The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem L ;January 10, 2000 l STAFF REPORT To: Mayor Yost and Members of the City Council Attention: Keith R. Till, City Manager From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Subject: APPROVAL OF RESPONSE LETTER RE: "DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR - BOLSA CHICA WATER TRANSMISSION LINE AND WASTEWATER SERVICE PROJECT" PREPARED BY CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMNIISSION (APPLICATION NOS. 98-11-003 AND 98-11-015) SUMMARY OF REQUEST Authorize Mayor to sign proposed Response Letter, and instruct staff to forward to Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. Receive and File Staff Report. DISCUSSION The City has received a copy of the "Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company (Application Nos. 98-11-003 and 98-11-015)", prepared by Aspen Environmental Group (AEG) for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). This document indicates the areas of potential environmental impacts of a proposed 6.7-mile underground water transmission line (98-11-003) to be constructed and maintained by Southern California Water Company (SCWC) to serve a proposed residential development, referred to as the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. The second application of SCWC (98-11-015) seeks approval to operate and maintain a wastewater collection system that would be constructed to serve the proposed residential development. AGENDA ITEM C:\My Documents\CEQA\Bolsa Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Staff Report.doc\LW\12-30-99 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:Drafi Supplemental E1R- Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company City Council Staff Report January 10, 2000 The underground water transmission line would consist of an 18" diameter iron pipe buried at a typical depth of 42 inches below the ground surface. At all utility and drain crossings, the pipeline will be laid at depths ranging from 5 feet to 10 feet. Crossings at major intersections are expected to be 10 to 15 feet in depth. The pipeline would terminate at a planned underground reservoir on the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site. The proposed pipeline has not been examined in any previous documents relating to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. An on-site sewage collection system is planned to serve the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. This aspect of the proposal includes local sewage collector lines, a sewage lift station, and a force main to connect to the facilities of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC). All sewage generated by the development will flow by gravity to the proposed sewage lift station where it will be pumped to an existing sewer in Los Patos Avenue. The CSDOC will provide sewage treatment and disposal services for the proposed residential development. The SCWC will operate and maintain the on-site wastewater collection facilities. These facilities were examined in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. The underground water line would extend from the SCWC's existing domestic water system in the City of Cypress to the site of the proposed Planned Community. The proposed route crosses through portions of the cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos, Garden Grove, Seal Beach, Westminster, and Huntington Beach. The proposed water line will terminate at a planned underground reservoir on the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site. The Draft Supplemental Environmental impact Report (DSEIR) completed by the CPUC indicates that significant unavoidable impacts to the existing environment may occur in each of the following areas: o Traffic and Circulation - Temporary reduction in service levels on local streets and intersections during construction o Air Quality - NO. emissions from construction activities would exceed the SCAQMD emission thresholds, and thus would be considered a short-term impact to local air quality conditions o Geology and Soils - Potential rupture of pipeline by stands of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone or by the potentially active Los Alamitos fault The comment period on the DSEIR will close on January 20, 2000. Due to the location of the proposed project, partially within the City of Seal Beach, the proposed project does appear to generate some environmental and/or economic impacts within the City of Seal Beach. Staff has prepared a response letter for the consideration of the City Council, provided as Attachment 1. This comment letter reflects review of the subject document by the Planning Department and the Bolsa Mica Water Line DEIR.CC Staff Report 2 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Draft Supplemental E1R- Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company City Council Staff Report January 10, 2000 Public Works Department and those comments made by the City regarding the "Notice of Preparation" for this project. Summary of Proposed Action and Environmental Impacts: Staff has provided as Attachment 2, the Table of Contents, Executive Summary, and Section D - Alternatives Description and Comparison, which provides an overview of the proposed project, the environmental setting, and a discussion of the various alternatives considered within the DSEIR. In addition, the DSEIR is available for review on the Internet and DSEIR Sections can be downloaded at the following address: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/divisions/energy/environmental/in fo/bol sa.htm A project website has been established to provide information on the proposed project and the CPUC environmental review process. The address of the project website is: http://wwwcpuc.ca.gov/di vi sion s/energy/environmental/info/aspen/bol sachica/bol sa.htm Comment Period: The comment period on the DSEIR will conclude on January 20, 2000. Written comments may be submitted to: Brad Wetstone, CPUC c/o Aspen Environmental Group 30423 Canwood Street, Suite 215 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (415) 703-2126 E-mail: bolsawater@Aspeneg.com Public Availability: A copy of the DSEIR is available at the Department of Development Services for review. Future City Actions: • Staff has prepared a response letter regarding the DSEIR for consideration of the City Council, which includes comments from the Planning and Public Works Departments (Refer to Attachment Bolas Chies Water Line DEIR.CC Staff Report 3 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:Draft Supplemental EIR- Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company City Council Staff Report January 10, 2000 1). Due to the comment period deadline of January 20, 2000, this document will not be reviewed by the Environmental Quality Control Board, as their next meeting is on January 26,2000. FISCAL IMPACT Some potential impacts due to proposed project, the staff-prepared comment letter addresses those economic issues identified by staff. At this time staff is uncertain as to any franchise requirements that might apply to the future construction of this project. Those issues will be resolved prior to any project construction activities within the City, assuming this project is approved by the CPUC. RECOMMENDATION Instruct Mayor to sign proposed Response Letter, and instruct staff to forward to Planning Commission and EQCB for information purposes. Receive and File Report. NOTED AND APPROVED t. L/i' Whittenberg, Director Keith R. Till i/ Development Services Departmen City Manager Attachments: (2) Attachment 1: Draft Response Letter re: "Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company (Application Nos. 98-11-003 and 98- 11-015)", draft letter dated January 10, 2000 Attachment 2: " Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Bolsa Chica Domestic Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company (Application Nos. 98-11-003 and 98-11-015)", prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission, by Aspen Environmental Group, December 1999 NOTE: Complete document not provided due to length, 377 pages. Provided are the Table of Contents, Executive Summary, Section D - Alternatives Description and Comparison Bolsa Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Staff Report 4 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:Draft Supplemental EIR— Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company City Council Staff Report January 10, 2000 ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT RESPONSE LETTER RE: "DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT — BOLSA CHICA WATER TRANSMISSION LINE AND WASTEWATER SERVICE PROJECT, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY (APPLICATION NOS. 98-11-003 AND 98-11-015)" Bolsa Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Staff Report 5 ,4 . . ` . `T > - 'Z : 'dJ '.,, `% : .F�-' ys:;Z4aR .V 641 '"y�t - :rr mh4f4 :.`.2„'•.-.",`",?:',.‘„:..- - q'' 'n � ' �' re n i • t 4 , a0.� ,teY �KP _ 7s '3i;.--‘,4F'. r ,-- ^-171:-'34:1'1'..V' >1Y2,. +4::5104w ��ki., -t+ r4 a " ? ws i vy4';x1-4"1-4,-.4 + .-%""---:.i, 3 .i°' ` .0 '+ d - , 'd: '.1:1,'N.','" a a :: yr7" ' 4 ,, � ` „_ ii pi-.• r $; �' j ,,'iia p S ' µ 4- , icd W e ,„ !, -i -4y .. 'l , �.44,44. 'V , � `Sh r , ' r* ' , I1 " r,iF... r y -4:". '.- ------, - T - ,,,c,".....,,, 4. o e--, t 1 ; .y 3 � ;' ;. � 'c � r� . `os ,,of r�•w ea Fa 4„. ; if*° ;t ?i i.).-r..,",,. r.�. . j t r ` ..--'1.4:%-;,c, raz . s+t ,, 3 ��,, y •✓ sfR y.1t n i '' JMo ), . ` .' '1Cue *�. �";4 ''' •,• y,+� 4cr ` *('aFta3•,4:''''':'::4.;,` � 'i:1 ;t,�� < . ; ,y *"e -,i1/441"4...}:. +y,�r.}i -y. �V�iT"i4� d� Cr..' ' January 10, 2000 Brad Wetstone, CPUC do Aspen Environmental Group 30423 Canwood Street, Suite 215 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: "DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT- BOLSA CHICA WATER TRANSMISSION LINE AND WASTEWATER SERVICE PROJECT, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY (APPLICATION NOS. 98-11-003 AND 98-11-015)", STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER SCH: 99071049 Dear Mr. Wetstone: The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("DSEIR") and has several comments relative to the document. The proposed project is partially within the City of Seal Beach and has the potential to cause direct and/or indirect impacts upon our community. Provided below are comments, concerns and responses to several issues identified within the "DSEIR". Project Coordination with Orange County Flood Control District: As indicated in the DSEIR and our comments regarding the Notice of Preparation, Orange Count Flood Control District is preparing to provide concrete lining of the Bolsa Chica Channel north of the SR-22 (Garden Grove Freeway). The City of Seal Beach requests both projects be coordinated to ensure the timely completion of both projects with minimum impacts to the environment. Project coordination would have the potential to reduce cumulative air quality, noise, traffic, and hydrology impacts. This issue is vitally important to the residents of Seal Beach, which adjoin the Bolsa Chica Channel, as they have experienced flooding during the winters of 1995, 1993 and 1992. C:\My Documents\CEQA\Bolsa Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Comment Letter.doc\LW\01-10-00 0 I ,e) City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental EIR-Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCH:99071049 January 10, 2000 Alternative 4 - North Seal Beach Wellfields: The City of Seal Beach would oppose the implementation of this alternative. The City has previously gone on record as being opposed to the Bolsa Chica project, and is therefore not in a position to support the use of the North Seal Beach Wellfields as a viable alternative to the proposed project. The City understands the use of the wellfield is not directly controlled by the City, but would strongly urge the California Public Utilities Commission to remove this alternative from further consideration during the EIR approval and project approval process. For the same reasons that the Westminster/Seal Beach Boulevard alternative was eliminated, the North Seal Beach Wellfield should be eliminated as well. The North Seal Beach Wellfield alternative will add one mile of additional street construction impacts over the proposed project. The proposed project alignment is within existing utility and non- roadway rights of way north of Lampson Avenue, whereas, the alternate alignment will effect one mile of Lampson Avenue and produce substantial traffic impacts. The proposed North Seal Wellfield falls within the jurisdiction of Seal Beach. The City of Seal Beach does not have any existing well facilities within the area shown on Figure D-2, page D-11. However, the City does intend to build a facility in the future near the location shown to improve reliability in our system that is north of the I-405 Freeway. The City's existing well facilities are located on Beverly Manor Road and on Old Bolsa Chica Road. Any future consideration of this alternative must include a detailed technical feasibility study that considers and complies with to the City's Water System Master Plan and the Orange County Water District 2020 Master Plan. Additional Comments regarding DSEIR document: The City of Seal Beach has the following additional comments regarding the DSEIR: o EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, Section ES.4 - ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED, pages ES-5: The third paragraph indicates the CPUC will be concerned with the cost of the proposed method of water and wastewater service provision to the ratepayer's in SCWC's West Orange County District. It would be helpful for an analysis of this issue to be available to the public for review and comment prior to the CPUC taking any action on the "Final Supplemental EIR" for this project. The public should be able to address not only the environmental, but also the economic impacts, of this project to the CPUC prior to any final actions being taken by the Commission. Bolas Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Comment Letter 2 ,....4 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental EIR-Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" • SCH:99071049 January 10, 2000 o EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, Section ES.5 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT, North Seal Beach Wellfields, pages ES-7: To maintain internal consistency of the document, this heading should be identified as "Alternative 4", consistent with the alternative identification on page D-13. o EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, Table ES-2 - SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, pages ES-9 through ES-14: As a general comment, the Table is very helpful in quickly reviewing the impacts and proposed mitigation measures of the proposed project. The City of Seal Beach favors the mitigation measures as presented, with concern regarding those measures discussed below. The City appreciates the response to our comments on the "Notice of Preparation" regarding the provisions of mitigation measures T-1, T-7, B-1, and PS-1. Regarding mitigation measure CR-4, on page ES-13, the City would request that avoidance of the site be seriously considered, as it would seem possible to re-route the proposed pipeline alignment to avoid significant impacts. o Section A, INTRODUCTION, Subsection A.7.2, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES, page A-11: The discussion under "NOP Responses" indicates that ". . . letters were received from agencies and organizations providing comments and suggestions regarding the scope of issues to be addressed in the SEIR." It would have been helpful to persons now reviewing the SEIR to be able to review a summary of those comments and suggestions to see how the SEIR responds to those comments and suggestions. A summary could easily be prepared as part of Appendix 2, and would have been most beneficial in reviewing the SEIR document. Please provide the requested summary in the Final SEIR as part of Appendix 2. o Section B, DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, Subsection B.6.1, DOMESTIC WATER TRANSMISSION LINE, Segment 5, page B-13: The discussion under "Segment 5" indicates the pipeline crosses the I-405/SR 22 freeways and associated Caltrans right-of way. The City of Seal Beach would request the ability to further discuss with the project proponent the installation of additional sleeve piping to allow the City at a later date to utilized this sleeve piping for installation of additional water service lines to provide a loop system within the northern portion of the City. Bolsa Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Comment Letter 3 1 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental EIR-Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCH:99071049 January 10, 2000 o Section B, DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, Subsection B.6.1, DOMESTIC WATER TRANSMISSION LINE, page B-9: The discussion under "Projected Water Demand", second paragraph indicates "The daily flow required by the local fire protection agency is 3,500 gpm." In contrast, page B-18, the last sentence of the first paragraph states, "The fire flow requirement is 3000 gpm/4 hours." Please address the apparent inconsistency of the two statements or provide explanatory language regarding these figures. o Section B, DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, Subsection B.9, INTENDED USES OF THE EIR AND ANTICIPATED PUBLIC AGENCY ACTIONS, Table B.9-1, Required Permits and Approvals, page B-38: The required permit from the City of Seal Beach is a "Public Works Permit". Please correct Table B.9-1 as requested. This "Public Works Permit" will not be issued until all appropriate provisions of the Code of the City of Seal Beach are met. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.1, Am QUALITY, subsection C.1.2.3 Construction Impacts, page C.1-10 and 11: The discussion does not include any consideration of construction-related air quality impacts to any identified CO "Hot Spots" along the proposed pipeline alignment. As indicated in our earlier comments on the "Notice of Preparation", given the existing levels of traffic congestion at the I-405/SR- 22/Valley View/Bolsa Chica intersections, the EIR should evaluate impacts of project construction upon existing LOS levels and determine if the increased construction -related air emissions will either result in a CO "Hot Spot" at this intersection complex or significantly impact any existing CO "Hot Spots" at this intersection complex. In addition, the Air Quality analysis should determine impacts upon any other identified CO "Hot Spots" along the proposed pipeline alignment. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.1, Am QUALITY, page C.1-13: The discussion after Mitigation Measure A-9 indicates "It should be noted that the maximum daily and quarterly emissions levels could be reduced by limiting the number of construction spreads to only two spreads operating concurrently, instead of the proposed three-spread schedule. This would essentially lengthen the construction schedule and reduce the quarterly and daily construction levels to below the SCAQMD emission thresholds." Although the City generally favors Bolsa Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Comment Letter 4 aCl A City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental EIR-Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCH:99071049 January 10, 2000 actions that would reduce air quality impacts to levels below SCAQMD emission thresholds, the City would urge the project proponent to proceed with the three- spread construction schedule. The tree-spread schedule will result in less cumulative short-term traffic impacts on the impacted street right-of-ways, thereby reducing traffic congestion. The reduced traffic congestion will result in significant air quality emission reductions over the entire construction period of the project. ❑ Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.2, NOISE, page C.2- 4 through C.2-6, Table C.2-2 Measured Ambient Noise Levels along the Proposed Pipeline Route, and Figure C.2-3, Monitoring and Sensitive Receptor Locations Along the Proposed and Alternative Alignments and Table C.2-3 Sensitive Receptors Along the Proposed Pipeline Route: The referenced Table indicates 8 measurement locations, while Figure C.2-3 indicates a total of 17 noise monitoring locations, 9 of which are along the alternative routes. It would seem appropriate to provide the noise monitoring information for all 17 monitored locations within Table C.2-2 and to provide information regarding all 14 identified sensitive receptors within Table C.2-3. In addition, it would be extremely helpful to provide CNEL information for all Tables and Figures within this section of the document as well as in Section D, ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND COMARISON. CNEL is the common noise measurement system utilized by local governments within this region, and the CNEL information would allow for a better understanding of the existing ambient noise levels and of the impacts of the project upon those CNEL noise levels. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.3, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, page C.3-9, Route 60: The description of this route indicates it is in the City of Westminster. The route extends into the City of Seal Beach and this should be indicated in this paragraph. This same comment is applicable to page C.3-16, under similar discussion on Route 60. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.3, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, subsection C.3.2.2, Impacts of the Proposed Water Transmission Line, Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2, page C.3-12: The City had requested in its comments on the NOP to be able to review and approve traffic control plans and haul route plans. These mitigation measures Bolsa Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Comment Luer 5 A City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental EIR-Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCH:99071049 January 10, 2000 adequately addresses our concerns and the City of Seal Beach supports the imposition of these mitigation measures. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.3, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, subsection C.3.2.2, Impacts of the Proposed Water Transmission Line, Impacts on Local Development Access, Bolsa Chica Road —Rancho Road to Old Bolsa Chica Road, page C.3-13: This section provides an overview of transportation impacts along this segment of Bolsa Chica Road. The description and discussion needs to be revised to reflect the following concerns of the City: o The City's Bolsa Chica Well Site is accessed from Old Bolsa Chica Road and will be impacted. Provisions for access will be a requirement within the City's Public Works Permit. o The terminus of Old Bolsa Chica Road at the freeway is a primary access for the farming operation on the Naval Weapons Station. o The terminus of Old Bolsa Chica Road also serves as access to the utility easement (formerly Garden Grove Boulevard right of way) which parallels the I-405 from Seal Beach Boulevard and contains telephone and gas transmission facilities. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.4, ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION, subsection C.4.1.1 Environmental Baseline, Existing Contamination Sites Along the Pipeline ROW page C.4-6, first paragraph: The referenced paragraph indicates no environmental contamination was revealed by a database search at any of these sites, including the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center. The U. S. Naval Weapons Station, and the Boeing Company Huntington Beach Facility. This statement is incorrect relative to the Naval Weapons Station. There are numerous sites within the Naval Weapons Station undergoing various stages of remediation activity. Please contact Pei-Fen Tamashiro, Installation Restoration Coordinator, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, at (562) 626-7897 to obtain information regarding the ongoing installation restoration activities at the Naval Weapons Station. If the intent of the subject paragraph is to indicate there are no identified sites within the stated facilities that would have the potential to be impacted by the project, the paragraph should be clarified. Otherwise, there should be additional language provided regarding the various Installation Restoration activities of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.4, ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION, subsection C.4.2.2 Construction Impacts, page C.4-9 and C.4-10, Mitigation Measures EC-1, EC-2, EC-3 and EC-4: I Bolsa Chica Water Line DEtR.CC Comment Letter 6 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental EIR-Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCH:99071049 January 10, 2000 The referenced mitigation measures indicates "low", "medium" and "high" potential sites for environmental contamination shall be reevaluated by a qualified and approved environmental consultant, with the results reviewed and approved by the appropriate County Health Department or Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) prior to construction and also discuss the preparation of "contingency" plans if necessary. The City of Seal Beach requests the opportunity to review and provide comments to the appropriate approval agency on any such reports prepared regarding environmental contamination sites within our city limits. Please have any such documents, including evaluation plans, excavation plans, health and safety plans, site closeout reports, contingency plans, etc., forwarded to Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 for review and comment to the appropriate reviewing agency. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.4, ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION, subsection C.4.2.2 Construction Impacts, page C.4-9 and C.4-10, Mitigation Measures EC-1, EC-2, EC-3 and EC-4: The referenced mitigation measures, at the conclusion of mitigation measure EC-3 and EC-4, indicates additional actions that may be taken regarding the preparation of health and safety plans (paragraph following mitigation measure EC-3) and contingency plans (paragraph following mitigation measure EC-4). The format of these paragraphs make it unclear if these paragraphs are to be incorporated into the preceding respective mitigation measure. It appears from the language of these paragraphs that is the intent. It is requested that these paragraphs be clearly incorporated into the preceding respective mitigation measure, as the provisions of the subject paragraphs seem to directly relate to the preceding respective mitigation measure. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.4, ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION, subsection C.4.3 REFERENCES, page C.4-11: The reference is to a report titled "The EDR Corridor Study Report, Bolsa Chica Waterline #1", prepared by Environmental Data Resources, dated October 1999. The City requests a copy of the referenced report for our information and files, as it would provide useful background information regarding potential and existing environmental contamination sites within our City. Please provide a copy of the 0 EDR report to Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 for our files. I Bolas Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Comment Letter 7 • City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental EIR-Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCH:99071049 January 10, 2000 o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Section C-5, GEOLOGY AND SOILS, Subsection C.5.1.1, Environmental Baseline, Fault Rupture, first paragraph, fourth sentence, page C.5-3 and continuing to page C.5-4: The sentence discusses the location of ". . . projected trace of the Los Alamitos fault intersects the pipeline at the intersection of the 405 Freeway and Winchester Avenue." Please verify the street name and correct as appropriate; it is probably "Westminster Avenue. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.5, GEOLOGY AND SOILS, subsection C.5.3 REFERENCES, page C.5-13 and C.5-14: The references include two reports prepared by Toro International, titled "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Bolsa Chica Pipeline Segment 1" and "Geotechnical Memorandum, Proposed Pipe Jacking Underneath Freeways 405 and 22, Bolsa Chica Pipeline Segment 2", dated 1998. The City requests a copy of the referenced reports for our information and files, as they could provide useful background information regarding potential geologic issues within our City. Please provide a copy of the indicated Toro International reports to Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 for our files. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.6, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY, subsection C.6.2.2 Construction Impacts, page C.6- 16: The third paragraph indicates dewatering may be required if shallow groundwater or perched aquifers are encountered. This paragraph also indicates that compliance with a construction-related NPDES Dewatering permit, in addition to the applicant's existing commitments, will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. There is no indication of what are the "applicant's existing commitments". Those commitments should be presented either in the appropriate subsections of Section C or as an appendix, so the reviewing public may fully understand the extent of those "existing commitments". It would seem appropriate to include mitigation measures relative to obtaining and complying with all NPDES Permit requirements and specifying the "applicant's existing commitments" as mitigation measures. Setting forth these additional mitigation measures will fully respond to the concerns of the City of Seal Beach regarding water table impact issues set forth in our response letter to the Notice of Preparation. The City again requests the ability to review and comment on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prior to the completion of that plan. Bolsa C,ica Water Line DEIR.CC Comment Letter 8 I City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental EIR-Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCH: 99071049 January 10, 2000 o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.7, CULTURAL RESOURCES, subsection C.7.2.2 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS, Mitigation Measure CR-1, CR-2, CR-3 and CR-4 pages C.7-14 through CR.7-16: Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires a "SCWC shall provide a qualified archaeological monitor at excavations for the proposed pipeline where it passes through areas of moderate to high sensitivity for prehistoric and historic resources". Given the potential to encounter buried deposits along the proposed pipeline route, as evidenced by our comments and documentation provided in response to the Notice of Preparation, it is requested that a qualified Native American monitor also be present during these excavation activities, as is proposed in Mitigation Measure CR-2. It is also requested that the archaeological and Native American monitor be present during "all excavation activities, including areas identified as having a low sensitivity for prehistoric and historic resources". The City had previously requested that a Phase I Site Survey of the Old Bolsa Chica Road area and the Bolsa Chica Channel should be undertaken in preparation of the EIR, at a minimum. The City is disappointed that request was not acted upon in the preparation of the DSEIR document, and is therefore requesting the modification to the language of this mitigation measure to provide a Native American monitor presence during excavation activities in all areas of excavation. The City of Seal Beach supports the language and intent of Mitigation Measures CR-2 through CR-4, which provides for both a qualified archaeological monitor and a Native American monitor at excavations within the vicinity of prehistoric site CA-ORA-83/86/144, CA-ORA 84/85/288 and the area of the pipeline connection to the underground reservoir on Bolsa Chica mesa. In addition, the City of Seal Beach supports the required formal testing program in the area of the pipeline connection to the underground reservoir on Bolsa Chica mesa. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.7, CULTURAL RESOURCES, subsection C.7.3 BIBLIOGRAPHY, page C.7-19: The bibliography includes a report prepared by McKenna et al., titled "Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed SCWC Bolsa Chica Waterline and Wastewater Service Project, City of Huntington Beach and Unincorporated Orange County, California", dated 1999. The City requests a copy of the referenced reports for our information and files, as they could provide useful background information regarding potential cultural resource sites within our City. Please provide a copy of the indicated McKenna et al. report to Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 for Bolsa Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Comment Letter 9 1 / City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental EIR-Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCH:99071049 January 10, 2000 our files. The City of Seal Beach has an Archaeological Advisory Committee that reviews and makes recommendations to out City Council regarding impacts to cultural resource sites within our community, and this document should be available for their information as they may review other areas within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station in the future. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.8, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, subsection C.8.2.2 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS, Mitigation Measure B-1, page C.8-8: The City of Seal Beach supports the language and intent of Mitigation Measures B- 1, which provides for a biological survey of the area along Old Bolsa Chica Road if construction is to take place between May 15 and August 15. The intent of this mitigation measure is to protect territorial pairs or nests of a bird listed under the Migratory Bird Act (Title 50) of the Code of Federal Regulations. a Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.9, LAND USE AND RECREATION, subsection C.9.1.1 Land Use, Segment 4, Land Use, page C.9-10: The paragraph indicates the residential precinct to the west of the proposed alignment is referred to as "College Park West". That is incorrect, the area is referred to as "College Park East"; please correct all references accordingly. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.9, LAND USE AND RECREATION, subsection C.9.1.2 Recreation, City of Seal Beach, page C.9-13: The paragraph indicates an "aquatic regional park" is located on the Naval Weapons Station. That is incorrect, the area is referred to as "Sunset Marina" and is owned by the County of Orange on property not within the Naval Weapons Station; please correct all references accordingly. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.10, PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES, subsection C.10.1.1 Public Services, Fire Protection, page C.10-1: The first paragraph of this subsection indicates four cities - Cypress, Los Alamitos, Seal Beach and Westminster - are served by the "Orange County Fire Department (OCFD)". The agency designation is incorrect, the agency is referred to as the "Orange County FFre Authority (OCFA)"; please correct all references accordingly. Boles Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Comment Letter 10 • • 1 . City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental EIR-Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCH: 99071049 January 10, 2000 o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.10, PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES, subsection C.10.1.1 Public Services, Libraries, Table C.10-4, Libraries in the Proposed Project Area, page C.10-7: This table indicates the Los Alamitos/Rossmoor Library is within the City of Los Alamitos. The city location is incorrect. Although the library primarily serves the City of Los Alamitos and the unincorporated community of Rossmoor, it is located within the City of Seal Beach; please correct all references accordingly within Table C.10-4 and the accompanying city descriptions on page C.10-8 for Los Alamitos and Seal Beach. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.10, PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES, subsection C.10.1.2 Utilities, Table C.10-5, Utilities Adjacent to the Proposed Route Alignment by Segment, page C.10-10: Please add the City of Seal Beach 12" water transmission line to the Segment 6 parallel facilities, west side of Old Bolsa Chica Road o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.10, PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES, subsection C.10.2.3 Construction Impacts, Mitigation Measure PS-1, page C.10-15: The City of Seal Beach requests this mitigation measure be enhanced to specify that all potentially affected agencies be notified since the project primarily occurs along common city boundaries. As an example, the Seal Beach Police Department and other emergency services often utilize Bolsa Chica Road to access Old Bolsa Chica Road and the College Park East neighborhood. The City of Seal Beach supports this mitigation measure, as requested to be amended, as it responds to a concern of the City expressed in our comments regarding the Notice of Preparation and the above comments. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.10, PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES, subsection C.10.2.3 Construction Impacts, Utilities, page C.10-16: No mitigation measure is proposed to reduce potential utility service disruptions during construction activities. The City request formulation of an additional mitigation measure to prevent potential disruptions of water and other utility service and to protect from potential accidental damage to those utilities. As an example, the City of Seal Beach could be severely impacted regarding access to the City's Bolsa Chica Well site on Old Bolsa Chica Road. This well site is a Bolsa Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Comment Letter 11 ti City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental EIR-Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCH:99071049 January 10, 2000 critical link in the City's water system and access to this site must be preserved. In addition, much of the work in Segment 6 will be in the vicinity of Seal Beach water transmission lines. Again, the City must be notified when work is occurring in this area to ensure a timely emergency response if necessary. The City of Seal Beach strongly requests a mitigation measure similar to PS-1 be required to specify that all potentially affected public utility agencies be notified since the project primarily occurs along common city boundaries, which quite often contain many different service provider lines. o Section D, ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS, Subsection D.1.3, SUMMARY OF SCREENING RESULTS, Table D.1-1, Alternatives Screening Recommendations, page D-4: For the same reasons that the Westminster/Seal Beach Boulevard alternative was eliminated, the North Seal Beach Wellfield should be eliminated as well. The North Seal Beach Wellfield alternative will add one mile of additional street construction impacts over the proposed project. The proposed project alignment is within existing utility and non-roadway rights of way north of Lampson Avenue, whereas, the alternate alignment will effect one mile of Lampson Avenue and produce substantial traffic impacts. o Section D, ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS, Subsection D.1.4.3, Westminster Avenue/Seal Beach Boulevard, page D-8: The second paragraph of this subsection discusses the potential of utilizing an onsite groundwater well as a supplemental water source. This paragraph seems to be inappropriate for the discussion of the above alternative, which discusses potential use of the West Los Alamitos Wellfield as a source of water. Please review and remove or revise paragraph to clarify the intent of the paragraph in relation to the subject alternative. o Section D, ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS, Subsection D.2, ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR COMPARATIVE EVALUATION, Figure D-2, Route Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR, page D-11: This Table indicates a route alternative of "Bolsa Chica channel" being evaluated in the EIR, which is not the case. The "Bolsa Chica Channel" alternative is indicated on page D-4 as an "Alternative Eliminated from Further Consideration". Please revise Figure D-2 accordingly. o Section D, ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS, Subsection D.2.4, ALTERNATIVE 4: NORTH SEAL BEACH WELLFIELD, pages D-13 and 14: Bolsa Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Comment Letter 12 al i City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental EIR-Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCH:99071049 January 10, 2000 The proposed North Seal Wellfield falls within the jurisdiction of Seal Beach. The City of Seal Beach does not have any existing well facilities within the area shown on Figure D-2, page D-11. However, the City does intend to build a facility in the future near the location shown to improve reliability in our system that is north of the I-405 Freeway. The City's existing well facilities are located on Beverly Manor Road and on Old Bolsa Chica Road. Any future consideration of this alternative must include a detailed technical feasibility study that considers and complies with to the City's Water System Master Plan and the Orange County Water District 2020 Master Plan. o Appendix 1, Pipeline Route Segment Maps, Sheet 2 of 19, Water Transmission Line Route Maps, page 1-2: This Sheet indicates "City Boundaries" between the cities of Cypress and Los Angeles. The city boundaries should be between Cypress and "Los Alamitos", please correct as appropriate. o Appendix 1, Pipeline Route Segment Maps, Sheet 5 of 19, Water Transmission Line Route Maps, page 1-5: This Sheet indicates "City Boundaries" between the cities of Garden Grove, Seal Beach and Los Alamitos, north of Lampson Avenue. The city boundaries do not appear to be correct, please review and correct as appropriate. In addition, there is a City-owned 12" water line located in the Bolsa Chica channel at the I-405/22 Freeway. Particular attention needs to be given to the protection of the integrity of that line during the water line installation. The City requests the ability to review project construction plans prior to initiation of construction activities in the immediate area of the water line to ensure adequate protection of this water line. In addition, as requested in our response letter regarding the Notice of Preparation, the City would request imposition of a mitigation measure requiring SCWC to provide an emergency connection between their proposed water transmission line and this existing City water transmission line. The usefulness of an emergency connection cannot be understated in providing the ability for the City and SCWC to better respond in an emergency situation with the existence of the requested emergency interconnection. The City Council considered and discussed the DSEIR document on January 10, 2000. The City Council authorized the Mayor to sign this letter indicating the official comments of the City of Seal Beach. I 4 Bolsa Chic&Water Line DE[R.CC Comment Letter 13 i 1 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental EIR-Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line ' and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCH:99071049 January 10, 2000 Upon the preparation of the Final EIR for this project, please send two (2) copies to Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740. Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. If you have questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Whittenberg at (562) 431-2527, extension 313. He will be most happy to provide any additional information or to provide clarification of the matters discussed in this comment letter Sincerely, ....i0a_t_. V ' Paul Yost, Mayor City of Seal Beach Distribution: Seal Beach City Council City Manager Seal Beach Planning Commission Director of Development Services Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee Boles Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Comment Letter 14 l City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:Draft Supplemental EJR— Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company City Council Staff Report January 10, 2000 ATTACHMENT 2 "Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Bolsa Chica Domestic Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company (Application Nos. 98-11-003 and 98-11-015)", prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission, by Aspen Environmental Group, December 1999 NOTE: Complete document not provided due to length, 377 pages. Provided are the Table of Contents, Executive Summary, and Section D - Alternatives Description and Comparison Bolsa Chica Water Line DEIR.CC Staff Report 2 0 4 .y DRAFT Supplemental Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number: 99071049 BOLSA CHICA WATER TRANSMISSION LINE AND WASTEWATER SERVICE PROJECT Prepared for: California Public Utilities Commission CITY OF SEJ-i.8c-4.0'4 DEC 61999 Prepared by: ' Aspen Environmental Group- ° SERVICES Application Numbers: 98-11-003 and 98-015 December 1999 BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 A. INTRODUCTION A.1 Purpose and Authority A-i A.2 CPUC Regulatory Authority A-1 A.3 Lead and Responsible Agencies A-2 A.4 Project Background A-2 A.5 Overview of the EIR Process A-6 A.6 CPUC Application Process A-8 A.7 Public Participation A-10 A.8 Focus of Analysis A-11 A.9 EIR Content and Organization A-12 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION B.1 Introduction B-1 B.2 Project Overview B-i B.3 Project Location B-2 B.4 Project Applicant B-2 B.5 Project Objectives B-5 B.6 Project Components B-6 B.6.1 Domestic Water Transmission Line B-6 B.6.2 On-site Water Facilities B-16 B.6.3 Wastewater Collection Facilities B-20 B.7 Project Construction B-24 B.7.1 Domestic Water Transmission Line B-24 B.7.2 On-site Water Facilities B-33 B.7.3 Wastewater Collection Facilities B-36 B.8 Operation and Maintenance B-36 B.8.1 Domestic Water Transmission Line B-36 B.8.2 On-site Water Facilities B-36 B.8.3 Wastewater Collection Facilities B-37 B.9 Intended Uses of the EIR and Anticipated Agency Actions B-37 B.10 References B-38 C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS C-1 C.1 Air Quality C.l-1 C.1.1 Environmental Baseline and Regulatory Setting C.1-1 C.1.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures C.1-8 C.1.3 References C.1-14 C.2 Noise C.2-1 C.2.1 Environmental Baseline and Regulatory Setting C.2-1 C.2.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures C.2-9 C.2.3 References C.2-13 C.3 Traffic and Circulation C.3-1 C.3.1 Environmental Baseline and Regulatory Setting C.3-1 December 1999 i Draft EIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE C.3.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures C.3-10 C.4 Environmental Contamination C.4-1 C.4.1 Environmental Baseline and Regulatory Setting C.4-1 C.4.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures C.4-7 C.4.3 References C.4-11 C.5 Geology and Soils C.5-1 C.5.1 Environmental Baseline and Regulatory Setting C.5-1 C.5.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures C.5-9 C.5.3 References C.5-13 C.6 Hydrology and Water Quality C.6-1 C.6.1 Environmental Baseline and Regulatory Setting C.6-1 C.6.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures C.6-13 C.6.3 References C.6-19 C.7 Cultural Resources C.7-1 C.7.1 Environmental Baseline and Regulatory Setting C.7-1 C.7.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures C.7-13 C.7.3 Bibliography C.7-17 C.8 Biological Resources C.8-1 C.8.1 Environmental Baseline and Regulatory Setting C.8-1 C.8.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures C.8-6 C.8.3 References C.8-9 C.9 Land Use and Recreation C.9-1 C.9.1 Environmental Baseline and Regulatory Setting C.9-1 C.9.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures C.9-14 C.9.3 References C.9-17 C.10 Public Services and Utilities C.10-1 C.10.1 Environmental Baseline and Regulatory Setting C.10-1 C.10.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures C.10-12 C.10.3 References C.10-18 D. ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON D.1 Alternatives Process Overview D-1 D.2 Alternatives Selected For Comparative Evaluation D-10 D.3 No Project Alternative D-14 D.4 Comparative Impact Analysis of Alternatives D-15 D.5 Conclusion D-42 D.6 References D-42 E. EFFECTS OF WATER DISTRIBUTION AND WASTEWATER COLLECTION FACILITIES..E-1 F. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS F-1 G. LIST OF PREPARERS G-1 December 1999 ii Draft EIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE H. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED H-1 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Pipeline Route Segment Maps Appendix 2: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study Appendix 3: Scoping Meeting Notices Appendix 4: Air Quality Calculations Appendix 5: Storm and Dry Weather Monitoring: Huntington Watershed and Huntington Harbour LIST OF TABLES ES-1 Summary of Project Components ES-3 ES-2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ES-9 B.6-1 Detailed Route Description B-10 B.7-1 Pipeline Construction Schedule B-26 B.7-2 Equipment Inventory B-27 B.7-3 Pipe Jacking Locations B-33 B.9-1 Required Permits and Approvals B-37 C.1-1 Monthly Temperatures and Precipitation C.1-1 C.1-2 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards C.1-4 C.1-3 Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Pollutants C.1-5 C.1-4 Attainment Status of South Coast Air Basin C.1-5 C.1-5 Air Quality Summary C.1-6 C.1-6 SCAQMD Threshold of Significance for Construction Emission C.1-9 C.1-7 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance for Operational Emissions C.1-9 C.1-8 Applicant Proposed Measures for Air Quality C.1-10 C.1-9 Estimated Maximum Daily Pipeline Construction Emissions C.1-11 C.1-10 Estimated Quarterly Pipeline Construction Emissions C.1-11 C.1-11 Impact and Mitigation Summary - Air Quality C.1-14 C.2-1 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry C.2-1 C.2-2 Measured Ambient Noise Levels Along the Proposed Pipeline Route C.2-4 C.2-3 Sensitive Receptors Along the Proposed Pipeline Route C.2-6 C.2-4 Summary of Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety C.2-6 C.2-5 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment C.2-7 C.2-6 Local Agency Ordinance Limits by Land Use C.2-8 C.2-7 Applicant Proposed Measures for Noise C.2-10 C.2-8 Noise Emission Characteristics of Construction Equipment C.2-11 C.2-9 Impact and Mitigation Summary - Noise C.2-13 C.3-1 Impact and Mitigation Summary - Traffic and Circulation C.3-19 C.4-1 Contaminated Properties Impact Criteria C.4-3 C.4-2 Hazardous Waste Sites With Potential To Impact the Proposed Project C.4-4 December 1999 iii Draft EIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES (continued) C.4-3 Impact and Mitigation Summary - Environmental Contamination C.4-11 C.5-1 Significant Active Faults C.5-3 C.5-2 Modified Mercalli Scale C.5-4 C.5-3 Historic Earthquakes C.5-7 C.5-4 Impact and Mitigation Summary- Geology and Soils C.5-13 C.6-1 Daily Precipitation Data from Santa Ana, PRFD Station#121 C.6-2 C.6-2 Expected Value Discharges for Bolsa Chica Channel (CO2), San Diego Freeway to Cerritos Avenue C.6-7 C.6-3 Expected Value Discharges for Bolsa Chica Channel (CO2) San Diego Freeway to Huntington Harbor Outlet C.6-7 C.6-4 Discharges for Anaheim-Barber City Channel C.6-8 C.6-5 Impact and Mitigation Summary- Hydrology and Water Quality C.6-18 C.7-1 Refined Coastal Chronology as Defined by Mason and Peterson (1994) C.7-3 C.7-2 Summary of Impact and Mitigation - Cultural Resources C.7-17 C.8-1 Impact and Mitigation Summary- Biological Resources C.8-9 C.9-1 Waterline Length by Jurisdiction C.9-2 C.9-2 Jurisdiction by Population and Median Income C.9-2 C.9-3 Impact and Mitigation Summary - Land Use C.9-16 C.10-1 Fire Stations Serving The Project Area C.10-2 C.10-2 Police Departments By City C.10-4 C.10-3 Schools and School Districts in the Proposed Project Area C.10-5 C.10-4 Libraries in the Proposed Project Area C.10-7 C.10-5 Utilities Adjacent to the Proposed Route Alignment by Segment C.10-10 C.10-6 Impact and Mitigation Summary - Public Service and Utilities C.10-18 D.1-1 Alternatives Screening Recommendations D-4 D.4-1 Measured Ambient Noise Levels Along the Anaheim-Barber City Channel Diagonal Alternative Route D-19 D.4-2 Sensitive Receptors Along Anaheim-Barber City Channel Diagonal Alternative Route D-20 D.4-3 Anaheim-Barber City Channel Diagonal Alternative Hazardous Waste Sites With Potential to Impact the Project D-24 D.4-4 Measured Ambient Noise Levels Along the Springdale Street/Graham Street Route D-28 D.4-5 Sensitive Receptors Along the Springdale Street/Graham Street Route D-28 D.4-6 Springdale Street/Graham Street Alternative Hazardous Waste Sites With Potential to Impact the Project D-33 D.4-7 Measured Ambient Noise Levels Along the North Seal Beach Wellfields Route D-37 D.4-8 Sensitive Receptors Along the North Seal Beach Wellfields Route D.37 D.4-9 North Seal Beach Wellfields Alternative Hazardous Waste Sites D-39 D.5-1 Impact Significance of Alternatives D-43 D.5-2 Comparison of Alternatives D-44 F-1 Cumulative Projects List F-4 December 1999 iv Draft EIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES ES-1 Proposed Water Transmission Line Route ES-2 B-i Regional Location B-3 B-2 Proposed Water Transmission Line Route B-4 B-3 Butterfly Valve Detail B-7 B-4 Steel Casing Beneath Railroad Crossing B-8 B-5 Water Line Route Segments B-12 B-6 Proposed Onsite Water Storage and Distribution Facilities B-17 B-7 Onsite Underground Reservoir Site Plan B-19 B-8 Proposed Wastewater Collection Facilities B-22 B-9 Sewage Lift Station Site Plan B-23 B-10 Construction Segment Map B-25 B-11 Pipeline Construction Diagram(Typical) B-29 B-12 Typical Pipeline Trenching/Bedding Diagram B-31 B-13 Conventional Boring Operation B-34 C.1-1 South Coast Air Basin C.1-2 C.1-2 Wind Rose for Newport Beach C.1-3 C.2-1 Typical Range Of Common Sounds C.2-2 C.2-2 Examples of Outdoor Day-Night Average Sound Levels C.2-3 C.2-3 Monitoring and Sensitive Receptor Locations Along the Proposed and Alternative Alignments C.2-5 C.3-1 Roadway System Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls C.3-3 C.3-2 1999 Daily Traffic Volumes C.3-4 C.3-3 Existing Transit Routes C.3-8 C.4-1 Hazardous Waste Sites with Potential to Impact the Proposed Project C.4-5 C.5-1 Known Active and Potentially Active Faults C.5-5 C.6-1 City of Huntington Beach Flood Hazard Areas C.6-3 C.6-2 Watershed Boundaries C.6-4 C.6.3 Watersheds and Drainage Channels in Project Area C.6-5 C.6-4 Huntington Watershed - Storm and Dry Weather Monitoring Location Map C.6-10 C.6-5 Water Quality Sampling Site Location Map - Huntington Harbour C.6-11 C.7-1 Quad Maps for Cultural Resources Records Check C.7-6 C.9-1 Aerial Photograph of Project Area C.9-3 D-1 Alternative Pipeline Routes Considered D-5 D-2 Route Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR D-11 December 1999 V Draft E1R } 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section provides an overview of the Proposed Project and its objectives, and summarizes the potential impacts anticipated as a result of project implementation. A summary table identifies these impacts and lists the mitigation measures recommended to reduce significant adverse impacts. The alternatives considered in the EIR are also briefly described. For a full description of the proposed project, its impacts, and alternatives, the reader is referred to Sections B, C, and D of the EIR, respectively. ES.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Proposed Project results from the filing of two applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCNs) with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The first CPCN application (A.98-11-003) requests approval to construct and operate a water transmission line in western Orange County to supply domestic water to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community, a proposed residential development project on Bolsa Chica Mesa. The second application (A.98-11-015) requests approval for the designation of the project applicant (Southern California Water Company) as the wastewater management agency for the proposed residential development project. Southern California Water Company (SCWC) proposes to construct an underground water transmission line to deliver water to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site, located at the southerly terminus of Bolsa Chica Street in unincorporated territory (see Section B.3 for a description of the project location). The water line would extend from the SCWC's existing domestic water system in the City of Cypress to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site (a total distance of approximately 6.7 miles), terminating at a 4-million gallon underground water storage reservoir to be constructed on the residential development site (see Figure ES-1). Additional water facilities planned for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site include a distribution pump station, a backbone water distribution system, and a groundwater well with wellhead treatment facilities. These on-site water distribution facilities were previously subject to environmental review in the 1996 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program (County of Orange, 1996; see Section A.4). The proponent for the planned residential development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa is Hearthside Homes, Inc. An on-site sewage collection system is planned to serve the Bolsa Chica Planned Community, including local sewage collector lines, a sewage lift station, and a force main required to connect to the facilities of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC). All sewage generated by the residential development would flow by gravity to the proposed sewage lift station where it would be pumped to an existing CSDOC 21-inch trunk sewer located in Los Patos Avenue. CSDOC would provide sewage treatment and disposal services for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. SCWC would operate and maintain the on-site wastewater collection facilities. The on-site wastewater facilities were previously examined in the 1996 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program (County of Orange, 1996; see Section A.4). December 1999 ES-1 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE A.NTJ WASTEWATER PROJECT Executive Summary 1 i 1 CYPRESS ! STANTON •_ _ 1 LOS ALAMITOS •- • ! ROSSMOOR I Orangewcod •! I I Los Alamitos > Chapman ! 1._._ _ I I. Armed Forces u _ GARDEN ; 1.1 •—•I Reserve Center > GROVE Lampson ! .-.- i ! i I 405 r Garsieri�}ave Blvd. v / -a ce 22 > co E. U 1- Trask R SEAL BEACH ti d to WES MINSTER m o 39 To m w Westminster Westminster 0 mr �-�-• �1 _ • PROPOSED �o ! Hazard - BOLSA CHICA 1 s DOMESTIC WATER i c r--- TRANSMISSION LINE I Bolsa_ to . -�. �.—._.I �' Seal Beach �1i� • /~ Navy Weapons Station McFadden I._._. i _ 1 a ! '/ .%,� HUNTINGTON / 1 ill — i ; i BEACH Edinger 1, \ P.\ / R'' E L \ n; '1 v L + O `• ,S S- s o w a = Heil — - U Cf s N\ '✓ mth d cn Pacific m 0 Warner '__- Los �; Ocean \ �t__1 los c\ i; / / �/ ' \\ �/ Slater • • ,, . `~� Bolsa Chica Water Line OLSA CHICA PLANED and Wastewater Project COMMUNITY SITE Figure ES-1 N 0 1 1/2 Proposed Water �.4.,,_ IlliMOIN � Transmission r70 Line Route Scale in Miles Aspen Enuvonmental Group December 1999 ES-2 Draft SEIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LmrE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT Executive Summary The EIR for the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program was certified by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on December 14, 1994. Although the Board's certification was challenged by the_Bolsa Chica Land Trust (Bolsa Chica Land Trust et al. v. County of Orange. Superior Court No. 741344), the Orange County Superior Court on February 16, 1996, rejected the challenge, but ordered that the EIR be re-circulated with an amended project description. Since certification of the EIR in 1994, the Bolsa Chica Planned Community project has been reduced in scale. The 1996 LCP would allow the development of up to 2,500 dwelling units on the Mesa (County of Orange, 1996), while the latest configuration of the proposal involves approximately 1,235 dwelling units (SCWC 1999). Following litigation over the LCP, the California Court of Appeal has remanded the Bolsa Chica LCP back to the California Coastal Commission for consideration. Reconsideration of the LCP may result in a further reduction in the number of units to be constructed on the Mesa. Since the California Coastal Commission had not yet adopted any changes to the LCP at the time this EIR was prepared, the dimensions of any additional changes are not known at this time. Although changes to the development plan for the Bolsa Chica Mesa are anticipated, the on-site water distribution and wastewater collection facilities described in the Bolsa Chica LCP EIR to serve the proposed Bolsa Chica Planned Community project remain basically the same as previously proposed. Until a revised site plan for the development project is available, the exact configuration of the street system to be constructed will not be known and, as a result, the total length and configuration of water distribution lines and wastewater collection lines is not known at this time. It is anticipated that these on-site systems would either be substantially similar to that which was previously proposed or slightly reduced in scale due to a reduction in the total number of residential units to be constructed on the Mesa. The basic components of the Proposed Project and related facilities are described below in Table ES-1. Table ES-1 Summary of Project Components Component Description Components of Proposed Project Water Transmission Line • Length: 35,370 linear feet(approximately 6.7 miles) • Diameter: 18 inches • Material: Ductile iron pipe(pressure class 350) • Typical depth below surface:42 inches • Corrosion protection: bituminous coating, encased with a polyethylene wrap Water Supplier/Source • Service provider: Southern California Water Company (Orange County District) • Water source: Groundwater wells(Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin)and the Colorado River and State Water Project(via MWD) Wastewater • Wastewater management agency: Southern California Water Company Collection/Treatment • Wastewater treatment/disposal: County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Related Facilities Local Water Storage and • Underground reservoir: 4 million gallon capacity Distribution • Distribution pumps: Four 1,100-gpm pumps, one 300-gpm jockey pump, one 1,100-gpm standby pump • Groundwater well: two 1,100-gpm wells(as a backup water source) • Distribution lines: 8", 12", and 16" pipes to distribute water to residences Wastewater Collection • Collection system: 8", 12", 15", and 18" sewer lines • Lift station: Two 1,200-gpm pumps, south of Warner Ave. near Los Patos Ave. • Force main: 875' of force main connecting the lift station to an existing 21" CSDOC trunk sewer in Los Patos Ave. December 1999 ES-3 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LLNE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT Executive Summary ES.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The water transmission pipeline has been proposed with the basic objective of providing the Bolsa Chica Planned Community with a reliable, long-term domestic water supply. The proposal is designed to meet the projected domestic water demands and fire protection needs of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. The Proposed Project is also concerned with ensuring that the planned residential community has an adequate and reliable wastewater collection and disposal system. Annexation into District 11 of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County is proposed to provide the required wastewater treatment and disposal. The basic objectives of the Proposed Project are summarized as follows: • Provide a reliable, long-term domestic water supply for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. • Construct a water transmission system designed to meet the projected domestic water demands and fire protection needs of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. • Ensure the provision of an adequate and reliable wastewater collection and disposal system for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. ES.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR summary identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. Various issues of concern were expressed at public scoping meetings for the EIR and through responses to the Notice of Preparation. The proposed development of Bolsa Chica Mesa has been a subject of controversy for many years. All aspects of plans related to the future disposition of the Mesa and the adjacent Bolsa Chica Wetlands have received ongoing attention from the public, environmental organizations, the media, and local municipalities. As a result, substantial concern has been expressed about plans for the provision of water service to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site. Part of this concern has revolved around the issue of determining the appropriate water purveyor for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community project. The City of Huntington Beach has indicated that it is the logical water service agency for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community project because the site is located within the City's designated sphere of influence and because the City currently provides water service to adjacent properties. A broader issue of controversy is the conversion of Bolsa Chica Mesa from open space to urban development. Although Orange County's Local Coastal Program (LCP) designates the Mesa for future residential development, there is longstanding opposition to the development of the Mesa from local citizens and interest groups. Legal challenges in recent years to both the LCP and its EIR are evidence of the strong opposition to development of the Mesa (see Section A.4). The controversy surrounding the proposed development of Bolsa Chica Mesa has carried over to the Proposed Project. Because the Proposed Project would help facilitate the implementation of the December 1999 ES-4 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LITE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT Executive Summary proposed Bolsa Chica Planned Community project, it has become the subject of concern and controversy. Although the provision of water and wastewater service is not primary to the issue development on Bolsa Chica Mesa, it is considered a vital factor in allowing plans for development to proceed. ES.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Most of the issues associated with the implementation of the Proposed Project can be resolved through the application of existing regulations and permitting requirements, or through the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this EIR. This report recommends the implementation of a variety of measures designed to reduce or avoid potentially significant environmental impacts. There are, however, a number of issues that are closely related to the administration and approval of the project whose resolution is beyond the scope and purpose of this EIR. The primary question for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding the Proposed Project is whether to allow SCWC to provide water and wastewater services to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community project. The City of Huntington Beach, being the closest potential service provider, has expressed its interest in supplying services to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. Indeed, in late 1996 and early 1997, the City and the developer discussed the terms for provision of water and wastewater services from the City. Integral to these discussions were the terms for annexation of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site into the City of Huntington Beach. The Proposed Project — involving construction of a water transmission line originating in the City of Cypress to serve the Bolsa Chica Planned Community project — emerges from the failure of the City and the proponent of the development project to agree to the terms for annexation. This is now a matter that the CPUC will consider in assessing the applications made by SCWC for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity to act as the water and wastewater service provider for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. This document is designed, in part, to inform that decision-making process. An important consideration in this decision-making process is the cost of the proposed method of water and wastewater service provision to the ratepayers in SCWC's West Orange County District. The CPUC has broad regulatory authority over the development and operation of utilities and is concerned with, among other things, the interests of ratepayers and the public interest. A further issue that is yet to be resolved concerns the approval, by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), of a modified Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the Bolsa Chica area. As a result of successful litigation from a coalition of community groups, the CCC is now reconsidering the LCP in the light of the Appellate Court's finding that the eucalyptus grove on the Mesa cannot be removed as previously proposed (see Section A.4). The resulting change to the LCP may alter the final configuration of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community project and potentially reduce the number of dwelling units constructed. Resolution of these pending matters regarding the LCP is independent from the CPUC's consideration of the applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity filed by SCWC for the Proposed Project. December 1999 ES-5 Draft SEER a BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT Executive Summary ES.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT Nine alternatives to the proposed project were initially selected for analysis. These were selected through an analysis of alternative pipeline alignments and alternative water sources and from input received from the public and local jurisdictions during the scoping process. These alternatives were screened using three criteria: (i) potential to reduce or avoid impacts; (ii) technical and regulatory feasibility and (iii) consistency with the objectives of the project, as well as with public policy objectives. As a result of this screening, five of these alternatives were screened using the above criteria. The remaining four alternatives, in addition to the No Project Alternative, were thus selected for evaluation in comparison to the Proposed Project. The alternatives selected and their impacts in comparison to the Proposed Project are described below. Alternative 1: Connection to the City of Huntington Beach System. The closest feasible alternative for water service for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community is connection to the City of Huntington Beach water supply and distribution system (see Section D.2.1 for a full description). The City has a water main in nearby Warner Avenue. The best point of connection appears to be the intersection of Los Patos Avenue and Warner Avenue; approximately one-third of a mile from the proposed underground reservoir on the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site. The wastewater collection and disposal system would remain as proposed under this alternative. Since this alignment would be substantially shorter than the Proposed Project's pipeline alignment, the various environmental impacts associated with pipeline construction would be substantially less than those of the Proposed Project. This would include reduced impacts related to construction noise, construction emissions, and traffic disruption from construction in public streets. This alternative would also have substantially reduced compared to the other project alternatives, which each involve the construction of a significantly longer water transmission line. For these reasons, connection to the City of Huntington Beach water system is considered the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 2: Connection to the SCWC System via the Anaheim-Barber City Channel. This alternative would connect to the SCWC system further east on Orangewood Avenue at Holder Street (see Section D.2.2 for a full description). From the point of connection at Orangewood Avenue and Holder Street, the pipeline would be laid in a generally southern direction along Holder Street/Springdale Street before turning southwest to follow the Anaheim—Barber City Channel to Bolsa Chica Street, where the alignment would continue south within Bolsa Chica Street similar to the Proposed Project. The wastewater collection and disposal system would remain as proposed under this alternative. This alignment is similar in length to the proposed alignment and utilizes public streets for most of the route. As a result, this alternative would have similar levels and types of environmental impacts related to pipeline construction as the Proposed Project. Because of the slightly greater length of pipeline, this alternative would have marginally greater construction impacts than the Proposed Project in relation to December 1999 ES-6 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT Executive Summary air quality and noise. Potential impacts cultural and biological resources would be slightly reduced because this pipeline route for this alternative traverses somewhat less sensitive areas. The traffic disruption associated with construction in public streets would be comparable to that likely to be induced by the Proposed Project. Alternative 3: Connection to the SCWC System via Springdale Street and Graham Street. This proposed pipeline route would be the same as Alternative 2 from the point of connection with the SCWC water system to the Springdale Street/Meinhardt Road intersection. South of Meinhardt Road, the pipeline would continue south (in the southbound lanes) along Springdale Street to McFadden Avenue, then west along McFadden Avenue to Graham Street (see Section D.2.3 for a full description). The pipeline would then head south along Graham Street to Heil Avenue, then west on Heil Avenue to Green Avenue; from Green Avenue the alignment continues to Los Patos Avenue, then across Los Patos Avenue to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site. Similar to Alternative 2, this pipeline alignment is similar in length to the Proposed Project's pipeline alignment and utilizes public streets for most of the route. As a result, this alternative would have similar levels and types of environmental impacts related to pipeline construction as the Proposed Project. Because of the slightly greater length of pipeline, this alternative would have marginally greater construction impacts than the Proposed Project. The traffic disruption associated with construction in public streets would be comparable to that of the Proposed Project. In general, this alternative would produce impacts largely similar to those associated with the Proposed Project. North Seal Beach Wellfields. This alternative would connect into the North Seal Beach Wellfields on Lampson Avenue (see Section D.2.4 for a full description). From the point of connection with the wellfields, a pipeline would be constructed along Lampson Avenue in an easterly direction to the Bolsa Chica Channel, then follow the Proposed Project route south to the site of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community project on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The impacts of this alternative would be generally similar to those associated with the Proposed Project. In three respects however, this alternative would offer environmental advantages. The construction impacts associated with air quality, noise pollution, and risk of effects related to environmental contamination are all slightly lower than for the Proposed Project. No Project Alternative. With the No Project Alternative, SCWC would not serve as the water purveyor or the wastewater management agency for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site and the proposed 6.7-mile domestic water transmission line would not be constructed. As a result, the various impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed water transmission line would not occur. Without the development of the Proposed Project, the proponent of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community would be forced to find an alternative water supply. Presumably, the alternative water sources that might be considered include water service from a nearby city (see Alternative 1) or connection to another water source (such as Alternative 4). The developer could even pursue various December 1999 ES-7 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER UNE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT Executive Summary alternatives not examined in detail in this EIR (see alternatives eliminated from further consideration in Section D.1.4). ES.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The impacts that would result from implementation of the Proposed Project are summarized in Table ES-2. The impacts identified in this table correspond to those contained in the complete impacts analysis presented in Section C of the EIR. Also listed are the mitigation measures proposed to reduce impacts classified as significant. The following system is used to classify the significance of impacts: • Class I: Significant Unavoidable Impact. Class I impacts are significant adverse effects that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance through the application of feasible mitigation measures. Class I impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. • Class II: Significant but Mitigable Impact. A Class II impact is a significant adverse effect that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures presented in the EIR. • Class III: Less-than-significant Impact. A Class III impact is a minor change or effect on the environment caused by the proposed project that does not meet or exceed the criteria established to gauge significance. Less-than-significant impacts do not require mitigation. • Class IV: Beneficial Impact. Class IV impacts represent beneficial effects that would result from project implementation December 1999 ES-8 Draft SUR F. x E! - - C.) vi c4) :� _ s L = e'a U c c cc �/ c yt 'o 3 �= CV s v .0 • 2 E I. � >I �t-' E icy s � o °' N c` oo- p 8.8 V.: = G 3 ,I • C. C C O C O O C is N O D U L 4...' K I O R •c T t'.. cv C al N �. E UC C U ... f/7 U U U U C «f t... �•y O L :s e7 'E C C < (� .D C 2 y co C U G.E ea C ` ^ OA >• U C — C R C U > ,E E a) -- o s CI) w E 1-'-' 3 c - v F,= 2 - U E- 3 7.E a c= •= C U c2 R U� > c = 3 ` N `o 4`' 3 fc= c �' F C o ,C�U- •V • C. C c U�- RI 'C V v ••-, v tr: • .0 oevC' 4th e c R ED •C{,,U ; 8 U 8,-= •�F•T C a E w L C p,• • t a L `° :� ° n v — E C co ea w y ;? h•c c et U tr s - c v'� o �> c no= a`)i c 5-0 E a) v cpU_ `° �p ` `.` . „ 2 a c au E J o0U U ` E C t C O C 4..7 3 C i7 O O ` C = p E. 2 h O U C C F. w a) a v c� p = a) v V v C.,)Ui $'C U y V U U C N Ci ac=�� —a tg ,v. c t'c y.. .4 y a.c ."UJ < t: • 0 . . p :° ti) O U C c� ^ C c to'- . t- t., � cl CI. r C- ' U E- = UAL C C.Ce O.E c U t•. OU—y=• eQ� U `•-, C .3 pt o v, C E tp v - C v c 2 0o U 5 U 3 U 7 R U. U u CC a) E E o'Eu.y :.''K � to cv Ts cs L. c co ro 0 U•C c o U MO U U c C 'C O R U C 0 N V V A 7 U > a� C Cr cd 3 L et: U _ O h v >. y U .._ Ca).E ai �U y N U E : a.0 3 c v � s Go c�•c c •v c v� _ E > E � a.)._03 c tl A v o a "� a •E � c U ° a� °s ° E � e`o- ° a' >� c c o ccs c 'o U E o .2 o C E AL3 u a= `-' - c c ° co L� _ ��,o•—�-° a ° o E c w17 �� c > E� a 3 ai ° v c 3 s3 - a=) t=ai.-c.•E a ,„ 05 ci R :_'-E as > ey = c O U y O U N c0 C.3 - v ai cccu > o• c_ CM °Arn3 a) E 'r_. 0t_ E 6 = o00 E c U C C U s — •a7 c ct v U U " U o X C — t7 t' _— V• Q) :J eC C'U U c0 Q•U O M.E 'p.V ea p .c v; 5 a) U 7— 'a `2• v•Z. c `3v oo vvo°o U $— eO3c =°c eo 00 " ° v _ _ - c E EL � U � c c _ — U a. E c v ai U c z 5 c cx c M � C E ='c o c > •^ 3 .� Lc c c atr-, m _ - U L - t_ 3) 7) 4 w c w ` F a.),_c 3 v)•„ to G'o o ooh - -• U c > 5 i p.\ u a os c 5 t.-_ c� - E " •U --3— � � U v; Eat ° 6. 0 a) z E o > 0. a) LU)•,:-, ` R E E U R- 'T 7-7 cU a C u ti w e 3a R V] a c =t� UCL v t4.2 v h c ave c 34 E a u v, C7 t_ - G:] E ti C A C U . y ' �' .E � - = `� _ " .. c U = c 3 V t4) V ao ►w 6i Q Q.0 U O E =E C C U `p O ep c c p C c 6A C U C- C E U — E c ea.E C a=i 7 CeanU� °p.O � E a)� :° v � � U oa'ccpEa�i E vco_oc it E c E j C a=i v)L;_-, vU ` C c.� E•= 2 c E E U C = -'fl c > � 'ppv - U eC S L C C c- m ` 7 •U 7 C •- L U E C•- C RU .c R v: v ._ CQ O ,� C U U U U U ..8 -5 _,,, t, rn V L•-, C U - — >•ej -C >' .a. tr. ecv o E 8 c •- c U >v n aU v a U 2C .E 2 0 . c s U c c o c E - 3 U n C3 tr •� 3 • - U U s `-' C = @1 y5 U a.� c c oa'oo c..? a Eua co)'vU cn 5: U °vva 3 ° v) 2 a a` > A c_ U to H — fV M V1 t0 [� 00 Ot .0 eC ..:,e < ., Q wf) a M U .. L E ac — F -0 ., o7o r ea 3 7,3 c o U 0 1.)i ea — - _o c ..., O —i• U 6. U c 1-, E c C E U C c 2,o c p �� v U a) v; U or EC w `7 E U vi H< 70 c ocU-% 7.Irs 0 v v U U = O E-5 2c U ao X 8 Z E z 3• F >, i V R ` v r pc E yC cyi U . ') = ^� .; 3 a G. C C - _ C D m C_ C O U ra fl C r•' Y E- >> alr. .cc " C > ...... _ � 3 � z� o c e� cw " c 2 E P. tsl V >. _C C O U u ._ 6�i N L cCy > w ti• G Y s.0 C x -0 ^_ - 3 •° E c c s c CV c e`' E c a> ° C m aw ai > vue° � me h o "-c �� u. cr � ._ � 3cE U �.. a) E U O U 'O �.. >.c c E c CO E u E c A E ar v c c c C L 44� E c•E 3 •3 ` >F E � `C° w � c :,,.._ � 9-• � _ c� '^ a5- L 3 o Es•vt c • c ``c, `� c ERE � - z Qc�c,'o � c " 0 ' 3tie cccc 3cz "��v ndo a°' E c �°j u.� Esx c �L .4- Cd �— — v ca. >c 3E-• 2_o c ` �F-s aC•�+ FOD tat ea '4 p`H C O J U c..., y E 0 6. ea ea U C cn O G < �hC �v= Casio E .�r - R.Ekia_ c� � Ac 3 cocc �c •�. 0 •cog as � G� � Eaci oE <a0 Y C •— �' u E R c ev =•v g 7,U � c c s c � .0�° E E c 'G.C4 U .a4 5,'z v = v ` j - j x ce z ac y e U 2 u sL= cs i. - 3 `� E G 3 3 sz C. oo � � �. 8� �- c Uy._ - v OQ •u OC O G y vfl v` .1: .0K ,U L Uy ,a C �", =I..< 6) C ,a - CC L TO Y C L ` v. 0C-'V) - y 6 2 -13a =.G. ° . 0 p:Uo o CC 3 c T$ E. �c ` � • c"a v7 cx c ° 3O • =-z � Do�� 7_1 a > R iH 3Ec0 c oo g2 83u �v flH Vi •Ypi 0 CI ca c C' 3 ° =cv �, to,- �oz sscy •-13 M .61 cn ac' o � 3 �3ca " �? � c cn > L_ C E > c. ,a ,- c c o o c G c o 0 3 0•> a�� ° c °' 0c^ 5 < c c.h U ° «> v te a, c ~cu = n ' S = a .- o4n C,, 0 > T =$ C c� c CSG $'u-�.�� c b �w c C'�4.. 3 PI ^ vis " n$ hih �an c cU •2 � ,a ` C L V..' T M v, O f C:4 >O LU-. C gyp-'N vim, c.c. O L C C 4. U = X C U V .1L ,a C C et .. y ,«- O 6' C O cl C _>.C O o- .) c - c c [-.10 .� _ o..+4 0. :: A ,, o G0 `r' �$ et c `° o o A p L ,.. O O U • v C L G 0 3 3 x_ U c o,a o c- 2 y w - a' a' c 34 7$ c >+a' v c:- - >,$ L �a,< o ° " � `° � '^ 3 RS �°= o - cLon c c a". .0 3 v L' sF u ea c' c• v > .^ 7 $ y •�.-� �cz � yc 3u)•,-,w .3 t.> >,=`90 boy vX °. .c @ E r c �O >.. w - ,, c ca x y<.3 - v'•- = a>> g � ..'v - R 7 0,... 7 c' • p ,a E y p y 6' >>2 O >' c0 'O,.°-. C U L L .O G .U. C O` w O v is E.3 y I-. 47 C '7 C C U o � c � � � v 3 � X 3 _> t•o u ! T•1= g c '= °'�: L4 U g 8 6a.,R g cr '- �'y > >2 ` a> =cE3c -o co - a cc n > � 3 va _ - t.9- � b y'O eL ; C .. •••a; v: 0) 0 .... Uy o C-C — C C 7 L L TU L C < c vy • uL U = c0 - C = C ' o 3 6 .-. V)-' _L U v, F, ° U-C ai Uy o U -. •- - - O h.- C _, ....I_3.0- . - 2C..)10 EcL - ` '� Ta' :: �� > � = > 4..) � 2 -A do° c � o° c0 ,ce'er774 ° u.- 5cEco a � � , WA ,_ '2ccccc ^.7 .. ._ . € o2cScu ,o8 =a ,a• v . 7.5,. cL � cny gs L°n= g cdaa,.. E. , ' s LS b 'c ° o a9 _ cUE , Op `� y C ' u. C C 7 2 2 .. LbE C • ° > .2 - °= r C rc > LGC .- E. t 7A4 ` 2 tt ,_ O Z U , .. C - y .- U Q ,a L .2- Ev. C c. U I. CC U8 .. OV: et .' $ v -0 T O+82 > ° 4`32 `° ) U C .a N C aTv = �' U2cr'7; - = E - a • E o w VUi °2 ,<a V)V)u c ,=a E=� °vUi VUiF.v7C7 7 < u ° V)"E.E-. et Ea t.°>72 o a' a cu N to v1 p N -- C - c c _0 0 U U ,O ii U Si if U 7` C r. L C '7c.c m 6J �U.. • oa ° O7yj CC v ! C..) C U U OA ,O C y y = C ,.' C O O cC U O C d., ._ C = = c O p n C2 = cv a ,a ;?I... .r E E . E: U ° cL .. E v= E= Fes-'v 3 U 0 W A _Uc� —os ^' G v �' C 0 7 •- fwlJ AE _ ° ` _ co o c S o^� E � 3 H I ? $ 88 o ° om � E V(-. t � = = 2.5? cvsI.- c ' oo � ca -,t aE g.c et cures E=-E2 n `d 24- - _ ,, 0 ° 0D— = Lw a e �� cc o axiQ E �' `° o�'E c L u`.•c . , �° a�)4 c Gc se C •c ° . = ., n c �U a c= E c.=� c v v > $•g � •y e° Udi r; C •�la L "8 L '9 y= .0 O.° C '` ° a co L nj ed 0 u C = O 3 . • Z av!e. C .v..L 0 v x v = ' c 0 ai v v c C ° C moo ° c E cd �2 �'2 N'c v E 3go'x cm chi �� Ew;8L) `° _, N 3 V°°� €. L c o o cL°. � =� �� E c v.- E K c 0,5� U E oq L° — �«. ... > O �«• E O =y C = V= v '> L v: C • v H V `� €,D L J v' ° E 0 v C >,E w c CO,..•. O �e no,..... ea h'C °'T > (" O v �' U >, 0. > O v 2 C 4: t v C C L o,5 L (7 C. C v. W ,„, v h C is v U ao t ;'E"8.2 O R 9 p y U cp'o0 v O'O el•— ayi tsD•C C ._ C E C L F^ L. C..._ �'. C n� < .y y E a� 6j �0 v v, K c•C , —= A = E ca iz m c c E Q A dS.'os 0 OL L j ..-=r, ,� A p� O•� G.�p 'C C`•' E C U m 660 �,in y v C eV G•.0 y > ._.` v C g. O<'”' �'N ¢ ` > — > 0 L O c 9?s.1' 2•''E `9 2FL- -. > s av�o ° =.8 d vi di c..- 5 U c `vs- naj •0 0 3 c �, °D:? c • c _ z ° v o o r R 1° t c- .` g co _ u v o'v cPr•% c v " O o 0o v'� U c • v E C7 00 —0,5 U a v cz 9 cu . 0•- E�' U c ;7 U L eC v y y C 8.� :c a yc�� - x _ = = yV cpw v v 5� 3 c �'o N �p G � � `- • t 7 O L^_c-a '"� c U'�N C 44 54 v a) E.O C1 _ 'C �j «i V'C,.- •C C• .w = O Eel) v o,5 O f° v w °O •ca v)•.2 'O u v, E G.� �'a`vj c"vi 'Cy .00.0 O 5( O c,.. E-o.0.E `c .E.= C L..' 0 7 O r. `.— O C =G� C c y� 6.. m,•L 0,5•992 ! 3 ! ! cd nfl °Hft EE=:rzv > >, ca•�U—,y — iu � � a �pv G•a U cO E 2 E c c oc c o co = Fv- `v. N U•` y p G,y OA L G'•' s cn'° C.0 73' 4. ° '� �;.a pq'U 2 2 'C .>__ Vi 3 ami v7 c= coc c cc.1 t c "u:'Z' v c0 a t' ci c •c24, E c o0 0 `.'•., u •c.co'E ` _ [z+ •p = O e r eat co cn._ .. v = •Vi'�- in v: Co L ca aC .> ` O o rT. y v ` r 3 A 6 C: E 'v,'o N 'C V 0 c to 'p C L �c c `o A r,° r- �. — _�+ c acct •-. R E ° aC. °° o „'v5 • 6- p �7 `° o c 'ca .-. 3 O >, C C— R ce 'T iq v C E '$ C c) c'� O,5 Ts ff • > G C .0 J: O— C �' = C: G••— v L O .V ea b y 50 L•�.� C 3EE � " = eO5..22 hE � e c oca R ' v7on' s � E. cEiv S°06 .0 .� U 8 c E L.� = °-�.� "p Qom! U €•= R+ v v � :° ec � 6.. E••--c. °•b Uy � > > °tic v C .6.' :d 7— c'C c" 3 �O'C > �n �: 1- = •o E. y C �+ y G+ °•E y = _ ~ .� •5 .C- Uc = = > _ E U a c o'u > `° v ° v c = c c- c Cvj v; u 8 >'0=.= cC U- vn o.cs V a` o ° G`. ► �).Ec• C, 6.-F. .Es ¢�a `U °° °-' 6-5 6. CelU U U U -' N cn Q c ^ `o LTJ cD z z z U w o c ›, C V COII U = v U ca v Cv ' vv O o C v 0`,5 v civ-, 'fl C •Q C: V .L.. c G' ;� v v O y V v e6ep�1 v; T ci—• = > U R tC .C •0.0 =u. L OU 2 O 6) C T G ea E v •L _ al) v 3 'D MO 8 0A y = vc cU E = vv .E ca _c h o c o E. E cvc c... c 0a y 4,110,5 O v zC_ = v v o ° y g eYa � v c E y c c V O _ _ = N'O 7 v e0 v '- c v p ^J C yy E v 0 C G g '.: .C-0¢ =o,5 • C: L v eco= c 'C. ° Cc'• y T id �.0 (4 O.0 C O U O o V O c•3 a v 3 co r,S co .� c 0 v U c cvy v - '' '> 7 N 5.> _ C v E no E C ct 0 C 3 . 0 3 c _ E ° - a) O C v C v v �- v v )er 17 ce 7 T t` t0 _ yr .�. O. Coq R.z c.1 V; z .— v. Q L 'O I x U — �o o _ x O Ei an o c co � t �,vz. c cz 0 ti 73n O U 7 OL z .-, c ._ — a-,?.. .., >, v.�.UC C g v :v o >',r G U 'pp >, o'D 7 .. .a U a.�.: ca a.) c > c 3 3 . > > cvo vvc sca0 .-- c € u > v o�c U o c `' — 'er E .. uciCc .c • u �3.�' v aKi_o.E v c c.� 3 �' c�Z •oH`- 6"• -2;2 G j G 6'> 44 et U to ` U Q > v: ea 7 CO C '�. „�. h = ca C = v C ea n A U K - et,v O C �. IH! H IflU ea CE� ° cu ei I?OU OC^ '� C O U�a p.� v, v U 4- •- �. CO ., pp eO U U O V: V _ .a c= ao� o Ecu E E.? coa aciR �� c =sa Q ''. ` ca ,, U C•= U= ._ U eS `? U 0 > C.... ...• U G• R '� CO C • E ez U o v c c,•E =-5., <� v 3 ,. `o ¢ " = 2 0='C , ..,- o ,E = ca 3 ti c2 E yo-. c 'ter',= `� o c� c E u c -cE o- .c o v>4- C K ca ca >,:. ..• Z°. 3 c`a ca z o o �. oo `°C7 >> 3 1- ca c a v ` ` .. C O h O �. E C >' �. a) C O 0 -.T.'. 3 0-' o�d eaap co fS E > C c.0.La `., t� EL , „, ea o^'r' �- Y-$' > =L E . U L. C.•_ h.. " ,.�. •'O ct —U 'C vv, UO Q Q •�r4.•p a; u 74.7., o o > v .off E > vO a� c., o`oo >,o a eaw 3 > � '" c n c o =y -- o ¢ v C R p >, c T•• o; ` C 0 C C O > O'°C 7 E • vo=. s E. o ' -c o c E= `) E CI 3i- ea _ u y^.c�c 3 3 o. .0.- �731 a' .c % E 3 3 .8� 41= cnL N,o� c C-0- L. - A C-- aU '04 O Z =.- _ '0 > U L y�" U 7 L•� v — s .- u C C > c ep Uuo-a C oco __ •. C C o U e`a o C C U o o C ed C v, c T v o o > c e ° t c� o ., .� c =•--.` `-.L. `c o o.o._ •c 3 � �; 3 E u m0 Cocoa �`' ° '- c> _ 1._ E .co c cco8 c ` -o v 00 w e �_ o" O E •- o ca— c)._ ca g a _ ' 0 7 "0 os > ,_ c =a, ca '�. y= Ec _S0 0 n+'� a=j._ co'�. 6 M. >— ca an I- 7.1 oZ= u u V: u CO e`o3-� �$ coo0 c� 0 o 7 L C _el ee,'v e?a:•e a> Q cr OA ca;� �' G Q U OA T v; - Q hUU !ifl �hh 41 Et co o y.c a E E co-c o c ,- 3w co a�SY, o 5 `' O cci o $ `a o >, v ai Y o • E �E C a ca y u . .Ll >cw > > o �� 'o c�L E " r 'o E aci �-a "c= 3.E �I o � � ea+« o o a �•- @ C _� 9 e o u �= v o 8n U— L. Lo, c K c c o o c a p a .o c c c c`a .c o•c c o — � o � oo �,. .c.2 >N.= — c' '—. 4) .-. CCoo o1c � u, cx (.). s �• 4 ^ y v, = G-•'` o is cA C ca ca r, C _U c—_ ! = c C L.) •-yL ,,..,co t c U L (4 L y U o v' O'0 ea C v,.0 C•O V J •.-. a ed TQ I U •-• o C 6) aB c •cc u c c > ca > ca•.- v' e .c 3 ` E '> �' m o o 3 � c� �'�0 3 � � � 0 0 0 0 . o o > U 2.� o v o u)s a I- .0 U L. r CA a C.=.D'y OS CO:i !XJ e`a 6. tL..' � r w.Q i? .. w L. ... p L to _= C — N c•-)Z Z U U U U a1 — ^ .. CI: N to L. v. CV cn as a c" U E c v c L. v C � co ea as C a -14 a cc �a :- .O.'t C = U U = O r0 L a, - v: u U 4 U 6? U C..� c C.) „ rxx • 76 c mo=o v Up of vs ca ` .c O .. U _� U s = E u e,«. 1 R ca is oo cnLI)r 0 sc e° LG. 13 oN a_ o '..Y c L • C U •- ea C..= c0 3 C cl U V •O Ca- '1. C .2.51 8 4h C o cTs= a v, y v V C =L <Ca = Q G. is v, `a E O c ' L. ocAo �.7 v fl - � 07 D., C Q, O c. C ea v eel C C- C >,_ 0 6�it O Off, o U •.. U C c 17, TV .i.". v °9 E u 2 c L. E D. va 0. cs VS e., n¢ _ V c c E Or � 0 .. _ �`� E O c. ° v 0 t " eil C U v. Q. t= h C U fnO ti C co C a. ,.., O U vi V•u'i C Q v;,U U L U U • = j > C3.EeaNE = X ENG > c � u Q W > •UO.cOuo4Ce- 3 E Ecc; o cot E ` 0 Z c i°,_ O o0 O O O Q O m 72 w ii ,•G.C 4Ej 73 Uo C C O r� A , C ea C c.in J U S v O.V O F o.C� '> E3ce, u = O H O U.: O C - Q C.._ ca '0 cd • ` CU o2 6. _� p i 4)M'ct71-= E U o O 02 U v e.0 eo 0 3 t y c � ' o�� o . EOU� 4)c - 7 I ,c0 ea ft C r" p, C G U 1- O'g L. c EIle C-.5s' .c•E O � _ v. ap c c en_ C• c.6.o �`r,"..2....ItL .3 CO O O e... en = Ri v O E v > Q.Ga U t, = ca C1 C 5 ea > O e0 > I 04 C E eC L b'�' O O 5.! L. M 1 1 U C > ,- A y'p t 17 ? — >�CO 1 ` �.0CC R > eO O. U C O X N U CL U CC? O o� c V C�``J U 0- > eC C v'C•C o Z cr 3 � .> � _ _ _ _ o° z 4) 2 � z z z z z z 11 ppg .•_76 �j O C O O O C ao z5 >> O O C4 L va) a) 2 co ip v 'E, E C N C p ca C u. CI ►. C 1 tee.. 8 eaEw ° -e 00 v ...Y.03 _.. t0 L '� U C C. C C U U U C o o c .2.� w- &.E C .0 >, E v ai ° . E = 2 C _= ✓ U = C C C OU co • u U •C pO v; '« . yC •O = lc . L U tiv'. U V. C.p ` C aJ C > c � o � .OmE o V O ¢ O C a) IIc C 7 `- U 0 F C �' '�>.w o it) U.E O•C C U� C O U vi b y oo e it 04 O C > E '> a) a. eti en ea ed ea C 00 a) c U a) v,• -' et' L. r'',,,3 .U. 0 u p g O '•'. a =' = o0A c CO 0 V C .0 ppE- •E - E EC E .7 .._ cLi °�) FO- a rZ O .c E c 2 . b < u D. ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON D.1 ALTERNATIVES PROCESS OVERVIEW D.1.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVES One of the most important aspects of the environmental review process is the identification and assessment of reasonable alternatives that have the potential for avoiding or minimizing the impacts of a proposed project. In addition to mandating consideration of the No Project Alternative, the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126(d)) emphasize the selection of a reasonable range of technically feasible alternatives and adequate assessment of these alternatives to provide a comparative analysis for consideration by decision makers. CEQA requires consideration of a range of alternatives to the project or project location that: (1) could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives; and (2) would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the Proposed Project. An alternative cannot be eliminated simply because it is more costly or could impede the attainment of project objectives to some degree. However, the CEQA Guidelines declare that an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote or speculative. CEQA does not require that the discussion of alternatives be at the same level of detail as the proposed action. However, CEQA does require that an EIR include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Proposed Project. This analysis does not focus on relative economic factors of the alternatives (as long as they are feasible) since the CEQA Guidelines require consideration of alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing significant environmental effects even though they may impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives or would be more costly. D.1.2 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS: PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY As described in Section B.5, Southern California Water Company's (SCWC) objective is to provide the proposed Bolsa Chica Planned Community project with a timely, reliable, long-term source of domestic water to meet projected domestic water demands and fire flow requirements. Alternatives to the Proposed Project must achieve this same basic objective while also reducing or avoiding potentially significant impacts associated with the project as proposed. To establish reasonable and feasible project alternatives for evaluation in the Supplemental EIR, a wide range of possible alternatives were identified and then a screening process was utilized to eliminate alternatives not suitable for further evaluation. Alternatives to the Proposed Project were identified by investigating possible alternate routes for the proposed water transmission line and possible alternative water sources. Input received from the public December 1999 D-1 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison and local jurisdictions during the EIR scoping process also helped identify possible alternatives. The alternatives screening process consisted of three steps: Step 1: Definition of the alternatives to allow comparative evaluation. Step 2: Evaluation of each alternative using the following criteria: • Potential for reduction of significant impacts of the Proposed Project • Technical and regulatory feasibility • Consistency with SCWC's basic project objectives, as well as public policy objectives. Step 3: Determination of the suitability of the proposed alternative for full analysis in the Supplemental EIR. If the alternative is unsuitable, it is eliminated from further consideration. Feasible alternatives that did not clearly offer the potential to reduce significant environmental impacts, as well as alternatives not considered feasible, were removed from further consideration. In the final phase of the screening analysis, the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the remaining alternatives were carefully evaluated with respect to potential for overall environmental advantage, technical feasibility, and consistency with project and public objectives. These criteria are discussed in the following sub-sections. D.1.2.1 Project Objectives Objectives of the Proposed Project are described in Section B.2. For this screening analysis, general project objectives were taken into consideration, including both SCWC's "private" objectives, and the "public" policy objectives of the CPUC and other agencies. Section B.5 provides a description of SCWC's objectives for the Proposed Project. CEQA requires that objectives also be evaluated in terms of public policy goals, which are similar but not identical to those of SCWC. As stated above, CEQA does not require that alternatives meet all project objectives, but they should meet the primary objectives. The SCWC's objectives for the Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project are described below: • Provide a reliable, long-term domestic water supply for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. • Construct a water transmission system designed to meet the projected domestic water demands and fire protection needs of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. • Ensure the provision of an adequate and reliable wastewater collection and disposal system for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. December 1999 D-2 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison D.1.2.2 Probable Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project If an alternative clearly does not provide any environmental advantages compared to the Proposed Project, it is eliminated from further consideration. At the screening stage, it is not possible to evaluate potential impacts of the alternative or the Proposed Project with absolute certainty. However, it is possible to identify elements of an alternative that are likely to be the sources of impacts and to relate them to general conditions of the subject area. In this screening analysis, a preliminary assessment of potential significant effects of the Proposed Project was completed, resulting in identification of the following impacts considered likely to occur if the project is implemented: • Traffic impacts from construction of the water pipeline along arterials and local streets • Air quality and noise impacts on sensitive receptors (especially residential areas and schools) from construction of the water pipeline. • Construction of the pipeline could permanently displace, alter, or disrupt the existing public and private utility lines and services. D.1.2.3 Feasibility For the screening analysis, the technical and regulatory feasibility of various potential alternatives was assessed. Specific feasibility analyses are not needed for this purpose. The assessment of feasibility was directed toward reverse reason, that is, an attempt was made to identify anything about the alternative that would not be feasible on technical or regulatory grounds. Note that CEQA does not require elimination of a potential alternative based on cost of construction and/or operation/ maintenance. For the Proposed Project, these issues relate to: • Crossing of channels and freeways (boring under major channels or freeways requires an area for excavation on each side of the crossing). A substantial number of crossings could adversely affect the technical feasibility of water line construction. • Availability of space in roads and utility or flood control corridors, and the likelihood of obtaining a right-of-way easement from these owners. If it is considered unlikely that a landowner (such as a federal or state agency) will provide the required permission for water line construction, an alternative may not be feasible. D.1.3 SUMMARY OF SCREENLNG RESULTS A number of route alternatives and alternative water sources were considered in an attempt to identify alternatives with the potential to reduce environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed water transmission line for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. Figure D-1 displays the initial array of alternatives evaluated in the screening process. December 1999 D-3 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LIVE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Each potential alternative was reviewed against the criteria described in Section D.1.2. A number of alternatives were eliminated based on the feasibility of constructing and operating a pipeline along the identified routes. Those alternatives that were found to be technically feasible and consistent with the applicant's objectives were reviewed to determine if the alternative had the potential to reduce the anticipated environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. Table D.1-1 summarizes the results of the alternatives screening analysis. Nine alternatives to the Proposed Project were reviewed in the alternatives screening process. In addition to the applicant's Proposed Project (the proposed Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line route) and the No Action Alternative, four alternatives have been recommended for evaluation within the EIR; they are described in Section D.2. The other four alternatives were eliminated during the screening process;. the rationale for screening-out each eliminated alternative is presented in Section D.1.4. Table D.1-1 Alternatives Screenin• Recommendations Included in Eliminated Alternatives Considered in Screening Process Source for from)TeCher Comparative Cons siderr ation Evaluation in the.EIR 1. Bolsa Chica Road(Proposed Project) Application "I 2. Bolsa Chica Channel Scoping .s1 3. Valley View Street/Bolsa Chica Road Plan of Works 4. Anaheim-Barber City Channel Diagonal (Rancho Road) Plan of Works 5. Springdale Street/Graham Street CPUC 6. Connection to City of Huntington Beach Water Supply CPUC 7. Westminster Avenue/Seal Beach Boulevard Plan of Works ' 8. North Seal Beach Wellfields PEA 9. New Water Well On-site CPUC 10. Pacific Coast Highway Pipeline Route PEA PEA = Proponent's Environmental Assessment D.1.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION The following discussion describes the alternatives eliminated from further consideration in the EIR and the basis for their elimination. D.1.4.1 Bolsa Chica Channel During the NOP and EIR scoping period, concern was expressed by citizens and local cities about traffic congestion caused by pipeline construction in public streets, particularly Bolsa Chica Road. Therefore, possible alternatives were examined that would minimize construction on heavily traveled roadways. For the reason, the following alternative was considered because it would entail placing more of the pipeline adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Channel rather than in Bolsa Chica Road. December 1999 D-4 Draft SEER BOLSA CIUCA WATER UNE AND WA87v ATEA PROJECT J D. Alternatives Desai jaod Con �),_ �e ' d�• I' ter''- 1°_� Irri`J LI •w ... .... .);/ 1 - . f. l it 1r. i f • ',. ,!!, s •t • z-, LWr ' rte::t w �.~,S Ol�j/ _ .. Rllsa YP�/ r" r++ l; f - .-i f •�. ALA rOS ^�/ + •111-. r $',..•"?r • v eN+t,� I. ` ARM D YOR RE rE'- t 1 1 , / 1)0 it ll.—; ::,,, ;r , ! �/'• `p�ii ` `w ' ,}?:• PI' ;_ 01,. , _ +:r_ ice, I/ .1. : NOW „c"—'-,,-". dr \ • • .—• I 1'..:" fr A.,j,• � � '1� t z \ 4,•,' S2ia�a OrIllIMPUIlihrei: • ,...„ •,s�gJr _.... ..r`. `✓.W' 3a.,,'/ iY!'1 •\ :••' i. L w('f .1 ,I :: CMB , Os. ''''' iilli •L- 101' TIs' , !♦ .. •f n �' .1 ,;v.yu1 1 y_S!f13 ig. *o i 5 I. iZM!!L._ �!!SY 11; y 5• 1 ► aa�ort' y 88888)1 t "N • - _ , „ Mem �r.fid bq..„ '!. r r '' .i . •...• ` " •a• s A BEACH• 4 �f�1'1 .d 6 iiiii 1 0 e I 1 .. I..CAC • . ,'‘ - $i•lk'... .' • �_ l . ii� _..1 ,�, ,/ �I 1 1 -1°,44..t!.4*-141, ' • \� ,f lialliNY[N (•`-•� RN� ; .' \ J i ! u 1 '*q tr t y�� -' -. . . '4.74-:•. I-^ us.yONII w tl 1'.1.8 -s . {1tt , ,...,....,._,......., ,:, _,... 1 •! I - - ti �1 `. U . 1• .r1�rRt Ali L4I-r- ).•• * • i ' I.*II..S U7U..1.11►• " „. i, „ -S; '1'49 . ` ,.ycc .,.":'.i. \��- �. 1 . 081 I IT •Ra iR�J Vk 3 �y':V.'i� t+a� 6jblp F`.-��{�eT`I• \ --\ .....:�- C:.. l'�:3ii -.�a�Y;- .1.:..�. - BAY aF L i Y . -. 1•�1. ..�.- • mrJer• 109b lr•4 -r 'a�` a41 - ; y. . �y l r T UNEAW '. ■p F ,' .-C. J . ��o ` surttid'e '1•�. �' • z:µ a,,t+..S ,., •lFi•�4.A` ., � 7.1 "� t ,R l` `F.�y3i.\GNT e f t eja' � -1 �f �i'. L i - n. 8 2 P �( fin ` kms. 1 L. Y, : '`./ 10-,• 311 ••G • + ;. �� Boise Chace CAwM ••may y/ tic ' `� ,�. . ti l l w ','.1 1' ‘^ ,WMey vbwl Sunset Beach N.:-..,.,4);•\ a ,' f w' I,f. .10....,1 , Seise Chic■Road ' bit ' �K .' ,.. _. :.. 4 .•,t' -ir' J• - An.h.:m.RMer CHy �"• __ ' 1 t -.-_ Chanel DI.Serd E, inervolve Road) \ .[Jr l— ' •l'l w j;( 1`,W; _t Y ' aprY,Vd.le Street! I Bolsa Chico Water Line , ' J e Grattan Street and Wastewater Pro•ect �{ {� - " """""""`"`� = d llmtlw fifer beach lc .1.1 tit ' ; :J;1 -\r WdM Supply Figure D-1 J '•� t, '� 1. VNafiwhr.ter Avr.•eruei 'S% �• '. I Sed Rosch Boulevard • Alternative Pipeline N •:, , ' �:x >'ti : North Seel Beach Routes Considered X401. ._`_._: .-"`- " N'eRReld. �g_ 0 R 1 Aspen . is Pacific Coast Nlghwar EnuiroIU'I.7I dl Group mal.h Wes Pipeline Route December 1999 Draft SEIR D-5 BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Description. This alternative would be the same as the Proposed Project from the point of connection along Orangewood Avenue to Interstate 405 (Orangewood Avenue to the Naval Base Golf Course, then south along Bolsa Chica Channel). South of Interstate 405, this alternative would cross (east to west) the Bolsa Chica Channel along the access road adjacent to the southern edge of the Interstate 405 ROW. The pipeline would then head south along the west maintenance road adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Channel to Westminster Boulevard. The pipeline would then cross Westminster Boulevard and Bolsa Chica Channel and enter the southbound lane (western lane) of Bolsa Chica Street. The pipeline would proceed south in Bolsa Chica Road to Rancho Road. At Rancho Road, the pipeline would enter the east maintenance road adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Channel and parallel the channel to Edinger Avenue. The pipeline would then cross Edinger Avenue and enter the southbound lane (western lane) of Bolsa Chica Street to Heil Avenue. At Heil Avenue, the pipeline would travel west along Heil Avenue (along westbound lane) to Green Avenue. The pipeline would then cross Heil Avenue and travel south down Green Avenue to Los Patos Avenue, then cross Los Patos Avenue and enter into the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site. The pipeline would then turn west and terminate at the proposed reservoir on Bolsa Chica Mesa. Rationale for Elimination. Consultation with the Orange County Flood Control District has revealed a four-phase plan to upgrade flood control channels in the district, including proposed improvements to the Bolsa Chica Channel. Channel improvements are required to ensure that the Bolsa Chica Channel can accommodate peak flows associated with 100-year flood events. Locating the Bolsa Chica water transmission line in the maintenance road adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Channel would constrain these planned improvements. In addition, south of the I-405 freeway the Channel is located on land owned by the U.S. Naval Weapons Station. The Navy has granted an easement to the Orange County Flood Control District for the Channel. In general terms, it is the policy of the Department of the Navy to restrict the granting of easements on Navy property (Department of the Navy, 1995). Moreover, in this case, construction of the pipeline in the Flood Control District's easement would ensure that construction occurs in a zone demarcated by the Navy as being potentially affected by accidental explosion emanating from a nearby ammunition bunker. For these reasons, this alternative has been eliminated. D.1.4.2 Valley View/Bolsa Chica Road In developing the alignment for the proposed water line, this alternative was evaluated by SCWC as a possible pipeline route. This route was also evaluated as a possible alternative for the EIR. Description. With this alternative route, the pipeline would connect to SCWC's water system at the same location as the Proposed Project along Orangewood Avenue. From the point of connection to SCWC's system, the pipeline would head south along Valley View Street to a point just north of Interstate 405. The pipeline would be bored under Interstate 405 as proposed, and then follow the alignment of the Proposed Project to the Bolsa Chica Mesa. December 1999 D-7 Draft SEIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Rationale for Elimination. This alternative was eliminated because it does not provide any environmental advantage over the Proposed Project. This alternative would create substantial traffic impacts along Valley View Street during construction. North of the I-405, the Proposed Project would not create substantial traffic or land use impacts because the pipeline would be located in the maintenance road adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Channel rather than in public streets. By contrast, this alternative would result in traffic impacts on Valley View Street that would not be experienced with the Proposed Project. These traffic impacts are in addition to the impacts created by the Proposed Project route. D.1.4.3 Westminster Avenue/Seal Beach Boulevard In developing the alignment for the proposed water line, this alternative was evaluated by SCWC as a possible pipeline route. This route was also evaluated as a possible alternative for the EER. Because the developer of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community proposes to utilize an onsite groundwater well as a supplemental water source, consideration was given to the use of groundwater wells to supply all the water needs of the proposed residential development project. Description. This alternative utilizes an alternative water source for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community project -- the West Los Alamitos Wellfields. The pipeline route would start at the West Los Alamitos Wellfields, north of Interstate 405, just east of Seal Beach Boulevard. The pipeline would head south along Seal Beach Boulevard to Westminster Avenue, then head east along Westminster Avenue to Bolsa Chica Street. At Bolsa Chica Street, the pipeline would enter the northbound lane (western lane) of Bolsa Chica Street as proposed, and continue in the proposed alignment to the reservoir site on Bolsa Chica Mesa. Rationale for Elimination. This alternative was eliminated from the supplemental EER analysis because it does not provide any environmental advantage over the Proposed Project. In particular, this route would be approximately 1.4 miles longer than the proposed route. In addition, this route would be located within or adjacent to major roadways (i.e., Bolsa Chica Road, Westminster Boulevard, and Seal Beach Boulevard) almost the entire length of the route, potentially resulting in increased traffic impacts compared to the Proposed Project. These roadways have average daily traffic volumes between 20,000 and 45,000 vehicles. D.1.4.4 New Water Well Onsite Because the developer of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community proposes to utilize an onsite groundwater well as a supplemental water source, consideration was given to the use of groundwater wells to supply all the water needs of the proposed residential development project. • December 1999 D-8 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT _D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Description. An alternative to constructing the proposed pipeline would be to construct a groundwater well on Bolsa Chica Mesa as the sole source of water supply for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community project. The Bolsa Chica Planned Community project already incorporates an on-site groundwater well as a supplemental water source. Under this alternative, the amount of groundwater pumped from onsite wells would be increased to satisfy the total water demands of the proposed Bolsa Chica Planned Community project. The average daily requirement for the proposed Bolsa Chica Planned Community has been calculated to be 540 gpm. Rationale for Elimination. Although on-site well development appears favorable with regard to traffic and construction impacts, utilizing such a water source to meet the domestic water needs of residences proposed for the Mesa is problematic. Prudent water system criteria (including those from the California Department of Health Services) require a minimum of two sources of water supply. Additionally, water from the on-site well is not a desirable primary source of water because test results show colored water. Although the water is of sufficient quality for domestic consumption, the color reduces its attractiveness for this purpose. Finally, there is a risk of saltwater intrusion into the groundwater table as a result of drawdowns from any well developed in proximity to the coast. Reducing the required "take" from the on-site well is therefore prudent. For all these reasons, this alternative is not environmentally advantageous and was eliminated from further analysis. D.1.4.5 Pacific Coast Highway Pipeline Route This alternative was examined by the Applicant as a possible way to reduce traffic impacts along Bolsa Chica Road during construction. Description. This alternative would tap into the West Los Alamitos Wellfields north of Interstate 405. The water transmission line would proceed south from the wellfields along Seal Beach Boulevard to the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). At the PCH, the pipeline would proceed southeast along the PCH to Warner Avenue, then east along Warner Avenue/Los Patos Avenue before connecting with the proposed reservoir on Bolsa Chica Mesa. Rationale for Elimination. This alternative takes advantage of only one source of water (i.e., well water), although from multiple wells. It is possible that a larger transmission pipeline (e.g., 24 inches) would be required to convey the water due to the length of the pipeline and resulting loss in pressure over the nearly 7.75-mile distance. Temporary traffic, noise, and air quality impacts would result from the construction of the pipeline along this alternative route. Given the longer (one mile) route distance for this alternative, the impacts would be slightly greater for this alternative than those identified for the Proposed Project. Apart from length, this is particularly true for the Pacific Coast Highway segment, which would require spanning the bridge at Anaheim Bay. In addition, traffic impacts resulting from construction could be more severe given the high traffic volumes on both the Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard. December 1999 D-9 Draft SEIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Because the alignment is longer (one mile), the air emissions (primarily particulates) would be slightly greater and the temporary noise impacts would extend over a longer period of time. For these reasons, this route does not offer environmental advantages in comparison to the proposed route. D.2 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR COMPARATIVE EVALUATION In addition to SCWC's Proposed Project and the No Project Alternative, several other alternatives have been recommended for full analysis in this Supplemental EIR (see Figure D-2). The alternatives selected for evaluation in the EIR are described below. These alternatives were selected for evaluation because they fulfill the basic objectives of the project and have some potential to reduce the impacts of the Proposed Project, particularly potential traffic impacts during construction. D.2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: CONNECTION TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER SYSTEM The closest feasible alternative, from a technical and regulatory standpoint, for providing water service to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community project is connection to the City of Huntington Beach water supply and distribution system. The boundaries of the City abut the site of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community to the north and west. The City currently supplies water to these adjacent areas located within the City's boundaries. The City has a 12-inch water main in nearby Warner Avenue. Connection to this water main would be the closest source of water. Since this main supplies a `blended' water source, no augmentation by other sources would be required. There are a number of routes that a water line could take to provide a connection between the proposed residential development site and the water main in Warner Avenue. The best route appears to be connection at the intersection of Los Patos Avenue and Warner Avenue. Using this alignment, a pipeline could be constructed in the proposed pipeline easement on the northern side of the property on which the Bolsa Chica Planned Community would be located. This would result in minimal disturbance to the existing streets and to adjacent residences. In recent testimony before the California Public Utilities Commission, the City asserted that it remained willing to be the water service provider following annexation of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community into the City (COHB, 1999). In an attempt to establish mutually agreeable terms for annexation, the proponent of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community (Hearthside Homes, Inc.) and the City have conducted a series of negotiations, but the two parties have not reached agreement regarding these terms. Aside from the question of annexation, for the City to be the provider of water to the proposed development, the City believes that some improvements to City infrastructure would be desirable. Specifically, to ensure sufficient pressure for emergency fire flows, it would be desirable to upgrade a 1,000-foot length of the City's water main in Bolsa Chica Street from 8- to 12-inches. In addition, the City has expressed an interest in increasing the operational storage on the proposed residential development site in order to provide sufficient fire flows for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community as December 1999 D-10 Draft SEER BMA CIRCA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives 1 ,,, and Comp.v oo • _ 3 7 1�[�,-�zsç -joy. } a! # ,%03F'•e�7 `a „ ,-.."---fl a..1-"4. . 0'_f .4,'-.-- ..• ' •-Vieer:;',4"--, ...-pa Ls, ail wa LI -.A.-.,1-1 7p / .- /it ../.. ;Ii I ill lir).” , I � r N TI'f W ALA los/4vIh1 .J4•Ac, " • TOR Es RE reCRNTER IIt &a t _ MI •f , , !1 . -. . -Tt I• l / `�wQc.,74'. --.!•` „ . °. t 11 M i ww I r .M'R'�a�,v,.. �I� I aP 'ri -,-/,. i., , I ,: _ , _ !I 1�1 \ ommiiii. wa. �.+L ✓ �� .„...__, 1("�('►�4 - i,) i R,`�.a.71 S,, Jam{ I 11.! A J+%; �1'•riri Y�.L� • arr�� . L. -- a ' __ ''; .\r-,....-,..,.. .�_t L }• �r ,,• ��,, -•1 ..( art..,. .vir . 1,,, fir-- �_. - t .r r,.sly, 4-- - \ h \ : L. a. / As r •, t '; •� JII ��F/` in_=U �,' .:-. 3.--;-, r_ i .. __ i 4, U• ! ` e 1k Iv , tN II 5 t• 0IC4R^... b dd "Zr .0.,,,' 0.,, •!! , T: r'st .-.•Al- \ f le -.., . ..... .,....,, ga, . , .,.. ,i. „ . , . .,), ..il immt-, ., 1 , I-." 6 Y 7 % .1: , Anw,_%V.titilivik. -- ', t, --!wir.Agn312.... 4.--Q-121 �T '` J 11 W E.A • o f ,4 P t �� i t %'.ww { rl •-ail", '� S A BEA H I , �tMg, 1 \� '1,11 .'(...-1�1� , 11)t1;. a.. {/ y"i! IOOL yxl.�1N.T•.n�: . (Ii . . V 12 / .1 .a 7'� • u W`� i .,Itil •.' rF 9 1. 3�1 ...o ' ..`II ' I " GOV[k..MINT'" A'M� `i I \ '/� 1 dtJI M7 ; 4 iv 71 ,9 •I' r Mk ad ya .., wW..c .( us NAVAL , i{1. .aJ��'T ;.. LAS' li / - 'NV M•.3 w.7...,......._ .•._)l, -•• • ..1 1•( ,i' t ?Mi . F tti- '- rI^h,i �\ / `'``; I .atb` s �,I�� t- •,4 > ./ - 13 f �,-Q �.. Vlr 1^ 4f,1.•',a 11' �jj.yl �• 'la / .• `. • • , ..-. Fa' ..a— ,,�i i, wa`1Nw - \ K.,-. MOR? - % -"�—',-• ...-.-.--... .7.-...7.),� ;�klw�� =� ,,,,.,,�;---' l 1117`74 y"'.y.".�.•� 'p ` I •lana • _ w.w. 1.- . 'i 17T" 1 y 4� ,? 8A1/..ti-.y"71^` _ . .._. - Y 01---i----77-3.7---;;9... I ,•tarpN.lan : ° .' t. I"',.. T\ nm' �y� -arm 1'g -LIt ;Jr .. r sy'x''75''' -.._..-- !tr+.�; v. • • '. ...?•. �' �'"'et- 1,.�:•,[ .Y Z t/,• aatasa I . ,..�1:B. "i WO h".. 1. a. . ..::-..,<.,-.4,„N I� . I11, - '• 1 Via.;ti�, --.-r .�'. ':3"v'"-", +1t �: qj+>> re �� p�ityyq ' h oil f �I �y•all C ~GIro "� U. N 0 ti 1 AVM* a zs_...s. 11. . \ ' ( ' •S f% � qm , GI h ,rm . J "CawrG1 r`. t. ,\ '� Sunset Beach p V• C 1 �7 ii '� .. :i t...1.;.s A_ F1 ,.1?^•.- -'^ .•• Bel cl,k.chaonc( .e. -----3;!',.... •11I 1' M'1 -co.J M.heMr Barber City l (CFR D/.aonal Bolsa Chica Water Line \a / +" r� � . (RandomIwam, and Wastewater Project ( '� '"r t'' '' Figure D-2 ,,,. =`'`„ �\, , Conn.chen.rNh City Route Alternatives N ; "� �:'t Iw dHuntington Buch i r WM.Supply /��. Analyzed in the EIR it, `' '•\‘,.-,.1.% .5- ,. ' 5, `�-=k:� ! - liAspen O 1 North Seal Beach !nutro/Irt ntat Group tClf.hMI. Vr.IM.1.s 4.,.,.1..,1999 D-11 Dan SF IR 1 BOLSA CHICA WATER UNE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison well as surrounding areas. The size of operational storage on-site has been the subject of negotiation between the developer and the City of Huntington Beach. No CPUC action would be needed for the City of Huntington Beach to supply water to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community Project. D.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: ANAHEIM-BARBER CITY CHANNEL DIAGONAL(RANCHO ROAD) This alternative would connect to the SCWC system further east on Orangewood Avenue at Holder Street. From the point of connection at Orangewood Avenue and Holder Street, the pipeline would head south along Holder Street/Springdale Street in the southbound lanes to the Route 22 freeway. At the Route 22 freeway, the pipeline would be bored under the freeway, and would then continue south along Springdale Street to the intersection of Springdale Street and Meinhardt Road. South of Meinhardt Road, the pipeline would cross the Anaheim-Barber City Channel and travel southwest along the southern maintenance road adjacent to the channel. The pipeline would continue southwest along the southern maintenance road of the Anaheim-Barber City Channel, under Interstate 405 and across Westminster Boulevard, to Rancho Road. The pipeline would proceed southwest between the Anaheim-Barber City Channel and the southbound lane of Rancho Road to a point approximately 100 feet east of Bolsa Chica Road, where it would cross Rancho Road and continue south toward Bolsa Chica Road. The pipeline alignment turns south at the intersection of Rancho Road and Bolsa Chica Street and continues south as proposed in the northbound lanes of Bolsa Chica Street to Los Patos Avenue where the alignment turns west before terminating at the proposed underground reservoir on Bolsa Chica Mesa. D.2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: SPRINGDALE STREET/GRAHAM STREET This proposed route would be the same as Alternative 2 (Anaheim-Barber City Channel Diagonal) from the point of connection to the Springdale Street/Meinhardt Road intersection. South of Meinhardt Road, the pipeline would continue south (in the southbound lanes) along Springdale Street to McFadden Avenue, then head west along McFadden Avenue to Graham Street. The pipeline would then head south along Graham Street to Heil Avenue, then west on Heil Avenue to Green Avenue (Green Avenue is located west of Bolsa Chica Street). The pipeline would then head south on Green Avenue to Los Patos Avenue, then cross Los Patos Avenue and enter the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site. The pipeline would then turn west and terminate at the proposed underground reservoir on Bolsa Chica Mesa. D.2.4 ALTERNATIVE 4: NORTH SEAL BEACH WELLFIELDS This alternative would supply water from the North Seal Beach Wellfields on Lampson Avenue. From the wellfields, the pipeline would head east along Lampson Avenue to the Bolsa Chica Channel, then December 1999 D-13 Draft SEIR BOLSA CH1CA WATER LINT AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison follow the Proposed Project route south to the site of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The North Seal Beach Wellfields are owned and operated by the City of Seal Beach. These wells are the primary water source for the City. While use of these wells to supply the Bolsa Chica Planned Community is technically feasible, the City and the proponent of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community would need to negotiate an agreement for the supply of water to the residential development. No CPUC action would be needed for the City of Seal Beach to supply water to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community Project. D.3 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE With the No Project Alternative, SCWC would not serve as the water purveyor or the wastewater management agency for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site and the proposed 6.7-mile domestic water transmission line would not be constructed. As a result, under the No Project Alternative, the various impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed water transmission line would not occur. Without implementation of the Proposed Project, the proponent of the proposed residential development would be forced to find an alternative water supply for its project. As Section A.3 reveals, the proponent has investigated a number of potential water sources/suppliers, and found the current project to be the most feasible. It should not be assumed that, under the No Project Alternative, the construction of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community would not proceed. There are other available water sources that could supply the residential development (as described in Section D.2), even though the developer does not favor these at this time. As previously described for Alternative 1, the City of Huntington Beach is the closest source of water for the proposed Bolsa Chica Planned Community. Provision of water from this source is contingent upon the annexation of the Planned Community into the City. There are, of course, other water supply alternatives (e.g., connection to the North Seal Beach wellfields), but these would all require the construction of a water transmission line of some length. Therefore, resultant actions associated with the No Project Alternative would most likely consist of either: (1) connection to the City of Huntington Beach's water system and the construction of the water facilities required for this connection; or (2) the construction of a water transmission line to bring water to Bolsa Chica from a source other than SCWC. As described in the preceding sections (Sections D.1 and D.2), there are impacts associated with either of these likely scenarios; however, connection to the City of Huntington Beach's water system would result in fewer and generally less severe impacts than other alternatives. December 1999 D-14 Draft SEM BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE A.Nn WAS1JW'ATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison D.4 COMPARATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES D.4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: CONNECTION TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER SYSTEM As described in Section D.2.1, the closest feasible alternative for water service provision for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community project is connection to the City of Huntington Beach water supply and distribution system. The City has a 12-inch water main in nearby Warner Avenue. The best route for connection to the City's water system appears to be at the intersection of Los Patos Avenue and Warner Avenue. Using this alignment, the pipeline could be constructed in the proposed pipeline easement on the northern side of the property on which the Bolsa Chica Planned Community will be located. The impacts of this alternative in comparison to the Proposed Project are discussed below. Air Quality As described above, this pipeline alternative would connect to the City of Huntington Beach water system at the intersection of Los Patos Avenue and Warner Avenue. The water line required to make this connection would be approximately 0.33 miles in length, much shorter than the Proposed Project route (6.7 miles). Because of the relatively short length of the water line, this alternative would have much lower emission levels associated with construction activities than the Proposed Project. As a result, no significant construction impacts would be anticipated for this alternative. All construction impacts would be considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). Mitigation Measures A-1 through A-9 (see Section C.1) would help to further reduce emission levels associated with construction. The air quality impacts associated with the operation and maintenance activities would be very similar to the Proposed Project. Operational emissions would be adverse, but less than significant (Class III). Noise This route alternative is the shortest alignment among the alternatives; therefore, noise impacts associated with construction activities would be substantially reduced compared to construction of the Proposed Project. Ambient noise levels along this route are similar to the level that was measured at sample location 8 (see Table C.2-2), which was approximately 55 dBA. However, ambient levels are expected to increase to between 65 and 70 dBA as the route approaches Warner Avenue. No sensitive receptors were identified along the connection route with the City of Huntington Beach water supply; however, there are residences along Los Patos Avenue that could potentially be impacted by short-term construction noise. Because of the short length of this pipeline alternative and the lack of sensitive receptors adjacent to the alignment, this alternative would have substantially less construction noise impacts compared to the Proposed Project. December 1999 D-15 Draft SEIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LENT AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Short-term construction noise would be considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). Potential noise impacts associated with the operation and maintenance activities would be similar to the Proposed Project: adverse, but less than significant (Class III). Traffic and Circulation Impacts of Added Traffic. While the type of impacts due to added traffic would be similar to the Proposed Project alignment, the duration of impacts would be much shorter for this alternative. As with the Proposed Project these impacts would be Class III impacts and no mitigation measures are proposed. Impacts on Roadway System Capacity. Since this alternative involves the construction of a very short pipeline along the south side of Los Patos Avenue, the roadway capacity-related impacts would be very minor and localized compared to the Proposed Project. A review of this alternative has determined that these impacts would be Class III in nature, and no significant mitigation measures are required. Impacts on Local Development Access. Since this alternative involves construction of a relatively short pipeline segment along the south side of Los Patos Avenue, the access-related impacts would be very minor and much less significant than the Proposed Project. The evaluation of this alternative indicates that access-related impacts would be Class III in nature, and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts on Transit Service. This alternative would have no effect on existing transit service. Impacts on Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation. This alternative would have no impact on existing bicycle routes. There are no pedestrian crosswalks on the Huntington Beach Water Supply alternative alignment. Environmental Contamination This alternative alignment would be bounded by residences on the north and undeveloped open land on the south (the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site). Using the screening criteria in Table C.4-1 and information acquired during a visual site reconnaissance, agency-listed active hazardous waste sites within the study corridor for this alternative water line route were screened based on their potential for environmental impact due to contamination. No sites with high, medium, or low potential for environmental impact due to contamination were identified. Therefore, this alternative has no potential to be affected by known areas of contamination. In addition, due to the substantially shorter length of this water line route, this alternative has substantially less potential than the Proposed Project to encounter undiscovered areas of contamination. December 1999 D-16 Draft SEIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT - D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Geology and Soils This alternative would result in a relatively short segment of pipeline being constructed instead of the proposed SCWC water transmission line (Proposed Project). This alternative is located in an area of low liquefaction potential. However, this alternative does intersect the edge of the Alquist-Priolo zone for the North Branch fault and could be subject to fault rupture and strong ground motion. Implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1 and G-2 would reduce these Class I and Class II impacts. Since this alternative would eliminate the need to construct the substantially longer pipeline of the Proposed Project, this alternative requires fewer mitigation measures than the Proposed Project. Hydrology and Water Quality Surface drainage in the area of this pipeline connection is to Huntington Harbor at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Edgewater Lane. This alternative would result in the construction of a water line that is substantially shorter than the Proposed Project and would not involve the placement of any structures in the path of a 100-year flood flow. Construction associated with this alignment would not involve construction north of Heil Avenue. All alignments north of Heil Avenue are likely to encounter shallow groundwater and aquifers with poor water quality. Accordingly, this alternative will not involve any impacts related to dewatering. Biology As described above, the proposed connection to the City of Huntington Beach water system would entail a significantly shorter pipeline route than the Proposed Project. The urban development to the north of the installation corridor, and the vegetation disturbance to the south of the alternative corridor make biological impacts minimal. However, this alternative does come closer (within 500 feet) to the Warner Pond than any other alternative or the Proposed Project. Warner Pond has been identified as an Ecologically Significant Habitat Unit by the California Department of Fish and Game (see discussion in the 1996 Recirculated Draft EIR for the Bolsa Chica Report LCP). The installation of the water line would need to include appropriate Best Management Practices to avoid any hydrological or sediment impacts to this sensitive area. Overall, the shorter pipeline length, in an already disturbed area, decreases the probability of any biological impact in comparison to the other alternatives and the Proposed Project. Biological impacts associated with this alternative are not significant. Cultural Resources This alternative has less potential for the discovery of cultural resources during construction because the length of excavation required for pipeline is very short. However, as with other alternatives, the area in the vicinity of the connection between the pipeline and the on-site storage area is an area of high sensitivity and cultural resource impacts can be expected in this area (Class II). There will be no December 1999 D-17 Draft SEIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison impact on site CA-ORA-83/86/144. Overall, the impacts associated with this alternative are less than for other alternatives. The mitigation measures recommended for the Proposed Project would need to apply to this alternative. Land Use and Recreation This alternative would induce the least land use impacts of all the alternatives. The pipeline could be aligned within the boundaries of the Bolsa Chica Planning Community site and therefore, access problems for adjacent land uses would be minimal. There would be no impacts on recreation facilities. Public Services and Utilities This route alternative is by far the shortest alignment among the alternatives and would not cause any significant impacts to public services or utilities. The pipeline could be aligned from the connection point at the intersection of Warner and Los Patos to within the boundaries of the Bolsa Chica Planning Community site, which would reduce the likelihood of potential impacts associated with street construction (e.g., blocked emergency service provider access, existing utility disruption) compared to the Proposed Project. Therefore, impacts to public services and utilities associated with construction activities would be substantially reduced compared to construction of the Proposed Project. D.4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: ANAHEIM-BARBER CITY CHANNEL DIAGONAL(RANCHO ROAD) As described in Section D.2.2, this alternative would connect to the SCWC system further east on Orangewood Avenue at Holder Street. From the point of connection at Orangewood Avenue and Holder Street, the pipeline would head south along Holder Street/Springdale Street to the intersection of Springdale Street and Meinhardt Road. South of Meinhardt Road, the pipeline would cross the Anaheim-Barber City Channel and travel southwest along the southern maintenance road adjacent to the channel before utilizing the space between the Channel and Rancho Road. The pipeline alignment turns south at the intersection of Rancho Road and Bolsa Chica Street and continues south as proposed in the northbound lanes of Bolsa Chica Street to Los Patos Avenue where the alignment turns west before terminating at the proposed underground reservoir on Bolsa Chica Mesa. The impacts of this alternative in comparison to the Proposed Project are discussed below. Air Quality Because this alternative route is slightly longer (0.3 miles longer) than the Proposed Project, it is assumed that the construction emissions for this alternative would be approximately 5% higher than the emissions estimated for the Proposed Project. The estimated maximum daily and quarterly emissions associated with construction of the pipeline would exceed the SCAQMD's significance threshold for NOx (100 lbs/day and 2.5 tons/quarter), resulting in a potentially significant impact. The NOx emissions could be reduced through the implementation of Mitigation Measures A-1 through A-9 (see December 1999 D-18 Draft SEIR BOLSA CRICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Section C.1). However, the residual NOx emissions would still be above the SCAQMD's daily and quarterly thresholds of significance, representing a short-term air quality impact (Class I). It should be noted that the other pollutants (VOC, SOx, CO, and PM[oz) are all below the SCAQMD emission thresholds for construction. As a result, these pollutant emission levels would be considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). The air quality impacts associated with the operation and maintenance activities would also be very similar to the Proposed Project. Operational emissions would be adverse, but less than significant (Class III). Noise Recorded ambient levels along this route range between 59 and 67 dBA (see Table D.4-1). Residences and eight sensitive receptors consisting of parks, schools, daycare centers are located adjacent to the alternative route alignment (see Table D.4-2). Short-term construction noise could potentially impact these residences and sensitive receptors; however, these construction noise levels would not result in significant impacts. Because there are considerably more (six additional) sensitive receptors along this alternative route compared to the Proposed Project route, the Proposed Route would have fewer noise related impacts than the Anaheim-Barber City Channel Diagonal Alternative Route. Short-term construction noise would be considered adverse, but mitigable (Class II) and would require the same mitigation as the Proposed Project (see mitigation measures N-1, N-2 and N-3). Potential noise impacts associated with the operation and maintenance activities would be similar to the Proposed Project. Operational noise levels would be adverse, but less than significant (Class III). Table D.4-1 Measured Ambient Noise Levels t along the Anaheim-Barber City Channel Dia onal Alternative Route #2 Description Survey Time Leq Max Min Key Information East side of Holder St. at Location is adjacent to Hettinga Manzanita 10 Biak St. 10:10 a.m. 63.1 82.3 40.7 Park. Low traffic levels were noted on Holder St. East side of Springdale Location is located between Bell Intermediate 11 St., north of Lampson 10:34 a.m. 59.2 76.7 42.9 School and John Enders School. Children were Ave. noted playing in the schoolyards of both schools. East side of Springdale Location is adjacent to Rossier Elementary 12 St., south of Stanford 11:00 a.m. 61.2 80.8 45.6 School. Moderate traffic was noted on Ave. Springdale Ave. 13 Comer of Springdale and 11.25 a.m. 65.9 81.6 50.4 Location is approximately150 ft. Iroquois Road 14 Rancho Road and Spa 12:15 p.m. 67.0 79.7 50,4 Measurement was taken on the northwest side Drive of Rancho Road, east of Spa Drive. In addition to sample locations 10 through 14, locations 6 through 8 along the Proposed Route(see Table C.2-2)are representative of the Anaheim-Barber City Diagonal(Rancho Road)Alternative Route. 1) All measurements are in dBA -_ Lw= Equivalent Sound Level, a measurement (in this case 20 minutes) that accounts for the moment-to- moment fluctuations due to all sound sources during the measurement period, combined. L.= The maximum sound level reached during a sampling period L.,.= The minimum sound level reached during a sampling period 2) See Figure C.2-3 for location of these sample/monitoring sites. December 1999 D-19 Draft SEIR • 1 BOLSA CHICA WATER LENT AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Table D.4-2 Sensitive Receptors Along Anaheim—Barber City Channel Dia onal Alternative Route #t Sensitive Receptor Jurisdiction Location Description 4 Hettinga Manzanita Park Cypress Holder St. and Biak St. 5 John Enders School Garden Grove East side of Springdale St., south of Bellgrave Ave. 6 Bell Intermediate School Garden Grove West side of Springdale St., south of Beligrave Ave. 7 Childtime Children Center Garden Grove West side of Springdale St., north of Lampson Ave. 8 Loyal H. Barker Elementary School Garden Grove West side of Springdale St., south of Lampson Ave. 9 Rossier Elementary School Garden Grove Stanford Ave. and Springdale Ave. 10 Sequoia Elementary School Garden Grove Iroquois Rd., west of Springdale Ave. 11 Virginia K. Boos Park Westminster Hampton Place, west of the Anaheim Barber City Channel. 1) See Figure C.2-3 for locations of these sensitive receptor sites. Traffic and Circulation Impacts of Added Traffic. The impact of added traffic due to this alternative would be essentially the same as that discussed for the Proposed Project alignment. As with the Proposed Project, these impacts would be Class III impacts and no mitigation measures are proposed. Impacts on Roadway System Capacity. South of Rancho Road, this route alternative has the same routing as the Proposed Project. North of I-405, the pipeline routing for this alternative follows Springdale Street and Holder Street to Orangewood Avenue (and is identical to the Alternative 3 alignment). The segment on Rancho Road between Springdale Street and Bolsa Chica Street is the only unique segment which does not occur in any other alternative. Impacts of this alternative on roadway capacity would be comparable to the Proposed Project. While the capacity impacts would likely be less severe on Rancho Road, due to lower traffic volumes, the slightly longer route and the resulting lengthier construction schedule may offset this. In the segment north of the I-405, on Springdale and Holder streets, pipeline construction would typically result in the temporary blockage of one travel lane as construction progresses along the route. The impacts on capacity in this segment would be similar to the Proposed Project, although the impacts would be experienced over a longer distance because this alternative uses public streets for a greater distance. As with the Proposed Project, capacity impacts for this alternative would be Class I in nature and require the same mitigation as the Proposed Project (see Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2). Impacts on Local Access. South of Rancho Road, this route alternative has the same routing as the Proposed Project. North of 1-405, the pipeline routing for this alternative is identical to the Springdale December 1999 D-20 Draft SEIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Street alignment (Alternative 3). The segment on Rancho Road between Springdale Street and Bolsa Chica Street is the only unique segment that does not occur in any other alternative. Impacts of this alternative on local access would be the same as the Springdale Street alignment (Alternative 3) between Orangewood Avenue and Interstate 405 and the same as the Proposed Project alignment between Rancho Road and the southern project terminus. The unique route segment in this alternative is the diagonal connecting segment along Rancho Road. Land use on Springdale and Holder Streets north of the I-405 is comprised primarily of residential development which accesses Springdale Street via local or collector street intersections. Between Chapman Avenue and State Route 22, there are three school sites that access Springdale Street via either direct access driveways or intersecting local streets. Two of the schools are located along the west side of Springdale Street and one is on the east side. Between State Route 22 and Interstate 405 there are a few strip commercial centers that are served by driveways onto Springdale Street. If the pipeline is located in the west half of Springdale Street, approximately 16 driveways would be impacted, while if in the east half, nine driveways would be impacted. Approximately nine local street intersections would be at least partially impacted by the pipeline construction regardless of which side of the street the pipeline is located. Development along Rancho Road is comprised of residential use along the northwest side and a combination of residential and industrial along the southeast side. The Anaheim-Barber City Channel, abutting the northwest side of Rancho Road, separates residential development from Rancho Road and limits the number of access points. There are no driveways located along this northwest side of Rancho Road. Approximately 22 driveways exist along the southeast side and most are to residences located northeast of the railroad crossing. There are five intersecting local/collector streets along Rancho Road. Access impacts along Rancho Road could be minimized significantly if the pipeline was to be routed between the channel and Rancho Road. The total number of driveways impacted by the combined Springdale Street and Rancho Road segments would range from 8 to 36 depending on its exact placement. This compares to eight impacted driveways along the equivalent segment of the Proposed Project. The total number of local/collector street intersections for the Springdale Street and Rancho Road alignment is approximately 14. This compares to approximately eight access intersections for the Proposed Project. These comparisons show that the Anaheim-Barber City Channel diagonal alternative would have approximately the same or slightly higher access impacts as the Proposed Project alignment. December 1999 D-21 Draft SEER • BOLSA CHICA WATER UNE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison As with the Proposed Project, this alternative would result in Class I impacts on many driveway access points along the route and Class II impacts on local/collector street intersections along the route. Mitigation measures would be the same as those identified for the Proposed Project (see Mitigation Measure T-3). Impacts on Transit Service. On the northern portion of this alignment (i.e. north of the Rancho - Bolsa Chica Road intersection) construction impacts would affect transit routes 60, 164, 56 and 54. The southern segment of this alignment, on Bolsa Chica Street, would have the same impacts on transit as the Proposed Project. The following describes each bus route that would be impacted by pipeline construction along the northern segment of this alignment. • OCTA bus route 54 runs east-west along Chapman Avenue in the City of Garden Grove, terminating at Belgrave and Valley View streets. It crosses the proposed Springdale pipeline alignment at Holder Street and Chapman Avenue. Route 54 has headways of 20 minutes in the peak hours and 20-30 minutes in the off-peak hours. • OCTA bus route 56 runs north-south along Valley View Street and east-west along Garden Grove Boulevard in the Cities of Garden Grove and Westminster, respectively. It crosses the proposed Springdale pipeline alignment at Garden Grove Boulevard and Springdale Street. Route 56 has headways of 30 minutes in the peak and mid-day hours and 60 minutes in the night-time off-peak hours. • OCTA bus route 60 runs east-west along Westminster Boulevard in the City of Westminster. It crosses the proposed Springdale alignment at Springdale Street and Westminster Boulevard. It also crosses the Anaheim-Barber City Channel alignment at Rancho Road. Route 60 has headways of 10-15 minutes during the peak hours and 15-30 minutes during the off-peak hours. • OCTA route 164 runs along Lampson Avenue in Seal Beach, Valley View Street in Garden Grove, Garden Grove Boulevard in Westminster and Edwards Street in Westminster. Route 164 has headways of one hour throughout the day. The impacts to these bus routes are described below. Transit service on routes 54, 56, and 60 will be disrupted for a period of three to six days as construction of the pipeline advances across the affected intersections along each bus route. There would be no similar delays on routes 54 or 56 if the Proposed Project alignment were selected. Bus route 60 would also be disrupted for a period of three to six days as construction of the pipeline advances across Warner Avenue. Delays on this route would be substantially the same as for the Proposed Project alignment. December 1999 D-22 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT - D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Transit service on Route 164 will be disrupted for a period of three to six days as construction of the pipeline advances across Garden Grove Boulevard. Delays to Route 164 under the Springdale alternative would be similar to delays under the Proposed Project. Impacts of pipeline construction on bus schedules will be at the Class II level (significant but mitigable). Mitigation measures for this alternative would be as defined in T-4 and T-5 for the Proposed Project. The southern segment of this alignment, on Bolsa Chica Street, would have the same impacts on transit as the Proposed Project alignment. Impact significance and mitigation measures for the Holder Street/Springdale Street segment would be the same as for the Alternative 3 alignment north of I-405. Impact significance of the Rancho Road segment of this alignment would be at the Class III level (no mitigation required). Impact significance of the Bolsa Chica Street segment of this alignment would be the same as for the Proposed Project. Impacts on Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation. The Anaheim-Barber City Channel Alternative (#2) would have no impact on existing bicycle routes. Pedestrian crosswalks cross the Anaheim-Barber City Channel alignment at the following locations • Orangewood Avenue • Lampson Avenue • Santa Barbara Street • Stanford Avenue • Chapman Avenue • Westminster Boulevard • Belgrave Avenue • Bolsa Chica Street. Similar to the Proposed Project, impacts of pipeline construction on pedestrian crosswalks would be at the Class II level (significant but mitigable). Mitigation measures would be the same as described for the Proposed Project (see Mitigation Measures T-6 and T-7). Environmental Contamination The Anaheim-Barber City Channel Diagonal Alternative (#2) traverses predominantly residential neighborhoods. Residences in the area consist of small- to medium-sized single-family homes. Five schools and three daycare centers are located within 1,000 feet of the alignment. One large industrial facility is located adjacent to this alignment. A Boeing Company manufacturing plant is located at the intersection of Rancho Road and Bolsa Chica Street. Using the screening criteria in Table C.4-1 and information acquired during a visual site reconnaissance, agency-listed active hazardous waste sites within the study corridor for the Anaheim- Barber City Channel Diagonal Alternative pipeline route were screened based on their potential for environmental impact due to contamination. Contaminated sites with potential for environmental impact along this alignment were identified and are presented in Table D.4-3. (Regulatory agency-listed sites December 1999 D-23 Draft SEIR BOLSA CHICA WATER Ln.t AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison requiring no further action and sites ranked as no potential for impact are not presented in the table.) Table D.4-3 lists two hazardous waste sites with potential to cause impacts along the Anaheim-Barber City Channel Diagonal Alternative. These sites are assessed as posing a medium risk of causing environmental impacts. For this alternative, there are fewer contaminated sites posing a lower overall risk of causing environmental impacts than for the Proposed Project(Class III). Table D.4-3 Anaheim-Barber City Channel Diagonal Alternative Hazardous Waste Sites With Potential to Impact the Project Potential EDR ID' Site Name Address Lists Status3 to Impact Notes Project Site is currently a vacant Unocal 13251 GEN ?Gen lot. Waste oil leak, post- 5 Service Springdale Street UST Active Medium remedial monitoring Station LUST RA underway. Boeing Very large site occupied by Corp./ 5212/5223 GEN SmGen Boeing, portion of property 13 McDonnell Rancho Road UST Active Medium nearest the alignment Douglas LUST CC appears to be used for manufacturing. Notes: 1) Environmental Data Resources(EDR)Environmental Information Data Site I.D. Number(1999). 2) Regulatory Agency Listing: LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, includes leaking tanks listed under LUST Information System, Cal EPA, CORTESE, and other Local agencies UST = Registered Underground Storage Tanks, including tanks listed with state and local agencies GEN = Hazardous Waste Generator, includes CORTESE Hazardous Waste Information System Listings and other local agencies 3) Status Codes: CC = Case closed, remediation completed or not deemed necessary PA = Preliminary assessment underway RA = Remedial assessment/action underway NR = Status not reported Active = Underground Storage Tank in service ?Gen = Amount of hazardous waste generated per month not specified LgGen = Large Generator generates at least 1000 Kg/month of non-acutely hazardous waste or 1 Kg/month of acutely hazardous waste Geology and Soils This alternative segment would replace the northern portion of the Proposed Project route (between Orangewood Avenue to Rancho Road). Geologic impacts for this alternative include potential fault rupture, strong ground shaking, potential liquefaction and lateral spreading, and corrosive soils (Class H). Mitigation Measures G-1 through G-4 identified for the Proposed Project would apply to this alternative as well. Hydrology and Water Quality Along this alternative pipeline route between the development site and Edinger Avenue drainage is to Sunset Channel (C07), which then drains into Huntington Harbor. From Edinger Avenue to Rancho Road, drainage is to Bolsa Chica Channel (CO2). From Rancho Road to the San Diego Freeway (I- December 1999 D-24 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LLNE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison 405), drainage is to the Anaheim-Barber City Channel (CO3). Also, along Springdale Street from the San Diego Freeway to Garden Grove, drainage is to the Anaheim-Barber City Channel (CO3). From Garden Grove to the Orangewood feeder along Springdale Street, drainage is to Bolsa Chica Channel (CO2). Impacts to drainage and water quality associated with this alternative would be similar to those described for the Proposed Project. The construction activities could result in contribution to sediment loading in the storm channels or ocean outfalls, but not into wetlands. However, based on the most likely construction scenario, it is unlikely that construction practices will result in a significant contribution to the sediment loading in the subject channels. This impact is thus classified as adverse, but less than significant (Class III). At the Westminster Channel crossing, the pipeline would be located within the 100-year flood flow path. However, it is very unlikely that both (1) 100-year flood flows would occur, and (2) the flood flows would damage the truss of the pipeline. Furthermore, in the event that the pipeline was damaged, the pipeline would be repairable in a short period of time. As a result, this impact would be considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). During operation of the pipeline, the possibility exists that the pipeline may rupture, disrupting service to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community, as well as eventually saturating and potentially eroding the surrounding soil. As discussed in Section C.6, the potential for this action is very unlikely, and therefore, this impact is considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). It should be noted that there is no potential for pipeline exposure from lateral erosion along storm channels adjacent to this alternative. This alternative, like the Proposed Project and all other alternatives except for connection to the City of Huntington Beach, involves construction north of Heil Avenue. As a result, construction is likely to encounter shallow groundwater and aquifers with poor water quality. Accordingly, this alternative will have impacts associated with dewatering similar to those for the Proposed Project (Class III). Biology Urban environment surrounds the alternative corridor to the same extent as the Proposed Project. The urban development limits the wildlife to those that easily adapted to the human presence, and limits the space available for sensitive plants. The benefit of this alternative is the avoidance of the northern section of the Bolsa Chica Channel near the Seal Beach U.S. Naval Weapons Station where the soft- bottomed channel supports limited riparian vegetation that attracts birds (see Section C.8, Biological Resources). This alternative includes an additional water crossing, the Anaheim-Barber City Channel; however, it is concrete-lined and does not support a biological community. Therefore, this alternative will have no biological impacts. December 1999 D-25 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WAS LWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Cultural Resources As with the other alternatives and the Proposed Project, this alternative passes through an urbanized environment, utilizing public streets and rights-of-way. This alternative therefore requires a similar amount of excavation as most of the other alternatives and the Proposed Project. This alignment of the pipeline would pass through areas sensitive for prehistoric and historic resources as well as other areas that are less sensitive. The impacts to cultural resources resulting from this alternative are anticipated to be broadly similar to those of the other alternatives and the Proposed Project (Class II). The mitigation measures recommended for the Proposed Project would also need to be applied for this alternative. Land Use and Recreation This alternative has the advantage of avoiding land use impacts associated with congestion on Bolsa Chica Street north of Rancho Road. While this is desirable, this alternative transfers these problems to Holder and Springdale Streets. This alternative alignment has greater potential for land use impacts because it utilizes more public streets than the Proposed Project alignment and thus exposes more residential and commercial land uses to disruptions associated with pipeline construction. Overall, the impacts associated with this alternative are anticipated to be similar to those associated with the Proposed Project (Class III). The impacts associated with access to and use of recreational resources would be diminished in this alternative because the alignment would be removed from the vicinity of the Naval Base Golf Course at LAAFRC. However, access to Manzanita Park on Holder Street would be temporarily disrupted due to construction. These impacts, although adverse, are not considered to be significant (Class III). Public Services and Utilities This alternative alignment would not cause significant impacts; however, it is within more public streets than the Proposed Project alignment and thus, the likelihood of potential impacts associated with street construction (e.g., blocked emergency service provider access, existing utility disruption) would be higher compared to the Proposed Project. Therefore, impacts to public services and utilities associated with construction activities would be slightly greater compared to construction of the Proposed Project. The impacts although adverse, are not considered to be significant (Class III). D.4.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: SPRINGDALE STREET/GRAHAM STREET As described in Section D.2.3, from the point of connection to the Springdale Street/Meinhardt Road intersection, this alternative pipeline route would be the same as Alternative 2 (Anaheim—Barber City Channel Diagonal). South of Meinhardt Road, the pipeline would continue south (in the southbound lanes) along Springdale Street to McFadden Avenue, then west along McFadden Avenue to Graham Street before turning south on Graham Street to Heil Avenue. The alignment would continue west on December 1999 D-26 Draft SEIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Heil Avenue to Green Avenue before turning south on Green Avenue to Los Patos Avenue, across Los Patos Avenue to enter the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site. The impacts of this alternative in comparison to the Proposed Project are discussed below. Air Quality Because this alternative route is slightly longer (0.9 miles) than the Proposed Project, it is assumed that the construction emissions for this alternative would be approximately 14% higher than the emissions estimated for the Proposed Project. The estimated maximum daily and quarterly emissions associated with construction of the pipeline would exceed the SCAQMD's significance threshold for NOx (100 lbs/day and 2.5 tons/quarter), resulting in a potentially significant impact. The NOx emissions could be reduced through the implementation of Mitigation Measures A-1 through A-9 (see Section C.1). However, the residual NOx emissions would still be above the SCAQMD's daily and quarterly thresholds of significance, representing a short-term (Class I) air quality impact. It should be noted that the other pollutants (VOC, SOx, CO, and PMi07) would be below the SCAQMD emission thresholds for construction. As a result, these pollutant emission levels would be considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). The air quality impacts associated with the operation and maintenance activities would also be very similar to the Proposed Project. Operational emissions would be adverse, but less than significant (Class III). Noise Approximate recorded ambient levels along this route range between 57 and 75 dBA (see Table D.4-4). The alternative pipeline route is located in proximity to residential receptors and ten sensitive receptors consisting of parks, schools, a children center, a chapel, and a library (see Table D.4-5). Short-term construction noise could potentially impact these residences and sensitive receptors; however, this alternative would not result in significant impacts. Because there are considerably more (eight additional) sensitive receptors along this alternative route compared to the Proposed Project route, noise impacts associated with construction activities would be greater with this alternative than the Proposed Project. Overall, short-term construction noise levels would be considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). December 1999 D-27 Draft SEER BOISA CHICA WATER LINE AND WAS I r,WATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Table D.4-4 Measured Ambient Noise Levels' along the Springdale Street/ Graham Street Route ha Description Survey Leq Max Min Key Information Time This route is the same as the Rancho Road Alternative Route north of the 405 Freeway. Sample locations 10 through 13 are also representative of Alternative 3. Corner of Springdale Location is on the southeast corner of 15 Street and Chinook 3:20 p.m. 74.9 90.9 52.7 Springdale Street and Chinook Avenue. Avenue 16 Corner of Product and 2:57 p.m. 69.0 81.6 53.4 Measurement was taken on the southwestern McFadden Avenue corner of Product and McFadden Avenue. 17 Graham Street north of 1:50 p.m. 68.4 86.4 49.3 In front of the Huntington Beach Public Edinger Avenue. Library System-Helen Murphy Branch. Location is on the east side of Green Street, 18 Green Street 1:10 p.m. 56.5 78.9 42.2 approximately 100 south of Pierce Street. I) All measurements are in dBA Lam= Equivalent Sound Level, a measurement (in this case 20 minutes) that accounts for the moment-to-moment fluctuations due to all sound sources during the measurement period, combined. Lam= The maximum sound level reached during a sampling period Lmm= The minimum sound level reached during a sampling period 2) See Figure C.2-3 for location of these sample/monitoring sites. Table D.4-5 Sensitive Receptors Along the Springdale Street/Graham Street Route #' Sensitive Receptor Jurisdiction Location Description In addition to the sensitive receptors listed for the Rancho Road Route (numbers 4 through 10), the Springdale St./Graham St. Route is adjacent to the following sensitive receptors: 12 Calvary Chapel Huntington Beach McFadden Ave. and Product Lane 13 Huntington Beach Public Library Huntington Beach Graham St., north of Edinger Ave 14 Wheeler Park Huntington Beach Graham St. and Edinger Ave 1) See Figure C.2-3 for locations of these sensitive receptor sites. Potential noise impacts associated with the operation and maintenance activities would be similar to the Proposed Project. Operational noise levels would be adverse, but less than significant (Class III). Traffic and Circulation Impacts of Added Traffic. The impact of added traffic due to this alternative would be essentially the same as that discussed for the Proposed Project alignment. As with the Proposed Project, these impacts would be Class III impacts and no mitigation measures are proposed. Impacts on Roadway System Capacity. The Springdale Street/Graham Street routing alternative has a routing segment common to the Proposed Project south of Heil Avenue. North of the I-405, this alternative assumes an alignment common to the Anaheim-Barber City Channel Diagonal (Alternative # 2). South of the I-405, this alternative follows Springdale Street south, before turning west on McFadden Avenue to Graham Street and then Graham Street south to Heil Avenue. The route then turns west on Heil Avenue to Bolsa Chica Street. December 1999 D-28 Draft SEER r BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison While the exact location of the pipeline has not been defined within the affected streets, it is reasonable to assume that the construction procedures would be similar to those described for the Proposed Project. The pipeline construction zone would typically result in the temporary blockage of one travel lane as construction progresses along the pipeline route. Springdale Street, McFadden Avenue, Graham Street and Heil Avenue are all four-lane roads with center medians; at least one lane will be blocked at a given time. It should also be noted that this alternative requires a longer distance to be traversed along streets. All factors considered, this alternative would have a similar level of roadway capacity related impacts as the Proposed Project. The significance of capacity impacts due to this alternative would be Class I, which is the same as evaluated for the Proposed Project. Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2 identified for the Proposed Project would also apply to this alternative. Impacts on Local Access. The potential impacts of this alternative on local access would be similar in nature to those identified for the Proposed Project. As the construction of the pipeline progresses along the affected streets, both direct access driveways and local/collector street intersections serving adjacent development will be either blocked entirely or partially blocked. The access impacts are described for each segment of the alignment below. Springdale Street - Orangewood Avenue to Interstate 405. See Anaheim-Barber City Channel Diagonal (Alternative #2). Springdale Street - Interstate 405 to McFadden Avenue. Development adjacent to this segment of Springdale Street is comprised of a mix of residential, industrial/business park, and commercial. There are approximately 17 driveways which are located along the west side of Springdale Street and approximately 13 driveways located along the east side. Approximately 10 local/collector street intersections would be affected along this segment. McFadden Avenue - Springdale Street to Graham Street. Development adjacent to McFadden Avenue is comprised of industrial and business park uses. Five driveways exist along the north side of the street and six driveways along the south side. Four local/collector street intersections would be affected along this segment. Graham Street - McFadden Avenue to Heil Avenue. Development adjacent to Graham Street is predominantly industrial/business park north of Edinger Avenue and a mix of commercial and residential south of Edinger Avenue. Approximately ten driveways exist along the west side of Graham Street and seven driveways along the east side. A total of four local/collector street intersections would be affected along this segment. December 1999 D-29 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Heil Avenue - Graham Street to Bolsa Chica Street. Development along Heil Avenue consists of a mix of residential and commercial uses. There are four driveways located along the north side of Heil Avenue and six driveways along the south side. A total of three local/collector street intersections would be affected along this segment. Route Summary from Orangewood Avenue to Bolsa Chica Street. The total number of driveways which could experience temporary blockages along this segment ranges from 37 to 55. This compares to approximately 22 driveways estimated for the equivalent Proposed Project segment. The total number of local/collector street intersections, which would be partially impacted by this segment of the Springdale Street/Graham Street alternative, is approximately 30. This compares to 13 with the Proposed Project alignment. These comparisons demonstrate that the Springdale Street/Graham Street alternative has a significantly higher impact potential associated with local access disruption. Although the level of access impacts would be significantly higher with this alternative than with the proposed project, the classification of impacts would be the same. As with the Proposed Project, this alternative would result in Class I impacts on many driveway access points along the route and Class II impacts on local/collector street intersections along the route. Mitigation measures would be as identified for the Proposed Project (see Mitigation Measure T-3). Impacts on Transit Service. This alternative alignment is crossed by several OCTA bus routes, and one route (64) traverses the alignment itself along Springdale and McFadden Avenue Streets. The bus routes that may be affected by the construction of the pipeline on the Springfield alignment include OCTA routes 54, 56, 60, 64, 70, 72, and 164. The majority of these bus routes cross the Springdale alignment at major intersections such as Chapman Avenue, Westminster Boulevard, and Edinger Avenue. The transit impacts north of the I-405 are the same as those for the Anaheim-Barber City Channel Diagonal (Alternative # 2) due to the common alignment of these alternatives north of the I- 405. The impacts on bus routes 54, 56, 60 and 164 are therefore discussed in Section D.4.2. The impacts on bus routes for the remainder of the alignment are discussed below. The impacts of construction will be typically limited to three to six days in duration as the pipeline construction advances across the impacted intersection. In the case of Route 64, the bus runs along the actual alignment of the pipeline, which would likely result in more substantial impacts to transit service on this route. In most cases, streets and intersections will remain open to traffic during the construction period, but substantial delays may result due to one or more lanes being closed. The lane closures may also result in individual bus stops being inaccessible to alighting or disembarking passengers. The impacts of construction will typically be limited to three to six days in duration as the pipeline construction advances across the impacted intersection. The significance of the impacts on the aforementioned Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus routes would vary depending on the affected road segment and the service frequency and scheduling of the individual bus routes. For routes which merely cross the pipeline alignment, impacts would be far less than for those which run December 1999 D-30 Draft SEIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASi1WATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison along the alignment itself. Service disruptions in some cases may continue for a month or more when the pipeline alignment is along a bus route. In cases where the bus route merely crosses the pipeline alignment, the service disruption would last no more than one week. In either case, delays due to lane closures or re-routings may be significant. The following describes each bus route that would be impacted by pipeline construction along the Springdale Street/Graham Street Alternative alignment: • OCTA bus route 64 runs east-west along Bolsa Avenue in the Cities of Westminster and Huntington Beach, terminating at the Boeing facility on Bolsa Chica Street. It runs along the route of the proposed Springdale alignment between Bolsa Avenue and Springdale Street, and McFadden Avenue and Graham Street. This route has headways of 30 minutes in the peak hours and no off- peak service in the study area. • OCTA route 70 runs east-west along Edinger Avenue in Huntington Beach. Route 70 crosses the proposed Springdale alignment at Edinger Avenue and Graham Street. Route 70 has headways of 30 minutes during both the peak and off-peak hours. • OCTA bus route 72 runs east-west-along Warner Avenue in Huntington Beach. It crosses the proposed Springdale alignment at Green Street. Route 72 has 30 minute headways during both the peak and off-peak hours. Transit service on Route 64 will be disrupted for a period of approximately 53 working days as construction of the pipeline advances along Springdale Street and McFadden Avenue Street between Bolsa Avenue and Graham Street. Although the route itself will not be blocked, there will be delays as one lane on Springdale Street and McFadden Avenue Street is closed to traffic. Bus stops along Springdale Street and McFadden Avenue may also be inaccessible for periods up to one week as construction of the pipeline advances. There would be no similar impact on Route 64 if the Proposed Project alignment were implemented. Under this alternative, transit service on Route 70 will be disrupted for a period of three to six days as construction of the pipeline advances across Graham Street. In contrast, under the Proposed Project alternative, the disruption to Route 70 would last approximately one month. Transit service on route 72 will be disrupted for a period of three to six days as construction of the pipeline advances across the affected intersections along the bus route. Delays on this route would be substantially the same as for the Proposed Project alignment. Impacts of pipeline construction on bus schedules will be at the Class II level (significant but mitigable). Mitigation measures for this alternative would be as defined in T-4 and T-5 for the Proposed Project. December 1999 D-31 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASIHWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Impacts on Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation. The bicycle lanes on Springdale Street, McFadden Avenue, Graham Street, and Heil Avenue traverse the route of the Springdale Street/Graham Street Alignment. These lanes may be blocked for a period of one to two months depending on location while the pipeline construction advances along Heil Avenue, Graham Street, McFadden Avenue, and Springdale Street. There would be no similar impact on these bicycle lanes if the pipeline were restricted to the Proposed Project alignment. Another bicycle route that may be affected by pipeline construction on the Springdale Street/Graham Street Alignment is on Edinger Avenue. Edinger has bicycle lanes that cross Graham Street at the location of this alternative alignment. In this case, the impact would last from three to six days while the pipeline construction advances across the intersection of Edinger Avenue and Graham Street. It will still be possible for bicyclists to travel along the affected street, but the bicycle lanes themselves may be temporarily blocked. The Proposed Project alignment on Bolsa Chica Street would have a similar impact on this bicycle route. There are a significant number of pedestrian crosswalks which may be affected by pipeline construction on this alternative alignment. Pedestrian crosswalks cross the Springdale Street/Graham Street alignment at the following locations: I • Orangewood Avenue • Crouper Street (south leg only) • Santa Barbara Street • Skylab Road (north leg only) • Chapman Avenue Bolsa Avenue • Belgrave Avenue • McFadden Avenue • Lampson Avenue • Graham Street & McFadden Avenue • Stanford Avenue Edinger Avenue • Iroquois Street (south leg only) • Meadowlark Street • Navajo Street (south leg only) • Heil Avenue • Westminster Boulevard • Bolsa Chica Street. In many cases these crosswalks are associated with schools or major intersections, requiring provision for alternative pedestrian crossings at these locations. In all cases where the pedestrian crosswalk is adversely impacted by the construction process, the impact would last from three to six days as pipeline construction advances across the impacted intersection and/or crosswalk. Impacts of pipeline construction on both bike routes and pedestrian crosswalks will be at the Class II level (significant but mitigable). Mitigation measures will be the same as described for the Proposed Project (see mitigation measures T-6 and T-7). Environmental Contamination Properties along the Springdale Street/Graham Street Alternative are a mix of residential, commercial, and light industrial. The light industrial properties are concentrated along the alignment between Bolsa Avenue and Edinger Avenue. The commercial properties along or near the Springdale Street/Graham Street Alternative are primarily located at intersections with major thoroughfares such as Westminster Boulevard. December 1999 D-32 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Using the screening criteria in Table C.4-1 and information acquired during a visual site reconnaissance, agency listed active hazardous waste sites within the study corridor for the Springdale Street/Graham Street Alternative pipeline route were screened based on their potential to cause environmental impacts due to contamination. Sites with high, medium, or low potential for impact along this alignment are presented in Table D.4-6. (Regulatory agency listed sites requiring no further action and sites ranked as no potential for environmental impact are not presented in the table.) Table D.4-6 lists ten sites along the Springdale Street/Graham Street Alternative with potential for environmental impact due to contamination. Although this alternative poses potentially significant environmental impacts, the alternative poses less risk of impact due to contamination than the Proposed Project. Table D.4-6 Springdale Street/Graham Street Alternative _ __,._. Hazardous Waste Sites With Potential to Impact the Project Potential EDR ID' Site Name Address list' Status' to Impact Key Information Project _ <_.. ._ .._l.. _..._...._..,...a_......�_,_ Westminster 5981 Westminster GEN SmGen Site reported to have three gasoline 2/3 Shell Blvd. UST Active Medium UST's and one diesel UST. LUST CC Monitoring wells located onsite. 3 Exxon Service 6011 Westminster UST Active Medium Site now occupied by Jiffy Lube. Station Blvd. LUST CC 3 Chevron# 5992 Westminster GEN SmGen Site reported to have three gasoline 95401 Avenue UST Active High UST's and one waste oil UST. LUST PA GEN n 7 Huntington 6002 Bolsa Avenue UST Accu e High UST's.Site Monitoring have wells noted onsite. Bch Arco LUST PA GEN 7 Unocal#5123 14972 Springdale UST Active High Site is currently a vacant lot with Ave. LUST RA evidence of ongoing remediation. Weiser 5555 McFadden GEN LgGen 26/45 Lock/Masco Avenue UST Active Medium Site reported to have six UST's. Corp LUST RA 33 OPTO 22 ]5461 Springdale GEN LgGen Low Ave. 15571 Commerce GEN ?Gen Site reported to have ten fuel UST's 51 Venus Labs Lane UST Active Medium and two waste UST's. LUST PA 16471 Bolsa Chica GEN ?Gen Active station with monitoringwells 86 Unocal#5169 High Street UST NR LUST PA noted onsite. Arco Station 16502 Bolsa Chica GEN ?Gen Site reported to have four gasoline 86 #1812 Street UST Active High UST's and one waste oil UST. LUST PA Monitoring wells noted onsite. Notes: 1) Environmental Data Resources(EDR)Environmental Information Data Site I.D. Number(1999). 2) Regulatory Agency Listing: LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, includes leaking tanks listed under LUST Information System, Cal EPA, CORTESE, and other Local agencies UST = Registered Underground Storage Tanks,including tanks listed with state and local agencies GEN = Hazardous Waste Generator,includes CORTESE Hazardous Waste Information System Listings and other local agencies 3) Status Codes: CC = Case closed,remediation completed or not deemed necessary PA = Preliminary assessment underway RA = Remedial assessment/action underway NR = Status not reported Active = Underground Storage Tank in service ?Gen = Amount of haiardous waste generated per month not specified LgGen = Large Generator generates at least 1000 Kg/month of non-acutely hazardous waste or 1 Kg/month of acutely hazardous waste December 1999 D-33 Draft SEER I BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Geology and Soils Geologic impacts along this alternative are the same as for the corresponding segment of the Proposed Project pipeline route, requiring implementation of Mitigation Measures G-1 through G-4. Hydrology and Water Quality From the Bolsa Chica Planned Community site to Edinger Avenue (via Green, Heil, and Graham), drainage is to the Sunset Channel (C07), which drains into Huntington Harbor. From Edinger Avenue to McFadden along Graham Street, McFadden Avenue to Springdale Street, and along Springdale Street to Westminster Avenue, drainage is to the Westminster Channel. Along Springdale Street from Westminster Avenue to Garden Grove, drainage is to the Anaheim-Barber City Channel (CO3). From Garden Grove to the Orangewood feeder along Springdale Street, drainage is to Bolsa Chica Channel (CO2). All of these channels drain into Huntington Harbour and would not impact into wetlands. Impacts to drainage and water quality associated with this alternative would be similar to those described for the Proposed Project. The construction activities could result in contribution to sediment loading in the storm channels or ocean outfalls. However, it is unlikely that construction practices will result in a significant contribution to the sediment loading in the subject channels or to Huntington Harbour. This impact is thus classified as adverse, but less than significant (Class III). At the Westminster Channel crossing, the pipeline would be located within the 100-year flood flow path. However, it is very unlikely that both (1) 100-year flood flows would occur, and (2) the flood flows would damage the truss of the pipeline. Furthermore, in the event that the pipeline was damaged, the pipeline would be repairable in a short period of time. As a result, this impact would be considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). During operation of the pipeline, the possibility exists that the pipeline may rupture, disrupting service to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community, as well as eventually saturating and potentially eroding the surrounding soil. As discussed in Section C.6, the potential for this action is very unlikely, and therefore, this impact is considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). It should be noted that there is no potential for pipeline exposure from lateral erosion along storm channels adjacent to this alternative. This alternative, like the Proposed Project and all other alternatives except for connection to the City of Huntington Beach, involves construction north of Heil Avenue. As a result, construction is likely to encounter shallow groundwater and aquifers with poor water quality. Accordingly, this alternative will have impacts associated with dewatering similar to those for the Proposed Project (Class III). December 1999 D-34 Draft SEIR BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Biology This alternative is within the same urban environment as the Anaheim-Barber City Channel Diagonal alternative up to the Springdale Street/Meihardt Road intersection and as such avoids the biologically supportive northern section of Bolsa Chica Channel along the Proposed Project route. This alternative route crosses the Anaheim-Barber City Channel, then travels south, crossing near two undeveloped lots with some shrubs that may support limited urban wildlife, and then enters an intensive industrial area that is not beneficial to biological resources. The route turns west on Heil Avenue which is bordered to the south by the Meadowlark Country Club golf course. Golf courses typically attract ground-dwelling rodents, rabbits, and waterfowl that forage on the lush vegetation supported by the intensive irrigation. This alternative has similar types of biological impacts as the Proposed Project, but the magnitude of impacts may be slightly reduced in comparison due to the partial avoidance of one potentially sensitive area (the Bolsa Chica Channel). No biological impacts are associated with this alternative. Cultural Resources As with other alternatives and the Proposed Project, this alternative passes through an urbanized environment, although in this case the alignment utilizes public streets for the entire route. This alternative requires a similar amount of excavation as most other alternatives and the Proposed Project (except for connection to the City of Huntington Beach alternative). As with other alternatives, this alignment of the pipeline would pass through areas sensitive for prehistoric and historic resources as well as other areas that are less sensitive. The impacts to cultural resources resulting from this alternative are anticipated to be broadly similar to those for other alternatives and the Proposed Project (Class II). The mitigation measures recommended for the Proposed Project would also need to be applied for this alternative for the entire alignment. Land Use and Recreation The land use impacts associated with this alignment are likely to be slightly greater than those of the Proposed Project, but still less than significant (Class III). This is because of two factors associated with this alignment: (i) the use of public streets for the entire distance, and (ii) the greater length of the alignment. The alignment therefore has greater potential to pose problems of access during construction for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. This alternative alignment would have less impact on recreational resources than the Proposed Project. The alignment would not affect access to, nor use, of the Naval Base Golf Course at LAAFRC, although access to, and use of, two smaller neighborhood parks may be temporarily disrupted (on Graham Street and Orangewood Avenue). Recreation impacts, although adverse, are not therefore considered to be significant (Class III). December 1999 D-35 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LLNE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Public Services and Utilities This alternative alignment utilizes more public streets than the Proposed Project alignment and thus, the likelihood of potential impacts associated with street construction (e.g., blocked emergency service provider access, existing utility disruption) would be slightly higher compared to the Proposed Project. These impacts are classified the same as the Proposed Project (ranging from Class II to Class III), although they can be expected to occur with slightly greater frequency with this alternative than for the Proposed Project. D.4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4: NORTH SEAL BEACH WELLFIELDS As described in Section D.2.4, this alternative would supply water from the North Seal Beach Wellfields on Lampson Avenue. From the point of connection, the alignment would be laid in an easterly direction along Lampson Avenue to Bolsa Chica Road, before following the Proposed Project route south to the site of the Bolsa Chica Planned Community on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The impacts of this alternative in comparison to the Proposed Project are discussed below. Air Quality Because this alternative route is slightly shorter (0.4 miles less) than the Proposed Project, it is assumed that the construction emissions for this alternative would be approximately 6% lower than the emissions estimated for the Proposed Project. Nevertheless, the estimated maximum daily and quarterly emissions associated with construction of the pipeline would exceed the SCAQMD's significance threshold for NOx (100 lbs/day and 2.5 tons/quarter), resulting in a potentially significant impact. The NOx emissions could be reduced through the implementation of Mitigation Measures A-1 through A-9 (see Section C.1). However, the residual NOx emissions would still be above the SCAQMD's daily and quarterly thresholds of significance, representing a short-term (Class I) air quality impact. It should be noted that the other pollutants (VOC, SOx, CO, and PMioo) are all below the SCAQMD emission thresholds for construction. As a result, these pollutant emission levels would be considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). The air quality impacts associated with the operation and maintenance activities would also be very similar to the Proposed Project. Operational emissions would be adverse, but less than significant (Class HI). Noise This alternative pipeline route traverses Lampson Avenue for less than a mile before it joins the Proposed Project route at the Bolsa Chica Channel. Ambient noise levels along the route on Lampson Avenue are approximately 70 dBA (see Table D.4-7), one sensitive receptor (a park) is located on December 1999 D-36 Draft SEIR A BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Lampson Avenue and Heather Street (see Table D.4-8), and residences back up to Lampson Avenue. Short-term construction noise could potentially impact these residences and the sensitive receptor. Existing noise levels along the Lampson Avenue portion of this alternative are significantly higher than levels along the Proposed Project route north of Lampson Avenue (70 versus 57 dBA, see Tables D.2-1 and C.2-2), and there is one less sensitive receptor and fewer residences adjacent to the alternative in comparison to the Proposed Project. An area with a higher ambient noise level is less susceptible to noise impacts than an area with lower ambient noise levels. Therefore, because the alternative route has a considerably higher ambient noise environment compared to the Proposed Project, noise impacts associated with construction activities would be less adverse with implementation of this alternative in comparison to the Proposed Project. Overall, short-term construction noise levels would be considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). Potential noise impacts associated with the operation and maintenance activities would be similar to the Proposed Project. Operational noise levels would be adverse, but less than significant (Class III). Table D.4-7 Measured Ambient Noise Levels 'alon the North Seal Beach Wellfields Route Sury #2 Description e Leg Max Min Notes runSouth side of Lampson Ave, The location is adjacent to the north side of 9 70.4 917 399 just east of Heather St. 1:15 p.m. . . Heather Park The North Seal Beach Wellfields Alternative Route joins the Proposed Route at the Bolsa Chica Channel. Sample locations 4 through 8 are also representative of the North Seal Beach Wellfields Alternative Route 1) All measurements are in dBA Lcq= Equivalent Sound Level, a measurement (in this case 20 minutes) that accounts for the moment-to-moment fluctuations due to all sound sources during the measurement period, combined. Lam= The maximum sound level reached during a sampling period The minimum sound level reached during a sampling period 2)See Figure C.2-3 for location of these sample/monitoring sites. Table D.4-8 Sensitive Receytors Along the North Seal Beach Wellfields Route #' Sensitive Receptor Jurisdiction Location Description 3 Heather Park Seal Beach Lampson Ave. and Heather St. 1) See Figure C.2-3 for locations of these sensitive receptor sites. Traffic and Circulation Impacts of Added Traffic. The impact of added traffic due to this alternative would be essentially the same as that discussed for the Proposed Project alignment. As with the Proposed Project, these impacts would be Class III impacts and no mitigation measures are proposed. Impacts on Roadway System Capacity. In this alternative, the pipeline would terminate on the north end, near Lampson Avenue. The impacts of this alternative on roadway system capacity would be very similar to the Proposed Project, except that there would be added impacts to the capacity of Lampson Avenue while construction activities progress along this street. The significance of capacity impacts due to this alternative would be Class I, which is the same as those evaluated for the Proposed Project. y December 1999 D-37 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D, Alternatives Description and Comparison Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2 identified for the Proposed Project would also apply to this alternative. Impacts on Local Access. Since this pipeline routing alternative is identical to the Proposed Project south of Lampson Avenue, most of the access impacts would be the same as the Proposed Project. Access impacts identified on Orangewood Avenue for the Proposed Project would be traded off for similar impacts on Lampson Avenue for North Seal Beach Wellfields Alternative. While the access impacts along Lampson Avenue would be somewhat more extensive than those along the affected segment of Orangewood Avenue, the overall access impacts of the two would be similar. As with the Proposed Project, this alternative would result in Class I impacts on many driveway access points along the route and Class II impacts on local/collector street intersections along the route. Mitigation measures would be as identified for the Proposed Project (see Mitigation Measure T-3). Impacts on Transit Service. On the Bolsa Chica Street segment of this alignment, impacts on transit services would be the same as for the Bolsa Chica Street alignment of the Proposed Project south of Lampson Avenue. On the Lampson Avenue segment of this alignment, impact on existing transit service would be at the Class II level—significant but mitigable. OCTA routes 164, 211, and 701 would all be impacted on the portion of their routes traversing Lampson Avenue. Route 164 has headways of one hour throughout the day, while routes 211 and 701 have headways of 30 minutes (peak periods only). Service delays on OCTA routes 164, 211, and 701 would result from the pipeline construction. There would also be temporary blockages of bus stops along this route, including the Park & Ride lot on Lampson Avenue. The service disruption along Lampson Avenue would last approximately 40 working days. In contrast, the delay to routes 164, 211, and 701 under the Proposed Project would last for only three to six days, and there would be no disruptions of bus stops. Impact significance and mitigation measures for the Bolsa Chica Street segment of this alignment would be the same as for the Alternative 3 alignment south of Lampson. Impact significance on the Lampson Avenue segment of this alignment would be at the Class II level (significant but mitigable). Mitigation measures for this alternative would be as defined in T-4 and T-5 for the Proposed Project. Impacts on Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation. The bicycle lanes on Lampson Avenue traverse the route of this alternative, as well as crossing over the Proposed Project alignment at the Bolsa Chica Channel, and may be blocked for approximately one month while the pipeline construction advances along Lampson Avenue. There would be no similar impact to Lampson Avenue if the pipeline were restricted to the Proposed Project alignment. This alternative has several pedestrian crosswalks, at Tulip Street/Parkwood Street, Rose Street (west leg only), Heather Street (west leg only), and Basswood Street (west leg only). Provision would need to be made for alternative pedestrian crossing points at all of these locations for this alternative or the Proposed Project. Impacts of pipeline construction on both bike routes and pedestrian crosswalks will be at the Class II level (significant but mitigable). Mitigation measures will be the same as described for the Proposed Project (see Mitigation Measures T-6 and T- 7). December 1999 D-38 Draft SEER /1 BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Environmental Contamination This alternative would replace the segment of the Proposed Project route north of Lampson Avenue. This segment of the alternative pipeline route is bounded by the Naval Base Golf Course and Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center on the north. Properties adjacent to the pipeline route on the south are primarily residential with a few commercial businesses located near the intersection of Lampson Avenue and Manley Street. Using the screening criteria in Table C.4-1 and information acquired during a visual site reconnaissance, agency-listed active hazardous waste sites within the study corridor for the North Seal Beach Wellfields Alternative pipeline route were screened based on their potential for environmental impact due to contamination. Sites with potential for environmental impact along this alternative are presented in Table D.4-9. (Regulatory agency listed sites requiring no further action and sites ranked as no potential for environmental impact are not presented in the table.) Table D.4-9 lists only one site with potential environmental impact (albeit at the "High" level) to the North Seal Beach Well Fields Alternative. This alternative therefore has far less potential for environmental impact due to contamination than the proposed Project. Table D.4-9 North Seal Beach Wellfields Alternative Hazardous Waste Sites With Potential To Impact The Project Potential to EDR IDt Site Name Address List' Status' Notes Impact Project GEN SmGen Site is currently a vacant Arco 4 #301 Station Avenue5262 lampson UST NR High lot. Site reported to have 4 LUST PA gasoline UST's and 1 waste oil UST. Notes: 3) Environmental Data Resources(EDR)Environmental Information Data Site I.D. Number(1999). 4) Regulatory Agency Listing: LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, includes leaking tanks listed under LUST Information System, Cal EPA, CORTESE, and other Local agencies UST = Registered Underground Storage Tanks, including tanks listed with state and local agencies GEN = Hazardous Waste Generator,includes CORTESE Hazardous Waste Information System Listings and other local agencies 3) Status Codes: CC = Case closed, remediation completed or not deemed necessary PA = Preliminary assessment underway RA = Remedial assessment/action underway NR = Status not reported Active = Underground Storage Tank in service ?Gen = Amount of hazardous waste generated per month not specified LgGen = Large Generator generates at least 1000 Kg/month of non-acutely hazardous waste or 1 Kg/month of acutely hazardous waste Geology and Soils The North Seal Beach Wellfields Alternative would replace the segment of the Proposed Project route north of Lampson Avenue. Geologic impacts along this alternative include potential strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and corrosive soils (Class II). Mitigation Measures G-2 through G-4 should be December 1999 D-39 Draft SEIR BO[SA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison applied to this segment. Because this alternative would not be adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Channel north of Lampson Avenue, there would be less likelihood of lateral spreading near the Bolsa Chica Channel levees than the Proposed Project(Class III). Hydrology and Water Quality Along this alternative pipeline route, drainage along the southern portion of Bolsa Chica Road (between the development site and Edinger Road) is to Sunset Channel (C07), which drains into Huntington Harbor. Once the pipeline crosses Edinger Road, from Edinger Road to the San Diego Freeway (I- 405), drainage in the Bolsa Chica Channel maintenance road is to the Bolsa Chica Channel (CO2). North of the San Diego Freeway (I-405), to Lampson Avenue, drainage is also to Bolsa Chica Channel (CO2). Along Lampson Avenue, to the North Seal Beach wellfields, drainage is to the Federal Storm Channel (C06). This channel discharges into the ocean via the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. Impacts to drainage and water quality associated with this alternative would similar to those described for the Proposed Project. The construction activities could result in contribution to sediment loading in the storm channels or ocean outfalls. However, based on the most likely construction scenario, it is unlikely that construction practices will result in a significant contribution to the sediment loading in the subject channels. This impact is thus classified as adverse, but less than significant (Class III). At the Westminster Channel crossing, the pipeline would be located within the 100-year flood flow path. However, it is very unlikely that both (1) 100-year flood flows would occur, and (2) the flood flows would damage the truss of the pipeline. Furthermore, in the event that the pipeline was damaged, the pipeline would be repairable in a short period of time. As a result, this impact would be considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). During operation of the pipeline, the possibility exists that the pipeline may rupture, disrupting service to the Bolsa Chica Planned Community, as well as eventually saturating and potentially eroding the surrounding soil. In addition, there is also a potential for pipeline exposure from lateral erosion along the Bolsa Chica Channel (north of I-405). As discussed in Section C.6, these potential two actions are very unlikely, and therefore, these impacts are considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). Biology The North Seal Beach Wellfield is located to the north of residential units, south of agricultural fields, and east of the southern portion of the Los Alamitos Golf Course (the northern portion of this golf course is paralleled by the Proposed Project). The pipeline would travel along Lampson Avenue, with agricultural fields and golf course grounds to the north and residential units to the south, but is overall an urban setting. The fields and golf courses could attract ground-dwelling rodents, rabbits, and resident waterfowl for foraging opportunities. The lack of grouped trees or open water along this portion of the alternative makes the likelihood of adversely affecting sensitive species (e.g., migrating December 1999 D-40 Draft SEER BOLSA CHICA WATER LNE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison birds) minimal. The distance parallel to a golf course is shorter for this alternative than for the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project and this alternative both turn south at the intersection of Lampson Avenue and Bolsa Chica Road and pass by the Bolsa Chica Channel that, at this point, has a soft-bottom channel with limited riparian vegetation. The biological impacts associated with this alternative are therefore considered to be similar to the Proposed Project (Class II). Cultural Resources As with the other alternatives and the Proposed Project, this alternative passes through an urbanized environment, utilizing public streets for most of the route. This alternative requires a similar amount of excavation as most other alternatives and the Proposed Project. As with other alternatives, this alignment of the pipeline would pass through areas sensitive for prehistoric and historic resources as well as other areas that are less sensitive. The impacts to cultural resources resulting from this alternative are anticipated to be broadly similar to those for other alternatives and the Proposed Project. The mitigation measures recommended for the Proposed Project would also need to be applied for this alternative for the entire alignment. Land Use and Recreation The impacts of this alternative alignment would be very similar to those of the proposed alignment. This alternative utilizes approximately one mile more of public street than the proposed alignment. For this reason, land use impacts might be slightly greater than the Proposed Project. The impacts of this alternative alignment on recreation resources would be similar to the proposed alignment. Public Services and Utilities From the point of connection, the alignment would be laid in an easterly direction along Lampson Avenue to Bolsa Chica Road, then follow the Proposed Project route south to the Bolsa Chica Mesa Planned Community site. This alternative alignment would not cause significant impacts; however, it would involve slightly more street construction compared to the Proposed Project alignment. This would cause greater potential for impacts such as impeded emergency service provider access and disruption to existing utilities. Therefore, impacts associated with construction to public services and utilities would be slightly greater compared to construction of the Proposed Project. D.4.5 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE As stated in Section D.3, without the implementation of the Proposed Project, the proponent of the proposed residential development would be forced to find an alternative water supply for its project. There are several alternative sources for water for the proposed Bolsa Chica Planned Community Project, including water service from a nearby city (see Alternative 1) or connection to another water source (see Alternative 4). The developer could even pursue various alternatives not examined in detail December 1999 D-41 Draft SE1R BOLSA CHICA WATER LINE AIv'D WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison in this EIR (see alternatives eliminated from further consideration in Section D.1.4). [Note: For alternatives involving the provision of water services by municipalities, such as the City of Huntington Beach or the City of Seal Beach, no discretionary decisions would need to be made by the CPUC; the CPUC does not regulate municipalities.] The impacts of Alternatives 1 and 4 are discussed in Sections D.4.1 and D.4.4, preceding; however, the potential impacts associated with other alternative water sources that could be pursued by the developer are not specifically known. Notwithstanding the potential impacts of an alternative water supply scheme, the impacts associated with the Proposed Project described in Section C would not occur under the No Project Alternative. This primarily means that the various air quality, noise, traffic, and other impacts associated with the construction of the proposed water line would not occur. D.5 CONCLUSION Of the project alternatives selected for evaluation, only Alternative 1 (Connection to the City of Huntington Beach Water System) would result in impacts that are substantially less than those of the Proposed Project. The other project alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) would require construction of a pipeline similar in length to that of the Proposed Project. As a result, the environmental impacts associated with these alternatives are similar to each other and to the Proposed Project, although the impacts do vary somewhat in magnitude. The basic impacts shared by Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 include disruption of local traffic due to construction activities in public streets, air quality and noise impacts from construction, and various other construction-related effects. By contrast, Alternative 1 involves construction of only about one-third of a mile of pipeline to provide a connection to a water source, and most of this construction could take place outside the rights-of-way of public streets. The reader should note, however, that connection to the City of Huntington Beach water system could also involve various upgrades to the City's local water infrastructure as described in Section D.2.1. However, even with additional improvements to the City's local water system, the environmental impacts of Alternative 1 would be substantially less than those of the other project alternatives and the Proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 1 is considered the environmentally superior alternative. Table D.5-1, on the following page, has been prepared to provide the reader with a comparison of the significance of impacts of the Proposed Project and each of the project alternatives. Table D.5-2 provides a summary description of the impacts of the Proposed Project and the alternatives. D.6 REFERENCE Department of the Navy. 1999. Correspondence from James H. Strotman, Department of the Navy to Mr. Kelly Nolan, IWA Engineers. March 10. COHB (City of Huntington Beach). 1999. City of Huntington Beach's Reply Brief before the Public Utilities Commission - Testimony in relation to Application No. 9811015 and 9811003. California Public Utilities Commission. December 1999 D-42 Draft SEER r BOI SA CHICA WATER LINE AND WASTEWATER PROJECT D. Alternatives Description and Comparison Table D.5-1 Impact Significance of Alternatives Issue Area Impact Proposed Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt.3 Alt.4 Project Classification Air Quality NOx emissions from construction I III I I I VOC, SOx, CO, and PM10 emissions from construction III HI III III III Operational emissions III HI III HI III Noise Disturbance to adjacent land uses due to construction noise II II II II II Disturbance to adjacent land uses due to operation and HI III III III III maintenance Traffic Traffic added to local streets by construction vehicles III III III III III Temporary reduction in service levels on local streets and I III I I I intersections during construction Temporary blockage of vehicular access to properties during VII III I/II I/II I/II construction Temporary disruptions to bus routes during construction II No II II II impact Temporary disruption to pedestrian and bicycle circulation II III H H II during construction Environmental Presence of hazardous wastes along the pipeline route II No HI H III Contamination impact Risk of contamination from unknown contaminants II II II II II Geology and Potential rupture of pipeline due to fault movement I I I I I Soils Potential pipeline rupture due to strong ground shaking II II II II II induced by a large event on the Newport-Inglewood fault. Potential pipeline rupture due to liquefaction, lateral II m II II III spreading,and differential settlement Damage to the pipeline from corrosive soils II II II II II Hydrology and Increased sediment transported to drainage channels during III III III III HI Water Quality construction Risk of pipeline damage by a 100-year flood event III III III III III Risk of pipeline leak or rupture during operation HI III HI ID III Cultural Disturbance to prehistoric and historic resources during II H II II II Resources pipeline construction Impact to site CA-ORA-83/86/144 H No II H II impact Impact to areas peripheral to those identified as CA-ORA-84 II II II II II and -85(and-288) Potential impact to prehistoric resources at the reservoir site H H H II II Biological Potential disturbance to nesting migratory birds near Old II No No No II Resources Bolsa Chica Road. impact impact impact Land Use and Disruption to adjacent land uses during construction III III III HI III Recreation Temporary interference to access to parks III No III HI III impact Temporary interference to access to Naval Base Golf Course III No No No No impact impact impact impact Public Services Emergency access could be blocked or impeded by pipeline II HI H H II and Utilities construction Increased commute time to schools due to increased III III III III III congestion during construction Potential disruption to emergency services during pipeline III III III III III and maintenance Potential utility disruption during construction III III III III III Accidental damage to buried utility lines during trenching III III III III III IDecember 1999 D-43 Draft SEER F c C: O '•+ 'L i C y C° O 0 CL 0. 0 O'er c U v' • E N o U F J ° .E-� 2 aE 0 a a < o < Wc � -E•0 E = et. E et wc «. c .E W o o .. :i o e ° 2 Vo c 3 o u E E o = c v < •a C E e l 0 E 2 8 o �c c i Q t 0 u o °� i E E 0•c E 8..0 L 0 q U O z zi Z o c o 0. E•- 0 0 0' a'. c o 0 0 Qq Uzi OwE Uzi OZ3 UZ z 4 - ,_ c e z .� c•o o Sel o Q Z v N o 0 o 3 3 •° w'E c=° s cn • E 2 LE 1 < cr E 3 gE-o . n et 0 0 ° a a� ac4.4- ,E E . >, I r°'` as P. A 0 W v,,0 :.' E E n.o E� E ° ,c �.c t) ..7-'‘ 1 8 �° 0 0 c , v ° c3 0 -20 2- c. a" > 's v C v c a O H. u > a� c ;? heu > a 0. c aL� o o. a4 ° E: " ° EE-+ 8. UL$ cc o en 78 7 E a O ..�. L- X.0 .� 0 e3 u e O •C7 U W 1 v > U V. a cn > ' r0. Oa v •• L V E v c L $ U c V% O "70c.)-0 �� o f �� E:5. o E. c•c e a 3 4 c8C�, 3 > S E O< O O - O . U L E O O L c..)c;•:. E Ow E U.-22 O.. U¢ .. .a 3ax� < ° E-c.x 3r, w -o"Lc _ a) t v).2 ° o E o o u o �r�i� S w c oo.� 3 o E �v c oo" c 'v C •... rn 4, c4 a•'= ° o t"' 3 J:E ._ _ � o v 0 v 0= o o � C > £ °�� h.0 a0 E a .8 E C.`u�. E TE �v' 3 a x. � � w y� • : E 8'Q E E . o a>>w•F ° �'7 ° \ - E .'�„ ets O C¢� T G c.4 o C e•E ..-o „ U a v x > vyU_: v co c i°o Q 4.4 es. °to� � ° � 3 ?15 > a 00 °`�' ca�eao `a _5 .5. :. Q t E .v' y W•0'° �y �j " 03 EE" o Ua' cE � a`�03 � `��° �v co v.) .- O E G 0 L - c c 0 0 to L 0. u O-o U _ - cLa 3 3 p p co V C. E •- o a' •4 7Uw Fs O.: E yU�.�2 O VU<� .. v)ic.,°.c °a <R ' Q.E ••� CA O, -o .0 80 _ z _ g T . o U Fs e 8 y c E o V L o • ° ��o o '3u 3 3 �,c c� = =a o 8 8 O N 0 .cal-. OZ • ora '7 u ea u E L E -- c c e° 0= C° u •` 4 ' +. 3e-0 •_A.c ao v ea 6." a•-.� E L o oL cc �� A 'Q A W c;to y E � c E n E"' .. i a 3 > > y a��2•v E•o a: � � _ ° • o 3 0 e,E ..= . 0 ET 5 N @ c 30 S. Y 0 0 0G. �: C �°a c y u g L c ° a a' °s =a u0 - 3 ,_- � ea Q co c E.2•x2 • •0 R E:CJ N - ° v> EE- o. Ui'.ea D� ° ° ca 2 ea �-E c E' c U " ° L. .E c V U H ° I v C - _` v._oc 3 et U :- ea < o E cM g E•E o 0 ° °° E. c- o•�c a� CI) 0•C o? ='E cui'c >- cacti Uw � .. Ow E Uoo22 O E U<� ,.a 3v rx °s'7; < F -7.E-° L 8. i 14 V'.2 �' � � c a E > °' N .r r s� 0 �0 `° o '�'' � > E `�' Ulc ° coL �,440AZ g2 flU E VI 0.WJ a E-- 0-a C C UU C. 3 c 1 0 o•E a, L � =c 2r.• 4) o-8 ea3 oc) EE To -t. c--c 3 � DcZ� 2 „ 0c`� S or c CI. - c �' S2 c h c - �4 NcoE. c . "> _ c3 " `° cE $-�, co � E � o N o Via` E y y�� .E ° 1 E °''- n S� -5,t s cei o f nam u a E.- o 0 0 0 o g c ora p=° �o.___ E o 8 > > E'o Uw e`0 3 ow -E. Uz 3 3 � o.5 U<L .a 2 > E 8a` < -E.= E 8a` T w y `N i° N c° 0 o 6. CO) o II E Uekt 6. ; R o pris • --v�� 0 uad0i .4.c .: > c "=. s.oc� 3 co• �,o� v� y� G u E a ` `°o 0 3 � � o > E °opo o-- 0.,41.) [� > o To' v o$ 1 o�v)�0?�coc is 3 g' a Fi E ?w c » o °7=' c.N a� E 9 '2 .- -4.. 00- 00m • �: c C ;_cN--=CAh g G . c v 7 c 3u - y• '6� > •° v T cC E v •L vN'i.E y O 3 •L U '9 rr U I �-' R U 8 U E U K ca inV t> 3 'J .rY._ U O 0000 a.-E.E oo1c E. o•-cv-° n• 0a 0ea c� > ° `° u U >zr4Ua Cw E UZs O� U< ° 8 ?.E ° v 8� R < Rv q F C r 4a: vpi 67 2 a 33 a Q u. U V 6. ' A [- a 0...... 4443 a rx 3 c e E E o E lii EF O yj p Va • �o 0• 44• 1. L• c = z z CZ L)Z 3 OZ 3 il t6 raC -Y O ,rC) 1.4 c cc O u 3 3 < c _'vim° E u 4• 443co , C,., " a .c@'� •s. U v I' .2 a 0.. a. a, a.).�w e c `° 443 U €e43•p E a', E 3 C .c u a .. O �S = c cv i43 c .. ►. . c0i c oa.c 4.4 -c vv U u � - c c es 43 4 c O v ez a E a iae� o c� ° cam'> � to ) C `� L � 4. i.ca •0• u >_- cya�i >� C ::c` 0 C E 0._ A � .c 0 m cw °' u ° L. E �al L Cr: < .071.,;5= 3 a.< OZ U<• v m c';-=.,;)- v os Oz .0 = � co: C ter _ a� en 4)an' .D U s • Y 4 C' h - C U C a, c rw . u eo °: - �. 0E � .ccL u "v 'o 1 fc°° ° V� 3 a E° E�T-c-g-cuss- -�• ea - 00" Q. O.9 C 0 a (,n E .. vV.• n c L,.e? c E"'.� O ,? E _ r o ca _ 4.=i., 6 Chi •j'D'v 'r.Y .. O C a C E .64 p c,«. �' C p p 6) �� U O 2 CO,'D 0 C .0 > >. C � v ai a7'^ c° mu 0 c c. c ° `a a. `ea� _ -p 0 `' •=-1 v, •E L!. p G i43 E - C O_- e43 > E 2 2 i. 2Q; E. �_ a _E i•-• c c 2 ` c '=�- a0U, •" �: ._ p i Vj 4 44 C C Y 4 0 U C• C C O ▪Y N E V C — et Oa al. C E E-FE a COaas OZVU<oEs,2'Z;o $oEa` OZ v� a. cE .0v c � c o c a, s „ Q flj ca �i hi -o U- 3 �O E V eq ws- 04 ` Eia c c a'' , a° ..Y eau .. 03-45- I a cca c U v 43.03 c°'o o aE. C E u c. c E Asn`, n' p�j °' .- `<L; e_`43 �i os .` �•`az cca W q a 3 0 ,v 3••0� C s s E ▪ Y O m ca v'� cov o a c E mac 2 w 1;1,c 3 � .. ea � o E 0,- C U c c 3 c.� a .- 0: °u a. c n 4 S.= c a c c c a`� a aJ e � - '- -.0 Y .-- - es ao co�' � gzs ° oca3c � o E- > c4 LCL ca =3u< e`a ..a OZ U <•u. c v a aa .c °c. Oz c 6p •` c .o z v g 03 3z 4, C WI z V V- a al u a• -5 v c ppY ru p.22 = 0 4. O. CS .73 0 10 " a g c 0 Evct101 cl) 0 cy E 82 ' E E 7-4., � .V �Y 0 ' '_a ` ` .yeaC >� p CQ,, = Uo0v CuU Ccc= U .+ O [ c O > v A >" o - Ou ! U = . y. am o 0•_ „ t. aTct YE � c.� O • � .:Tx p CO c..= a O T .G 2 a t ea u c E- OC CzY.ce0a OZ U< c° °-.5,• ,,P.. A E c c -e 7 L. CO Ta 8 y O c C aC CON pC .!« p? .O rJ C • 2 az4=w. Ra, `iceC u 443vo "8� Ecn �.o = o o ca o T., :-Ng c- o 5.43 a °' ` c 4 a 0 2 c c ° � coc aL� � c004 E EEyLc � E`° �. v ";— v L U C �' 7 ry C 'a 0 a) y L as _� a) X'� U CC•0 E C }0 . u 3 2 ai '0 '� ° `° CV Fes- Y'o 4 3 c c 4 O i.E o o,.oma. 6`� W c m y c c co A CO_ CO; `° 4.4 c? �` o U on s o_ a- 0 3e, cz a> 0: 4 0 w c aJ U c.-.; y U �. y v: yL a! fn co•C Y V�'C L. Y U •- ,B E �' C~ 0 U e Y L. c 3 4-) 0 O n' v p p " et p U O G U a•= a7 °s'E. CCU E ` 2 ° l.c Oz UI 3�° E.3 ° OF.c aXi I IIEJ . j 3 co o co a E O uuo „c ▪ ac E E EE O z ) c) CL)cz z zoz z Z t _. r, > CC _ I- CV tr.:• c i .0 al o •E 3Q a� a i a3 ao 0 o ago v3 E '� aia` z Ea` a` a` 4,- .T. • C: � c > o cE a� 4) c33 Ts C • O co: uco soz C C. GO= L t.. tai Q .t. CI C Y = •= O 0 O UU O U O = e>a O UU .�.] a., v: •L '�-to O h=� CO CZ U .4 8 = u v - U N �" o o �' N � of �' E '6 E'o E'a c � c'o 0 U z O F`- r C...)v7 Ov a` via` en a` U¢.Ea` o L t �, s a� E e+ra7� w 3 •E y 4u �� '�u v es a cue �; aVi G ami cua 9,..° c a.y cc 0, c 0 ., 0,• c41 T. ` c Y to '� c� • oa co ea .= a) cc o3x u u v) .o0 0 a. - .. woE aEv EE ° ° y =x2.a — c U z C Fss U,v� Oina cna. zo a u 67J¢.= a I. m p CL o . L C L . o 6 cu , U .c= E 10 a. E� 3E o v y �'� h u Vy o N W7 = u N :J L R a O O G CO U U Ca > G cn y� ca a ca 7aF m0• o •�� ata c 7 a, c >ro CZ X to ▪ co `" o v ''- Eco c 3 1. = c ea c'''' o a ear t o e o � • U NL v a o — • � CS), L � C _ �_ � Oe N . Q o � L � E b E 'o E'E c ca 'ca J U Z O E-. L;Ci Ova via Z y aL ¢.Cc` u o e .0 a) U e t ca a ca.I- O u v 2 3 ¢'. ,= o ., v 3 E as u 3 .3' =x c. fl A '" p � tt ° u •0•', cue `.3u' e �, • u o� E o �. > c a a aE ao o n :: `�• a >>¢ a., 2 cci c E E •' '-. ES. E = a` `�� E—_Ur_ oo N E 5, = o • ea 84,>'$ oao, 3' a= s o 0 a. co 3 v 6 03 a, o C u ea C N ` O u o c 3 (`p 0 'C ss, u,> o n.V•o :04"C) CO. 0 C Sr = C 2laN N U *"� • E 10. a��" ct 8 ci 1' aN O e E c'o 7 v 2 O• 0 a. s ._ . of � �' _ E'o C 2.8 o. o U z O 'r- C.)F;)" © . R cv''a z ; c`, u U<.E oae, C p a _ u = a � . is ~ O > NGNcC ,-, L 4 cpE'.. c il npO v = u ZEa� E °o" > M CL) ir , • ea _=� B E-°-5o e.c on e cts � _ '= a °" c 5 o 73 c 3 3,..:.Q* E•.5 ,o� ..... pO • v at yC 6- = C•- o C c Nu E > � caNpSE g 0.�� 'u c ai � o c no u o' 'pO : c a)s p 'a � nc� _ � c cco = cu = e V ' uiC , ir a.,4) 0 E LU > G'• aN• .c = o _ 0 0.. aJ, 'N V U . _ CU� c4A o � (..1 Q U ^ ea •c"7N c0 = C n LLG'L) 'U y .°:'), E N.= a._ � coR c E qi v CE yQ Q. 5a' E _ u = so O O CO Q rY. ODCI' O' C W.'L p 0 6OXO O Qv a> U z O W a = 'a. 8 L 7. U v o Or 3 N a 3 3 c a u u u UO C.E6 v _ CZ E- C�C+ o u a '_ > v a n. a ce � �oco CC L �:1. c a � ° vUV u 6ej u R4.0 COCO uc. ..t •0 Q E Eco = vNCL � a E 12. a c rt 0 co C.� E 0 E r, E C E C '-, v.• 3 .O C C u >_ E °' .0 C C O c 0 2 i.z •,,- i- • o v_ v o To u u _ L ea U C C eC rr O C •Z v u L L ;� C �, t� y to ea ea = L u. C Q aj �c.. �, C D V D s O '�' •� G.C p C .L C 2 U = Q G O C UQ 8.� EUa az O c U cc O 8 Uz 3 K t .a U s711 s 6> u u C h h dfl e3uu !yh Gua a C b CI r00 V' E SCA �G � E EEo 0. E ° • ou .0 a et Eo � � U > 4 .. 0 •, � C '.�.o> E< E ,: aui ea c� Ta O c L ea 0 u >s = u =C..- a dpi e ° 0�.0 v p y rt Lir _°et ='�w4) ° 0 0 � Eo o`a Q C, C O C a J ° C p G. U a. C e C co-= O _ U< enc. C _ U< Ec..0 rx SO c Uva 3 �-a,' c a.. a =? u cTs .2 try y G/� CO)c •E m v u i c 0 o t G) .a £ a�� 0 R u e1.0 G OA 0 3 � C'3 o �=I n. - u - 2 � � n, acEO � ...: . a ac E .O N10.v: eC u7 Imml _ •� _ t euC 0 e- C cv o.'"� c O v c et0._ �E> c .� v= caci 0.0 �' c 2 ° E L. E. {" v> J `Q'`_•c .Re. L. cC.C�7 L = t, v C' O ISL 3 2 O 0:0 6. V� O. C O O ''-t T 2. i.G C 6. C y 0 a �Uu e^ L "" C D = ° ea O c 1 Q<U U ees E g v=i C a 0— ` _ U E O ' g, C 0 0 cC C•u .n to tx ea C� �' u y c co Q ' UC ov= e° � � O v) coC v; •E •v N g' o°C euo G� Z C u ?) e=o ,.. 0 v E y L = a1 ° _ = c c o 0ett 3 0 in.,,, a n ea e �Ci ca. E7 i v <`v .�s = a E 0`pv, V � o c. � M. v: s Ci o- 7 - u � E .. U E E•-� - 6i a ,%. C R•� s a. i- .. C ed eC ,_ C C.eC 6,` E .,•es e j= eUa w c. = GO e ° ees era 'A �.` > e .0 0 E 0 •;O o - c .. 2 3•E eta c C C Q � .0 E 0 coUa cu ,� ' p'. — t n oU O u e n es •CC C 7 C L eC.e? _ �. LYi C 7 O T'p t,•+U Ly u C V eC 8 a , C •CU V: yy6 C E C c. eCep 0 6L 61 2 Cp L 'J RS 7`J "Q G e o .0 .0 C rO L a C CO U L u C E C C K C C •-.0 = eC O C U<U U cC a. v=: O v v > C O ° 0 Q•` O C U Q a 04 rx...� A O C U V L 00 O h I 0ACAI C _ ami . et 8 y. v: a c c eCC O C — C ` ti GO ti p 'c L V Guo E .r y O•0 a ea g ' 0 a u R V O = u �0. E 2 8 E °•tc•- g E ... = .-i E E e _ L1 c to u L O a� C >O u Ne -0 u t., r. .. `" _ 4 E ., .0 U L = C z ea C r Ga E 0 c.0.e0 E >' CO 0 c 0 O ; 0 G �. .. oaca.00 0 U.? CCC.E _ C 0 U� en = 3E� rT. ea c. c c .� u r,; 5880.e,; E S yy� v c E .� ° L O eC 2 A E C c :c.,.' o 0-. .0 C C R.C O — E•u C+ C 0 ,, CC C•.0 •- L U 'v: G. O C U Q U U co L a h Co U C W O C U..-] E y i c eV *0 0 "0 C u ,w at .- C...sO C u a7 m 7.0 h .� C O:D C u O R �, U ea C•C et V' u u p h O > u to v 6' 3 _ E u = o .� c �� '` U ams 0 u o c• c-o a' u a• a ea p .. aei u u evC = u ea C�,i 2 ai E� ec 'a� a = eea o E � > y E o eau a E,8 e ■- c r .c••o E .. 2 E.Y eO E . >•. - -- o� c.- c = c c = ? Ux ., c - I- pi) h N! E v u a ,.. OS O v ea.` C V•.0 «S ,,, e6 C.0•- a C' C u C 2.6 L" .0. — c•o c •v c =.E� u u c :�e_ = a•v eo g Tu.= v o cw - E� U e u L O •- p u 'C U C L t O ,u .- u ve e.V ,4 E C U O N C ea u C y FA- v ¢3 •� L ? h E U U :; o rx a a�•� ° E C V L C CCCJ.�... 2 c ` `C C .L u wt e° y ` u O C U. ` L 0,-4 6J = G E o � � c ° o 2C K. .r.o0o o b.e 0 0 �_� _ = c aoiE v C a °'x 2 °' u eC 0 e C.)10. vui v Gi aEpCO C c UGLi� R 2 0 2.E C.. 0 c UW.n o� c E-. C1 5 }� 2 O as w ) \ , ■ \ \ . � k g � h � k ) .. 3• 5 / 7E= k � z C}\ § $ , > k } t Eis /� « z = �'§� Aa . 2 CI ± c7 ( � �/ : �f// Q � 2 20\/ « § § cu ! >NJ. z 2 ± a — = tom ■ 7 k= \ Em o§ » .§ \ • ± a . 61 *"0 ; , a. je• ' § ea3 a.t � - a\a � Lat o 2 _=2 .....7) � a2o± < ƒ aoc= 0/\\ e 73- 6 . �k � \ tnsc. a• t A ) $ .§ %3 ƒ: > § \9 ? � � 2 $fc 7ƒ = _ at 2$ §% /-, Q 4,., _ keg\ c2a � = 23 / 2 ) 2ii± gect / 2 \ » e£ a & ti ) % 9 4. § J 70/j \\ \ 2O /± = � �/7\ 0\\ /7 _ c \ 33 -k E• f Ea. { f ƒ7 ) o 8 § 2 - »@ f ¢ /3 2� ; § k k2 © t \\ 0IE §