Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Metropolitan Water District - Bolsa Island Project Utility C
ti 14 � ✓ _...- ,4p,N tNT q 1 ©!Zp THE METRO �1.I,TjXrr R DISTRICT OF IA SET B U L09� LES, Ct I:1 0 NIA ^� 4 .y tA1 MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX 54153 LOS ANGELES 54. CALIF. OFFICE OF �/ y PHONE 624,9261 GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF ENGINEER NO J. S '9e� AREA CODE 213 � dye , Mr. Paul C. Jones City Clerk City Hall P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr. Jones : Boundary Changes In the past our District has been required by statute (Sec. 9.1 of the Metro olitan Water District Act and Government Code Sections 54900 et seq. to file a statement of change of its bounda- ries not later than February first of each year. However, the 1964 special legislative session adopted an amendment to Government Code Section 54902 setting January first (formerly February first) as the deadline for cities and districts to file statements and maps or plats describing their boundaries with each county assessor involved and with the State Board of Equalization. In order that our statement and map may be prepared before January first, and that the boundaries of your City may be correctly represented as of that date, we are enclosing a form of certificate, in duplicate, and it would be greatly appreciated if you will complete the certificate and return one copy to us not later than December 7, 1964. We have indicated on the form of certificate all boundary changes which have been received from your office since receipt of your form of certificate dated December 23, 1963, indicating changes in the boundaries of your City which occurred between December 26, 1962,and December 23, 1963 If there are changes which will become effective on or before December 31, 1964, other than those indicated by us on the attached form of certificate, please list such changes on the cer- tificate and file a description and map of each change with our District, together with the date on which documents were filed with the Secretary of State for each such change. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, A"Chief Gen Manageeer Encl. 1820 cc : Orange County Mun. Water District (2) k AGENDA Meeting on Island Site at MWD Headquarters in Los. Angeles November 3, 1965 1. GENERAL A. Objectives of Phase III Study B. Location of Island C. Scope of Investigations D. Plant Description 2. OCEANOGRAPHY A. Design Storm Wave B. Design Tsunami Wave C. Littoral Drift D. Sand Borrow Area 3. GEOLOGY A. General B. Formations C. Faults D. Subsidence 4. SOILS MECHANICS . A. Physical Exploration B. Laboratory Results C. Fou_c*,--z on Analysis and Conditions o • Y 2 - 5. SEISMOLOGY A. Earthquake Potential B. Seismic Design Criteria 6. ISLAND DESIGN A. Wave Defenses. B. Grade C. Methods of Construction D. Comparison With Similar Structures 7. PLANT DESIGN FEATURES UNIQUE TO ISLAND o�\A ari Wq t,, THE METRO R DISTRICT OF 0 IA LO L' S�\ <` IA y7 MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX 54153 OCT 1.S 1965 LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90054 OFFICE OF PHONE 624-9261 GENERAL MANAGER AREA CODE 213 Honorable David L. Baker Supervisor, Second District Civic Center, Orange County Santa Ana, California Dear Supervisor Baker: Bechtel Corporation at the present time is engaged in the third and concluding phase of a study of a nuclear power- desalting plant being performed under the joint sponsorship of the Office of Saline Water, Department of the Interior, Atomic Energy Commission and The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The work under Phase III includes a study in depth of an artificial island contemplated for a location off the Orange County coast of Southern California. Arrangements have been made for Bechtel Corporation to present the results and conclusions of the island study at a meeting to be held in this office at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, November 3, 1965. Due to the extensive interest that the artificial island site has -attracted in Southern California, we would appreciate having someone from your office attend this meeting. An agenda is enclosed herewith for your information. V ryly yours, U � R. A. Skinner General Manager Encl. 2642 DECEIVED OCT 1 g 1965 \ DAVID L BAKER .f:at.'h.'..•y^ n .., _ J . prPwnr9, j WII Huntington Beach Planning Commission t 0.0. ,BOX 100 CALIFORNIA 92646 February ?, 1972 t � TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL r j ;.FROMI Planning Department , a E,0,, . R:E Metropolitan Water District' s Environmental Impact Report . on the Balsa Island Project Acquisition of Rights-of—Way for a Utility Corridor. and Switchyard, Date.d ,December, 1971. ATTN t Brander :Castle, Acting City Administrator ' Pawl Janes,,,.'City Clerk ; y s• } { 7 a� PROGRESS REPORT ' il. '.A• copy of the Metropolitan Water District report Was received ` t r `b-y the Planning ,Departmen't on January 3, 1972. (Cover letter from MUD :attached) {. The Planning Commission reviewed t'he report and .directed the staff to invite' Metro' Water District to make a pre— ,.,,. . sentation. y. 'y, ,: 3;. Metropolitan Water District made a presentation to the Planning . Commission on January 25th, at Which time the Commission voiced ' its concern.. They asked the City Attorney ' s office to inves— tigate the following: N r t kP'.. a. Determine'.Who is the local agency, as referred to in Govern— " ' .:• •ment -Code Section 65402. (Section attached) ''- "b. Ask for a ninety (90) ' day extension of time to allow the :Planning Commission more time to 'study the proposal. A. memo, to the Planning Department from Willis Mavis, Deputy . .City Attorney, dated February 2, 1972, (attached) states that 7 the Metropolitan Water District is the . local agency referred x,• : :. : ,, ... . . P 9 . y to in Government Code Section 65402. 4. At the. request of the Orange County Planning Department and ' at the direction of Chairman Porter, the following points were presented by the City ' s Planning Staff to the County rr • ''' Planning Commission on February 1, 1972: ' Inadequacy of the Environmental Impact Report. "Z. ± b. Lack of conformance .between the MUD proposal and the City°a d: adopted`-Master Plan of Land Use. m k ' z;�C't`$ ��� 'K ��� �} .��d K+,�..R+ ��"I•d`irt A;+ ' - lµ r�a,4 'ftid _. .c'd e..�T '- tt .' .. �,'•e:.. •. its' ...'�(�,{IaRa°t4� �+"'`i`.t+ ::c.w ','. •''t7.. N�d` w .. .•4 : " C. ,�u sx ..e j';' ;�f.r :n.;r MWD Progress Report Page 2 c. Location of the proposed switchyard and/nr deaa?.}ing facility within a residential area . d. Absence of proposed alternatives. The County Planning Commission ' s recommendation to the Board of Supervisors (see attachment, dated February 2, 1972) indicated satisfaction with the Environmental Impact Report as it relates only to property acquisition. 5. The Planning Commission, at their February 1 , 1972 regular meeting, passed Resolution No. 1085 (see attachment) , directed the City Attorney ' s .office to contact Signal Properties Incorporated to voice oppositions to sale of land to the Metropolitan Water District (see attached letter dated February 2, 1972). and asked the Planning Director to present their position before the Board of Supervisors on February 2, 1972. 6. The Planning Director and Chairman of the Environmental Council of Huntington Beach made a presentation to the Board of Supervisors on February 2, 1972. The item was continued until Wednesday , February 9, 1972, at 10 :30 A .M. because of a tie vote . 7. The City Attorney ' s office received the attached letter dated February 3rd from the Metropolitan Water District ' s General Counsel indicating the approval of a continuance to March 1 , 1972 for additional input from the City . I ` 91 \N i 17 M.VW.D. h� -- WITCNYAR i/ A E IS 'c� \ Y� , 1 SUB�STATIO BOL SA ISLAND50 \\ \ CITY OF HUNT INGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORMA 5' x p. 1: 4• ?T,MENTt P. 0. BOX 190 ?ov. w� r. HUNTINgON 3E;^CH, GALIFORPdI4 92648 THE METROPf)LITAN Wi ER DISTRICT OF -§QVTHERN LIF NIA 141 SUNSET 8 014VA1W LOS .AN1 ,ELES, CALIFORNIA F.`. {tirkn c. 1 _ MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX 54153 LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90054 OFFICE OF RECEIVED PHONE 626.4282 GENERAL MANAGER DEC 2 7 19771 AREA CODE 213 City of Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Planning Commission P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92647 .Gentlemen: Re : Bolsa Island Project Utility Corridor and Switchyard - W.O. 5-4099 Pursuant to Section 65402 of the California Government Comae, you are advised t`Eat e TMetropolitari`dater D�trict of Southern California proposes to commence acquisition of rights-of- way for the Bolsa Island Project utility corridor and switchyard. The proposed utility corridor and switchyard rights-of-way will parallel the Wintersburg Channel and extend from Pacific Coast Highway to the southern terminus of Graham Street in the City of Huntington Beach. Enclosed are. two prints of Drawing SK 5-4099-1 showing in yellow pencil the proposed permanent power cable and switchyard right-of-way and in red pencil the proposed permanent product ` water right-of-way to be acquired within the City of Huntington ' Beach. Also enclosed is a copy of Metropolitan's Environmental ` Impact Report entitled, "Acquisition of Rights-of-Way - Utility Corridor and Switchyard, " prepared pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.1151 of the Public Resources Code. Should you require any additional information, please call Mr. H. T. Holtom, Desalination Project Engineer, at (213) 626-4282, extension 254. Very truly yours , J � Frank M. Clinton ` General Manager LE B/mm << Encl. 9960 Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested t a 65402 GOVERNMENT CODS t' 1 ISM Aclislelt es or dlspeslttea.of prepergr; se istrsetles of botldlaeo; r► ARTICLF: 8 A611 (' qalreslents before nation ` (a) If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property •hall 4 65951. Coatonto acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park or other public 1" Fttu.i. 'q»•,It+• 1110t:a MIR rw poses, and no real property aoall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated (a) 11;"Wilation, liuuU+O abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or autborb" relapttrt !r, estxtin>;or ptm if the adopted general plan at part thereat applies hereto, until the location. par (b) Regulations of the pose aid extent ot;sucb aequtaltleal or disposition, such street vacation or abandon y 404 or such pabiic buiMag or tld up-on have been submitted to a reported and the open apsev`e aU� t ' . on by ttM planning apney an to esaformlty whit said adopted general Visa or part (c) ReAulatiras of theme 4f ' Omealt. The violin'ng agency doll render its report so to conformity with MM adopters graasral plan or part thereof within forty (40) days after the matter was (d) R(Iwt ,t ntgtawn. stbmitted to It; or such longer period of time as may be dedgual ed by this bow oftid*: •�.JIL% ,•f a h no lrranlq(, etu.vrlt( B11Ch Aa Utive body. The provislons of this paragraph (a)anall not apply to sa Wdtttms w r�. . abandonments for street widening or alignment projects of a minor nature It tits xt'� and ptopertl legislative body so provides by ordinance or resolution. le) Such otY:. (b) A county shall not acquire real property for any of the purposes spednod ter, Including procedure In paragraph (a), nor dispose of any real property, nor construct or authorize a • • tt (f) Such otbe>r public building or structure, in another county or within the corporate livnits of a geu+•ral plan. city. If such cityor other coup has adopted a general plan or pert rtterw+f and county (Amended by 8tata.1970.t such general plan or part thereof is applicable thereto, and a city *6011 ,s" "%low 1970 Amend ent. t real property for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (a), nor dlatww of W r•.,-' ,,.. r,..t„`g 00;L real property, nor construct or authorize a public building or structure, In an,.r).r. ti9 city or In unincorporated territory, It such other city or the county.In which ew-r+ unincorporated territory is situated has adopted a general plan or part tbt•reof and such general plan or part thereof is applicable thereto, until tlw location. par- pose and extent of such acquisition, disposition, or such public building or struellurr hor- have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency havltig )uriadi, thM7. Establlshinew of•': tion, as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part tber't_v,f. Fe11,ar. ••. the planning agency to report within forty (40) days after the matter l.a• 1 65500. Hearing; notie ,*„ i submitted to it shall be conclusively deemed a finding that the proptmrJ acwl �• t, in generalnce th nt l r y)r tiiapoaltlon, or public building or structure is In conformity with WA •+ e ' Ar,y F.Ide re,nedy front allpired t�" era] plan or part thereof. The provisions of this paragraph (b) aball mA , , ,f coy enunrfl I•, railing t ; acquisition or abandonment for street widening or alignment pro)eiKx of�-.�•• Al back to plar:n „mar tt,a c + ine );•' _ anion tw )tars after ad� natum If the legislative body having the real property within Its boundaries+ dsQ. _/Do4e 0 r dtnance during.'tchl¢h iII vtdes by ordinance or resolution. 1 65503. Action by legisa (c) A )oval agency shall not acquire real property for any of the purpnw- POAIG I. to general fled inparagraph (a) nor die of a realproperty. nor construct or suit, a R?,ere planning commlte pose n7 rrz�ning „t rlKht selutret0�� public building or structure, In any county or city, lf.attch county oraIrs/ tf„na and •uhtr,ltted tnerrt '# adopted a general plan o[ Lilt onun,'il rezoned Holy p P part thereat and such general plan br l.ari tl.r - 1t .. ... nr,+innnrc rezoning • } applicable thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such *will•,i n e o d,r l t0ncf IsI position, or such public building or structure have been submitted to an.! AA. upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction, as to conformity with uul.! 1 65504. Reference of prjl' general plan or part thereof. Failure of the planning agency to report wire:.. -1, t. In general ( ' (40) days after the matter has been submitted to It shall be conclusively -� Where planning rrnmtnl ed rezoning of finding that the proposed acquisition. disposition, or public building or xtr urr .•i,th: + necunn: and >uhrn,ued•t•hs` In conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. If the planet .v c+l I•nt —nun,'❑ rezoned sectl,.n- ordh,an,•e rezoA cy disapproves the location, purpose or extent of such acquisition, diapuelrl;• , ar Mai r,•ty ar, ,•rd!n&nc�,A{ public building or structure, the disapproval may be overruled by the Itr•a .aer•'I than that %hick ,.,,,nc!l nli ed and failure , rezone 41O� ^� Local agency as used 1n this paragraph (c) means an agency of the scat. r 0 ti'l.ie ,ild n„t m� - unt to ,. Ioeal pe rformance of governmental or proprietary functions withlt, t ontrnlxi„n'9 re,•un,mendd, ral back to planntng em boundaries. Local agency does not Include the state, or county, or a ell) Here <nr. >finhra« Ass i. (As amended Stats.1967,c. 1185,p•2850,11.) 1 05506. Application to 1t; f, 1967 Amendment. Added last sentence of Law Review Commentaries \othg il, in this • • , p vw*wraph (b). Land use pp tanning in the ,'•r urns(19e7) bb C.LiL eSb. dinurlrr br the It•rislaut}A-4 tinned in tt•Ii••1t' v of ttd'i.`' lilt;n spt�:t • {,Ian initlatp�S�; (.\uumtle+f I,y ,u..l970. Asterisks Indicate a' i�;:�r2 Underline Indicates chan4es or additions by a*.do ft ae • • • ' t r. 1 Yi yI d, I § 21107 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE cies or deficiencies in such provisions which would hinder ci-nipllniwe A lth the provl.lons of this division, and shall proiw.e to the Governor lilt(] the IA'gi.laturr no later than January 1071, fifty measures nexrssary to cotuply with the Intent, policies, and procedures of this division. (Added by Stats.1970,c. 1433,p. ---.$1.) CHAPTER 4. LOCAL AGENCIES Sec. 21VA). Environmental Imlinet report required before allocation of state or federal funds. 21151. Finding that proposed project, In accord with officially adopted conservi+tlon element of general plan; environmentsl impact r-IN►rt its alternative for I rojects. Chapter 4 added by&tat-R.1970,c. 143.7,p. ---, I. g 21150. Environmental Impact report required before allocation of state or federal funds Mate agencies, txrards, lilt(] C01111tIi.NlatnP, re�ponsiblr fur alltxat.ing state or federal funds on a project hyproject basis to local governmental nAewies for r land aetluisition or Construction projects which may hays� it significant effect on The euvIrcmment, shall, unlem exempted by formal proeetlores develolwrl umler the }►' provi.lons of :yrction 21103, rcgolre from flit, rcnpunsileh, Inca) gover►rnoout:0 agency a dcluib'd statrnuvnt setting forth tho watfors .lux1fied In StTtlon 211M prior to flit, allocation of any fund., ufher than (alter solely for pinnnitig purleosrs. (Amcntled by Stnts.1970,c. 143;1, p. ¢ 1.11 I: g 21151. Finding that proposed project In accord with officially adopted con Ierva- i tlon element of general plan; envlronmental Impact report as alternative for projects f, 'F)1e. legislative I►Ales of all Cities :tad mantle. which base all officially 1r10pt0i conwrvntioo clement of a general plan slmll make it fining that any project they Intent) to carry out, which may have it slcnifleant effect on the environwent, is In w-cord with the conuervatiun elene•nt of the goncrfil plan. All other local goe(-rnmvntaI agencies ahnll make rill cuvironnvoufal Impact. re 1wrt m any proj- ect they intend to carry out which may have a ignificant effect on the vnriroo- inent and shall submit It to the approprlttto local I-I;oming agency ns part of thy, {' rvp-)rt required by Stw(lon (VW)2 of the (;ovrrn1:wf1t. Code. (Added by ;.11)70,c: 1-I3S, p, -- g 1.) !i r* 1 P } h. t 108 t 'f R _._ ._____..._.._..�._. .- ...._.._ ..�.,....�.......�.+.�,�.+•.ass�an ranw ri.•,tr-.slims(++.,+ RECEIVE® OFFICE MEMORANDUM FEB E:B 1 1':_72 . PLANNING DEPT. To Dick Harlow, Planning Department DRt" 2 February 1972 From Willis Mevis, Deputy City Attorney In Re Metropolitan Water District I have requested additional time for the Planning Commission to .respond to the letter of Metropolitan Water District of December 27, 1971 pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 . They are to let me know. In the event that they fail or refuse to respond to my request , the answer should be in forty days from December, 27 , 1971 . Under the circumstances we have no one to appeal to or arbitrate our dif- ference concerning time, such as a court, so we must play it safe . The Metropolitan Water District could use a late reply as grounds for ignor- ing the Planning Commission ' s reply . At your suggestion, I have attempted to call. Nick Yost of the Attorney General 's Office concerning the contents of an`rnvironmental Impact Re- ' port . He is out of the office all week. I talked with Mr. Mazzeo of the Orange County Planning Commission who in- forms me that he felt he was in error in his statement before the Planning ; :` Commission quoting the Orange County County Counsel's office regarding K: "local agency" as that statement concerned a flood control matter. ;'` i It is my opinion that the Metropolitan Water District is the local agency referred to in Government Code Section 65402 . h Mr. Conway of the County Counsel ' s office was not available as he was ' at a Orange County Planning Commission meeting. I am advised that fir; Jere Murphy is to be at that meeting. {'n; Pr, I would advise that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission file its timely response; that the response be couched in terms broad enough to { cover all points which further study might or will bear out . h 1 WIL I` MEVIS De t C3, y Attorney WMJ�h r i VN-rY TELEPHONE: 834-2050 ® AREA CODE 714 1 400 WEST EIGHTH STREET SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA ZIP CODE 92701 PLANNING COMMISSION February 2 , 1972 Orange County Board of Supervisors 515 North Sycamore Santa Ana, California 92701 Gentlemen: SUBJECT: Metropolitan Water District Environmental Impact State- ment re the Utility Corridor and Switchyard for the pro- , posed Bolsa Island Project Pur.suant. to Section 65402 (mandatory referral) of the California Government Code , the County Planning Commission received for review on December 29 , 1971, an Environmental Impact Statement on a proposal by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to commence acquisition of r1 Tts-of=way for the Bolsa Island Project utility corridor and switchyard. According to that Code Section, the planning agency must report on said project within forty (40) days after the matter has been sub- mitted, or by February 7 , 1972 . On Monday, January 31, the County Planning Commission was briefed on this matter by staff, and on the following day , February 1, this item was placed on the Commission Agenda and statements were made before the Commission by representatives of the Metro- politan Water District and the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission. The following major points were brought out as a result of staff research and the two above-mentioned Planning Commission meetings . 1. The proposed switchyard area has been annexed to the City of Huntington Beach and is no longer part of the County of Orange ; 2 . The Environmental Impact Statement submitted is only related to the acquisition of property and not to the later construction of the proposed facility. I 1 t i- Orange County Board of Supervisors Page 2 S As this statement refers only to the acquisition of property , ;. and not to the actual construction of the Bolsa Island Project , the impacts on the physical environment are virtually nonexistent . Hence , the Planning Commission does not believe that this referral by the MWD on the acquisition of land should give reas3n for a negative response at this time. ; However, as the MWD impact statement and the planning department ' s review thereof are in regard to only the acquisition of property and not the later construction o�tNe o7fs ogre sland or its r relate`o En—shore Face iti'-es,is should be made a matter of record that a positive response by the County at this time in no way should be considered an approval of the actual construction of said facilities at a later date. Such an action at that time will be based on the receipt and analysis of a full Environ- mental Impact Statement prior to the construction of this project . The Planning Commission' s recommendation of February .l , 1972 , is herebv forwarded to your Board for action prior to the dead- line of February 7 , 1972 . RECOMMENDATION : The Orange County Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors that the Metropolitan ` Water District Environmental Impact Statement ' regarding the acquisition of property for the utility corridor for the Bolsa Island Project as shown on the map satisfies the environmental aspects- of this action pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code , and further, that this applies only to the acquisition of the pro- perty and not the later construction of the off-shore islands or the related on-shore im- provement. Respectfully submitted, ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION % Stuart W. eaiey, As sist t Planning Director and Secretary to the P1 nning Commission SWB:J LA:mrm ' ia. is ra 1tI"::UI,IJ"I' 1 UN NO . 1085 i RESOLTUION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF I UNT 1 NGT'ON RI;AC 11 , CAI—I FORN I A , RELATING TO A. MI:.TROPOI.I'TAN WATER DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO. ACQUIRE }ZIGI1'TS-OF -WAY IN THE BOLSA CIILCA AREA FOR A UTILITY CORRIDOR AND SW ITC HY.IRD . g. WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach has determined that the Environmental Impact Report on the above designatod project is inadequate as described under Section 21.1S1 o1' the Public Resources Code , WHEREAS , the Commission has determined that the proposed project is not' inconformance with the adopted Master Plan of M Land Use for this area , A". WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that the proposed rn switching ,yard and/or desalting facility should not be placed = within a residentIJI portion of the city . tv'HEREAS , the Commission has determined that alternative sites for this project are available and wants alternates to s' be investigated as it part of this proposal , s'# NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVF".D 4 Section 1 . That the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby state its opposition 4 to the project . 2 . That the Commission will. give further consideration to the proposal if additional time is granted for more study . REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach , California , on the Est day of February , 1972 , by the following roll call vote : (�4 °t. tt f YH') Ba it Iliyt; iii , , 1'.',rl (� r 11,lhe ins N 0 1 .'N011e A B)f NT : S La to 1,o Iv I e ATThST k. A . kcynoI �tc3rc`rrti �1 . f'c�rter Secretary Cha i rnlan ;i t. io OFFICE OF - w CITY ATTORNEY P. 0. sox 190 g �± HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92648 DON P. SON FA 1Ei_F VIf}NE C; ♦♦1gRNE� 2 February 1972 /14t �,Ai52t,1 Mr . Marius M. Porter, 19842 Providence Lane ` Huntington Beach , California Dear Mr. Porter : e Reference enclosed copy of letter directed to Signal Properties , Inc . , I have today recPtved a telephone call which permits the city to de- lay action until March 1 . In light of this fact , I am wondering, if the Commission would not also wish to delay transmittal of the en- clo::ed letter. z 1 would appreciate any suggestions you may care' to make with regard to this matter . Very trbly yours , �c EiONFA DON P City,"At;orney i .�y , W hL I S Ipputy City Attorney DPP:WM : ahb Enc . I , s (` OFFice OF CITY ATTORNEY ` P. O. Box 100 _ HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92648 R DON P. BONFA TELEPHONE Ct TV.AT TO AN ICY G February 1972. (7 4a 5365261 Mr. John E. Combs , Project Coordinator i Signal Properties , Inc . 1010 Wilshire Boulevard 1 Los Angeles , California 90017 Dear Mr. Combs : The Huntington Beach Planning Commission at its meeting on February 1, 1972, by unanimous vote of all present, directed me to express to you its concern and opposition to the Metro- poiitan Water District project on your land in the Bolsa area as the project Is, now planned . I have been further directed by the commission to request that you not close your land negotiation with Metropolitan Water District on the project for at least ninety days to enable the commission to .examine the ecological impact and other aspects of this project as it relates to the people of Huntington Beach . The commission would appreciate your cooperation in this mat- ter and would further appreciate being advised of your atti- tude toward its request . Very truly yours , N P. BONFA ity torn y I , S ME V S Deputy City Attorney DPB:WM:ahb WA/f p THE METR00t)LITAN W UR DISTRICT OF .4 .1TF %AP4,pAL1P NIA d l "SET 17"V A I0o j LOS ANGELES, CALIVORNIA February t;3, 1972 OFFICE OF PHONE 628 GENERAL COUNSEL AREA COOS 2IJ'Ji U 7` 4 I9�� Will Mevis, Esq. Deputy City Attorney City of Huntington Beach ` tTORN�� P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92647 Dear Mr. Mevis: Reference is made to your recent request for an extension of the time provided for in Government Code Section 65402 for your City Planning Commission's consideration of the Environmental Im- pact Report required by Public Resources Code Section 21151 and the project report required by Government Code Section 65402 concerning the District's proposed purchase of property from Signal Properties, Inc. for the product water line, utility corridor and switchyard to be built as part of the District's proposed Bolsa Island Project. Negotiations for the. acquisition of the property began in 1969 when it was owned by Bolsa Corporations and culminated in November 1971 when .the District's Board of Directors authorized the General Manager to purchase it on certain terms from Signal Properties, Inc. , the present owner, upon fulfillment of the requirements of Govern- ment Code Section 65402. . From the beginning the District has con- sulted with the owner and its engineers in developing an alinement of the product water line and utility corridor through the property which would be satisfactory to the owner as well as to the District. To accommodate the owner's plans, which had been prepared by experts in land use and which appeared to exemplify good community planning, the District changed the alinement recommended by its consulting engineers for the Bolsa Island Project that would have severed the most desirable portion of the property to an alinement along the Wintersburg Channel favored by the owner. In addition, this aline- ment would result in the switch;fard being located on undeveloped land between the proposed Coast Freeway and Wintersburg Channel and therefore would not require the relocation of home owners. Will Mevis, Esq. Page 2. ! As you may know, Signal Properties has recorded a tract map / covering a large parcel of land lying partly within the City of Huntington Beach and partly within the unincorporated territory of Orange County, which includes the property which the District k requires for the aforementioned facilities. Signal Properties has delayed development of the tract pending the proposed sale to the District. It would be unfair to Signal Properties for the District to prolong unduly the period during which the City Planning Commis- sion may study the District's reports and the District will review any recommendations which may be made. we do not feel therefore that the District can equitably accede to your request for an exten- sion of 90 days for your City Planning Commission to reconsider the above mentioned reports. We are willing to extend the time to March 1, 1972 and do hereby grant such an extension. However, it will be appreciated if the Commission will give the matter such attention as will make it possible for action to be taken prior to the expira- tion of the time extension. Sincerely, John ii. Lauten General Counsel By John B. Read Deputy General Counsel JBR: SS pr ah t S� Xi x � py�pp �}��3�P+(��yp�'�((�'`p'�' t ity of �Lnti n .YL/i ` ' > x 'kP 'r •:. -`,P 1 .. l+1.'t fit•1 .1 I F ^x" ' CALIFORNIA 92648ill<i.ir tR s P:t6- Box i$o �c r f T + a r:G eul JP•t;. MCi r +, Pal ;t ' .iPyA,,MDttoPy February 10 , 1972 4 i I4„J(S:ii tit [ if,r+"•'lS�S'.. - - .r t :1 YC k Qr'rn c .0 11c3 rs alp ley if r- S> �l The Honorable Evelle J . Younger >K At't;orney General of California wq'l,I s Fargo Bank Building Fifth anal Capitol.tol. Mall � p � ,4 Sacramento , Cali=fo.rhia 95814 x ,be.a.r ,, Si r Pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 , the Metropolitan Water Distri ct has filed with the City of Hunt.i ngton Beach an Environmental Impact- R,epgrt required by Public Resources Code Section :21151 . A copy" of 'the report is attached hereto . ThAs project concerns the Metropolitan Water District ' s plans for the Iry , n . Bo:'Tast... .IsI &nd Project Utility Corridor and Switch Yard , which is pro -.posed to 6e Toc,ated in the Huntington Beach city limits. The Metropol'i'tan Water District , at the City ' s request has granted an additional 21 days or to March 1 , 1972 to file its report . The City objects to the attached . Environmental Impact Report as being incomplete . It. does not cover such items as the effect on the birds , and animals located therein or the effect on offshore marine life . <: Neither does it purport to coder the entire project . Further , the proposed switch yard is to be. located on 35 acres in an area now zoned R-1 -and Master Planned "for an elementary school and a neighbor- ,. hood park There are alternatives available :in the area which would not create. as many problems and. .,whi.ch need to be investigated and presented. �,1,• 5 c I � _ ' - • Jq Mt S W,M4., Lt:cz �g. (jttP�l.'it�i OfB'l,iilaiL►Yr Pk ji .. - - - -- - maw - w. ;.c:•.5.�:-. _��: ,.''rsM�,';+.'s" S. Y Th`e" N,on.arable Evelle J . Younger February 10 , 1972 tar. Page 2 ti r nti � F Th'e Huntington Beach City Council has directed ine to request that lA Mr. Nicholas Yost of your environmental unit be authorized to interv`ene and seek .delay until an environmental impact report can M4 . . be :fur.ther studied and until an environmental impact report on the entire project can .be obtained. t< Your assistance and cooperation in this matter is therefore appreci,ated: Very truly yours , CITY OF, HUNTINGTON BEACH L 4 4 Brander D. Castle Acting City Administrator ' .c r r 30C:bwo i e n c,,. C-C Nicholas Yost Attorney General ' s Office 6.00 State Building Los Angeles„ California 90012 , Tony Summers r `5006 State .Building 1350 Front Street A , •San Diego; California 92101 R ST*iT&V1Z14T BY IVAUL L. 81UW",'Y OF 6MULT UACH, CALIFORNIA AT -THL 4r,LTJ.Q OF TA?, BOARD OF bUkJRV1S0RS, COUINTY OF .)hjj,r.,Ee ON FJBRUARY 15, 197219 RLI: Tht: UTILITY CORRIDOR, AND 66'ITC11M'"1W FOR THJ PROPOSED BULSr`4, I&LAQ PROJ42T_ Aly name is Paul Bradley. My resident address is 16941 South i-acific avenue, Sunset Beach, County of orange. Sunset Beach, as you know, is an unincorporated county area with one of the few remaining orange County-owned beaches open to the public. L am addressing you as a resident and long-time property owner; and as President of the Sunset Beach Community Council. For your further information, I ain also a Member of the Attorney General's Volunteer Advisory Council concerned with environmental protection and related legislative programs for the State of California. I am appearing before you both in behalf of our own family interests and as a skvkesinan for the majorities of the Loards of Directors of most of Sunset Beach's community and civic organizations - including the Sunset Beach Chamber, the Women's Club and Las mamas; also for other community leaders and residents there. vie are all deeply disturbed and concerned by the sudden environmental threat to our lovely beach and family community which could be destroyed forever. This most certainly could result if the Xletropolitan Water District is allowed to secure the land and easements in Huntington Leach for their utility corridor and switchyard as the first step in their announced overall p1mi for their proposed Bolsa Island project. t4a think it is inconceivable that the Metropolitan water District would even consider allowing the construction of an atomic-powered desalting and nuclear power station on a 40-acre man-made island which would be at the end of a half-mile two-lane causeway built right at or near the and of Sunset Beach - and adjacent to the State's own poi:,ular Bolsa c4hica State Beach, ;-,e think it equally inconceivable that the 1,BM - which was established to represent the public interests - could exk;ect any other public body to only consider and approve the riarchase of this land in huntington Beach without studying and evaluating the total results to the surrounding environment. The overall and long range objectives and plans for the :vAID' s proposed "Bolsa Island Project" are clearly set forth in the oletroi.olitan Water District's own "Lixvironmental Impact keport" of December 1971. ,% copy of this report has been provided to us by the County of orange. Accordingly, as Sunset Beach residents, property owners and neighbors of Huntington Beach, we: 1. Strongly support the unanimous requests by the City Council of Huntington Beach for the attorney General of the State of California to delay any further developments in the proposed brKD Bolsa Island desalting and nuclear power project until that office - and other governmental bodies concerned - can review the total project and evaluate the anticipated overall environmental resultsr also until the public can be apprised of these in open hearings and respond to same. 2. Strongly recommend and request that the Board of Supervisors of the County of orange take all appropriate measures to prevent the Metropolitan dater District of Southern California from acquiring any property in Huntington Beach and/or the County of orange until the Attorney General of the State of California, and any other govern- mental agencies or offices concerned,have had the time to review and evaluate the AWD's overall long-range plans for their "Bolsa Island Froject"t and until the public has been apprised of the results of these studies in public hearings and has had the opportunity to respond to same. We, as residents and property owners of Sunset Beach, are making similar recommendations to the Attorney General of the State of California as well as to other Local, State and Federal agencies, authorities and officials concerned. Respectfully submitted to the Board of Supervisors, County of orange, State of Californian By: Paul L. Bradley President The community Council of Sunset Beach, Caiforn Dates February 15, 1972 Residence Contact 16941 South Pacific Avenue Sunset Beach, California 90742 Phones (213) 592-2556 7-f�c, ,11f�tic.a �c �lit�in Water District ()f Southern California 1 t1(ti'r ui Ili,• t •nirnl hiin,ii; r pp!! . Mr. Brander D. Castle Assistant Administrator City of Huntington Beach P. O . Box 190 Huntington Beach , California 92648 Dear Mr. Castle : Reference is matte to our letter to you of April 12 , 1972 , on the subject of an environmental impact report relating to a proposed purchase of land to serve a future seawater desalting plant . It is contemplated that this plant would be situated in Orange County. As noted in our letter of April 12 , discussions were held on March 24 with Anthony Summers , Deputy State • Attorney General , concerning revisions to the environmental impact report. These revisions have been completed and a new report is submitted herewith for your information . Very truly yours , Frank M. Clinton General Manager HTH/ec /,. r L),y .�"/2 t / �l'"lam—�` F'1/t )-I � Encl . 224 Llaynard M. Anderson Assistant General Manager 1"ill illn',Pl 1os not eles,Cali! r' Mailing addw•: kox 54153, Leas Angvles,C;i; i.90!6d i 1(lophotw: (213)626 t?,U Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 x- September 13, 1972 I- x TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Commission RE: Resolution No 1097 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator; Paul Jones , City Clerk Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 1097, a resolution of the City Planning Commission requesting that your Honorable Body forward a resolution to the California State Legislature requesting revocation of the tidelands grant to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The Planning Commission approved said resolution on September 12, 1972 and recommends that your Honorable Body adopt a similar resolution. 'Respectfully submitted, K.A. Reynolds Secretary 6, KAR:jh Encl: Resolution No. 1097 ham , September 14, 1972 TO: City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution Requesting the California State Legislature to Revoke the Tidelands Grant to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California At the request of the City Administrator, we transmit here- with a resolution requesting the. California State Legislature to revoke the tidelands grant to the Metropolitan Water District for the reasons stated in said resolution. This resolution is based upon the request of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission set forth in their Resolution No. 1097. Respectfully submitted, DON P. BONFA City Attorney DPB :WM: lm Attachment ` 7 1 � \A i i APr lk r i r y, ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL t City of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 To: Planning Commission From: Environmental Council Dates September 14, 1972 Topics Metropolitan Water District Environmental Impact Statement The Environmental Impact Statement of the Metropolitan Water District was considered by the Environmental Council (at their regular meeting September 12) in the context in which it was prepared--that is, con- sidering the environmental effects of the proposed acquisition of land by MWD for the corridor and switching yard for the proposed de- salinization plant. The Environmental Council evaluated the impact statement on this basis, and stresses that additional Environmental Impact Statements would be needed if any development were to occur on that land, or on island or causeway construction. The first recommendation of the Environmental Council is to delay the approval of this proposed acquisition until after the land exchange between Signal Properties, Inc. and the State of California in Bolsa Bay is decided in the next few months. The alignment of the cause- way, and thence the land corridor and switching yard , might need to be reevaluated with respect to the Bolsa Bay development in order to better protect our beaches. (The Environmental Council meeting Tuesday September 26, with representatives from the State Lands Division, the Attorney General's office, and the State Department of Fish and Game will help you understand how things might be changed in that area. The Fish and Game Department is trying to arrange the State Lands Commission hearing on this case during October 1972• ) If the State-Signal action, the Fish and Game plans for development, and studies by the Army Corps of Engineers indicate that no change of the MWD causeway alignment might be necessary, then this land ac- quisition proposed now for the corridor and switchyard in Alignment I would meet the approval of the Environmental Council. If this cor- ridor and switching ,yard were purchased by the Metropolitan Water District, this would serve as a holding zone for open space for a number of ,years. Perhaps if the project did not develop as planned, some way could be found to retain that land as permanent useable open space, a valuable asset in the coastal zone. The references to the 1965 seismic studies, the questions of safety in the corridor during earthquake, and comments about repair Iof pipes and transmission lines should an earthquake occur along the Seal Beach fault (considered as active) , did not seem to be satisfactory. STATE CAPITOL COMMITTEES SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS 95814 HEALTH AND WELFARE INDTEL.: (916) 445.4264 JAMES E. WHETMORE TRANSPORTATTRIAL ION TRANSPORTATION THIRTY-FIFTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT ORANGE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES JOINT COMMITTEES EDUCATIONAL GOALS AND EVALUATION SEISMIC SAFETY CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE HOARDS AND IA COMMISSION CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON AGING AMERICAN REVOLUTION BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY COUNCIL VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS October 2, 1972 Mr. Paul C. Jones City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Mr. Jones: Thank you very much for your letter of September 21 and Resolution No. 3574 requesting the Legislature to revoke the Tidelands Grant to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. I have asked the Department of Water Resources to make a full investigation of this matter for me, and will advise you of their report just as soon as I receive it. I appreciate very much your keeping me informed of the Council' s actions. dially yours, r S E. WHETMORE Senator, 35th District JW/ro BOARD OF GOVERNORS. NATIONAL SOCIETY OF STATE LEGISLATORS STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY WILLIAM R.GIANELLI,Director DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES P.O. BOX 388 a� SACRAMENTO OCT 19 1972 Honorable James E. Whetmore, Senator State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Whetmore: This is in reply to your letter dated October 2, 1972, requesting information regarding Resolution No. 3574 adopted by the City Council of Huntington Beach to revoke the Tidelands Grant to The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The subject Resolution No. 3574 pertains to Report No. 899 of MWD entitled, "Acquisition of Right of Way for Utility Corridor and Switchyard . Bolsa Bay and Huntington Beach, Orange County, California, Environmental Impact Report", dated August 1972. We have reviewed the Resolution and the Report and our comments are as follows: It is our understanding that the Report, as presented, is mainly for the purpose of informing the citizens of Orange County about the different options of rights of way that MWD can select in the future for the final design of the desalting plant. According to the Report, the final design may not be known for several years. Therefore, when the final design of all facilities are completed, M6dD will prepare and submit for the State's approval a comprehensive environmental report, as required by the California Environmental- Quality Act of 1970, and by the Federal Environ- mental Policy Act of 1969. Regarding the site for the switchyard which is questioned by the Resolution, in the Report it appears that two alternatives have been selected, each one depending upon the design of the alignment of the power cable which will be chosen when the final design of the desalting facilities is approved. We hope this information will be of help to you. Sincerely yours, Director „`- \ t T' CU �• ' f r,.t' ,NO Y f•)(>,.;. � Lxx-Sti;ng Edison°; ul�station M.W.D. \ K \ art' /Switchyard c \ : : P aflwioWo d� f d� i tch rop e ,..Im •..,' .,d/.• War .F` {;l ".5 \ : ” _ l r � ' u , M. PacYfcC as Highway, i I M.W. D. Proposal Planning Cow ssion Proposal for M. W. D. consideration. Pacific Ocean Huntington Beach Planning Commission r P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council , FROM: Planning Commission DATE: January 14, 1974 ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator RE: Metropolitan Water District Utility Corridor and Switch- yard in the Bolsa Chica Transmitted herewith is a statement of the Planning Commission on the Metropolitan Water District' s (MWD) proposed utility corridor and switchyard in the Bolsa Chica. The utility corridor will bi- sect a major portion of the land available for development, and the switchyard is proposed to be located within an area designated for low density residential on the General Plan. The Planning Commission respectfully requests the City Council to adopt this statement and to transmit it to the State legislature along with a request to modify Metropolitan Water District' s Tide- lands Grant. Modification of said Grant will change the location of the proposed island for the desalting plant and thereby change the location of the utility corridor and switchyard to a site more acceptable to the Planning Commission. Signal Companies and Metropolitan Water District are presently negotiating to conclude the sale of the property for the utility corridor and switchyard. It is the understanding of the Planning Commission that price has been agreed to and that only minor details remain to be resolved before sale of the property is complete. Therefore, the Planning Commission unanimously feels that it is urgent that all steps be taken to preclude this sale which will be detrimental to the City of Huntington Beach. There- fore, the only solution we have is to have the State legislature take appropriate action by modifying the Tidelands Grant to Metropolitan Water District. Respectfully submitted, /1� 0. 64". Edward D. Selich Acting Secretary ES:MW:mc Enclosures t POSITION STATEMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT UTILITY CORRIDOR AND SWITCHYARD i This is to reaffirm the position of the City of Huntington Beach as opposing Metropolitan Water District' s plans to acquire a utility corridoriand switchyard in the Bolsa Chica area located along the eastern bluff of the Bolsa Chica Mesa in the City of' Huntington Beach. Reasons for our opposition to the location of the switchyard and utility corridor fall into three broad categories: the public interest, site acquisition, and consideration of alternate sites. A basic requirement for any individual or governmental agency which holds a public trust is that wherever and whenever there is reasonable doubt concerning the public interest the matter must be resolved in favor of the public interest. The City of Huntington Beach finds and determines that there is a reasonable doubt concerning the public interest in this matter!. Therefore, we respectfully request that you consider locating the switchyard and utility corridor at a more suitable location, and that acquisition of land be delayed until the matter is resolved. The City is concerned that although Metropolitan Water District has stated that acquisition does not propose any specific development, acquisition of such property does imply some form of development. It is our concern that the switchyard site is located in a residential area of the City which is contrary to the General Plan which has the area designated for low density residential development. The City has determined that implementation will have an adverse impact on the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. The City has not received sufficient documentation to support Metropolitan Water District' s contention that the switchyard and utility corridor will not have an adverse environmental impact on the area. The Metropolitan Water District Report No. 899 entitled "Acquisition of Right of Way for Utility Corridor and Switchyard, Bolsa Bay and Huntington Beach, Orange County, California, Environmental Impact Report" was rejected by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission on September 12 , 1972. The reasons included the facts that: a. The Report misquoted the 1965 Geological Investigation Report of Henry H. Neel; b. It appeared that the prime reason for the Report was to justify the location of the Tideland's Grant; and s Page Two C. It minimized the environmental and topographic disruptive impact of the Bolsa Chica flats. The switchyard is located on a known archaeological site. The utility corridor not only would destroy a section of the east bluff of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, but also a known archaeological site. The site of the switchyard and utility corridor should be reconsidered because of findings in a recent study of Huntington Beach by Leighton-Yen and Associates. This study was done in preparation for the. Seismic Element of the General Plan. The argument submitted by Metropolitan Water District justifying its site for these facilities and rejecting the Planning Commission' s proposed site along the base of the western bluff of the Huntington Beach mesa is the very reason why the Metropolitan Water District site should be rejected and the Planning Commission' s site be accepted. According to the Leighton-Yen study no land subsidence is probable in the Bolsa Chica gap. This contradicts a statement by Frank Clinton, of Metropolitan Water District, in his letter of November 7, 1973, that the City' s site was rejected due to "potential problems because of land subsidence" . The Leighton-Yen study also found that the site for the switchyard chosen by Metropolitan Water District is located in an area where there is up to five feet of peat deposits. The Huntington Beach site for the switchyard is in an area where there is no known peat nor organic soils. However, it is recognized that both the Metropolitan Water District' s and the City' s sites are located astride active fault lines and both are in areas of moderate to high expansive soils. To reject either site on the basis of these two geotechnical problems is to preclude the desalting plant from Huntington Beach entirely. Attached is a map depicting the proposed location of the island site, utility corridor, and switchyard site which is consistent with both the objectives of providing for future water supplies and the comprehensive planning of our community. The City of Huntington Beach respectfully requests the California State Legislature to modify the agreement with Metropolitan Water District to provide for a site that is mutually agreeable to the City and Metropolitan Water District. ALEXANDER BOWIE A LAW CORPORATION ALEXANDER BOWIE 610 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE • SUITE 1220 AREA CODE 714 SPENCER E.COVERT,JR. NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 TELEPHONE 644-9311 CHRISTOPHER RANDALL NANCY C.SHANAHAN REF. OUR FILE March 3 , 1976 West Orange County Water District- P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attn: Alicia M. Wentworth Re: California Labor Code Apprentices on Public Works Chapter 1 of Division 2 , Section 1777. 5 Dear Ms. Wentworth: Based upon a review of the Labor Code provisions of Section 1777.5 .in relation to any requirements which such Section imposes upon the West Orange County Water District, please be advised as follows : Section 3098 of the Labor Code, a copy of which is attached hereto, provides that an awarding agency whose public works contract falls .within the jurisdiction of Section 1777 .5 shall send a copy of the award of the contract, or "Extract of Public Works Contract Award" , as attached hereto, to the Division of Apprenticeship Standards within five days of such. award. Section 1777 . 5 of the Labor Code, a copy of which is also attached hereto,, covers apprentices upon "Public Works. " According to Section 1720 of the Labor Code, "Public . Works" include : "Streets, sewer, or other improvement work done under the direction and supervision or by the authority of any officer or public body of the state , or of any political subdivision or district thereof, whether such political subdivision or district operates under a freeholders ' charter or not. Section. 1721 further defines "Political Subdivision as including "any county, city, district, township, public housing authority, or public agency of the state, and assessment or improvement districts. " -ks.LEXANDER BOWIE A LAW CORPORATION West Orange County Water District Attn: Alicia M. Wentworth March 3 , 1976 Page Two It appears that the West Orange County Water District is a political subdivision of the State for the local performance of public works including the direction and supervision of sewer and other improvement work as described in the above quoted Section 1720 of the Labor . . Code. As such, the West Orange County Water District falls within the jurisdiction of Section 1777 .5 of the Labor Code and is subject to the requirement of reporting the award of public works contracts to the Division of Apprenticeship Standards. If you have any further questions in regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, ALEXANDER BOWIE A Law Corporation By Nancy C.�Shanahan NCS/lac Encs "Smote o -California . •epartmcnt of Industrial Relations Agriculture and Services Agency Division of Apprenticeship Standards EXCERPTS FROM THE CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE RELATING TO APPRENTICES ON PUBLIC WORXS Chapter 4 of Division 3 THE SHELLEY-MALONEY APPRENTICE LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1939 (Note: Boldface type denotes key points.) 3098. An awarding agency whose Rublic.vwks co2ft=t falls within the jurisdiction of Section 1777.5 snail, within five days of the award, send a copy of the award to the Division of Apprenticeship Standards. When specifically requested by 'a local joint apprenticeship committee, the division shall notify the local joint apprenticeship committee regard- ing all such awards applicable to the joint apprenticeship committee making the request. Within ,five days of a finding of any discrepancy regarding the ratio of apprentices to journeymen, pursuant to the certifi- cated,fixed number of. apprentices to journeymen, the awarding agency shall notify the Division of Apprenticeship Standards. (Amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1095.) Chapter 1 of Division 2 APPRENTICES ON PUBLIC WORKS 1777.5. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices upon public.works. Every such apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to appren- tices under the regulations of the craft or trade at which he is employed, and shall be employed only at the work of the craft or trade to which he is indentured. . Only apprentices, as defined in Section 3077,who are in training under apprenticeship standards and written apprentice agreements tinder Chap- ter 4 (commencing at Section 3070), Division 3, of the Labor Code, are eligible to be employed on public works. The employment and training of each apprentice shall be in accordance with the provisions of the appren- ticeship standards and apprentice agreements under which he is training. When the contractor to whom the contract is awarded by the state or any political subdivision, or any subcontractor under him, in performing any of the work under the contract or subcontract, employs workmen in any apprenticeable craft or trade, the contractor and subcontractor shall apply to the, joint apprenticeship committee administering the apprentice- ship standards of the craft or trade in the area of the site of the public work for a certificate approving the contractor or subcontractor under the apprenticeship standards for the employment and training.of apprentices in the area of the site of the public work. Contractors or subcontractors shall not be required to submit individual applications for approval to local joint apprenticeship committees provided they are already covered by the local apprenticeship standards. The ratio of apprentices to jour- neymen who shall be employed in the craft or trade on the public work may be the ratio stipulated in the apprenticeship standards under which the joint apprenticeship committee operates, but in. no case shall the ratio be less than one apprentice for each five journeymen, except as otherwise provided in this section. The contractor or subcontractor, if he is covered by this section, shall, upon the issuance of the approval certificate; or if he has been previously approved in such craft or trade, shall, employ the number (A apprentices or the ratio of apprentices to journeymen stipulated in the apprenticeship standards. Upon proper showing by.the contractor that he employs apprentices in such craft or trade in the state on all of his con- tracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to each eight (over) DAS 10(New 8/75) journeymen, the Atision of Apprenticeship Standards shall got a cer- tificate exempting the contractor from the 1-to-5 ratio as set forth in this section. This section shall not apply to prime contracts involving less than thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) or 20 working days or to contracts of subcontractors not bidding for work through a general or prime contrac- tor, involving less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) or fewer than five working days. "Apprentice able craft or trade," as used in this section, shall mean a craft or trade determined as an apprenticeable occupation in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Apprenticeship Council. The joint apprenticeship committee shall have the discretion to grant a cer- tificate exempting a contractor from the 1-to-5 ratio set forth in this sec- tion when it.finds that any one of the following conditions is met: (a) In the event unemployment for the previous three-month period in such area exceeds an average of 15 percent, or (b). In the event the number of apprentices in training in such area exceeds a ratio of I to 5, or (c) If there is a showing that the apprenticeable .craft or trade is re- placing at least one-thirtieth of its journeymen annually through appren- ticeship training, either (1) on a statewide basis, or(2) on a local basis. (d) If assignment of an apprentice to any work performed under a pub- lic works contract would create a condition which would jeopardize his life or the life, safety, or property of fellow employees or the public at large or if the specific.task to which the apprentice is.to be assigned is of such a nature that training cannot be provided by a journeyman. When such exemptions are granted to an organization which represents contractors in a specific trade from the 1-to-5 ratio on a local or state- wide basis the member contractors will not be required to submit individ- ual applications for approval to local joint apprenticeship committees, provided they are already covered by the local apprenticeship standards. A contractor to whom the contract is awarded, or any subcontractor under him, who, in performing any of the work under the contract;employs journeymen or apprentices in any apprenticeable craft or trade and who is not contributing to a fund or funds to administer and conduct the appren- ticeship program in any such craft or trade in the area of the site of the public work, to which fund or funds other contractors in the area of the site of the public work are contributing, shall contribute to the fund or funds in each craft or trade in which he employs journeymen or appren- tices on the public work.in the same amount or upon the same basis and in the same manner as the other contractors do, but where the trust fund , administrato rs are unable to- accept such funds,.contractors'noi'signatory . ' to the trust agreement-shall pay a like amount to the California.Appren- ticeship Council. The contractor or subcontractor may add the amount of such contributions in computing his bid for the contract. The Division of Labor Law Enforcement is authorized to enforce the payment of such con- tributions to the fund or funds set forth in Section 227. The body awarding the contract shall cause to be inserted in the con- tract stipulations to effectuate this section. Such stipulations shall fix the resp onsibility of compliance with this. section for all apprenticeable occupations with the prime contractor. In the event a contractor willfully fails to comply with this section, such contractor shall be denied the right to bid on a public works con- tract for a period of six months from the date the,determination is made. The interpretation and enforcement of this section shall be in accord- ance with the rules and procedures prescribed by the Apprenticeship Council. All decisions of the joint apprenticeship committee under this section are subject to the provisions of Section 3081. (Amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 965.)' Suite of !:01iiornio Department of Industrial Relations Agriculture:ai�d Services Agency i� Division of Apprenticeship Standards EXTRACT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT AWARD TO: California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Apprenticeship Standards DAS USE ONLY P. O. Box 603 P/w San Francisco CA 94101 Log date N/C ❑ FROM:. AWARDING AGENCY Name Address City State Zip A CONTRACT TO PERFORM PUBLIC WORKS UNDER LABOR CODE SEC. 1777.5 HAS BEEN AWARDED TO: Name of General Contractor Contractor's License Number Mail address (Street No, or P. 0..Box) City Zip code .Telephone Address or location of Public Works Site (include city and or county) Contract or Project Number Dollar amount of contract award Starting date, Completion date. Number of working days Type of construction (Highway, school, hospital, etc.) New construction [ ] Alterations❑ Is language included in the Contract Award to effectuate the provisions of Section 1777.5, as required.by the Labor Code? ❑ Yes j�No Is this the first Extract of Public Works Contract Award you have sent to the Division of Apprenticeship Standards? ❑ Yes ❑ No r• Signed,by Title Date Note: Submittal of this Extract satisfies the following requirement of Labor Code Section'3098, Chapter 4, Division 3: "An awarding agency whose public works contract falls within the jurisdiction of Section 17777.5 shall, within five days of the award, send a copy of the award to the Division of Apprenticeship Standards. For further information, telephone 415-557-2950 (Public Works Contract Coordinator) 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, Room 3236 DAS 13(Rev. 12/73)