the Bolsa Chica agreement, the City will provide primary paramedic service and secondary (back-up) response for fire, rescue, or ambulance transport services to these areas. OCFA will continue to provide the primary response to these areas. • OCFA will agree to consider the City's request to provide ambulance transportation services to these areas during the next OCFA contract renewal, which will occur in three years. • The Sunset Beach/Surfside Colony agreement will be subject to a one-year notice of termination by either the City or County. Attached for City Council information (see Attachment No. 3) is a memorandum from the Fire Chief with the most current status of the fire service agreement. Sewer The Sanitation Districts of Orange County have constructed an enlarged sewer lift station on Slater Avenue, east of Golden West Street in anticipation of the KREG residential development. The Sanitation Districts will, therefore, serve the Bolsa Chica development directly. This means that City sewer lift stations in Warner Avenue will be unaffected by the KREG development project. KREG continues to negotiate with the Sanitation Districts regarding specifics of said sewer service. The Koll company has prepaid annexation fees to County Sanitation District No. 11 to cover costs of upgrading the Slater Avenue Pump Station. The annexation of Bolsa Chica into this CSD has not yet occurred, however, and must be approved by LAFCO. LAFCO staff will necessarily review all service options available at the time of request for annexation. Because County Sanitation Districts in Orange County do not generally provide collection services, this question will be asked at the LAFCO level. CD98-1.DOC -10- 01/13/98 1:48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 01/20/98 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD98-1 Proposed Mesa Connector Intersection with Warner Avenue Staff, in the next two months, will schedule a public hearing before the Public Works Commission to review the KREG proposed Mesa Connector and its anticipated intersection with Warner Avenue. Community groups will be invited to participate in this hearing. Currently, staff and KREG disagree about the location of the new intersection. Staffs position is that this intersection should line up with the intersection of Sceptre Lane. The KREG plan places the Mesa Connector intersection approximately 300 feet East of Sceptre Lane. Conclusion The staff has been monitoring all aspects of the Bolsa Chica development during the previous months. Staff will continue to provide regular updates to the City Council with respect to the issues discussed in this paper, as well as the status of restoration efforts by the Bolsa Chica Steering Committee. Environmental Status: Not applicable Attachment(sl: City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Letter from Melanie S. Fallon to Tom Mathews 2. City Attorney's Legal Opinion 3. Memorandum from Fire Chief RCA Author: Howard Zelefsky CD98-1.DOC -11- 01/14/98 11:31 AM ATTACHMENT 1 -JLAL-IK SA*^bi4e4f1 J • City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALI FORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building 536-5241 Planning 536-5271 November 5, 1997 Tom Mathews County of Orange Planning&Development Services Dept. P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 SUBJECT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INPUT IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE BOLSA CHICA MASTER COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT/WATER PIPELINE PROJECTS Dear Tom: The City of Huntington Beach is aware that the County is in the process of reviewing the Master Coastal Development Permit(CDP) application for the Bolsa Chica grading and infrastructure plans. It is our understanding that the environmental review process/ documentation for the Master CDP has not yet been determined by the County. The City is concerned that grading and construction of infrastructure improvements (such as the proposed water line down Bolsa Chica Street) could potentially have serious impacts to the City since we surround the site and any access to the site will need to come through Huntington Beach. In order to assure that all potential environmental impacts to the City are adequately evaluated and mitigated,the City is requesting the opportunity to review the proposed plans and provide input on potential concerns and mitigation, if necessary, as early in the process as possible. We appreciate your consideration and are interested in meeting with your staff to assure that the impacts to the City are adequately addressed. Please have them contact Julie Sakaguchi, at(714) 536-5271 to arrange a meeting. Sincerely, Melanie S. Fallon Community Development Director cc: Mayor and City Council Ray Silver,Acting City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney Scott Field, Deputy City Attorney Les Jones,Director of Public Works Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer Dave Webb, Principal Engineer Jeff Renna, Water Operations Manager Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director Julie Sakaguchi, Associate Planner Michael Ruane, Assistant CEO OC Strategic Affairs Office g Aadmltr97\1197 j s 1.doc ATTACHMENT 2 lu CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Melanie Fallon,Director of Community Develo"Pt C E ' DEP V E FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney puF3LIc WORK DATE: November 25, 1997 DEC 119 unrTiNGTaN SUBJECT: Bolsa Chica Water Line-CEQA Compliance RLS 97-847 INDEX: Police Power; Land Use; Planning; Environmental Quality; CEQA; Water Quality BACKGROUND Southern California Water proposes to build a pipeline to provide water service to the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company("BCMWC"). BCMWC will provide water service to the residential development Koll Real Estate Group(KREG)proposes for Bolsa Chica. Southern California Water will construct, operate and maintain the water system, although BCMWC will own it. The pipeline crosses through three jurisdictions. A portion of the line crosses through the coastal zone in the City of Huntington Beach, and therefore,will require approval of the Coastal Development Permit(CDP), as well as CEQA review. IWA Engineers, a consultant for Southern California Water,has designed the waterline and has applied to the City for an encroachment permit. (Attached please find a letter from IWA, enclosing a letter from their attorneys, further explaining the proposed project.) At this time,the County has stated it will be the lead agency under CEQA for the pipeline, although the procedure they will follow is unclear. In discussions between City staff and County staff, there is a possibility that the County will process the environmental documents for the pipeline as part of a Master Infrastructure Coastal Development Permit for grading and installing infrastructure to the Bolsa Chica site. This could possibly be done as an addendum to the existing EIR. Alternatively,representatives of KREG have indicated that an initial study is being done on the pipeline,which presumably would be processed separately from the EIR for the residential project. Because of this uncertainty, you have asked a series of questions regarding each scenario. i 1 SF/s:G:SF-97Memos:Pipe-1112 11/25/97-#4 .Yvft► QUESTIONS A. Scenario: Pipeline included as part of a master CDPprocessed through the County of Orange. 1. Is the City the lead agency for the CEQA processing of the CDP that will be processed through the City? 2. Could the City process a new CEQA document(such as a Mitigated Negative Declaration) ("MND") for the project? 3. Would the City automatically become lead agency for its CDP or would it need to seek a lead agency determination from OPR? B. Scenario: Pipeline processed separately from master infrastructure CDP -mitigated negative declaration processed through the County of Orangg. 1. Is the City a responsible agency pursuant to CEQA or is it still the lead agency for the CDP that will be processed through the City? 2. If the City is considered only a responsible agency(pursuant to sections 15082(b), 15050(b, c) of the CEQA guidelines), is City required to review and comment on the MND to have its issues addressed and'is it required to use the MND when reviewing the City CDP for CEQA compliance?. 3. If so,what are the City's options for requiring additional analysis and mitigation if the City's concerns are not adequately addressed in the County document? Could the City process a new CEQA document(such as its own MND) for the project? C. What should the scone of the environmental document be? (This is a question added by the City Attorney's office after analysis of the issues raised by this Request for Legal Services.) ANSWERS A. Pipeline included as part of a master CDP processed through the County of Orange. 1. The County is the lead agency since it is the agency with the"greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole." CEQA Guidelines, Section 15051(b).) 2. Yes,if the City determines the County's documents are inadequate for purposes of the City CDP, and were prepared without consultation with the City(CEQA 2 SF/BASF-97MemosTipe-1112 11/25/97-#4 Guidelines, Section 15052(a)(3)),or grounds for a subsequent EIR/MND exist (Section 15162). 3. The City would become the lead agency for its CDP. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162(c); 15052(a)(3).) B. Pipeline processed separately from master infrastructure CDP -mitigated negative declaration processed through the County of Orange. 1. The County is still the lead agency because it is the agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole. 2. Yes,the City is required to use the County environmental documents to process the City's CDP. However, if the City concludes the documents are inadequate or a subsequent EIR./MND is required, it does have the option to prepare its own CEQA document as the lead agency. 3. If the City determines that the City's concerns are not adequately addressed in the County document,the City has the option to sue the County, to prepare its own subsequent EIR if permissible under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, or to assume the role of lead agency under CEQA Guidelines Section 15052. C. Scone of Environmental Documents. The above questions suggest two possible approaches to environmental documentation. The first assumes inclusion of the pipeline as part of the master CDP processed through the County of Orange for review of the grading and infrastructure installation to the Bolsa Chica site. The second assumes looking at the pipeline itself only. However,the scope of the"project"should include analyzing obtaining water service from Southern California Water to serve the Bolsa Chica project. This was a water service option that was not examined in the original EIR for the project. DISCUSSION A. CEQA Processing if Pipeline Is Included As Part Of A Master CDP Processed Through The County Of Orange. The lead agency is the agency with the "greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15051(b).) In this case,the County is the lead agency,since the City is only looking at a pipeline that also crosses other jurisdictions,whereas the County is looking at the entire Bolsa Chica project,which this pipeline will serve. The City would not be the lead agency for its CDP,but would be the responsible agency. A responsible agency is an agency that has some permitting authority or approval power over some aspect of the overall project for which a lead agency is conducting CEQA review. (Public Resources Code Section 21069; CEQA Guidelines Section 15096, 15381.) 3 SF/s:G:SF-97Memos:Pipe-1112 11/25/97-#4 r ..�. As a responsible agency,the City is to rely upon the lead agency's environmental documents in acting on whatever aspect of the project requires City approval, although as a responsible agency, the City must issue its own findings regarding the feasibility of relevant mitigation measures or project alternatives as they apply to that portion of the pipeline in the City. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(f), (g), and(h);Resource Defense Fund v. Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Cruz County(1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 886, 895, 236 Cal.Rptr. 7941. To ensure that negative declarations and EIRs will be adequate for the responsible agencies purposes, lead agencies must consult with and solicit comments from those agencies in preparing their environmental documents. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21080.3,21080.4,21104,21153; CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15073, 15082, 15086, 15096.) For projects requiring EIRs,responsible agencies are consulted both as regards the proper"scope" of the EIR and as to the substance of a draft EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15082, 15086(a)(1).) In short, lead agencies have a duty to produce"comprehensive" environmental documents that will be of use to responsible agencies. (Save San Francisco Bay Association v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (1992) 10 Cal.AppAth 908, 922, ---Cal.Rptr.2d---.) Responsible agencies comments must address only"those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency." Such comments must be"supported by specific documentation." (Pub. Resources Code, Sections 21104 (c), 21153.) Responsible agencies have limited ability to conduct their own environmental review outside the processes initiated and managed by lead agencies. The City must rely on the lead agency documents even if they are being challenged in court. (City of Redding v. Shasta County Local Agency Formation Commission (1989)209 Cal.App.3d 1169, 257 Cal.Rptr. 793. If the City believes the documents are inadequate for purposes of the City CDP, it has three options pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(e): (1)take the matter to court within the applicable statute of limitations period; (2)prepare its own subsequent EIR if permissible under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; or(3) assume the role of lead agency if permissible under Section 15052(a)(3). The justification for the City to prepare a subsequent EIR or MND are limited. There must have been subsequent changes to the proposed project that will require revisions to the environmental documentation prepared by the County; alternatively,new information of substantial importance to the project becomes available,which was not known and could not have been known by the County. Alternatively,the City could make a determination that the County prepared inadequate environmental documents without consulting with the City, and the statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the actions of the County. (Depending upon circumstances,the statute of limitations varies from 30 days to 180 days,but the City should presume the 30-day period applies.) If the City prepares environmental documentation for the City CDP under either analysis,it then assumes the lead agency function. These actions of the City would be limited to the CDP and related documents(such as franchise agreements)for the pipeline segment in the City only. 4 SF/s:G:SF-97Memos:Pipe-1112 11/25/97-#4 Lastly, it should be noted that the County has several options available to it regarding the type of environmental analysis it performs, and under certain options, its obligation to consult with the City as a responsible agency is limited. In this case, an EIR has already been prepared for the original Bolsa Chica project,which considered a much larger scope of development. It is our understanding that no new environmental documentation was prepared for the 1200 dwelling unit development that the County Board of Supervisors recently approved. One option to analyze these more recent developments is to prepare a"subsequent"EIR or a "supplement"to the EIR. Generally,this occurs when there are substantial changes proposed to the project that would require major revisions of the EIR, or substantial changes have occurred to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken requiring revisions to the EIR, or new information is now available that was not available at the time the EIR was originally certified. In this case,because service from Southern California Water was not analyzed in the original EIR,this amounts to a substantial change to the project that merits a subsequent or supplemental EIR. This matter is discussed in greater detail at Subsection C below. Alternatively,the pipeline itself could be analyzed as an addendum to the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164.) Addendums are used when an EIR requires minor technical changes or additions but does not raise important new issues about the project's significant effects on the environment and when no factors are present that would require preparation of either a subsequent EIR or a supplemental EIR. While the CEQA Guidelines contemplate that an addendum should be only used in relatively narrow circumstances, case law has approved broader uses of an addendum that appeared to involve significant changes in the environment. (See, Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988)204 Cal.App.3d 1538, 252 Cal.Rptr. 79,where the Court upheld the use a 106 page"addendum"prepared for a conditional use permit that would allow the development of a medical research and laboratory complex on property surrounded by a wilderness park.) What is important to note is that subsequent or supplemental EIRs are treated as draft EIRs with the same notice and public review procedures that are used for the original EIR. This process assures participation of the City as a responsible agency. However, in the case of an addendum there is no need for circulation for public review. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164(b).) This would potentially leave the City"out of loop"as a responsible agency. In order to avoid this possibility,the County should be placed on notice that any and all environmental documents should be circulated to the City as a responsible agency, even if the County is contemplating using an addendum. Lastly, it should be noted that it appears that the County is not proceeding under either of these scenarios,but is actually preparing a new initial study and in all likelihood a Mitigated Negative Declaration, based upon the prior EIR. This makes sense because what is being presented to the County is construction work,involving grading,installation of street and road improvements, 5 SF/s:G:SF-97Memos:Pipe-1112 11/25/97-#4 and installation of a pipeline. To the extent that these construction activities are the"project" under consideration,then they were not analyzed in the EIR itself, and should be reviewed through the use of MNP instead. B. CEQA Processing If Pipeline Is Considered Separately From Master Infrastructure CDP - Mitigated Negative Declaration Through The County Of Orange. The analysis of lead agency/responsible agency roles would be the same even if the pipeline is treated as a separate project from the grading/infrastructure. If the water line was processed separately from the Master Infrastructure CDP,we assume that the County still would take the lead on processing this approval. Although the project is substantially smaller in scope than the entire Bolsa Chica project, and there would be four different agencies affected by the pipeline project(the County,the City of Huntington Beach, and the other two cities through which the pipeline passes), it still makes sense for the County be the lead agency because it is the agency that is responsible for the development project as a whole. This would leave the City as the responsible agency. There is a general rule under CEQA that projects should not be subdivided into their individual components and analyzed separately,but instead should be reviewed as a whole so that their cumulative impacts can be analyzed. Nonetheless,the City could claim the lead agency role on the basis that the"project"is the pipeline only, in which case the State Office of Planning and Research("OPR") could-adjudicate the dispute between the City and County. However the more effective alternative is to prepare its own CEQA analysis if the City is dissatisfied with the County's analysis. (This option was already described above.) C. Scope of Environmental Analysis. Attached please find a copy of the relevant pages of the 1996 Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica project. In analyzing water service options,the EIR considered obtaining service from the City of Huntington Beach,or alternatively forming a mutual water company and sinking wells within the Bolsa Chica development. At no time did the EIR analyze the issue of the environmental effects of obtaining water from outside of Bolsa Chica, such as from the Southern California Water Company. This is a substantial change in the scope of the project meriting a subsequent or supplemental EIR,particularly as a result of recently adopted legislation, known as Senate Bill 901. SB 901 was adopted in 1995 to ease the conflict between cities and counties as land use planning agencies and local water purveyors that operate within their incorporated boundaries. (Government Code Sections 65302, 65302.2; Public Resources Code Section 21151.9; Water Code Sections 10910-10915.) Under SB 901, any development of over 500 residences must go through a water analysis consultation. The consultation requirement obligates the water system operator(the retail supplier, such as Southern California Water)to assess whether the water needs of the new development have been accounted for in the most recently adopted"urban water management 6 SF/s:G:SF-97Memos:Pipe-1112 WNW-#4 plan." Next,the water system operator must determine whether its total projected water supplies over a 20-year cycle will meet the anticipated demand of the project when considering the systems planned in future use. If the water system operator cannot make this determination, further review is required. Final discretion to proceed with the land use approvals for the project still lies with the land use planning agency(i.e.,the County). For example,the County could still make findings of"overriding significance"which will allow the development to proceed despite a negative determination from the water systems operator. It should be noted that SB 901 was meant to address a situation where water supply agencies were refusing to provide water service to new development based upon an alleged lack of water supplies. Although that does not appear to be the case in this circumstance, nonetheless, SB 901 must be satisfied. Gail Hutton City Attorney Attachments: 1) Letter from IWA 2) Excerpts from Bolsa Chica EIR c: Scott Field,Deputy City Attorney Julie Sakaguchi,Associate Planner Les Jones, Director of Public Works Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer 7 SF/s:G:SF-97Memos:Pipe-1112 1 V25/97-#4 ATTACHMENT 3 l i \. i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE C E I V E D INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNIC N DEC 181997 To: Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director DEPART( --IT DF COMMUNITY DEVEL , HENT From: Michael P. Dolder,Acting Assistant City Administrator/Fire Chief Date: December 17, 1997 SUBJECT: UPDATE BOLSA CHICA DEVELOPMENT LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING Based upon the Statement of Action of the City Council dated August 4, 1997,the Orange County Fire Authority(OCFA)legal counsel has been reviewing and drafting agreement language in accordance with the Bolsa Chica Letter of Understanding(LOU) sent by,then Mayor, Ralph Bauer, dated August 12, 1997. The Koll Company continues to be a part of the agreement, assuring OCFA of their commitment to follow through with the terms and conditions of the agreement stated in the Letter of Understanding. This commitment was confirmed in a letter sent to Gail Hutton, City Attorney, dated August 14, 1997,by Lucy Dunn, Senior Vice President,Koll Real Estate Group. Additionally, OCFA's agreement with Koll requires a security of performance bond at the beginning of the project. In my discussion with OCFA Assistant Chief Pat Walker,the Bolsa Chica Development Letter of Understanding is in their legal department for review and a first draft will be available mid-January. He does not anticipate any changes,modifications, or additions to the agreement. Assistant Chief Walker indicated that once the(LOU)has been drafted,the City would be sent a copy for discussion, comment, and revision if necessary. MPD/DSO/cgs a:updateBCLOU/P:FMT/Olson/updateBCLOU cc: Duane Olson,Division Chief/Fire Marshal C i RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: Bolsa Chica Update COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 20, 1998 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 Attomey) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attomey) 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 ISSING ATTACHMENTS .... ........ ......... ......... ........ ......... .. .._...... .... .... REV[EV1►ED RETURNED' FOR1AlARDE© ... ........ Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Clerk ( ) Ex NATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: (Below • . • Only) RCA Author: RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THE phi :;�� OUNCIL MEETING OFGood evening Mayor Detloff and city council OFFICE OF THE CI My name is Eileen Murphy and I live in HB CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY vLERK I would like to speak about item F 1 It seems pretty obvious to me after reading the staff report that the goal of the developer is to bypass all the safeguards that are legally in place to protect the city from this development. Koll and the County are trying to keep from preparing a new EIR by adding an addendum to the original EIR. The City has the right to ask for a new EIR "if their is a substantial change in the project." I ask you to demand a new EIR. The Bolsa Chica was a restoration/development project. It is no longer a restoration project. It is solely a development project. It went from restoring the wetlands and building 3300 houses to no restoration and 1235 houses. The Amended EIR had Koll getting water from only two sources. Koll is trying to get water from a third source that wasn't even considered in the original EIR. These are substantial changes and a new EIR should be prepared. In closing may I quote a Supervisor from San Luis Obispo's hearing when he described the developer and the people who were for the Hearst project.. He said and I quote "There is an expression used to describe someone who understands only money, and little else, someone whose sole focus is short term economic gain, misguided progress and poorly planned growth. This is a person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing., -X� a�4 In my opinion that is the Koll Company. Please he p save the Bolsa Chica Mesa from development. Thank you for allowing me to speak. From: Eileen Murphy To: Connie Brockway Date:1/19/98 Tim •11:25:17 ! J / G� C�-' Page 1 of 2 r-aa-7 0 /- CGIi%ir' RECEIVED /—AZ&- ,1�� lC CITY CLERK v 4 ,st.r i Ty DF NUNTiNGTI+ City Council Ja 20 3 32 2000 N. Main H.B. CA 92648 Jan 19,1998 Dear Mayor Detloff and Council Members-, I am writing regarding item F-1 Bolsa Chica Update The Bolsa Chica Land Trust's water committee is concerned with the update for many reasons. Page 1- item 1 1. The city should ask for a new EIR because there are substantial changes in the project since the original EIR was adopted. A. The EIR was for a restoration/development project. The project is no longer a restoration project. It is solely to develop 1235 homes on 214 acres. An entirely new project. B. The water sources for the original project were two. From the Bolsa Chica itself OR from the City of H.B. Since the source they now want to get the water from is neither of these there should be a new EIR. Piecemealing the EIR which KREG and the County are trying to do is prohibited by CEQA Page 2.#4 Is the city planning on changing the Municipal Code? The staff report says" an amendment is being drafted" If the Municipal Code Amendment is adopted it is still up to the Council to grant a water-pipeline franchise to the project." The staff report says "If the franchise is not granted the water Companies can condemn the right-of-way through city streets to provide the water." "City Council consent is required before eminent domain action can be filed." Is this legal? page 3.# (1 st paragraph) "The current proposal by KREG would not require approval by LAFCO" We would like to see the guidelines and authority the staff is quoting to come up with this statement. Has LAFCO sent a written document supporting this? We'd like a copy. How do the City's of Westminster, Seal Beach, Garden Grove and Cypress feel about their streets being torn up? Could we have a united stand against this? Page 5 Options Coastal Development Permit "The city can prepare it's own EIR if the County did not consult with the city during the preparation of the supplemental EIR." We wart to know what are the duties of Bob Fisher who is representing the City with KREG and the County? He had one meeting a month ago with them. Is that going to satisfy the requirement the city is being consulted on the EIR? If so what are his instructions? We are not satisfied with the buffers, the archeological desecration, the two wetlands being overlooked, the earthquake fault being called dormant and inactive. The ESHA being destroyed. Page 6 Annexation i From:Eileen Murphy To: Connie Brockway Date:1/19/98 Time:11:26:28 Page 2 of 2 Annexation can't occur unless KREG agrees.. The staff seems to be recommending a pre- annexation agreement. Neither KREG nor the County want pre-annexation. The start-up fees etc. all go to the County which has less stringent and less costly requirements and if annexation occurs after the fact the project would have to be brought up to city code at whose expense? The City does not need the Bolsa Chica Mesa developed. There is nothing for the city to gain from this project except debt and loss of quality of life for the community. Why weren't the recommendations of the outside law firm accepted and the project sent back to the pipeline folks and the two private water companies and told to get the permits from PUC and CEQA and LAFCO and then come talk to the staff.? Instead there is this constant pressure on the staff to hurry up and give them water. Respectfully submitted, Bob Winchell-Eileen Murphy(co-chairs) 2 r y CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Community Development Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Ray Silver, Acting City Administrator FROM: Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director DATE: January 20, 1998 SUBJECT: Additional Late Communication for F-1 Legal Opinions on Bolsa Chica Attached for your information are two additional legal opinions which I have received from the City Attorney's office on the Bolsa Chica water line pertaining to: 1. California Public Utilities Commission jurisdiction 2. Franchise Agreements (198msf7) I �r A, � T tokx � "N 'Al CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development Les Jones, Director of Public Works Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer Jeff Renna, Water Operations Manager Ron Van Blarcom, Special Counsel FROM: Scott Field Deputy City Attorney DATE: January 16, 1998 SUBJECT: Bolsa Chica water line - California Public Utilities Commission jurisdiction In response to our inquiry letter to the California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC),Norm Carter of the Public Advisor Division of the CPUC contacted me on January 14, 1998. Carter works out of the Los Angeles office of the CPUC (located at 107 South Broadway,Room 5109, Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 897-8250). He explained to me that Dan Paige of the Water Division of the same office (213 897-4166) has already begun discussions of the matter of the pipeline with Southern California Water. Southern California Water indicated that the pipeline is still at the "discussion" stage and no contracts have been executed. Paige is in the process of scheduling a meeting with Southern California Water which will probably occur some time in January 1998. At this point it is not clear that the CPUC will be asserting that a certificate of convenience and necessity is required in order for Southern California Water to enter into this service. However, CPUC does have a number of questions and concerns regarding the proposal. For example, since the 18-inch water meter will be located within Southern California Water's existing service area,,there may not be a basis to content that they need a certificate to extend their service area. On the other hand, their existing rate schedule only goes up to a six-inch meter. Since they have no rate for an 18-inch meter, CPUC approval is required for any 18-inch meter rate. Further,the Water Division is interested in the impact Southern California Water's proposal would have on their existing rate payers. Carter indicated that once Paige's meeting is conducted, he will be contacting me to keep me notified of the status of the proposal and inform the City of the procedures available if the City wishes to file against Southern California Water's potential agreement with the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company. SF-98Memos:Water115 1/16/98-#1 HB CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION I TO: ROBERT EICHBLATT,CITY ENGINEER FROM: GAIL HUTTON,CITY ATTORNEY DATE: JANUARY 20, 1998 SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA WATER MAIN INDEX: MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION AND REORGANIZATION;ANNEXATION AND DETACHMENT;INTERNAL ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS; DEPARTMENT POWERS AND DUTIES;PROPRIETOR ACTIVITIES; WATER,PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS;PROPERTY; STREETS AND EASEMENTS;POWER;LAND USE;ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; CEQA. Koll Real Estate Group has submitted plans to the Engineering Department for plan check of a domestic water transmission pipeline that would run along Bolsa Chica Street from Cypress to Koll's Bolsa Chica Development. Koll has indicated they are desirous of obtaining a franchise agreement from the City for such a water pipeline. QUESTION: May the City refuse to approve a franchise agreement for the Bolsa Chica water main; if so,what would be the consequences? ANSWER: . 1. The City may deny Koll's request to obtain a franchise to build a pipeline. 2. If the City denies Koll's request,Koll,through the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water District,may use the power of eminent domain to condemn the property necessary for the proposed pipeline. However, any such condemnation requires the consent of the City Council. Further,the City's denial of a pipeline franchise, and even the subsequent denial of condemnation authority,would not constitute a regulatory taking of Koll's Bolsa Chica Development. gAfie1d\98memo\bcwater.doc DISCUSSION: A full discussion of these issues is contained in the attached memorandum from Ronald Van Blarcom of McNamara,Van Blarcom,McClendon&Leibold, special counsel to the City. Gail Hutton City Attorney GH/pb Attachment: Memorandum from Ronald VanBlarcom of McNamara, VanBlarcom, McClendon&Leibold � II gAf'ieldU8memo\bcwater.doc ATTACHMENT 2 MCNAMARA,VAN BLARCOM, MCCLENDON & LEIBOLD A PR0F=10.s;AL CORPORATION THE Rory MAmtosv 307 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE EEMI RTBFAcrt ORANGE,CALMORNIA 92966 (714)553.8700 (714)639-67Q0 PJ%IWIu r Ro.'VALD A.VAN BLARCOHt TELECOPMR: (714)639 7212 (909)686-6700 MEMORANDUM CONFIDENTIAL CONEMEMCA17ION PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY c a' THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVIUGE �` . r TO: Scott F.Field,Deputy City Attorney �=- City of Huntington Beach �• � -- �,•^T C3 FROM: McNamara, Van Blarcom,McClendon&Le1'bold,P.C. By: Ronald A. Van Blarcom co DATE: January 16, 1998 RE: Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company Franchise.Request/Use of Eminent Domain Background: This memorandum addresses several interrelated questions relating to the proposal of the Koll Real Estate Group ("KREG") to supply water to the Balsa Chica. Development through the Balsa Chica Mutual Water Company(the`Mutual"). ICRBG's latest proposal is descn'bed in some detail in the November 1997"Draft Initial Study far the Bolsa Chica Planned Community Domestic Water Transmission Pipeline" which the City received on November 26, 1997. According to the Initial Study, the Mutual will serve water to approximately 1,235 customers within its 235-acre service area. The water will be provided by Southern California Water Company through a connection in the City of Cypress. Southern California Water Company receives its water from two sources: imported water(from the Colorado River and State Water Project) is provided by the Metropolitan Water District via the Municipal Water District of Orange County ("MWDOC") and local groundwater (from the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin) is pumped from wells to the extent permitted by the rules and regulations of the Orange County Water District("OCWD"). To tap into Southem California Water Company's supply, the Mutual intends to construct a Domestic Water Transmission Pipeline (the "Pipeline") in Balsa Chica Street that runs from the Balsa Chica Development to a connection point in the City of Cypress, a distance i�l—�r•-4R fr.l:�.IiAlA F'il;: of almost seven miles. To use Bolsa Chica Street,the Mutual will need to obtain franchise agreements with three different cities,including the City of Huntington Beach. Over the last two months,you and I have had several conversations about the legal issues raised by KREG's latest proposal. I have attempted to memorialize my suggestions and ` opinions here to facilitate further discussion with you and other City staff members. Questions Presented (Short Answers): 1. Is the City prevented from denying the Mutual's request.for a pipeline franchise because the Bolsa Chica Development landowners hold overlying water rights to obtain groundwater through the Orange County Water District? (No, the landowner's water rights do not entitle them to build any specific water system) 2. If the City denies the Mutual's request for a pipeline franchise, can the Mutual use the power of eminent domain to condemn property necessary for its proposed pipeline? (Yes,but only if it first obtains the City Council's consent.) 3. Would the City's denial of a pipeline franchise constitute a"regulatory taking" of the Bolsa Chica Development landowners' property requiring the payment of just compensation to the landowners? (No, the City's action would not withhold available water from the Development. Moreover, the landowners have no f property interest in water not yet received.) Discussion: Water Rights: Because the Bolsa Chica Development is completely within the Orange County Water District COCWV)service territory, and because it overlies the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin (the "Basin"), the Bolsa Chica Development landowners have the right to use local groundwater supplies to serve the Development. This right is limited by the reasonable use doctrine and the correlative rights doctrine which work together to. ensure that no single holder of groundwater rights uses more than his or her reasonable share of the available supplies, and that in times of shortages all right holders share the available supply. In practice, these doctrines are"applied" to all water users in the Basin through the rules and regulations enforced by OCWD. Informal discussions with OCWD's legal counsel confirm that OCWD believes that the Bolsa Chica Development landowners have the right to use Basin water (subject to the rules and regulations of OCWD). However, the right to use Basin water does not include any"water system" rights. It simply means that Basin water will be made available to the Bolsa Chica Development landowners whenever a water system is in place to deliver the water to the Development, Construction and operation of the water system used to perfect the landowners' water rights will be subject to issuance of necessary governmental 2 il-ld-yL; ii:L:iA1.1 pii? -- permits and approvals, including issuance of a water supply permit by the Department of Health Services and CEQA compliance.' The landowners' right to water does not include the right to construct a particular water system and does not entitle them to a franchise to use City streets. If the City denies the requested Bolsa Chic& Street franchise, the water right holders could request a franchise to use a different street, construct their own on-site water system, or acquire necessary easements or property for a water delivery system by some other means.2 OCWD's rules and regulations would apply no matter whether the landowners developed their own water system or whether they sought to be served by existing`)pumpers" in the Basin (i.e., the City or Southern California Water Company). In any case, the additional water use allocated to the new Development would be measured by OCWD and calculated into OCWD's percentage allocation of available supplies. Eminent Domain: The Mutual has proposed that a portion of its Pipeline will be constructed in City streets. It has assumed that the City will grant a franchise to the Mutual for this use of City streets. But,the City may deny the franchise. If the City denies the franchise, the Mutual may exercise the power of eminent domain in accordance with Public Utility Code section 2729 and acquire the right to lay its pipeline in City streets via condemnation. However, the power of eminent domain granted by section 2729 is subject to the consent of the City under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1245.310 through 1245.3 90, Specifically, section 1245,330 states that "a quasi-public entity [the Mutual] may not commence an eminent domain proceeding to acquire any property until the legislative body [the City Council] has adopted a resolution consenting to the acquisition of such property by eminent domain." ' The environmental impacts of using the City's system to supply the Development have already been studied in the previous EIR for the residential project. However, that analysis may need to be updated. The environmental impacts of using Southern California Water Company's water together with a private system to be constructed by the Mutual (as is currently being proposed) have not been fully addressed. Likewise, if the Mutual decided to develop on-site wells, certain environmental questions would need to be addressed, including the potential impact on the quality and quantity of water pumped from existing wells in the area 2 It is my understanding that the Bolsa Chica Development landowners have already investigated the feasibility of drilling on-she wells to serve the project and found that the treatment costs to develop their own well water would be too high. Because of the location of the Development, it appears that the use of any off-site water delivery system would require a franchise to cross or use City streets. 3 ii I-I F.--a:; (i4: OAIt P A 4 If the City Council desires to consent to the use of eminent domain powers by the Mutual, specific findings are required to be made. Before it can consent to the use of eminent domain powers the Council must adopt a resolution and find that"the public interest and necessity require the proposed project" and that "the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest good and least private injury." (See, section 1245.340(c).) A consenting resolution must be adopted by a vote of two-thirds of all of the members of the Council (section 1245.360) after the Council holds a properly noticed public hearing, (Section 1245.350.) However, the Council may refuse to consent to the acquisition with r mdJh a hearing. The decision of the Council on such matters is final and not subject to appeal. Regulatory Takings: When a governmental regulation denies a landowner of all economically viable use of his or her land, a regulatory taking may occur requiring the payment of just compensation to the landowner. One court has suggested that withholding available water from land zoned for residential use "might be determined to constitute an interference with all economically viable use of land." (Lockwy v Kayfetz (1990)908 Fed.Rptr. 543, 547.) In the Lockwy case, the court considered the imposition of an actual water hook up moratorium. The court emphasized that an important part of any takings analysis is to consider whether the regulation caus the loss of economic viability. If the loss is caused by something other than the government regulation, it does not constitute a taldng" (Lockwy v. Kayfe&(1990)908 Fed.Rptr. 543, 547.) In this case, the City's decision to deny a pipeline franchise is not a decision to withhold available water because the landowners have several other options. For example, they may pursue a different pipeline route, develop a water system on-site, or petition LAFCO to annex the property into the City for water service. Moreover, under California law, potential water users have no property interest in water not received. (See, Hollister Park Invesdnent Ca v Goleta County Water District (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 290, 294, 147 Ca1.Rptr. 91, 93.) i 4 TOTAL P.05 i PPr. s Bolsa Chica Update Bolsa Chica Update 1 Water Pipeline 2 Environmental Processing Development Status 3 Role of Local Agency Formation 4 Status of Service Agreements -1- -2- I -MOOi w Water Pipeline Pipeline Construction Issues • July 97: Southern Calif Water Co.submitted plans for 18"pipe in Bolsa Chica St.to deliver water • Environmental Assessment • Pipeline runs south from Cypress(the boundary of SCWC service area)thru the cities of Westminster, • California Public Utilities Commission Seal Beach.,Garden Grove.Huntington Beach and Orange County• KREG formed a private water co-- • Department of Health Services approval Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Co. to deliver water to the development • Franchise Agreement with City and will own the pipeline -3- 4- 4 Environmental Assessment California Public Utilities Commission Approval • PUC approval is required when private water Since pipeline is greater than one mile in length companies extend their service outside their service through the City,Environmental Assessment area. must be completed&appropriate • It is not yet clear whether KREG will need PUC environmental processing completed. approval because they will own the pipeline up to the SCWC service area. PUC has a number of questions. An application for an Environmental Assessment • The sale of water would occur within SCWC service area-SCWC is not extending their service area has not been submitted to City. area City has formally requested the CPUC to comment on this matter. -5- -6- Dept of Health Services City Franchise Approval • A water pipeline to Bolsa Chica will require KREG must obtain the approval of the DHS for approval of a City Franchise. it's mutual water system • Municipal Code does not contemplate issuing water pipeline franchises • Proposed code amendment being drafted to address such franchises • City Council will have discretion whether to grant such a franchise. -7- _g_ Environmental Processing Environmental Process • Two separate environmental documents are 2. Water pipeline to serve Bolsa Chica being prepared: • County Staff has indicated that they will 1. KREG's Master Coastal Development prepare a mitigated negative declaration for Permit (MCDP)--for Bolsa Chica on-site the pipeline preconstruction activity City staff believes that the appropriate • County Staff has indicated that they will environmental process for the MCDP and the prepare an addendum to the Bolsa Chica water pipeline is a supplemental EIR for three EIR for the MCDP reasons: I -9- -10- Reasons for Supplemental Water Pipeline EIR City Environmental Process 1. Original EIR did not contemplate that KREG would obtain water from a water • County will be lead agency for all cities for pipeline from a water agency outside of Bolsa CEQA purposes Chica or the City. • Because the pipeline is located in our coastal 2. A supplemental EIR will provide for zone, it will require a Coastal Development public comment. permit&appropriate environmental review. 3. CEQA states that environmental processes should be comprehensive -I1- -12- f Water Pipeline Water Pipeline City City Environmental Process (cont.) Environmental Process (cont.) • Prior to any action on the CDP,the Planning If these environmental documents are Commission will have to decide on the appropriate insufficient for our CDP,the City may: level of environmental analysis • Under CEQA,the City will be the responsible 1. Take matter to court agency and will rely on the environmental or documents the County prepares. 2. Prepare its own environmental documents -13- -14- Local Agency Formation Local Agency Formation Commission Commission (cont.) LAFCO oversees: LAFCO may have purview of several issues as they pertain to Bolsa Chica: 1. The jurisdictional boundary process for local grants 1. Library&Fire Service Agreements 2. The formation of new jurisdictions 2. Possible annexation into the City 3. Approves a city's ability to provide services 3. Annexation or pre-annexation agreement outside its existing boundary -15- -16- w Status Library Service Status Library Service Agreement Agreement (cont.) • No change in this agreement since March 1997 November 1996--City Council adopted a new City Council meeting Library Development Fee which assesses an • January 1996--County Board of Supervisors additional$0.25 fee on residential development. approved agreement between Co. &City which KREG has tentatively agreed to pay this provides City$100/unit additional fee pending resolutions of all issues • Summer 1996--agreement reached requiring KREG to pay City$200/unit for library capital costs. -17- -la- r Status Fire Service Status Fire Service Agreement Agreement (cont.) • City proposes to provide fire,rescue,emergency • KREG will pay one-time capital funds to City paramedic&ambulance transportation to Bolsa Chica, in exchange for funding provided through • OCFA will pay a one-time capital contribution the following tentative agreements: to City(approximately$1,250,000) • OCFA will pay City 80%of the Fire Fund Property Tax for Bolsa Chica area (est. @$600,000 to$700,000/year) -19- -20- A � ®� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication ( , Community Development Department RECEIVED FROM �i AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT T 1 b COUNCIL MEETING OF OFFICE OF THE C17Y CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Ray Silver,Acting City Administrator FROM: Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director%7. . D:-*N.TE: January 20, 1998 SUBJECT: LATE COMMUIVICATIONONF--1 The RCA on the Bolsa Chica Report does not contain all internal documents on the discussion of a possible Bolsa Chica waterline. With this late communication, I am forwarding to you all relevant documentation(to the best of my knowledge) on this subject. Attachments: 1. Request for Legal Services, dated September 2, 1997 2. Memo from Howard Johnson to Jeff Renna, dated October 9, 1997,regarding the State Department of Health Services 3. Letter to Scott Field from the legal firm of McNamara, Val Blarcom, McClendon and Leibold, dated October 13, 1997, reviewing the legal issues of the Southern California Water_Company pipeline project 4. Letter from Robert E. Eichblatt to Jon Austin of IWA Engineering, dated October 15, 1997,regarding necessary tasks before any permit can be issued 5. Memo from Robert Eichblatt to the City Administrator, dated October 16, with a status report and a timeline for the project 6. Memo from Jeff Renna to Robert Eichblatt, dated October 22, 1997, discussing a meeting with Jon Austin regarding an emergency connection 7. Letter from Julie Sakaguchi to Koll, dated October 22,transmitting CDP and CEQA applications I # r 8. Letter from Jon Austin of IWA to Robert Eichblatt, dated November 3, 1997, responding to his letter of October 15, 1997 9. Letter from Hatch and Parent to Robert Eichblatt, dated November 3, 1997, responding to his letter of October 15, 1997 to Jon Austin 10. Letter from Melanie Fallon to Tom Mathews of the County of Orange, dated November 5, 1997, requesting the ability to have input into the Master Coastal Development.Permit.. 11. Memo from Jeff Renna to Robert Eichblatt, dated November 25, 1997, transmitting procedures for obtaining a Water Supply Permit from the State Department of Health Services 12. Legal Opinion from the City Attorney,dated November 25, 1997 13. Administrative Draft of the Initial Study for the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water District pipeline in Bolsa Chica Street 14. Articles of Incorporation for the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water District, dated August 15, 1996 15. Memo from the City Attorney, dated December 22, 1997, which transmits a memo from Ron Von Blarcom of McNamara,Van Blarcom, McClendon& Leibold which responds to the PUC issues raised by the letter to Bob Eichblatt from Hatch and Parent. 16. Letter dated December 31, 1997, from Robert Eichblatt to Donna Silvestre of the Los Angeles office of the PUC requesting a formal response with regard to the PUC's jurisdiction proposal. 17. Copy of a list of possible issues relating to the proposed "Mesa Connector" and its intersection with Warner Avenue. 18. Legal Opinion form the City Attorney, dated July 17, 1997 regarding LAFCO approval for Water Services Agreement (198msf6) I� ATTACHMENT 1 s CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RLS No. '77_�,6 REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Assn To: Gail Hutton, City Attorney Date Date: Request made by: Telephone: Department: 7/28197 ROBERT E. EICHBLATT 5431 PUBLIC WORKS INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Attorney's Office. Outline reasons for this request and stz facts necessary for City Attorney to respond. Please attach all pertinent information and exhibits. TYPE OF LEGAL SERVICES REQUESTED: ❑ Ordinance ® Opinion ❑ Stop Notice ❑ Resolution ❑ Lease ❑ Bond ❑ Meeting ❑ Contract/Agreement [l Deed ❑ Court Appearance ❑ Insurance ❑ Other: Is Request for Preparation of Contract form attached? ❑ Yes ® No Are exhibits attached? ❑ Yes ® No Unless otherwise specified herein, I If not for Council action, consent to the disclosure of the If for City Council action, desired completion date: informa ' tained in this RLS to all m mb oft City Council. Agenda Deadlines Council Meeting 9/2/97 Signatu a of epartment Heac COMMENTS: Routin SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER INTENDS TO INSTALL AN 18"WATER MAIN IN BOLSA CHICA ROAD, GCH BETWEEN EDINGER AND LOS PATOS IN ORDER TO SUPPLY WATER TO-THE KOLL BOLSA CHICA PDA'. DEVELOPMENT. THE LENGTH OF THIS WATER MAIN IS APPROXIMATELY 6700 F—ET LONG. JCB PLEASE PREPARE A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT FOR THIS PURPOSE. _._ JM.. 97-623 This Request:for Legal:Services has'bee*nassigned to�attotney:;.*: . 9� g extension°5662 =r .,h.::`` f`'-`Flis�her-5ecretar is :°: : A ::Sar Sane ':" veztension :5558 97 .. :. .. Notes: v :. . `<.... :o:. µeted* : ;.:.. File,Narrle• :<: Datt::C rnpl n F. . .... .. . .:.. : Shaded areas for City Attorney's Office use only.. I 00-,5903.01 07/28/97 9:1 A-TTACHMENT. ,2 s J' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To gJ ey R r . Renna, Water Operations Manager From ward Johnson, Water Production Supervisor Date October 9, 1997 Subject BOLSA CHICA MUTUAL WATER COMPANY We have talked to Nabil Saba of the State Department of Health Services (DOHS) regarding the status of the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company. To this date, there is no application on file with DOHS from Bolsa Chica Mutual to become a water supplier. In order to supply water to an area, an entity must submit to the DOHS an application for a water supply permit. The permit calls for.the submission of a technical report that includes detailed plans and specifications, water quality information, and physical descriptions of the existing or proposed system, and financial assurance information. This has not been done. IWA Engineers in the City of Orange has submitted a proposal to DOHS for a water line and a Reservoir to be built in the wetlands area, but this is not a permit, only a feasibility study. For your information I have attached the Health and Safety Code definition of a community water system and an application for a water supply'perinit. I had also requested that our Sr. Department Analyst, Ken Dills, research County and Federal records in Santa Ana to see if Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company was a registered business.. Ken's research revealed no business registered as Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company. His search also included any water company listed under the Koll Company,'fictitious o�'otherwise, but no such company is registered. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please let me know. HDJ:WM:jm bcmwc.hdy10/8/97 C Title 22 Environmental Health $64400.50 (5)A listing of small water systems proposed for enforcement action 2.New section refiled 1-3-95 as an emergency:operative 1-3-95(Register 95. and the priorities to be used in determining these systems. No.1).A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL by 5-3-95 or NOTE:Authority cited:Sections 4010.7 and 4023.3(h).Health and Safety Code. emergency language will be repealed by operation of law o?the follow ing day. Reference:Sections 4010.7 and 402?.?(h).Health and Safety Code. ?•New•sectionrefiled4-_6 95asanemergency:operative4-_6-95(Register95• HISTORY No.171.A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL by 8-24-95 or emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the follow•ins 1-New section filed 4-2-93 as an emergency:operative 4-2-93(Register911.No. day. 14).A Certificate ofCompliance must be transmitted to OAL 8-2-93 or emer- q•Certificate of Compliance as to 4-2695 order transmitted to OAL 5-5-95 and geney language will be repealed by operation of law on the following day. filed 6-19-95(Resister 95.No.25). 2.Certificate of Compliance as to 4-2-93 order transmitted to OAL 729-93 and filed 9-"-',(Register 9?.No.37). §64400.30. Compliance Period. "Compliance period"means a three-year calendar year period with in Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and a compliance cycle.Within the first compliance cycle. the first com- pliance period runs from January 1.1993 to December 31.1995;the sec- Monitoring Regulations- ond front January 1.1996 to December 31.1998:the third front January 1. 1999 to December 31.2001. NOTE:Authority cited:Sections 208.4023.3 and 4028.Health and Safety Code. Article 1. Definitions Reference:Sections 4010 through 4039.6.Health and Safety Code. HISTORY §64400. Acute Risk. 1.New section filed 9-8-94 as an emergency:operative 9-8-94(Register 94.No. "Acute Risk"means the potential for a contaminant to cause acute 36).A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL by 1-6-95 or Po emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following day. health effects.i.e..death.damage or illness,as a result of a single period 2.New section refiled 1-3-95 as an emergency:operative 1-3-95(Register 95. of exposure of a duration measured in seconds,minutes.hours,or days. No.1).A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL by 5-3-95 or NOTE Authority cited:Sections 208.402?:?and 4028_Health and Safety Code. emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following day. Reference:Sections 4010 through 4039.6.Health and Safety Code. ..New section refiled 4-26-95 as an emergency,operative 4 26-95(Register95. HISTORY No.17).A Certificate of Compliance mustbe transmitted to OAL by 8-24-95 or emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following 1.Repeater and new article 1 and new section filed 9-8-94 as an emergency,op- day. erative 9-8-94(Register 94.No.36). A Certificate of Compliance must be q Certificate of Compliance as to 426-95 order transmitted to OAL 5-5-45 and transmitted to OAL by 1-6-95 or emergency language will be repealed by op- filed 6cate of (Register e a t o.25). oration of law on the following day. 2.Repealer and new article 1 and new section refiled 1-3-95 as an emergency: §64400.40. Confluent Growth. operative 1-3-95(Register 95.No. 1).A Certificate of Compliance must be "Confluent growth"means a continuous bacterial growth covering the transmitted to OAL by 5-3-95 or emergency language will be repealed by op- eration of law on the following day. entire filtration area of a membrane filter,or a portion thereof.in which 3.Repealer and new article I and new section refiled 4-26-95 as an emergency; bacterial coldnies are not discrete. operative s-26-95(Register 95,No.17).A Certificate of Compliance must be NOTE Authority cited:Sections 208,402233 and 4028.Health and Safety Code. transmitted to OAL by 8--24-95 or emergency language will be repealed byop- Reference:Sections 4010 through 4039.6,Health and Safety Code. erasion of law on the following day. HISTORY 4.Certificate of Compliance as to 4 36-95 order including amendment ofchapter 1.New section filed 9-8-94 as an emergency;operative 9-8-94(Register 94,No. 15 heading transmuted to OAL 5-5-95 and filed 6-19-95(Register 95,No. 36).A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL by 1-6-95 or 25)• emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following day. 2.New section refiled 1-3-95 as an emergency;operative 1-3-95(Register 95. §64400.10. Community Water System. No.1).A Certificate of Compliancemust be transmitted to OAL by 5-3--95 or "Community water system" meats a public water system which emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following day. serves at least 15 service connections used by yearlong residents or regu- 3.New section refiled 4 26-95 as an emergency,operative 4-26-�95(Register 95. larly serves at least 25 yearlong residents. No.17).A Certificate of Compliance mustbe transmitted to OAL by 8-24 95 or emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following NOTE Authority cited:Sections 208.40233 and 4028,Health and Safety Code. day. Reference:Sections 4010 through 4039.6.Health and Safety Code. 4.Certificate of Compliance as to 4-26-95 order transmitted to OAL 5-5-95 and HISTORY filed 6-19-95(Register 95,No.25). 1.New section filed 9-8-94 as an emergency;operative 9-8-94(Register 94,No. 36).A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL by 1-6-95 or §64400.45. Detection Limit for Purposes of Reporting emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following day. (D L R). 2.New section refiled 1-3-95 as an emergency;operative 1-3-95(Register 95. "Detection limit for purposes of reporting(DLR)"means the desig- No.1).A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL by 5-3-95 or emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following day. hated minimum level at or above which any analytical finding of a con- 3.New section refiled 4-26-95 as an emergency;operative 4-2695(Register95. taminant in drinking water resulting from monitoring required under this No.17).A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL by 8-2495 chapter shall be reported to the Department. Of emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following NOTE Authority cited Sections 208.40233 and 4028.Health and Safety Code. day. 4.Certificate of Compliance as to 4-26-95 order transmitted to OAL 59-55 and Reference:Sections 4010 through 4� Health and Safety Code. srotty filed 6-19-95(Register 95.No.25). 1.New section filed 948-94 as an emergency;operative 9-&-94(Register94,No. .W.A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL by 1-•6-95 or §64400.20. Compliance Cycle. emergencylanguagewillberepealedbyoperationoflawonthefollowingday. "Compliance cycle"means the nine-year calendar year cycle during 2.New section refiled 1-395 as an emergency;operative 1-3-95(Register 95. which public water systems shall monitor.Each compliance cycle con- No.1).A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL by 5-395 or sists of three three-year compliance periods.The first calendar year cycle emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following day. began January1. 1993andendsDecember31,2001;thesecondbegins 3 �tetv section refiled4-26-95asanemergency.operative 4-2t-95 OALbyB-24-95 No.17).A Certificate of Compliance must be tratismitud to OAL by 8-_ January L 2002 and ends December 31,2010;the third begins January or emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following L 2011 and ends December 31.2019. day. - NOTE Authority cited:Sections 208.40233 and 4028.Health and Safety Code. 4•Certificate of Compliance as to 4-26-95 order transmitted to OAL 5-5-95 and Reference:Sections 4010 through 4039.6.Health and Safety Code. tiled 6-19-95(Register 95.No.25). HISTORY §64400.50. Initial Compliance Period. 1.Newsection filed 9-8-94asan emergency:operative 9-8-94(Register94.No. compliance eriod"means the firstfull dtree-yearcompl4ince 36).A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL by 1-6-95 or p p emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following day. `period wh ich began January 1.1993.for existing systems.For new Sys- Pave 61a ReKuw•rQb,\p.is:v._II'k17 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER Application from: ' (Name of Utility) Applicant: (Enter the name of legalowner, persons or-organization Address: (Address of legalowner, persons or organization To: Department of Health Services Office of Drinking Water Santa Ana District Office _ 28 Civic Center Plaza, Room 325 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Pursuant and subject' to the requirements of Division 5, Part 1, Chapter 7, California* Safe Drinking Water Act of the California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) , relating to domestic water supplies, c application is hereby made for a permit to (Applicant must state specifically what is being applied for - whether to operate a water system, to construct new works, to use existing works, to ma e alterations or additions in works or sources. Note Section 4012. CH SC. regarding information to be submitted with application. Additional sheets may be attached.) Dated , 19_ I (We) declare under penalty of perjury that -the 'statements on this application and on the accompanying attachments are correct to my (our) knowledge and that I (we) are acting under authority and direction of the responsible legal entity under whose name this application is made. Affix By: Title: Official Seal Address: I Here Telephone: g ATTACHMENT 3 '� MCNAMARA, VAN BLARCOM,MCCLENDON & LEIBOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THE ROYER MANsioN NEWPORT BEACH _ 307 E. CHAP`LkN AVENUE (714)553-8700 O F i ! Ll ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714) 639-6700 RIVERSIDE (909)686-6700 RO\ALD A.VA,\BLARCO,II TELECOPIER: (714) 639-7212 October 13, 1997 Scott F. Field,Esq. Deputy City Attorney City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Legal Issues Pertaining to Southern California Water Company Pipeline Project Dear Scott, Southern California Water Company (the "Water Company') has recently submitted plans to the City of Huntington Beach for construction of a new pipeline. The Water Company proposes to construct this new water pipeline in City streets. The pipeline will be used by the Water Company to either (1) directly serve water to the Koll development in the Bolsa Chica area, or (2) to serve water wholesale to a new "mutual water company" that will be formed by Koll for that area. The Koll development is located outside of the City boundary. You have asked that I respond to several preliminary legal questions relating to the City's processing of the Water Company's plans. First, you have asked whether compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CCEQA") is required prior to, or concurrent with, the processing the Water Company's pipeline plans. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.21, pipeline construction jobs of one mile or less are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. However, I understand that this pipeline will exceed one mile in length. Consequently, the exemption.does not apply, and the City should prepare an Initial Environmental Assessment and determine whether an Environmental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration will be required before the pipeline construction project can be considered. Next, you have asked whether the City should wait to process the pipeline plans until after the Water Company obtains approval from the California Public Utilities Commission to serve the Koll development or the mutual water company. I have researched this issue and determined that the City should not process the plans until Commission approval is first obtained. The Commission exercises authority over the construction and operation of all Water Company facilities, including extensions of service. (California Water & Tel. Co. v Public Util. Comm'n (1959)51 Cal.2d 478, 501-502.) Moreover,before the Water Company may commence service to territory which includes the Koll development, it must first obtain issuance of a r Scott F.Field,Esq. October 13, 1997 Page 2 certificate of convenience and necessity from the Commission. (Public Utility Code section 1001.) Finally, you have asked whether the City should wait to process the pipeline plans until after the Water Company negotiates a franchise agreement or similar agreement with the City. Because the Water Company does not currently provide water within the City boundaries, and has no existing legal right to use City streets for service to new areas, it will have to negotiate with the City for the right construct and operate the requested pipeline in the City streets. In my view, such negotiations should be held concurrent with the CEQA processing. Any final agreement between the City and the Water Company should be included as mitigation for the pipeline construction project. In view of the forgoing, I recommend that the City return the plans to the Water Company under cover of a letter explaining that the plans will not be processed until the Water Company obtains the necessary approvals from the California Public Utilities Commission The letter should also indicate that CEQA compliance will be required when the plans are resubmitted and that a"franchise"agreement will need to be negotiated with the City. If you have further questions, or desire further legal analysis of these or other issues, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, McNamara,Van Blarcom, McClendon&Leibold,P.C. By: Ronald A.Van Blarcom ATTACHMENT 4 a G Al CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2 0 0 0 Main Street P . O . Box 1 90 California 9 2 6 .4 8 Les M. Jones 11 Public Works Department Director (714) 536-5431 October 15, 1997 IWA Engineers Inc. Attn: Jon Austin,Project Manager 600 The City Parkway West, Suite 300 Orange, CA 92686 Re: Second Check Comments on Proposed 18"Water Line in Bolsa Chica Dear Mr. Austin: Thank you for submitting your preliminary plans for the construction of a private 18" domestic water line in Bolsa Chica Street of plan check. Staffs technical comments with regard to the proposed water line can be found within the attached plan check prints. These plan check prints will need to be returned with six sets of corrected prints to continue processing your project. However, during the course of plan checking your project,several items have been identified that require your action and response prior to the City continuing with plan check to determine if a permit can or will be issued to construct your facility within City right-of-way. These items are as follows: 1. It is our understanding that Southern California Water is proposing to construct a new water pipeline in City streets in order to either(1)directly serve water to the Koll development in the Bolsa Chica area,or(2)to serve water wholesale to a new"mutual water cornpany"that will be formed by Koll for that area. Please provide us with a more detailed description of the purpose of this pipeline and who the water purveyor(s)will be. 2. Assuming that either Southern California Water Company will directly serve water to the Koll development or will wholesale the water to a mutual water company,it is our understanding that legally,no service can be offered until the California Public Utilities Commission("CPUC')has issued a certificate of convenience and necessity pursuant to Public Utility Code Section 1001. Consequently,until you have provided such a certificate,it is premature for the City to continue processing plans for a project that requires the discretionary approval of the CPUC. 1 SF-97Lhs:IWA.1010 /� 10/15/97-#3 • r r 3. Once you have obtained CPUC approval,prior to or concurrent with resubmitting your plans,you must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"). Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.21,pipeline construction projects like this one that exceed one mile in length must comply with CEQA. Consequently,the-City must prepare an initial environmental.assessment and determine whether an environmental impact report or negative declaration will be required before the pipeline construction project can be considered. As indicated earlier,please contact Ms. Julie Sakaguchi at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department, (714) 536-5274 for details. 4. The owner and operator of the proposed facility must apply for and obtain the necessary Coastal Development Permit from the City of Huntington Beach for that portion of the project that falls within the Coastal Zone. As indicated earlier,please contact the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department counter at(714) 374-1547 for details. 5. Because Southern California Water does not currently provide water within City boundaries and has no existing legal right to use City streets for service to new areas,it will be required to obtain a franchise in order to have the right to construct and operate the requested pipeline in City streets. Such a approval requires a franchise agreement. The discussion concerning such a franchise agreement should begin concurrent with CEQA processing of the pipeline. At this point,no further processing of the plans is recommended until the above items have been addressed and the necessary approvals obtained. Once the above items have been completed, plan check can resume, including payment of plan check and inspection fees. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the comments in further detail,please call me at(714) 536-5432. Respectfu , e �Y Robert Eichblatt City Engineer Attachments: Plan check prints c: Les cones,Director of Public Works David Webb,Principal Engineer Julie Sakaguchi,Associate Planner Jeff Renna,Water Operations Manager Scott Field,Deputy City Attorney y 2 SF-97Ltrs:rWA-1010 / / 10/15/97-#3 ,' Y - �1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HuNnNGTON BEACH TO: Michael T. Uberuaga City Administrator FROM: Bob Eichblatt City Engineer DATE: October 16, 1997 SUBJECT: Status of Ball Real Estate Group's Proposed Water Pipeline to Serve the Bolsa Chica Area On June 24th, IWA Engineers,the applicant submitted preliminary plans for a proposed 18"water pipeline to be constructed within Bolsa Chica Street to serve the Bolsa Chica area. The plans were submitted to the Public Works Department.for review. Public Works completed an initial/cursory review of the proposed pipeline and returned the plans to the applicant on July 23rd. The applicant submitted revised plans to Public works through the Public Work's"plan check"process on September 9th. After comments were collected from all concerned departments (including Community Development and City Attorney),the plans were returned to the applicant on October 15th with a cover letter(copy attached) detailing the necessary issues and approvals that required clearance prior to resuming plan check. Through the latest plan check review,several outstanding issues have been identified by Public Works,Planning, and the City Attorney's Office which need to be addressed/provided by the applicant in order for review of the plans to proceed any further. These issues include the following. - • Evidence of California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC)authorization to install/operate the water pipeline. • Submittal of a Coastal Development Permit and Environmental Assessment Application to the City of Huntington Beach and review/approval of the applications through the Planning Department. • Development of a Utility Franchise Agreement. Process/approval of a franchise agreement through City Attorney and City Council. r / Koll Water Line Page 2 10/16/97 With submittal and necessary approvals of the above items,processing of the plans may proceed. Upon completion of plan check,compliance with City regulations/provisions, obtaining a franchise agreement, CPUC authorization, and payment of necessary fees,an encroachment permit for construction of the pipeline within public rights of way can be issued. Please also find attached a schedule prepared by staff which should provide a better understanding of the process and associated time-frames necessary to completely process this request. Please note that this schedule outlines the most likely path(that being the project only requires a relatively simple Negative Declaration) and is subject to modification. At this time,IWA has hinted that the County will be the lead agency in processing the environmental assessment. Staff will update the schedule as new information warrants. Should you have any further question or concerns,please feel free to call. cc: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Les Jones, Director of Public Works David Webb,Principal Engineer Daryl Smith, PLL Superintendent Jeff Renna,Water Operation Supervisor Melanie Fallon,Director of Community Development Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director Julie Sakaguchi,Associate Planner Gail Hutton, City Attorney Scott Field,Deputy City Attorney 28242.01 17 Kell Development-Bolsa Chica Water Line Schedule 1997 199e 1999 ID Name Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 1 Construction Document Plan Check 2 City Reviews Conceptual Plans(1st) ® I I 3 Applicant Address Comments 4 City Reviews Plan(2nd) 5 Applicant Address Comments 6 City Reviews Plan(3rd) 7 Applicant Address Comments 8 Submit Original Plan,Pay Public Works Feesllssue Permit 9 Coastal Development PermlUEnvironmental Assessment 10 Submit CDP/EA Applications(to PlannkrguRev.for completeness i i Staff Review of CDP Application 12 Select Consultant to Prepare CEOA Documents I 13 Consultant Prepares Initial Study 14 EAC Meets Is Public Comment Period 16 Staff Responds to Comments/Prepares Staff Report 17 Legal Advertisement of Public Hearing 18 Hearing on CDP/MNO 19 Recognition of Water Provider MIT 20 Apply and Obtain California Public Utilities Commission Approval. 21 Provide CPUC Approval,Other Articles of Incorporation To City � 22 City Franchise Agreement 23 Written Request to City to Enter Into Franchise 24 City Code Amendment to Authorize Water Franchise 25 City Prepares Franchise Agreement I I 26 DiscusslonlAgreement of Terms 27 Prepare RCA for Approval of Franchise Agreement 28 City Council Approves Franchise Agreement - Date:10/16/97 Critical Progress 1 Summary F---1 Noncritical ® Milestone ♦ Rolled Up Assumes EA is Midigated Neg.Dec using a Consultant ATTACH, MENT, 6 / 9 • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: LES JONES,Director of Public Works FROM: JEFF RENNA,Water Operations Manager DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1997 SUBJECT: MEETING WITH IWA ENGINEERING REGARDING EMERGENCY WATER CONNECTION TO FUTURE BOLSA CHICA MUTUAL WATER COMPANY SYSTEM Yesterday,Dave Webb and I met with Mr.Jon Austin of IWA Engineering. Mr.Austin had requested the meeting to discuss the possibility of planning a future emergency connection between the City's water system and the planned Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company system. The main purpose of the connection would be for providing water to one agency from the other on a mutual aid basis in a major emergency or outage. Emergency water connections between water agencies for the purpose of mutual aid are very common in Orange County. It is acknowledged among the agencies that in times of major disaster, such as after a major earthquake,that not all may be able to supply water to meet various needs. If that situation should occur,these emergency connections can be opened where appropriate,but only if both agencies agree to it. With this in mind,it only makes sense to install a mutual aid type emergency connection if each agency involved can receive a benefit from the other. Mr.Austin inquired as to whether the City would consider a such a connection with the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company. Staff responded by saying that he should submit his proposal in writing to the City and include details as to how the City might benefit from having such an interconnection. He stated that he felt the City's major benefit from the connection would be redundant service to the Sunset Heights and Huntington Harbour areas in the event of an emergency. The proposed connection would be to the City's existing 12 inch water main in Los Patos Avenue and would connect to a 12 inch water main on the interior of the Bolsa Chica system. Mr.Austin offered that the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company would propose to build the facility. He also inquired as to whether staff knew if the connection could be included in the future franchise agreement. Staff responded by suggesting that the idea be included in his proposal to the City regarding the emergency connection. Lastly,Mr.Austin inquired if staff knew if an emergency connection would be possible with the facilities of the West Orange County Water Board,as a WOCWB pipeline crossed Bolsa Chica Street at Westminster Avenue. He was informed that staff believed the pipeline he was referring to tivas owned by the City of Seal Beach,but that we would do further research to verify that statement and advise him of the outcome. The meeting concluded with Mr.Austin's reiteration that he would prepare a written proposal to the City for our review and comment. He did not offer how soon he would be submitting it. cc: Bob Eichblatt To: Bob Eichblatt From: David Webb Cc: Les M Jones_11 Bcc: Subject: IWA Request for a Emergency Water Connection to the Koll Devlp. Attachment: Date: 10/21/97 4 :56 PM Jon Austin of IWA, Jeff Renna and I met today at 3 : 00 PM to discuss their request for an emergency water connection between their proposed system and the City's. IWA wanted to know if the City would be interested and what would be the process to obtaining permission. Jeff asked that they put their request in writing. Jon described the connection. as a two way connection in which the City could supply water into their reservoir in an emergency or -the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company (BCMWC) could supply the City water from their 'reservoir if necessary. They would design and construct all necessary facilities which would most likely be a 12" to 12" connection. Jon also mentioned that they are planning to talk to Seal Beach or MWD about a possible emergency connection' at Westminter Blvd. and Bolsa Chica Street in case a connection with the City is not possible. It was suggested that this connection could be negotiated and made part of any franchise agreement developed with the City. Jon said he is in the process of sending you a letter to request that the City enter into a franchise with BCMWC and that he will request that the terms of an emergency connection be incorporated into the agreement. i ATTACHMENT `7 8 � City of Huntington Beach * �- 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA92648 = DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building 636-5241 Planning 536-5271 October 22, 1997 Ed Mountford Koll Real Estate Group 4400 MacArthur Blvd.,9300 Newport Beach, CA 92669 SUBJECT: Coastal Development Permit and Environmental Assessment Applications for the Water Pipeline Dear Ed: Enclosed is are the City's Coastal Development Permit(CDP)and Environmental Assessment EA)applications. The processing fee for the CDP application is$750.00 and for the EA . application is$1,045.00. Regarding your inquiry on the location of the Coastal Zone boundary,I have enclosed a copy of the zoning map showing Los Patos from Warner Avenue to Bolsa Chica Street. The dashed line representing the Coastal Zone property encompasses all of Los Patos Avenue;therefore,the entire street is located within the City's Coastal Zone. If you have any questions, please contact me at(714)536-5274. Sincerely, "5JU17 ie uchi Associate Planner cc: Ray Silver,Acting City Administrator Melanie Fallon,Community Development Director Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner Les Jones,Public Works Director Bob Eichblatt,City Engineer Dave Webb,Principal Engineer ATTACHMENT 8 a3 4 Leg —Lc. , IA IWA ENGINEER5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 The Cl Parkway West, Sulte 300 • Orange, CA 92868 • (714) 456-0166 • FAX(714)456-0161 November 3, 1997 137-38-011 Mr. Robert Eichblatt City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Bolsa Chica Domestic Water Transmission Pipeline Dear Mr. Eichblatt: We have received your second submittal plan check comments to the construction plans for Segment 1 of the subject project. Construction of Segment 1 is proposed in Bolsa Chica Street within the City of Huntington Beach. We are proceeding with revisions to these plans based on the technical comments provided by City staff. In addition, the following responses are provided to address the issues identified in your letter, dated October 15, 1997, which we received with your plan check comments. In response to Item 1, regarding a more detailed description of the purpose of this pipeline and who the water purveyor will be. The purpose of the pipeline is for transmission of domestic water from an existing distribution system in the City of Cypress to the Bolsa Chica development. The existing water distribution system is owned and operated by Southern California Water Company(SCWC). The Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company (BCMWC) will own the pipeline and will contract with SCWC for water supply, and operations and maintenance of the pipeline and the on-site water system. In response to item 2, please refer to the attached letter from Hatch & Parent. In response to item 3, In accordance with CEQA, The County of Orange is acting as the lead agency in preparing a negative declaration for the entire pipeline construction project. We will request the County submit the document to the City for review and comment prior to the 21-day public review period. In response to item 4,we have contacted the City regarding a Coastal Development Permit and will be submitting a permit application to the City. In response to item 5, please refer to the attached letter from Hatch & Parent. Hopefully, this information is sufficient to continue the plan check and permit process for the portions of the pipeline proposed in the City of Huntington Beach. I will be calling David Webb within the next few days to set up a meeting for the purpose of discussing issues related to pipeline right-of-way. Please call me at (714) 456-0166 if you require additional information or have any questions.. Sincerely, Jon Austi Attachment Mr. Robert Eichblatt 137-38-011 November 3, 1997 Page 2 cc: City of Huntington Beach Les Jones, Director of Public Works-w/1 David Webb— Principal Engineer—w/1 Julie Sakaguchi—Associate Planner—w/1 Jeff Renna—Water Operations Manager—w/1 Scott Field- Deputy City Attorney-w/1 Russell G. Behrens—MK&B -w/1 Ed Mountford— Koll -w/1 Kelly Nolan - IWA Engineers -w/1 Scott Slater— H and P-w/1 Randell J. Vogel —Vice President/SCWC-w/1 Floyd Wicks— President/SCWC-w/1 ATTACHMENT - *9 _� as f LAW OFFICES STANLEY C. HATCH HATCH AND PARENT TELEPHONE GERALD B. PARENT- (805) 963-7000 S. TIMOTHY BUYNAK - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SUSAN F. PETROVICH 21 EAST CARRILLO STREET FACSIMILE PETER N. BROWN coos) 965-4333 STANLEY M. RODEN SANTA BARBARA. CALIFORNIA 9 3101-2 7 8 2 t805I 865-0896 I SCOTT S. SLATER - - - STEVEN A. AMERIKANER MAILING ADDRESS CCRTIrICO SPECIALIST. ESTATE GARY M. KVISTAD - POST OFFICE DRAWER 720 PLANNING. TRYST ANO PROBATE LAW COLOLIN CI L. HER A.PEARCE JACOBS SANTA BARBARA. CALIFORNIA 93102-0720 THE STATE BAR Or CALWORNIA L.JCFFREY A. OINKIN•• BOARD Or LEGAL SPECIALIZATION LORI LEWIS PERRY •• ALSO LICCNSCO IN NEVAOA KEVIN November 3 1997 CSC ROBERT J.. SAPAPER8TCIN , OUR FILL r 6774.33 JEANNE M. MACCALDEN DIRECT DIAL i JOSEF D. HOUSKA CRAIG A. SMITH SARAN J. KNECHT STEPHANIE C. OSLCR KIMBERLY E. ABKIN V. MICHAEL MUTTART JOHN L. CARR BRADLEY C. LUNDGREN Mr. Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer Public Works Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Letter of October 15, 1997; 18" Water Line,Bolsa Chica.Project Dear Mr. Eichblatt: IWA Engineers has asked our client, Southern California Water Company(SCWC), to respond to Questions 2 and 5 of the above-referenced letter. As the attorneys for SCWC, we are pleased to provide you with the following information. SCWC is an investor-owned water utility, with service areas in over 75 cities within 10 counties and serving 240,000 customers throughout California. SCWC has a contract with the Koll Real Estate Group, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Signal Bolsa Corporation(SBC), to provide water from our Los Alamitos customer services area of the Orange County District (Los Alamitos Service Area) and to manage, operate, and maintain the water and sewer system for the Bolsa Chica Project(Project), which will be owned by Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company.(BCMWC). SCWC will provide water service from within its existing Los Alamitos Service Area from a point in the City of Cypress and there is no present plan to extend this service area to the Project because service will be provided by the mutual benefit corporation,BCMWC. In order to provide a transmission facility for the water to the Project, SBC will, at BCMWC's expense, construct the 1811 pipeline according to SCWC's specifications from the Los Alamitos Service Area to the Project. The pipeline construction plans were prepared and submitted to you by IWA Engineers pursuant to the above-referenced SCWC contract with SBC. We have reviewed your letter of October 15, 1997 and our responses to Questions 2 and 5 are provided below. IWA Engineers can more appropriately address the other questions. 96 Mr. Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer October 29, 1997 {f. Page 2 In response to Question 2, that no service can be offered to the Project until a certificate of public convenience and necessity is issued by the California Public Utilities Commission, the answer is that no such certificate is required. The Project will be served by BCMWC, a mutual benefit corporation, which will issue certificates for water and sewer service to the property owners. The Public Utilities Commission has no jurisdiction over such a private arrangement for service. SCWC will provide the water from within its Los Alamitos Service Area and BCMWC will supply it at the Project. Under such an arrangement, SCWC is not providing CPUC regulated service to the Project. -Thus; the City is not premature in its timely processing of the pipeline plans for the Project. In response to Question 5, concerning SCWC's use of City streets and necessity of franchises, the pipeline will be constructed by SBC and owned by BCMWC in order to provide water to the Project. In that regard, IWA Engineers was instructed by SBC to request terms and conditions for use of Bolsa Chica Street for the pipeline right-of-way. While we appreciate the need for the City to thoroughly review the pipeline submittals and to require SBC to comply with reasonable terms and conditions for use of City streets for this pipeline, we urge the City to timely and expeditiously complete this process so that water may be made available to the Project. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. Very ly yours, Vary M. Kvistad Stephanie C. Osler For HATCH AND PARENT GMK:aar 119398.1 cc: Floyd Wicks, President/SCWC Randell J. Vogel, V.P. Jon Austin/IWA Engineers Ed Mountford/KREG Russell G. Behrens/NM&B I� ATTACHMENT -' I- O � x B( �'• City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 �. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building 536-5241 Planning 536-5271 November 5, 1997 Tom Mathews County of Orange Planning &Development Services Dept. P.O.Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 SUBJECT:. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INPUT IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE BOLSA CHICA MASTER COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIIT/WATER PIPELINE PROJECTS Dear Tom: The City of Huntington Beach is aware that the County is in the process of reviewing the Master Coastal Development Permit(CDP)application for the Bolsa Chica grading and infrastructure plans. It is our understanding that the environmental review process/ documentation for the Master CDP has not yet been determined by the County. The City is concerned that grading and construction of infrastructure improvements (such as the proposed water line down Bolsa Chica Street)could potentially have serious impacts to the City since we surround the site and any access to the site will need to come through Huntington Beach. In order to assure that all potential environmental impacts to the City are adequately evaluated and mitigated,the City is requesting the opportunity to review the proposed plans and provide input on potential concerns and mitigation,if necessary,as early in the process as possible. a We appreciate your consideration and are interested in meeting with your staff to assure that the impacts to the City are adequately addressed. Please have them contact Julie Sakaguchi, at(714) 536-5271 to arrange a meeting. Sincerely, Melanie S. Fallon Community Development Director cc: Mayor and City Council Ray Silver,Acting City Administrator Gail Hutton, CityAAttorney Scott Field,Deputy City Attorney Les Jones,Director of Public Works Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer Dave Webb,Principal Engineer Jeff Renna, Water Operations Manager Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director Julie Sakaguchi,Associate Planner Michael Ruane,Assistant CEO OC Strategic Affairs Office g:\admltr97\1197js l.doc go . . ._ ���� � � � kx 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HLNrNGTON BEACH TO: BOB EICHBLATT; City Engineer FROM: JEFF RENNA, Water Operations Manager w//L DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 1997 E// SUBJECT: INFORMATION REGARDING BOLSA CHICA DEVELOPMENT Today my staff made contact with the State Department of Health Services to find out what procedure must be followed in order to obtain a Water Supply Permit from them. IWA apparently has contacted them to get the same information. Attached is the packet of information that details the process. Call me if you have any questions. i a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATON TO: Jeff Renna, Water Operations Manager FROM: civard Johnson Distribution Supervisor r � p SUBJECT: Application for Public Water System DATE: ' November 25, 1997 Attached to this cover is the information on Application for Public Water System that you requested at today's staff meeting. The information was furnished by the State Department of Health Services (DOHS), Drinking Water Field Operations in Santa Ana. Heather L. Collins, P.E. Associate Project Engineer for the DOHS stated in her cover letter that this same information was sent to Koll's consultant. Ms. Collins can be reached at (714) 558-4707. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please let me know. HJ:bg h:\userslsharedyohnson\6mdcc 33 NOV-25-1997 14:14 DWFOS SANTA ANA P.01 g STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4070,�`* DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS BRANCH SANTA.ANA DISTRICT 28 Civic Center Drive, Room 325 Santa Ana; CA -92701 (714) 558-4410 CALN ET 657-4707 FAX: (714) 567-7262 DATE: 11/25197 2:05 PM FROM: Heather L. Collins, P.E. TO: Ward McReynolds Associate Project Engineer COMPANY: Huntington Beach COMPANY: OHS-DWFOB SANTA ANA PHONE: 714-536-5424 PHONE: 714-558-4707 FAX: 714-847-1067 E-mail: hcollin2@hw1.cahwnet.gov REMARKS: Here's the info for submitting an application to be considered for a public water system. We have sent this same info to the developer's consultarit. Any questions please feel free to call. Thanks. Heather •-) NUMBER OF PAGES BEING SENT: COVER&__13_PAGES If you do not receive all the pages PLEASE CALL(714)558.4707 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE I 3y NOU-25-1997 14:14 DWFOB SFNTA ANA P.,02 Section 64554. New Water System Permit Requirements W �� (a) Any new public water system applving for an initial domestic water supply permit shall submit the following information as part of the cgppbcation for the initial or amended domestic water supply permit: (1) ?he anticipated growth of the water system over a projected 10 year period in terms of the population. and number and rype of residenutal. commercial, and industrial service connections to be served by the system. (1) Estimates of the amount of water needed to serve the maximum day demand over the projected 10 year growth. Methods, assumptions, and calculations used to determine the amount of water needed shall be included (3) A description of the sources of water proposed for use to meet the projected demand and information demonstrating that the sources are adequate to meet the projected maximum daily demand over the 10 year period. If surface water will be used the system shall demonstrate that the system holds a valid water right to that amount of water. If groundwater is to be used, the system shall demonstrate that the groundwater aquifer is sufficient, or that approval has been obtained in the case of adjudicated groundwater basins, to allow that amount of sustained withdrawal. (4) Information that demonstrates that the existing or planned source pumping capacity, as well as the sustained well yield if groundwater sources are used, are adequate to serve the maximum day demand for the number of service connections or the number of persons to be covered by the permit. (5) Information that demonstrates that the distribution system contains, or will contain, distribution reservoirs with sufficient storage capacity to meet the anticipated maximum day demand (expressed as gallons per minute)for a period of at least eight hours. (b) For community water systems applying for an initial permit, the information required pursuant to subsection (a) shall be prepared by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of California with experience in water supply engineering. Authority: Section 116375 Health and Safety Code Reference: Sections 4010.1 (o) and 4017.(c)Health and Safety Code 3 � ; NOV-25-1997 14:15 DWFOB SANTA ANA P.03 � t Health & Safety Code i elf'. Section 116485. Exemption for emergency grants Any remedial action taken or contracted for by the department pursuant to Section 116480 shall be exempt from the fQllowing provisions: e (a) State Contract Act provided for pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 10100) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code. y i l (b) Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 4525) of Division 5 of Title 1 of the r Government Code. f: F (c) Section 14780 of the Government Code and Article 5 .(commencing with Section 10355) of Chapter 2 of Part 2•of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code. (d) Article 4 (commencing with Section 10335) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code. ARTICLE 6. ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBLITY Section 116500. Contract County authority This chapter shall be enforced directly,by the department for all public wrater sysiems, including state small wafer systems, in any county that does not have a local health officer, or contracts with the department for environmental health services pursuant to Section 1157 and elects not to enforce this chapter. ARTICLE 7. REQUIREMENTS AND COMPLIANCE t Section 116525. Permits F (a) No person shall operate a public water system unless he or she first submits an application to the department and receives a permit as provided in this chapter. A change in ownership of a public water system shall require the submission of a new application. (b) The department may require a new application whenever a change in regulatory jurisdiction has occurred. s r (c) The department miy renew, reissue, revise, or amend any domestic water supply Permit whenever the department deems it to be necessary for the protection of public health whether or not an application bas been filed 38 t NOU-25-1997 14:15 DWFOB SANTA ANA P.04 • ' t Health-& Safety Code t Section 116530. Technical report f A public water system shall submit a technical report to the department as part of the permit f` application or when otherwise required by the department. This report may include, but not'be € limited to, detailed plans and specifications, water quality information, •and physical t descriptions of the existing or proposed system, and financial assurance information. Section 116535. Permit application review Upon determination that an application submitted pursuant to this chapter is complete, the department shall make a thorough investigation of the proposed or existing plant, works, system, or water supply, and all other circumstances and conditions that it deems material, E including any required financial assurance information. • i a Section 116540. Issue or deny; conditional permits '" Following completion of the investigason and satisfaction of the requirements of subdivisions (a) and (b), the department shall issue or deny the permit. The department may ; impose permit conditions, requirements for system improvements, and time schedules as it r: deerns necessary to assure a reliable and adequate supply of water at all times that is pure, } wholesome, potable, and does not endanger the health of consumers. (a) No public water system that was not in existence on January 1, 1991, shall be `3 granted a permit unless the system demonstrates to the department that the water supplier possesses adequate financial capability to assure the delivery of pure, wholesome, and potable drinking water. This section shall also apply to any change of ownership of a public water system that occurs after-January 1, 1991. (b) No permit under this chapter shall be issued to an association organized under Title 3 (commencing with Section 20000) of Division'3 of the Corporations Code. This section shall not apply to unincorporated associations that as of December 31, 1990, are holders of a permit issued under this chapter. i Section 116545. Hearing permissible Prior to the issuance of any new, revised, renewed, or amended permit, or the denial of a permit, the department may conduct a public hearing to obtain additional public comment. Notice of the hearing shall be provided to the applicant and interested persons at least 30 days Prior to the hearing. The department may require the applicant to distribute the notice of the hearing to affected consumers. f Section 116550. Changes requiring amended permit �ItJR�GA�. V1Arotiu�t � :=; 39 37. NOV-25-15057 14:16 DWF08 SANTA ANA P.05 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS BRANCH Application from: (Name of Utility) Applicant: (Enter the name of legal owner, person(s) or organization) Address : (Address of legal owner, person(s) or organization) To: Department of Health Services Drinking Water Field Operations Branch Santa Ana District Office 28 Civic Center Plaza, Room 325 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Pursuant and subject to the requirements of Division 5, Part 1, Chapter 7, California Safe Drinking Water Act of the California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) , relating to domestic water • supplies, application is hereby; made for a permit to I (Applicant must state specifically w'r.at is being applied for - whether to operate a water system, to construct new works, to raake alterations or additions in works or sources. Note Section 116530, CHSC, regarding information to be submitted with application. Additional sheets may be attached.) Dated: I (We) declare under penalty of perjury that the statements on this application and on the accompanying attachments are correct to my (our) knowledge and that I (we) are acting under authority and direction of the responsible legal entity under whose name this application is made. By: (signature) (Print Name) Title: Address: Phone: 3 �? NOV-25-199? 14:16 DWFOS SANTA ANA P.e6 STATE OP CALIFORN A-HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY PETS WILSON DEPARTMNT OF HEALTFI SERVICES DRINKIMNG WATER FIELD OPERATIONS 13RAl\CH SANTA ANA DISTRICT 28 Civic Center Plaza,Room 325 Santa Ana,CA 92701 J (714)558-4410 FAX(714)567-7262 GUIDE FOR PREPARING DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY PERMIT APPLICATION August 1996 I . INTRODUCTION Section 116530 of the California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) specifies that a permit application must be accompanied by necessary information to enable the Department of Health Services to conduct a thorough evaluation of the water system and the proposed permit action. The application is not considered complete until the necessary information has been provided in such 'form as the Department prescribes. The Santa Ana District Office has prepared this guide to assist an applicant in preparing accompanying material in order to avoid delay in consideration of the permit application. In advance of the formal application, the applicant and/or his engineer are encouraged to snake early contact with this Office to discuss the propvsa2 and specific information needed to process the application. The information suggested by this guide should be provided in the form of a technical report and in sufficient detail to enable the Department to make a _judgment that the existing or proposed plant, works, system, water supply or proposed modifications, are suited to the production and delivery oZ, a continuous supply of pure, wholesome, healthful and potable water. The scope of the data provided in the technical report should. be consistent with the type of permit action requested. For example, a new permit will require complete information, whereas a permit amendment need only provide information on the specific change or addition, as well as updated information on the water system. For slim411 community (less than 1, 000 connections) and government systems such as parks and institutions, it is not necessary to submit a detailed technical report. Complete technical data with appropriate clarifications and maps would suffice. II. APPLICATION The applicant must submit a completed application that includes: 1. Permit application (Fore included with this package) . 2.. Financial . Information. .. . ._ 3. Technical Report (Data sheets for small systems) . The 3 details of the Technical Report are discussed in the following section. r .NCJV-?5-1997 14=17 DWFOB SANTA ANA P.07 III. FINANCIAL INFORMATION In order to comply with Sections 116530 . and 116540 (a) of the CHSC Code, any new community water system must submit a financial plan to the Department as part of the domestic water supply permit application. This information should be included as part of an application for a . change of ownership of an existing community water system where the viability of the system may be in question. The financial plan should cover and include the following: A. Operating Cost The plan should include a detailed breakdown of anticipated annual operating costs projected over the next five years. The breakdown should include applicable costs such as raw water purchase, treatment costs, personnel, insurance, debt financing, state fees, monitoring and laboratory posts, electricity and power, sinking funds, repair and: maintenance of system, consulting fees, administrative costs, and overhead. B. Revenue The plan should present a breakdown of anticipated annual revenue for the water system projected over the next five years. All sources of revenue to be used by the system to meet annual costs should be shown including the unit costs (i.e. , connection fees, standby fees, monthly charges) as well as the basis for other revenue calculations. The total amount of the revenue should equal or exceed the total operating cost of the system for each year. C. Growth The plan should describe the anticipated growth of the system (in terms of number of persons or service connections to be 'added annually) projected for the next 10 years and how this growth relates to projected costs and revenues. D. Future Capital Expenditures The. - plan should describe. any anticipated capital expenditures (including any start-up costs for a new system) such as addition of treatment or new sources of supply; treatment plant expansions or modifications; major construction or significant distribution system changes; and major equipment replacement; projected for the next 15 years, including the anticipated cost and timing of such projects. Changes to the system that may be necessary to comply with anticipated changes in state or federal regulations, to the extent they have been proposed, should be included. Page 2 �/0 NOV-25-1997 14:17 DWFOB SANTA ANA P108 E. Funding for Capital Expenditures The plan should also describe how these projected capital expenditures (including new system start-up costs) will be ,J funded or financed, including the source of the funds. A description of how this funding availability will be assured (i.e. , surety :bond, letter of credit, insurance, taxing authority, or other means) should be included. IV. TECHNICAL REPORT OUTLINE A. Purpose of Report 1 . Describe reason for the Technical Report; i.e. , application submittal, Department initiated action because of changes in the system, watershed, multiple amendments, Safe Drinking Water Bond Law (SDWBL) improvement project, etc. B. Background Information (use only if appropriate) 1. Describe history and background of ownership and organization. 2 . Explain transfers from county jurisdiction, multiple permit amendments, change in ownership, etc. C. Brief Description of System 1 . Name and address of legally responsible owner of the water system. 2 Brief description of system sources, storage facilities and treatment. Include a schematic drawing showing layout of sources, treatment facilities, distribution system,-- pressure zones and storage reservoirs. D. Area Served 1. Describe' existing service area including features that may have an• impact on the system such as large industrial users, etc. 2 . Include may of service area. 3. Describe projected growth in service area, particularly near future (5-10 years) . 4. Briefly describe climatological and topographical conditions. �� Page 3 - NOV-25-1997 14:18 DUFOB SANTA ANA p,e9 5. !dater production/consumption data. Include data on historical and current use, seasonal variations, maximum day, maximum month and average annual . Also include data on commitments to serve. E. Proposed Facilities 1 . Describe proposed facilities. Describe changes (existing or proposed) to system and/or service area. 2. A copy of the completed CEQA documents for the proposed improvement project that were processed by the Lead Agency. 3. A complete set of construction plans and specifications must be submitted for all treatment plant units and proposed new works for review and approval;. F. Sources of Suoply 1 . Sur-face Supplies a. Name and location (include map) . b Development and use of watershed. C. Surveillance of watershed (watershed protection plan) . d. Firm yield of supply (base on 1 in 100 years frequency) . e. water rights (describe permits, contracts and any special conditions affecting •the right) . f. Water quality - physical, general mineral, inorganic and organic chemical, trihalomethanes (TKMS) , radiological and microbiological data. Describe seasonal variations or changes that affect its treatability. g. Vulnerability td organic contaminant listed or proposed as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) . h. Reservoirs (name, location, capacity) and recreational use. i. Intake structures (location, capacity, type) . j . Operation and management (algae control, multi- level intakes, aeration. etc. ) Page 4 NOU-25-1997 14:18 DWFOB SANTA ANA P.10 2. Groundwater Supplies a. Name and location (include map) . b. Construction details. C. Firm yield of supply (base on pump tests and/or hydrogeological study) . d. Water quality - physical, general mineral, inorganic and organic chemical, THMs, . radiological and microbiological data. Describe seasonal variations or changes that affect its treatability. e. Groundwater basin development in recharge area and vulnerability to organic contaminants listed or proposed as MCLS. 3. Standby' Sources - Describe location, construction, water quality, and how and when used. 4 . Adequacy of Supply. Discuss the demands versus supply for existing, committed, and projected users . G. Transmission Facilities (including map showing locations) 1. Capacity, location, construction, condition. Hydraulic grade under maximum demand, low source capacity correlation' s. ' 2. Pump stations (number, location, capacity) . H. Treatment (include flow sketch) 1. List unit processes and include flow diagram. 2. Describe each unit process (capacity and/or design basis, chemicals used, dose rates, flow rates, detention times, filter media, etc. ) . 3: Reliability features such as alarms, auto shutoffs, standby power, etc. 4 . Past performance in meeting standards. 5. For new or modified surface water treatment facilities, submit an engineering report describing how the proposed facilities will be designed to comply with the treatment, design, performance, and reliability provisions required pursuant to Chapter 17, Title 22, California Code of Regulations (CCR) . Page 5 NW-25-1997 14:19 DWFOB SANTA ANA P.11 I . Distribution System (include map showing mains, valves, reservoirs, and booster stations) . Data should be provided on the design standards for the system, particularly for fire flows if the need for fire protection is a part of the system's required function. Changes and additions to the system since the last permit action by the Department should be described. 1 . Distribution Maims - Data regarding construction and location, size, condition, separation distance from sources of pollution and operating pressure must be provided. 2. Distribution Reservoirs and Tanks - Data regarding location, size, elevation, cover, capacity, inlet and outlet arrangements should be included with notes regarding drains, vents, and other openings and protection against entry of contaminants and animals. Tank coating information, if available, should be included. 3. Booster Pumping Stations - Submit information on pumping plant, pumping ev_uipment, capacity, type of power used, auxiliary power, and protection against flooding. Description of operational control should be included. 4 . Pressures -- Describe • pressure zones and any zones or areas where pressure could be less than 20 psi under maximum demand conditions (fire flow if system is used for fire protection) . 5. water Quality - Physical, microbiological and THM quality in the distribution system. Describe corrosion potential and corrosion by-product data. J. Operation and Maintenance 1. Organization and procedures - Name and address of individuals responsible for operation and maintenance. Brief description including number of personnel and water treatment plant operator certification. Discuss how the system will be operated, and its operational policies or rules for service. Also, discuss distribution system additions and modifications, use of different sources of water, procedures for disinfection of new mains and mains after repairs, flushing program, main replacement program and valve maintenance. Provide information on system controls, for example alarms, pressures, flow, etc. 2. Records - Summarize the types of records that are being maintained including data on treatment Page 6 y NOV-25-1997 14:19 DWFOH SANTA ANA P.12' operations, quantities of water used, complaints received and action taken. 3. Cross-connection control program - Submit the operating rules or ordinances. Describe program for the conducting of surveys to identify places where. cross-connections are likely to occur, the provisions of backflow protection at the user's premises or both, the provision of at least one person trained in cross- connection control to carry out the cross-connection program, the establishment of a procedure or system for testing backflow preventer, and the maintenance of records of locations, tests and repairs of backflow devices. 4 . Provisions for dealing with emergencies - These provisions should include emergencies such as fire, flooding of- works, •damage from earthquakes, power and equipment failures or shortage of water. Submit a water quality emergency notification plan on the attached form. 5. Treatment Plant Operations Plan. K. Water Quality Monitoring Plan 1 . A complete monitoring plan must be submitted for review and approval. This plan must describe. the plan for monitoring all sources, treatment plant controls and distribution system to comply with applicable requirements of the Water Quality Monitoring Regulations, Title 22, CCR. 2. Bacteriological Sample Siting Plan - A distribution system bacteriological Sample Siting Plan must be submitted as described in Section 64422, Title 22, CCR. L. Improvement Program Describe proposed improvements to resolve existing system deficiencies. Provide plan and schedule. M. Data Forms The following forms may be used to simplify or supplement presentation of required data. V. PERMIT APPLICATION FEES Each public water system serving less than 1, 000 service connections applying for a domestic water supply permit pursuant to Section 116525. or 116550, CHSC shall pay a permit application //� Page 7 NOU-25-1997 14:19 DWFOB SANTA ANA P.13 processing fee to the Department. Payment of the fee shall accompany the application for the permit or permit amendment. The amount of the permit application fee required shall be as follows: rf 1. A new community water system for which no domestic water supply permits have been previously issued by the department shall pay an application fee of five hundred dollars ($507) . 2. A new noncommunity water system for which no domestic water supply permits have been previously issued by the department shall pay an application fee of three hundred dollars ($304) . 3. An existing public water system applying for an amendment to a domestic water supply permit due to a change in ownership shall pay an application fee of one hundred fifty dollars ($152) . 4. An existing public water system applying for an amendment to a domestic water supply permit due to an addition or modification of the source of supply, or an addition or change in the method of treatment of the water supply shall pay an application fee of two hundred fifty dollars ($253) . Pag= 8 �V TOTAL. P. 1:3 NOV-25-1997 14:25 DWFOB SANTA ANA P-01 .itratu vL �.�i,tLvauvtta DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS BRANCH Application from: (Name of Utility) Applicant: (Enter the name of legal owner, persons) or organization) Address: (Address of legal vAmer, person(s) or organization) To: Department of Health Services Drinking Water Field Operations Branch Santa Ana District Office 28 Civic Center Plaza, Room 325 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Pursuant and subject to the requirements of Division 5, Part 1, Chapter 7, California Safe Drinking Water Act of the California Real'Ch and Safety Code (CHSC) , relating to domestic water supplies, application is hereby made for a permit to (Applicant must state specifically what is being applied for - whether to operate a water system, to construct new works, to make alterations or additions in works or sources. Note Section 116530, CiiSc, regarding information to be submitted with application. Additional sheets may be attached.) Dated: I (We) declare under penalty of perjury that the statements on this application and on the accompanying attachments are correct to my (our) knowledge and that I (we) are acting under authority and direction of the responsible legal entity under whose name this application is made. By: (Signature) (Print Na=e) Title: Address: i Phone: NQU-25-1997 14:26 DWFOB SANTA ANA P.02 sms' 9rcalirot,ia I3eurtireu of Multi,Se-%4t; Drinkine Water Field Oxrations Branch SanU Ana C)�ssSer System No. WATER QUALITY EM)-;RGENCY NOTIFICATION PLAN Name of Utility: Street Address: Mailing Address: The following persons have been designated to implement the plan upon notification of the State Department of Health Services that an imminent danger to the health of water users exists: Telephone Name Title Day Evening 1, 2. 3. The implementation of the plan will be carried out with the following State Department of Health Services personnel: 1. Franklin Hamamura District Engineer 714-558-4410 714-730-6148 2. Nabil Saba Associate Sanitaa Engineer 714-567-7261 714-993-9542 3. Heather Collins Associate Sanitary Engineer 714-558-4707 909-597-2547 4. Owen Lu Sanitary Engineer 714558-4705 909-393-8188 5. Cor Shaffer Associate Sanitary Engineer 714-558-6720 760-436-2695 Notification Plan Describe the methods or combinations of methods to be used (radio,television, door-to-door, sound truck, etc.) For each section of your plan give an estimate of the time required, necessary personnel, estimated coverage, etc. -Consideration, rhust be givers to special.organizations, particularly non-English speaking groups, and outlyng water users. (Attach additional pages if necessary) Report prepared by: Signature and Title Date TOTAL. P.0-7 ATTACHMENT 12 y9 Lim CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH L 0 qD INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTWOON SEACH TO: Melanie Fallon,Director of Community Develomnt C pE�j1�1� E ,� FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney woRKs oEC G 3 ►Q97 DATE: November 25, 1997 SUBJECT: Bolsa Chica Water Line-CEQA Compliance urvrin/�-ro'" BEAcfy, C. RLS 97-847 INDEX: Police Posyer; Land Use; Planning; Environmental Quality; CEQA; Water Quality BACKGROUND Southern California Water proposes to build a pipeline to provide water service to the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company("'BCMWC'). BCMWC will provide water service to the residential development Koll Real Estate Group(KREG)proposes for Bolsa Chica. Southern California Water will construct, operate and maintain the water system, although BCMWC will own it. The pipeline crosses through three jurisdictions. A portion of the line crosses through the coastal zone in the City of Huntington Beach, and therefore,will require approval of the Coastal Development Permit(CDP), as well as CEQA review.._ IWA Engineers, a'consultant for Southern California Water,has designed the waterline and has applied to the City for an encroachment permit. (Attached please find a letter from IWA, enclosing a letter from their attorneys,further explaining the proposed project.) At this time,the County has stated it will be the lead agency under CEQA for the pipeline, although the procedure they will follow is unclear. In discussions between City staff and County staff,there is a possibility that the County will process the environmental documents for the pipeline as part of a Master Infrastructure Coastal Development Permit for grading and installing infrastructure to the Bolsa Chica site. This could possibly be done as an addendum to the existing EIR. Alternatively,representatives of KREG have indicated that an initial study is being done on the pipeline,which presumably would be processed separately from the EIR for the residential project. Because of this uncertainty,you have asked a series of questions regarding each scenario. SF/s:G:SF-97Memos:Pipe-1112 1125/97-94 1 1 • 11 QUESTIONS A. Scenario: Pipeline included as part of a master CDP processed through the County of Oranee. 1. Is the City the lead agency for the CEQA processing of the CDP that will be processed through the City? 2. Could the City process a new CEQA document(such as a Mitigated Negative Declaration) (`.MND") for the project? 3. Would the City automatically become lead agency for its CDP or would it need to seek a lead agency determination from OPR? B. Scenario: Pipeline processed separately from master infrastructure CDP -mitigated negative declaration processed through the County of Orange. 1. Is the City a responsible agency pursuant to CEQA or is it still the lead agency for the CDP that will be processed through the City? 2. If the City is considered only a responsible agency(pursuant to sections 15082(b), 15050(b,c) of the CEQA guidelines), is City required to review and comment on the MND to have its issues addressed and'is it required to use the MND when reviewing the City CDP for CEQA compliance?. 3. If so, what are the City's options for requiring additional analysis and mitigation if the City's concerns are not adequately addressed in the County document? Could the City process a new CEQA document (such as its own MND) for the project? C. What should the scope of the environmental document be? (This is a question added by the City Attorney's office after analysis of the issues raised by this Request for Legal Services.) ANSWERS A. Pipeline included as part of a master CDP processed through the County of Orange. 1• The County is the lead agency since it is the agency with the"greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole." CEQA Guidelines, Section 15051(b).) 2. Yes,if the City determines the County's documents are inadequate for purposes of the City CDP,and were prepared without consultation with the City(CEQA SF/s:G:SF-97h1emos:Pipe-1112 2 157� 11/25/97-04 r r r Guidelines, Section 15052(a)(3)), or grounds for a subsequent EIR/MND exist (Section 15162). 3. The City would become the lead agency for its CDP. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162(c); 15052(a)(3).) B. Pipeline processed separately from master infrastructure CDP -mitigated negative declaration processed through the County of Orange. 1. The County is still the lead agency because it is the agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole. 2. Yes,the City is required to use the County environmental documents to process the City's CDP. However, if the City concludes the documents are inadequate or a subsequent EIR/MND is required,it does have the option to prepare its own CEQA document as the lead agency. 3. If the City determines that the City's concerns are not adequately addressed in the County document,the City has the option to sue the County,to prepare its own subsequent EIR if permissible under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, or to assume the role of lead agency under CEQA Guidelines Section 15052. C. Scope of Environmental Documents. The above questions suggest two possible approaches to environmental documentation. The first assumes inclusion of the pipeline as part of the master CDP processed through the County of Orange for review of the grading and infrastructure installation to the Bolsa Chica site. The second assumes looking at the pipeline itself only. However,the scope of the"project"should include analyzing obtaining water service from Southern California Water to serve the Bolsa Chica project. This was a water service option that was=examined in the original EIR for the project. DISCUSSION A. CEQA Processing if Pipeline Is Included As Part Of A Master CDP Processed Through The County Of Orange. The lead agency is the agency with the"greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15051(b).) In this case,the County is the lead agency,since the City is only looking at a pipeline that also crosses other jurisdictions,whereas the County is looking at the entire Bolsa Chica project,which this pipeline will serve.The City would not be the lead agency for its CDP,but would be the responsible agency. A responsible agency is an agency that has some permitting authority or approval power over some aspect of the overall project for which a lead agency is conducting CEQA review. (Public Resources Code Section 21069; CEQA Guidelines Section 15096, 1538 1.) SF/5:G:SF-971Memcs:Pipe-1112 11/25/97-94 As a responsible agency,the City is to rely upon the lead agency's environmental documents in acting on whatever aspect of the project requires City approval, although as a responsible agency, f the City must issue its own findings regarding the feasibility of relevant mitigation measures or project alternatives as they apply to that portion of the pipeline in the City. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(f), (g), and (h);Resource Defense Fund v. Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Crue County(1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 886, 895, 236 Cal.Rptr. 7941. To ensure that 'negative declarations and EIRs Nvill be adequate for the responsible agencies purposes, lead agencies must consult with and solicit comments from those agencies in preparing their environmental documents. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21080.3, 21080.4, 21104, 21153; CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15073, 15082, 15086, 15096.) For projects requiring EIRs, responsible agencies are consulted both as regards the proper"scope" of the EIR and as to the substance of a draft EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15082, 15086(a)(1).) In short, lead agencies have a duty to produce"comprehensive"environmental documents that will be of use to responsible agencies. (Save San Francisco Bay Association v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (1992) 10 Cal.AppAth 908, 922, ---Cal.Rptr.2d---.) Responsible agencies comments must address only"those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency." Such comments must be"supported by specific documentation." (Pub. Resources Code, Sections 21104 (c), 21153.) Responsible agencies have limited ability to conduct their own environmental review outside the processes initiated and managed by lead agencies. The City must rely on the lead agency documents even if they are being challenged in court. (City of Redding v. Shasta County Local Agency Formation Commission (1989)209 Cal.App.3d 1169,257 Cal.Rptr. 793. If the City believes the documents are inadequate for purposes of the City CDP, it has three options pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(e): (1) take the matter to court within the applicable statute of limitations period; (2)prepare its own subsequent EIR if permissible under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; or(3)assume the role of lead agency if permissible under Section 15052(a)(3). The justification for the City to prepare a subsequent EIR or MTD are limited. There must have been subsequent changes to the proposed project that will require revisions to the environmental documentation prepared by the County; alternatively,new information of substantial importance to the project becomes available, which was not known and could not have been known by the County. Alternatively,the City could make a determination that the County prepared inadequate environmental documents without consulting with the City, and the statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the actions of the County. (Depending upon circumstances,the statute Of limitations varies from 30 days to 180 days,but the City should presume the 30-day period applies.) If the City prepares environmental documentation for the City CDP under either analysis,it.then. assumes the lead agency function. These actions of the City would be limited to the CDP and related documents(such as franchise agreements)for the pipeline segment in.the City only. 4 �3 sF1s:G:SF-97Mem0s:pipe-1112 1125/97-N4 a Lastly, it should be noted that the County has several options available to it regarding the type of environmental analysis it performs, and under certain options, its obligation to consult with the City as a responsible agency is limited. In this case, an EIR has already been prepared for the original Bolsa Chica project, which considered a much larger scope of development. It is our understanding that no new environmental documentation was prepared for the 1200 dwelling unit development that the County Board of Supervisors recently approved. One option to analyze these more recent developments is to prepare a"subsequent"EIR or a "supplement"to the EIR. Generally, this occurs when there are substantial changes proposed to the project that would require major revisions of the EIR, or substantial changes have occurred to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken requiring revisions to the EIR, or new information is now available.that was not available at the time the EIR was originally certified. In this case, because service from Southern California Water was not analyzed in the original EIR, this amounts to a substantial change to the project that merits a subsequent or supplemental EIR. This matter is discussed in greater detail at Subsection C below. Alternatively,the pipeline itself could be analyzed as an addendum to the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164.) Addendums are used when an EIR requires minor technical changes or additions but does not raise important new issues about the project's significant effects on the environment and when no factors are present that would require preparation of either a subsequent EIR or a supplemental EIR. While the CEQA Guidelines contemplate that an addendum should be only used in relatively narrow circumstances, case law has approved broader uses of an addendum that appeared to involve significant changes in the environment. (See, Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988)204 Cal.App.3d 1538,252 Cal.Rptr. 79,where the Court upheld the use a 106 page"addendum"prepared for a conditional use permit that would allow the development of a medical research and laboratory complex on property surrounded by a wilderness park.) What is important to note is that subsequent or supplemental EIRs are treated as draft EIRs with the same notice and public review procedures that are used for the original EIR. This process assures participation of the City as a responsible agency. However,in the case of an addendum there is no need for circulation for public review. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164(b).) This would potentially leave the City"out of loop"as a responsible agency. In order to avoid this possibility,the County should be placed on notice that any and all environmental documents should be circulated to the City as a responsible agency,even if the County is contemplating using an addendum. Lastly, it should be noted that it appears that the County is not proceeding under either of these scenarios,but is actually preparing a new initial study and in all likelihood a Mitigated Negative Declaration, based upon the prior EIR. This makes sense because what is being presented to the installation of street and road improvements, County is construction work,involving grading, sy 5 . SF/s:G:SF-97Memos:Pipe-1112 I IRS/97-94 and installation of a pipeline. To the extent that these construction activities are the "project" under consideration, then they were not analyzed in the EIR itself, and should be reviewed through the use of MNP instead. B. -FQA Processing If Pipeline Is Considered Separately From Master Infrastructure CDP- Mlligated Negative Declaration Through The Countv Of Orange. The analysis of lead agency/responsible agency roles would be the same even if the pipeline is treated as a separate project from the gradinglinfrastructure. If the water line was processed separately from the Master Infrastructure CDP,we assume that the County still would take the lead on processing this approval. Although the project is substantially smaller in scope than the entire Bolsa Chica project, and there would be four different agencies affected by the pipeline project (the County,the City of Huntington Beach, and the other two cities through which the pipeline passes), it still makes sense for the County be the lead agency because it is the agency that is responsible for the development project as a whole. This would leave the City as the responsible agency. There is a general rule under CEQA that projects should not be subdivided into their individual components and analyzed separately, but instead should be reviewed as a whole so that their cumulative impacts can be analyzed. Nonetheless, the City could claim the lead agency role on the basis that the"project" is the pipeline only, in which case the State Office of Planning and Research("OPR") could adjudicate the dispute between the City and County. However the more effective alternative is to prepare its own CEQA analysis if the City is dissatisfied with the County's analysis. (This option was already described above.) C. Scope of Environmental Analysis. Attached please find a copy of the relevant pages of the 1996 Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica project. In analyzing water service options,the EIR considered obtaining service from the City of Huntington Beach, or alternatively forming a mutual water company and sinking wells within the Bolsa Chica development. At no time did the EIR analyze the issue of the environmental effects of obtaining water from outside of Bolsa Chica, such as from the Southern* California Water Company. Th—is a substantial change in the scope of the project meriting a subsequent or supplemental EIR,particularly as a result of recently adopted legislation,known as Senate Bill 901. SB 901 was adopted in 1995 to ease the conflict between cities and counties as land use planning agencies and local water purveyors that operate within their incorporated boundaries. (Government Code Sections 65302, 65302.2;Public Resources Code Section 21151.9;Water Code Sections 10910-10915.) Under SB 901, any development of over 500 residences must go through avwater analysis consultation. The consultation requirement obligates the water system operator(the retail supplier, such as Southern California Water)to assess whether the water needs of the new development have been accounted for in the most recently adopted"urban water management i 6 SF/s:G:SF-97Memos:Pipe-1112 12/3197-94 1 plan." Next,the water system operator must determine whether its total projected water supplies over a 20-year cycle will meet the anticipated demand of the project when considering the ' systems planned in future use. If the water system operator cannot make this determination, further review is required. Final discretion to proceed with the land use approvals for the project still lies with the land use planning agency (i.e.,the County). For example,the County could still make findings of"overriding significance"which will allow the development to proceed despite a negative determination from the water systems operator. It should be noted that SB 901 was meant to address a situation where water supply agencies were refusing to provide water service to new development based upon an alleged lack of water supplies. Although that does not appear to be the case in this circumstance, nonetheless, SB 901 must be satisfied. Gail Hutton City Attorney Attachments: 1) Letter from IWA 2) Excerpts from Bolsa Chica EIR c: Scott Field,Deputy City Attorney Julie Sakaguchi,Associate Planner Les Jones,Director of Public Works Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer 7 , SF/s:G:SF-971Niemos:Pipe-1112 11/25/97-#4 A.TTACHMFN T 13 1 1 �� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUMINCTON MACH r� TO: Distribution FROM: Julie Sakaguchi Associate Planne DATE: December 2, 1997 SUBJECT: Administrative Draft of the Initial Study for the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company Pipeline in Bolsa Chica Street. The City has received a copy of the administrative draft initial study for the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company Pipeline. As previously indicated,Koll Real Estate Group(KREG)AWA has stated that it is their expectation that the County will be lead agency in preparing the CEQA documentation for the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company Pipeline project along with processing its Master Coastal Development Permit application through the County. However,the pipeline project will also require approval of a Coastal Development Permit(CDP) through the City,since a portion of the project falls within the City's Coastal Zone,and is therefore within the City's jurisdiction. Action on the City CDP will also be subject to CEQA review. This may potentially require preparation of a separate environmental document through the City if the environmental impacts the portion of the project within the City are not adequately addressed. KREG has been made aware of there need to submit an application for the CDP and Environmental Assessment. However,to minimize duplicative CEQA review and documentation,KREG has submitted its Administrative Draft of the Initial Study for the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company Pipeline in Bolsa Chica Street(which it has also submitted to the County as part of their Master CDP application)to the City for review. Please review the attached document and provide your comments to Howard ZeIefsky,by noon on Friday,December 12,1997. If you have any questions,please contact him a x5465. Distribution: Bob Eichblatt,City Engineer(5 copies) Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director Scott Field,Deputy City Attorney Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner cc: Ray Silver,Acting City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director Les Jones,Public Works Director` Daryl Smith, Superintendent PTL g.\sakaguch\bolsa\pipeline\ismemo.doc iECEIVED N OV 2 � 1999 November 26, 1997 ,r pEPARTNT OF pEVE OPInEN'C Ms. Julie Sakaguchi CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street ; Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Julie: Enclosed please find an Administrative Draft of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company pipeline in Boisa Chica Street. You are receiving this draft at the same time as the County Planning and Development Services . Department. I want to make sure that any comments the City has are incorporated into the document prior to the public review period. 'To that end, I would appreciate receiving any comments you may have by Friday, December 12'. The water pipeline will be included as part of a Coastal Development permit to allow construction of the backbone infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, storm drains, etc.) at Bolsa Chica. The Coastal Development permit should be heard by the County Planning Commission in early February. The intent of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration is to also serve as the environmental clearance for a-Coastal Development permit that would be necessary in the City of Huntington Beach. Please call me at (714) 477-0873 to discuss any questions you may have. i Sincerely, KOLL R AL ESTATE GROUP Ed Mountfor Vice President EM:jm Enclosures 41CO MidzthurBoudeirard suite= Newport Beach,CA 9266o N OV 2 E A997 pEPAR T MENT Or Op { tUN17Y DEVELOPS"ENT BOLSA CHICA PLANNED COMMUNITY DOMESTIC WATER. TRANSMISSION PIPELINE INITI_AL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT Prepared for' - KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP - November 1997 i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 -INTRODUCTION 1.1 Bolsa Chica Planned Community: 1.2 Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company 1.3 Project Background SECTION 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Present Location 2.2 Present Setting 2.3 Segment 1 2.4 Segment 2 2.5 Construction 2.5.1 Open Trench Construction 2.5.2 Pipe Jacking Construction 2.5.3 Concrete Encasements 2.5.4 Manhole Construction 2.5.5 Pre-cast Concrete Pile Construction 2.6 Schedule 2.7 Project Permits and Approvals 2.7.1 State Agency Permits 2.7.2 Local Permits and Approvals SECTION 3 - INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST SECTION 4 -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION • r 4.1 Land Use and Planning 4.2 Population and Housing 4.3 Geophysical 4.4 Water 4.5% . Air Quality. 4.5.1 Air Quality Settings . 4.5.2 Air Quality Impacts 4.5.3 Mitigation Measures 4.6 Transportation and Circulation . 4.6.1 Baseline Conditions 4.6.2 Construction Impacts 4.6.3 Mitigation Measures 6r is LIST OF EXHIBITS :r Exhibit 1.1-1 Bolsa Chica Location Map Exhibit 1.1-2 :Vicinity Map Exhibit 1.3-1 Bolsa Chica Domestic Water Transmission Pipeline Exhibit 4.10-1 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels LIST OF TABLES Table 4.5-1 Ambfent Air Quality Standards Table 4.5-2 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary(1991 -1996) Table 4.5-3 Emissions Factors for Construction Equipment Used in Pipeline Construction Table 4.5-4 Construction Equipment Daily Air Pollution Emissions* Table 4.5-5 Total Project Emissions Table 4.6-1 Streets Affected by Pipeline Construction Table 4.10-1 On-site Noise Monitoring Summary S r TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 4.7 Biological Resources 4.8 Energy and.Mineral Resources 4.9 - -Hazards 4.10 Noise 4.10.1 Noise Impacts 4.10.2 Mitigation Measures 4.11 Public Services 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems 4.13 Aesthetics 4.14 Cultural Resources 4.15 Recreation SECTION 5 - CONSISTANtY WITH REGINAL AND LOCAL PLANS SECTION 6 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION SECTION 7-ENVIRONMENTAL PERSONNEL SECTION 8 -REFERENCES Y 6 3 SECTION 1 -INTRODUCTION 1.1 Bolsa Chica Planned Community The Bolsa Chica Planned Community encompasses approximately 1,588 acres within unincorporated Orange County as shown on Exhibit 1.1-1,Bolsa'Chica Location Map. The Bolsa Chica Planned Community is coterminous with the County's Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program(LCP)Area. The property lies entirely within the Coastal Zone as defined by the California Coastal Act and is therefore under the land use planning and regulatory jurisdiction of both the County of Orange and the California Coastal Commission. The California Coastal Commission certified the LCP in 1997 and the LCP has been adopted as part of the Orange County`s General Plan and Zoning Code. The portion of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community to be developed for residential purposes is the northerly subarea referred to as the Bolsa Chica Mesa,which encompasses approximately 235 acres as shown on Exhibit 1.1-2, Vicinity Map. The 'Bolsa Chica Plan of Works Report for Water and Wastewater (PWR), prepared by IWA Engineers, (May 1997) identifies the development requirements for water and wastewater facilities based on a domestic water supply from Southern California Water Company(SCWC). 1.2 Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company The Land Owner/Master Developer has formed a mutual benefit water company,which will be the entity responsible for the domestic water distribution system and the on-site sewage collection system for the development. The Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company (BCMWC) will serve approximately 1,235 customers within its 235-acre service area. Drinking water for the BCMWC's residential customers comes from SCWC which provides imported water(Colorado River Project and State Water Project)and groundwater from local wells. The BCMWC will contract with SCWC for water supply and water systems operations and maintenance, as well as for maintenance of the on-site sewer facilities. The BCMWC will own all of the water and wastewater facilities identified in the PWR,including the domestic water transmission pipeline from SCWC. 1.3 Project Background The purpose of the Bolsa Chica Domestic Water Transmission Pipeline (DWTP) is to provide domestic watet•transmission from an.existing SCWC distribution system,in the City of Cypress,to the planned development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The DWTP will serve as the primary water supply source for the entire Bolsa Chica development Exhibit 1.3-1 shows the location of the DWTP with respect to the development. The project involves the construction of two main segments of transmission pipeline. The project will be constructed during the last three quarters of 1998 and the first quarter of 1999. It is intended construction will be completed in time for the grand opening of model homes in March of 1999. The proposed DWTP is addressed in this Initial Study/Negative Declaration and environmental evaluation as the proposed project. COUHTr of , t' SAN BER4/JtOHO cmmre CF LOS ANC93 rYOPILk r x ORANGE CO CALIFORNIA • .. � ate of F� . ANAHEM Qom'W t Ca°OfR 1 CRCK 1 =UNTr OF lar---aoE % •�•� SAN UMA. Cleveland SEAL •�•\ �•�,TUS'1�I 1, i •� 1 �'�• �•� National N `._...... y BOLSA CHICA N. i PLANNED COMMUNfTY TzEwpOuBEAM '�.� P Ai C 1 F 1 C `.�.`•`v ! FOP- T �. C7 O C E A N I.A�rUiyIA i BY-ACFi SAN MAN Cl!►T'3STFtANO OWNTr CF S M ME= SAN t svNSFr' CLEMMM "PARK�I Sy _ ti B� '• COASTAL SUNSET BEACH "s� ZONE I...—BOUNDARY BOLSA CHICA FWY PLANNED COMMUNITY c cc HUNTINGTON. --' - BEACH PIER t t � Q• I" r Q• PACIFIC SANTA AN RIVER ESTUARY O C E•A N �..-... i BEADY NEWPORT DUNES S Exhibit a e1-� BOLSA CHICA BOLSA CHICA LOCATION MAP- Master Coastal Development Permit r"s-14TZ "' Ve I � e�cs~� _ {} EXhrA t AS [r(Tf KAAS " S \` AVE. \♦ QW Ut`H ceoy!MTrIEiAUb R.'�0 Ck«�X I ♦ IIWJut`Lgt AYE. BotS�CFKA WMA , • •� � sort AYE. ♦ t 3za� Pork Curet BOLSA BAY Sri EOxE=O 00 5 `♦ `\ A BOLSA ODCA ECS 74G STATE %?♦�+ LOVAAM rtm BOt.Sk BAY ` G kMEW AM t'IQRia'!Warder Re2ronat Park ♦ ti PACIFIC OCEAN LEGENQ* ® MASM COASTAL DEVELOPMENr PERMrr PROJECT LOCNMON B COUNN LCP AREA BOUNDARY COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY Exhibit 1 .1 BOLSA CH1CA VICINITY lAF MOM Master Coastal Development Permit � 0 1200 CYPRESS ,STAN cosv = WILLOW POINT OF CONNECTION ]ION LO S ALAM ITO S cwmm Fl GARDE GROVE LAUPsoN as c ovE o — - 4 X—F— W STMINS ER zz •�V_.� J Q V J V m SEAL BEACH m H TRAsx m WES MINSTER WES UINSTER C m� 18" D.I.P. HAZARO y�. SCwC- WATER PIPELINE PeU-k, . o McFAOOEN SEAL BEACH H NTINGT N • BEACH �• 6 E04NCER a HEI en SUNSET BEACH WARNER fO-S PATOs o Solso Chico o SLATER o eveiopment a I\L `r 11 H NTINGT N TALS BEACH EXHIBIT 1.3-1 U BOLSA CHICA DOMESTIC WATER pus TRANSMISSION PIPELINE r+ , SECTION 2 -PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location The proposed pipeline project is located in the northwest region of Orange County, California.This facility will generally extend from the development area northward along Bolsa Chica Street to an existing supply source in the City of Cypress as shown in Exhibit 1.3-1. Segment 1 of the pipeline includes the entire portion of pipeline proposed to be constructed on-site or within the City of Huntington Beach. Segment 2 of the pipeline begins in the City of Westminster at the boundary with the City of Huntington Beach and continues north along the existing Bolsa Chica Channel to the City of Cypress. The pipeline will cross through the following jurisdictional boundaries: Unincorporated Orange County(Developer Property) - City of Huntington Beach(Public Street Right-of-way) - City of Westminster(Public Street Right-of-way) - City of Seal Beach (Public Street Right-of-way) - County of Orange (Flood Control District Right-of-way) - Orange County Flood Control District Easement(Armed Forces Reserve Center,Los Alamitos Right-of-way) - Armed Forces Reserve Center,Los Alamitos - City of Cypress (Public Street Right-of-way) 2.2 Present Setting Segment 1 is proposed to originate within the development property along the south side of Los Patos Avenue in a future landscape area. The remaining pipeline will be constructed under the paved roadway of Bolsa Chica Street within the City of Huntington Beach. The pipeline will traverse through combined residential and commercial land uses adjacent to Bolsa Chica Street. Segment 2 continues northerly along the easterly side of Bolsa Chica Street in the City of Westminster. Segment 2 also crosses through the City of Seal Beach, Caltrans right-of-way under the I-405/SR 22 interchange, and continues northerly within the Bolsa Chica Flood Control Channel right-of-way. This segment ultimately traverses through the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center (LA.A£RC)golf course facility and along Orangewood Avenue in the City of Cypress to its point of connection at the intersection with Valley View Avenue. The portion of Segment 2, which is proposed to run north of the freeway, will run adjacent to residential and commercial land uses. 2.3 Segment 1 Segment 1 consists of 18-inch diameter ductile iron pipe,the majority of which to be constructed within existing City of Huntington Beach street right-of-way. Segment 1 begins at the south side of Los Patos Avenue at the terminus of Lynn Street. The point of beginning is the connection to the proposed domestic water reservoir to be located on the development site. From this point,Segment 1 heads easterly along the south side of Los Patos Avenue(outside of existing street right-of-way, within a proposed 25-foot wide landscaped area)to Bolsa Cb1ca Street. It then turns 90 degrees and runs north-south along the east side of Bolsa Chica Street from the intersection at Los Patos Avenue 2 6 � to the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Rancho Road terminating at the northerly limit of the City of Huntington Beach. The Segment 1 alignment passes through major intersections at'PYarner Avenue, Heil Street, Edinger Avenue and Bolsa Street. At Edinger Avenue, the pipeline crosses over the Westminster Flood Control Channel, adjacent to the easterly edge of the existing Bolsa Chica Street bridge structure. The channel runs east-west along the north side of Edinger Avenue. The total length of Segment 1 is approximately 16,200 feet with a typical depth'of 5 feet and a maximum depth ranging from 10 to 15 feet near the Westminster Channel. 2.4 Segment 2 Segment 2 consists of an 18-inch diameter ductile iron pipeline, which connects the northerly terminus of Segment 1 to an existing 12-inch SCWC water main at the intersection of Valley View Avenue and Orangewood Avenue in the City of Cypress. From its point of connection to Segment 1, Segment 2 continues northerly along the east side of Bolsa Chica Street to the southerly terminus of Valley View Avenue. At this point,the Segment 2 alignment crosses over to the west side of Valley View Avenue where the it continues north in the old Bolsa Chica Street alignment until it reaches the existing southerly Caltrans right-of-way line. The alignment then turns 90 degrees and runs westerly along the south side of the freeway right-of-way and then turns 90 degrees again and resumes in a northerly direction through the I-405/SR-22 freeway right-of-way. The pipeline will be bored and jacked beneath the freeway for approximately 200 feet. North of the freeway, the pipeline alignment will run within the Orange County Flood Control District(OCFCD)Right-of-way beneath-the existing paved maintenance road on the east side of the Bolsa Chica Channel. This reach of channel right-of-way is within the City of Seal Beach for the first 2,300 feet and within an OCFCD easement from the LAAFRC in the City of Los Alamitos. The pipeline alignment exits the channel right-of-way and traverses a maintenance road and parking lot at the easterly perimeter of the LAAFRC golf course facility. Once through the golf course, the pipeline alignment turns east and runs within existing City of Cypress street right-of-way along Orangewood Avenue for approximately 1,250 feet. The ultimate point of connection to the existing SCWC system is at the intersection of Orangewood Avenue and Valley View Avenue. The Segment 2 alignment passes through major intersections along Bolsa Chica Street with Rancho Road and Westminster Boulevard, and at the intersection of Orangewood Avenue and Valley View Avenue. The total length of Segment 2 is approximately 19,400 feet with a typical depth of 5 feet and a maximum depth ranging from 10 to 25 feet through the freeway right-of-way. 2.5 Construction The total length of pipeline to be installed is approximately 35,600 feet or nearly 6 and three-quarter miles. Both Segments 1 and 2 will be 18-inch diameter ductile iron pipe. Most of the pipeline will be laid at a typical depth of 42-inches of cover. Utility and storm drain crossings will range in depths from 5 to 10 feet. Crossings at major intersections are expected to be 10 to 15 feet in depth. Boring and jacking of steel casing or carrier pipe is proposed at the crossing of the Barber Channel confluence with the Bolsa Chica Channel at Rancho Road and at the crossing of the I-405/SR-22 Freeway interchange. . Construction easements will not be required for construction within street right-of-way. Construction easements in OCFCD right-of-way should be 20-feet wide and consist of a trench approximately 3-feet wide and a 16-foot wide work area. 6� 3 r+ 2.5.1 Open Trench Construction Open trench construction methods are typically used to install various facilities from the ground or street surface. The installation operation consists of trenching, shoring, pipe laying, backfilling, compacting and resurfacing/restoration. Existing utilities conflicting with construction would be supported during construction. Trenching Open-cut trenches are excavated along the ali,lment using backhoes, excavators, or other types of excavation equipment. Portions of the trench may be manually excavated. The excavated soil is temporarily stored in single rows adjacent to the trenches, stored at off-site staging areas, or immediately hauled away. The trench is expected to be approximately three feet wide throughout the entire alignment and may be either sloped back or shored. Trenching depths range from approximately 5 feet to 15 feet below the ground surface. The length of excavated trench is typically the distance necessary to accommodate the amount of pipe installed in a single day. For the proposed project,pipe installation would progress along the alignment at an advancement rate of about 100 feet per day. For portions of the alignment that are constructed in areas with high groundwater,the groundwater is removed during or prior to the excavation of the trenches. It is not anticipated that groundwater will be encountered in any of the excavations for this project. If dewatering is necessary,a National Pollutant Discharge EIimination System(NPDES)permit would be required and the discharge must meet the specifications and requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A more detailed assessment of the occurrence of groundwater along the pipeline route would be conducted as part of the final design. All applicable regulations regarding the disposal of groundwater, if encountered,shall be followed. Shoring As the trench is excavated,the trench walls are supported or shored with hydraulic jacks or trench boxes. Steel or wood sheeting between H-beams is occasionally used. Other similar shoring methods may be used.Trenches greater than five feet deep require shoring to prevent the sides from caving in or collapsing as required by Cal-OSHA. Shoring is also required when a sloped back excavation would extend into the influence zone of an existing structure: All shoring shall be done in accordance with Cal-OSHA and District safety requirements. Piue Laying The installation of the pipeline involves the placement of a bedding material in the bottom of the trench prior to laying the pipe. The bedding material provides a superior support for the pipe and usually consists of imported gravel, sand, or other aggregate. Where soil conditions permit, the excavated soil can be used as the bedding. For the proposed project,site material won't be suitable for bedding,but can be used a back fdl above the bedding material, as long as it is free of organic material,contamination,and debris. 4 70 „ The bedding material is placed in the trench, spread, compacted to a predetermined thickness, and formed to fit the pipe joints before the pipe is placed in position. Other pipe support methods may . 1 be employed depending on soil conditions,pipe size, and depth. Once the bedding material is in place, a segment of pipe is placed in the proper position.on the bedding with a crane,backhoe, or manually. The next pipe segment is placed in position'and the joint sealed to prevent leakage. Bedding around the pipe is then put in place. In some areas where additional support and protection is needed,a concrete cap or encasement is placed over the pipe before the top bedding is put in place. As the pipe laying operation proceeds, any lateral lines are connected. Backfillina and Compaction Once the pipe is placed in the proper position and bedding placement is complete, the trench is .backfilled and compacted. A loader or backhoe is used to fill the trench with previously excavated soil. Mechanical compactingis the method used. Mechanical compacting consists of placing layers of soil or imported fill material over the pipe and compacting each layer with a vibrating roller or other compacting device before the next layer is backfilled and compacted. The thickness of the layers depend on the types of equipment used,but typically range from 6-inches to 12-inches. In general,the process of mechanical compacting requires many layers to completely fill the trench over the pipe. With deep trenches,the difference in the rate of compacting is very pronounced and can affect the project construction duration. For the proposed project,the pipe bedding and backfill requirements shall be done in accordance with the District's Standard Technical Specifications. Resurfacing/Restoration Upon backfilling and soil densif cation, the trench is-temporarily resurfaced. This is then followed by a permanent surface once the project is near completion. A permanent surface rather than a temporary one may be placed after the trench has been backfilled and compacted. In general, resurfacing of previously paved areas involves resurfacing with asphalt or concrete. For projects that occur in unpaved areas, surface area restoration may include landscaping or restoration of native vegetation. : Protection of Existing Utilities Parallel Construction - Construction of the DWTP parallel to existing pipelines must adhere to published requirements of the various agencies. Crossings -The most appropriate method of construction at the various crossings depends on the condition of the existing pipelines,distance(horizontal and vertical)of the proposed waterline to the existing pipelines, and constructability. Newer sections of existing pipe with welded joints are less likely to be affected by construction therefore,trenching for concrete encasement would be done at � � . 5 Y• . l the crossings. For crossings at older existing pipelines that have rubber joints,jacking would minimize disturbance to the existing pipe. At crossings with other agency's facilities including the Southern California Edison overhead lines,the location of each facility must be verified to avoid or protect the utility during construction. 2.5.2 Pipe Jacking Construction Pipe jacking is a method that utilizes a horizontal jack to install the pipelines in a single pass. Although pipe jacking minimizes the surface disruption common to open-trench construction, some surface disruption is unavoidable as this method of construction requires the use of access shafts called jacking pits and receiving pits. A hydraulic jack pushes the pipe segment by segment through the soil from a jacking pit to a receiving pit. Soil is excavated mechanically or manually at the head or leading edge of the pipe. Pipe jacking is normally used for relatively short tunneling installations because frictional resistance increases with length and only very gentle curves can be negotiated. The proposed project would require a combination of jacking pits and receiving pits. The dimensions of jacking pits are typically 12 feet wide by 30 feet long by25 feet deep. Receiving pits are typically 10 feet wide by 10 feet long by 25 feet deep. Boring and jacking is not required for Segment 1. The Segment 2 pipeline will require jacking at three locations: 1)the crossing of the Barber City Channel reinforced concrete box(RCB)culvert at Rancho Road, 2) the U.S. Naval Weapons Station rail tracks crossing of Bolsa Chica Street just south of Westminster Boulevard, 3) the crossing of the 1-405/SR-22 Freeway interchange. Jacking is required for the following reasons: To protect the proposed pipeline beneath the RCB culvert; To avoid disturbance to the U.S.Naval Weapons Station rail tracks and protect the proposed pipeline from heavy railcar loads. Caltrans requires all utility encroachments be steel encased, and to allow constriction of the pipeline crossing through the freeway interchange without disrupting freeway operations. 2.5.3 Concrete Encasements Concrete encasements are required at the beginning and end of the pipeline span over the Westminster Channel. Concrete encasements will be required where the pipeline is buried shallow at the headwalls on either end of the span. 6 �� 2.5.4 Manhole Construction Manholes would be installed approximately 400 feet apart along the alignment. The minimum ' manhole diameter is 48 inches. 2.5.5 Pre-cast Concrete Pile Construction Two pre-cast concrete piles will be driven into the Westminster Channel to support the pipeline span over the channel. This operation will require heavy pile driving equipment adjacent to the channel. The pile driving operation involves hammering of pre-cast piles for several hours. However,each pile can be installed in a single day. 2.6 Schedule Work hours for construction of the pipeline would be Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 AM TO 6:00 PM. Pending all permits, approvals, and the current Bolsa Chica development schedule, project construction would commence in Spring of 1998. The pipeline segments would be contracted separately and the entire pipeline would need to be completed by the end of the first quarter of 1999. 7.3 7 .. �- ry i 2.7 Project Permits and Approvals 2.7.1 State Agency Permits Department of Transportation(Caltsans) Encroachment Permit Utility Agreement Temporary Construction Permit Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) N-PDES permit for water discharged during construction General Activities Construction Permit .State Department of Health Services Compliance with design requirements for domestic waterline crossing of sewer facilities Cal OSHA-Division of Industrial Safety Excavation and shoring regulations 2.7.2 Local Permits and Approvals Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center ConstructionEasement Permanent Use Easement Orange County Flood Control District Construction Easement Permanent Use Easement City of Huntington Beach Construction Permit Franchise Agreement City of Westmiirster Construction Permit ' Franchise Agreement City of Seal Beach Construction Permit City of Cypress Construction Permit Private Landowners Signal Bolsa Corporation-Permanent Easement s SECTION 3 -INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST Potentially Reg.Dec. Less than No Significant Potentially Significant Impact Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorp. 1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal: 1 a Conflict with General Plan designation or zoning? X I 1 b Conflict with applicable environmental plans or X policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? 1 c Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity X 1 d Affect agricultural resources or operations(eg impacts X to soils or farmlands,or impacts from incompatible land uses ? le _ Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community(including a low-income or rrunonty community)_? 2 POPULATION AND ROUSING Would the proposal 2 a Cumulatively exceed official regional or local X population rojections ? 2.b Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X indirectly (eg through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of ma'or.infrastructure? - 2.c Displace existing housing,especially affordable X housing? 3 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involvin : 3-a Fault ru tuie? X ' 3 b Seismic ground shaking? X 3 c Seismic ground failure,including liquefaction? X 3 d Seiche,tsunami or volcanic hazard? X 3 e Landslides or mud flows ? X 3 f Erosion changes in topography or unstable soil X conditions from excavation grading or fill? 3 g Subsidence of the land? X 3 h Expansive soils? X 3 i Uni ue eological or physical features? X 4 'WATER Would the proposal result in: 4 a Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the X 'f rate and amount of surface runoff? / 9 Potentially Neg.Dec. Less than No Significant Potentially Significant Impact Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation ' Into . 7 d Wetland habitat(eg marsh,riparian and vernal pools) X 7 e Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X 8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: 8 a Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans ? X 8 b Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X inefficient manner? 8 c Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of future value to the Region and the residents of the State 9 HAZARDS Would the Piroposal involve: 9 a A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X substances (including but not limited to:oil, pesticides,chemicals,or radiation) ? 9 b Possible interference with emergency response plan X or emergency evacuation plan ? 9 c The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? 9 d Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards ? 9.e Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X ass, or trees? 10 NOISE Would the proposal result in: 10 a Increases in existing noise levels ? X 10 b I Ex osure of people to severe noise levels? X 11 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in the need fornew.or altered government services in any of the following areas: 11 a Fire protection? X 11 b Police protection ? X 11 c Schools ? X 11 d Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? X. 11 e Other government services? X 12 UTILIT'IES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the Proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, substantial alterations to the following utilities. 12 a Power or natural gas? X 12 b Communications stems? X 12 c Local or regional water treatment or distribution X facilities ? 12 d Sewer or septic tanks ? X 12 a Storm water drainage? X • I1 7 4 Potentially Neg.Dec. Less thin No Significant Potentially Significant Impact Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Inca . 12 f Solid waste disposal? X 12 g Local or regional water supplies X 13 AESTHETICS Would the proposal: 13 a Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X 13 b Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X 13 c Create light or glare? X 14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: r1414 a Disturb aleontolo ical resources ? X b Disturb archeolo 'cal resources ? X c Affect historic resources? X d Have the potential to cause a physical change which X would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 14 e Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within X potential impact area? 15 RECREATION Would the proposak 15 a Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional X arks or other recreational facilities? 15 b Affecf existing recreational o ortunities ? X 16 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 16 a Does the project have the potential to degrade the X quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal - community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 16 b Does the project have the potential to achieve short- X term,to the•disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals ? 16 c Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) 16 d Does the project have environmental effects which X will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? 72 , 12 SECTION 4 -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Impacts of the proposed project would result from construction of the water transmission pipeline, but overall would not be significant due to the small size of the project and the short construction duration. The pipeline would be underground and is intended to serve development that is currently planned for the area.-Phasing of the pipeline construction would be coordinated with access to right- . of-way for the pipeline alignment within the various jurisdictions. Installation of the pipeline would commence once right-of-way is secured 4.1 Land Use and Planning The Bolsa Chica Development area, including the project site, is currently vacant. The City of Huntington Beach north of Los Patos Avenue and Warner Avenue consists of existing residential uses. Residential, community, school, and neighborhood commercial development projects are planned for the project site and for the areas to the east within the City of Huntington Beach. In addition,the lowland areas to the southeast are planned for wetlands restoration projects. Segment 1 of the proposed pipeline project begins at the project site in unincorporated Orange County. The remainder of Segment 1 is located in public streets within the City of Huntington Beach. Land uses adjacent to the proposed pipeline consists of combined residential and commercial/industrial. Segment 2 of the proposed pipeline project is located within several jurisdictions and land uses as follows: Location Land Use Public streets within the City of Westminster. Primarily residential with some neighborhood commercial. Public streets within the City of Seal Beach. Industrial Caltrans right-of-way at SR-22/I-405 Roadway interchange. Orange County Flood Control Channel right- Residential of-way within the City of Seal Beach. Orange County Flood Control Channel right- Residential-and Recreational of-way within the City of Seal Beach. LAAFRC Golf Course Facility. Residential and recreational Public streets with the City of Cypress. Industrial and residential The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to land use and - planning. No mitigation is required. 13 7. " r 4.2 Population and Housing The proposed project would not affect population growth or displace existing housing. It would not induce substantial growth in adjacent undeveloped areas as these areas are currently designated for urban development. The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to population and housing. No mitigation is required 4.3 Geophysical The topography of the project site is primarily flat consisting of paved roadway surfaces and unpaved areas such as flood channels,freeway embankments and developed areas of compacted native soils. Except for a portion of the alignment parallel to Los Patos Avenue,the majority of the site is in the existing Bolsa Chica Street and flood control channel maintenance roads. The seismicity of the area is relatively low compared to other areas of Southern California. The active faults that have generated the strongest historical earthquakes nearest the project area include the San Andreas Fault and the Newport-Inglewood zone of deformation. Future earthquakes are expected to be associated with known active faults,none of which are known to exist in the project area. Although faults exist within the project area they are considered inactive and are not considered a geotechnical constraint to development due to surface faulting. The proposed project would require trenching and some displacement of soils but this would be minimal and not significant. Approximately 85 to 90 percent of the soil that is excavated would be replaced and compacted as each pipe segment is installed. Fill materials derived from the site are expected to have negligible to medium expansion potential. The groundwater table is shallow ranging from 12 to 30 feet below the ground surface,however, ground water elevations may fluctuate depending upon the seasons. No people would be exposed to geologic hazards as a result of the pipeline installation..The pipeline would be designed'to..withstand the existing geologic conditions of the site. Trenching for construction of the pipeline will conform with appropriate engineering techniques in accordance with standard technical specifications of SCWC,Best Management Practices (BMP) and all applicable requirements of Cal-OSHA and the Construction Safety Act. In addition, the proposed facilities would be designed and engineered to State and SCWC standards. The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to geophysical resources. No mitigation is required 7 f 14 r 4.4 Water Existing surface water resources in the vicinity of the proposed project include the Westminster Flood Control Channel, the Bolsa Chica Flood Control Channel, the Anaheim-Barber City Flood Control Channel, and the Garden Grove Flood Control Channel.The Orange County Flood Control District has recently prepared a project report for future improvements to the Bolsa Chica Channel north of the SR-22/I-405 interchange. The location of the proposed pipeline within the channel right-of-way will be such that impacts to future improvements will be insignificant. Groundwater was observed at 12 and 30-feet below ground surface in exploratory borings performed for the geotechnical investigations for Segment 1. The shallow groundwater resources under the proposed alignment are not in a principal groundwater basin and are not used in this area for domestic,non-potable or other beneficial uses. i -The proposed project would not alter drainage patterns or expose people or property to water related hazards. No significant impacts to surface hydrology or water quality would result. Groundwater is expected to be encountered at depths greater than 12 feet. For construction at these depths, any groundwater extracted during construction by pumping or dewatering would be discharged to the Bolsa Chica Channel under an NPDES permit. The discharge would adhere to the specifications and requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The occurrence of groundwater along the entire alignment would be assessed in detail as part of the project's final design. All applicable regulations regarding the disposal of groundwater, if encountered,would be followed. The quantity and quality of groundwater would not be significantly changed by extraction and discharge to the Bolsa Chica Channel during construction. The proposed project is anticipated to begin construction in April of 1998 and be completed by February of 1999. The majority of construction would-generally occur during the dry season and is not expected to affect surface waters in the Bolsa Chica.Channel and it's tributary drainages. If construction occurs during the wet season, standard construction practices for erosion control and BMPs would be used to minimize discharge into surface waters. The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to water resources. No mitigation is rgquired. 4.5 Air Quality Meteorology/Climate The climate along the proposed pipeline alignment is dominated by the strength and position of the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. It creates cool summers, mild winters, and infrequent rainfall, cool daytime sea breezes, and comfortable humidities and ample sunshine. Unfortunately, the same atmospheric processes that create this desirable living climate combine to restrict the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the large population attracted in part by the climate. The coastal Central Orange County area 15 �Q } typically experiences very little of the unhealthful air quality found in some parts of the Los Angeles basin, but the area is not completely immune from the intrusion of polluted air from more urbanized and industrialized portions of the regional airshed. Temperatures in the project area average 62°F annually. Temperatures range from the mid-80's during the summer months to around 40 degrees in winter. Peak summer temperatures are often delayed until August because thick coastal stratus clouds in June and often into July reduce the sunshine intensity in early summer. Daily and seasonal oscillations of temperature are small because of the moderating effects of the nearby oceanic heat reservoir. In contrast to the steady temperature regime,rainfall is highly variable, and confined almost exclusively to the "rainy" period from early November to mid-April. Rainfall in the project area averages 12 inches annually. Winds along the coastal area display several characteristic regimes. Daytime winds are generally from the southwest and west at 8-12 miles per hour. At night,typically,offshore winds of 3-5 miles per hour develop. During the morning hours as the offshore flow dies out,winds blow parallel to the coastline from the southeast until the onshore winds become re-established. One other important wind regime occurs when a high pressure center forms over the western United States and creates strong, hot, dry, gusty Santa Ana winds from the northeast and east across southeastern Orange County coastal areas. These winds are funneled and accelerated by local canyon terrain, except where vegetative or man-made obstructions reduce the wind velocity. Strong winds Santa Ana wind conditions may impede dust control during construction activities. Air Pollution Meteorology The low frequency of calms and adequate daytime ventilation speed does not allow for any significant daytime stagnation of air pollutants in the project area. Except for regional intrusion of unhealthful air pollutants, air quality in the vicinity of the central county coastal corridor is considered good. The moderate onshore breeze carries any locally generated emissions eastward toward Riverside County. Daytime air quality problems occur mainly when winds shift far into the northwest and the daytime sea breeze is replaced by auflow across areas which generate substantial pollution,such as southwestern Los Angeles County and for northern Orange County. These winds occasionally bring smog levels in excess of allowable standards into the project area during summer and early fall. Nighttime air quality problems occur when the slower nocturnal winds drift across Oarange County out of Santa Ana Canyon and off the nearby hills, allowing for localized stagnation of pollution. Nocturnal airflow also brings elevated pollution levels of vehicular exhaust such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides into the coastal corridor. Monitoring has shown, however, that the rate of vehicular emissions improvements has exceeded rates of growth of numbers of vehicles. Although nocturnal meteorology is often unfavorable,air quality nevertheless has been improving. In addition to winds that govern the horizontal rate and trajectory of any air pollutants, Southern California experiences several characteristic temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants can be mixed. The daytime onshore flow of marine air is capped by a massive dome of warm air that acts like a giant lid over the basin. As the clean ocean air moves 1 inland,pollutants are continually added from below without any dilution from above. As this layer slows down in inland valleys of the basin and undergoes photochemical transformations under fl abundant sunlight, it creates unhealthful levels of smog (mainly ozone). A second inversion forms at night as cool air pools in low elevations while the air aloft remains warm. Shallow radiation inversions are formed (especially in winter) that trap pollutants near intensive traffic sources such as freeways and shopping centers, and form localized violations of clean air standards called"hot spots." Although inversion are found during all seasons of the year, the summertime regional capping inversion and the localized winter radiation inversions are,by far, the most dominant. The seasonal split in inversion intensity thus contributes significantly to the different air quality climates found in the summer and the winter in the project area. 4.5.1 Air Quality Settings Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS): In order to assess the air quality impact of any proposed development such as the Bolsa Chica Water Supply Pipeline project, that impact, together with baseline air quality levels,must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety,to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress or infection,referred to as"sensitive receptors,"such as asthmatics, the very young,the elderly,people weak from other illness or disease, or persons in heavy work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate periodic exposure to air pollution levels well above these standards before adverse health effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however that chronic exposure to ozone even at levels that just meet standards may nevertheless create adverse respiratory health effects. An additional margin of safety may therefore be needed if and when all clean air standards are ultimately reached in Southern California. The Clean Air Act Amendment(CAAA) of 1970 established national AAQS with states retaining . the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. Because California already had standards in existence before federal AAQS were established, and because of unique meteorological problems in the state, there is considerable diversity between state and federal standards currently in effect in California, as shown in Table 4.5-1. The deadline for attainment of national AAQS was set for 1977 by the 1970 CAAA. The 1977 CAAA set 1982 as the revised attainment deadline with a possible extension to 1987 for some Pollutants as long as reasonable further progress had been demonstrated by 1982. By 1987,Southern California air quality had improved,but still was far from attainment. A new deadline of 2010 has been established which recognizes that the combination of too many people and poor meteorology are a significant deterrent to any near-term expectations of meeting the standards in Table 4.5-1. 9.2 17 I . t • TABLE 4.5-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards STATE STANDARD 'FEDERAL PRIMARY MOST RELEVANT EFFECTS STANDARD AIR CONCEN-rRATi0 NZ / CONCENTRATION/ POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME AVERAGING TIME Ozone 0.09 ppm I-hr.avg.> 0.12 ppm,I-hr avg.> (a)Short-term exposures: (1)Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humar,:-and anirnals. (2)Risk to public health implied bfaltcrations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals;(b) Long-term exposures: Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans;(e)Vegetation damage;(d)Property damage Carbon 9.0 ppm,g•hr avg.> 9 ppm$-hr avg-> (a)Aggravation ofangina pectoris and other Monoxide 20 ppm,I-hr avg.> 35 ppm,I-hr avg.> aspects of coronary heart disease;(b) Decreased exerciic tolerance In persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c)Impairment of central nervous system functions;(d)Possible increased risk to fetuses Nitrogen 0.25 ppm, 1-hr avg.> 0.053 ppm,ann.avg.> (a)Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory Dioxide disease and respiratory symptoms In sensitive groups;(b)Risk to public health Implied by pulmonary and extra pulmonary biochemical wad cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes;(e)Contribution to atmospheric discoloration SulfurDio4de 0.04 ppm 24-hr avg.> 0.03 ppm,ann,avg.> (a)Bronchoeonstriction accompanied by 0.25 ppm,1-hr.avg.> 0.14 ppm,24-hr avg.> symptoms which may include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness,during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma Suspended 30 µg/rm3,ann,geometric mean> SO ps/m3,annual (a)Excess deaths from short-term exposures Particulate arithmetic mean> and exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive Matter(PMta) 50;WO,24-hr average> patients with resp'umpory disease;(b) Excess 150pg/m3,24-hr avg.> seasonal declines In pulmonary function, especially in children Sulfates }rglm3,24-hr avg.>a (a)Decrease in ventilatory function;(b) .25 Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms;(c) Aggravation of ardio-puimonary disease;(d) Vegetation damage;(e)Degradation of visibility;(f)Property damage Lead 1 S 3 1.5 3 (a)Increased body burden;(b)Impairment of µg/m ,30-day avg.>� }cg/m ,calendar 9uarter> blood formation and nerve conduction Visibility- In sufficient amount to reduce the Visibility impairment on days when relative Reducing visual range to less than 10 miles at humidity is less than 70 percent Particles relative humidity less than 70 percent,8-hour average(IOam- bpm) Baseline Air Quality: Existing and probable future levels of air quality in the project area can be best inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the South Coast Air Quality f Management District(SCAQMD) at its Los Alamitos, Costa Mesa and El Toro monitoring stations. These stations measure both regional.pollution levels such as dust (particulates) and smog, as well as primary vehicular pollution levels near busy roadways such as carbon monoxide. The Los Alamitos station is closest to the project site but it closed in early 1994 and only measured ozone when it was operating. The Costa Mesa data is therefore the most representative project alignment data resource. Table 4.5-2 summarizes the last six years of published data from a composite of gaseous species monitored at Los Alamitos, Costa Mesa and particulates at El Toro (there are no particulate data available from Costa Mesa). The following conclusions can be drawn from these data: 1. Photochemical smog (ozone)levels sometimes exceed standards, especially the State one- hour threshold. The'frequency of first stage smog episodes, as evidence of extremely degraded air quality, is, however, very low in central coastal Orange County with the last first-stage smog alert as far back as 1985. 2. Annual maximum ozone levels tend to reflect some annual variations in dispersion patterns that cause concentrated airflow from more developed areas of the air basin to be carried into the coastal area during some years, while only the fringe of the basin wide "urban plume" reaches the coastal corridor in others. Ozone levels in Los Aiamitos closer to the project alignment were somewhat higher than farther south in Costa Mesa. At the Costa Mesa station,the federal one-hour ozone standard has not been exceeded since 1993. The project area is thus close to being in attainment for the federal ozone standard. 3. Measurements of carbon monoxide at the Costa Mesa station reflect the history of nocturnal air mass which has passed over heavily developed areas in central Orange County. Within the first one-half of this decade,however,the-rate of vehicular emissions improvements has exceeded the rate of growth of the County. CO levels by mid-decade were therefore 20-30 percent lower than at the start of the 1990s. The last violation of the 8-hour CO standard was in 1992. 4. PM-10 levels as measured at El Toro, periodically exceed the state- standard,.but no measurements in excess of the national particulate standard has been recorded in the last six years. With more of the air having a marine origin in the project area than in El Toro,the frequency of violations of the PM-10 standard near the proposed project site may be slightly lower than that suggested in Table 4.5-2. gy . 18 TABLE 4.5-2 PROSECT AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY (1991 - 1996) (Number of days standards were exceeded, and maximum levels during such violations) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Ozone: .i Hour>0.10 ppm 37 30 22 3 3 1 1-Hour>0.12 ppm 10 9 4 0 0 0 1 Hour z0.20 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.10 Carbon Monoxide: 1-Hour>20. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 8-Hour>9.ppm 0 1 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc.(ppm) 10. 13. . 10. 10. 8. 9. Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 8.1 9.1 7.3 7.9 6.7 7.3 Nitrogen Dioxide: 1-Hour>0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.14 Inhalable Particulates(PM-10): . 24-Hr.>50 µ9/m3 9157 5160 7161 7/59 11160 4/61 24-1-Ir.>150 µg/n? 0/57 0160 0161 0159 0160 0/61 Max.24-11r. Conc. (µg/m3) 94. 83. 115. 91. 122: 79. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District,Los Alamitos and Costa Mesa Stations for gaseous species, El Toro Station for particulate pollutants. Note: Entries shown as ratios=samples exceeding standards/samples taken. 19 '' Air Ouality Management Planning (AQMP): The continued violation of the federal ozone standard and federal standards for several other pollutants requires that regional planning and air pollution control agencies prepare a regional AQMP as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The AQMP must outline the measures by which both stationary and mobile sources will be controlled in order to achieve all standards within the Clean Air Act deadlines. For the South Coast Air Basin (SOCAB), which includes all of Orange County; the AQMP and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) developed a plan in 1978 that did predict clean air throughout the basin by 1987. It soon became apparent, however, that the economic, social and technological constraints were too prohibitive,and the AQMP update prepared in 1982 anticipated continued progress toward attainment,but recognized that the basin will continue to experience violations of the standard for photochemical smog until well beyond the year 2000. Another AQMP revision was adopted by SCAG and the SCAQMD on March 17, 1989. The 1989 'AQMP projected attainment:of all national standards by the year 2007. The 1989'AQMP was approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) but was not approved by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for incorporation in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) because the 2007 deadline for compliance was not approvable under the 1977 Clean Air Act. The 1989 AQMP relied in part on technology which had not yet been invented to meet its year 2007 target. It called for stricter controls on automobiles, paints and coatings, new industries, and transportation usage. The plan was divided into three tiers,with Tier I representing measures which were available for immediate implementation, Tier II consisting of measures that needed further development but were based on known technology, and Tier III representing emission reduction measures that were dependent on the development of new technology,including heavy reliance on clean fueled vehicles. In 1988, the California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA requires that regional emissions be reduced by 5 percent per year,averaged over 3 year periods,until attainment can be demonstrated. Each area that does not currently meet a national or state ambient air quality standard is required to prepare a plan which demonstrates how the 5 percent reductions will be achieved. The plan was to be locally adopted and submitted to the CARB by June 30, 1991. Areas,including the South Coast Air Basin,with the most heavily degraded air quality are required to reduce emissions 50 percent from 1987 levels by December 31,2000. Plans must be updated in 1998 if attainment cannot be demonstrated by the year 2000. In July 1991, the SCAQMD adopted a new AQ1T which was prepared to meet the CCAA requirements. Although the 1991 AQMP deferred the attainment date to 2010,consistent with the 1990 Clean Air Act,it contained fewer Tier III measurements,relying on the adoption of new motor vehicle controls by the California Air Resources Board which will result in cars by 2003 which are 80 percent cleaner than those sold in 1990. In accordance with requirements of the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments, a revision to the State Implementation Plan(SIP)was submitted in November, 1994 comprised of local elements for all ausheds with "serious"or worse ozone non-attainment problems. The SCAQMD plan required a reduction of 85%of VOC emissions and 59%reduction in NO,,from the 1990 baseline inventory. About 40% of the required reductions was to come from existing programs. Other reductions were 20 O 6 to come from market-based pollution reduction incentive programs such as RECLAIM. New federal, state and local measures were required to achieve the necessary additional-reduction. A number of reductions were anticipated from advanced control technologies that have not yet been fully developed such that some uncertainty exists in the rate of progress toward .a year 2010 attainment schedule. The 1994 AQMP/SIP was finally approved by EPA:in 1995. Very soon,however, it will be superseded by the proposed 1997 update submitted earlier this year. The 1997 plan relies on new analysis procedures that suggest emissions reductions need not be as drastic as previously assumed. Air quality control programs under the 1997 plan, if approved, are not expected to have as great an economic and/or sociological impact as previous plans. A pipeline project relates only minimally to the AQMP. Emissions from a pipeline derive almost exclusively from construction. Except for control of construction dust under the PM-10 attainment plan component of the 1997.AQMP/SIP,there are no measures in the plan that relate directly to the proposed project. PipelinesIndirectly relate to air quality by accommodating growth. Growth leads to traffic, which generates air pollution. The impacts of growth associated with Bolsa Chica have been evaluated under separate environmental documentation. No growth inducement is thus anticipated from the proposed project because it accommodates an already anticipated and analyzed level of growth. 4.5.2 Air Quality Impacts Standards of Significance i An air quality impact is significant if, 1. it creates a violation of clean air standards, or, 2. it contributes measurably to an existing violation,or, 3. it creates emissions for which there are no established safe exposure levels. Because regional air quality impacts often occur miles away from a source hours after their release (many pollutants must undergo chemicalchanges to become most unhealthful),there is no way to quantify the.small regional impact increment attributable to any single source. For regionally important pollutants, the South Coast AQMD has identified einission levels that should be considered as potentially regionally significant even if the resulting small incremental ambient air quality impact can not be quantified with any degree of accuracy. The SCAQMD's significance thresholds distinguish between emissions generated .during construction versus those released during project operations. Except for power consumption emissions,water conveyance system operations are generally air quality benign. Any direct potential project-related air quality impacts would thus occur only during the brief project construction period. p 21 , Daily construction activity emission levels which the SCAQMD in its "CEQA*Air Quality Handbook" (1993)identifies as individually and cumulatively significant during construction are as follows: J Carbon Monoxide(CO)- 550 pounds/day Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)- 75 pounds/day Nitrogen Oxides(NO.) - 100 pounds/day Sulfur Oxides (SO.) - 150 pounds/day Particulate Matter(PM-10) - 150 pounds/day Air Quality Construction Impacts Air emissions generated by construction activities cannot be quantified with 100 percent certainty because data regarding the exact number and types of equipment to be used varies from project to project. A number of generic assumptions thus need to be made to quantify construction activity impacts. For purposes of analysis,conservative(over-predictive)assumptions have been made. This impact assessment was intended as a screening level analysis to determine if worst-case assumptions might predict potentially significant impacts: As noted below,even with worst-case assumption's, . the impact from the proposed project can be demonstrated to be much less than significant. Dust Emissions Impacts Respirable dust (PM-10 emissions during construction depend upon the size of the disturbance "footprint". The South Coast AQMD estimates that PM-10 emissions from construction total 25-30 pounds per day per acre disturbed if standards(watering) dust abatement is applied. The daily disturbance area for pipeline construction was assumed to total 300 feet(100'excavation, 100'pipelaying, 100'backfill and paving)in length and 20 feet wide. Two reaches were assumed under simultaneous construction. The estimated combined daily disturbance area is 0.3 acre. The PM-10 emissions from project construction activities will thus be around 8-9 pounds per day. -As previously noted the S CAQMD considers daily PM-10 emissions of less than 150 pounds per day as a"de minimis"level. Project-related PM-10 emissions are far below this threshold level. Recent research on health effects from particulate inhalation has further demonstrated that almost all adverse effects derive from the smallest diameter material of 2.5 microns or less in diameter (called"PM-2.5"). A new national air quality standard for PM-2.5 has been adopted in July,'1997. Measurement has shown that only one or two percent of PM 2.5 in the air in Southern California is from soil disturbance such as construction. Mechanical breakdown of soil from construction activities almost exclusively yields particles larger than 2.5 microns. Independent of emissions magnitude, the particulate air quality impact from project construction activities is less than significant because there are negligible PM 2.5 emissions associated with such activity which would be the primary indicator of any adverse impact potential. 90' 22 i In addition to small particulates, construction activities generate substantial quantities of large diameter material. Such dust, which settles out on nearby parked cars,foliage, and other surfaces, is more of a soiling nuisance than a potential health impact. It is,however, the greatest source of nuisance complaints when construction activities occur in close proximity to sensitive receptors. Heavy particles generally redeposit within 50 feet of source generation unless there are unusual weather phenomena such as Santa Ana winds. Although project construction activities may briefly occur in close proximity to nearby homes, the source/receptor separation will typically be adequate to preclude nuisance impacts. Large particle dust emissions will briefly occur during the daytime when many cars from the nearest residents will be at work. Soiling nuisance is not expected to be significant despite the relative close proximity of construction activities to existing homes. Equipment Emissions Equipment emissions were calculated by combining the project equipment inventory with hours of operation,load factors and the emission factor from each type of equipment. The total emissions are expressed by: EMISSIONS =HOURS x LOAD FACTOR x EMFAC summed over all pieces of equipment. Emission factors for typical pipeline project activities are included in Table 4.5-3. An equipment inventory of a backhoe, loader, small crane,paver, roller, welding machine and a generator were assumed in simultaneous operation. Table 4.5-4 shows the resulting equipment exhaust emissions. In addition to on-site emissions sources,contractor employees will commute to the pipeline job sites which may be a considerable distance from home. Commuting activity vehicular emissions were calculated based on 20 employees driving 50 miles round trip, as determined from vehicle counts at comparable pipe laying jobs. A similar calculation was made for hauling excess dirt away and bringing in pipe or concrete. A total of 15 truck trips hauling dirt and 15 trips hauling construction materials were assumed for a maximum activity day. A round-trip distance of 40 miles per trip was assumed. Two job sites were assumed in simultaneous operation. TABLE 4.5-3 - ENUSSIONS FACTORS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. USED IN PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION uan. CO EOG NOx SOx PM-10 Source %Power Dozer lb/hr. 1.79• 0.19 4.17 0.35 0.02 AP-42,II-7.1 50 Excavator lb/hr. 1.67 0.15 3.64 0.30 0.23 SCAQMD-93 60 Backhoe lb/hr. 0.43 0.16 2.01 0.13 0.14 AP-42,3.3-1 50 Front-End Loader lb/hr. 0.57 0.25 1.89 0.18 0.17 AP-42,II 7.1 80 Crane lb/hr. 0.67 0.15 1.69 0.14 0.14 AP-42,II-7.1 30 Compactor lb/hr. 1.01 0.08 0.06 <0.01 0.02 AP-42,II7.2 80 Paver lb/hr. 0.67 0.15 1.69 0.14 0.14 AP-42,U 7.1 80 'Welding Machine lb/hr. 0.43 0.16 2.01 0.13 0.14 AP-42,3.3-1 30 Generator lb/hr. 0.55 0.10 0.96 0.10 0.05 SCAQMD93 80 Ripper lb/hr. 0.67 0.15 1.69 0.14 0.14 AP-42,II-7.1 30 Drilling Rig lb/hr. 0.67 0.15 1.69 0.14 0.14 AP-42,II 7.1 80 Dump Truck lb/1000 mi 24.54 6.39 27.36 NIA 4.98 EMFACM-1 Water True< lb/1000 m4 56.99 1157 38.71 N/A 4.98 EIVIFACM.1 Flat-Bed Truck lb/10W mi 24.54 639 27.36 NIA 4.98 EMFAC7M-1 Pick-up'Truck Ib/1000 mi 43.40 333 330 N/A 0.24 SCAQMD-93 RMC Truck lb/1000 mi 2454 6.39 2736 - 4.98 EMFAC7F1.1 Haul Trucks lb/1000 mi 24.54 639 27.36 - 4.98 EMFAC7F1.1 Employee Commute lb/1000 mi 16.84 096 1.51 - 0.24 . SCAQMD-93 ga 24 TABLE 4.5-4 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DAILY AIR POLLUTION ENUSSIONS :.-(ibsiday). Equipment Hours CO ROG NOx Sox PiYI-10 Backhoe 4 0.8 0.3 4.0 0.3 0.3 Loader 2 0.9 0.4 3.0 0.3 0.3 Crane 2 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 Welders 8 1.1 0.4 4.8 0.3 0.4 Generators 8 3.5 0.6 5.8 0.6 0.3 Paver 2 1.1 . 0.2 23 0.2 0.2 Roller 2 OA 0.2 - 2.0 0.2 0.2 Daily Total --- 8.2 2.2 23.3 2.0 1.8 SCAQMD Construction Signif.Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 % of Threshold 3.096 5.9% - 46.6% '1.3%. 1.2% .9 25 4 , The combined emissions from all on-and off-site sources are noted in Table 4.5-5. All emissions are below the SCAQMD significance threshold. Regional air quality impacts during pipeline construction activities should be considered as temporarily adverse,but less than significant. TABLE 4.5-5 TOTAL PROJECT EMISSIONS (pounds/day) On-Site Off-site Worker . Fugitive Signif. Pollutant Equipment Trucks' Commutine Dust Total Threshold Reactive Organic Gases 2.2 6.0 3.0 -- 11.2 .75 Carbon Monoxide 16.4 49.4 28.4 --- 94.2 550 Nitrogen Oxides 46.6 29.0 2.6 --- 78.2 100 Particulates (PM-10) 1.8 2.6 0.4 9.0 13.8 . 150 Sulfur Dioxide 2.0 .negl. negl.. --- 2.0 150 ` - 2,400 truck-miles/day(30 trips.x 40 mi/trip x 2 sites),SCAQMD CEQA Handbook Table A9-5 K-4 "- 2,000 VMT(20 trips x 50 m-ilUip x 2 sites),SCAQMD CEQA Handbook Table A9 5 J-4 704- 26 4.5.3 Mitigation Measures Pipeline construction activities are a temporary source of adverse,but less than significant, air quality impact. It is not possible to perform major construction without some release of air pollutants. In a non-attainment area,_even small volumes of air pollution may have an adverse cumulative impact. Feasible mitigation should.therefore be implemented regardless of emissions magnitude. Construction activity impacts derive primarily from fugitive dust from soil disturbance and from equipment exhaust. Partial impact mitigation will result from: 1. Keeping the construction disturbance "footprint" as small as possible. 2. Using adequate water and/or other dust palliatives on all disturbed areas as required by the S CAQMD. 3. Washing down or sweeping streets from which site access is taken to remove dirt carried from the site to the street to keep vehicles from pulverizing the dirt into fine particles. 4. Terminating soil excavation,clearing or grading when wind speeds exceed 25 mph for an hourly average. 5. Covering/tarping all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public roadways unless additional moisture is added to prevent material blow-off during transport. 6. Prohibiting engine idling while waiting to load or unload if the expected wait exceeds ten(10) minutes. With implementation of the above dust abatement and exhaust pollution minim.ilation measures, emissions associated with project implementation will be controlled at levels reduced as much as is reasonably feasible. 4.6 Transportation and Circulation The following sections summarize the traffic analysis that was.conducted.for the proposed Bolsa Chica Water Pipeline project. The analysis is focused on the impacts during construction at' locations where the pipeline alignment interfaces with a public roadway. First is a physical description of the affected roadways,followed by a discussion of the potential project impacts and the proposed measures for mitigating the traffic impacts. 4.6.1 Baseline Conditions The pipeline alignment begins near the intersection of Los Patos Avenue and Sims Street in the northwest area of Huntington Beach and runs east along Los Patos Avenue to Bolsa Chica Street. It then runs north along Bolsa Chica Street,crossing Warner Avenue,Heil Avenue,Edinger Avenue, McFadden Avenue, and Bolsa Avenue. The alignment enters Westminster at the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Rancho Road,then continues north along Bolsa Chica Road(the name changes from Bolsa Chica Street to Bolsa Chica Road at the city boundary). It crosses Westminster 9.q 27 Boulevard then departs from Balsa Chica Road at the curve in the road immediately south of the San Diego Freeway (Interstate 405). It then follows Old Balsa Chica Road to the southbound freeway off ramp, where it departs from the public roadway right-of-way and follows the Balsa Chica Channel. Along the channel,the pipeline would pass underneath the San Diego Freeway and Lampson Avenue at the boundary of Seal Beach and Garden Grove, then enter the Naval Base Golf Course in Los Alamitos. The last segment on the north end of the project would run along Orangewood Avenue west of Valley View Street in the city of Cypress. The pipeline alignment ends on Orangewood Avenue west'of Valley View Street. The streets that would be most directly affected by the project are the streets within which the pipeline would be constructed; i.e.,Los Patos Avenue,.Bolsa Chica Street,Balsa Chica Road, Old Balsa Chica Road, and Orangewood Avenue. In addition, there may be some secondary traffic impacts to the streets that would be crossed by the pipeline corridor. The affected streets are shown in Table 4.6-1, which indicates the responsible public agency, the number of lanes, and the type of street (divided or undivided). Irk-addition,there are numerous minor side streets that intersect with Los Patos Avenue,Balsa Chica Street,Bolsa Chica Road, and Orangewood Avenue,most of which provide access to adjacent residential neighborhoods. The signalized intersections along the project alignment are as follows,from south to north: Balsa Chica Street C Warner Avenue, Heil Avenue,Edinger Avenue,McFadden Avenue,Argosy Avenue,Balsa Avenue, and Rancho Road;Bolsa Chica Road @ Churchill Avenue, St. James Park, and Westminster Boulevard. The Orange County Transit Authority operates several bus routes that either cross the proposed pipeline alignment or run parallel to the pipeline alignment along segments of Balsa Chica Street. Bus routes cross the alignment on Warner Avenue,Edinger Avenue,Westminster Avenue,the San Diego Freeway, and Lampson Avenue,while bus routes run along Bolsa Chica Street from Heil to Edinger and north of Balsa Avenue. 4.6.2 Construction Impacts The primary traffic impact associated with the pipeline is that the construction activities would result in blockages on the affected public streets and would thereby cause disruptions to traffic flow. At the locations where the pipeline would be-constructed within the roadway, one or two travel lanes and the parking lane along the side of the street would be temporarily blocked for a period of one to three days. The construction activities would also disrupt or temporarily block access to the cross streets and driveways which intersect the roadways along the pipeline corridor. The pipeline would be constructed by beginning atone end of the corridor and proceeding linearly along the designated alignment. It is anticipated that the typical construction zone would range from 20 to 30 feet in width and from 200 to 300 feet in length to accommodate the activities of digging a trench, installing the pipe,backfilling the trench,compacting the fill material, and reconstructing/paving the surface area. The blockage would affect one or two travel lanes and the parking area along the edge of the street. There are several secondary impacts associated with the street blockages and-traffic disruptions during pipeline construction. Access to businesses and residences on the properties adjacent to the 28 y r pipeline corridor would be temporarily blocked. Pedestrian circulation would be disrupted at locations where the construction zone passes through a crosswalk. There would be a short-term increase in the potential for accidents. There could be an effect on emergency response by ambulance, fire,paramedic, and police vehicles. On-street parking would be temporarily displaced, and transit service would be temporarily disrupted as some of the bus stops may be rendered inaccessible by the construction activities. The impacts described above would occur only during construction of the pipeline and would, therefore,be temporary. After the pipeline is operational,there would be no further traffic impacts except during pipeline repair or maintenance activities. The construction impacts would not be significant as the contractor will be required to prepare a traffic control/management plan that will address the potential impacts identified above. 4.6.3 Mitigation Measures To mitigate the traffic impacts outlined above,the construction contractor shall be required to prepare a traffic control/management plan that must be approved by the public agency that has jurisdiction over each affected street; i.e., the cities of Huntington Beach,Westminster,and Cypress. The traffic control/management plan shall specify times that particular travel lanes cannot be blocked;for example,from 6:00 till 9:00 am. and from 3:30 till 6:30 p.m. (or as directed by the affected city). It will indicate if the trench must be covered and/or plated during times of non construction, and it shall provide details regarding detours and the placement of traffic control and warning devices such as signs,lights,barricades,cones,flaggers,etc. In addition, the contractor shall provide advance notification to property owners and tenants if a driveway is to be blocked, and all emergency service providers in the area must be notified in advance of the location,nature,timing,and duration of the construction activities, including police departments,fire departments,ambulance services, and paramedic companies. At locations where access to a property is blocked,provisions shall be ready at all times to accommodate emergency vehicle passage, such as plating over excavations,short detours, or alternate routes. Advance notification to OCTA shall also be required and alternate provisions shall be arranged for.any bus stops that are rendered unusable. �ij� 29 TABLE 4.6-1 _ STREETS AFFECTED BY PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION •l Street Jurisdiction of Lanes Type STREETS 'WITH PIPELINE WITHIN ROADWAY Los Patos Avenue Huntington Beach 2 Undivided Bolsa Chica Street South of Warner Ave. Huntington Beach 2 Undivided North of Warner Ave. Huntington Beach 6 Divided Bolsa Chica Road Westminster 6 Divided Old Bolsa Chica Road Westminster 2 Undivided Orangewood Avenue Cypress 2 Undivided MAJOR STREETS CROSSED BY PIPELINE ALIGNMENT Warner Avenue Huntington Beach 6 Divided Heil.Avenue Huntington Beach 4 Undivided Edinger Avenue Huntington Beach 4 Undivided McFadden Avenue Huntington Beach 2 Undivided Bolsa Avenue Huntington Beach 6 Divided Huntington Beach Rancho Road Westminster 2 Undivided Westminster Westminster Boulevard Seal Beach 4 Undivided San Diego Freeway Caltrans 8 Divided Garden Grove Seal Lam son Avenue. Beach 4 Undivided 30 94 i 4.7 Biological Resources The entire pipeline project is proposed entirely within existing paved roadway with the exception of a portion of freeway right-of-way consisting of engineered fill slopes and small concrete lined V-ditches and the reach of pipeline proposed along Los Patos Avenue south of the ultimate street width. The purpose of the DWTP facility is to serve the Bolsa Chica development therefore;the project would not be constructed until mass grading of the area had been completed. Impacts to wildlife and vegetation from the Bolsa Chica development would be mitigated under the recently certified Local Coastal Program. Consequently,subsequent installation of the sewer would not result in impacts to vegetation or wildlife. The disturbed portions existing paved roads and unpaved areas within the proposed alignment do not support any sensitive species. No endangered,threatened,rare,or sensitive species would be impacted by this portion of the proposed project. Some sensitive species are found along the southern edge of Bolsa Chica Mesa, but are at such a distance that they would not be affected. No locally designated plant species.-or natural communities are found within this portion of the proposed alignment. The proposed project would not impact any wildlife migration corridors nor is it expected to disrupt wildlife dispersal. The project is not expected to have more than 80 feet,per segment, of trench open-cut at any one time to accommodate the amount of pipe expected to be laid in a single day. The limited amount of open trench would not act as a barricade to wildlife moving through the area. The proposed pipeline construction would not result in any significant impacts to biological resources.No mitigation would be required for this project. 4.8 Energy and Mineral Resources Energy and fuel use for the proposed project would be minimal and short-term. The project would not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans and non-renewable resources would not be significantly and adversely impacted. Approximately 5,500 cubic yards of gravel and sand would be used for bedding in the trench. This represents a less significant loss of mineral resources to the region and the State. The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to energy and mineral resources.-No mitigation is required. 4.9 Hazards No hazardous substances would be used and no hazardous waste would be generated during construction and operation of the proposed project. No health hazards or interference with emergency responselevacuation plans would result. Any onsite fuel for construction equipment would be properly stored in a secured area per all applicable fire codes. Geotechnical testing of the alignment will be conducted. Any hzardous soil conditions will be managed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. r ? 31 , The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts from hazards. No mitigation is required. 4.10 Noise Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Acoustic energy is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests,the speed of propagation,and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. In particular,the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The unit of sound pressure ratioed to the faintest level detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity is called a decibel(dB). Because sound or noise can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing, a logarithmic loudness scale is used to keep sound pressure level values at a convenient and manageable level. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, noise levels at maximum human sensitivity are factored more heavily into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as dB(A). Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period(called LEQ), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. Finally,because community.receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that,for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level(CNEL). An interior CNEL of 45 dB(A) is mandated for multiple family dwellings, and is considered a desirable noise exposure for single family dwelling units as well. Since typical noise attenuation within residential structures with closed windows is about 20 dB, an exterior noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL is generally the noise/land use compatibility guideline for new residential dwellings in California. CNEL-based noise criteria are planning standards applied to sources preempted from local control. These standards usually apply to noise sources such as on-road vehicles, airplanes,trains, etc. Because the noise generation itself of such sources can not be regulated by local jurisdictions,the noise exposure of the receiving land use is regulated through local discretionary land use authority. Noise generation from"stationary" equipment such as pumps' compressors or mechanical equipment, plus that from non-public street mobile(construction)equipment,can be regulated by local ordinance. Jurisdictions along the pipeline alignment have generally adopted directly,or with slight variation,the Orange County Noise Ordinance from Section 4.6.5 of Division 6 of the County Code. The County's exterior noise standards(dB LEO)for noise-sensitive land uses (Noise Zone 1) are as follows: Noise Zone 1 7 a.m. -10 p.m. 55 10 p.m..-7 a.m. 50 i 32 i Construction activities, because of their temporary nature, are generally not held to these standards. Noise ordinances for Huntington Beach, Westminster, Cypress and/or Seal Beach do not allow construction between 7 or 8 p.m. and 7 a.m.the following day,or on any Sunday or holiday. Working hours for pipeline construction have been established from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.,Monday through Friday. Such hours will comply with the allowed noise ordinance limits in each jurisdiction where construction may occur: Existing noise levels within the project area derive almost exclusively from transportation sources, especially vehicular sources on local arterials or the I-405 Freeway. Along the Bolsa Chica Street project segment,elevated arterial traffic noise will substantially mask any project-related construction activity noise. Along Segment 2 away from arterial traffic,noise levels are lower and project activities may become more audible. In order to better define existing baseline noise levels,a 24-hour noise monitoring study was conducted on the flood control channel right.of way along the L.AAFRC golf course. On-site noise monitoring was conducted on October 8-9, 1997 using a recording noise level meter equipped with digital data loggers for long term measurements. Results of the measurements are shown in Table 4.10-1. Daytime noise levels were 50-55 dB LEQ. Nocturnal levels were near 40-45 dB. While average levels were low,individual peaks were sometimes elevated. These peaks may be associated with golf course operations or with residential activities(dogs, music,etc.). / 33 1 TABLE 4.10-1 ON-SITE NOISE MONITORING SUMMARY(clB[Al) (Reserve Center Golf Course) 10/08/97 OVe) 10/09/97 (Th) Time LEA Lmax Lorin LE Lmax Lawn 00-01 --- --- --- 40 61 35 01-02 --- --- --- 41 58 35 02-03 --- --- --- 43 63 37 03-04 --- --- 42 59 36 04-05 --- -- -- 43 55 37 05-06 --- 49 71 39 06-07 --- --- --- 56 80 49 07-08 -- --- 55 92 49. 08-09 --- --- 56 78 46 09-10 --_ ___ ___ 54 - 77 43 10-11 --- — -- 56 77 43 11-12 --_ -- 50 81 43 12-13 --- --- 50 78 43 13-14 --- -- -- 50 80 43 14-15 --- — --- 50 77 44 15-16 --- — -- 50 78 43 16-17 --- -- --- 50 . 72 43 17-18 48 76 36. . 50 74 40 ' 18-19 50 77 36 54 -78 40 19-20 49 71 36 56 85 43 - 20-21 51 84 39 -- --- - 21-22 45 61 38 — -- — 22-23 45 66 39 -- --- - 23 24 42 54 37 -- - -' 34 t ao Along the golf course,noise levels are moderately low. They are not so pristine,however, as to make temporary construction activities during pipeline placement appear highly intrusive. ' 4.10.1 Noise Impact Impact Significance Criteria = Noise impacts are considered significant if. I. They create violations of noise standards 2. They perceptibly exacerbate an already excessive noise environment 3. They substantially increase an existing quiet environment even if noise standards are not violated by the proposed action Sources of Impact An evaluation of potential noise impacts generally considers sound generated during the construction and operation of the project. In general,water conveyance activities are not perceived as significant noise generators in that there are few noise sources associated with fluid flowing in underground systems. Potential project noise impacts from the proposed project therefore derive almost exclusively from construction activities. Construction Activity Noise Impact Construction noises will occur during daylight hours on weekdays,when residential noise sensitivity is usually low. Overall, although noise impacts may be intrusive because of their temporary nature, such impacts are typically considered below significant levels because they occur only for a limited number of days. The most prevalent noise source in construction equipment is the internal combustion engine(usually diesel powered)used to provide motive and/or operating power. Engine powered equipment may be categorized according to its mobility and operating characteristics;i.e.,as (1)earth moving equipment (highly mobile), (2)handling equipment(partly mobile),'and(3) stationary equipment. Characteristic _noise levels from typical construction equipment are shown in Exhibit 4.10-1. Hi9hly Mobile Equipment Barth moving equipment will include a backhoe and a loader. Engine power may vary from about 50 horsepower(hp)to over 600 hp.Engine noise typically predominates with exhaust noise usually being of secondary importance and inlet noise and structural noise being of tertiary importance. Other sources of noise in this equipment include the mechanical and hydraulic transmission and actuation systems and cooling fans. Typical operating cycles may involve one or two minutes of full-power operation, followed by longer periods at lower power. Noise levels at 50 feet from earth-moving equipment range from about 73 to 96 dB(A). This alternating cycle of full power/low power produces a theoretical hourly average of around 82 dB at 50 feet from the equipment. ��� 35 EXHIBIT 4.10-1 NOISE LEVEL(dBA)AT SO rr 70 90 90" 100 Compactm(F.Oucrs) a.r • Front Losers e' 13 ackhoes 0 ::5 Tractors o Scrapers,praciccs 1; Tcucks M � r�-Qa�.K co=cto rurnpa Cranes(Movabte) o d Cr=cs(Derrick) ss a ZL Pumps . Geacrators p y cn Comptcssots . pacumatic Wrenches �.,.,.....r Jack iismmcca and Rock Drills 'S No Dritrera(Peaks) . Vibrator Sawa Source: R'PAPB 206717,r-a*oa=atal Protoction Agcary,Dcc.31,1971,'Notse from Construction . Equipment&Op=doae � ICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE GENERATION LEVELS To provide somewhat better detail on pipeline construction noise, construction noise was measured during excavation of a pipeline bed and a roadway jacking pit. Measurements were conducted for 36 hours as the'trenching machine approached the road and then dug a wider pit to burrow underneath the pavement. A small amount of traffic noise was observed,but basically the measurements were highly representative of(1) excavation, and (2) loading a dump truck to haul away spoils. Detailed hourly results are summarized as follows: Exposure Period Reading* MAX 1-Hour 78.0 dB MAX 8-Hour 71.8 dB MAX 12-Hour 70.7 dB 24-Hour CNEL 68.2 dB * = extrapolated to a 50-foot exposure location for comparison with more theoretical values above. The peak hourly noise level,with one(and sometimes two)pieces of highly mobile equipment operating nearby was 5 dB lower than the average noise level assumed from theoretical estimates above. Along Bolsa Chica Street, daytime background noise levels at the nearest residences are around 70 dB. These residences are protected from noise by subdivision perimeter walls. The noise behind the walls is in the lower 60 dB range. An 8-hour noise level of 72 dB would be slightly noisier than the existing background level along Bolsa Chica Road. Point sources of noise, however, drop off faster with distance than roadway line sources. By 100 feet from the equipment, equipment noise and the background level will be the same. Beyond 100 feet, the roadway will seem louder. Noise impacts along Segment 1 will therefore be masked by the background except in very close proximity to the equipment itself. Along Segment 2, daytime background levels may be in the 50-55 dB range. Equipment noise levels will drop to background levels at approximately 400 feet from the equipment. Construction noise from excavation and earth handling equipment may thus be clearly audible at the nearest residences- At a. 100-foot per day progression,equipment noise may be noticeable for around one week. By confining activities from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday only, such impacts would be temporarily adverse,but much less than significant. Partly Mobile Equipment Such equipment includes engine-powered materials-handling equipment such as cranes, concrete mixers, and concrete pumps. Theoretical noise levels at 50 feet range from about 76 to 88 dB(A). Although the equipment is less noisy than the more mobile sources,it has a tendency to be parked in one location for a greater part of the workday. The noise impact zone is,therefore, about the same as the highly mobile sources in that the reduced mobility compensates for the lower noise generation rate. In order to better determine noise levels in an operational scenario, a noise meter was placed in close 36 Oj y proximity to a pipe-laying crane and vibratory compactors during the pipeline construction noise measurements noted above. The results of the measurements for the semi-mobile noise sources were as follows: Exposure Period Reading* MAX 1-HR 74.1 dB MAX 8-BR AVG 69.5 dB MAX 12-HR AVG 68.0 dB 24-HR CNEL 65.3 dB * = extrapolated to a 50-foot exposure distance from the mobile crane. As with the trencher,the actual noise level from this equipment was somewhat lower than its theoretical level. The 8-hour exposure of 70 dB was fairly similar to the excavator/loader noise level of 72 dB. Conclusions regarding noise impacts from a small crane and vibratory compactors for backfilling are essentially identical to those from excavation activities. Along Segment 1,roadway noise will rapidly mask any project activity noise. Along Segment 2 away from arterial roadway noise,the first tier of homes backing up to the flood control channel will have clearly audible activity noise for around one week. Limits on the hours of noise generation will minimize any temporary impacts. Stationary Eguppment Stationary equipment which could be used during construction activities may include generators, compressors and welding machines. Typical noise levels at 50 feet range from 69 to 86 dB(A). These sources are the quietest but also operate at one fixed location, often in a full-load mode. For some projects, this type of equipment may require operation during the night for dewatering or for traffic safety advisory signs. Nocturnal noise generating activities from stationary sources could be a sleep-disturbing nuisance. If f the noise level from a stationary equipment source is 65 dB along a direct line of sight at 50 feet from the source, the level will still be 45 dB at 500 feet. Existing minimum hourly levels are 40 dB LEQ along quieter alignment sections. Nocturnal levels that equal or exceed the current minimum are . considered to have a inatginal sleep disturbance threshold. Any equipment operating at night closer than 500 feet of a direct line of sight of the nearest sensitive receiver could therefore create a temporary adverse noise effect. Stationary equipment sources differ measurably in their noise generation characteristics. There are, however, a number of techniques that can be used to reduce noise impacts. The noise exposure target for selection of equipment and method of operation for any equipment that has to operate at night is to generate no more noise than what is currently experienced on the site. Based upon the measurement 37 . i� y results,current minimum hourly levels are 40 dB along parts of Segment 2. An exposure of 40 dB at the nearest building facade has therefore been selected as the target noise Ievel if any nocturnal equipment operations were to be necessary. Noise reduction from stationary equipment noise can be achieved by: 1. Increasing the source/receiver distance, 2. Erecting a barrier in the source/receiver line of sight,or, 3. Using alternate equipment. Increasing the distance buffer would require a 500+foot separation between the source and the receiver to attain the nocturnal noise threshold. Equipment placement constraints may preclude noise reduction by increased separation alone. Barriers capable of achieving a 20+dB reduction are theoretically possible. A typical noise attenuation rate for a berm is around 1.2 dB per foot of berm height. Depending upon source-receiver separation, any nocturnal equipment operations could likely be shielded by a temporary berm if such operations were necessary. Exhaust silencers,often referred to as "hospital-grade"or"movie-set-grade"mufflers,could be applied to equipment exhaust if it has to operate near homes at night on some temporary basis. Noise reduction of 30-40 dB i$ claimed for such units. Dewatering pumps need not be internal combustion powered, but could be electrically driven. There are therefore a variety of techniques that could be employed, either individually or in tandem,to allow for any nocturnal emergency operation without causing sleep disturbance. Impulsive Equipment Noise Impacts Impulsive equipment may be required to break pavement, to drive pilings, or for equipment maintenance. A pile driver has a reference noise level of 100 dB while working. Pile driving will be required at one channel crossing. Two piles will be driven in one or two days over a span of several hours. This very limited duration will cause most people to be unaware of the activity. Because this noise could be intrusive to sleeping children, shift workers or other noise-sensitive activities, notification of residents within 500 feet of the activity of the dates and duration of pile driving is _recommended to allow people to adjust their schedule, if necessary, to avoid disturbance from pile driver noise.' Summary of Potentially Significant Impacts Very few significant potential noise impacts were identified for the proposed project. Clear-cut violations of significance thresholds for sensitive human receivers would only occur from operation of fixed location, motor driven equipment such as dewatering pumps within 500 feet of residences at 38 night. Noise control, either through alternate equipment, through temporary barriers,-or through a combination thereof is recommended to mitigate sleep disturbance potential. Pile driving could be intrusive for several days for day sleepers within 506 feet of the channel crossing. Because the activity would last only a few days,prior notification of residents within 500 feet of the activity is recommended to allow people to adjust their schedule,if necessary', to reduce or avoid pile driving noise exposure. 4.10.2 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended for'adoption to alleviate impacts to human receivers: 1. Construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7 am.to 6 p.m.,Monday through Friday. 2. All mobile equipment shall have properly operating mufflers. 3. Residents within 500 feet of any pile driving activities shall be notified by mail as to the planned date and hours of such activity. With implementation of the above recommendations,the short-term potentially significant noise effects resulting from any project construction activities would typically be reduced to a level that is less than significant. 4.11 Public Services The proposed project would not impact or result in additional need for fire, police, schools or other government services. Ingress and egress to public and private services would not be affected. The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to public services. No mitigation is required. I4.12 Utilities and Service Systems The proposed pipeline project is a domestic water transmission facility intended to serve only the Bolsa Chica Development. Construction of the pipeline will be completed prior to actual demand for delivery of water to the development. At the point of connection to the existing SCWC system,no interruption of water service to existing customers will be necessary. Therefore,no interruption of existing services would occur during construction of the proposed pipeline. 39 At crossings with existing waterline utilities the proposed pipeline would meet all local agency requirements for separation of all buried and above-ground facilities and structures. At crossings with existing sewer facilities,the proposed pipeline would cross over the mainline sewers and all health and safety requirements will be met with respect to separation of utilities. '.Excavated material that is not used as backfill would be exported to a landfill where it would serve'as landfill cover which is in short supply. Landfill capacity would not be adversely affected. 1 The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to utilities and service systems. No mitigation is required. 4.13 Aesthetics Construction of the proposed pipeline would not affect scenic vistas or highways. Construction would occur during daylight and no lighting would be needed. No negative aesthetic effects would result from construction of the sewer facilities. The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to aesthetics. No mitigation is required. 4.14 Cultural Resources Since the project site has been previously disturbed it is unlikely that additional archeological and historical resources would be encountered during construction of the proposed project. The proposed project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to cultural resources. No mitigation is required however,the following measures are recommended to reduce potential adverse impacts. Mitigation for Cultural Resources 1. In the event that any undetected buried resources are encountered during construction, construction shall be halted and the contractor shall inform the Owner. The Owner shall retain a.qua jified archeologist to examine the resources before construction proceeds. 4.1S Recreation The proposed project would not increase demand for parks or recreational facilities in the neighborhood or the region. Operation of the LA.A.FRC Golf Course facility will be impacted during construction of the pipeline in the perimeter maintenance road of the golf course. Access to the golf course would not be restricted during construction. 40 The proposed project would not result insignificant adverse impacts to recreation. No mitigation is required however, the following measures are recommended to reduce potential adverse impacts. 1. The Owner shall construct a temporary roadway for access to the maintenance yard at the golf course perimeter during construction. SECTION 5 - CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANS The SCWC Domestic Water Transmission Pipeline is intended to serve the land uses planned under the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program and is compatible with existing and planned uses within and adjacent to the project site. Installation of the DWTP would be consistent with the County of Orange General Plan and zoning. SECTION 6 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The following agencies were consulted during the preparation of this document: The Cities of Huntington Beach,Westminster,Seal Beach,Los Alamitos,and Cypress The County of Orange,Public Facilities and Resources Department;Flood Program Division The State of California,Deprtment of Transportation The State of California, California Military Department, Armed Forces Reserve Center,Los Alamitos 41 SECTION 7-ENVIRONMENTAL PERSONNEL IWA Engineers-Consulting Engineer Jon Austin Kelly Nolan Harmsworth Associates Rodney V.Harmsworth Ph.D. Giroux &Associates Hans Giroux Stevens/Garland Associates,Inc. Richard Garland,P.E. Toro International Hantor Walujono P.E.,G.E. SECTION 8 -REFERENCES South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1903. 42 ATTACHMENT . 1-4 / D9 �• _...r� r..r ..r.....•_.__..�...�.__-. r.. _.•.r_. .. -.-ter.. •r ��r..-..r.. _ -•t_� _ •• •r �r TT'• • r.:_!'� _.. 'i�!�a'i.'`,•xr`.:s is=_`n:__. �.2=,�'%`tee:.:\^r T:'.+'%ar`:...:!.fir...�.�.G.� ..'.`�.a.^^y':t���.. 5�s_^ ..:.^,t: ._. '�:.�:>� •- Mtq e�•� O 2lR!r 13b FILED St U,tS.os or of 04 s.ir.�,ry e�( et�.sap et Coirioevo ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION APR / 1991 f or i BOLSA CHICA MUTUAL WATER COMPANY Bi(�JGYeS,SE " 7 of Suite s s i A FIRST: The name of the corporation is Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company (the "Company") . i SECOND: This• corporation is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation organized under the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit E Corporation Law. The purpose of this corporation is to engage in f ! : any lawful act or activity for which a corporation may be organized under such law. Such purpose for which this corporation is formed i is to develop, distribute, supply and/or deliver water for domestic use to its members to operate, maintain and administer wastewater ; facilitie3 for retail sewer service to its members; to own on-site reclaimed water facilities for its members; and to provide fire ! protection for its members. All of thase services shall be 3 provided to -embers at actual. cost plus necessary expenses. The t corporation shall not distribute any gains, prof it= or dividends to ' its members except upon the dissolution of the corporation. fTHIRD: This Company .is one which does not contemplate pecuniary gain or profit to the•members thereof, and is organized solely for nonprofit purposes. In no event shall the net earnings, income or assets of this Company be distributed to, or inure to the benefit of, any member, Director or Officer of this Company or other private individual, either directly or indirectly, except ' -1- g� 1fir n �•t 3r�w,rf�i,}�I. . sue i:w ... w..... ..t .i. .. - .. r. .r 'i. - upon winding up and dissolution. Upon the winding up and dissolution of this Company, after paying or adequately providing for the dents and ob.'•igatlons of the Ccmpany, the remaining assets t may be divided into as many ecual interests as there are :members of the Company and distributed to the members of the Company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, without the approval of 100% of the I lmembers, so long as there are any debts or obligations of the ? Company outstanding, the Company or any person acting on its behalf shall not transfer all or substantially all of its assets. i FOURTH: Subject to the limitations of the Nonprofit Mutual i • Benefit Corporation Law of the State of California, an amendment of these Articles may be adopted by complying with the provisions-of this paragraph. Any airandment to these Articles shall require the vote or written assent of (1) a majority of the Board of Directors and (2) members holding fifty-one percent (51%) of the votes in M� 7 this Company. FIFTH: The name and address in this state of the Company's initial agent for service of process: is: Raymond. J. Pacini '4343 Von xarman Avenue Newport Beach, CA-92660 t } SIXTH: Notwithstanding any of the above statements of i purposes and powers, this corporation shall not, except to an F ' insubstantial degree, engage in any activities or exercise any t• -2- t • .•..•. •'.'•t•.•••.4{�• •. • •.�.�•�1���JlaV.-� •� �• ��r•—��r w.ir�-••-�w�..r.—•r�.t�ww/-� • Y 1 t powers that are not in furtherance of the specific purpose of this : corporation. SEVENTH: Dater shall be sold, distributed, supplied and/or delivered only to owners of menbership certificates in this �} corporation. Sewer services shall be prcvided only to owners .of i t membership . certificate-' in this corporation. Membership certificates shall be appurtenant to the land described in the certificate issued therefor and shall only be transferred with said S land, except after sale or forfeiture for delinquent assessments thereon as provided in California Civil Code Section 331. Owners 3 of more than one lot or parcel must hold a separate membership for ' each lot/parcel within the davelc,ment. No fractional membershira shall be issued. votes shall be rllocated one vote for each 1 lot/parcel within the development. Dated: Ir, 1996 ./� j •' Ed Mount ford, Incorp ator i t I declare that-I am the person who executed the above Articles of Incorporation and that this instrument is my act and 8 deed. � o[� S Ed Mountford I -3- . . _ /Xv. - ATTACHMENT 15 �, .1. " CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION NUNIMNGTON BEACH f� TO: Ray Silver,Acting City Administrator FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: December 22, 1997 SUBJECT: Bolsa Chica Water By separate memo,we have given you a copy of the legal memorandum from Special Counsel, Ron Van Blarcom, concerning the California Public Utility Commission's authority over Koll's plan to serve its Bolsa Chica project through a mutual water company contracting with Southern California Water Company for water service. Although the memorandum indicates that the PUC likely will not assert jurisdiction over this transaction,we still recommend formally requesting the California PUC investigate the matter. Attached please find a letter prepared for your signature to be mailed to the PUC. If you have any questions or concerns,please do not hesitate to call me. Gail Hutton 44�411-1�2-17- City Attorney Attachment c: Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer Melanie Fallon,Director of Community Development Scott Field,Deputy City Attorney sF/3:SF-97Memos:RRS 1222/97 / 7 MCNAMARA, VAN BLARCOM,MCCLENDON & LoBOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THE ROYER MANSION NEWPORT BEACH 307 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE (114)553-8700 ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714)639-6700 itR ro RONALD A.VAN BLARcoat TELECOPIER: (714) 639-7212 (909)686-6700 CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney City of Huntington Beach CC: Scott F. Field, Deputy City Attorney City of Huntington Beach FROM: McNamara, Van Blarcom,McCle don&Leibold,P.C. By: Ronald A. Van Blarcom Rtb -:n ;1 DATE: December 18, 1997 RE: Koll Company's Proposal to Serve Water to the Bolsa Chica Pra,j 't ^' Through the Southern California Water Company and the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------:► Background: On October 15, 1997,the City of Huntington Beach("City")informed IWA Engineers,Inc., that the preliminary plans submitted on behalf of Southern California Water Company ("SCWC')to construct a water pipeline in Bolsa Chica Street to serve the Koll Company's Bolsa Chica Project could not be processed until certain issues relating to the proposed water service for the Project were first addressed. It appeared to the City that SCWC was proposing an extension of its own facilities to serve the Project. Because the California. Public Utilities Commission (the "TUC') exercises authority over the construction and operation of all SCWC facilities, including extensions of service(see, California Water.& Tel. Co. v.Public Util. Comm'n (1959)51 Cal.2d 478, 501-502), a paramount issue raised by the City concerned the potential jurisdiction of the PUC over SCWC's provision of water service to the Project. . .. In response to the October 15 letter, the City received correspondence from SCWC's attorney,Gary Kvistad,explaining how a "private arrangement for[water]service"has been proposed under which Southern California Water Company will provide water"from a point in the City of Cypress"within SCWC's'2os Alamitos Service Area"to a new entity known as the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company which entity, in turn, will supply the Koll Company's Bolsa Chica Project. According to the SCWC attorney, SCWC has already 1 1 j entered into a contract with a Koll Company subsidiary known as the Signal Bolsa Corporation to provide water service to the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company. Pursuant to the contract,SCWC will also manage,operate and maintain the water system for the Bolsa Chica Project, but the water system will be owned by the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company. The SCWC attorney concludes that SCWC will not have to seek permission from the PUC to extend its service area because, under this proposal, service wiII be provided by the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company. Assuming that the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company operates within certain statutory parameters,the SCWC attorney asserts that the PUC will have no jurisdiction over this proposal. This memorandum addresses the SCWC attorney's analysis of the PUC jurisdictional issue. Several other issues are raised in conjunction with this matter (including compliance with CEQA, the potential involvement of the Department of Health Services, and procedural issues pertaining to the condemnation powers of mutual water companies) which will be addressed in subsequent memorandums. Question Presented: Will the California Public Utilities Commission assert jurisdiction over the Southern California Water Company or the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company under the water service proposal described above? Short Answer: Probably not. The Commission exercises authority over the construction and operation of any extension of SCWC's facilities. However,the PUC does not generally regulate mutual water companies. The water service proposal described above has been carefully crafted to avoid PUC jurisdiction and,based on the PUC's current practices,it will likely accomplish this result. Discussion: There are two separate PUC issues raised by the proposal set forth in the SCWC attorney's November 3, 199.7 letter. The first issue relates to PUC's reluctance to regulate mutual water companies like the Bols$ Chica Mutual Water Company. The second issue relates to the extent of PUC's jurisdiction over privately owned water companies like SCWC. Mutual water companies deliver water to their"shareholders"under certain prescribed rules contained in their articles and bylaws. If mutual water companies strictly comply with the requirements of Public Utility Code section 2705,they are statutorily exempt from regulation by the PUC. The most important of these statutory requirements is that mutual water companies may only deliver water to their shareholders at "cost." (Public Utility Code section 2705(a).) The term "cost"is defined as"without profit." 2 Iry At this point in the process,the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company has not even begun to serve water. Assuming that it will comply with the statutory requirements and provide water to its shareholders at cost,the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company will likely remain outside of the jurisdiction of the PUC. After speaking with PUC staff attorney Daniel Paige (213/897-4166),it appears that the PUC is unlikely to assert jurisdiction over a mutual water company unless a factual record is made after Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company begins to serve water that shows the company ignored the limitations in its bylaws and functioned as a public utility. (There are several reported cases involving this specific issue: i.e., Yucaipa Water Co. No. I v PUC(1960) 54 Cal.2d 823, 9 Cal.Rptr.239; Corona City Water Co. v. PUC(1960) 54 Cal.2d 834, 9 Cal. Rptr.245.) SCWC, on the other hand, is a privately owned water utility subject to the jurisdiction of the PUC. The issue relating to SCWC is whether its agreement to provide water to the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company should be legally characterized as an"extension"of SCWC's facilities,thus triggering PUC jurisdiction. (See, California Water& Tel. Co. v Public Util. Comm'n (1959) 51 Cal.2d 478, 501-502, 334 P.2d 887.) Because SCWC will manage, operate and maintain the water system for Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company, there is a viable legal argument that the water system should properly be characterized as an extension of SCWC's existing service area requiring PUC approval. However,when I raised this issue with PUC staff attorney, Daniel Paige, he maintained that it is not unusual for privately owned utilities to enter into such service arrangements with mutual water companies, and that the PUC had taken the position that such arrangements were not"extensions of service." . Even if the PUC did not desire to exercise direct jurisdiction over this proposal as an extension of service,the PUC would need to eventually exercise limited jurisdiction over the setting of the rate charged by SCWC to the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company for water delivered at the"City of Cypress connection point." SCWC's provision of continued water service to the Bolsa Chica Project will directly impact the existing water rates charged by SCWC within the"Los Alamitos Service Area." In addition,the PUC would be concerned if the agreement to serve the Bolsa Chica Project adversely impacted water supply available to existing customers in the Los Alamitos Service Area. Moreover,-if it could be shown that water supply within the Los Alamitos Service Area was threatened,an existing water user or group of users in that area could bring an action against SCWC (or perhaps the PUC) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (similar to the action brought by the plaintiffs in Residents for Adequate Water v. Redwood Valley County Water District (1995) 34 Cal.AppAth 1801). Water supply issues could be raised in a less adversarial way during the continuing CEQA review of the new water service proposal. /r � 3 Recommendation: Based on my initial phone contact with PUC staff attorney Daniel Paige,it appears that the- SCWC attorney's opinion that the PUC will not assert jurisdiction over "a private arrangement for[water) service"is reflective of current practice. However, a viable legal challenge to this position could be maintained based on the argument that the water system is really SCWC's system. This argument could be buttressed by the development of certain facts relating to rates and water supply in an effort to convince the PUC to look at this "arrangement"more closely. These factors(potential impact on rates or water supply)could be emphasized in a letter to the PUC requesting a formal response with regard to the PUC's jurisdiction over the extension proposal. Attachments: 1. October 15, 1997 letter from the City of Huntington Beach to IWA Engineers,Inc. 2. November 3, 1997 letter from SCWC's attorney, Gary Kvistad to the City. 3. November 3, 1997 letter from IWA Engineers,Inc.to the City. I 4. Proposed letter from the City to the PUC. 4 ATTACHMENT 16 a, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street P . O . Box 1 90 California 9 2-64 8 Les M. Jones 11 Public Works Department Director (714) 536-5431 December 31, 1997 Ms. Donna Silvestre, Outreach Officer Los Angeles Outreach Office California Public Utilities Commission 107 S. Broadway,Room 5109: Los Angeles, CA 90012-4420 Dear Ms. Silvestre: The City of Huntington Beach surrounds an unincorporated area of Orange County known as "Bolsa Chica" on three sides (see, enclosed map). the Koll Real Estate Group has proposed development of a portion of this property,and,of course,the development requires a sufficient water supply. Based on correspondence the City received last month,we understand that an entity known as the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water company has been formed to serve water to this development. Apparently,the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water company will own the water system required to serve the development. However, Southern California Water Company("SCWC")will manage, operate and maintain the water system under a contract between the Signal Bolsa Corporation(a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Koll Real Estate Group) and SCWC. It is our understanding that SCWC will provide the water to serve this development from within its Los Alamitos Service Area. An 18-inch water transmission pipeline has been proposed to be located in City streets to deliver the water from a point in the City of Cypress,through the City of Huntington Beach,to the development. For reasons that have not been disclosed to the City, Signal Bolsa Corporation will construct this pipeline at Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company's expense,but according to SCWC's specifications. The City has been advised by counsel that the California Public Utilities Commission("CPUC") does not generally have jurisdiction over mutual water companies,like the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company. At the same time,however,it seems clear that the role played by SCWC in this water service arrangement is significant. Because SCWC is a privately owned water utility subject to the jurisdiction of the CPUC,the City questions whether SCWC's agreement to / : -97Ltrs:CPUC1219 12�1 12 /9797-#I ; Ms. Donna Silvestre, Outreach Officer December 31, 1997 Page 2 provide water to the Bolsa Chica Mutual Water Company and to manage, operate and maintain its water system should be legally characterized as an"extension" of SCWC's facilities. (See, California Water&Tel.'Co.v. Public Util. Comm'n(1959) 51 Cal.2d 478, 501-502,334 P.2d 887.) Moreover, because SCWC's provision of continued water service to the Bolsa Chica development will likely impact the water supply available to existing customers in the Los Alamitos Service Area and may also impact the existing water rates charged by SCWC within the Los Alamitos Service Area,the City believes that CPUC involvement is appropriate at this time. We have enclosed recent correspondence addressing these issues for your review. At your convenience,please advise the City as to the extent of CPC's desired involvement in this matter. If you should have any questions or require further information,please contact Deputy City Attorney Scott Field at(714) 536-5555. Very truly yours, Robert Eichblatt City Engineer Attachments: 1)' Letter dated October 15, 1997 to IWA Engineers from Robert Eichblatt 2) Letter dated November 3, 1997 from Jon Austin to Robert Eichblatt 3) Letter dated November 3, I997 from Gary Kvistad to Bob Eichblatt 4) Letter dated Dec. 18, 1997 to Gail Hutton from Ronald A.Van Blarcom 4P SF1sg:SF-97Ltrs:CPUC 1219 12/31/97-#1 , !� A , TA-CH MENT 17 J iaa l i Proposed Intersection of Mesa Road at Warner Avenue Mesa Road Will Connect Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue The proposed road will begin at the existing southern end of Bolsa Chica Street, curve south and west, proceed past Algonquin Street/Sandra Lee Lane, and curve north and east to meet Warner Avenue.As shown conceptually in the Environmental Impact Report documents, the new.Warner Avenue/Mesa Road intersection will occur just west of the"Warner Pond", between Edgewater Lane and Sceptre Lane. Mesa Road Will Serve as Main Access Route For New Residential Units The residential development within the Bolsa Chica Project will be served by the Mesa Road solely. No connection to Los Patos will be allowed. Internal local streets will distribute traffic between the Mesa roadway and residential sites. Mesa Road Will Serve as a Buffer to Restored Wetlands The Mesa road is intended in part to provide buffering between a portion of the proposed residential units and the area to be restored to viable wetlands. Controlling vehicular access and parking will be a function of the proposed roadway.Approved Location Shown in Bolsa Chica Site Plan No Other Facility is Served by New Intersection The conceptual maps in the EIR documents do not show the existing facilities on the north side of Warner Avenue.Therefore, the proposed intersection is not related to the existing street - intersections, conceptually or by reference to an existing facility. The EIR documents do show the "Warner Pond"as a feature, and show the new intersection west of that terrain feature.The narrative and the illustrations are silent regarding any other facility served by the new intersection. Preferred Location Supported by City of Huntington Beach Mesa Road Connection Made at Existing Sceptre Lane Intersection The existing intersection at Sceptre Lane serves the residential community north and west of the intersection. The development consists of 132 condominium units. The intersection is currently controlled by a"STOP"sign. Minor Relocation East Does Not Affect New Development Circulation Establishinb the western terminus of the Mesa'road at the existing intersection has no effect on the traffic circulation of the new development. The left and right turns generated by the new residents and services to them would be made wherever the intersection was located in the general area. Relocation of Intersection May Affect Site Design or Layout Placing the connection of the Mesa road at the existing Sceptre Lane location may have a minor impact on the design of products to be constructed on the west side of the Mesa road in the vicinity of the intersection. 0029474.01 12/22/97 6:41 PM Page 1 a 7A Benefits of Preferred Location Uses An Existing Intersection Location The existing intersection location has been in place for a long period of time.Warner Avenue traffic is aware of the intersection and the potential for side street traffic entering the travel stream. Modification from a"T" intersection to a 4-way standard intersection controlled by a traffic signal would not create unneeded confusion for dealing with a new intersection on Warner Avenue. Serves An Existing Neighborhood Use of the existing intersection will provide the traffic into and out of the residential condominium increased opportunity for entry into the travel stream on Warner Avenue. A traffic signal will positively assign the right of way and provide gaps in the continuous flow of traffic,which will benefit local traffic entering the roadway from adjacent developments. Keeps Traffic Activity Away From Residential Units Placing the new intersectional:a location other than the existing Sceptre Lane location will create a new, and potentially unacceptable traffic activity at the"back door"of local residents. A new intersection, with its turning movement activity, stopping and starting of vehicles, and other vehicular events, will provide a disruption to the residents in the area of the new intersection. Placing the Mesa road connection at Sceptre Lane avoids such disruptions, and provides a benefit to the local residents. Does Not Create Multiple Intersections on an Arterial Highway Placing the connection of the Mesa road at a location other than the Sceptre Lane intersection will create a set of offset intersections. The offset will create operational problems, and may require turning movement restrictions applied to Sceptre Lane, i.e. prohibition of left turns out of the street onto Warner Avenue. Increased Distance From Wetland Restoration Area Location of the Mesa road connection at Sceptre Lane will also place the traffic activity and noise further from the"Warner Pond" area. Disturbing wildlife with the traffic activity level expected at the intersection will be reduced from the closer location conceptually shown in the EIR documents. Recommendation to Adopt a Specific Location for the Mesa Road Connection to Warner Avenue Ettablish "anchorpoints"for the Mesa Road The east connection of the Mesa Road will be the existing Solsa Chica Street extension. Establish the intersection of Warner Avenue at Sceptre Lane as the"anchor point"for the west end of the new road. Full flexibility for alignment is maintained for the remainder of the new roadway. Adopt a "Precise Plan of Street Alignment"(PPSA) for the Mesa Road Intersection with WarnerAvenue. Through the use of the PPSA both the development principals and the agencies involved will be aware of and supportive of the new intersection.Additionally, citizens residing in the area affected will be able to support the proposed location, and become familiar with the benefits which they will enjoy when the plan is implemented. 0029474.01 12/22/97 6:41 PM Page 2 r d , - MEN, [ � r R CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' • INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Les Jones, Director of Public Works Michael Dolder, Fire Chief Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: July 17, 1997 SUBJECT: Is LAFCO approval required in connection with entering into a water services agreement with Koll Company? RLS 97-236 INDEX: Internal Organization Operation; Departmental Powers and Duties; Proprietary Activities;Water; Municipal Organization; General; Intergovernmental Relations; Special Districts and Agencies; Background: The Koll Company is proceeding with developing a large residential project located in the Bolsa Chica, which is located outside of and adjacent to the City, but within its sphere of influence. The City is considering entering into a water service agreement with Koll to provide water to Koll's Bolsa Chica development. The City is also considering entering into an agreement with the County Fire Protection District for the City to provide certain fire services to the Bolsa Chica development in exchange for receiving capital facilities fees from the District and receiving a portion of the property taxes the District receives for rendgring fire protection services. The District will receive the capital facilities fees to be paid to the City by way of a separate agreement between the District and Koll. Government Code § 56133 provides that"a city or district may provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundaries only if it first requests and receives written approval from the [Local Agency Formation] Commission ["LAFCO"] in the affected county." This section further provides that"however, prior to extending surplus water service to any project that will support or induce development," the city must first receive LAFCO approval. Issue: 1. Must the City obtain LAFCO approval to provide water service to Bolsa Chica? 1 SF/s:QSF-97Memos:Water714 _ 7/I7/97-#5 2. Must the City obtain LAFCO approval to provide fire protection services to Bolsa Chica? Answer: 1. The City must obtain LAFCO approval to provide water services to Bolsa Chica. LAFCO will likely condition approval of such an agreement on the existence of a preannexation agreement providing for annexation of Bolsa Chica to the City. 2. It is advisable that the City obtain LAFCO approval to provide fire services to Bolsa Chica. Discussion: Government Code Section 56133 is directly on point regarding providing water service to Bolsa Chica. It states that"prior to extending surplus water service to any project that will support or induce development, the city or district shall first request and receive written approval from the Commission in the affected county." Consequently, any agreement to provide water services to the Koll Company must be contingent upon obtaining J.AFC0 approval. In addition, Section 56133 provides that: "The Commission may authorize a city or district to provide new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundaries but within its sphere of influence in anticipation of a later change of organization." This language requires LAFCO to condition any extension of service for water beyond the city boundaries upon adding the territory to the cty's sphere of influence and conditioning the service on annexation of the territory to the city or some other change of jurisdictional boundaries. In this case, Bolsa Chica already is within the City's sphere, so LAFCO would only need to condition the extension upon a change of jurisdictional boundaries. This could be satisfied through a pre-annexation agreement. We have spoken with the Assistant Executive Officer to the Orange County LAFCO concerning this provision. Orange County LAFCO has not adopted formal procedures regarding provision of services by contract, but instead Orange County LAFCO Staff follows the procedures that San Diego LAFCO has adopted. Attached to this memo is page 52 from the San Diego LAFCO procedures, which have been provided to our office by the Orange County LAFCO. In San Diego, out-of_agency service agreements can only be approved in anticipation of annexation of the territory to a city. Although Orange County I. FCO has not formally adopted this process, it is our understanding that LAFCO staff would recommend annexation of Bolsa Chica to Huntington Beach if there was.to be water service, or at the very least, a pre-annexation agreement between Koll and the City. 2 SF/s:G:SF-97Memos:Watcr714 - l� 7/17/97-k5 4Ww The question regarding providing fire services to Bolsa Chica is slightly more complex. _ Section 56133 initially states that agreements to provide "new or extended services" outside jurisdictional boundaries require Commission approval. However, it then contains an exception for"contracts or agreements solely involving two or more public agencies." At first glance, this exception might suggest that the agreement between the City and the Fire Protection District does not require LAFCO approval. However, the City/District agreement does not"solely" involve two public agencies. Rather, the agreement is predicated upon a second agreement between the District and the Koll Company. Moreover, the agreement contemplates the City providing fire service outside of the City's jurisdiction. Consequently, while an argument exists that the fire services agreement is exempt from Section 56133, a better reading of the statute is that the City must obtain LAFCO approval. If this is the case, then LAFCO approval of any fire agreement would be conditioned upon an immediate amendment to the City's sphere of influence to include Bolsa Chica and at least a pre-annexation agreement providing for annexation of Bolsa Chica to the City. It should be noted that the City is presently entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the District that will lay out the broad outlines of a fire services agreement that will be negotiated in the future. Entering into this Memorandum of Understanding does not require LAFCO approval since the MOU is not a binding agreement. However, any final agreement that would provide services to the Bolsa Chica likely would be contingent upon LAFCO approval. However, it is also our understanding from talking with the LAFCO Assistant Executive Officer that LAFCO's attorney is presently reviewing this Memorandum of Understanding: Consequently, it is possible that he may come to a different opinion regarding the immediate question of whether LAFCO is required to review the Memorandum of. Understanding, as well as the later question of whether the fire services agreement requires LAFCO approval. Consequently, while it is our conclusion that only the ultimate agreement would likely require LAFCO approval, you should be aware that there is the potential for LAFCO reaching a different conclusion. v ' Gail Hutton _1-I/7l 1 c City Attorney Attachment 3 SF/s:G:SF-97Memos:Water714 - 7/17/97-n5 /� PROVISION OF SERViCES BY CONTRACT �J Effective January 1, 1994, a city or district may provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside its boundaries only if it first requests and receives written approval from LAFCO (56133). Conditions of approval and exceptions include: j�' • Conditions of Aooroval: LAFCO may approve a request for out-of-agency services if the affected territory is within the agency's sphere of influence and is in anticipation of a later change of organization. • Exceotions: LAFCO authority over out-of-agency services does not apply to: (1) contracts or agreements solely involving two or more, public agencies; (2) contracts for the transfer of nonpotable or nontreated water, and (3) contracts or agreements solely involving the provision of surplus water to agricultural lands for projects that serve conservation proposes, or directly support agricultural industries. However, prior to extending surplus water that will support or induce development, the agency must receive written approval from LAFCO. Procedures Because out-of-agency service agreements can only be approved in anticipation of subsequent jurisdictional changes, applicants will be required to submit an annexation/detachment application, or other documentation demonstrating that the agreement is in anticipation of a subsequent jurisdictional change (e.g.. irrevocable offer to annex). The proponent will be charged the applicable annexation/detachment fee prior to LAFCO consideration of the out-of-agency service agreement. A 30% surcharge will be added to the annexation/detachment fee, and is due prior to Commission consideration of the related annexation/detachment proposal. The surcharge will not apply in instances where the service agreement is in response to a health or safety problem, and where the annexation will be processed immediately following approval of the service agreement. All of the requirements associated with processing an annexation/detachment proposal, such as prezgning, Environmental review, etc., will apply when processing an out-of- agency service agreement. The Executive Officer is authorized to administratively approve out-of-agency service agreements, if all conditions of approval have been met in accordance with Government Code Section 56133, and the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated the existence of public health, safety, or welfare impacts (e.g., letter from the County Health Department). The Executive Officer is required to update the Commission at the next regularly scheduled LAFCO meeting about administratively approved service agreements. - 52 - STATEMENT CONCERNING THE BOLSA CHICA MESA BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Huntington Beach City Council applauds the acquisition of all of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands for the benefit of future generations. The City Council wishes to offer its congratulations to all of those who were responsible for bringing the wetland acquisition to a successful close. The City Council also recognizes the ecological importance of the area known as the Bolsa Chica Mesa which is important to the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Should the current owners of the Bolsa Chica Mesa agree, the Huntington Beach City Council supports preservation of Bolsa Chica Mesa through acquisition by direct purchase or land exchange. It is acknowledged that city funds are not available for such a purchase. a (15) 05/05/97 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 15 Following discussion, the Mayor invited Councilmember Garofalo to meet with the Citizens Participation Advisory Board Council Liaisons to ensure his ideas are shared with the CPAB. H-2. Submitted By Council/Agency Member Pam Julien H-3. Submitted By Council/Agency Member Tom Harman H-4. Submitted By Council/Agency Member Mayor Pro Tern Shirley Dettloff (City Council) City Support For Acquisition Of The Bolsa Chica Mesa By Purchase Or Land Exchange (440.60) Recommended Motion: That the City Council state its support. [STATEMENT CONCERNING THE BOLSA CHICA MESA BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Huntington Beach City Council applauds the acquisition of all of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands for the benefit of future generations The City Council wishes to offer its congratulations to all of those who were responsible for bringing the wetland acquisition to a successful close. The City Council also recognizes the ecological importance of the area known as the Bolsa Chica Mesa which is important to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. Should the current owners of the Bolsa Chica Mesa agree, the Huntington Beach City Council supports preservation of Bolsa Chica Mesa through acquisition by direct purchase or land exchange. It is acknowledged that city funds are not available for such a purchase. Approved 6-0 (Julien -- ABSENT)] H-5. Submitted By Council/Agency Member Mayor Ralph Bauer (City Council) Deferred From April 21. 1997 -Access To Beach Path At Seapoint Street & Pacific Coast Highway (930.20) (15) • ' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: May 5, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: Council/Agency Meeting Held: j�5k97 Deferred/Continued to: LR A oved ❑ C nditional y ApprovecJ ❑ Denied City CI rk's Signature a. c Council Meeting Date: May 5, 1997 Department ID Number: x C» REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C" SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator _ PREPARED BY: LES M. JONES II, Director of Public Works; ZIP SUBJECT: KREG PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC SERVICES Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action,Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: The Koll Real Estate Group (KREG) has submitted a proposal for public services to the City for its Bolsa Chica Development project. Upon review of the proposal, staff has determined that more information is needed in order to formulate a comprehensive response. Staff is requesting authorization from Council to submit a letter to KREG outlining the additional information before staff can complete its analysis of the latest offer from Koll Real Estate Group. Funding Source: None required. Recommended Action: Motion to direct the City Administrator, to request written answers from KREG to the questions listed in the analysis portion of this report. Also, authorize the City Administrator to meet with KREG to evaluate the viability of the KREG proposal. Alternative Action(s): Do not follow the recommended action and direct staff on how to proceed. / 0025219.01 05/01/97 1:11 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: May 5, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: Analysis: In a letter to the City Administrator dated April 8, 1997, the Koll Real Estate Group submitted a proposal that provides KREG's position regarding delivery of public services to its Bolsa Chica Development. These services involve fire and emergency medical, law enforcement, library capital improvement fees, and water/sewer services. Staff has reviewed this proposal from KREG. This proposal fails to present information with sufficient detail for staff to provide a complete recommendation to the City Council. As KREG has stated that this is a "packaged deal", staff will require further information and clarification of the proposal, particularly in the area of water/sewer services. To simplify that process, staff has produced a list of questions for KREG's response. With the supplemental information, staff will be in a better position to provide the desired technical and financial analysis upon which to make an informed recommendation to the City Council. Following are some of the major outstanding questions which require responses from KREG, and they are presented in a format of requesting the information from KREG: 1. The presentation by Boyle Engineering identified that the capital cost of obtaining water services from other than the City of Huntington Beach would be approximately $13.5 million or more. Please provide me with a report which includes a technical description and cost breakdown for the least costly viable alternative to deliver water service to the development proposed for the Bolsa Chica from a source other than the City of Huntington Beach. 2. Why does the proposal include a $1 per year lease for 10 years prior to ownership by the City? 3. Does KREG have an engineering estimate of the cost of the proposed project? Please provide it. 4. Does the proposal from KREG require the construction of a 9 million gallon reservoir or construction of facilities to meet the demand of the proposed Bolsa Chica Development? 5. Has a well site been identified by KREG and is it also included as part of the proposal? 6. With reference to the term "KREG's costs not to exceed $8.75 million," please identify what costs will be included or excluded? 7. How does KREG propose that the water rate surcharge be determined? What process is proposed? How long would the City be bound to that commitment? 8. Will land for the reservoir be deeded in fee at the termination of the lease? Is the value of this land included in the $8.75 million? 0025219.01 05/01/97 2:04 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: May 5, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: There are a number of questions that need to be asked of KREG to clarify the nature of their proposal and these would be included in the letter to KREG in addition to the above information. (see Attachment 2) In addition, Section 14.16.190 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Sale of water outside city ,states: "It is unlawful for the City Water Department to sell water to consumers outside the city, or to allow any consumer outside the city to use any water furnished by the city system unless the City Council shall by resolution determine and declare a surplus of water exists in excess of that required by the inhabitants of the city." City Staff has submitted a Request for Legal Services requesting the criteria upon which a surplus of water should be determined by the City, since the City Council is required to adopt a finding that there is surplus water prior to providing water outside of the City. This opinion is in process in the City Attorney's office. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page 1. Letter of Proposal from Koll Real Estate Group dated April 8, 1997. 2. Draft Response to KREG from the City Administrator. 0025219.01 05101/97 2:04 PM Page 12 - Council/Agency Agenda - 05/05/97 (12) F. Administrative Items F-1. (City Council) Koll Real Estate Group (KREG) Proposal Regarding Delivery Of Public Services To Its Bolsa Chica Development (440.60) Communication from the Public Works Director regarding the Koll Real Estate Group proposal dated April 8, 1997, for public services to the City for its Bolsa Chica Development Project. Upon review of the proposal, staff has determined that more information is needed in order to formulate a comprehensive response. Recommended Motion: Direct the City Administrator to request written answers from Koll Real Estate Group to the questions listed in the analysis portion of this report. Also, authorize the City Administrator to meet with Koll Real Estate Group to evaluate the viability of the Koll Real Estate Group proposal. [Plus: (1) The Koll Co. package deal stressed that time is of the essence and that the offer would expire in 30 days (5-8-97) since the City is unable to respond within your imposed time frame, please feel free to obtain your water elsewhere (prior to vote clarified that this response due to city needing Koll to extend time to get questions in City Administrator letter answered) i (2) Also - include sentence in City Administrator letter that Council would like concerns in Mayor Bauer's memo of 515197 addressed by Koll Co. -- 6-1 (Julien -- NO) (3) Request Koll Co. to disclose to city results of any test wells drilled on their property as to quality and volume of water-- 7-0] F-2. (City Council) City Treasurer March Investment Summary Review - March, 1997 i (310.20) Communication from the City Treasurer transmitting the Monthly Investment Report for March, 1997. Recommended Motion: Review monthly report. Following review of the report, by motion of Council, accept the Monthly Investment Report for March, 1997, pursuant to Section 17.0 of the Investment Policy of the City of Huntington Beach. [Approved 7-0] (12) Koll Real Estate Group April 8, 1997 Mr. Mike Uberuaga City Administration City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mike: The purpose of this letter is to present the City of Huntington Beach with Koll Real Estate Group's (KREG) comprehensive proposal to resolve the on-going discussions regarding delivery of public services to our development project. As I understand it, the public services the City, County and KREG have yet to reach closure on include: fire and emergency medical, law enforcement, library capital improvement fees and water/sewer services. Following is a issue by issue summary of where we believe things stand at this time and our proposal for resolution. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Our understanding is that there is agreement at the staff level between the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and the Huntington Beach Fire Department (HBFD) as to how fire and emergency medical services are to be provided to our development project. First, OCFA and KREG enter into an agreement whereby KREG provides $2.4 million in capital improvement funds to OCFA at a specified development milestone. OCFA then contracts with HBFD to provide fire and emergency medical services for our property. As compensation for providing these services the City receives $1.2 million in capital improvement funds along with 80% of the property tax revenue from the O.C. Structural Fire Fund which generates $600,000 to $700,000 annually at build out of the project. Recent discussions with the OCFA and HBFD indicate that a three party agreement outlining the terms and conditions of fire and medical services financing will be signed shortly. KREG Proposal for Fire and Emergency Medical Services: KREG will sign the proposed three party agreement and subsequently enter into an agreement with OCFA to provide the capital improvement funds to both HBFD and OCFA. Law Enforcement Considerable time has been devoted to identifying a mechanism whereby KREG could address the City's concerns with incurring increased service demands for law enforcement. We have concluded that there is no viable solution to this issue involving KREG and the City. The City's concern is based on the contention that the Orange County Sheriff will not provide an adequate level of service to our development,thus causing the City to expend resources to supplement law 4400 MacArthur Boulevard Suite 300 Newport Beach,CA 92660 (714)477-0873 FAX(714)476-2075 Mr.Mike Uberuaga Page 2 April 8, 1997 enforcement activities. As the project develops, the residents will be paying property taxes to receive law enforcement services from the County. In our view it is unreasonable to expect the future residents to pay for law enforcement services from two different jurisdictions, predicated solely on the City's speculation that the County's level of service will be inadequate. KREG Proposal for Law Enforcement: The City police department and the Sheriff should enter into an agreement similar to the agreement the HBFD will have with OCFA. If no agreement is reached, the City should use a portion of the City's profits (i.e., revenue in excess of cost to provide fire service) from the OCFA contract to cover the City's anticipated cost for additional police services. Library Services The City and County have already entered into an agreement whereby the City captures a percentage of the County library district property tax. The agreement also provides that the County transfer the $200 per dwelling unit capital improvement fee to the City. At the time when this agreement was signed,the City's library capital improvement fee for new development was 15 cents per square foot($300 on a 2,000 square foot home), while the County's formula for library fees results in a charge of$200 per dwelling unit. At that time KREG agreed to pay the equivalent of 15 cents per square foot or $300 a unit assuming an average dwelling unit size of 2,000 square feet. Since then the City has dramatically increased its library fees by over 150%to 40 cents per square foot. By way of comparison, this equates to $800 for a 2,000 square foot home. While we question the legal nexus between the substantial increase in the library fees and the extent of the demand for library facilities created by new development, we also appreciate the quality of the City's library program and the need for capital improvements. KREG Proposal for Library Fees: To maintain consistency with the agreement that is already in place between the City and the County, KREG will agree to pay the equivalent of the City's current library fee of 40 cents per square foot or approximately$800 per dwelling unit. Water and Sewer Services With respect to water and sewer services it is difficult to determine exactly what the City's priorities are as it pertains to water and sewer infrastructure since City staff has been precluded from discussing these issues with us. Thus, it is impossible to craft a specific proposal on water and sewer services without the benefit of meaningful dialogue. Be that as it may, based on the Boyle Engineering report and recent presentations before the council it appears that the City has a well-documented need for a reservoir in the vicinity of our property to correct existing water pressure deficiencies in the Sunset Heights and Peters Landing areas. Also, the council has made it clear that any infrastructure necessary to serve the property be provided concurrent with development as opposed to paying a per unit water connection fee which is the current City practice. Our proposal is based on the premise that the City needs a reservoir site and additional reservoir capacity on line as soon as possible. Mr.Mike Uberuaga Page 3 April 8, 1997 KREG Proposal for Water and Sewer Services: KREG agrees to 1) provide a 1.2 acre site at the southeast corner of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos for the purpose of constructing an underground nine million gallon water reservoir. The property will be leased to the City for $1 per year for 10 years at which time the property will transfer to the City, and 2) design and construct the reservoir and associated pump facility, well, etc., with KREG's cost not to exceed $8.75 million. Construction of the reservoir and associated facilities will be completed by the occupancy of the 400' dwelling unit provided the City does not delay the construction schedule. In return for KREG providing the public improvements discussed above, the City and KREG will enter into a service agreement with the following general terms: • City will provide domestic water supply and operate and maintain all water and wastewater facilities with the development. • City and KREG will establish a maximum water surcharge rate the new residents would pay above the standard rate charged to users within the City. • KREG will construct on-site water and sewer lines. • Agreement cannot be changed without the mutual consent of both parties. • City will supply water for grading of the first phase of the project. • City will supply domestic water for up to 400 occupied dwelling units prior to the completion of the capital facilities to be constructed by KREG. • City will be responsible for the cost of the reservoir and associated facilities in excess of $8.75 million. The terms outlined above represent the major deal points. Obviously more details need to be discussed and agreed upon before formal agreements can be drafted. Timing and Process Issues Time is of the essence since we are well into our site engineering work. Designing water facilities consistent with City needs and different from those already underway for our project will require substantial lead time to meet our development schedule. In order to meet our timeframes we request that you place the major terms of this proposal before the council within the next 30 days. If the council accepts the proposal, city staff and KREG then have an additional 45 days to prepare written agreements and return to council for final approval. Please be advised, with the exception of the fire services contract which we have no control over, the Mr.Mike Uberuaga Page 4 April 8, 1997 proposals for public services outlined in this letter are a "packaged deal" (i.e., no one service proposal may be segregated from the others)and expire 30 days from the date of this letter. In summary, KREG believes there is substantial financial benefit to the City in providing certain public services to our development both in terms of capital improvements and ongoing operating revenues. In fact it appears that there is little if any financial incentive for the City to annex our property since the City will capture two-thirds of the property tax rate the City normally receives by virtue of the property tax transfers from the County. With respect to specific financial benefits, the City will receive $1.2 million in capital improvement funds from KREG under an agreement with OCFA even though providing fire service to our development does not place additional capital demands on City facilities. The $700,000 in on-going operating revenue far exceeds the City's marginal cost to serve an additional 200 acres of development. In short, the proposed fire services agreement with OCFA is a windfall for the City. The KREG proposal for library fees will put another $1.2 million into city coffers that would otherwise not be available. The operating revenue transferred from the County library property tax to the City is nearly $100,000 per year at buildout. Our proposal for water/sewer services represents a $2.5 million net gain to the City using the Boyle Engineering report cost figures which we believe overstates the City's capital cost to supply water to our development by at least $2 million. In total, the City will receive nearly $7 million in net capital improvement funds and facilities and $800,000 in annual operating revenue for providing three services to our development. After two years of discussions between the City and KREG concerning the provision of public services to our unincorporated property, it is time to bring closure to these issues and move forward. We look forward to your positive response. Sincerely, KOLL REAL ESTATE WPUP ro Ed Mountford Vice President EM:jm cc: City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR May 6, 1997 Ed Mountford Koll Real Estate Group 4400 MacArthur Boulevard Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Mountford: This letter is in response to your letter of proposal dated April 8, 1997, regarding the outstanding issues of negotiation between the City and Koll Real Estate Group. As you are aware, staff has reviewed your proposal and reported its analysis to the City Council,pursuant to their direction. There are a number of questions that have arisen regarding your proposal. Recognizing that you have requested that, with the exception of the Fire Services contract over which you have no control,"...the proposals for public services outlined in this letter are a `packaged deal'.", it is necessary that staffs analysis of the proposal be based upon the most complete information available. As a result, I have included a list of questions below which we need answered to adequately evaluate your proposal When you have the written response available, I have been authorized by the City Council to meet with you, your staff, and consultants,to discuss your proposal. The following major questions were presented to the City Council on May 5: 1. The presentation by Boyle Engineering identified that the capital cost of obtaining water services from other than the City of Huntington Beach would be approximately$13.5 million or more. Please provide me with a report which includes a technical description and cost breakdown for the least costly viable alternative to deliver water service to the development proposed for the Bolsa Chica from a source other than the City of Huntington Beach. 2. Why does the proposal include a$1 per year lease for 10 years prior to ownership by the City? 3. Does KREG have an engineering estimate of the cost of the proposed project? Please provide it. 4. Does the proposal from KREG require the construction of a 9 million gallon reservoir or construction of facilities to meet the demand of the proposed Bolsa Chica Development? 5. Has a well site been identified by KREG and is it also included as part of the proposal? 6. With reference to the term"KREG's costs not to exceed$8.75 million,"please identify what costs will be included or excluded? DRUG USE is Telephone (714) 536-5202 Ed Mountford Koll Real Estate Group May 6, 1997 Page 2 7. How does KREG propose that the water rate surcharge be determined? What process is proposed? How long would the City be bound to that commitment? 8. Will land for the reservoir be deeded in fee at the termination of the lease? Is the value of this land included in the$8.75 million? In addition,the following clarifying questions have been included to assist City staff in evaluating your proposal: 1. If the design proposed by KREG is unacceptable to the City, can the 1.2 acre site be expanded? 2. Has KREG determined if this project will conform with the City's zoning and CEQA requirements? 3. What is the proposed above ground use of the 1.2 acre site? 4. Will the site be under the control of the City? 5. What material equipment,buildings, etc. are proposed to cover the reservoir? 6. Has KREG performed necessary soils studies to support the use? Please provide them. 7. Does KREG have detailed plans for the construction of the project as proposed? Please provide them. 8. Besides the well and reservoir facilities,what other facilities does KREG propose as indicated by "etc."on page 3 of your proposal?" 9. If the City can extend water to the first 400 homes,what plan does KREG propose to accomplish this? What is the anticipated expense? Is this expense contained within the$8.75 Million cap? 10. If KREG proposes to commit the water transportation and delivery system to the City, are the plan check and inspection costs incurred by the City part of the$8.75 Million? 11. Does KREG propose to equip its development for the use of Green Acres reclaimed water? 12. If Green Acres Project water is available to supply the project,is the City proposed to be the retailer that will supply this water? 13. Does the KREG proposal to construct onsite water and sewer include tie-ins to the existing systems? If so, will KREG also construct the offsite facilities necessary to do so? 14. Does the water for grading need to be potable water? It is anticipated that you will require some time in which to provide the clarifications requested. As a result, I would request that you consider extending your proposal an additional 30 days in order to provide you the time to respond to the abovementioned questions and for the City to review and analyze your responses. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. When this information is complete,please contact me. Sincerely, Michael T. Uberuaga City Administrator 0025189.01 5/5/87 10:03:51 Date:bib/91 Time:10:03:61 Page 1 of 2 0- - SUBJECT: Mayor Bauer and City Council This chart was in the paper this am 5/5. The front page headline said "Spigot Closing on Q.C. Water Proceeds". This is one of the reasons for the Koll 30 day notice. They want in before July 1st. Sincerely Eileen Murphy Z� so �° -v cn To: Connie Brockway From : E Murphy For Information Call: At: Paqes: 2 _� My Fax Number : 714-969-8344 515197 10:04:45 Date:515197 Time:10:04:45 Page 2 of 2 5 O.C. Cities" Li6quid i Floating Funds All but one of 16 city governments in Orange County that own and operate their own water systems routinely transfer water money into general funds each year.Transfers range from 9%to 2690 of gross annual water sales.Here's a city-by-city comparison of how much was transferred this fiscal year from the water agencies: 1996.97 Ck transfer Anaheim:City ordinance allows transfer of up to 4%of $1.5 million gross annual water sales to general fund.Has been 4% the last two years.Another 1.5%is transferred as a right-of-way fee. Brea:Transfer to general fund based on cost $475,000 reimbursement;was 6.4%for 1996-97. Buena Park:No water revenue goes to general fund. 0 Fountain Valley:Fixed amount of$900,000 annually is $900,000 transferred to general fund. Fullerton:Fixed amount of 10%as franchise fee goes to $1.4 million general fund. Garden Grove:Transfer to general fund varies based on $2.6 million cost reimbursement. Huntington Beach:Fixed amount of 15%goes to $6 million general fund.Another$2.7 million was transferred in 1996-97 for"services reimbursement." La Habra:Percentage to general fund is set in annual $247,610 budget as a franchise fee.Was 4%in 1996-97. Le Palma:Fixed amount of 26%goes to general fund. $469,300 Newport Beach:Fixed amount of 7%goes to general $1.3 million fund. Orange:Transfer is a portion of city's total administrative $846,413 costs,set by the ratio of water budget to total city budget.Was 6.6%forfiscal 1996-97. San Clemente:Allocation of 10%to general fund;only $109,220 4%transferred for 1996-97. _ Santa Ana:Percentage determined annually based on $4.7 million cost reimbursement. Seal Beach:Transfer to general fund is 10%based on $245,000 overhead costs. Tustin:Transfer varies by year based on"fee method"; $673,000 was 7.92%for 1996-97. Westminster.Transfer varies by year based on cost $1.6 million reimbursement;additional 5%transferred for general overhead in fiscal 1996-97. Sources:Orange County Water Rates survey;orange County Water Assn.and MUNClpah Water Dlstnct of Orange 1995.December 1996;and individual Cities;Researched by JEAN PASCO and JONN r..... -r,.,e. Ko L L L z_ tiFN/ Oit1 Tn voLc Com /-1, /7 7W �► S' �/VV4 25T �Y v rL AC11-0 LC y IS IG' I /L ��- AJ 77 3d 72) A-01 e s IAI 71 D LS ry 1'1 r�2 IO �!4' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION, NUN&MGMN MACH TO: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator FROM: Mayor Ralph Bauer ./+.f- 6 00 m �o/►�Dn o� J=S- / 7 �Uc�nc� � DATE: May 5, 1997 "416 e, /' SUBJECT: Response to Koll Letter of April 8, 1997 i In response to the letter from the Koll Real Estate Group of April 8, 1997, there are a number of issues of vital interest to the city which I believe should be discussed with Koll. In addition, there are some guidelines to which we should adhere. 1. The complexity of the issues are such that the time required will be substantial. Thus,no deadlines can be set at this time. 2. All financial arrangements for capital and other costs must be on an"up front"basis before any construction starts. Koll's financial picture is at best shaky based on recent notices in the business section which indicate Koll's net worth is less than$4 million. 3. No agreements should be signed until the new equity partners are in place and the reorganization is in place. According to the newspaper, the new plan is being considered on June 19, 1997. Thus, any agreement would not be signed until after that date. 4. The fire agreement will not be a three party agreement but will be between the city and the jOrange county Fire Authority. Koll's positive responses to OCFA will have a strong bearing on adequate fire protection in the Bolsa Chica. 5. Charges for all services including fire,police, library, and water should be fully allocated and will be the responsibility of Koll. Koll's relationship with the county is such that I am sure they could convince the county to work more closely with the city. 6. Although we have determined Koll's likely cost to build water infrastructure is $13.5 million, there is another viewpoint which should also be considered: Cost of fair share buy-in to H.B. infrastructure $8,000,000 Cost of fair share buy-in to H.B. Capital Improvement Program $1,500,000 Cost of stand alone project built in isolation to supply the Koll project with water \ $9,000,000 Y � 1 Thus,the total charge to Koll to be fair to the citizens of Huntington Beach should be at least $18.5 million. 7. Since the city,according to the rules,must declare excess water availability prior to supplying such water outside city limits, Koll would need to fund a study by a city chosen consultant to determine whether excess water is indeed available. We should bear in mind that currently many homes and industrial projects are being built while two reservoirs are out of commission. Although new infrastructure is being built, it is not yet in place. 8. Huntington Beach, in their testimony to the Coastal Commission,presented 17 issues none of which were addressed. These issues should be presented to Koll for their help and compliance where appropriate. 9. Any future costs to the city as a result of the Koll project must be borne by the future residents of the project. Language and if necessary assessment or Mello Roos Districts should be in place to make sure future costs fall to the Bolsa Chica residents not Huntington Beach residents. 10. It should be mentioned that the financial data presented in Koll's letter is inaccurate and over simplified. Koll's data should be corrected by Huntington Beach staff before further discussions take place. 11. There are three issues which remain unaddressed. It is my understanding that some of these obligations come as a result of law or previous agreements: a) Koll's obligation to provide park land under the Quimby Act especially as it applies to the Linear Park; b) Koll's obligation to provide a peripheral path around the Bolsa Chica; c) Koll's financial obligation toward the interpretive Center. 12. Existing lawsuits against Koll should be resolved so as not to hinder Koll's ability to perform under any agreement we might reach. The above items plus those you may have to clarify the original proposal make the discussions with Koll fairly complex. You might mention to Koll that their stockholders would be better served if Koll management together with citizen and environmental groups would approach Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, for a land trade for the Bolsa Chica. In the face of the complexity suggested by the above issues and powerful citizens opposition to the Koll plan, it is hard to believe that there is not Federally-owned land not subject to earthquakes which would be far more amenable to development that the Bolsa Chica. I should very much appreciate having the above items placed on the agenda in any future meetings you may have with Koll. RB:pf IqITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC D MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-06 Council/Agency Meeting Held: 31 117/91 Deferred/Continued to: (approved ❑ ond' Tonally A proved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Sig Lure Council Meeting Date: March 17, 1997 Department ID Number: CD97-06 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator %—el� PREPARED BY: RAY SILVER, Assistant City Administr t MICHAEL DOLDER, Fire Chief RON HAYDEN, Director of Libr ry Servl LES JONES, Director of Public Works RON LOWENBERG, Police Chief SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA SERVICE DELIVERY ISSUES - STATUS REPORT Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: On February 24 1997, the City Council held a workshop to review the status of the negotiations for possibly providing certain municipal services to the Bolsa .Chica Local Coastal Program (LCP) area and to receive information on water service issues. During the water service presentation, the City Council raised several questions which required additional research and were unable to be answered at that meeting. Transmitted for the City Council's consideration is an update on the status of the Library, Fire, Police and Public Works (including water and sewer) service delivery issues, responses to the water service questions raised at the February 24, 1997 meeting and a re-affirmation on the City Council's direction regarding pursuit of the service agreements. Funding Source: Not Applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. "Direct the City Administrator, or his designee, to continue negotiations with Koll Real Estate Group and the Orange County Fire Authority on the Fire service agreement; BOLSARCA.DOC -2- 03/11/97 6:00 PM *QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIN MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-06 2. "Direct the City Administrator, or his designee, to continue negotiations with Koll Real Estate Group and the County of Orange on the Library, Police, Sewer and Traffic related service agreements;" and 3. "Reject the Water Service Proposal by Koll Real Estate Group (Summer 1996), and authorize the City Administrator, or his designee, to evaluate any new written proposal from Koll Real Estate Group, if provided, and bring before the City Council for consideration." Alternative Action(s): Do not pursue one or more of the service agreements. Analysis: The City has been negotiating with the Koll Real Estate Group, the County of Orange and the Orange County Fire Authority to provide library services, fire protection, supplemental police service, and the re-assignment of traffic impact fees. Below is a brief background on each service issue, followed by an update on the status of each issue. Staff has also been analyzing the potential costs and benefits associated with the City providing water and sewer service to the Bolsa Chica. A presentation of the water service issues was provided to the City Council at the February 24, 1997 meeting. Questions raised at that meeting have been provided in the water service section of this report. It should also be noted that on February 12, 1997, the State Lands Commission approved a multi-agency agreement to acquire 880 acres of the Bolsa Chica lowland for wetland restoration purposes. The acquisition eliminated the lowland development component of the proposed plan. Therefore, all service issues are now being based upon a maximum development of 2,500 units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Service Issues Library Service During preparation of the Development Agreement, between KREG and the County, for the Bolsa Chica development, the City, County and KREG agreed that future residents of the Bolsa Chica would utilize the City's library facilities. The City, at the direction of the Bolsa Chica Subcommittee, began negotiation with the County and KREG to establish a means for recovering the costs for providing library service to the Bolsa Chica. At that time it was estimated that the average size unit (2,000 sq. ft.) would generate the equivalent of$300 per unit from the Community Enrichment Library Fee (CELF) if constructed in the City of Huntington Beach. BOLSARCA.DOC -3- 03/12/97 3:14 PM *QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-06 On January 9, 1996, the County Board of Supervisors approved an agreement between the County and City of Huntington Beach which provides the City with $100 per unit for the City's library capital costs and 70.5% of the annual library district fees it would receive from the Bolsa Chica development. This agreement was approved by the City Council on November 6, 1995. The $100 per unit constitutes all of the library capital fees which would be received by the County from the Bolsa Chica development. This agreement offsets a portion of the City's costs for providing library service to the Bolsa Chica. The City is working on recovering the remaining $200 per unit capital costs through an agreement with KREG. In the early summer of 1996, the City and KREG reached a tentative agreement with KREG to cover the remaining $200 per unit capital costs. This agreement, signed by KREG, requires KREG to pay the City $200 per dwelling unit prior to issuance of building. The funds are to be used by the City for library capital improvement costs, including future costs as well as debt service costs associated with prior capital improvements such as the Central Library Expansion. While the agreement requires KREG to pay any adopted increases in the CELF (in effect at the time of building permit issuance), it does not address payment of any new library fees, such as the Library Development Fee (LDF) which was adopted by City Council and went into effect on November 3, 1996. The LDF is an additional library fee charged to new development in the City. The fee is assessed at $0.25 per square foot for residential and $0.03 per square foot for commercial/industrial. (The LDF is estimated to generate approximately $500 per unit in the Bolsa Chica based up the average unit of 2,000 square feet). Staff is continuing discussions with KREG to address the LDF fee. Fire Service The City, Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), and KREG believe that there is a mutually beneficial opportunity from the City providing fire service to the Bolsa Chica. The OCFA does not have adequate fire protection facilities in the Bolsa Chica area and would need to provide a new fire station in the Bolsa Chica (prior to construction) to serve the project. The Bolsa Chica area is surrounded by the City, including the City's fire protection system. Due to the project's proximity to the City's existing facilities, the City can provide a more efficient and higher level fire service to the Bolsa Chica. The City is proposing to provide fire, rescue, emergency paramedic and ambulance transportation to the Bolsa Chica area in exchange for funding provided through the transfer of a portion of the County's Fire Fund Property Tax and capital contributions. The City, OCFA, and KREG are still in the negotiation process. The parties met on January 13, 1997, and developed a list of general understandings for the provision of fire/medical services. A summary of the general understandings, which will serve as the basis for developing the fire/medical service agreement for the Bolsa Chica, is as follows: BOLSARCA.DOC -4- 03/12/97 5:03 PM *QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIN MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-06 • The City will provide fire, rescue, emergency paramedic and ambulance transportation services to the Bolsa Chica development at a level deemed appropriate by the OCFA and the City. • OCFA will annually pay the City 80% of the Fire Fund Property Tax for the Bolsa Chica area. (Estimated revenues at build-out are $600,000 to $700,000 per year.) • Upon receipt of one-time capital funds from KREG, OCFA will pay the City a one-time capital contribution as partial funding for the relocation of Huntington Beach Fire Station 8 to the Graham/Production site already owned by the City. (Capital fund revenues available to the City are $1,250,000.) • The Fire/Medical Service agreement in the Bolsa Chica area would be mutually agreed upon and irrevocable for both parties. In conjunction with the Bolsa Chica development area agreement, the City and OCFA will develop a separate agreement for the nearby Sunset Beach and Surfside Colony areas. The following is a summary of the service provision understandings for this agreement: • In consideration of capital fund payments from the Bolsa Chica agreement, the City will provide primary paramedic service and secondary (back-up) response for fire, rescue, or ambulance transport services to these areas. OCFA will continue to provide the primary response to these areas. • OCFA will agree to consider the City's request to provide ambulance transportation services to these areas during the next OCFA contract renewal, which will occur in three years. • The Sunset Beach/Surfside Colony agreement will be subject to a one-year notice of termination by either the City or County. Staff believes that the negotiations are going well and that an agreement will be negotiated. i Police Service Staff believes that Police service to the Bolsa Chica is similar to fire service in that the proximity to the City's existing police system make the City a logical provider for police service, if compensated for. However, unlike fire protection service, development of new residences in Bolsa Chica will require the Police to handle an increase in calls and public safety matters in the City of Huntington, even if the City is not the primary service provider. This additional work load is a result of the introduction of additional development in the area and the associated increases in calls for back-up assistance to the Sheriff, increases in traffic accidents and infractions, and increases in criminal victimization calls involving Bolsa Chica residents. BOLSARCA.DOC -5- 03/12/97 3:14 PM *QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIN MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-06 Through out the Bolsa Chica process, the Orange County Sheriff has maintained the position that the Sheriff can adequately serve the Bolsa Chica development and is unwilling to negotiate any agreement for the City to provide Police Services to Bolsa Chica. Based upon the Police Department's experience, they project that, at build-out, with the Sheriff as the service provider, development of the Bolsa Chica will require provision of an additional two officers to handle the increase in calls. The costs to the City as a result of build-out of the Bolsa Chica, with the Sheriff as the service provider were evaluated in the Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Public Economics, Inc., (9/30/94). After support personnel, administration and overhead expenses are factored in, the cost would be $294,000 per year. The Police Department has held several meetings with representatives of KREG to discuss this issue. To date no agreement has been reached to cover the City's costs for increased Police activity resulting from development of the Bolsa Chica. Public Works Sewer Service Koll and the City, over the past several years, have discussed the concept of KREG funding the replacement and up-sizing of the City's sewer lift station "D" in Warner Avenue with one combined lift station which would not only serve Koll Development needs as well as meet optimum City capacity requirements. As an alternative to City Sewer service, the Bolsa Chica could receive sewer service directly from the Orange County Sanitation Districts (OCSD). To better understand KREG's options for receiving sewer service from OCSD, staff met with the Orange County Sanitation Districts (OCSD). At that meeting staff learned that KREG and OCSD have executed a cooperative agreement which allows for increased capacity at the Slater Pump Station to accommodate the Bolsa Chica development. This agreement assures incorporation of Bolsa Chica into District No. 11 of the OCSD. In accordance with this agreement, KREG will pay for the costs for incorporation of the Bolsa Chica into the OCSD. The incorporation fee is based on an acreage fee for developed land and covers the cost for improvements to the Slater Pump Station. The fee is to be paid in an amount indexed for each year (until build-out). At build-out, the total cost of incorporation is anticipated to be approximately $2 million. To date, KREG has paid OCSD $526,000, thus far for incorporation into OCSD No. 11. Incorporation into OCSD and upgrades to the Slater Pump Station compel OCSD to provide sewer service to the Bolsa Chica. OCSD has the right to construct and operate sewer mains and lift stations within the City rights-of-way without the necessity of a franchise or license agreement with the City and can provide sewer service directly to Bolsa Chica without utilizing any City sewer facilities. Whether the Sanitation Districts will need to construct new facilities within the City or the BOLSARCA.DOC -6- 03/12/97 3:14 PM *QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIN MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-06 extent of these facilities is unknown at this time. The actual means for providing sewer service to the Bolsa Chica has not yet been determined. The Sanitation Districts will analyze the potential alternatives for providing service once KREG has submitted a tentative map for development in the area. Traffic Impacts There are certain traffic improvements identified within the Area Traffic Improvement Program (ATIP) portion of the County Development Agreement as " Full Improvements within the City" . Some of them are not considered to be " priority" improvements to City staff in view of other, more critical intersections. Staff wishes to explore with Koll and the County the possibility of Koll simply paying equivalent traffic impact fees to the City in lieu of constructing those improvements. Those fees would then be diverted to traffic improvements which are more critical to the City and those intersections not improved at this time, would be placed on the City's list of intersections by priority. City staff recommends the pursuit of a side letter to the Development Agreement, between KREG and the County, which would allow the City the ability to re-allocate developer funding associated with the ATIP traffic improvements in the City of Huntington Beach. Water Service Representatives from KREG have sought discussions with the City about the possibility of providing water and sewer service to the Bolsa Chica development. Through the course of these meetings, KREG presented an offer of the infrastructure improvements they would make in exchange for the City providing water service to the Bolsa Chica. In August of 1996, the City Council directed staff to examine the possible costs and benefits to the City associated with a water service agreement with KREG. Staff has explored the options for providing service to the Bolsa Chica. At the February 24 City Council meeting, several questions were asked about the potential impacts of providing water service to the Bolsa Chica development. Attached to this report, are the questions asked and the responses from staff. Staff has recommended that City Council reject the proposal made previously by the Koll Real Estate Group and authorize the City Administrator to evaluate any new written proposals from KREG (if such a proposal is received) and report back to the City Council. Staff will also evaluate any such proposal based upon the input provided by the City Council. and the issues that have been raised. BOLSARCA.DOC -7- 03/12/97 3:15 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: March 17, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD97-06 Environmental Status: Not applicable. This action is a status report and a request for authorization to negotiate and does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachment(s): Page City Clerk's - ......... _... ........._.......... ........._ ...._ ................... ....... ....... _ ............... ....... .. ....... ... ...... _ .. .......... 1 Memo from Michael Dolder, Fire Chief dated 2/5/97 2 Water Service Questions from February 24, 1997 3 Video Show Presentation to City Council dated February 24, 1997 BOLSARCA.DOC -8- 03/12/97 4:34 PM (11) • 03/17/97-Council/*cy Agenda-Page 11 F-2. (City Council) Status Report On Bolsa Chica Service Delivery Issues (440.60) - Communication from the City Administrator, Fire Chief, Library Director, Public Works Director and Police Chief submitting a status report on the Library, Fire, Police and Public Works (including water and sewer) service delivery issues, responses to the water service questions raised at the February 24, 1997 council meeting and a re-affirmation on the City Council's direction regarding pursuit of the service agreements. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Direct the City Administrator, or his designee, to continue negotiations with Koll Real Estate Group and the Orange County Fire Authority on the Fire service agreement; [Approved-- 5-2 (Harman, Sullivan -- NO)] AND 2. Direct the City Administrator, or his designee, to continue negotiations with Koll Real Estate Group and the County of Orange on the Library, Police, Sewer and Traffic related service agreements; [Approved-- 5-2 (Harman, Sullivan -- NO)] AND 3. Reject the Water Service proposal by Koll Real Estate Group (Summer 1996), and authorize the City Administrator, or his designee, to evaluate any new written proposal from Koll Real Estate Group, if provided, and bring before the City Council for consideration. [Approved 4-3 (Harman, Bauer, Sullivan -- NO)] (11) Interoffim, ce emo Date: February 5, 1997 To: Julie Osugi, Associate Planner From: Michael P. Dolder, Fire Chief RE: Status of Fire Service Negotiations for the Bolsa Chica The Orange County Fire Authority(OCFA), the Koll Company(Koll), and City of Huntington Beach Fire Department(City) met on January 13, 1997 and developed a list of general understandings for the provision of fire/medical response services to the Bolsa Chica development area. This list of understandings is intended to serve as the basis for developing a future fire/medical response contract for the Bolsa Chica area. The following is a summary of the understandings of service provisions and the related reimbursements: The City will enter into an agreement with OCFA to provide an Emergency Services Agreement for fire, rescue, emergency paramedic and ambulance transportation services to the Bolsa Chica development area, at a level deemed appropriate by the OCFA and the City. • In consideration for fire/medical services provided by the City, OCFA will pay the City 80% of the Fire Fund Property Tax for the Bolsa Chica area. Estimated revenues at buildout are $600,000 to$700,000. • After OCFA receives one-time capital funds from Koll, OCFA will pay the City a one-time Capital contribution as partial funding for the relocation of Huntington Beach Fire Station 8 to the Graham and Production site already owned by the City. Capital fund payments from Koll commence with the issuance of the first building permit of any habitable structure, including models, and final payment occurs within two years of issuing the first building permit. Capital fund revenues available to the City are $1,250,000. The Fire/Medical Service Agreement in the Bolsa Chica Area would be mutually agreed upon and irrevocable for both parties. I - Interoffice Memo:Statu&-ire Service Negotiations for the Bolsa Chi* In conjunction with the Bolsa Chica development area agreement, the City and OCFA will develop a separate agreement for the nearby Sunset Beach and adjacent area known as Surfside Colony. The following is a summary of this separate agreement: • In consideration of capital fund payments from the Bolsa Chica agreement, the City will provide primary paramedic services and secondary (back-up) response for fire, rescue or ambulance transport services to the areas of Sunset Beach and Surfside Colony. OCFA will continue to provide the primary response to these areas. • OCFA will agree to consider the City's request to provide Ambulance Transportation Services to the Sunset Beach and Surfside areas during the next OCFA ambulance contract renewal, which will occur in three years. • The Sunset Beach/Surfside Agreement would require a one-year notice of termination by either party. MPDFC Cc: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Duane Olson, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Colleen Keith, Administrative Deputy 2 Questions from the City Council Meeting February 24, 1997 Providing Water Service to the Bolsa Chica Development 1. If water development fees are imposed, when would they be paid? Staff does not recommend implementation of development fees in order to finance needed infrastructure in the Bolsa Chica Development (BCD) should the City elect to provide service. Instead, necessary infrastructure (wells, reservoirs, pipe lines, pump stations, etc.) would be required for the developer to provide as a condition of receiving service from the City. This process acknowledges that there is insufficient funding for the City to extend capital improvements outside of the City limits. Instead, the City would require the developer to bear the responsibility for both the financing and construction of needed infrastructure. As an example, the developer could implement an assessment district (such as a Mello Roos), and bond for infrastructure prior to the sale of the properties. Fees could be assessed either upon purchase of the properties, or extended over time. This would be an arrangement entirely between the developer and the homeowner. 2. How will the development pay for water services? Will we have to depend on the County to collect our payment? If water service is provided, the residents will be included in the City municipal billing system. Payments would be collected monthly. This process has been established in Sunset Beach. 3. Will the bill include a surcharge? City ordinance currently allows a ten percent (10%) surcharge on water service outside of the City limits. The ordinance may be modified and surcharges may be added to the extent allowed by law. Imposition of any surcharges should be subject to review based on the most current interpretation of legislative restrictions such as Proposition 218. Until such time as the purpose and amount of surcharges are determined, no such evaluation can occur. 4. Is reclaimed water still intended for use? According to the Orange County Water District, construction on the Green Acres reclaimed water project is scheduled to begin next year. Reclaimed water is planned be available in this region in two years. Koll Development has offered to construct facilities to utilize reclaimed water. BCDQUES.DOC Providing Water Service To Bolsa Chica Development Page 2 5. If fewer than 2,500 units are built, who will pay the difference between the cost of $7.6 million to construct the facilities, and the $6 million paid by the BCD? Should the City Council elect to provide water service to the BCD, any agreement arising from that decision should assure that all capital costs should be provided by the developer. Staff would recommend against any proposal that would cause the City to fund any portion of the required capital improvements. This question assumes that the City Council will require $2,400 per dwelling unit. While this fee is currently required on all residential development within the City limits, it should not be assumed that this limitation applies outside of the City limits. Such an agreement should safeguard that the rate payers of the City of Huntington Beach do not subsidize the capital requirements of the BCD. 6. Is West Orange County Water Board feeder at capacity? In actuality, there are two MWD feeder lines owned by the WOCWB. The total capacity of these lines is 68 cubic feet per second (cfs). All capacity is currently allocated to the member agencies, however, actual annual draw is less than 68 cfs. The ownership of the feeders is fully allocated, but the hydraulic capacity is currently under utilized. To extend service to BCD would require a majority vote of the WOCWB and possible further study to satisfy any questions of the WOCWB. At this time, the issue has not been addressed with the WOCWB. 7. Can we require a surcharge premium, i.e. 20%? By ordinance, the surcharge for service outside of the City limits is currently ten percent (10%). The City does have the ability to modify that surcharge, however, all such actions should be evaluated in the light of current legislation. (Proposition 218, AB 1600, etc.). 8. Was the Water Master Plan adopted with the understanding there was no surplus water or excess capacity? Supply is the availability of the water resource. Capacity is the ability of the water system to distribute the supply. The Water Master Plan (Water Master Plan) focuses on water storage and distribution system deficiencies, not on water availability. The capacity of the system is limited. The Water Master Plan improvements will allow the City to maintain a satisfactory water distribution system. No additional service is anticipated by the Water Master Plan outside of the City limits. If additional service is considered, it must be mitigated through increased infrastructure capacity. 9. Will water bills continue to increase if service is provided to BCD? If the City Council elects to provide water to BCD, any agreement to implement that program should insure that capital costs are not borne by the existing rate payers. Actual water usage and operational expenses for the entire system would be extended to the new customers in the BCD. Therefore, rates would not be adversely affected. BCDQUES.DOC Providing Water Service To Bolsa Chica Development Page 3 Wholesale water rates are unrelated to the amount of water used by the City. Water costs are determined by the regional agencies and depend on many factors. Infrastructure improvements, regulatory issues and administrative costs may increase wholesale prices. The municipal water rate will reflect these increases in accordance with budgetary requirements. 10. How would Water Master Plan be delayed if BCD is not developed? The assumption made in the Water Master Plan was that the Holly Seacliff (9 mg) reservoir would be built nearer to the west side of the city. Unfortunately, due to the need for a co- location of a fire station with the reservoir, and a lack of available land in the west side of the city, the decision was made to locate the Holly Seacliff reservoir in the vicinity of the Holly Seacliff development. As a result, it will be necessary to locate a smaller reservoir (4-5mg) in the west side to address pressure needs in the Huntington Harbour area. Depending upon the land acquisition costs to site that reservoir, the Water Master Plan could be extended an additional year, according to Boyle Engineering. Any cost would be solely the inflation expense associated with a potential delay. 11. Does Measure C apply to the sale of water to BCD? According to the City Attorney, Measure C applies to the sale of the entire water utility, but not to the sale of water by the utility. 12. Do we agree with the$24 million buy-in cost of the Water Master Plan? Information provided to support the $24 million buy-in does not appear to reflect Water Master Plan costs. Instead, these costs appear to be for other facilities unrelated to water. Therefore, staff is unable to provide a definitive answer at this time. 13, What are the negative aspects of providing water to the BCD? Any negative aspects related to providing water to the BCD would require mitigation as part of a potential agreement. The most pronounced negative aspect would be if the capital requirements necessary to provide service to the BCD were not met by the developer. In this instance, the capital costs would be borne by all of the rate payers. Another possible negative aspect would be the construction of inadequate or substandard water infrastructure which could increase operational expense. Additional safeguards should insure that the developer is fully responsible for all infrastructures costs and protect against potential misunderstanding of those responsibilities in the event that the project is transferred or sold prior to completion of the infrastructure improvements. 14, Will using more water increase the cost of wholesale water to the City? No. The cost of wholesale water to the City is not based on a specific allocation. As long as the City continues to operate within the percentage limits of OCWD, the existing cost of water per acre foot does not change. Future costs of wholesale water may increase, but would apply to both City and BCD customers, i.e., the OCWD Basin Replenishment Assessment. BCDQUES.DOC Providing Water Service To Bolsa Chica Development Page 4 15. How was Sunset Heights included in the Water Master Plan as location for the reservoir? A reservoir located in the Sunset Heights area would provide needed storage to the west side of the City and help increase water pressure in Huntington Harbour. The high elevation would reduce pumping costs. The area is located away from the existing reservoirs, thus storage is distributed throughout the City. 16. Can we make a profit on selling water to BCD? Yes, the City presently sells water outside the City and surcharges the cost by 10%. This amount can be adjusted. 17. Must we declare a surplus of water and capacity to serve outside City limits? The current ordinance H.B. M.C. 14.16.180 requires the city council "...by resolution determine and declare a surplus of water exists in excess of that required by the inhabitants of the city." A. The available supply of imported and ground water sources is not limited to a specific level. No water retailer in Orange County has a right to a certain amount of water. The ground water basin is and will be managed effectively to meet the needs of both current and future customers. As a result, wholesale water agencies, the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) have stated that there is sufficient supply to meet the need of the Bolsa Chica Development. B. The capacity of the water system facilities is limited to the current service area. Until the City has completed the Water Master Plan facilities, no excess capacity exists in the City system. The Water Master Plan does not contemplate providing water service outside of the existing service territory. Therefore, any additional demand from outside of the City limits must be augmented with the construction of new facilities necessary to serve that additional demand. As the ordinance was adopted in 1957, the specific interpretation is a legal one which can be best addressed by the City Attorney. To this end, a Request for Legal Services has been submitted. LMJ/Id BCDQUES.DOC Huntington Beach Fire Department Status of Fire Service Negotiations for the Bolsa Chica Summary of Actions ♦ January 13, 1997 Meeting — Koll, Orange County Fire Authority and Huntington Beach Fire Department ♦ Koll / Orange County Fire Authority Agreement ♦ Separate OCFA / City Agreement — Understanding to enter into two separate fire/medical response agreements • Bolsa Chica Mesa • Sunset Beach/Surlside Colony Areas . . Huntington Beach Fire Department Slide 2 1 Bolsa Chica Mesa Area ♦ Under the proposal, the City would provide emergency services for fire, rescue, paramedic and ambulance transportation to the Bolsa Chica Mesa. ♦ City Revenues: — At buildout, $600,000 to $700,000/year (80%of Fire Fund Property Tax) — Within 2 years of first building permit, $1.25 million one-time capital contribution for Fire Station 8- Heil relocation ................................................ Huntington Beach Fire Department Slide 3 •..................................................... ............. x k [[ d 4 x �`��NewStatlon#8 a Huntington Beach Fire Department Slide 4 Sunset Beach / Surfside • Current service practices — OCFA: Primary fire, rescue and ambulance — HBFD: Primary paramedic response — HBFD: Backup fire and rescue ♦ Proposed Service Agreement formalizes current service practices — OCFA through an agreement with Koll,will provide one-time capital transfer of$1.25 million to the City for Fire Station 8 relocation. — HBFD would have future bid opportunity for City ambulance services to the area Huntington Beach Fire Departnent Slide 5 Benefits of Bolsa Chica and Sunset/Surfside Proposals ♦ New, ongoing revenue source of $600,000 to $700,000 annually for City emergency response system allowing for: — Ongoing revenue stream to relocate and construct Fire Station 8-Heil. — Funding additional staffing cost for the overall fire protection system. Huntington Beach Fbe Department Slide 8 Benefits of Bolsa Chica and Sunset/Surfside Proposals ♦ One time capital contribution of $1.25 million for relocation of Fire Station 8 ♦ Future contract opportunity for City ambulance service to Sunset Beach / Surfside Colony Huntington Beach Fre Depertnwt Slide 7 Bolsa Chica Development Sewer and Traffic Issues Sewer Services from Sanitation District of Orange County ♦ CSDOC can serve Bolsa Chica directly, without using City facilities or obtaining City concurrence. ♦ CSDOC has the right to construct facilities within the City rights-of-way without a franchise. ♦ Koll and CSDOC executed a sewer service agreement for increased capacity of the Slater Pump Station. ♦ CSDOC staff will study alternatives for providing service once tentative maps are submitted. i 1 Traffic Issues ♦ City desires the flexibility to determine how Area Transportation Improvement Program (ATIP) funds for Huntington Beach are spent. $2.5 million ♦ This would require an evaluation of each HB improvement and an agreement with Koll/County allowing for this flexibility. Bolsa Chica Development Water Service Delivery 2 Timeline of Bolsa Chica Source: City Planning Records Oct City's Water Master Plan adopted. 1995 Excludes BCD from needs assessment and financing plan June Koll approaches City requesting 1996 waterservice Timeline of Bolsa Chica Source: City Planning Records Aug Staff requests City Council direction on 1996 negotiation with Koll for water and other services Sept City Council directs staff to assess 1996 Potential benefits to City for providing water service to BCD 3 Discussion Topics o What are the water choices for the Bolsa Chica Development -- and --What are the costs? ® Summary of Water Master Plan elements related to Bolsa Chica Development ® Can Huntington Beach benefit from providing water service to Bolsa Chica? Discussion Topic What are the water choices for the Bolsa Chica Development and--- What are the costs? 4 Bolsa Chica Development (BCD) Water Service Choices ♦ Develop Local Resources -- 3-4 Million Gallons/ Day--2 options ♦ Obtain service from Southern California Water Company (SCWC)--3 options ♦ Request water service from City of Huntington Beach Local Resources Options ♦ Seawater Desalting* ♦ Brackish Groundwater Desalting* *Potable well water is not available on site BOTH COST PROHIBITIVE 5 Required Facilities for SCWC Service ♦ Wells ♦ Water treatment plant (as necessary) ♦ Transmission pipeline ♦ Capacity in existing regional pipelines ♦ Reservoir and pump station Reservoir Sizing for BCD Reservoir Capacity (MG) BCD Development SCWC City Density (DU) Criteria Standards 2500 3.5* 5.0 *SCWC requirements for reservoir storage are less than the City. The City is bound to provide services consistent with the Water Master Plan. 6 Service Options from SCWC ♦ West Seal Beach Route ♦ East Seal Beach Route ♦ Cypress Route }}i'}::}}}i: �::>::::[::[:':>:::::::�:;;;.>:.:�>:� '`:�>:�:� C...R..Y of .,4\k.......::......::... ; �< :::. .. :.:::::: Garden Grove: ####E E :ao-i':::::i:: }yle $ :<....:.i'3 ;• .. ::;:... "" Nest Seal Beach Route €€€€€€Ci3r an3tY df ® ' ' East Seal Beach Route .:::::.::::.::::.:::::.::.: ::::. C v: :::::.::::::. .::::::::::::.:::.:::::::::::. . . Cypress Route x '< YP ;:........... : ;;;::>::;;.:;:";;: ......::............ Terminal Res/BPS ........ '".. ':iJiiiiiiiiiiiii::ii::ii:v:ii:>:ii ::i:::: ;i:; \....t. ... .ace}i::` ;".""............................::::::::::: '.....:........• •\4 w . .. . ..� y ::.:...... •••:\4 ...... 4 A•': �.y :^:titii::tiff:::::{:::{{{::::{{:::i::::::`:�i:?>Ai}}Ji;{:}� ::ti'���`::::::::�?:i:::X. ::::::>{:iii'""�:::n��:::::::i:i� :.••.•\ u:;.::iv......::::: :...::i::'iiji}ii}iii`: :: :i::i}.'>' ... ... 4\444\\'�'•:i?.':l'ii}?i�Xttt:::}ii:%............... i:i i t5>.{{t:'.... 7 SCWC Capital Costs to Serve BCD $millions Trast Seal 184:.....1Nest Seal : ch 16 ear C 14 Edstirg 12 10 8 s 4 � 2 . 0 NM se Pipeline Bearh Fq*r— Analysis of SCWC Options WEST SEAL BEACH ROUTE ♦ Potential Lowest Cost, ($1 1.5 to $1 s Million)) ♦ Hydraulic Constraints ♦ Political Opposition to BCD EAST SEAL BEACH ROUTE ♦ Expensive Option ($17 Million) * Higher Customer Costs s Analysis of SCWC Options CYPRESS ROUTE ♦ Most viable option ♦ 2nd lowest cost ($13.5 Million) ♦ Maximum use of existing facilities ♦ Requires WOCWB approval if MWD connection is desired ♦ Involves construction in City streets Discussion Topic Summary of Water Master Plan elements related to Bolsa Chica Development 9 I H. B. Water Master Plan ♦ 3 Major Issues of the Master Plan Related to the Bolsa Chica Development ->Water Supply ->Water Storage ->Water Pressure Master Plan Water Supply ♦ Bolsa Chica Development will increase population, therefore water supply must increase. Water Supply is provided through water wells ->Water Supply is provided through MWD pipeline connections 10 Master Plan Water Storage ♦ Water is Stored in reservoirs for the following purposes: Fire Storage Emergency Supply Peaking Demand Effective management of wholesale water costs Master Plan Water Pressure ♦ Water pressure can be met through the following: �Upsizing of lines to reduce friction loss � Booster pumping stations Water storage or supply (with pumps and high ground) near the need. ♦ Huntington Harbour Area has a need for increased water pressure. 11 Discussion Topic 4 Can Huntington Beach Benefit from Providing Water Service to Bolsa Chica? Potential Benefits to H B ♦ Monthly capital surcharge payment by additional Bolsa Chica customers (if units are completed before 2007) ♦ Construction of facilities in excess of $7.6 M to mitigate project could reduce Water Master Plan Costs ♦ Potential accelerated benefit to Westside System (Huntington Harbour) for fire service & supply 12 Cost to Provide BCD Water Service Facility Water Well Pump Station 5 MG Reservoir Transmission Main Land Total $7.6 million Summary of Koll Proposal (2,500 Dwelling Units) ♦ 9 MG reservoir (Koll provides site) ♦ Koll designs & constructs water well; City obtains land & CEQA clearance. ♦ Koll will pay water connection fees of approximately $2,400 per dwelling unit ♦ Koll pays $150,000 to increase MWD import capacity ♦ Koll develops on-site water & sewer lines 13 Summary of Service Options sCWC Citc Supply Cypress wells H B wells + MWD + MWD Source Remote Local Storage 3.5 MG 5 MG Dependability Stand alone Redundant Quality Meets standards Exceeds standard Cost $ 13.5M $ 7.6M 14 77 Huntin n 7Bea�ChOMOITOW BoxM5 �� Huntington Beach CA 92648 ;RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF- OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK March 17, 1997 STATEMENT TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ON AGENDA ITEM F-2 : REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND STATUS ON BOLSA CHICA SERVICE DELIVERY ISSUES Tonight recommendations are being made to you by staff that 1)you authorize continued negotiations with Koll Real Estate Group,Orange County Fire Authority and/or Or�nnge County,as appropriate,for fire,police,sewer and traffic related agreements and 2)you reject llie August, 1996 Koll Bolsa Chica water service proposal presented and authorize evaluation and presentation to you any new written Koff proposal provided to the city. Huntington Beach Tomorrow continues to take the position that the city must clearly recovers all the city costs,past,present and future which would be produced Koll's Bolsa Chica development project and must make a significant profit as well from any and all services the city provides to the project. We request that you adopt this position by a motion of the Council so that it is clear to the residents of this city,as well as Koll and the County, that you mean to exercise your sworn duty to protect this city from the adverse impacts of this project. We continue to request also that you adopt,by formal Council motion,the position that,until and unless,recovery of all the costs to this city,past,present and future, and a significant profit to the city for any services resources supplied to the project are guaranteed,you will oppose and seek to stop this project by every legal means available to you. As we have indicated previously, and will continue to repeat, there are significant adverse environmental and financial impacts on this city. Since we do not have time in 3 minutes to deal with both types of impact,we will leave presentation of the environmental impacts to others and concentrate on the financial impacts and actions which can be taken by the Council to defeat this project. We wish to present, once again, an overhead, prepared from a city consultant report prepared in 1992 and proportionally adjusted for Koll's present project. A second overhead prepared on these same costs indicates a few of the things we need in this city and the time over which these things could be bought. Councilman Harman indicated on February 24th that he would like a resolution between costs we provided at that time and the costs staff subsequently presented. We do not see the answer to that i question in the backup materials for Item F-2. In a third overhead we would like to present these costs as taken from the city consultant report done in 1994 to which staff referred. It is worth noting, as staff did on the 24th,that, at the time the 1994 report was presented to Council, it was criticized as not being complete or adequate. This last overhead clearly indicates that the costs to this city are incredible and that no matter which consultant report is used,the city must use every legally available method to stop this project unless it recovers its costs and makes a profit to hedge against mistakes in the estimates. Past dealings with Koll as well as the overheads which follow, taken from information on Koll Real Estate financial record readily available on the Internet and the World Wide Web, indicate that this city must be absolutely assured that the money is, and will be, there before it even puts money into talking to Koll and executing an agreement with the Company. We need to consider also Newport's recent experience in dealing with this company. To couch it in terms we've all heard: is this really a company you want to buy a used car from or even consider buying a used car from? In conclusion,we support staffs recommendation to reject Koll's 1996 water proposal. Beyond that we support Mayor Ralph Bauer's statement that the city is never going to benefit from supplying water to Koll and his suggestion that we just tell Koll to go their own way,get the water where they can and we'll go our own way. We would add to that approach one of doing everything we can to stop the project and supporting all efforts to stop all projects on this land and acquire it in the public trust. This is the only way we can see that Huntington Beach is going to be able to live with the presence of Bolsa Chica Mesa adjacent to this city. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. Bob Biddle,President Huntington Beach Tomorrow T_ KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP BOLSA CHICA PROJECT COSTS TO HUNTINGTON BEACH RESIDENTS* 1. ONE-TIME COSTS (REQUIRED TO BUYINTO EXISTING C/TYRESOURCESALREADY PAID FOR BYCURRENT CITYRESIDENTS) $24,7169165.00 2. RECURRING COSTS/YR. FOREVER (PROPERTY TAXES LOST TO THE COUNTYAND NECESSARYFOR HB TO MAIN TAINSERV/CESAND FACIL177ES USED BY THE PROJECT RESIDENTS) $1 ,832,514.00 3. COUNTY TAXES/YR. FOREVER (HUN77NGTON BEACH RESIDEN7W SHARE OFCOUNTYGENERAL FUND COSTSFOR THEBOLSA CHICA PROJECT. ) $2229 754.00 (An Orange County financial consultant has projected this as .$434,000/yr) *At project completion; in 1992 dollars; 2500 dwelling units. Source: Fiscal Imapct Report, Bolsa Chica Specific Plan, City of Huntington Beach, David Taussig and Associates, Inc., 1992 �- WHAT THE COST OF KOLUS PROJECT COULD BUY US 1 . A YOUTH SPORTS COMPLEX COSTS *5.5 MILLION. i ONE TIME COST = 4.5 COMPLEXES RECURRING COSTS= 1 COMPLEX IN 3 YEARS 2. A FIRE STATION COSTS $3 MILLION. ONE TIME COST = 8+ FIRE STATIONS RECURRING COSTS= 1 NEW FIRE STATION/ 1 .6 YRS. 3. A 4 MILLION GALLON WATER RESERVOIR COSTS *49900,000. ONE TIME COST = 5 SUCH RESERVOIRS RECURRING COSTS= 1 SUCH RESERV0IR/2.7 YRS. ,.ter KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP BOLSA CHICA PROJECT COSTS TO HUNTINGTON BEACH RESIDENTS* 1. ONE-TIME COSTS (REQUIRED TO BUYINTO EXISTING CITYRESOURCESALREADY PAID FOR BYCURRENT CfTYRESIDENTS) 1 $1198179296 2. RECURRING COSTS/YR. FOREVER (PROPERTY TAXES LOST TO THE COUNTYAND NECESSARY FOR HS TO MAINTAIN SERVICESAND FACILITIES USED BY THE PROJECT RESIDENTS) 2 $498739000 3. COUNTY TAXES/YR. FOREVER (HUAMNGTON BEACH RESIDENTS'SHARE OF COUNTY GENERAL FUND COSTS FOR T REBOLSA CHICA PROJECT) $4349000 *At project completion; in 1994 dollars; 2500 dwelling units. 1. Appendix F, Table F-1 (Public Economics) 2. Appendix C, Table C-9 (Public Economics) Source: For the one-time and recurring costs: Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Revised Environmental Impact Report on City of Huntington Beach, 9/30/94, Public Economics, Inc. For the county taxes: an unidentified financial report done for the County Board of Supervisors Q:0te 2/22/97 3:09 PM .11WOUOTE.COM (Subscribe to the "Srnat t Investor" 30-dav Free Trial!1 IReal-time Quote Services are now available! Don't Delay2 only 18 Ud Hel IL NOV. URES Trade with area!live hroker-oniv S 1 H.00-Click here Ticker Symbol: Retrieve '_Mode: �onthly Chart IV S lJ b fTt l A0 L L REAL, E T . G _ '. ♦Y,•r.. war-•ar_� rarra.:.Aarra r�_r r♦rta'rr arAar._.�rr�rrar: �axAri ,tas.ar�r.rra era-.r•a.Aar• rr.r•.-♦ xr4wwLQ�/g�.y�^f isi, ,0'77 f ." > . -AT 4i4- Ir - L.J f) UT1Y N' .w I t Security quotes delayed by at least 15 minutes. D 1996 Quote.com netp:i/factquote.a�m(�q/gnntecom`cha rt.'s.mbols=KREG&time-perisd=M onthl��hars=100K newttrpe=JAU s�30x"�20360'>,21If;IF&chnrt_t�pe=l:lu�e':,2U1)nl.Kcnl�rs=Mack��25��252C�,20(;reen�20oo�h 10Tri�.i��[&�1=Ui.m� KREG - High, Low, Close 8.5 T 6.5 1 t 1 4.5 • 2. 5 T 0.5 Tl I �1 1/90 11/90 9/91 7/92 6/93 4/94 2/95 12/95 10/96 • 2/22/97 KREIG - High, Law, Close Page 1 RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THE REEC0Rt:AT HE COUNCIL MEETING OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY 3LE2RK To: Huntington Beach City Council Fax: 374-1557 Date: February 24, 1997 As a resident of Huntington Beach we do not want the City of Hunt' Beach to give water to the Koli Bolsa Chica Project. mgton Thank You, 1VMr. & Mrs. Theodore C. Casement Sr. 18012 Hartfield Circle Huntington Beach, California 92649 I February 24 , 1997 RECENED FROM AND MADE A PART OF SHE RE `I COUNCI OFFIC OFOHE CIV r-R CONNIE SRO Ay, To City Council members : We do not want the City of Huntington Beach to give water to the Koll Projec Ro r�e xu-(-4 �-` Vi�nia Geo e 16305 Niantic Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 I 97 d 9y� �� it I II ' I I I �c I ! yAx � ortw� tC VIC a I TOTAL P.01 � Ffi - 24 - 9 � MON Hunting,4on Beach,."a Feb. 24,1997 Desw Mayor B mcv and city council, I am uuL itl savor of providing water to the Koll co. If we provide one service we will soon have to provide others. If providing basic services is a profitable busniess, it would seem that the city would always be operating at a surplus. T attk_Y you Dan and.pave Heidrick rn `� s 945 P03 FEE 24 197 04i15 FAX TRANSMISSION TO: COUNCILMAN DAVE SULLIVAN z FROM: TOPPER HORACK ate: SUBJECT. WATER FOR BOLSA CHICA PROJECT Hai p n�..- DATE: 23 FEB .1997 "x Dear Ralph: As I stated at the council meeting a couple of weeks ago, I am against water going to the Koll project for many reasons. The biggest one is the infrastructure and the liability that the City will have if it puts it in. I was watching a documentary on volcanos yesterday about Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Rainer in Washington. The commentator said it was not IF Mt. Rainer will blow, but WHEN. This is what I am affraid of if there should be an earthquake in the Bolsa Chica area. I do not want to have to replace infrastructure outside of the city because we are now liable. I figured it out with my bill yesterday and if I use an average of 400 gallons a day give or tape, then it will take approximately 1,000,000 gallons for 2400-2500 in the Bolsa Chica on any given day. What happens in a drought??? Is the rest of the city rationed because we are selling our water?? What about all of the other projects on the books that we have to give water to and support with infrastructure??? I am sure there are in excess of 10,000 units that will be built in the city over the next ????years. Are we giving too much away that could come back to haunt us or our kids in the future??? If Koll is going to get their water and they say they will, then unless this is such a super deal financially, then, I do not see the city taking the risks that will be involved. MY VOTE IS NO TO WATER.! r ! r i of And all that goes with it, . . . . ... ,_. :�- _.. �?= �:-;cam--�• = --•--�•._... .__•��. ._..... .•_....,._..._... .....,. _.. • . L Qf 04, __...._._.._._.. .. .... .�.._ ..Charles & Bessla t6vy"__.. .,.----•- ---- _.,_ ._.....;_._.._._. .__... ,. .. . ,......__.._._.� Z"_Mnnft-�l7 OOQCh, CA 92649 i . "19 / G / ..,....,..... ... - "ep �`�'` . .. .. _...__...--- . ... . . `J f Q�1`6 �• '�'�..t.�+ . . 16400 S4ybrook Lone.072? Ft1JFsf?rgftur Busch.CA 92649 - City Civeo , CITY OF n NUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF, t Fpslip t Ni i - f y f c. 02-24-97 0 3 5 3"'Mi F OM I CITY CLERK CM K7 ca ago ;_4� ca uZz FL- CL 1997 7 FM-q7 G2-24-a" =3 ? ,:rl r t : . . ? C'TY ATTY F~ y44 P@3 FEE 24 197 0_:44 #Crack aVI7 P - A7 i /a44 e Cl oea& CA rQ 9 7 4 Z r�i"=o �+ r erz.,,, 4, b7J�tJ!` ;C OUot opm���� Serolce O-A Fok kO 4 1.- r A. 94-4 Inarin kc�, Home-K 2/71/2 Airlaoe- #u ttb"v? 6CO44) C* 9 24 ,k4 m = ai n X C--, � m x �4 -a - CIO E'+ r F- 04 e , ,c 'a � ,►'ten has ioo a r� � - Ie Ft a.�ra� r�z ees deep c. L. vA • -*aCk FEE 24 '97 03141 0?1;lfoo- troilrl&" Aoth*l � 0660aa , (204 124114 fib, xvr lq9,-1 PK --1 . N Pro/ 33 ..� r .,r' ` f �' eat . 0r" errv�, �s 1a tea N0 7Z"k A"D9 0L L. l NO a r-e Or- -e-A e c�-:a 74gi /,e t �` a �l 147 OrV a-K u rNo , My ATTY P . ei MAYo Ralph Bauer 2-24-97 HU►NOIngton BOACh, CA by fax 714-536--5233 Dear Mayor Bauers unfortunately x will be unable to attend tonight's Council meeting but I would like to express my thoughts regarding selling water far the Koll Project. I write a column for the Huntington Beach Indespendent and recently I commented that I felt we should not sell water for the project. r gcat more favorable xespdnso to that column than I have for any column I have written in the last six years . Most people read newspaper artialea and agree or disagree but seldom take the time to write or call expressing their opinion. Therefore I felt the response waa overwhelming. You may not see all the people there at the council meeting tonight but 1 assure you there is a very large majority of the citizens of Huntington Beach that do not want to see our city selling our precious water for the project. I urge you and all the other council members to please do whatever you can to ,protect our cityi We are alKsady importing water. water �s going to become the mingle most mportant development consideration, in the next century. . .whiah is only two years away• Fluase remember the words of Mark Twainf spoken over a century ago. . . "Yn California, whiskey in for drinkin, and water is for fightin' over" Nothing has changed. Bill Halpin L7 u.¢4p 7cp NOK ). CITY C177' —;.440-1 59tl LAHTI OF HB PAIaL Ul 4 7,9 :3 14C F7 •l August 14, 1996 City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 S. Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject:- Bolsa Chica Wetlands Development Water/Sewer Request by Koll Dear Council Members, This letter is written in the effort to convey my objection to any and all talks with the Koll Real Estate Company. I watched the August 5, 1996, City Council meeting and heard all of the public comments as you did. Please keep in mind the number of citizens who spoke in the opposition of Koll's development project. Many valid points were aired. None need to be reiterated here. My point is that if the City Council cannot get the gist of what the people of this city want, or don't want, then please let us make decisions at the ballot box. This issue is a huge one for the entire city, so to have seven politicians ( some with storied pasts regarding the Bolsa Chica) decide it is absolutely a lose/lose proposition. The council and the people of Huntington Beach both deserve better. Each member of the council has a finite term of service whereas this development is permanent. For the record, should I have the opportunity to vote on whether to negotiate on anything other than emergency services (mutual aid agreements only) my vote would be - NO! The primary reason is that this development is on unincorporated Orange County land so all utilities and services must handled through the county and not our city. My firm stance is a direct result of the way Koll has approached this project from the beginning and their last minute plea. I In closing, I am employed by another municipality in Orange County and face having to answer governmental questions, justifications and issues daily. I truly can appreciate what you must deal with day after day, but I will not allow ay government employee to lose tract of who they work for, who pays their salary and who's money they use. Please represent us by voting against negotiating with Koll, or allow us to vote for you. Sincerely, John White _ 17971 Bluegate Lane 92647 ^' � m Y� cX.) - Q ` fgg7 a, 1 { ?,voo S,%/�iu Sf• �26�g ��t�tttt�t�t��ttt�tt�itt�tte�t�tatt�t��tett��t fattittttttfill eg0�, y - �IT The improvements followed a petition drive signed ' by more'than 75 residents protesting the range, located on the city's border with Torrance. - RB range But only so much can be done;each police officer needs to practice four days a month. "The changes were made to accommodate two ■ ■ things: to make it safer and-redirect the noise sti ra ing upward," Redondo Beach Police Chief Mel Nichols said. "Whether the noise has improved depends on who you ask.Some neighbors continue to complain, and the school has complained in the past." Hallgren said the Police Department has been students cooperative, and the situation has improved. "They have tried to reduce the length and duration," she said."They've tried to be considerate." As for children becoming desensitized to gunfire or feeling nervous about the sound,Hallgren added: Some say gun noise "Gunshots would tend to put you on guard.They are worse despite efforts threatening sounds and alarming sounds,but I think the children understand they're coming from the shooting range." School officials may be resigned, but parents By Millen Slisby aren't as.philosophical. They want the shooting sTW WRY range moved on at the very least,to halt all practice The rapid gunfire heard at Towers Elementary during school hours. , School now is explained as part of the school's per- "I don't think they should practice while school's manent lesson plans. on,"said Melody Filson,whose daughter is a kinder- Despite $60,000 in renovations at the Redondo gartner at Towers. "I think it's hard for kids.. ..I'd Beach Police Pistol Range across the street from the like them to move." school, the sound of semiautomatic gunfire still Last Monday,gunfire raged for three hours,send- rings through the Torrance campus. � many children home with questions about the Children hear target practice while they jump rope noise. on the playground,take tests in their classrooms and "MY daughter doesn't like it. She asks me why eat lunch in the cafeteria. there's gunfire," said Lisa Ehinger, who has three "They were just shooting on Monday," said Gail children at Towers in kindergarten through second Lawrence, whose son goes to Towers. "I couldn't Abe. "It's just a weird feeling to hear it. It scares believe they were practicing while school was going You." om19 Kindergarten teachers, whose classrooms are Neighbors say the city's reno- located closest to the firing range,have incorporated vation at the firing range did lit- explanations about the frequent pop-pop-pop into tle to drown out the noise. Some their lesson plans.' even say it's gotten worse. "We've dealt "It's like a booming sound now, with it by talk-.. almost like cannon fire," said par- ing to the chil- ent Gail Lawrence, who lives tour dren and Redondo blocks away form the shooting explaining BON*Polk*P1ow � range. "In some ways the improve- why it's going ments seem to have amplified the " noise.,We can hear the shots as LLS on, said Joyce plain as day. ... I grew up in this X, 11all cip of Towers - house,and years ago it wasn't this -2 a Elementary. bad' The guns have"�� and i la't wv "The teachers they're much louder. o tell students Towers The shooting range was built 40 w o that they're perry' Y ago in the the middle of a W Z3} hearing this bean field.No school stood across X w a g the street,and surrounding hous- �1 3 because the ing wasn't as dense. o U o 0 police officers As the area developed, officers' 2¢_ are practicing firepower intensified.Police have ¢o na. w m their shooting traded their department-issued "w LU LL z so they can � FF ARTIST SpNOW�STA six-shooters at the range for w g 0 0 protect us. • • • rapid-fire 9 him semiautomatic a z o The police pistols and, sometimes, shotguns. W z'o have worked with us and I think it has gotten better." As a result, the bullet-popping °C<U Police officials say they've worked hard to control sounds of police at target practice the booming sounds. In the past year,Redondo Beach has added baffling, are louder thane ever and heard by more ears than before. raised walls and other sound barriers. The Police "It may- be a land use issue." Department also has discontinued a contract with El Nichols said. "It was there before Camino College,which was renting the range sever- al days a week. anything else, and the.communi- - ty has grown up and around it." Huntin n �eomorrow Box 865 Huntington Beach CA 92648 RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THE REC O=k V�h fG COUNCIL MEETING OF '�l1 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY 3LERK February 24, 1996 STATEMENT TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ON CURRENT KOLL REQUESTS FOR CITY RESOURCES Since 1994,when the Koll Company unilaterally broke its agreement with the City to go through the City for the Bolsa Chica development,Huntington Beach Tomorrow has been calling attention to the disastrous costs associated with Koll's approved project. With the recently agreed upon sale of the wetlands to the State and the reduction in size of the project we have made an attempt to recalculate City costs based on the City financial consultant's 1992 report. We would hope that the city staff will be giving you official numbers. Our numbers,which are shown in the overhead, are conservative, since they do not include inflation changes and other considerations which might apply. As you can see from these numbers,the mesa part of this project which remains would be a dead loss for the city, if it were ever built,would remain a dead loss forevermore and would escalate in size with things like inflation. The following overhead equates these losses to the city to some of the things we need and Koll is offering us to subsidize the project. Any number of other things this city needs and wants can be equated to these dollars as well to see the impacts and significance of these losses to the city. This latter graphic also shows that we would be better paying for our own fire stations,reservoirs and other things Koll might want to "give" us. At least we'll see the end to these costs. We'll never see the end of the Koll project costs. We would also like to make the point that the information presented deals only the financial costs we think we can predict with some accuracy at this point. This City has a history of notoriously underestimating and providing for financial impact. We offer as support for this last statement,the recent jump in new home water meter hook-ups from$60 to$2400(4000%)and the jump in water rates calculated by one user of 47%in the last year. In addition to these financial costs which have been calculated for us by our consultants,we will also have incredible environmental and other quality-of-life losses from a project almost everyone we know in this City doesn't want,doesn't need and can't afford but will have to pay for because of Koll's past lies to,and abuses of,this community. On top of cutting the City out of the process,Koll refused to mitigate impacts on the City and the Bolsa Chica sought by the City and has done everything the company can to avoid paying its way for impacts and access to our services like the library, police and fire. Most recently,they've had the further gall to come back to us for what is probably the single most critical resource to their development--water. It should be clear by now r � to even the most casual observer, that this City is dealing with probably the most ravenous, rapacious, unscrupulous developer it has ever faced. Despite statements by the company's representatives, one of these having been made by Lucy Dunn that she and the company want a project that the community wants, Ms. Dun, Mr. Mountford, Don Koll and his company have no interest in what the residents of this community need or want. Their only interest is in the size of their profit. Huntington Beach Tomorrow,therefore,now asks all members of the City Council to exercise their sworn duty to protect the residents of this city,by going on record and adopting by formal vote the following position: The Huntington Beach City Council is and will remain unalterably opposed to the Koll Real Estate Bolsa Chica project until and unless the city and its residents are absolutely assured that all past, present and future costs to the City, including but not limited to financial, service, facility and quality-of-life costs, are and will be met and that the city is, in addition, is assured, in perpetuity, the accepted level of profit a profitable business might expect from any city resources provided in support of this project. Further,the Huntington Beach City Council will exercise all means properly available to it to prevent this development from occurring until City costs are met and a profit is returned as indicated. Huntington Beach Tomorrow is asking that the Council become, and direct the staff to become, adamantly proactive, not just reactive, as is currently the case, in dealing with Koll, their representatives and Koll's Bolsa Chica project. In our opinion,we have been, for some time now and will continue to be engaged in an all out war with the Koll Company. We must use every available weapon in our arsenal and any others which we can develop to defeat our enemy or suffer the incredible damage to this city,if this development goes forward. Some of the weapons we have but have not employed because this city and you are still in a reactive mode are indicated in the overhead provided. I In conclusion, then, we ask you to provide, to your fullest capabilities, the protection your each swore to provide the residents of this community and to direct staff to do likewise. Thank you for dealing with this matter in open session and allowing us the opportunity to make comments concerning this matter. KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP BOLSA CHICA PROJECT COSTS TO HUNTINGTON BEACH RESIDENTS* 1. ONE-TIME COSTS (REQUIRED TO BUYINTO EXISTING C/TYRESOURCESALREADY PAID FOR SYCURRENT CITYRESIDENTS) $24,716,165.00 2. RECURRING COSTS/YR. FOREVER (PROPERTY TAXES LOST TO THE COUNTYAND NECESSARYFOR HE TO MAINTAIN SERVICESAND FACILITIES USED BY THE PROJECTRESIDENTS) $1 ,832,514.00 3. COUNTY TAXES/YR. FOREVER (HUNTINGTON BEACH RESIDENTS'SHARE OFCOUNTYGENERAL FUND COSTS FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT? $2229754.00 *At project completion; in 1992 dollars; 2500 dwelling units. Source: Fiscal Imapct Report, Bolsa Chica Specific Plan, City of Huntington Beach, David Taussig and Associates, Inc., 1992 WHAT THE COST OF KOLL'S PROJECT COULD BUY US 1 . A YOUTH SPORTS COMPLEX COSTS *5.5 MILLION. ONE TIME COST = 4.5 COMPLEXES RECURRING COSTS= 1 COMPLEX IN 3 YEARS 2. A FIRE STATION COSTS $3 MILLION. ONE TIME COST = 8+ FIRE STATIONS RECURRING COSTS= 1 NEW FIRE STATION/ 1 .6 YRS. 3. A 4 MILLION GALLON WATER RESERVOIR COSTS *4,900,000. ONE TIME COST = 5 SUCH RESERVOIRS RECURRING COSTS= 1 SUCH RESERVOIR/2.7 YRS. CITY CLER' pnr FEB-24-97 IMION 11 CV%Q, A""I Mr'TF ERS FAX NO, 714 893 1827 e, ui Fcl.)ruary 24., 1997 Memo to: All City Council members of I Tuntiligton Bearli, California Pax: 536 5233 From: Barbara Holloway Koll - NO water! z i31c IS �� pa�I11,3z 1N '97 �o • /1�OYQ090� t v Vf j t7Y1i t►it • v c. 1 a 02-24-97 11 : 30AA FROM 111 CITY CLERK FO? � rrrrrrrrrr rrrr� �r r � rrrr LAI � R £0 3�ib.� ti3i iVtZ h r-�'.o t9689bSbtt t+t�00 b6bT/t6/l0 02 24 97 10:32 INI Members of thv Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 RE: Huntington Beach and the "Koll" project My ivifc and I have lived at 5441 El Dorado Drive in Huntington Beach silica 1908, The purpose of this FAX is to register our opposition to any action of the part of the City Ccxineil that %would encourage or allow &vzlopment ofthe Bolsa Chica -Im. The council is apparently meeting soon to consi&,r having HB supply city water to Boll, We urge you to tako whatever action it iakes to prevent such an agrean cni. Thank, you, Fat and Don Anderson 5441 El Dorado Drive Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 946-0514 es� _ i a � x I CITY CLERJ: 01 f 31/' 99,4 ='' ?a '=4$469907 RA'-PH H BAUER rr�ur. ego LING:2113191 Time: 18:10:47 Page 1 of 1 Ralph; One other,little itom. The Land Tnist is one of the landowners. We ltad 24.5 aeres of C%L1r property went into tiie 880 acres of mvilands that w -re saved, GIVE US A BREAK! Eileen 4 ii Z ` c`' r= � li RECEIVED FROM �FTHERECOR5—ATAIITYH65-oopm, � AND MADE A PART COUNCIL MEETING OF OFFICE O.F..lT E CITY CLERK CONNIEBROCf AY CIT Y ::•:., .. .......... ........................:... .......::.:::::................ ....% ................................. ................................. ..:::::.:::........................ ......:::::...: ...................... .............. ...... ...if .....:......:...................................: ..................:....:.: ..: ... . ::.. .:.... . ............:............... ................................. MINE 1 l jw f f' i}}}}:4;4:;:?�4};;;q;{•':;{•}:;:%:i}is;}:{::%:;;::.:::.::j:iii::::.•:%ii:}-i--ij:;:;:':::v:n; �: ....: .....::...: .. :. �::::... .!........:?......... : : ::; %%if:i%fi:(:%:i?�'i:•''Sri'{v+!'iix int sii:;it;::::•r:{:;'{'::?r.':i:i%'i:::��'YY";?• ::4 .J� .i;}}x:'-:;n}:viy}}y..•'•:ai'4;{:%%%%:}i+:SS+':}}":::::::t}.}: }}:4;{{•}:;4:•):•}'titi•i:?::9:'::?iti}:::j%::';:%:::::i�:::.......}�.,.{�....1y4.+�.!�y...........n........:,..•:::::;..•::n�:. �y?�i1��y jA=•� ;j��+� g ��fE'',.rr��%'Mf'::f'iM '<:%:iSv:i:',Ci::•%%:ti:::is%%%:::::'%:•:::::::iS:%::.. �:nv•i:^Y-'f-ii}'.}}}}:•:}i:4:4}}}::.}}:•;::.}}ii}};•}}:•::.};';4:Oi•}:?A;.}}:?!{•%}:;F.}}}:?4}}}}}}:•:+•}i;i}}}}:'. ':'SS::`':�:%%R::!::{�%%:;{�>ii+:!!�%.'•:i::' '::{lr'{r?}vi?r%:%:?:i$i::;:;:::;%:;r?;Y.;{:i{. .....::... ..:. ::::::::}:.}':::::}:::::n:::.�......f n:::::.::n4::...::?:.....•;;}}}:•}}i:!h�•;•}{:%%}�i,[�/♦:y♦':�:y}ice}}�:�}:i}:4::�is}::?::i'i}::::•:::;i::.}};%' f•.}:Ai( T.-if:•T..}iF.V�i%i::::;is::r::;:;::-i:}i:{?::.:::;:�';� . ,.:?:%::}:{?•'Y.:i::i:''r:.%i'L iSti:%i:`i%;}. ......: }' `:. i:r.•i}:4}}}}}:}:{:.}nw :......:............ ......:............... ..............: ......... :::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::.:::::::::.:::::.:: .:.......... . ' : ;F•i:•i'::F'i:;?4:%j}}}i'?}?4::?j}::{i:y{%:•... ..:............:: �.--': :--:• .x::?,:.n.•.........vw;x+!!•%?}}i:::;i:0;.}}{}{;;+:::::•}}:•}:}:4:•}}:::f::........;•...:::::n?4:•:4:{:r:{:F:;.}};.. ..:- nr/1r.f::{;{{{��?:4:•}..•f....nvt.n..v-n:::.: :...}::::::.::::::.:'.::.:.:'.:::::. r..... ....::..f:!::',;::>:?:%>:s�>:.:.:f-r. r ::i:•}r};}i:.}:.}::n:-;:•i}:::.�f.;:•}:-}i:•::;:i::%t%%:<;=:%:<?%;z::%sr�':%::<%:<::%.::::::}:.z<:::.}}:::>'i: .f .. 4 :'"i�'f4"•ff. a ,.....w&:i;L. .. �,. :f 1 -ii:t9'•i:•:i}iii:•iii, :iiisSFiiii`i:{%::::iiTi'r?i>iiiiiii:t+^iiiiiiii: i•i\jii '.�:�;;::::•ii:;%ii:%:%iiiiifi:;•`:i;`:%ixiiiiii::+;.:;iii::y?:i:;�;2%iiii;::;}:;:'::';2%iiii:?:T:;:;i;%iiii::.iiiiii;i::;;:;::;%%fi:%ti^'?r:<::';f';�r%S:5%:iiii::ii'v�' :.:::.:.iii??ii:ii'viiii::iiil:iiiiiii i:;•`.Y•iiii:'viiiiiiii::'%iiiii:i4%iiiiiii:S:Ji::: ::: :.. # ..............:......................... .:.::............... ..... .......... ., ... �......r, ............ � `:J?:<:: :::::j<j%:viiii:}SYi:;isiiiii::::j'.:::j::ji'}iii'i:%Y`�iii:>�.':: !!%'�is%:%iiii iiii is% •::::.:......::f.{•:i>:C:-iiii:^:•'..:it•iii::. ;•}}: : :::::iiiiiiii}ii*:i:t•irii:::vi:4}ii:4i:•:.. .. ...': %ii� % �.� %"Fi::ji riniii:iiii:�:=Fiiiii>iiii5c%:%ii:i+%::ii:�:i%:•:::�:.::::::::: W:: ?: :::t::;: ... 6 Ifk+^•:\';:ji:;:i}i:C:•i:•iiiY•iiiiii::'?:,;•:: ..... _ ..... __ .. .:::.�:::::::::: \... ii:.......'.......::::: : ::jiii iiiliii:ii: 'i:::i:i::i;(:':i:;{;•i., .. . . .. . :::.... :. ..,.... .. ` `` : ; If . >:::: ::::::::........ A ,7fw........::.::..:.. . . r r................... :: .......................'.: ... :v. iiNiiNrn :1 f ...... s. �::::`:::`::::::%'':::::ir;%iii .:_y:.:.:i::::i:::;�::ii::•:::::::::•:•:•:::•:�:'`w:i:':�'isi::::::i::sii:::ii:::ii:.ri:::::::::::::::•:'::::•:•'.::':'i:<:i::i: :::.::.::.::: .:::::::.::::::::::::::::.:::::::r:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::n.::::::::::n:.:::n.:::::.:::: . :::: :.:::::::::::::::::. :.::::...........::::::::::n.n.:::.::::::n.::::::..:::::::.:::::::::: <f ' ` :::....:.:..::::.::.::...:::::::::.:.....:............. ................................................. .... ' :..::..................:.........::::..:....:.....................:: ....... i.:::..K::v:::v:::4'A. :.;}::::vi.::::':y,::.}•n:::::::::::::::y::.:w..::;.i............................ iii:::'iiiii ;i iii?::::: .:v. .: .. ..: .. ::.:::ii:•:•i::•i ii i:•:•iii:{Jii :•::::.::•::i.::.::.:i.i:•i:.i:.i ,;/,f{i� f♦ {;:..niiiiii:�ni::4iiiiiiii:ryiiii?iiiiiiiiiii::.iiii:titi•ii:iii:K•:•ii:•iiih::•}Y:iiiiiiiis4iii:v:i•ii::iiiii•iiiii;:v:??^ii:4:C::�:Sii:9Tiii::.,: •�::<:i:::i::::::::�: �'L: y�y.i;•ii:ipp((•ii:^Yi�:•i:4yi1i��i44iii:.iiiiiiiii);•i}:i iii}i:i;•i:^:•ii:Si:•i:v:4:i•:�iiii:iii:•iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:ti•i:•:i{�:•iiii:•:�:•iii:•i:•i:•ii::.::.: +� ♦�,��S.iy=:{'iiiiiii'iiti'i`i:}ii?::ii? r'2::•' +�i:�'{:�':�:'i::iiY:Tii ii:S:•iii?::?:iii:{L:::•i?IPii:i:�:j)::,{:{{)fj;:;::'.�;: iiii:•i:•ii:iii:•:::�i .rf.•: ii i::Y,.�ii •L.l:>:'.::��:i>:::}.:itii::iiiiii::ii':ii:�i:�iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiR::fiii:viii::iii:::+:::::•.:i::ii:::':i�:':��:�: :^%4ii iii:•i}};iiii:•iii:iii.....i.ii:4:iii:•i:•iTi:i•iiii:•ii:•iiii:•iiiiii:•i:•i:•;ii:•i:•i:•i:•ii:•:•i:i:::: iii iiii%iii:�iiiX.�i:4iiiiii:9i......i::.iiiii};iJTiiTiiiii:•iiiii:^:•iiis^:4:iS:!�ii:•i:4:vi:4:4i:::: ..f........................::::............................................................. i:• i .......... :... ii tii iii iiiiii:isi'riYiiiiiiiiii:!:ii :i::: ...............ter.................. ii:•:•i:•:•i is ii ii:ii i:v iiii:iiii ii:•iiii:::•:::•:::::•::v:i::::i::iii :r::i:•:•:•:•:::•:•ii:i::::i:::::i ii iiiiii iiiY• .:...............::............ 98 .W„ «::::i>::<> :ii>::::i::»::i::ii::is>ii:i::i>:<:>::>ii::ii>i>::>::; f.. ..... ............ . .. _... ._.... .::.... iii .. 3 �.r• .::::::•::F:�;::::::i:::::i: r,::•::i ::...::.::::. .. ........................................................................................................................................................................................ sm f y rx/l r �(1.++•vv:::::iii$FSi ii:%:::.`?i.`i:'ii`iiiii'::+.:i:' $:% ii::?::$::::/'$::'�?:f%:ijiii$'F:}• .••$4'��•��.�.••::�:j.Si;`.%':::i:?j}::is�}#:::��.:�::?�%:::��:�:.}��•�•.�••���^::::�v�>%i�:'..•..:i:::::::::::::�S`•}�•j::' �:�:i::::i?'%:::}•{S}•:::ii::::::i:::::'::i: {•::4'?' :'i<%:ji;Y+:;{:;i::%:i}:%:?i.'4n•OY$:::vii}iii:'v ':$:!%:ii:ii tiv4::i iiiiii}i}i'ii}is%::$nJ:•$::iiii i.i}i)`ii:i::•.:�::i}i}i::iiiiF ii$i:•$:iiiii?iiiiiji?iiiiiiiii:i%:;i:ij;liii:::'.:: <:> .> <,. •.:f'�i ����'��`'''' ���i :i�:i•��>•i?;iii::isisisisi::"'`%`'S? �'�::ii?i: ;: �i:C�i'`:i:'$i':::':i':%i�ii$i'rf:!}�%i:{-._%:.%:?{:?;:�:i$;i%ii::%':':''•'f:%%%%%%%:!!;%%i(tf'%%%%:;r{:'%:is%%%%%>2£i%%%i!'r$:%!:$::;:;.'.: ................................................. •'Fir. :j:;: ... .:'-. .. ..-: .. ................................. .. l.. $i yr ... ... 4 !f '•:iiiiKiiiJiiii:i�\il: .. iiiiiiii:4:i4:iiJ:•i•i:i-i:iti::•:::::i:::.;.i-.�.:;:::.:;' -::ii:is):i^:iv):•):4:4))):-::....'.':is is?::::'::::::::::i::: .. '::':v'^>iii?j)::'::::�i:':T\::•?>iiiiTji:? `:).,':'::......'..• i:ii. ::::::: i-:::':�'.. •... ...... �:': ........:::i:::}>isijj:::::::::•'.?::::•i.�:.: ........................ ger : :. �► .�.. ..r� 14 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::.:.): . , . M�fJ ................ :.:>•:::..:.::.:>:-::-:):•::-:•)):•):•::is�::':-:-is�i:-i>:•):•:.::;:�:.;�i:�i::•:;�::.ii:�>::-:::�i:•i;:•::;;is�i;•::a;ii:->i:;;;•:;;::;;:;i:-::-:a:;�i:�i:i•i:•):;);):C::: '<:ii':i:`:::::::::i::;:;::r:;%:i':;!:i::-i:-i.::.:':). .>:..::: ::.>:.: .� .. ....:::i.:;: :.i-::::. ';.):.: •i:•)>..;;...: :::. .: ".>::.)::.:):.:.:is5:;::::::+j:'j;::;:::::>:'.::i::: ';':.:::::::::::::i:::;is:::::'•::::i;ii::ii::i:::.s:.:;.>:.,i/�.+>,�,: ..:::>:;:;::':::::�:�..;::.:'' :�}M:::::,�/.'�':!.:y±.��k:i::: •: ;: :::'.�•."'; .:�"::::: ::::::i::i::::;:::::::::::::ii::)�:::::::::: :'k;:';'` ';�':�:: ;:�:';�`:�:�`�':''S:::�:t�::`;�:�:�i:�:�:� i'•'is�i:�::":�:�;:::;:5�:::::::::� :;:2:%;:; :i:%�:�:�F::isis�:�i:�` ::5'::`•i::is�i:�:�i:�:�:�i:�:�::i:%i-'i:�i�:�::::+jj'::5+>:::;:: >:;•f`'•ry Sirs-: ixhisisir�k n -M :J IN ..... .. . .r 5 ...:.:..... .::...:....... .............. �.�132:iSSS�':$:�:��t::�:::�:{:,•�:�'':'�'� 'SS:�:;`:':s:'�;.:.';':?..,�:.�'..i.>�:%�:'::::'::;:�.<�'.:';::; :�;;�:>'t;I'4!_;:�:��':�:;:�:':i'�:�' :?'<�:::: :. ' iii$i}iSi isyiiv?ii-:iiii'::i%:iiii:+'}}}}:•iii 'ii:i''iiii::::NlF•i:{;*!L:{::::i>iijjiiii'iii:?:::i?i>iiiiiiii?::::i::i:!::ti:::::::ii::ii:-:''..'. :'-.:..:jj:::::::::::C::•:::>.4i;TiiJi:;::;ii:;:;:ii:`::i}ikoi:}:;:;ii:;:;}:;:;:j;:;:jy;:}ji::::iii::$:?ii:::•:::•::r:::::':::•:::i::::' ti:•l:<' ... .. ............... ............f f r�}} i::i:•i:::j;.}�.}:. .•.f::::::::. .':.. :SYSi:>i::::<i:::;t:.`•iS."::i:;;i:;:isi:<::::`i:::t;S:S::%::::;:::::i::>:::::L::r:::::::v`i: ......r...... .... :;}ii:i;i•::t< •:>' ':: ":::;`:<::::�:::::o:a:;::!.;:. :.:::� :.iii:•.: :.�:. .. .... ..:................ ...... ... .. <' ... .. . .. 1, 6 j; is> iiiiii:i::.iiwiiii-n;�1 i�:.i:•:S:•i�i\\U?i:4i:in.::::::ii:initiv.:ii::::ii': '::MTi?:�i:ti??4i:^iiiiii?:•i:;•:•iii::�•is4:?ii:+!!?titititi:iii)}i?i:•i::y?;n�+)}ii1:•iii:j-ii:;?v:??i:•i:.v:. v.� ivi:•:•:•�rii:i�:ti' ���}� Y��:::•.11�>�::y:?::::::j:::::{:}j::i:::i!:i':::::::::i:i:::::::':�::::n<:::i::i:::i::::::<::::}i :j•::i::: i::::::•:::::::::::i:::iii:;:{ :j.... :}::ii}j:;J;:;,v'i:i: ??^:•i:•iXii: :isMF.1'11� :i :ii.�IR•.. :�.-R-.:!.•^j:i 1I,.,.!�1 ...::.......w::::::::::::::::::::::::::.�.�::...:•::::.:::............ 4ii:iii}•A:�::.is�:ti::i,+.::�:^Yinir::':::::t:i':::i::::i:::�:�.:•�••••��•.:�::Yii?+.�..M•:?::::::i••{:j}!•::::':::i::::i:::::!iii:T: •:::�::::::i}i}:is••�::::::::i::iiS:i�j::i::i:'i:t:::�is?:::::i::::'4i::ii:i:Sii:::'::.�:: _. >::: :::::.::::::: >: :::> . ; ................ ....... ............. ...................:.::::;: ..: f i �i%;?•iti�i^iiiiiii:Nii:?'^.i'!.` `::::, :iiiiiij)v::ii:�i:�:�ii::::::Y::::ji is%i:iii:4iii?i;{:i�i $'�'. City y of ¢� Garden Grove op e e� x e* So errs California JVest Seal Beach Route i Watery City,of Gompany Westminster East Seal Beach Route Cypress Route { CA �f I tlunGngtan Beach; i Terminal Res/BPS Seat .................. Bolsa tom.::.. .............:::: ,..;.��.,..,,.....,,,.:NH?�-�....,_�`.,: .:.: .,..:................................... ............ 7 < <-,.M,.... x a �f ............ X::::::::. > : tttt East Seal West Seal ch :' Beach r >s>' 1 Cypres X. ... >> :' ............. 3 $ ' j 1 ....:»: ' .......... ,.................:. ................ HeadsMm s;f n XX . ::::::::::::::::::::;:::::: e .. .. ....... .. .... .... ...: .... .. : .:. .:...:.. .......................................:...: :::.: :: ::.::.: .. .: : _ . ..... . y7 ........... :} �i::i.::ii:::isvi::::::i::::::i::::::i::::i::::::::::::ii:i:::::::::i::::jj::::::y!!j':�:: . .::y;j1.....T. y::. y:: :•:::::::::::::.�::::. ....• A:::::::::::::::::::::::::::y::::•::•:::y`:�:�:::::::n�:::::::::::::::::......::::::::::::::.:: �':;: .•i: ..:Y:•:1 :C:1i�lf: :, .•i. f ::::::.�::::::::::::.iiiiiiiiii:�i:�ii:!:v:h'::::•::i:•i: ::. v . iif is :i:::::i::::'isf�t:::::::>:::<::•;: ::: .::::+:: :.::',:::f<::::` :<:: :'::isv::::::::':::::::::::::ti:::::::::::•i:? :.:'{::::{:Y:::}!::}�<}!�}iii:iiiiiiiiiiii%{ii$iiii'l;i:ri;t^�•.:..�'r�"::::::: .:. <` ` <>' .:::.:.....:::..:................................. .: ;:.;::.:::::::.:::.:............................ < .. 8 l•:]:w:: ... "Li4iiii':;,'-- ":i:::::::;v.�:nw:.+i.;};.})::::.ti ::•iiiiii:�':::": ...•::::::•i.........:.... ....... ... .......:.lL::iijiiii:i:�'::.'..:; ':: ". .. :. "� '...... .....ii :•%•i'•i::i: '::.:::::ii?i:::::::.•'is.:::i::::i::::i::::::i:::•..� r .:.:.......:...... .........:..................:.:.....:.:.:.:.......... :: C}:..:' ' ::.......:::..................:...................:::. :.: i r :::.: .i:::.::.i:.:. t h;;;..................................... ...... �•ii i'%ti'^:i�ii:isi4i:•iiiiiijii}:iv'?ii:+�:�i:iiiiiiii:�"'i`iiiiiii:i^i:ti�::•ii: i;.;;::i+i:�?i ;:j:f :iii::>ii:L::;iiiiiiv'iii:�iiii:%:iiJ:4ii:•iii iiiiiiiiii::^:4.i}iiiiiiin::4::; iiiiii :i 9 ::iiiii:iiii::::i?iiiiiii ii:i:ii::i:::::vi:•::•iiiiiii:::iii:ijii::i::i::i::i:::::•:`v:::ii::i::i::?:::::::i:?:i?iiiiiiii: . .:. ::.::.::.; ............. ..:::::::: : I' .... :':::::::::::::::::: is 1E :: # :: .; .:.:::: GS : ::::::::::::::::: .............................................. . . ow ..............::.:::...................:::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::.:'::::.....:.... .}" 10 .:. ... . ' ::..: 5::: .:;;::.: .. . :::..... :::::: .:::: ::::::....... OF :. :l!,v{Y•{Y,rfiY it{:r ...:....... i:..::.:ii:::::''':'•::' in M. : :. .. a ?':::i::::.?:. :€ :::> .......... :::.. s:: ......: > > > >: >:::>:::»::: :.: f ; �„z" . 11 i• :� f:r:v:::i.::::::'.iii;:j. '" ft Ti:•ii:!i:;iii:4i;.iiii}:iiiii:iiii::•iiiiiiiiiiiT:::ii'•iii:::•iiii:::.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::.�. ":iY.iii:•iii}ii:<•iTii:.iii iii:i?iii>i:.iiiii:'i:iiiiii:Tiiiiiii'iiiii:ii:.iiii:.iiiii::.?:.:�::.;?:iii::iis^i:i::iiiii:::.iiiY:?i:.iiiiii�:: iiiiiT::::.�:::::.:iii::{.iii�iiiii::•:' .. ?N^ assss�%:�• .................... . :> . ,.......: .. i::::. .::: :: : :.i.i:::.:i:.i:.i.::::.: :: :::: . .. .. i::ii:::iiiii:iiii:�:::::i::ii:�i::ii i::i::ii:i:i::i iiii:!4: ::::iiiiiiiiii}iii:i'::.;•:..:.^S..i.:..,....... :::i:: :" .:.4i::i:.i . : :f:.: :: ..:,�{,.i�}, :.. :. i::i::i:::::::::i:::i: !�i::i::ii:::i:i::ii:�ii:�i::i::i: ..... :::ii::::i:::::'::i::i::is:i:i::i:i'::i:::ii•::..i:... i:::i::?:•:isi:::::::`+::i::::i::i::i:::i'. �iiii:v:•iiii i:i::i:i:.i•.:': '....:".. .....�i... T:•.' '::i:.':is .. :.. : :... ?i: :•i: .:. '{:' ::. is . .....::..... f 12 :.:..........:.. ....... ......:..�::.:.... I. .v,:i;::::i.....i...iii i... ..,.i:..:::::.::::.::::.... ..................vas::•:+:•::.:::•::.::.>::::. .::::::.v�.:}::: :::' :::.:... .........I..:.:.:Y..:: ::::::i:::::::'::::<:;;:::'::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::':::3::::%...:......:...............................:...::.:.. :::...�::: .:..: .I 'I:,:::::::::::::::.::..:::::::::.:.:..... ii� '' ' '' ` ' ' .`... .. .I .... .. `.. .1 ......................... 11' .::.::.::.::.:.:::.::.::.:::::.:..:.:::::.:::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: % ::. '' `` ' :: :` :.::.::.::.:::.::::::.:::.:;.::.::.::.::..i:.::....:.ii:.i:.i:.i:.i:... :::......:::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..........::::::::::::: :....:::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::;::;:::i::::::i::::i::i::ii,:i:.....: ::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::......::::: ............................................... .............. X. :: " %: R. . .. :.::::::::::;:::::;:::.........:....::i i::i i is ::::::.::::::::::::::;:::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::: : :; : : : ....::.. :....... ... .................................... ........................ :.:::::.: � .::-' .::.:::.::.::.::.::.::::.::.::.::.::.::.:::.::.:::.:::.:::.::.:............::.::.::.::.::." 1. ::%i::i::ii::»::i::iiiiiii::iii:i::>:i::i:;::::::>::>::>::>::;>::::>::>:<::::>:: X. �:.:;.:::.::��.:::::: ::::: :: X:4::: :::::::::::: .:. <i 5 ki „/ ,. . ......... Z,,..Y:utA'xf/N»e'e"'S'rt['•i,'•ru iisci�tc:�.,GI.i..' .. i(!''�kj _ _ . :::: .:::.::.:.:....:.:::.......*.. ::::::::' ::::.:::::.;:.: :::>:::::.:.::::::<:><:>:::<:;::::::>::::::>::::::::> .::::.::.::::...:::.: ::: ::.............::::::::::::::::::::::::.... : :: :.......::. .:.:...:.:::::::::::::::::::.::::.:::::............. ........................ ... ........................... :::.. .::.:: ::::. .::'iii"iiiiiRLiiii:isii::::-':::i:::::':::::::'::: ::i:{:iiii':i}:i;�}i:.i::v::iiii:'"iii:iiiii'"iiiiiiii::iii:>:::i::::i::i::::::i:::::::: ::i::i:::::i::::i::::i::::::::::::i:i::i::i:jOi:::iiiii:.:t^i: iiiiiii::;:': '. 'i' ':::::jK�: '..•:.i�... {::::.':::'.:]y�'i�W?"i":.. '.::.'::..'':• 'jf�"y}'��{�.: : :::-::i::i:::::::i:::::::ii::i:::�::i:Ji�j:::i::i::i::i::::::::::i::: ::.iw::: .: :.:: .i::iiis M4 ::: :: ..,.,#T,7.: .; N1!!.R, 1..:::.i}::::..i:.i:.i:.i:.i:.ii:.:.:.i::.i:.::i.i::;•i:.i:;.i:.i::" }::::?isi:::i:•J1:'':':'ii::i:::::::: ::',+:i::::':::i:::•i:::::•:•::::::i::::i:::::::i::i::::isiiii::::::::::•:•'.::•::i::i::is:::i::::::i::•.::::i::i::ii:::i'::::i:::i::i:::i:::'::::i::::::i::::i::::::i:i i::::::is:i::::::i:•'.::i::::::::i::i::i {�:•, ::::: '•'��•{ij :::'i�y.j: :YF}::::: •{y.���.:: ::i:.:•'!n}y.1I:�.: .��y.!_14�:{l..}{y.,�'�.;{n�;1.,��.•..:•jy..��.�..: Y:"yTs*t,.is:{y:�� :�y.1M.�{1.J�.1�� <:jy:1i�j:::::i::::::i:::::i::::i::::�:<::::::::::::iii :!.i'.:i.:::: A;. ;::T:!: •[vi .M.S.:ii:. wl.S :41 F..f,.;:;.y;�1'.; :I.;:f. `.4 :f-.iii '!�f.0M..: .i:'.M .iii?iiiii}i:.i:.i:.:v?:::.iiiiii. ::::: v::: .::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::h:};i:...iiii?i:.iii:>iii:::::::y:::::::.�::::::::::.�:::::::. :::ii!:isiii::i:i:%::::::::::!:::::'f titi::::::"::::i: i:::!i.iXy;i.j;:;.;:':i:;i:i v:t:iii::::iiistiiiiJiiii:''iiiiiiiiiiii:i:;i::i:::t:::::::i::i::i:' i:::''::::::i::::i::::i::::i::::::i:::::ii::::i -i....:!!::j•i':::::i::i::::.:...::": ii: .::.iii:' *i::..._i:..::.i:.y.. :.;':i.::.:.:::4..:..:::.:.;i}':.:;::::Y..i ii:.::.iii:.iii}:'::iiiii: iiii _j i::ii::i:'': 'i. i. .i::::. "':'i::.:''':.':' ':': "i::.':: ': :::i ::'::::i:::i::::::::i::i?:''i:�iii iii: ::.:::: .::.i:: .3 :.i: :: :: :�. a: :i : .i:.i:.i:.i:.i:.i:.i:ii::i::.:i:::::i:: :.i::::.:::i::::.:::.::::i:::::::.:: ::::::::::.:::::::.::::::i:.i:.::: :::::::::::::::::.:::::::::. �,�..:::::::::.:::.::::::::::::::.:::::: .�.::::f':::::::iii:4:::ii:!:::::::::::i:>:::::iiiii::i::::::::i::i:�''::.:.:.:.::::':::::ii::}::ii:isi`:i::i::::::::i::i::::::ii:::ii''i::i:, i;i:::;•::•::aiiiiiiiiiii:ii ii:::::i':•i::i:::::::::i:•:::::•:::•:•:>::•::::::i::i::i::i::iii::•:':•::i::iii. -i:ii:v::;:i;i';iY�.:j:::':'::::i:::'i::iii::i:i;iii;:::::• '::;:'•::: ..:::.''::y:.':}•':.:: v. ..v:':ii:: 'i :: iii.:.:...:':.:.;....:'.:iii. '::::::�i::: i':: ': : :. .:"i. is ... :::: is i..::::: i:: .:. :<?:i: :.:.:::::::: :::.: ::i:.::.::.:.::.i:.:.:::::::.:i:.is. .i:.iii::..:;.i:.::.:iii::.i:.iii:. ::::::::::::::.....i:.:......:.:::::. ii:.::.i:.: :.::.i:.i:.i::.::.: .: : ::i::: :.::.i:.i:. : :::. :::::.::......::.............................................:.:.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::.:..::::::::::::::...:. ................... .::.::.:.i: �,"" :.,.,,...,I 13 .......... ........:.:::;.:::.::.:::: >::.:::::.::.::.: + . ::.::..::.::.::.: :::.:::::::::.:::::.::.:::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.>:. wi . :.:ffidta :.::.:::.::::.::.::::.......::.:::.::.::.::.::::,:.::.:<.::.::.;::.:: ............. ................ ta .rUnaian :: : ::.:::::.::.::.::.:::: d.� .............................. . . ........... .. i:i 14 �` '• p HECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF -2--'�-Y-9 7 OFFICE OF THE CTY CLERK City Council Study Session CONNIIE BROCKWAY,I CITY CLERK Bolsa Chica Development Summary Report City of Huntington Beach Issues "Service Issues" Study Session Agenda ♦ Fiscal Impact Overview . City Administrator - Mike Uberuaga ♦ Fire Services . Fire Chief - Mike Dolder ♦ Public Works Service Areas . Public Works Director - Les Jones Z February 24, 1997 v a City Council Study Session Summary Report - Topics ♦ 1994 Fiscal Impact Report- 2500 Units ♦ Fire Service ♦ Police Service ♦ Library Service ♦ Public Works Service Areas . Traffic Impact Costs . Sewer Facilities . Water Service Issues 3 Ongoing City Costs/Revenue: 1994 Fiscal Impact Report* Annual City Costs $1,128,000 Annual City Revenue 486,000 Annual Shortfall $642,000 • Estimated Costs/Revenue due to new development (at buildout of 2500 units) • Estimates Include Full Cost Recovery • Excludes Fire Service Impacts Estimates have not been updated *Source:PE/Report 9124194 a February 24, 1997 r ,w City Council Study Session One Time City Costs: 1994 Fiscal Impact Report* *Source:PE/Report 9124194 1994 Est. Traffic Mitigation Fees $3,513,000 Library Fee (@$0.15 per Sq. Ft.) 617,115 Park & Recreation Fee 1,717,181 Fire Protection Facilities** 5,670,000 Police Facilities 200,000 Marine Safety Facilities 100,000 Total $11,817,296 **Costs changed since there is"now"no low-land development and no cross-gap connector. 5 Fire Service Negotiations: City/Orange County Fire Authority ♦ Impact of potential agreement with OCFA . City to Receive an estimated $600,000 to $700,000 per year from OCFA . City to Receive $1.25 Million (one time) from OCFA to relocate a Heil Fire Station . New Development served by Warner Station ♦ Separate Presentation on All Fire Issues 6- February 24, 1997 City Council Study Session Police Service Costs ♦ County will provide Police services ♦ City will be impacted due to proximity ♦ Estimated City Financial Impact . $160,000 salary/benefit cost per year for Two Officers . $294,000 per year full cost includes capital needs, supervision, overhead etc. Library Service Costs *Ongoing City costs to be paid by the County . 70.5% of Library Tax paid by Bolsa Chica residents will be transferred to the City = $105,000 per year at Buildout *City Library Capital Costs . $100 per unit County fee will be paid to City . KREG agreed to pay $200 additional per unit (minimum) -CELF . New City fee of$500 per unit has been discussed with KREG - LDF s February 24, 1997 City Council Study Session Public Works Service Areas ♦ Separate Presentation . Sewer Service . Traffic Impact Mitigation . Water Service Issues s Summary ♦ Fire Service Agreements to cover City Costs are near completion ♦ Water Service Issues Need to be Resolved as Part of Comprehensive Approach: . Library . Ongoing Costs . Police . One Time Costs . Traffic . Other Issues . Sewer 0 February 24, 1997 fff CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNnNGTON BEACH TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael Uberuaga, City Administ r ad :Hof�-� DATE: February 21, 1997 V n � SUBJECT: City Council Work Study Session - February 24, 1997 At the February 24, 1997 City Council Work Study Session staff will be prepared to provide information to the City Council regarding the service delivery issues connected with the Koll Company's proposed development of the Bolsa Chica Mesa area. Staff is not asking for, nor expecting, any decisions or direction from the City Council during the Monday evening work study session. The intent of the work study session is to impart information to the City Council and enter into a general discussion of the various service delivery issues related to the proposed Bolsa Chica Mesa Development Project. Staff is anticipating bringing the Bolsa Chica Mesa issue forward for City Council direction and consideration at the regular City Council meeting of March 17, 1997. You have previously received a February 4, 1997 memo, with attachments, prepared by Assistant City Administrator, Ray Silver. This material is available at both Pat Jones desk and in the City Clerks' Office. The memo includes the following attachments: 1. "Draft" report from Boyle Engineering on water services for the Bolsa Chica Mesa Project which includes: - Table 1 - Outside of City Sources of supply for the Bolsa Chica Mesa Development. - Table 2 -Bolsa Chica Mesa Development Water Demand. - Table 3 -Bolsa Chica Development Storage Requirements. - Table 4 - Conceptual Level Capital Costs -Facility Elements (CCC-LA 3Q6 6550) - Table 5 - Conceptual level Capital Costs SCWC -BCD Supply Alternatives. 2. Presentation slides from Boyle Engineering titled: "Water Service Delivery to the Bolsa Chica Development". I 0023976.01 Page 2 -City Council Work Study Session - February 24, 1997 3. City Staff presentation slides entitled: "Proposed Process for Negotiation on Service Delivery Issues -Bolsa Chica Project" A Video Show presentation on the Bolsa Chica is being prepared by staff for Monday's City Council Works Study Session. Copies of the Video Show presentation will be available to the Council and the public at the work study session. The second issue to be discussed at the February 24, 1997, work study session is the Gun Range. Again, city staff is not asking for City Council action or direction at this time, but rather to have an opportunity for the staff to present information and discuss the Gun Range issue with the City Council. 0023976.01 Huntington Beach Fire Department Status of Fire Service Negotiations for the Bolsa Chica Summary of Actions January 13, 1997 Meeting — Koll, Orange County Fire Authority and Huntington Beach Fire Department Koll / Orange County Fire Authority Agreement Separate OCFA / City Agreement — Understanding to enter into two separate fire/medical response agreements Bolsa Chica Mesa Sunst Beach/Surfside Colony Areas -- Howh Fro Department Slide 2 Bolsa Chica Mesa Area Under the proposal, the City would provide emergency services for fire, rescue, paramedic and ambulance transportation to the Bolsa Chica Mesa. > City Revenues- - At buildout, $600,000 to $700,000/year (80%of Fire Fund Property Tax) — Within 2 years of first building permit, $1.25 million one-time capital contribution for Fire Station 8- Heil relocation Huntton Beach Fire Department Slide 3 su i Sunset Beach �S Bolsa Chlca Mesa N Proposed Station Coverage Bowh F"Department Slide 4 Sunset Beach / Surfside Current service practices — OCFA: Primary fire, rescue and ambulance — HBFD: Primary paramedic response — HBFD: Backup fire and rescue Proposed Service Agreement formalizes current service practices — OCFA through an agreement with Koll;will provide one-time capital transfer of$1.25 million to the City for Fire Station 8 relocation. — HBFD would have future bid opportunity for City ambulance services to the area Eton Beech Fire Department Slide s Benefits of Bolsa Chica - - and Sunset/Surfside Proposals New, ongoing revenue source of $600,000 to $700,000 annually for City emergency response system allowing for, — Ongoing revenue stream to relocate and construct Fire Station 8 - Heil. — Funding additional staffing cost for the overall fire protection system. Bewh FvB Department Slide 6 Benefits of Bolsa Chica and Sunset/Surfside Proposals One time capital contribution of $1 .25 million for relocation of Fire Station 8 Future contract opportunity for City ambulance service to Sunset Beach / Surlside Colony t!wWr4tcn Beach Fire Department Slide y • Page 15 - Council/Agency Minutes -03/20/95 (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - ROADWAY REHABILITATION OF STATE ROUTE 39 (BEACH BOULEVARD) FROM STATE ROUTE 1 (PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY) TO ELLIS AVENUE -APPROVED (600.20) -Approved Contribution Agreement No. 12-ORA-39 PM 0.0/3.1 for Roadway Rehabilitation from State Route 001 (Pacific Coast Highway) to Ellis Avenue in Huntington Beach 12222 - 000421 District Agreement No. 12-239 and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute same. (City Council) SUPPORT OF CONTINUED OPERATIONS OF LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD AND OTHER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MILITARY FACILITIES - REQUESTED BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) - RESOLUTION NO. 6673 - NO ACTION TAKEN (120.70) The City Clerk presented a communication from Administration transmitting proposed Resolution No. 6673 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SUPPORTING THE CONTINUED OPERATIONS OF THE LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD AND OTHER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MILITARY FACILITIES." Councilmember Bauer recommended that Council take no position on Resolution No. 6673. Discussion was held by Council. On motion by Sullivan, second Green, Council determined that no action would be taken on Resolution No. 6673. The motion carried by unanimous vote. (City Council) DRAFT BOLSA CHICA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SERVICES DELIVERY AGREEMENT- DRAFTED BY COUNTY OF ORANGE AND KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP -COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN (600.10) The City Clerk presented a communication from the Assistant City Administrator, Director of Community Development, Fire Chief, Chief of Police and Deputy City Administrator, Administrative Services, regarding the Bolsa Chica Development Agreement drafted by the County of Orange and the Koll Real Estate Group. The Development Agreement provides Koll the reassurance that it will be able to develop its property under the plan approved by the county, subject to Coastal Commission approval of the plan and other conditions and to allow the County to obtain additional benefits, in excess of improvements required through mitigation measures. The Development Agreement does not include provisions to insure that there will be no fiscal impacts to the City of Huntington Beach. At the direction of the Bolsa Chica Council Committee, city staff, the county and the Koll Company have been discussing the provision of Fire/Paramedic, Police, Library, Traffic/Circulation, and Ministerial permit processing/inspection and means to resolve the fiscal impacts to the city associated with development of the Bolsa Chica. Transmitted for the City Council's review and consideration are a proposal for provision of fire facility funding between Koll and the City of Huntington Beach and the staffs comments on the draft Development Agreement. The City Administrator reported. Page 16 -Council/Agency Minutes -03/20/95 Considerable discussion was held between the Council and the City Administrator including the subject of the Bolsa Chica being annexed to the city. The Assistant City Administrator presented a review of the staff report. He announced the new slide report copies and also the Development Agreement and the county staff report which is going to the County Planning Commission. He stated these had been received after business hours on Friday and that city staff has not had a chance to review. The following communications had been received on the subject and had been announced earlier in the meeting by the City Clerk pursuant to the Brown Act: Bolsa Chica Attachment No. 4 - Draft Service Agreement, Bolsa Chica Attachment No. 11 - County Staff Report for the March 2, 1995 Orange County Planning Commission hearing. Community Development Department Bolsa Chica Slide Presentation. Communication from Councilmember Dave Sullivan, Bolsa Chica Council Committee Chairman dated March 20, 1995 regarding the Bolsa Chica Council Committee Recommendation on the Bolsa Chica Development Agreement. Communication from Amigos de Bolsa Chica dated March 29, 1995 requesting that the County of Orange grant a continuance of the hearing on the draft Development Agreement currently being negotiated between the County of Orange and Koll Company. Communication from Bob Winchell, representing Huntington Beach tomorrow, dated March 19, 1995 regarding the Draft Bolsa Chica Agreement Fire Chief Dolder reported at length. He referred to a wall map displaying the three areas of the city that are deficient in meeting the Fire Department's Response Time Goals: Huntington Harbour, Bolsa Chica, and Holly-Seacliff and which showed the City's Fire Master Plan Station Locations. He spoke regarding the effect of the county's plan on the Fire Department's response capabilities including the effects of the loss of the planned cross gap connector. Councilmember Green spoke regarding Attachment No. 10 Fiscal Impact on City - Bolsa Chica Project- Unfunded City Costs. The Police Chief responded to Councilmember Green regarding the one time amount of funding that Koll Company had offered for police services impact. The City Administrator reported further. The Police Chief responded to Councilmember Dettloff question regarding public expectation of city police services by the city's police department. Councilmember Bauer clarified the level of support up front and on-going. Councilmember Garofalo questioned as to the expectancy of when the first foundation would be laid. The Community Development Director responded, two years approximately. The Library Services Director reported regarding library services. • • . n Page 17 - Council/Agency Minutes -03/20/95 Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer, responded to questions relative to the possibility of getting improvements to intersections, turning pockets, additional right and left turn lanes that are called for in the mitigation measures without condemnation or narrowing lanes to ridiculous levels. Councilmember Bauer asked how the problem of Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue would be dealt with and the City Engineer reported on the joint staff, county, city project which is being planned. Councilmember Bauer questioned the nature of that project as he stated he did not believe there could be mitigation. He reported on traffic impact mitigation. Councilmember Garofalo presented questions to City Engineer Eichblatt regarding the effects on the entire city from the mitigation of traffic negotiated in this agreement. Bob Franz, Deputy City Administrator, Director of Administrative Services, presented a report using slides on fiscal impacts. The Community Development Director read provisions regarding the language which should be included prior to the first final tract map and gave more proposed conditions. Councilmember Sullivan reported regarding his communication announced earlier in the meeting by the City Clerk dated March 20, 1995 regarding the Bolsa Chica Council Committee Recommendation on the Bolsa Chica Development Agreement. A motion was made by Dettloff, second Green, to approve the following recommended actions: 1. Direct staff to prepare a written request for continuance of County action on the development agreement until the following actions have been completed: 2. Language is added to the development agreement to mitigate the City's fiscal impacts. 3. Language is added to the development agreement to reference the service agreements. 4. Resolution of fire service issues with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 5. Adoption of fire service agreement between the city and Koll Real Estate Group. 6. Development of a program that mitigates city cost for police service impacts from Bolsa Chica. 7. Response from Sheriff Gates on the request for a police service contract for the Bolsa Chica. 8. Revision of the County staff report to reflect the city's position on library service issues. • • Page 18 - Council/Agency Minutes -03/20/95 9. Council Committee Recommendation: Incorporation of language requesting denial of the development agreement if action is not continued as follows: "If the County Planning Commission does not continue action on the development agreement in order to allow time to resolve the city's fiscal impacts and development agreement issues, the city requests that the county Planning Commission recommend denial of the development agreement to the Board of Supervisors." The development agreement, in its current form, violates the Board of Supervisor's December 14, 1994, motion which states that ...."Prior to or concurrent with any Board action on a development agreement or final action on the LCP (Local Coastal Program)for the project, a comprehensive plan addressing Sheriff/Police, fire protection and other necessary services shall be provided to the Board. Said plan shall be prepared in consultation with the City of Huntington Beach and provide specific recommendations and timetables to ensure the funding of services for the project. It is the policy of the Board that the costs of county and city services and facilities necessary to serve the development shall not be borne by existing residents. The comprehensive plan and recommended mitigation measures to be presented to the Board shall be consistent with this policy directive." The Council Committee supported the recommended motion for continuance, but recommended that the Council includes the above language in its action, as well as in the city's comment letter. An amendment to the motion was made by Green, seconded by Garofalo, that the Council direct the Bolsa Chica Council Committee to meet with county officials and staff, and Koll Company representatives to resolve these mutual concerns with a target date for resolution to be April 11, 1995. Councilmember Bauer spoke in opposition to the target date. Councilmember Dettloff asked that the target date be removed. Further discussion was held by Council and staff. Councilmember Green revised his amendment as follows: That the Council direct the Bolsa Chica Council Committee and city staff to meet with county officials and staff, and Koll Company representatives to resolve these mutual concerns with goal for resolution to be April 11, 1995. The amendment was accepted by Councilmember Dettloff. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harman, Bauer, Sullivan, Leipzig, Dettloff, Green, Garofalo NOES: None ABSENT: None DUPLICATE RECEIVED FROM AND MADE APART OF THE RED TT�� THE COUNCIL MEETING OF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BATR"�OCKWA�Y.CITY CLERK W/►tA1 I A: The Bolsa Chica Development Agreement and Service Delivery Agreement i Presentation Overview ■ Background <> ■ Status of Service Delivery Issues <$ ■ Development Agreement Issues ■ Fiscal Summary ■ Future Actions ■ Recommendations and summary Background } ■ County Approved Bolsa Chica Local . Coastal Program(LCP) ■ OC Board of Supervisors'Motion/LCP ConditioNDevelopment Agreement Language Emergency Services Master Plan € � ■ Developed and approved in 1973/14 as part of City's Master Plan ■ Included City build-out design for emergency services ■ Design goal was optimal service levels with controlled cost ■ Master Plan serves as basis for development approvals/agreements Fire Service Levels Existing Fire response time goals are 5 minutes, 80%of the time • Established five years ago in Growth Mgt. Element • Based on medical emergency statistics and fire suppression benefits • Achievable in all areas of City except Harbor area, section east of Bolsa Chica, &Holly-Seacliffe Master Plan for Bolsa Chica } ■ Strategy for single fire station serving Holly- Seacliff and Bolsa Chica Development(Part of 1973174 Master Plan) ■ Plan contingent on creation of Cross-Gap Connector to provide emergency vehicle access ■ Development agreements designed to implement 1973174 General Plan Resources for Fire Protection ■ Holly-Seacliff Development provides funds for. • Construction of one ffre station • Provision of fire and medical apparatus • Creation of part of cross-gap connector ■ Bolsa Chica Development would provide for other costs and create balance of cross-gap connector. Benefits of Single Station Plan f .,. ■ Substantially improves police and fire n emergency response capabilities ■ Least costly alternative w • i Without Cross-Gap Connector ■ Two fire stations are needed to achieve 5 minute/80% of the time goal with or without Bolsa Chica development ■ City responsible for land acquisition for one station ($1 Million) ■ City must staff fire station ($1.3 Million) ` ■ No funds are available to meet these obligations Without Cross-Gap Connector ■ With Development of Bolsa Chica }t« ;3 .,.,,.< • Developer asked to provide land, station, & equipment • Orange County Fire Authority may transfer tax revenues in exchange for City provision of fire, emergency medical, and ambulance services Status of Service Issues <{n> = Fire/Paramedic . Existing improvements needed to meet City response time standards without Bolsa Chica development(2 new stations) . Capital cost for providing 1 station is estimated at$3.65 mil. with annual Operation & Maintenance costs estimated at$1.3 miLlyr. f Status of Service Issues Fire/Paramedic (coot.) ------------------------------- { City/County/Koll Real Estate Group agree r contracting of City fire service for the Bolsa Chica the most efficient means for providing fire service to the area. . Koll Real Estate Group agrees to provide $3.65 mil. to cover the City's capital costs. • City Fire negotiating with OC Fire Authority to receive adequate portion of Fire Fund tax to cover Operation & Maintenance costs. Status of Service Issues (cont.) {< Police Service ry City has the infrastructure/facilities in place to provide best police service to the Bolsa Chica. . Letter to Sheriff Gates requesting initiation of discussions for contract for City police service to the Bolsa Chica. Status of Service Issues (cont.) XXI :. .;; Library Service <: Proximity of the Bolsa Chica to the City's library system. (Nearest County facility- Seal Beach). City of Huntington Beach Community Enrichment Library Fee($0.151sq.ft., approximately$300/unit)and Non- Resident Fee($201card) County Library Fee($200/unit) . Policy decision by Board of Supervisors Status of Service Issues (cont.) Traffic Koll Real Estate Group's payment of fair- ;::; share traffic improvements, in conjunction with additional full cost improvements required in the DA cover City traffic impacts. Summary of Fiscal Issues ■ City Fiscal Impact Report of September z<: 1994 x.?.< . Potential maximum fiscal impact-$62 million at buildout . $50 million related to maximum potential fire service costs ■ Fiscal impact reduced if agreement is finalized on fire service, etc. ■ Current estimate, based on discussions- $5.5 million at buildout. • i Development Agreement Issues ■ General Fund Impacts ■ Average Density ■ Height Provisions ■ Public Notification ■ Failure to Implement ■ Clarification on Table D-2 Future Actions » ■ OC Planning Commission Hearing on the DA on March 22, 1995 ■ OC Board of Supervisors Hearing on the DA April 11 or April 18, 1995. ■ California Coastal Commission Hearing on the LCP anticipated for July 1995. Recommended Action r r f> ■ Direct staff to prepare a written request for v'< continuance of County action on the development agreement until the following actions have been completed.• . Language is added to the development agreement to mitigate the City's fiscal w.; impacts. . Language is added to the development agreement to reference the service agreements. . Resolution of fire service issues with OCFA Recommended Action (cost.) => . Adoption of fire service agreement between ..nY,,.. "``'{ the City and Koll Real Estate Group } . Development of a program that mitigates City cost for police service impacts from Bolsa Chica. . Response from Sheriff Gates on the request for a police service contract for the Bolsa Chica . Revision of the County staff report to reflect the City's position on library service issues. Sub-Committee Recommendation it ■ Incorporation of language requesting denial > <A ` of the development agreement if action is not continued.