Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2003-07-28 #P AGENDA REPORT DATE: July 28, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: LONG BEACH DESALINATION TEST FACILITY PROJECT SUMMARY OF REQUEST: • Authorize Mayor to execute a letter to the California Coastal Commission commenting on the Long Beach Desalination Test Facility Project and also expressing concerns regarding desalination facilities and to be notified of Commission consideration of proposed projects within the Long Beach/Huntington Beach area. Direct staff to monitor proposed desalination projects that could have potential impacts to water quality, animal and plant communities, and water recreation uses. BACKGROUND: Long Beach Desalination Test Facility Project: • Staff has previously provided a "Memorandum" to the City Council regarding "Status Report re: Long Beach Pilot Desalination Project ", dated July 10, 2003. Provided as attachments to that memorandum were the following documents: ❑ "Coastal Panel Delays City Desalination Test", Grunion Gazette, July 3, 2003 - ❑ "Staff Report and Recommendation on Appeal — Substantial Issue, Appeal No. A -5- LOB-03- 239", California Coastal Commission, June 19, 2003 As indicated in that memorandum, "The Coastal Commission has an item on their Agenda for July 11, 2003 to consider a "Substantial Issue" with Coastal Act non - compliance of the project. If the Commission determines -there is a "substantial issue", the Commission will then schedule a full hearing on the project. The Commission staff are recommending such an action, as it is their opinion the project approvals are inconsistent with certain provisions of the Long Beach Local Coastal Plan and the Coastal Act." ' The Coastal Commission determined that there was a substantial issue and will be holding a hearing on August 7 in Huntington Beach to consider this item: Overview of Project and Coastal Commission Recommendations: Agenda Item Z :\My Documents \Water Quality\LB Desalination Facility.CC Staff Report.doc \LW\07 -25-03 City Council Staff Report re: Long Beach Desalination Test Facility and Overview of Desalination Projects July 28, 2003 A copy of the Coastal Commission Staff Report regarding the Long Beach Desalination Test Facility Project, without attachments, is provided for the information of the City Council as Attachment 2. The major aspects of the proposed project are as follows: ❑ The project purpose is to test desalination equipment and techniques for potential long -term use in providing a water supply for the City of Long Beach. ❑ The test facility will operate for approximately 18 months. ❑ The test facility will be located at the Haynes Generating Station, which withdraws up to approximately 1 billion gallons per day of seawater from Alamitos Bay to cool the power plant generating units. ❑ The desalination facility would use up to 850,000 gallons of water per day. ❑ The test facility would withdraw seawater from the forebay of two of the power plants generating units. - ❑ These two generating units draw in up to 138 million gallons of the 1 billion gallons used by the full power plant. ❑ The desalination process would separate the withdrawn seawater into two streams — desalted water and brine - and after the desalination process was completed and tested, the two streams would be recombined and discharged back into the same forebay. The water would then be drawn into the power plant cooling system and discharged to the San Gabriel River. ❑ Approximately 3,000 gallons per day of the treated water could not be discharged due to higher concentrations of treatment chemicals. This water would be routed to a storage tank onsite and shipped by truck to the municipal sewage treatment facility. ❑ None of the desalinated water produced would be used as a public drinking supply. ❑ The cooling water intake and discharges from the power plant are subject to conditions of a 5 -year NPDES permit issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board in July 2000. ❑ The desalination facility discharges will be subject to those conditions, or may be subject to modified conditions of that permit or conditions of a separate permit, to be determined by the Regional Board. • Coastal Commission Staff are recommending approval of the subject project subject to the following "Special Conditions ": 1. "Operation of Desalination Facility with power Plant Cooling System. The desalination facility shall withdraw seawater from the intake channel or forebay only when Haynes Generating Units 1 and 2 are using their cooling water system. 2. Change to project construction or operation. The permittee shall notify the Executive Director of any modification to the existing NPDES permit for the Haynes Generating Station or any requirement by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that may affect construction or operation of the desalination facility. Such construction or operational changes shall not be incorporated into the project until the applicant obtains a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit, LB Desalination Facility.CC Staff Report 2 • City Council Staff Report re: Long Beach Desalination Test Facility and Overview of Desalination Projects July 28, 2003 unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required." With these conditions in place, the Commission Staff is recommending approval of the project. It is their determination that the project will then conform with the following provisions of the Coastal Act: ❑ Sections 30230 and 30231 regarding water quality and marine biological resources; ❑ Section 30232 regarding oil, fuel, and hazardous substance spills; ❑ Section 30211 regarding public access and public recreation; and ❑ Section 30251 regarding visual resources. Staff has reviewed the Coastal Commission Staff Report and concurs with the analysis of potential impacts of the project, and recommends the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter stating that and supporting the imposition of the "Special Conditions ", as recommended by the Coastal Commission Staff. The project is conditioned so as not to violate the existing NPDES permit requirements that have been imposed by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, and that have been in place since 2000. Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the proposed comment letter from the City to the Coastal Commission regarding this project. Overview of General Concerns and Document Summary Regarding Desalination Projects: Based on City Council direction on July 14, 2003, Staff is recommending the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute a letter to the California Coastal Commission expressing concerns regarding desalination facilities and to be notified of Commission consideration of proposed projects within the Long Beach/Huntington Beach area (See Attachment 1 for proposed letter). Staff is also requesting direction from the City Council to instruct staff to monitor proposed desalination projects that could have potential impacts to water quality, animal and plant communities, and water recreation uses. Two desalination projects have recently been proposed in the adjoining communities of Long Beach and Huntington Beach. These two projects, along with an additional three proposed facilities have been proposed to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) in conformance with programs initiated by MWD to increase the amount of drinking water by up to 120 million gallons a day. MWD is taking these actions to increase the portfolio of water resources to assure Southern California a reliable water supply for the next 20 years and beyond. Provided below is a listing of some documents that staff has been able to acquire or is in the process of acquiring that discuss both the general nature and issues related to desalination, and specific scientific studies related to a specific development project. • Copies of those documents that are noted as being available at the City can be reviewed LB Desalination Facility.CC Staff Report 3 City Council Staff Report re: Long Beach Desalination Test Facility and Overview of Desalination Projects July 28, 2003 at the Department of Development Services, they are not provided as attachments to this . Staff Report due to the length of many of the cited documents. Desalination Documents Available for Review at the Department of Development Services: ❑ City of Huntington Beach Staff Report — Environmental Impact Report 00 -02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project), dated May 27, 2003, with Attachments 1 and 4, available at www. ci. huntington- beach.ca.us /citydepartments /planning /major /poseidon.cfin ❑ City of Huntington Beach Staff Report — Conditional Use Permit No. 02- 04 /Coastal Development Permit No. 02 -05 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project), dated May 27, 2003 with Attachment 1, 5, and 6, available at www.ci.huntington - beach. ca.us /citydepartments /planning /major /poseidon.cfin ❑ City of Huntington Beach Staff Report — Environmental Impact Report 00 -02 (Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project), dated July 8, 2003, available• at www. ci.huntin gton- beach. ca.us /citydepartments /planning /major / poseidon. cfm ❑ "Draft Environmental Impact Report #2001051092, Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project ", City of Huntington Beach, dated September 19, 2002, available at www.ci.huntington- beach. ca.us /citydepartments /planning/ major /poseidon.cfin ❑ Narrative for PowerPoint Presentation, "Orange County Desalination Project: Marine Biological Analysis ", prepared by J. B. Graham, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, not dated ❑ Summary and Analysis of: "Effects of the Disposal of Seawater Desalination Discharges on Near Shore Benthic Communities ", prepared by Jeffery B. Graham, Ph.D., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, dated November 21, 2002 ❑ Comment Letter and Responses — California Coastal Commission Comment Letter to City of Huntington Beach re: "Draft Environmental Impact Report: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project, September 2002 — City of Huntington Beach (SCH #2001051092)" - ❑' Comment Letter and Responses — California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana , Region Comment Letter to City of Huntington Beach re: "Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report: Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project / State Clearinghouse Number 2001051092)" ❑ "Seawater Desalination in California ", California Coastal Commission, available at www.coastal.ca.gov /web /desalrpt/dsvnops.html, downloaded on July 23, 2003 ❑ "Desalination — Producing Potable Water", in California's Ocean Resources: An Agenda for the Future, The Resources Agency, available at www. resources .ca.gov /ocean/97Agenda/PDF /, downloaded on July 23, 2003 ❑ "The ABCs of Desalting ", by O. K. Buros, published by the International Desalination Association, available at www .idadesal.org/Publications.htm, downloaded on July 23, 2003 LB Desalination Facility.CC Staff Report 4 City Council Staff Report re: Long Beach Desalination Test Facility and Overview of Desalination Projects July 28, 2003 ❑ "Seawater Desalination Plants" by Gordon Labedz, available at www.surfrider.org /desal.htm, downloaded on July 23, 2003 ❑ "Questions About Desalination ", Marin Municipal Water District, available at www.marinwater.org/desal.html, downloaded on July 23, 2003 ❑ "Tapping the Ocean ", Orange County Register, February 15, 2002, available at www.calcoast.org /news /water021502.html, downloaded on July 23, 2003 ❑ "Five Seawater Desalination Plants Proposed by Coastal Agencies Seeking Metropolitan's Funding ", Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Press Release, February 15, 2002, available at w ww.mwd.dst.ca.us/mwdh2o/pages/news/press_releases/ 2002- 02/desal rfp_entries.htm, downloaded on July 23, 2003 • ❑ "Tapping the World's Largest Reservoir; Desalination ", Western Water Magazine, January/February 2003, available at www.water-ed.org/janfeb03.asp, downloaded on July 23, 2003 ❑ California Department of Water Resources - Water Desalination Task Force ❑ "Draft Summary of Key Issues ", Desalination Task Force ❑ "Draft Working Paper — Concentrate Management Issues Associated with Desalination Facilities ", Desalination Task Force ❑ "Draft Working Paper — Feedwater Intake Working Paper', Desalination Task Force ❑ "Draft Desalination Issues Assessment Report", Desalination Task Force ❑ Membership List for Water Desalination Task Force ❑ Water Desalination Task Force Meetings ❑ Assembly Bill 2717, Chapter 957 ❑ Desalination Task Force Meeting Summary, Meeting # 1, May 29, 2003, Sacramento ❑ Desalination Task Force Meeting Agenda, Meeting # 2, June 24 -25, 2003, Carlsbad • ❑ Presentation: The Santa Ana — The Fastest Growing Watershed in the Nation ❑ Presentation: Seawater Desalination — Southern California's Approach ❑ Presentation: AwwaRF Tailored Collaboration — Water Quality implications of Large -Scale Application of Seawater Desalination, Preliminary Pilot Plant Water Quality Report ❑ Presentation: Coastal Processes Related to Desalination Plants in Coastal Waters ❑ All documents available at www.owue.water.ca.gov /recycle /desal /desal.cfin downloaded on July 23, 2003 Desalination Documents Not Currently Available at the City: Staff is in the process of attempting to acquire the following documents relative to desalination issues and projects: LB Desalination Facility.CC Staff Report 5 City Council Staff Report re: Long Beach Desalination Test Facility and Overview of Desalination Projects July 28, 2003 ❑ "2000 Regional Urban Water Management Plan", Municipal Water District of Orange County, December 20, 2000 ❑ "Annual Progress Report to the California State Legislature ", Metropolitan Water - District of Southern California, February 2002 ❑ "Benthic Impact of the Discharge from Desalination Plant ", C. Pomory, 2000 ❑ California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160 -98 ", State of California Department of Water Resources, November 1998 ❑ "Hydrodynamic Modeling of Source Water Make -Up and Concentrated Seawater Dilution for the Ocean Desalination Project at the AES Huntington Beach Power Station, Part I: Analysis of Issues to Receiving Water ", Dr. Scott A. Jenkins Consulting, August 19, 2001 (revised December 20, 2001) ❑ "Hydrodynamic Modeling of Source Water Make -Up and Concentrated Seawater Dilution for the Ocean Desalination Project at the AES Huntington Beach Power Station, Part II: Analysis of Issues to Source Water ", Dr. Scott A. Jenkins Consulting, October 10, 2001 (revised January 13, 2002 ❑ "Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Integrated Resources Plan", Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 1996 FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. Staff responsibilities to monitor proposed desalination projects will be accommodated through the allocation of staff resources. Staff will request additional resources if determined to be needed. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Mayor to execute a letter to the California Coastal Commission commenting on the Long Beach Desalination Test Facility Project and also expressing concerns regarding desalination facilities and to be notified of Commission consideration of proposed projects within the Long Beach/Huntington Beach area. Direct staff to monitor proposed desalination projects that could have potential impacts to water quality, animal and plant communities, and water recreation uses. • • / - / !� LA /1 /��� - -`� -- IFee Whittenberg • Director of Development Service Attachments: (2) Attachment 1: Draft Letter to California Coastal Commission regarding Long Beach Desalination Test Facility Project and Other - Potential Desalination Projects LB Desalination Facility.CC Staff Report 6 City Council Staff Report re: Long Beach Desalination Test Facility and ' Overview of Desalination Projects ' July 28, 2003 Attachment 2: California Coastal Commission Consolidated Staff Report: De Novo Hearing for Appeal (A -5- LOB -03 -239) and Coastal Development Permit Application (E -03 -007) — Without Attachments • • LB Desalination Facility.CC Staff Report 7 ��F SEAL B�. .CAF .- 4 - ,_, - ,:t c :: c P, 9 °cf�Q�Q 0 UNT V CITY HALL 211 - EIGHTH; STREET SEAL BEACH C,ALIFORN[A.90740,` (562)431- 2527 •` beach.ca.us July 29, 2003 Mr. Mike Reilly, Chair California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105 -2219 Dear Chairman Reilly: SUBJECT: LONG BEACH DESALINATION TEST FACILITY PROJECT - (APPEAL NO. A- 5- LOB -03 -239 — SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE and COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT E -03 -007) The City Council of the City of Seal Beach reviewed the above referenced Coastal Commission Staff Reports at the July 28 City Council Meeting and authorized the mayor of the City to execute this letter. It is the strong concern of the City of Seal Beach that no adverse impacts to water quality and marine biological resources occur as a result of this test facility. The City would also like to go on record as supporting the conducting of an updated "entrainment study" when the NPDES permit for the Haynes Generating Station is under renewal consideration by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and /or the Coastal Commission. Request for Notification of Future Desalination Projects: The City would also request notification regarding any future desalination projects proposed in Long Beach and Huntington Beach, including the AES project, and hereby requests notification of future Coastal Commission Meetings that consider these matters, and copies of the appropriate Coastal Commission Staff Reports, be provided to: City of Seal Beach Attn: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services 211 Eighth Street Z.\My Documents \Water Quality\LB Desalination Facility CC Comment Letter.doc \LW\07 -29 -03 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Long Beach Desalination Test Facility (Appeal No. A -0S- LOB -03 -239 and CDP E -03 -007) July 29, 2003 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Mr. Whittenberg will be present at the August 7 Coastal Commission Meeting to respond to questions or concerns that Commissioners may have regarding these items. Please contact Mr. Whittenberg at your earliest convenience if you require additional information or have questions regarding the enclosed documents. He can be reached at (562) 431 -2527, extension 313, or by e-mail at lhittenberg@ci.seal- beach.ca.us. Sincerely, . ii (" if Patricia E. Campbell Mayor, City of Seal Beach Distribution: Coastal Commission Peter Douglas, Executive Director Tom Luster, Environmental Analyst, Energy and Ocean Resources Unit City Council City Attorney Environmental Quality Control Board Director of Development Services Deputy City Engineer City of Long Beach Water Department - Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 2 City Council Staff Report re: Long Beach Desalination Test Facility and Overview of Desalination Projects July 28, 2003 ATTACHMENT 2 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CONSOLIDATED STAFF REPORT: DE NOVO HEARING FOR APPEAL (A- 5 -LOB- 03-239) AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION (E -03 -007) - WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS - • LB Desalination Facility.CC Staff Report 11 STATE OF CAGtPOMIA -T ! EESOTSECES AGENCY CRAY DAVIS, GOVEwN08 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 43 FREMON , WITS 2000 44 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 9410$- 2219 VOW!! AND TDD (415) •904.5200 • FAX ( 415) 604 - 540E ThlQa Date Appeal Filed: June 3, 2003 49 Day: July 22, 2003 Date of S.Z. Hearing: July II, 2003 Date GDP Filed: July 10, 2003 Staff TRL -SF Staff Report: • July 24, 2003 Hearing Date: August 7, 2003 CONSOLIDATED STAFF REPORT DE NOVO BEARING FOR APPEAL AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION - COMMISSION APPEAL NO.: A -5 -LOB- 03-239 APPLICATION FILE NO.: E -03 -007 LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Long Beach LOCAL DECISION: Approved May 1, 2003 • APPLICANT: City of Long each Water Department PROJECT LOCATION: 6801 Second Street, at the Haynes Generating Station, Long Beach, Los Angeles County - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction and operation of a pilot desalination facility. APPELLANT OF LOCAL PERMIT: Commissioners Sara Wan and Toni Iseman SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: See Appendix A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of De Novo Permit with Conditions; Approval of Regular Permit with Conditions • Appeal A- S- LOB- 03 - 239 and CDP Application E- 03-007 July 24, 2003 Paget of 12 SUMMARY This staff report evaluates a permit application and an appeal of a local government permit approval for a proposed desalination test facility to be constructed and operated by the City of Long Beach Water Department. The project purpose is to test desalination eq ' .,., ent and tecbnigues for potential longterm use in providing a water supply for the City of Long Beach. The test facility will operate for approximately 18 months. The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of both the City of Long Beach (the City) and the Commission, and requires a coastal development permit (CDP) from each. Can May 1, 2003, the City issued a CDP for the project, which was appealed to the Commission. On July 11, 2003, the Commission found that the appeal raised substantial issue with regards to the CDP's conformity to the Local Coastal Program Concurrent with these events, the applicant made several changes to the proposal as it had been .approved by the City and on July 10, 2003, submitted an application for the portions of the project requiring a CDP from the Commission. The changes include reducing water and chemical use, deleting portions of the project that would have required excavation, and committing to operate the facility only during power plant operations. These changes would reduce the project's adverse effects on coastal resources. To ensure these adverse effects are miniTriixed, staff recommend several conditions. ,Special Conn 1 would minimise entrainment by allowing the desalination facility to operate only when Units 1 and 2 at the power plant are using their cooling system water. Special Condition 2 would require the applicant to notify the Executive Director if there is a change in the power plant's existing NPDES permit or any other requirement by the Regional Water Quality Control Board .that may affect construction or operation of the desalination facility and may require an amendment to the coastal development permit. Staff recommends that the Comrnissian find the project as conditioned consistent with the relevant- polies ofthe City's LCP and the Coastal Act and approve the eoascal development permits for both the portion ofthe project within the City's permit jurisdiction and the Commission's jurisdiction, subject to the conditions below. Staff has determined that the proposal, as conditioned, will comply with Sections 30230 and 30231 (marine biology and water quality), Section 30232 (spill and response), Section 30211 (public access), and Section 30251 (visual resources). _ - - Appeal A -3- LOB -03 -239 and CDPApplication E-03 -007 July 24, 2003 Page 3 of 12 1.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 Motion and Resolution for Coastal Development Permit No. A- 5-L0B-03 -239 The -staff recommends the Commission approve Coastal Development Permit No. A-5- LOB -03- 239 subject to the conditions in Sections 2 and 3 below. Motion I move that the Commission approve Coastal Development Permit No. A- 5- LOB-03 -239 subject to conditions set forth in the staff recommendation. Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in approval of the permit as conditioned and adoption of the following resolution and findings. Time motion passes only by an affirmative vote by the majority of the Commissioners present. Resolution The Commission hereby approves the coastal development permit for the proposed development and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the development as - conditioned will be in conformity to the policies of the certfed LCP and the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Approval of the permit complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either I} feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the development on the environment, or 2) - there are no f urther feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially lessen any significant adverse .impacts of the development on the environment, 1.2 Motion and Resolution for Coata1Deve1opment Permit E-03-007 The staff recommends that the Commission approve Coastal Development Permit No. E -03 -007 subject to the conditions in Sections2 and 3 below. Motion I move that the Commission approve Coastal Development Permit E -03 -007 subject to conditions set forth in the staff recommendation. Staff recommends a YE'S vote. Passage of this motion will result in approval of the permit as conditioned and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of Commissioners present. - Appeal A-5-LOB-03-239 and CDP Application E-03-007 July 24, 2003 Page 9 of 12 • Resolution The Commission hereby approves the coastal development permit for the proposed development and adopts the findings ser forth below on grounds that the development as .conditioned will be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Approval of the permit complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the development on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment. 2.0 STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2:. Expiration. If development has ncrt commenced, the permit will expire two years from the ,date on which the Commission voted an the application. Development shall be pursued in -a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Interpretation. Any questions of intent of interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the executive director or the Commission. 4. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission.. an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 5. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the perrnittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. 3.0 SPECIAL CONDITI.ONS 1. Operation of Desalination Facility with Power Plant Cooling System. The desalination facility shall withdraw seawater from the intake channel or forebay only when Haynes Generating-Units 1 and 2 are using their cooling warmer system. 2. - Change to project construction or operation. The pernzittee shall notify the Executive Director of any modification to the existing NPDES permit for the Haynes Generating Station or any requirement by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that may affect construction or operation of the desalination facility. Such construction or operational changes shalt not incorporated into the project the applicant obtains a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit, unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is ,legally requires Appeal d -5- LOB -03 239 and CDPe3pplicarion E -03 -007 July 24, 2003 Page 5of12 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION, SETTING, AND BACKGROUND This proposed development involves the construction and operation of a desalination test facility to be constructed and operated by the City of Long Beach Water Department. The purpose is to test various types of desalination equipment and techniques to determine their effectiveness, cost, and efficiency in desalting seawater. The facility would be located at the Baynes Generating Station, which is owned and operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), in Long Beath (see Exhibits 1 and 2). The power plant withdraws up to approximately 1 billion gallons per day of seawater from Alamitos Bay to cool the power plant generating units, and the desalination facility would use up to 850,000 gallons per day of this water. The project is expected to operate for approximately 18 months and will then be .decommissioned. The facility would be built in the southern portion of the power plant site. It would include intake and discharge pipes, various tanks, filters, membranes, and associated equipment used for desalting the water, and office and storage trailers. The facility would withdraw seawater from .the forebay.oftwo ofthe power plant's generating units. These two generating units draw in up to approximately 138 million gallons of the 1 billion gallons used by the full power plant. The desalination process would separate the withdrawn seawater into two. streams — desalted water ate brine — and after the desalination process was completed and tested, the two streams would be recombined and discharged back into the same forebay. The water would then be -drawn into the power plant cooling system and discharged to the San Gabriel River. Approximately 3,000 gallons per day of the treated water could not be discharged to the cooling a due to higher coueentr'ations of treatment chemicals. This water would be routed to a storage tank onsite and then shipped by to the municipal sewage treatment facility. None of the desalinated water produced would be used as a public drinking supply. The cooling water intake and discharges from the power plant are subject to conditions of a.fve- year'NPDES permit issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control in July 2000. The desalination facility discharge will be subject to those conditions, or may be subject to modified.cond tions of that permit or conditions of a separate pewit, to be deter by the Regional Board. 5.0 PERMIT JURISDICTION AND APPEAL PROCESS The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of both the City of Long Beach (the City) and the Commission, and requires a coastal development permit (CDP) from each. The landward elements of the project, which include the desalination processing equipment, tanks, &hers, and office trailers, ara within the City's jurisdiction. Elements of the project that are subject to the Commission's retained jurisdiction include the withdrawal and discharge of seawater and various chemicals into tidal waters and placement of an intake and discharge line from the facility into tidal waters. Appeal A- 5- L0B -03 -239 and GAP Application E -03 -007 ,hdy 24, 2003 Page 6 of l2 • 5.1 Standard of Review For the de novo review of the appealed permit application for the portion of the project located within the City's permit jurisdiction, the standard of review consists of the policies of the City's certified LCP and the public access and public recreation policies of the Coastal Act. For the portion of the project located in the Commission's retained jurisdiction, the standard of review consists of the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The Commission may also refer to the provisions of the certified LCP for guidance. There are separate motions for the portion of the project in the Commission's appeal jurisdiction and the Commission's retained permit jurisdiction. The Commission must vote separately on each item. Because the de novo review and the original Commission jurisdiction permit have two different standards of review, the findings in Section 6 below incorporate both standards of review. Because the City's Local Coastal Program incorporates policies of the Coastal Act verbatim, each. LCP policy corresponds to a Coastal Act policy and is .so referenced in the findings. Although the project spans two jurisdictions and must be reviewed under rwo separate coastal development permit applications, the development functions .as a single, inseparable project and it is recommended the Commission act on both decisions at one time. 5.2 Local Government Action On May 1, 2003, the City approved Coastal Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit No. 0303 -05. The approval included findings that the conformed to applicable policies -of the LCP, and included a number of conditions of approval (see Attachment 1). 5.3 Filing of Appeal with the Coastal Commission On May 21, 2003, the Coastal Commission received the City's Notice of Final Action and associated records to start the 1.0 working -day appeal period, which ended June 3, 2003. Commissioners Wan and !semen filed timely appeals on June 3, 2003. The appeal was assigned file number A- 5- LOB-03 -239. The appellants contended that approval of the project by the City was inconsistent with provisions of the City's certified LCP pertaining to protection of marine biological resources, protection of water quality, and prevention of contamination. The Cession, at its hearing on July 11, 2003, found that the appeals raised substantial issue. Appeal 4 -SLOB 03 -239 and CDP Application E-03-007 July 24, 2003 Page 7 of 12 6.0 FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS FOR APPEAL NO. A -5- LOB - 03-239 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. £-03-001 6.1 Water Quality and Marine Biological Resources Coastal At Section 30230 states: The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff preventing depletion ((ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer area that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing ,alteration of natural streams. Coastal Act Section 30231 states: Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic signjcance. - Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate, for long -term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. The City's LCP includes, by reference, both of the above Coastal Act policies, Additionally, Section 3,4(20) of the Augmenting Implementations of the City's Resource Management Plan, which is a part of its LCP, at Section 3.4(20), state: No construction in the vicinity of Alconitos Bay and its associated waters, where the downhill gradient leads directly or indirectly to channels emptying into these waters, will be allowed" where adequate provision has not been made to prevent the runoff of construction debris into these waters. The ptooeet has the potential to cause adverse effects to water quality and marine biology in several ways — through discharges or releases of vaxiotts chemicals during the desalination press, through contaminated runoff and due to entrainment of marine organisms. ant occurs when small organisms, such as larvae., plankton, and fish eggs, are drawn into a cooling or processing Sys, passed though pipes, pumps, and other equipment subjected to heat or and then discharged. Entrainment associated with power plant cooling systems is assumed to cause 100% mortality of the entrained organisms. Appeal A-5-LOB-03-239 and CDP Application E-03 -007 July 24, 2003 Page 8of12 Water Quality --D sckarge.of Chemicals The project would require the use of various chemicals during the water treatment process and water testing. Chemicals that would be used and then dscharged to the power plant cooling water system include sodium hypoehlorite (chlorine), sodium bisulfite, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, citric acid, and sodium. tripolyphosphate. Water containing other chemicals used during the desalination process and testing will be sent to the municipal sewer system. The chemicals listed above are generally considered safe in. treating drinking water and are to be discharged at concentrations to meet water quality standards as determined by the Regional Board, and are therefore. not likely to be harmful to marine biota. The discharge will be subject to the limitations of the applicable NPDES permit and would be diluted in the cooling water discharge from Haynes Generating Units 1 and 2 of approximately 138 million. gallons per day. The applicant has modified the project as approved by the City to eliminate some of the corrosion research that would have resulted in much of the chemical use. This change to the project would furor reduce the amount of chemicals to be discharged and further reduce potential impacts to water qualm. Water Quality— Contaminated .Runoff • The project, as originally approved by the City, included excavation and trenching in an area within the Haynes Generating Station site near several large -ftiei oil This excavation-was needed to install a pipeline and pump station to allow discharges of about 100,E gallons of treated water per day containing higher levels of various - chemYicals to the municipal sewer system. The excavation could have also potentially resulted in contaminated runoff entering the coastal waters within the intake channel. Previous soil and groundwater sampling at the facility (by TetraTech, 2002) showed levels of four metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel) and sulfate exceeding applicable standards, and several locations required remediation due PCB concentrations. However, a change in the project described above — eliminating part of the mansion research — will also reduce the amount otwater needed to be discharged to the sewer System from 100 gallons per day to about 3,000 gallons per day. This change will allow this water to be stored in tanks at the project site that will then be trucked to the sewer system. The project no longer includes installation of the pipeline and pump station and thus does not entail excavation in potentially contaminated soils. Therefore, the potential for co • : , 9, - d rtrnoffta .enter coastal waters of the intake chttenel have been significantly reduced. Marine Biology — EnIra i me nt The project involves withdrawing up to 850,000 galloons per day of seawater from the intake channel and cooling system at the Haynes Generating Station. This use of seawater for desalination would resuk in entrainment mortality of the plankton and larvae that live in the water, which is drawls from. Alamitos Bay. The project as approved by the City may have resulted in entrainment impacts occurring when the desalination facility operated while the power plant was not operating. Additionally, the only entrainment data available for these Appeal A-5-LOB-03-239 and CDP Application E-03-007 izdy 24, 2003 Page 9 of 12 coastal waters are over twenty years old, and there are no recent or local data upon which to determine the entrainment impacts of either facility. ' However, several recent changes to the project are likely to avoid or reduce the facility's giant impacts. These include: • OpeEatiug only in conjunction with the power plant; In a June 26, 2003 letter, the applicant committed to operate the facility only when the cooling system for Haynes Generating Units 1_8r 2 is operating. Thus, most entrainment caused by the desalination facility would also occur due to the simultaneous operation of the cooling system. • Decrease in overall water use The project originally proper to use up to 900,000 gallons-per day of seawater; however, by identifying several project changes and efficiencies, the 'applicant has committed to use no more than 850,000 gallons per day. • Eliminating part of the corrosion research: By eliminating part of this research, the project will now only need to send about 3,000 gallons per day to the sewage treatment system rather than 100,000 gallons per day. 'Therefore, the power plant would have to draw in no more than 3,000 gallons per day more than what would be needed if the desalination facility were not operating. This would result in the amount of entrainment caused by both facilities to differ by no more Oran - 3,0 gallons per day, which is relatively small when compared to the overall entrainment caused by the power plant While there are still no recent and local applicable entrainment data for either facility, the measures described above will avoid or minitnin many of the entrainment impacts. Further, because the desalination facility will operate for only about 18 months within the term of the existing IstPDES permit, the entrainment data deemed valid for that permit are not likely to be updated during that time, and power plant operations are not l k ely to change. Approval of entrainment beyond that time period by either facility is likely to require an updated entrainment study. Tor- ensure these potential. impacts to water quality and marine biology are avoided or minimized, Special Condition 1 requires the desalination facility to operate only when Units 1 and 2 are tag the cooling system. Special Condition 2- requires the applicant to notify the Executive Director if there is a change in the NPDES permit requirements that would affect construction er op on of the desalination facility. Such a change may result in the treed for an amendment to the facility's coastal development permit 1 ondasion For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the project, as conditioned, consistent 'wit Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act and applicable policies of the LCP. Appeal A- 5- LQB -03 -239 and CDP Application E-03-007 July 24. 2003 Page 10 of 12 6,2 Oil,. Fuel, and Hazardous Substance Spills Coastal Act Section 30232 states: Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that do occur. The proposed facility includes the use of a number of chemicals and substances described above that would be hazardous if they were to enter coastal waters in unsafe concentrations. Coastal Act Section 30232 requires a two -part test— first, does the development provide protection against project-related spills; and second, does it provide effective containment and cleanup should spills occur? Protection Against Spills Because the facility is entirely within the Haynes Generating Stations it will be subject to the power plant's Best Management Practices (BMPs), stormwater pollution prevention plan, and other conditions of the facility's NPDES permit. Additionally, while the desalination facility is sited adjacent to the coastal waters of the intake channel, the area is curbed so that spills and runoff would be directed to the existing stonnwater system and subject to associated BMals. Spill 'Containment and Cleanup The Commission has determined in past decisions that spills cannot be effectively contained or cleaned up when they occur in open. waters. However, because accidental spills from this facility would be subject to the spill prevention plan and Bites cited above, and because they would occur in a curbed area well away from open ocean waters, they can be effectively contained and cleaned up within this area. Conchal= The two tests of Section 30232 are first, to ensure protection against spills, and second, to ensure that effective cn ttamtnent and cleanup is provided if spills occur. The Commission finds that the first test is met because the BMPs and spill plan in place provide significant protection against spills. -The Commission also finds that the second test ismet because the facility could effectively contain and cleanup anticipated spills within confined areas using spill cleanup equipment and peel available at the facility andpower plant facility. • For the reasons described above, the Commission finds the project consistent with Section 30232 of the Coastal Act. Appeal A-5-LOB-03-239 and CDP Application E -03 -007 July 24, 2003 Page i 1 of 12 6.3 Public Access and Public Recreation _Coastal .Act Section 30211 states; Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the f r, t line of terrestrial vegetation. The project will be entirely within the boundaries of the Haynes Generating Station The power plant is surrounded by fences and other security devices, and is not accessible to the public due to safety and security concerns. The project will involve relatively short -term and minor vehicle tra.fac due to construction and ongoing operations; however, none of the traffic is expected to change the level of service on nearby roads. Therefore, the project is not likely to affect or interfere with public access to the coast. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds the project consistent with Section 30211 of the Coastal Act. 6.4 Visual Resources Coastal Act Section 30251 states: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource _ofpublic importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms,. to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the-character of its setting. The project is located the grounds of the Haynes Generating Station and is screened_fram nearby public areas and views by fencing and vegetation. The project facilities, including filtration u ts, tanks, pumps, storage, and office trailers, do not exceed fourteen feet in height, and are much smaller than the nearby structures associated with the power plant. Therefore, the project is not likely to result in more than a de minims adverse change to the existing visual situation. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds the project consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. Appeal A- S- 10B- 03-239 and CDP Application E -03 -007 • July 24, 2003 . Page .2 0'12 7.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Section 13096 of the Commission's .administrative regulations requires Commission approval of CDP applications to be supported by a finding showing the application, as modified by any conditions of approval, to be consistent with any applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 21080.5(dX2)(A) of the CEQA prohibits approval of a proposed development if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant impacts that the activity may have on the e nvironment. The project as conditioned herein incorporates measures necessary to _avoid any significant environmental effects under the Coastal Act, and there are no less environmentally damaging feasible alternatives. Therefore, the Commission Ends that the proposed project is consistent with the resource protection policies of the Coastal Act and with the CEQA. APPENDIX A: Substantive File Documents Local CDP Documents from City of Long • Record of City's review process, including staff report Conditions of Approved CDP and CLIP dated May 1, 2003 (See Attachm►eft 1) Appeal Documents • duly 11, 2003 Addendum to Appeal, including correspondence on behalf of proposal • June 24, 2003 Staff Report on Substantial Issue Hearing. • June 18, 2003 letter and • June 3, 2003 Appeals by Commissioners Wan_ and Iceman. Commission Review Documents analysis of • luly 7, 2003 letter and attachments from applicant's attorney, including at�Y facility's chemical use, infor oration about entrainment impacts, project location maps, and evaluation of City's LCP and CDP findings. • June 26, 2003 letter from applicant stating the faeility would operate only when the Units 1 and 2 cooling system was operating. • July 20, 2000 NPDES Permit for Haynes Generating Station, issued by Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board..