HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2003-07-14 #BB AGENDA REPORT
•
DATE: July 14, 2003
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
•
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY
- BOLSA CHICA STREET WATERLINE EASEMENT
(BRIGHTWATER PROPOSED WATER TRANSMISSION
LINE ROUTE)
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The appellant, Southern California Water, is appealing the Planning Commission's
finding that the proposed water line easement from Cypress to the proposed development
on the Bolsa Chica Mesa is inconsistent with the General Plan on the basis of traffic
related circulation issues associated with the proposed development. The purpose of the
water line is to transport water from the Southern California Water Company's existing
system to the proposed development. This item was originally scheduled for the May 12,
2003 meeting, but was continued at the applicant's request.
Essentially, the City Council has two options in this matter:
1) Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, thereby
finding the proposed water line to NOT be in conformance with the City's General
Plan.
2) Sustain the appeal of Southern California Water, revising the decision of the
Planning Commission, subject to the findings of the City Council.
Whichever option the City Council chooses to pursue, staff will bring back a resolution
for formal adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
BACKGROUND:
The City received a request from the County of Orange Public Facilities & Resources
Department for the City of Seal Beach to adopt a resolution finding the above - referenced
project in conformity with the Seal Beach General Plan. On March 19, 2003, the Planning
Commission adopted a resolution finding that the proposed water line was not in
conformance with the City's General Plan.
Agenda Item 88
As indicated in the letter request of the County, Section 65402 of the California Government
Code stipulates that a local agency such as the Orange County Flood Control District
(OCFCD) shall not construct public works within any city until the location, purpose and
extent of such work has been submitted to the planning agency having jurisdiction and the
conformity to the city's adopted General Plan has been reported.
General Project Description:
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 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 water transmission line alignment is totally within public rights -of -ways within Seal
Beach, and no privately owner properties within the City are to be impacted by the
installation of this water transmission line.
Determination of General Plan Conformity:
The proposed project is designed to provide domestic water services to a planned residential
development in another community. The applicable policies within the General Plan which
are relevant to this determination finding are:
❑ Policy 1M — Ensure that any new public facilities are designed and located in such a
manner as to eliminate potential hazard impacts that may reduce the utility of the
facility following a disaster.
❑ Policy 1N - Inform utility companies of potential conflicts between the location of
their facilities and the currently identified high or extreme hazard areas and
encourage them to program for relocation or undergrounding of potentially
impacted facilities, especially along designated primary emergency routes.
❑ Policy 1Q - Continue to encourage the undergrounding of utilities in existing
developed areas of the City and continue to require any new development to
underground utilities.
As noted above, the Planning Commission found that the request was inconsistent with the
General Plan Circulation Element.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Agenda Item
None. Staff time in preparing the Staff Report.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission adopted a resolution 4 -0 -1 (Hood abstain) to find the proposed
water line not in conformance with the City's General Plan. A copy of the Planning
Commission staff report and resolution are attached for Council's review.
de i, ..___ ,
Mac Cummins
Associate Planner /Special Projects Manager
NO = : / % '4' PROVED:
i
ilir John '. Bahorski, City Manager
tachments (4)
Attachment 1: Staff Report to the Planning Commission, March 19, 2003; re:
Proposed Brightwater Water Transmission Line
Attachment 2: Resolution No. 03 -9, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of
the City of Seal Beach Finding the Proposed Bolsa Chica Street
Waterline Easement (Brightwater Proposed Water Transmission
Line Route) not in Conformance with the Seal Beach General Plan
(General Plan Conformance No. 03 -1)
Attachment 3: Letter Request from County of Orange re: Request for General
Plan Conformity Report, Bolsa Chica Street Waterline Easement,
Dated January 23, 2003
Attachment 4: Appeal Request submitted to the City of Seal Beach
Agenda Item
Attachment 1
March 19, 2003
STAFF REPORT - Supplemental
To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Subject: DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN
CONFORMITY - BOLSA CHICA STREET
WATERLINE EASEMENT (BRIGHTWATER
PROPOSED WATER TRANSMISSION LINE
ROUTE)
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Adopt Resolution No. 03 -9, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
Finding the Proposed Bolsa Chica Street Waterline Easement (Brightwater Proposed Water -
Transmission Line Route) in Conformance with the Seal Beach General Plan (General Plan
Conformance No. 03 -1). Please refer to Attachment 1 of the February 19, 2003 Planning
Commission Staff Report to review the proposed resolution.
DISCUSSION
This matter was continued from the February 1, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting to allow staff
to further research the status of this request with other cities along the proposed transmission line
route. At this point none of the other cities have completed their review and- determination.
Government Code Section 65402 provides that the requested determination is to be made within 40
days of receipt of the request. That 40 day time period, in our case, expired on March 8, 2003.
The City Attorney contacted the City of Huntington Beach, which is currently involved in
litigation with Orange County over whether to grant a franchise to the County. Their lawsuit,
however, does not concern general plan conformity, and so it is not relevant to the present issue.
In order to remain in substantial compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section
65402, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the prepared resolution.
RECOMIVIENDATION
Planning Commission Resolution No 03 -_
General Plan Conformance 03 -1 - Bolsa Chica Water Line Project
Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report
March 19, 2003
Adopt Resolution No. 03 -9, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
Finding the Proposed Bolsa Chica Street Waterline Easement (Brightwater Proposed Water _
Transmission Line Route) in Conformance with the Seal Beach General Plan (General Plan
Conformance No. 03 -1). Please refer to Attachment 1 of the February 19, 2003 Planning
Commission Staff Report to review the proposed resolution. 6____:
•
Mac Cummins
Associate Planner
Bolsa Chica Water Line General Plan Conformity.PC SR2 2
February 19, 2003
STAFF REPORT
To: - Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject: DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN
CONFORMITY - BOLSA CHICA STREET
WATERLINE EASEMENT (BRIGHTWATER
PROPOSED WATER TRANSMISSION LINE
ROUTE) .
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Adopt Resolution No. 03 -9, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
Finding the Proposed Bolsa Chica Street Waterline Easement (Brightwater Proposed Water
Transmission Line Route) in Conformance with the Seal Beach General Plan (General Plan
Conformance No. 03 -1) .
DISCUSSION . -
Overview of Current Request:
The City has received a request from the County of Orange Public Facilities & Resources
Department for the City of Seal Beach to adopt a resolution finding the above - referenced project in
conformity with the Seal Beach General Plan.
As indicated in the letter request of the County, Section 65402 of the California Government Code
stipulates that a local agency such as the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) shall not
construct public works within any city until the location, purpose and extent of such work has been
submitted to the planning agency having jurisdiction and the conformity to the city's adopted
- General Plan has been reported.
Portions of th proposed project are located within the City of Seal Beach, which requires the
determination of eh Planning Commission to be approved.
C \Documents and Settings \LWluttenberg\My Documents \CEQA \Bolsa Chica Water Line General Plan Conformity.PC SR.doc \LW\01 -29 -03 .
Planning Commission Resolution No. 03 -_
General Plan Conformance 03 -1 - Bolsa Chica Water Line Project
Planning Commission Staff Report
February_ 19, 2003
Previous City Considerations of the Brightwater Water Transmission Line
Project:
On July 28, 1999, the Environmental Quality Control Board reviewed the "Notice of
Preparation" ( "NOP ") for the subject environmental document and authorized the Chairperson to
sign a comment letter regarding the NOP. A copy of the comment letter was forwarded to the
Planning Commission and City Council for information.
On January 20, 2000 the City Council considered a staff report regarding the Draft Supplemental
EIR for the "Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project" Prepared By -
California Public Utilities Commission (Application Nos. 98 -11 -003 And 98 -11 -015). The City
Council approved a comment letter at that meeting. Due to the comment period deadline of
January 20, 2000, the Draft EIR document and proposed comment letter was not reviewed by the
Environmental Quality Control Board, as their next meeting was on January 26,2000. ,
On May 24, 2000 the Final EIR for this project was submitted to the Environmental Quality
Control Board for receipt. At that time staff indicated:
"In reviewing the responses to the concerns of the City of Seal Beach, it appears
that our comments and concerns were responded too, and in a manner appropriate
under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In the
City comment letter, the issue of coordinating with Orange County Flood Control
District storm channel improvement projects was raised, and the requested
coordination between the responsible agencies has occurred and will continue to
occur if this project proceeds. In addition, the City had requested imposition of
several additional mitigation measures, which have been included in an acceptable
format to address the concerns of the City."
General Project Description:
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 undergroundAvater 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.
Bolsa Chica Water Line General Plan Conformity PC SR 2
Planning Commission Resolution No. 03 -_
General Plan Conformance 03 -1 - Bolsa Chica Water Line Project
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 19, 2003
The water transmission line alignment is totally within -public rights -of -ways within Seal Beach,
and n� privately owner properties within the City are to be impacted by the installation of this water
transmission line.
Determination of General Plan Conformity:
The proposed project, which is designed to provide domestic water services to a planned residential
development , in another community, is consistent with the following "Policies" of the Safety
Element of the Seal Beach General Plan:
❑ Policy 1M — Ensure that any new public facilities are designed and located in such a manner
as to eliminate potential hazard impacts that may reduce the utility of the facility following
a disaster.
❑ Policy 1N - Inform utility companies of potential conflicts between the location of their
facilities and the currently identified high or extreme hazard areas and encourage them to
program for relocation or undergrounding of potentially impacted facilities, especially
along designated primary emergency routes.
❑ Policy 1Q - Continue to encourage the undergrounding of utilities in existing developed
areas of the City and continue to require any new development to underground utilities.
Further, the water transmission line alignment is totally within public rights -of -ways within Seal
Beach, and no privately owner properties within the City are to be impacted by the installation of
this water transmission line. -
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 03 -9, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
Finding the Proposed Bolsa Chica Street Waterline Easement (Brightwater Proposed Water
Transmission Line Route) in Conformance with the Seal Beach General Plan (General Plan
Conformance No. 03 -1) -
Whitten. erg, Director
Development Services Department
Attachments: (3)
Bolsa Chica Water Line General Plan Conformity PC SR 3
Planning Comancssion Resolution No. 03 -_
General Plan Conformance 03 -1 - Bolsa Chica Water Line Project
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 19, 2003
Attachment 1: Resolution No. 03 -9, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City
of Seal Beach Finding the Proposed Bolsa Chica Street Waterline Easement
(Brightwater Proposed Water Transmission Line Route) in Conformance
with the Seal General Plan (General Plan Conformance No. 03 -1)
Attachment 2: Letter Request from County of Orange re: Request for General Plan
Conformity Report, Bolsa Chica Street Waterline Easement, Dated January
23, 2003
Attachment 3: Section J — Comments and Responses of "Final 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 for the California
Public Utilities Commission by Aspen Environmental Group, dated
February 2000
Note: Section J is not provided in its entirety due to its length, 152 pages.
The comments and responses relative to the City of Seal Beach comment
letter of January 10, 2000 are provided.
Bolsa Cluca Water Line General Plan Confonmry PC SR 4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 03 -
General Plan Conformance 03 -1 - Bolsa Chica Water Line Project
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 19, 2003
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 03 -9, A RESOLUTION OF THE '
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH FINDING THE PROPOSED BOLSA
CHICA STREET WATERLINE EASEMENT
(BRIGHTWATER PROPOSED WATER
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE) IN
CONFORMANCE WITH THE. SEAL BEACH
GENERAL PLAN (GENERAL PLAN
CONFORMANCE NO. 03-1)
Bolsa Chica Water Line General Plan Confornuty.PC SR 5
Planning Commission Resolution No. 03 -_
General Plan Conformance 03 -1 - Bolsa Chica Water Line Project
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 19, 2003
RESOLUTION NO. 03-9
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH FINDING THE
PROPOSED BOLSA CHICA STREET WATERLINE
EASEMENT (BRIGHTWATER PROPOSED WATER
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE) IN CONFORMANCE
WITH THE SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN
(GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 03-1)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
WHEREAS, Section 65402 of the California Government Code stipulates that a local agency
shall not construct public works within any city until the location, purpose and
extent of such work has been submitted to the planning agency having jurisdiction
and the conformity to the city's adopted General Plan has been reported; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a request from the County of Orange Public Facilities &
Resources Department for the City of Seal Beach to adopt a resolution finding the
Bolsa Chica Street Waterline Easement (Brightwater Proposed Water
Transmission Line Route) project in conformity with the Seal Beach General Plan;
and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2000 the City Council considered a staff report regarding the Draft
Supplemental EIR for the " Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and Wastewater
Service Project" Prepared By California Public Utilities Commission (Application
-Nos. 98 -11 -003 And 98 -11 -015). The City Council approved a comment letter at
that meeting; and
WHEREAS, On May 24, 2000 the Final EIR for this project was submitted to the Environmental
Quality Control Board for receipt. At that time staff indicated:
Bolsa Chica Water Line General Plan Conformity.PC SR 6
Planning Commission Resolution No. 03- ___
General Plan Conformance 03 -1 - Bolsa Chica Water Line Project
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 19, 2003
"In reviewing the responses to the concerns of the City of Seal
Beach, it appears that our comments and concerns were responded
too, and in a manner appropriate under the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In the City comment
letter, the issue of coordinating with Orange County Flood Control
District storm channel improvement projects was raised, and the
requested coordination between the responsible agencies has
occurred and will continue to occur if this project proceeds. In
addition, the City had requested imposition of several additional
mitigation measures, which have been included in an acceptable
format to address the concerns of the City. "; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project which is designed to provide domestic water services to a
planned residential development in another community; and
WHEREAS, The proposed project is consistent with the following "Policies" of the Safety
Element of the Seal Beach General Plan:
• Policy 1M — Ensure that any new public facilities are designed and located
in such a manner as to eliminate potential hazard impacts that may reduce
the utility of the facility following a disaster.
O Policy IN - Inform utility companies of potential conflicts between the
location of their facilities and the currently identified high or extreme
hazard areas and encourage them to program for relocation or
undergrounding of potentially impacted facilities, especially along
designated primary emergency routes.
• Policy 1 Q - Continue to encourage the undergrounding of utilities in
existing developed areas of the City and continue to require any new
development to underground utilities; and '
WHEREAS, the water transmission line alignment is totally within public rights -of -ways within
Seal Beach, and no privately owner properties within the City are to be impacted by
the installation of this water transmission line.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS, based on the facts and
determinations set forth above, that the Bolsa Chica Street Waterline Easement (Brightwater
Proposed Water Transmission Line Route) Project is in conformity with the City of Seal Beach
General Plan.
Bolsa Chica Water Line General Plan Conformity PC SR 7
Planning Commission Resolution No. 03 -_
General Plan Conformance 03 -1 - Bolsa Chica Water Line Project
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 19, 2003
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal
Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2003, by the following
.vote: •
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
•
David Hood, Ph.D.
Chairman, Planning Commission
•
Lee Whittenberg, Secretary
Planning Commission
(/ .
Bolsa Chica Water Line General Plan Conformity.PC SR 8
Planning Commission Resolution No. 03 -_
General Plan Conformance 03 -1 - Bolsa Chica Water Line Project
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 19, 2003
•
ATTACHMENT 2
LETTER REQUEST FROM COUNTY OF ORANGE
RE: REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN
CONFORMITY REPORT, BOLSA CHICA STREET
WATERLINE EASEMENT, DATED JANUARY 23,
2003
•
•
.Y ,
Bolsa Chica Water Lme Genera Plan Conformity.PC SR 9
Vicki L. Wilson, Director
300 N Flower Street
E O,
C OUNTY OF ORANGE Santa Ana, C.\
/ 4ti P n Box 4048
—
--�
h Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
PUBLIC FACILITIES & RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
�'LIFO¢�tiQ' Teleph (714) 834 -5188
January 23, 2003
ROWE I.D. No.: 2002 -037
Mr. Lee Wittenberg
Director of Development Services
City of Seal Beach
211 8 Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
SUBJECT: Request for General Plan Conformity Report — Bolsa Chica Street Waterline
Easement
Mr. Wittenberg, _
Southern California Water Company (SCWC) is to construct a domestic water transmission line within
Bolsa Chica Street that will impact several properties owned by the Orange County Flood Control
District. SCWC is seeking an easement or permit from the District at each location. The impacted
areas are shown on the attached location map.
Prior to granting the right of way and issuing permits for this project, it is necessary to comply
with 65402 of the California Government Code, which provides that OCFCD shall not
acquire or dispose of any real property until the location, purpose, and extent of such activity has
been reported upon as to conformity with the applicable, adopted general plan. Therefore, it is
requested that the City provide the OCFCD with a report by its planning commission, or
authorized staff, regarding general plan conformance of the proposed easement conveyances.
It is requested that one date - stamped copy of the report be returned for our'files. Please route
this copy to Devin Baker of Right of Way Engineering, who may be contacted at
(714) 834 -2362. All questions regarding the construction of the water line should be directed to
Jon Austin of Metro Pointe Engineers who is the Project Engineer. Mr. Austin can be contacted
at (714) 438 -1095. -
Very truly yours, .
0t n CITY OF SEAL BEACH
cLu_et,k.
JAN 2 7 2003
Joh D. Pavlik, Chief
Ri t o Way Engineering CEFARTMJMENT OF
b� -
DEVEIOPMENT SERVICES
Enclosures: Location Map
cc: John Bahorski, City Manager, City of Seal Beach
Tony Ferrulli, Manager, CEO Purchasing & Real Estate
Jon Austin, Metro Pointe Engineers
•
•
. -/ -
1 CYPRESS ' STANTON __
LOS ALAMITOS -' -;
ROSSMOOR Orangewcod
i
Los Alamitos > Chapman !
•
• _
_ i Armed Forces a • i • i_ � ••
i •- Reserve Center GARDEN i _•_
i i GROVE Lampson ! i
•
•
_ �• -
• • _._._. -• -•� r .•- Gar er Grov2 :}v•.
.0 . .
d R • • �Q
E v.
• SEAL BEACH • WEST Trask __._
m m MINSTER
go •
m Westminster Westminster
• r o .
PROPOSED Q,a <• .— • -- -•• - - - - I
•
BRIGHTWATER Haze d
DOMESTIC WATER r
TRANSMISSION LINE ... o
r te ' •
m
• m
Seal Beach _ -_ -, ,
•
Q _ f ' Navy avy • Weapons Station McFadde Bo ,_____ i ^ -
•
;- j _ _ � E EACH Edinge- _ v s
: -� y ` _ C � �� ►L m = Heil ._•- L _
o
CD
L �. ••• > ._ r o 0
et
CO U.1
i •
al as
Warner
°^- -,, -+ ;r. ♦, c? c Los
! Yom. ' Patos
. :� _ • f • ;r • w-- _�- Slater _ t
•
1 .---- ,
y • • JL • ''. ...r-:- Gs _ •♦ -� _
- fi , M' " ` � � [` Brightwater Line
=.." '' r •` -- "' ~ = OLSA CHICA PLAN
f1Ep and Wastewater Project
';� s � •. T ' h COMMUNITY SITE .
`C - ' i� , s.: ? -i2_ , ; . - _----- i. ......:( _
'_ Proposed Water
•
N "P/2 Transmission
boo_ J < Line Route
Scale J in Miles • • - t Figure 2.2
• MetroPointe Engineers
1 • 1 I •- +. -.I' 1 J L i -r : : i ' `. J � ; .y / II ' y ` � t �� I , f "'� -_.. I j'_.' ; . -I • " �; ., 7, y y r •_ •1 - Ji`-'3 'I - • �+�N ' '.. F � -n1E = r • - -4
p` , ' - a."I 1 Tr f A ?7'Is, 1 C.e\, i t w . .
'.I ‘ I - •!
• I"_f _1 1 I 1-. r t : _ y " p its . I I pp� i-4.11 � \ i � .. _.�. - - - r-' • I; ':' ,:.' ,.•laW: t b 1 1 • i I - -� � .. .f. . - .�'. -. \C:
t yr e. +.. - t_i-, ., r _.. �
? :I 1! "wY : t ' = I LO ALAMT�S ARMCO FlRR YCf.NTFR
■ ; ; • ;. a K : q
• 1 .1 .2 � ( ' i :e J-.)1.,., :ll •I' I I ^F •1 • -.°J ?�• ti �i,.� � - -- ,--• 1 s t
r ri � I i is ! t II tiw it f r :. e F - �
N. A l � j y y ) J1 4 . I p. •t f - , ' �� � = 7r + . _ Ile.m r , ( 1 • ' - - z
1 i:21_ •.v' , ,, ! • �... , 1 Ill i •tt
f , ..I, ••1- ^S el a d I. 1 3 c,olnr Sg
_ `- ' t--- I 1� I . 1 � , . - • , i - ' i , y` i •
p ' .f.r -o Iit 1 ■ , - l.t1erunnr . LGMENI¶3_ T.-'1.0 if - z - ',i I r 1....1. I. _ - •..-'
. _W: •' •'t.L�} • ..mwr.,11 - ' uun;11 ;t..? SEGMEN - � '✓•.,;/ " :;•;__....,_...........:1--4.•-•-•
Y 1 , 1�+^ �
- tea.'.V.7,'.,,: .- II • A '�J ".;ia :7, 1 17,;. -. £', < rr•yt s _ . � • f_ : ..- I " - . • y •• y 1.1 , " .• 7 ^ . icy. -�,. , :. a -�' _�•-,. ' ' "':^- ': 11:0C • QN e{ r' l ._ l -eF ..
_ ." am h A , _I 1 r
- ,,.; yVat - ' �!` Ij o .'SEAL B EA M '•... _,,t - ......e -" a " - ....Y,. P. I;I I L 1 1' I.: . i.i �'
c i A CA""`'i:. 1 IV I ` -
▪ / - 1' c ' 1 2 : ' '1/ 1_1 J. F A t.h.1.1.' ? J' d I �i_ , L J ' r �'� d - ^ -- -I . 1 T 42 ,-- 7 , -. 3 .
- r -- d -. - _- tom-- aV IrV� � IT _r�...a.r..iJ p 6
[ fl iJ J 5M2 1 ' ^ s ' .. - J ..et n •: P qtr °6•a ' I'rp. . l i .
�' n �
U 1 ' NV 1. - _1.. __ �.- -. r - h r �
. _ • 1,11,„1„ • .. ` WESTMINSTER BLVD -- - _ � .. '' 1 .. I _ . ^ . $ ,�. r } r - 7 1 ; 1 " e ■ -
-1"., III r - ▪ W E A - • I,' U S` 9:T Arf•Ilk N'r" q -� r + 1 :i. n _W E • ......,1,:.;:- 1
\
1A - • 1 ; r.r ,K t�• • <' / �i S G A L B E tiC H I Ij ^ ! i I t ' I s'j''S i - - NV lrl� { --- %-.. . -_
il l ; ,1" ' .4 . , :
I1 , , :i„ ..,..4 I I , E 1 / - •y ti ILNTRILGTf1N••d - -0.! � Rmnet.w+ :1i.1,:v. I, •
• 1A 10 W1LU1 I // EEr1m :E 1' I I T 2 ea' 1 "- rl1l i r c' ■
1 ' - i '1 ! e ! SEGMENT 1 ' ' 9 : i �" 5 --- � t r a. 1. 4.
trERNM %IT - ' ��%i - ;I • { 1 ' 1 TOGATION.O 7t�1 ' ' -_ .._____._., ..., teAVA1 ,'
! %E sMNC STA111/N - I .. -...�� "r = enry
E AL IIrA1.A • - - .- 1 • .1 _ - • • i - -_ - ' • [l of 1 1.1 1 - f - 1 - . 1 Sit t i
nom vi .4 mull ire Re /1n:E ! _ I _,____�; _ _�? .S I •
I 4 { � y niI i II , ° '•7 . " r. "'� 1 ; •
LEGEND 1 ,18 JI n{ i '' ,,r ' , .. 1, I „ I _ _ __ IE . 1 _ .._ , f� 7 �
DWTP'ALIG t 7 � l L7 'I � 1 . _c. � � - - Ct i - 11 �-`" 1 9_ §
CITY BOUNDARY LI ES: I , I ! ' 1 •- , r:, �s• _i 1_ �. 1I : -"T _.,...i .. ' •
LOCATION OF OCFCD R/W : ? .p � N i i ( � I °°
ENCROACHMENT' - = =�- t _ - -- -- • 1 ,: ' 1 • �(4i - ; � - ,,. :_ : .- �•- I : ,.h 17
r 1 j
I .Iind • . e { _ l .r +..=. - w: 1 7 el i• W � . 1 �.i;.rAe . ___ _
li .1 }- 1 `L - • �FN I r.. c•'I" �• s -..f ,•Ia ! (,in,lar -
• • _- I',.11 . T= N..I-MIry , s . S - � - :. .... - _-
r _T - ,.. ,_.. ,��ir roarvnwrrf -mi nT - _ ��� � i _ rt , : �. L :r_ . , _ . -r . ` .- s i • \_ : � V - ` ` , 7 � / ,,- . - ---- ' 0 _ -. _ - - , , 0,e r• - + '• , 1 ` 1 1.. J. g- ii.__ was_. s- ? 2 'r
' ` J4 , ' " ,,{ t: t / tkfr-
-, 3 0 .; A ' itTIIV ".Oti W
e..:i.�. I/ -i %= `` ,e ". -: yr " •• i ii ! J � t-1 I I 20 T ' ° 'to5i 6 �+ i� ill
` - • 1 • 2 I � i„�. l �..: _Li
/ i T INGTON 13 ACH - _ - . { � � -- q t �K� T r e, 1 1 , __ , J e_.,
• ; ▪ ` • ' : '�+���f' l GF•° ,/� <•.t. , - � � 4 1 k- - - , -, I I rr ",r %• 4 ° �' G � _ (.a.• El',147H SI - 2'� 1 ti to . ' ,A ?W.S.Ei. `+` '. � •+ .: `(\ d•E r �' !. �1 i` � � y � a , n § • r • 0 qj�• ;- R
NI.. NI.. `+ s ' \ A f ' \. '1 � 1' . �` " '�•'' �� -�. -y0.y '7 7 -. 1!„
) �1 1 ���� ` \ - / i • I _ !I Y ' . ar._ a e .l, • ._ : ' , =� �I - ] u_ i 1 4
` e•• •fi r
in Sunset Bc w ' ‘ : e f r : - .. -: ''` 1 I
. % I ^.= - , r.a -? -- ; traN.,
M P .'r i. - r ' • ' I:' - I I .1 c. :. I t... 1 . • ,. • �'',. c;-:.‘,1••••:.. � ! � ._ ..e •. , - wnRNER ..„• %....-...,„,-.A ...,: -
BOLSA CHIC ' - = _ •':.::.:, -• �
r • - il uNmca+POan ee PROJEcTi t I av " s " � _ K 1 ... 1
T' . _ . SITE 1 5 '
i'+ •, I4'4'110111 I �, - ' DOMESTIC WA Nr1. A .• , k , i In � 1 r., I -1 )2
TRANSMISSION PIPEL NE `) ` i . , • - = E-- , = -; - �i;�_- __• -
.. I l:.. .�., .s 1 °P' X -a 1 � i iP , • rltl ; ' � 1 _ , IL �' -
Planning Commission Resolution No. 03 -_
General Plan Conformance 03 -1 - Bolsa Chica Water Line Project
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 19, 2003
ATTACHMENT. 3
•
SECTION J - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES OF "FINAL
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -
BOLSA CHICA WATER TRANSMISSION LINE AND
WASTEWATER SERVICE PROJECT, SOUTHERN CALIFORNL4
WATER COMPANY (APPLICATION NOS. 98 -11 -003 AND 98 -11-
01 S) ", PREPARED FOR THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION BY ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL .
GROUP, DATED FEBRUARY 2000
NOTE: SECTION J IS NOT PROVIDED IN ITS ENTIRETY
DUE TO ITS LENGTH, 152 PAGES. THE COMMENTS AND
RESPONSES RELATIVE TO THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
COMMENT LETTER OF JANUARY 10, 2000 ARE PROVIDED.
Bolsa Chica Water Line General Plan Conformity.PC SR 10
FINAL •
•
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse Number: 99071049
BOLSA CHICA WATER TRANSMISSION LINE
AND
WASTEWATER SERVICE PROJECT
Prepared for:
California Public Utilities Commission
Prepared by:
Aspen Environmental Group
CPUC Application Numbers: 98 -11 -003 and 98 -015
February 2000
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was circulated for public review from
December 6, 1999, through January 20, 2000. This section contains copies of all of the written
comments received during the public review period, as well as a transcript of verbal comments made at
a public participation hearing conducted the Administrative Law Judge in Huntington Beach on January
21, 2000. Written comments received by public agencies are presented first, followed by written
comments from local organizations and citizens. Written comments were received via U.S. mail,
overnight delivery, facsimile (fax), and electronic mail (e- mail). Identifying numbers have been added
to the margins of the comments by the SEIR preparers. Verbal comments received at the public
participation hearing are presented after the written comments.
Following each set of comments are numbered responses to each comment. In some cases, the
responses contain references to information presented in the SEIR and, in some other cases, a response
makes reference to a previous response in order to avoid unnecessary duplication. In some instances,
comments have prompted minor revisions to the text of the SEIR. The responses to such comments
indicate whether a change to text of the SEIR has been made and the locations where all substantive
changes have been made to the various sections of the SEIR are indicated by a vertical line in the right
margin of each revised page.
Each of the agencies, organizations, and individuals that submitted written comments are listed in Table
J -1 below. A number has been assigned to each set of written comments as part of the numbering
system for identifying individual comments.
Table J -1• Written Comments on the Draft SEJR
Set Commenter Page
1 California Dept. of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources J -3
2 California Dept. of Transportation, District 12 J -5
3 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. J -9
4 Orange County Sanitation District J -12
5 County of Orange, Planning and Development Services Department J -15
6 City of Westminster J -22
7 City of Seal Beach J -25
8 Van Blarcom, Liebold, McClendon & Mann (with City of Huntington Beach comments attached) J-43
9 City of Huntington Beach (additional comments) J -61
10 City of Santa Ana J -63
11 City of Buena Park J -66
12 Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council 1 -68
13 Sandra Genis ( Bolsa Chica Land Trust) J -73
14 Nancy Donaven J -109
15 Eileen Murphy (Bolsa Chica Land Trust Water Committee) J -111
16 Tetra Tech, Inc., Infrastructure Southwest Group J -113
17 Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D. J -118
18 Paone, Callahan, McHolm & Winton J -123
19 O'Melveny & Myers LLP J -142
February 2000 J -1 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
At the public participation hearing conducted on January 21, 2000, ten persons provided verbal
comments on the Draft SEIR. Each of the individuals that made verbal comments at the hearing are
listed in Table J -2 below.
Table J -2 Verbal Comments on the Draft SEIR
Commenter Page
1 David Hall J -145
Nancy Harris J -147
Victor Leipzig J -147
Mr. Arms J -148
Anja Garwick 1 -148
Eileen Murphy (Bolsa Chica Land Trust) J -149 .
Peter Macicprang, City of Westminster 1 -149
Ronald Van Blarcom (attorneys for the City of Huntington Beach) J -150
Sandra Genis 1 -152
Ms. George 1 -152
•
•
}
J
February 2000 1 -2 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Cy € aQT e J
t 17 . 1ALt • 2 1 :' n∎ :I
St -t iCAL`+ CAL PCin A UJ' tJ
(5c'i.3 2527
■
January 10, 2000
Brad Wetstone, cPUC
c/o Aspen Environmental Group
30423 C anwood Street, Suite 215
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: "DRAFT
- SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -
BOLSA CHJCA 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 Scat Brach 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 DSELR and our comments regarding the Notice of Preparation, Orange
Count Flood Control Distract is preparing to provide concrete lining of the Bolsa Chi® -
C anti north of the SR -22 (Garden Grove Freeway). The City of Seal Beach requests '
both projects be coordinated to ensure the timely complexion of both projects with 7 - 1
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 Balsa Chico Channel, as they
have experienced flooding during the winters of 1995, 1993 and 1992.
•
earn Doeueerms10EQ00104. Mica water Lo. DEC= Comm g umr.eo.tw01.10-00
•
February 2000 J -25 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
•
azy of Seal Beads Co mmet letter
Drift 9iple sera! F1R - Balre C ies Water 7hswsrdaiat Line
and Waaewwer Service Prefect, Soather,, California Wad Cate any'
•
Sal: 99071049
Amery y 10, 2000
Alternati 4 — North Seal Bea ch Welt, feldr
The City of Seal Beach would oppose the implemcctatson 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 m support the use of the North Seal Beach Weilfelds as a viable
alternative to the proposed project. The City understands the use of the welfield is not
drectiy 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. Tho North Seal 7 -2
Beach Wellfieid alternative will add one mile of additional street construction impacts over
the proposed project. The proposed project aligement is within existing utility and non-
roadway right 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 Wellfidd 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 hi the future near the
location shown to improve reliability in our syssen that is north of the I-4CIS Freeway.
The City's existing well facilities are located on Beverly Manor Road and on Old Bols i
Chica Road. Any future consideration of this alternative must include a detailed technical
feasibility study that coosiders and complies with to the City's Water System Master Plan
and the Orange County Water District 2024 Master Plan. - 1
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 7 -3
proposed method of water and wastewater service provision to the ratr ayer's in
SCWC's West Orange County District. It would be hedpfvl 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 Suppkmt:rntai 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. -
Ida Cook Were ter DM.Ca Cameo Gast 2
•
February 2000 J -26 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Cap cf Seal Beach Comment Laser re:
Drat SNpptemeatal FJK — Baba ado: Wares Tran vwisdem Lice
and Wastewater Service Prvjed, Southern Cahfo nia Water Company'
SCH : 99071049
January 10, 2000
n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, Section ES.5 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE
PROJECT, North Seal Beach Wd1fields, pages ES-7: 7-4
To maintain internal consistency of the document, this heading should be identified
as "Alternative 4", amsistent with the alternative identification on page D-13.
a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, Table ES -2 - SUMMARY OF Il44PACTS 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 7-5
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-I.
Regarding mitigation measure CR -4, on page ES-13, the CSty 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.
Section A, INTRODUCTION, Subsection A.7.2, Ptmuc INvotvEm ' T
OPPORTUNITIES, page A -11:
The discussion under "NOP Responses" indicates that ". . . letters were receited
from agencies and organizations providing ci»wnents and suggestions regarding 7 -6
the scope of issues w be addressed in the SEIR." It would have been helpful to -
peasons now reviewing the SEIR to be able to review a summary of those
comments and suggestions to see bow 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, DOMEb WATER TRAN514tI55'1ON Loa, Segment 5, page B-13:
The discussion under "Segment S" indicates the pipeline crosses the I- 405/SR 22
freeways and associated Caltrans right -of way. The City of Seal Beach would 7 -7
request the ability to further discuss with the project prnpaoent 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.at the City. • -
3
February 2000 J-27 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
•
City of Seal Reads Cannnenu Letter rr:
"Draft Suppler octal FIR - Basra Chico Water Transmission lie
and Wastewater Service Project. Southern Coq - arida Woo Company"
SCA : 99071049
January 10. 2000
o Section B, DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, Subsection
B.6.1, Dams= WATER TRANSMESSION LINE, page B-9:
The discussion under "Projected Water Demand", second paragraph indicates
The daily flow required by the local fre protection agency is 3,507 gpm." In
contrast, page B-1$, the last sentence of the first paragraph states, "The fire flow 7 -8
requirement is 3000 gprnI4 hours." Please address the apparent inconsistency of
the two statements or provide explanatory language regarding these figures.
•
•
in 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: 7 -9
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, Ant QUAr.ITY,
subsection C.1.23 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- 7 -10
22/Valley ViewfBoLsa 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.
n Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.1, AR QvALZTY,
page C.1 -13:
The discussion after Mitigation Measure A -9 indicates "h should be rioted that the
mailman dairy and quarterly enutsions kYeLs coned be reduced by limiting the 7 -11
number cf construrtiont spreads to only two spreads operating amcurrendy,
instead cf the proposed three spread sdtedihle. This would essentially lengthen the
construction schedule and reduce the quanerly and daily construction levers to
below the SCAQMD emission thresholds. ° Although the City generally favors
4
February 2000 J -28 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
re9' of Sea! Brach Comment Laser re
"Draft stn m,+at E1R - Bona Chita Weer Traanwirsean Doe
and Wastewater 3 wr Projea, Soarhem California Water Caraptvey
3 H :99071049
Jaawry 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 7 -11
txomulative short-term baffle 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
El Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.2, Norse, page C.2-
4 through C.2 -6, Table C2-2 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
incates 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 7 -12
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 measuremau 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.
a Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.3, Thic AND
CIRCULATION, page C.3 -9, Route 60:
7 -13
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.
Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.3, TRAFFIC Ate
• QRQA.AMION, subsection C.3.2.2, Impacts of the Proposed Water
Transmis:dona line, Mitigation Measures T -1 and T -2, page C.3 -12: 7 -14
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
5
February 2000 J -29 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
y of Seal Beads Comment !ester re.
'Drag Sapper FIR - Bohn au. Water Srtawnission line
and Wautewiner Service Project. Southern California Water Company
SOY : 99071049
January 10. 2000
adequately addresses our concerns and the City of Seal Beach supports the
imposition of these mitigation measures.
a Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.3, TBAlC AND
CTRCULA770bt, subsection C.3.2.2, Impacts of the Proposed Water
11ansr issiei Line, Lnpacfs on Loral Development Access, Bois Chita Road
- Rancho Road to Old Bola C lairs Road, page C.3 -13:
• This section provides an overview of transportation impacts along this segment
. of Balsa Chica Road. The description and discussion needs to be revised to
reflect the following tonne=s of the City: •
o The City's Bolsa Chita Well Site is accessed from Old Bolsa Chica Road
and will be impacted. Provisions for access will be a requirement within the 7 -15
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.
a The terminus of Old Bolsa Chita 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.
n Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.4, F vvtorta rrm,
CoNrANTNwnoN, 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 7 -16
Station undergoing various stages of =mediation activity. Please contact Pei Feat
Tamashinu, 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.
a Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.4, Erivutorawaram.
CONTAMINATION, subsection C.4.2.2 Construction Impacts, page C.4-9 and 7 -17
C.4 -10, Mlitigatioa Measures EC-1, EC 2, EC-3 and EC-4:
6
•
February 2000 J-30 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Seal Beach Comment Later re:
Draft Supplaneruat E1R - Balsa Chico Water Transmvsion Line
and Wastewater Service Project, Southern Califarnia 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 7 -
reports prepared regarding environmental contamination sites within our city
limits. Please have any such doaanents, 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, ENvntoNNtErrrAL
Cowman rArsoN, subsection C.4.2.2 Construction Impacts, page C.4-9 and
C.4 -10, Nltigation 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, indices additional actions that may be taken regarding the preparation
of health and safety plans ( paragraph following mitigation measure EC -3) and 7 -
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 ,
rrvaaite. •o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.4, VIRONM 4TAL -
CONTAMINATION, subsection C.4.3 REFERENCES, page C.4 -11:
The reference is to a report tided The EDR Corridor Study Report, Bolsa Chica
Waterline 11 ", prepared by Environmental Data Resources, dated October 1999. 7 -
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 Cary. Please provide a copy of the
EDR report to Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, 211 Eighth
Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 for our files.
7
February 2000 J -31 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Seal Beads Comment Inver >e
"Draft Sappleneatal £L1 - Balsa aka water Tranmastian Lime )
and Waseer Service Project, Southern California water Company -
SC 1: 99771049
January 10, 2000 _
o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Section C -5, GEOLOGY AND
SOILS, Subsection C.5.].1, Environmental Baseline, Fault Rupture, first
patag -"apfi, fourth sentence, page C.5 -3 and confirming to page C.S-4: 7 -
The sentence discusses the location of °... projected trace of the Los Alamitos
fault intersects the ptpeltne at the intersection of the 405 Freeway and Winchester •
Avenue." Please verify the street name and corrrtx as appropriate; it is probably
"Westminster Avenue.
•
o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.5, GEOLOGY
AND SOILS, subsection C.5.3 • z' 31 . d •".. , page C.5 -13 and CS -14:
The references include two reports prepared by Tom International, tided
"Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Bolsa Chica Pipeline Segment 1" and
"Geotechnical Memorandum, Proposed Pipe Jacking Underneath Freeways 405 7 -
rn
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 iegarding potential geologic issues within our City.
Please provide a copy of the indicated Toro International reports to Lee
Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, 211 Elghth Street, Scat 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 7 -
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.
8
)
February 2000 J -32 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Seal Beach Com,wu L,euer re:
Draft Supplemental EIR — Bolas Chico Water Treenaissios Line
and Wauewater Service Protect, Southern California Water Compaey
SCH : 99071049
January 10, 2000
a Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.7, CULTURAL
RESOURCES, subsection C.7.2.2 CONSTRUCTION ImpACrs, Mitigation
Measure CR -1, CR -2, CR.-3 and CR-4 pages C.7 -14 through CR.7 -16:
11Titigation 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
resowres ". 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 identfed 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 Balsa Chica Channel should 7_23
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 - C.idtural
Resources Investigation for the Proposed SCWC Bolsa Chica Waterline and
Wastewater Service Prniea, City of Huntington Beach and Unincorporated Orange 7 -24
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 tee Whittenberg,
Director of Development Services, 2t 1 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 for
Dalee ma~ water tine DEX.ee Commis Cu, Lau 9
February 2000 J -33 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Clay of Seal Beach Comment Letter re
Draft Supplemental MR -.Baba Mai Water Trarumissroa line
and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Waxer Company'
SChI : 99071049
January 10, 2000
our files. The City of Seal Beach has an Archaeological Advisory Comndttee that
reviews and makes recommendations to out City Council regarding impacts to 7 -24
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.8.22 Cam IMPACTS, Mitigation
Measure B-1, page C.8-8: •
7 -25
'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 Chita 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 lisbrd under the
Migratory Bird Act (Title 50) of the Code of Federal Regulations.
o 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: 7 -26
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: 7 -27
-
The paragraph indicates an - aquatic regional park' is located on the Naval
Weapons Station. That is incorrect, the area is referred to as "Sunset Martina"
and is owned by the County of Orange on property not within the Naval Weapons
Station; please correct all references accordingly.
a Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.10, PUBLIC
SERVICES AND UTILITIES, subsection C.10.1.1 Public Services, The
Protection, page C.10 -1:
7 -28
The first paragraph of this subsection indicates four cities - Cypress, Los
Alamitos, Seal Beads and Westminster - are served by the `Orange County Fire
Department (OO)". The agcy designation is iTSC.OrreCt, the agency is referred
to as the "Orr sgr County The Authority (OCFA) "; please correct all references
ces
accordingly
Bain Chi= Ws= Uwe araa.ec comer Lean 10
February 2000 J -34 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Seal Beads Com,wu Truer re.'
Draft Sapplemenu ! EIR — Boise C7sica Water Transmission Luse
and Wastewater Service Project, Sautieerst Califorrzia Water Cosnparry
SCH : 99071049
January 20, 2000
o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.10, PUBLIC
SERVICES AND i 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/Rossrnoor Library is within the City of Los 7 -29
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 Sea] 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.IO, PUBLIC
SERVICES AND UTILrntS, subsection C.10.1.2 Utilities, Table C_10 -5,
Utifties Adjacent to the Proposed Route-Alignment by Segment, page C.10 -10: 7 -30
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 each requests this mitigation iacasure be enhanced to specify
that all potentially affected agencies be notified since the project primarily occurs 7 -31
along common city boundaries_ As an example, the Seal Beach Police Department
and other emergency services often utilize Bolsa Chica Road to access Old Balsa
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, FNVIRONIVIFTiTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.10, PUBLIC
SERVICES AND UTILITIES, subsection C.10.2.3 Construction kopads,
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 7 -32
mitigation measure to prevent potential disruptions of water and other utility
•
service and io protect from potential accidental damage to those utilities. As an
example, the City of Seal Beach could be severely impacted regarding access to
the Qty's Bolsa Chica Well site on Old Bois& Chica Road. This well site is a
Bobs Mica water Line DER-CC Calinletit Lew 11
February 2000 J -35 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Cruy of Seal Beach Commean Leer rc
- Draft Supplemental AYR - Balm Arica Water Trananissios Line
and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company'
SCA: 99071049
January JO, 2000
critical link in the City's water system and access to this site must be preserved. In
addition, much of the work in S 6 will be in the vicinity of Seal Brady •
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 7 -32
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.
a Section D, ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS, Subsection
D.1.3, SummARY OF Sc RWiThG RESULTS, Table D.1 -1, Alternatives Screening
Recommendations, page D-4:
For the same reasons that the Westminster /Seal Beach Boulevard alternative was 7 -33
eliminated, the North Seal Beach We lfield 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.
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 7 -34
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 Wellfreld 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.
a 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-I I:
7 -35
This Table indicates a route alternative of " Bolsa Chica channel' being evaluated
in the EIR, which is not the case. The "Balsa Chica Channel" alternative is
indicated on page D-4 as an "Alterative Eliminated from Further Consideration'.
Please revise Figure D-2 accordingly.
Section D, ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS, Subsection
D.2.4, ALEETINtiw 4: Noltzg SEAL BEAM WFLLFIE .D, pages D-13 and 14: I 7 -36
Hotss Clio. wart lir DECILCC Caaoaat Leda
12
February 2000 J -36 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Cay of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
"Draft Supplensentai EIR — Baba C l w Water 7Yangaistiat Line
and Wastewater Service Project, Sou hen+ California Water Company -
SCH 99071049
January 10, 2000
The proposed North Seal Wellfaeld falls within the jurisdiction of Seal Beach. The
City of Seal Beach does not have any existing well facilities within the area shown
on FigureD -2, page D-11. However, the City does intend to build a facility in the 7 -36
future near the location shown to improve reliability in our system that is north of •
the 1-405 Preewray. The City's existing well facilities are located on Beverly
Manor Road and on Old Balsa Chia 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.
Appendix 1, Pipeline Route Segment Maps, Sheet 2 of 19, Water Transmission
Line Route Maps, page 1 -2: 7 -37
This Sheet indicates "City Boundaries" between the cities of Cypress and Los
Angeles. The city boundaries should be between Cypress and "Los Ala niter",
please correct as appropriate.
o Appendix I, Pipeline Route Segment Maps, Sheet 5 of 19, Water Transmkdon
Line Route Maps, page 1 -5:
7 -38
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 coned as appropriate.
In addition, there is a City-owned 12" watcr line located in the Boise 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 7 -39 ,
protection of this water line. In addition, as requested in our response letter regarding
the Notice of P,y,eration, 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 DStut 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.
Ulm Mica water raw nrse.CC Commas. law 13
-
February 2000 J -37 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of Seal Beach Comment l eaer sc•
Vrefft Supplemental EIR - Bohm Oeica Water Trammiuion Line
and Wartenuturr Service Project, Southern Calif Water Company'
SCJi : 99071049
January 10, 2000
Upon the preparation of the Final EIR for this project, please send two (2) copies
to Mr. Lee Whiuenberg, 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. lie will be most happy to provide any
additional information or to provide clarification of the maters discussed in this comment
letter
Sincerely,
fl
Paul Yost, Mayor
any 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
)
Balm Mkt Warr ran DES= Comma Lane 14
February 2000 J -3 8 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
RESPONSES TO THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
Letter Dated January 10, 2000
7 -1 The Applicant has already undertaken coordination with the Orange County Flood Control
District in establishing the alignment for the proposed water line and in conducting preliminary
, design of the pipeline. Since the water line as proposed would be partially located within OCFD
right -of -way, additional coordination would be mandatory for the project to proceed. The
Applicant is aware of improvements planned for Bolsa Chica Channel and has specifically
designed the pipeline to be compatible with OCFD's construction plans.
7 -2 The CPUC agrees that Alternative 4 (the North Seal Beach Wellfields) is not an attractive
alternative from an environmental standpoint. The Draft SEIR describes the impacts associated
with this alternative and, in doing so, demonstrates why use of other water sources is more
desirable. However,. future connection to the North Seal Beach Wellfields was considered a
feasible alternative at the time the Draft SEIR was prepared and was one of the alternatives
presented to the CPUC by the Applicant in the Proponent's Environmental Assessment. The
Final SEER has been changed to clarify that the North Seal Beach Wellfields are not existing
facilities.
7 -3 Purely economic considerations are not an appropriate topic for an EIR. An EIR is intended to
focus on the impacts that a Proposed Project would have on the physical environment. Issues
pertaining to the reasonableness of rates and charges are being addressed separately in the
CPUC's Proceeding in accordance with the Administrative Law Judge's scoping memo (dated
March 16, 1999).
7-4 The correction to the text has been made as suggested, thank you.
7 -5 Noted. At this point, we do not know whether the pipeline would cross through any identified
cultural resource sites. However, since nearby cultural resource site boundaries are not clearly
defined, the SEIR acknowledges that it's possible that cultural resources could be encountered
during construction, potentially resulting in revised boundaries for nearby sites or the
identification of a new site.
7-6 Copies of comment letters received in response to the NOP have been included in Appendix 2
of the Final SEIR. The Lead Agency uses this input to determine the appropriate scope of
issues to be examined in the EIR. All issues raised during the NOP process are not necessarily
addressed in the SEIR.
7 -7 As this request is not related to a significant impact identified in the SEER, the SEIR cannot
impose the City's request as a requirement (i.e., as a mitigation measure). We encourage the
City to consult directly with the SCWC on this matter.
7 -8 The discrepancy in the text has been corrected.
7 -9 Corrected as suggested.
7 -10 With regard to CO Hot Spots, it is assumed that the CO concentrations during construction
would be very similar to existing conditions along the pipeline alignment. Currently, Bolsa
Chica Roadway is at Level of Service (LOS) D, and a majority of the intersections are at or
February 2000 J -39 Fmal SEER
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
near LOS F. Bolsa Chica Roadway and associated intersections have three lanes in each
direction and are all highly congested, especially during peak hours.
If the construction ROW is restricted to one lane, a smaller number of cars would be idling at
any given location (cars would be removed from lanes where construction is occurring). Instead
of three lanes operating at LOS F; you have only one lane operating at LOS F. However,
during construction, the traffic backup would be significant, dispersing the CO emissions over a
greater area. Overall, the CO concentrations would be very similar to the existing conditions.
In addition, Traffic Measure T -1 would help to reduce the congestion along the construction
.rights -of -way. Traffic Measure T -1 requires , the Applicant to prepare a traffic
control /management plan, which provide details regarding the placement of traffic control,
warning devices, and detours. This measure would help to reduce traffic congestion along Bolsa
Chica Road, as well as the CO concentrations.
- 7 -11 • Comment noted.
, 7 -12 Figure C.2 -3 has been modified in response to the comment. With regard to CNEL, the noise
level units (Leq) provided in Table C.2 -2 correspond with the units listed in all the local agency
ordinance limits. In addition, the noise units also correspond with USEPA's guidelines on
recommended noise levels to protect public health and welfare (Table C.2 -4). Further, the
significance criteria also used the same units. The SEIR preparers believe that the noise units
provided in Section C.2 are appropriate for identifying ambient noise levels and in evaluating
impacts associated with the project.
7 -13 The comment has been noted and the referenced text has been revised.
7 -14 Thank you for your comment.
7 -15 Comment has been noted and the referenced text has been revised.
7 -16 During preparation of the Draft SEIR, Pei -Fen Tamashiro, Installation Restoration Coordinator
for the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Center, was contacted about potential contamination near the
project alignment. In addition, database search results, local knowledge, and proximity of
facilities at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Center and Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve
Center relative to the project alignments provided adequate information to screen these facilities
for hazardous waste. Localized low -level soil contamination along the perimeter access road for
the Naval. Weapons Station is separated from the project alignments by the Bolsa Chica
Channel, and therefore poses a low potential to impact the project.
Database search results did not reveal any contaminated sites at the Boeing Company campus in
the vicinity of the water line alignment. In addition, the distance of facilities at the Boeing
Company campus relative to the project alignments (separated by roads, parking lots, and office
building), indicates a low potential to impact the project.
7 -17 The text of the Final SEIR has been amended to provide cities with an opportunity to review
- relevant documentation.
7 -18 The two referenced paragraphs are part of each preceding mitigation measure and should be
indented to indicaterthis fact. The text of the document has been changed to reflect this.
February 2000 J-40 Final SEIR
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
7 -19 Arrangements can be made for the CPUC to provide a copy of the requested report to the City
of Seal Beach.
7 -20 The street name has been corrected to read "Westminster Avenue," not "Winchester Avenue."
7 -21 Arrangements can be made for the CPUC to provide copies of the requested reports to the City
. of Seal Beach.
7 -22 The Clean Water Act requires that all discharges from any point source into waters of the
United States must obtain a NPDES permit. The reason for obtaining a permit is to protect
public health and the nation's waters. Best Management Practices used to ensure compliance
with NPDES and construction permits typically include:
• Straw mulch with tackifier to temporarily stabilize earth uncovered during construction
• The application of bonded fiber matrix (with or without seed) to provide longer term
stabilization of earth
• Silt fences
• Sand bags
• Storm drain inlet protection and sediment traps.
The applicant will need to implement all measures to remain in compliance with NPDES and
construction permits. As requested the description of the regulatory setting in the Draft SEIR
(Section C.6.1.2) has been revised to include Best Management Practices.
The Applicant's Environmental Commitments are discussed in Section C.6.2.1 of the SEIR.
7 -23 Noted. Whether a Native American should monitor construction is somewhat of a judgment
call, rather than a clear requirement. Given the nature of the project, the extent of monitoring
and the involvement by Native American monitors can be established based on tribal interest.
Please note that the mitigation measure does not preclude the presence of Native American
monitors.
With the exception of Bolsa Chica Mesa, the proposed pipeline is completely located in areas of
"built" environments. Therefore, a Phase I survey of Old Bolsa Chica Road would be of no
archaeological value. The alternatives were subjected to a "windshield" survey to verify the
"built" environmental status of the pipeline alignment. The paved surfaces and vegetation in
such areas do not allow visibility of the ground surface and, therefore, Phase I surveys are not
useful. As a result, it was concluded that the completion of a Phase I survey (which is different
than a• Phase I study) was not warranted.
7 -24 The CPUC can provide a copy of the referenced report to the- City. Please remember that all
information contained in the report regarding the locations of archaeological sites should remain
confidential and should not be made available to the general public.
7 -25 Noted, thank you.
7 -26 The mistake has been corrected; the residential area is now referred to as College Park East in
the Final SEIR.
7 -27 • This error has been corrected as suggested.
February 2000 3-41 Final SEIR.
J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
7 -28 Continent noted. This has been corrected in the Final SEIR.
7 -29 Comment noted. This has been corrected in the Final SEER.
7 -30 Comment noted, thank you.
7 -31 , Comment noted and change made as suggested.
7 -32 Please see the response to Comment 8 -10
7 -33 The North Seal Beach Wellfields were included in the alternatives analysis because they were
an alternative examined by the Applicant in the Proponent's Environmental Assessment and, at
least initially, this alternative appeared to have the potential to offer environmental advantages
over the other alternatives. As the analysis in the SEIR demonstrates, this alternative would
result in various impacts that are greater than the Proposed Project and for this reason it is not
identified as superior to the Proposed Project.
7 -34 The text of the Draft SEIR has been corrected as suggested.
7 -35 Corrected as suggested.
7 -36 Comment noted. This alternative was originally described and analyzed by the proponent in the
Proponent's Environmental Assessment. The text of the SEIR has been revised to clarify that
the North Seal Bea ch Wellfields are not existing facilities.
7 -37 Corrected as suggested.
7 -38 Corrected as suggested.
7 -39 Regarding the first comment (protection of the water line at the I- 405/22) please see the
response to Comment 8 -10.
Regarding the second comment (connection of water lines), mitigation measures are designed to
mitigate potentially significant impacts to a less - than- significant level. It would be inappropriate
for the CPUC to assign a mitigation measure that is not associated with a potentially significant
impact. However, there appear to be good reasons to consider an emergency connection
between the proposed pipeline and the existing Seal Beach water pipeline. The City of Seal
Beach should consult with the SCWC directly on this matter. Finally, it should be noted that the
applicant is also considering emergency interconnections between several other water
transmission lines.
February 2000 J-42 Final SEIR
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. 03-9
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
FINDING THE PROPOSED BOLSA CHICA
. STREET WATERLINE EASEMENT
(BRIGHTWATER PROPOSED WATER
TRANSMISSION _ LINE ROUTE) NOT IN
CONFORMANCE WITH THE SEAL BEACH
GENERAL PLAN (GENERAL PLAN
CONFORMANCE NO. 03-1)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
WHEREAS, Section 65402 of the California Government Code stipulates that no public
structure shall be constructed within any city until the location, purpose and
extent of such work has been submitted to the planning agency having
jurisdiction and the planning agency issues a report on whether the structure
is in conformity with the city's adopted General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a request from the County of Orange Public Facilities -
& Resources Department for the City of Seal Beach to adopt a resolution
finding the Bolsa Chica Street Waterline Easement (Brightwater Proposed
Water Transmission Line Route) project in conformity with the Seal Beach
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2000 the City Council considered a staff report regarding the
Draft Supplemental EIR for the "Bolsa Chica Water Transmission Line and
Wastewater Service Project" Prepared By California Public Utilities
Commission (Application Nos. 98 -11 -003 And 98 -11 -015). The City
Council approved a comment letter at that meeting; and
WHEREAS, On May 24, 2000 the Final EIR for this project was submitted to the
Environmental Quality Control Board for receipt; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is designed to provide domestic water services to a
large planned residential development in another community; and
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element of the General Plan acknowledges "transportation
has been recognized as a problem of regional dimensions"
•
1
Planning Commission Resolution 03 -9
Bolsa Chica Waterline General Plan Conformity -
April 9, 2003
and that development projects in other cities may impact transportation
within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element of the General Plan further recognizes the "vital
function" of transportation in the City and that transportation is a "major
factor in shaping the structure and activity of a city "; and
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element of the General Plan assumes that development in
the area will be of a "modest nature," and further provides that significant
new development would require "major reconsideration of the Circulation
Element,"
WHEREAS, the overall project will not benefit the City of Seal Beach and will create
negative, adverse traffic impacts along Major Arterial Highways and
Primary Streets identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan,
including Pacific Coast Highway, Bolsa Chica Avenue, and the 405 freeway;
and
WHEREAS, the implementation of the water transmission line through the City of Seal
Beach to service the proposed project will ultimately result in the creation of
a project which negatively affects the City in terms of traffic circulation; and
WHEREAS, the negative impacts of the project on traffic circulation in the City of Seal
Beach are inconsistent with the policies of the Circulation Element, which is
an integral part of the General Plan,
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS, based on the
facts and determinations set forth above, that the Bolsa Chica Street Waterline Easement
(Brightwater Proposed Water Transmission Line Route) Project is not in conformity with
the City of Seal Beach General Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 9 day of April 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT: • • Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Hood
2
Planning Commission Resolution 03 -9
Bolsa Chica Waterline General Plan Conformity
April 9, 2003
r") ?
.:V .4:1/07/
`gin Sharp / /
i { Vice Chairman, Planning Commission
/e Whittenberg, Secretary
Planning Commission
•
•
•
3 '
Attachment 3
FILE copticki L. l
nr 300 Wi N. Fl son, ower Di Street rector
Y
t/ C OUNTY OF ORANGE Santa Ana, CA
O 7 . ` 6 Santa Ana, CA O. Box 4048 702 4048
U
�,`� PUBLIC FACILITIES & RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
-YL ti Telephone: (714) 834 -2300
Fax: (714) 834 -5188
January 23, 2003
ROWE I.D. No.: 2002 -037
Mr. Lee .Wittenberg
Director of Development Services
City of Seal Beach
211 8 Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
•
SUBJECT: Request for General Plan Conformity Report — Bolsa Chica Street Waterline
Easement
Mr. Wittenberg,
Southern California Water Company (SCWC) is to construct a domestic water transmission line within
Bolsa Chica Street that will impact several properties owned by the Orange County Flood Control
District. SCWC is seeking an easement or permit from the District at each location. The impacted
areas are shown on the attached location map.
Prior to granting the right of way and issuing permits for this project, it is necessary to comply
with Section 65402 of the California Government Code, which provides that OCFCD shall not
acquire or dispose of any real property until the location, purpose, and extent of such activity has
been reported upon as to conformity with the applicable, adopted general plan. Therefore, it is
requested that the City provide the OCFCD with a report by its planning commission, or
authorized staff, regarding general plan conformance of the proposed easement conveyances.
It is requested that one date - stamped copy of the report be returned for our files. Please route
this copy to Devin Baker of Right of Way Engineering, who may be contacted at
(714) 834 -2362. All questions regarding the construction of the water line should be directed to
Jon Austin of Metro Pointe Engineers who is the Project Engineer. Mr. Austin can be contacted
at (714) 438 -1095.
Very truly yours,
0, Pc„,v,,,k
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
JAN 2 7 2003
Joh D. I' avlik, Chief
Ri: t o Way Engineering DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Enclosures: Location Map
cc: John Bahorski, City Manager, City of Seal Beach
Tony Ferrulli, Manager, CEO Purchasing & Real Estate
Jon Austin, Metro Pointe Engineers
Attachment 4
i sN cAt4, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY
o
bJ 7 A SUBSIDIARY OF AMERICAN STATES WATER COMPANY
ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT
`n COMQ� 1920 W. CORPORATE WAY • ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92801 • (714) 535 -8010 • FAX (714) 535 -8664
FILE COPY
Copy Via FAX to (562) 430 -8763 _„ _,
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
MAY 1 it 7f)111
May 12, 2003 L,. A I :NvT OF
_ ; SA/ICES
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Attn: Lee Whittenberg
Director of Development Services
RE: Request to Reschedule May 12, 2003, Council Agenda Item H - Appeal of
Planning Commission Decision for General Plan Conformity on Brightwater
Water Transmission Project
Dear Mr. Whittenberg:
Southern California Water Company would like to request the above Council
Agenda item be rescheduled to the June 9, 2003, Council meeting. This will allow
us sufficient time to properly prepare our presentation for the Council. Thank you
for considering our request.
Should you have any questions, please call me at (714) 535 -8010, extension 320.
Sincerely,
- -r•� '
Stan Yarbro h
District Engineer
c: John Bahorski, City Manager
Lonnie Curtis, District Manager
I9 1/ 4 /Lee.j 1u:4ti /14 5dO SOUTHERN CA WATER PAGE 01
" 443 4
tt c.14,17 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY
en A SUBSIDIARY OF AMERICAN STATUS WATER COMPANY
ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT
• `n C0111�� 1920 W. CORPORATE WAY - ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92801 • (714) 535 -8010 • FAX (714) 535.8664
•
Copy Via FAX to (562) 431 -4067
July 14, 2003
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Attn: Lee Whittenberg
Director of Development Services
RE: Planning Commission Adoption of Resolution 03 -9
Denying General Plan Conformity — Bolsa Chica Street Waterline Easement
(Brightwater Proposed Water Transmission Line Route)
• Dear Mr. Whittenberg:
Southern California Water Company no longer objects to the Planning
Commission's action regarding Resolution 03 -9 denying General Plan conformity
for the Bolsa Chica Street waterline easement.
We are no longer appealing the Planning Commission's decision to the Seal
Beach City Council and therefore request that the corresponding agenda item be
removed from tonight's council agenda.
We would like to thank you and your staff for their professionalism during our
review and evaluation of the Planning Commission's decision.
Should you have any questions, please call me at (714) 535 -8010, extension 320.
Sincerely,
•
Stan Yarbro h l.1
District Engineer
c: John Bahorski, City Manager
• Lonnie Curtis, District Manager
' JUL -14 -2003 11:25 714 535 9664 97% F.01