Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2003-05-12 #H i; 1 AGENDA REPORT priprx6t9 DATE: May 12, 2003 I ,0 • TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council j /1 THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager `A 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. 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 /71 As indicated in the letter request of the County, Section 65402 of the Califomia 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. _ V J e. ,____ Mac Cummins - Associate Planner /Special Projects Manager NOT - 4 • f/PROVED: " // _ John :. Bahorski, City Manager • Attachments (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 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. RECOMMENDATION 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. 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 the 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 \LWhittenberg\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 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. Bolsa Chica Water Line General Plan Confortnry.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 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, 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 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 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 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) 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. 4 Bolsa Cluca Water Line General Plan Conformity PC SR 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 Conforntity.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 i 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 Confornnty.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 Ouality Act (CEOA). 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. ❑ 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; 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 a 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 Bolsa Chica Water Line General Plan Conformity.PC SR 9 Vicki L. Wilson, Director 300 N Flower Street 0,? C O UNTY OF ORANGE Santa .�na, C.� G7 P.O Box 4048 o l v ��: � � Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 o9` *O PUBLIC FACILITIES & RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Telephone: (714) 834 -2300 LtFOR' Fax. (714) 834 -5188 January 23, 2003 ROWE I.D'. No.: 2002 -037 4 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, D. p CITY OF SEAL BEACH � JAN 27200'1 Joh D. Pavlik, Chief Ri t o Way Engineering CEPARTMENT 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 1 1, `�. ` - • 1 STANTON i CYPRESS ▪ _._ .. .';/ LOS ALAMITOS •-' -; p Orangewcod ROSSMOOR 1_ - - - - -. I ,/ -m - -• -•- '� Los Alamitos Chapman ! 1 ▪ • — Armed Forces '' • ' GARDEN ^' '• • i �- t Reserve Center ' -•- ._._- GROVE i 1 • i ..---- Lampson • t i i, - - • - - - ._•� ......,t Gar eri�roat:5ly. CD • rt m • SEAL BEACH . R Trask co ea . ` YYES�'MINS ER 0 c m Westminster Westmi ter • cn • Go o • PROPOSED Q-a -- • -- -• -• - "t 4 BRIGHTWATER H � d DOMESTIC WATER TRANSMISSION LINE 13 m 1. Bola -. m 4 � 3 ~ f Seat Beach CD - - - -t '•1- • Navy Weapons Station McFadden i . _ . a EY-11'F - � - w =y HUNTINGTON • - - - -� ` • ^ E EACH y .-.--7-:, y t Edinger _ • - le la • ". �, :� r= ° CO w m = Hell � y - f y , r � m Vr 1 --- � � ._ s a - Warner a �. -� Los - 0 _ ..... • P a t os - Q _ •. �� ' O Q U� �'� 'I j • I 1 : y\ l - - !. -r : .Tu_ • _ //4› 1 Stater t i_ +..� H ✓tip �4•� t---:-.--7.7, fi ∎• , r `.+- ... •rJ1 '\•.� • J G . . r _ • • t I -, .7.1:-.:_•-:-.17. �- = �` Brightwater Line . � = OLSA CHICA PLANt1E,p and Wastewater Project _ ! - - -, . , �.a` 4 .�✓ ' e . , r e �'�:. _,- "' r COMMUNITY SITE ._ _ . - Proposed Water • ) 1.5 , SEAL Scale in Miles 1 °,t' i Line Route Q ° cc> Figure 2.2 • etroPointe Engineer • •II u..a..J 1•• ,`�= a 1 _ ` 11° , ---1_ -': ; t -i ' I„f c • . ._4_ 1 �' . _ �- . f 4 ' i f'g 11 - _ • I 1 - c 4• j ill ��. ± l e :t 4 1 - ,• -"• .. 111 n id" W.^ -- g.../.:, .id i ,' 1 1/ - w,. � • 1 ` y 11 - .1 - -i ' nom ., I ' ■ . • - ' . _L _ v , ice �em: , o / '� • t 1,. 1 t . J - �' - . __ • • .,. -.i•-.' .n ' , 'I'"-o 4S 1 I I -1 . 1 1 1 i - ii: �1 �1 •�%_�: 1 ��•'r -- ) 1 r .i - - - r Li I 1 LOS ALAMITCSS 1 - 1- - - - • -_ _ J I, �r7 11 f rill "Y � I -- f ► ,T= ' .__ - . . - 1 1. -a Yi , 1 � 1 1 I . II i sL \ \I IIOS - - � ,• � � '^ - '1 :RM FOR IiS R \'}• I,� ° ,PI , ^ .1 �." ' ... . _ .1 i 1 SEGMENT3 y . ' " if_ - � � - © N f r: . ' 1} i I i I . �. • 1 . .1 iq • _ F • ! • �. y T - - �' F7< N • P 1 � '• E I ____ "" j�" it ` i' t _ 1 I I 1 . 1 11 ... 5 \ 1 > 1 ± I �� GsI V 1 ,, ' � f � .- -- J (1 .„,,� II - " 41 11 _ I \ / T/\�7 1 y 1 8 y _ ' r. _ 1,- . � I � A • 1 _ i - - .L ...k ,el _ ,'1 L�o1 '� p.�. � etl i ..... ..', r ;� d T. � ,- ' F...I.m Prem. � -- ,y 11 �f � ....0 _ R`x T :.- 1 I : e..,. � . L I a p 1 . NI ` l~ ': .•7CNUARY 1 SLGMEN 11.7 I t, -•yN• ' . • -, Us I r `:;^,.. -- .. 0: 1' ,..• I .�..R.1 1 -- . �1u1,1,1„..z,.= -I -- SEGMENT ..- -- i -•• F �'' • ! • --:_ x r--. I•• - ?� ` 1 -,,.a. ; _ .. ' -/ J , '1 •SEAL BEACI•3 - -' ' _ IOC . ' ' - °II 0 i I , , , C / ce. • J •tl1 � � i y � ,, ti ��.. �l �""...� I ....:,".vY C I M I , y . j/ , ; 1 .x,1. °�� ,- �-"'"�"�.�� 1i_I C , e,, � _ ' I~= - . i' , ��_ - �" 'inn' -- - -- -. -- . T i m _ . - - - �+, Mr'. - � , 1 -"f 1 + r • / �` __ 1112 -` . 1' -' _ � - - G' • . ; 1 :i. IV -3 f;',,,', 1' VI • II 1 Fr r P l ' • • • l ' It r Q I' --ry _SEGMENT 2 , f? i � ' . . `r .r' :+'q_°e' m , /i ,,,. " I 1 1 1 I ni' • I .,y (C. �•. h ` -- �I ' S� TER =_:I'F 'f;. • % .. � 1 I 1 1 1 1 L . I . .. ._ 1I- - s � 11 ` I "0 ,1 ' I� ..: . „.. ..,. ,. • • ` - I • � .,. L .. s - W BLVD .. / - _ I. . N �v ` r � l + i "��I: III • * - •*A • . REFUGE =Yi-- t -,•- _'=- Ids 7 - p !i , .• la i' ..l;1 1 „I. W- E A • 0 1 , - ( F: r St 1 S: T A j 1 k' kr u f l ap `-- - y e -. I I I p • 4 - 1 • ar r w W I ,F; /� ii.--7,:e-:7-7,•-..7 i 7 it 1� 8 I SEGMENT 1 _ -, /° 7.41 y ; ! r;, - R... d:t �o�. ` - I. ti Y (• _ d : it t ' 1 I - -- - i .. - 1 _.�...-_.- _- I mo; - F . _ I • f . VCRNMENi-T' ' PR -•. ., Y / 1 rl vQATION - ,,, - • • �• 1 _ ' - }7. M6 P01.4q CTA111Ra -_ - - - . 111 ....�.. ._..1 � 1 .S.:. . \L 11P-ALIT - - -a...; • _ s •- - 111 . i 1 0 ifs 1 I , -3 rlc.�vi MILUIITC RC.III:E It � ; S GMENT 1 1 � `` = . i - _, x r to.. .,, „ 1 y t r. L .R e ■ � , 'L. y ,�,� 4- LEGEND J 1 ' j 1 i - - DWfP AUG 1 MENT, " ' a ;F r l . , i I - ' 4 _ �:. -. tii i -i � _ _ ? � I a 11 CI TY. BOUNDARY LINES, ' . I ; 1 I 1 - it li . s I __ " - i ii: � • zzy ,. ■ Fc., LOCATION dF OCFf:D/R/W L i 1 .�V6e1 1 q �i i(� ' 1 ; 1 ' ° .,.. ENCROACHMENT' L 1 = - � - - - -- -- 1 . is I i i ' � ' � 1�r ° x h " i Meg. , I : - r r ,, . -.1 I i 1I F1 K.n i.n. -•� I}. - v _ _ ,:...1 -- -- x I Ir _ N.., �I.ntrYl� ! " • -. 1 - -`- i. / r .91.• + ry.CW.VO1MTr -i - 116 I+ -!� t - 7i .. r� { ? 1'� - - - \ • \ Y "' „" _ `S I C.�C"�..I _ "'1 1 3 'L�i - ..a n•T; -1 m it •• __ -_ _ _ -7 Ll -� \ - _ t�t `: . - • . r. r r.. ` r I..J. - 4:::''' vIr. -. Ot-2-:. -4 C /.,ji l am ". e ' t i ' f :, , 6� _ _ 1 sym - . -. 1 , . n`, I , � t•` i/ t . j' � - ILl ?' ,-,.:Y ';,}si -lr-e 1 I 1 �,A sm 1 '' rt R EIN _IDN a 1 .zt, e ` s \-..:-.%), lid % yr 1 ..k /4- ' - "- ' �;�i; 1 o 1 7 1-- I' I.' r . 20 Ly ' ° , ' I Ir - -_ r ' ' N r , t 1 _ - I 'FJI -1 a i�.•�.lb� y 1- 1 . \ ' `z-4- ?. HU fIN GTON B ACH 7---.- 13 4 , - f-• w .7 I ' c . _2� ' • T e i .� �' -. 44.x �'', ` .• , tl pi: L -- B � �u S r,. - kH ;. d- .. . , ,. ill r ' ; , 5••� /''' ( .4 • i _ - ._2� ��- i � 3 - 1 .8�;.,. '... .> . � ma y . i i,. .. . ,.• _ '.j° - • 1 I°' '. ! "a A o - , :+ - !� ..- IYO1 i 3 K T L S �.I�Ri471 Pyo. - I,.�. • S , {` - ;',� \• i 1 t i , , ,' , a [I 1 -,• 1% b," [ 4 : . r• ` ',, c.N . ^: -_ r;Y N T , :0 ,i5 R�p1".1.� R � �J � ' 1 ..wnrrsw..w.� - , Aa' -' If Sunset Beach' '. t'-' 1� `�' 1 r : 1 , ▪ i ;d E,� c ,. 1 / `_7111.,,.... ' ♦ . 11 '-' ..,4 , f f :: , f. -, 1 ` .7J/- wAERAv rmEtau,! . ^ ._ir Vi e: ' . '! °:A,:a 1•:'u+: :IPE 1 J •1: ''� D I. . 1 � ';�� , _ t I I , =.•. !,•1.' l , - - L- •Iii f BOLSA CHIC ' _•:,'- f: 1.114-7 . 3J: d1..� -_ , : •-- e"-.. . [ - _�,� ` uNnvcogrortAT> b V'i',' . •' PROJE / ' 1' o I - r - .. a DOMESTIC WA 1 ' ,I t ,, ■ ORANGE COUNTY ` t1 o _ SITE ti y , l �� - 1' I. 1 l i 1 1 4%. ^ I - -. • 1 1 I Nr / 1 J. ' - II _ Ft 1∎11 ...la. - I -J42 TRANSMISSION PIPEL NE . p k ,,' . P , � �a .� i; : = - �« • - -- , : ", • Planning Commission Resolution No. 03 -_ General Plan Conformance 03 -1 - Bolsa Chica Water Line Project . Planning Commission Staff Report February 19, 2003 t ATTACHMENT 3 • SECTION J - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES OF "FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - BOLSA CHICA WATER TRANSMISSION LINE AND WASTEWATER SERVICE PROTECT, 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 Chica Water Line General Plan Conformity PC SR 1 0 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 SEIR • 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 3-15 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) 3 -61 10 City of Santa Ana J -63 11 City of Buena Park J -66 12 Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council J -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 3-113 17 Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D. J -118 18 Paone, Callahan, McHolm & Winton 3-123 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 i David Hall J -145 Nancy Harris J -147 Victor Leipzig J -147 Mr. Arms J -148 , Anja Garwick J -148 Eileen Murphy (Bolsa Chica Land Trust) J -149 Peter Macicprang, City of Westminster J -149 Ronald Van Blarcom (attorneys for the City of Huntington Beach) J -150 Sandra Genis J -152 Ms. George J -152 I February 2000 J -2 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS . SNEJ:Le'-----Reci.c/4 -...: .-.. --. tea, , . IY'1AIL • 2 1 _ >-,1. £' - .... <tAL it, 42 CAL t(ir' A 4� '1:i __ 'y . (5e:; .3 2527 d January 10, 2000 Brad Wetstone, CPUC clo Aspen Environmental Group 30423 Canwood Street, Suite 215 Agana Hills, CA 91301 SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL. BEACH COMMENTS RE: "DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - BOLSA CHICA WATER TRANSMISSION LINE AND WASTEWATER SERVICE PROJECT, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY (APPLICATION NOS. 98- 11-003 AND 98 -11- 015) ", STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER SCH: 99071049 Dear Mr. Wetstone; The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Draft Supplemental Environmental Impacx 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 "DSE1R ". Project Coordination with Orange County Flood Control District As indicated in the DSEIR and our comments regarding the Notice of Preparation, Orange Count Flood Control District is preparing to provide concrete lining of the Bolsa Cbica Channel north of the SR -22 (Garden Grove Freeway). The City of Seal Beach requests both projects be coordinated to ensure the timely completion of both projects with 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 Bolsa Chita Chamlel, as they have experienced flooding during the winters of 1995, 1993 and 1992. CAM; Documroes1CUIA111oles Mica Waal-inn DFRCC C".Mes LewAeMLWlwl.1GC0 February 2000 J -25 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS • Coy of Seat Beath Coareaaa Leger re Dnrft Simpplaoragai EAt - Bobo Chico Wager ThLWIliitiOR Line and Warrewarer SerWee /3wlea, Soothesa California Wars Company' • SCtf : 99071049 Amory 10, 2000, Alternativ 4 - Nor h B Seal ea ch Well folds: The City of Seal Beach would oppose the iroplen ectahon of this alternative. The City has previously gone on record as being opposed to the Bolsa China project, and is therefore not in a position to support the we of the North Seal Beach Welifields as a viable alternative to the proposed project The City tmdersrands the use of the wellfield is not directly controlled by the City, but would strongly urge the California Public Utilities Cotmiwsion to remove this alternative from further consideration during the EIR approval and project approval process. For the same reasons that the WesrninsteriSeal Beach Boulevard alternative grit eliminated, the North Seal Beach Wellfield should be eliminated as well. The North Seal 7 -2 Beach Wellfieid alternative will add one mule 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 Iampsat 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 in the future near the location shown to improve reliability in our system that is north of the b405 Freeway. The City's existing well facilities are located on Beverly Manor Road and on Old BoLsa Chita Road. Any future consideration of this alternative must include a detailed technical feasibility study that considers and complies with to the City's Water System Master Plan and the Orange County Water District 2020 Master Plan. Additional Comments regarding DSEIR document The City of Seal Bead each has the following additional comments regarding the DSit: o EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, Section 0.4 - ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED, pages ES-5: The third paragraph indicates the CPUC will be concerned with the cost of the 73 proposed method of water and wastewater service provision to the ratepayer's in SCWC's West Orange County District. It would be helpful for an analysis of this issue to be available to the public for review and comment prior to the CPUC taking any action on the "Final Suppiaoental FIR' 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 Cnnuniss nn. saw Cron won tau DM= Comma Luau 2 •r February 2000 J -26 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Cay of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Deaf; Sapplemental EZR — Balsa Chi= ,z Water It-ansaisca+t Liar mad Wastewater Service Prnjed, Southern California Water Company' SCR : 9907'049 January 10, 2000 in EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, Section ES.5 — ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT, North Seel Beach Wellfcelds, pages ES-7: 7-4 To maintain internal consistency of the document, this heading should be identified as "Alternative 4", consistent with the alternative identification co page D-13. a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, Table ES -2 - SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, pages ES-9 through ES -14: As a general comment, the Table is very helpful in quickly reviewing the impacts and proposed mitigation measures of the proposed project. The City of Seal Beach 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 City would request that avoidance of the site be seriously considered, as it would seem possible to re -route the proposed pipeline alignment to avoid significant impacts. o Section A, INTRODUCTION, Subsection A.7.2, PUBLIC INvoLv>:at r OPPORTUNIIIES, page A -11: The discussion under "NOP Responses" indicates that ". . . letters were received from agencies and organizations providing conmwvs and suggestions regarding 7 -6 the scope of issues to be addressed in the SFJR" It would have been helpful to persons now reviewing the SEIR to be able to review a summary of those comments and suggestions to see 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 SEER as part of Appendix 2. o Section B, DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, Subsection B.6.1, DOMESnnC WATER TRANSMISSION Lints, Segment S, page B-13: The discussion under "Segment 5" indicates the pipeline crosses the I -405/SR 22 freeways and associated Caltrans right -of way. The City of Seal Brach would 7 -7 request the ability to further discuss with the project proponent the installation of additional sleeve piping to allow the City at. a Later date to utilized this sleeve piping for installation of additional water service lines to provide a loop systeen within the northern portion.af the City. • • 3 February 2000 J-27 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Clip of Seal Beath Commas: Letter rr: "Dorf Supplemental ElR - Bolra C3skea Water Traumas-ion Line and Wastewater Service Projea, Southern California Water Coney SC!•1: 9907/049 January 10, 2000 CI Section B, DESCRIPTION TION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, Subsection B.6.1, DOMESTIC WATER TRANSMISSION LINE, page B The discussion under "Projected Water Demand ", second paragraph indicates "The daily flow required by the local fire protection agency is 3,5(1) pn." In contrast, page B-18, the last sentence of the first paragraph states, "The fire flow 7 -8 requirement is 3000 gpmef4 hours." Please address the apparent inconsistency of the two statements or provide explanatory language regarding these figures. n 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 3.9-1 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 C1, MR QUAVrv, subsection C.1.2.3 Construction Impacts, page C.1 -10 and 11: The discussion does not include any consideration of construction- related air quality impacts to any identified CO "Hot Spots" along the proposed pipeline alignment. As indicated in our earlier comments on the 'Notice of Preparation ", given the existing levels of traffic congestion at the I-445/SR- 7 -10 22/Valley ViewIBolsa 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 "Not Spots" along the proposed pipeline alignment. n Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.1, MR QUALITY, page C.1 -13: The discussion after Mitigation Measure A -9 indicates "ir should be noted that the maximum daily and quantify emissions letirlt could be reduced by limiting the 7 -11 nrvnber of construction spreads to only two spy operating concurrendy, i»sread of the proposed three- spread schedule. This would essentially lengthen the construction scitedtde and reduce the quarterly and daily caeutruction levels to below the SCC4QMD emission thresholds. ° Although the City generally favors 4 February 2000 J -28 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coy of Seal Reath Comma Letter re: Draft Supplemental EIR - Bois Chien Water 2}aaanirstoa Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" 8c71: 99071049 January 10, 2000 aeons that would reduce air quality impacts to levels below SCAQMD emission thresholds, the City would urge the project proponent to proceed with the three- i spread construction schedule. The tree- spread schedule will result in less 7 -11 annulative short-term baffic 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 a Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.2, NorsE, page C.2- 4 through C.2 -6, Table C.2 -2 Measured Ambient Noise Levels along the Proposed Pipeline Route, and Figure C.2 -3, Monitoring and Sensitive Receptor Locations Along the Proposed and Alternative Alignments and Table C.2 -3 Sensitive Receptors Along the Proposed Pipeline Route: The referenced Table indicates 8 measurement locations, while Figure C.2-3 indicates a total of 17 noise monitoring locations, 9 of which are along the alternative routes. It would seem appropriate to provide the noise monitoring information for all 17 monitored locations within Table C.2 -2 and to provide 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 measurcrnahc system utilized by local governments within this region, and the CNII, 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, TiaAenc i CIRaJLATION, 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. a Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.3, TYteesu: AND CIRCULATION, subsection C.3.2.2, Impacts of the Proposed Water Transmission line, Mitigation Measures T-1 and T -2, page C.3 -12: 7 -14 The City had requested in its comments on the NOP to be able to review and approve traffic control ipians and haul route plans. These mitigation measures 5 February 2000 J -29 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS City of Seal Bead Commelrt letter rr. 'Draft Spole:mental EIR - Bohm Chica Water Trrawnisson Line and Wasewater Service Ptofeer. Southern California Water Company' SCH : 99071049 January 10. 2000 adequately addresses our concerns and the City of Seal Beach supports the imposition of these mitigation measures. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.3, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, subsection C.3.2.2, Impacts of the Proposed Water lion Line, Impacts on Local Development Access, Bolsa Chica Road —Rancho Road to Old Bolsa Claim Road, page C.3 -13: This section provides an overview of transportation impacts along this segment of Bolsa Chica Road. The description and discussion needs to be revised to reflect the following concerns of the City: • o The City's Bolsa Chico Well Site is accessed from OId Bolsa Chico Road 7 -15 and will be impacted. Provisions for access will be a requirement within the City's Public Works Permit. o The terminus of Old Bolsa Chica Road at the freeway is a primary access for the farming operation on the Naval Weapons Station. o The terminus of OId Balsa Chico 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, 1"]vvmoramENrAL CONTAMINATION, subsection C.4.1.1 Environmental Baseline, Existing Contamination Sites Along the Pipeline ROW page C.4-6, first paragraph: The referenced paragraph indicates no environmental contamination was revealed by a database search at any of these sites, including the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center. The U. S. Naval Weapons Station, and the Boeing Company Huntington Beach Facility. This statement is incorrect relative to the Naval Weapons Station. There am numerous sites within the Naval Weapons 7 -16 Station undergoing various, stages of remediation activity. Please contact Pei Fen Tamashim, 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. 4 Secfron C, ENVI ONME VIAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.4, » vraortauram, CONTAMINATION, saw• C.4.2.2 Constnielion Impacts, page C.4-9 and 7-17 C.4-10, Mitigation Measures EC-1, EC-2, EC-3 and EC 6 February 2000 J -30 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Cary of Seal Beads Comment Letter re Draft Supplemental EIR - Balsa Chic: Water Tra,wn& xi n Line tad Wastewater Service Project, Southern Cal fornia Water Company' SCII: 99071049 January 10, 2000 The referenced Imtrgaton 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 coestnUction 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 documents, including evaluation plans, excavation plans, health and safety plans, site closeout reports, contingency plans, etc., forwarded to Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 for review and comment to the appropriate reviewing agency. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.4, EtNv1Rot+avro rAL CONTAMINATION, subsection C.4.2.2 Constriction Impacts, page C.4-9 and C.4 -10, Mitigation Measures EC-1, EC -2, EC-3 and EC-4: The referenced mitigation measures, at the conclusion of mitigation measure EC -3 and EC-4, indicates additional actions that may be taken regarding the preparation of health and safety plans (paragraph following mitigation measure EC -3) and contingency plans (paragraph following mitigation measure EC -4). The format of 7 - these paragraphs make it unclear if these paragraphs are to be incorporated into the preceding respective mitigation measure. It appears from the language of these paragraphs that is the intent. It is requested that these paragraphs be clearly incorporated into the preceding respective mitigation measure, as the provisions of the subject paragraphs seem to directly relate to the preceding respective mitigation measure. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.4, D VXROMmmtrAL CONTAMINATION, subsection C.4.3 RACES, page C_4 -11: The reference is to a report tided The EDR Corridor Study Report, Bolsa Chico Waterline #1", 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 City. 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 moo J-3 1 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Ceti' of Seal Beads Comment Later re: 'Draft Sapplenseatal FIR - Balsa Mica Water Tranrmisdaa Late and Wastewater Service Project, So +them California water Company" SC7I: 99771049 Jaanary 10, 2000 a Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Section C -5, GEOLOGY AND SOILS, Subsection C.5.1.1, Environmental Basel Fault Rupture, first paragraph, fourth sentence, page C.5 -3 and continuing to page C.5-4: 7 -20 The sentence discusses the location of "... pre jened trace of the Los Alamitos . flair intersects the pipeline at the intersection of the 405 Freeway and Winchester Avenue.' Please verify the street name and correct as appropriate; it is probably "Westminster Avenue. a Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.5, GEOLOGY AND SOILS, subsection CS.3 11 d .�, page C.5 -13 and C.5-14: The references include two reports prepared by Tom International, titled "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Bolsa Chica Pipeline Segment 1" and "Geoteclmical Memorandum, Proposed Pipe Underneath pe Jacking Undeeath Freeways 405 7 - and 22, Bokser Chica Pipeline Segment 2 ", dated 1998. The City requests a copy of the referenced reports for our information and files, as they could provide useful background information regarding potential geologic issues within our City. Please provide a copy of the indicated Toro International reports to Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 for our files. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.6, HYDROLOGY - AND WATER QUALITY, subsection C.6.2.2 Construction Impacts, page C.6- 16: The third paragraph indicates dewatering may be required if shallow groundwater or perched aquifers are encountered. This paragraph also indicates that compliance with a construction- related NPDES Dewatering permit, in addition to the applicant's existing commitments, will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. There is no indication of what are the "applicant's existing commitments'. Those commitments should be presented either in the 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 date 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 Man. - 8 February 2000 J -32 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS City of Sea! Sends Comment Leiser re: . Drie Supplemental Ell? - Boiw Chico water T aumistion Lbse and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCA : 99071049 January l0, 2000 Q Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.7, CULTURAL 4 RESOURCES, subsection C.7.2.2 CoraZkucnoN IMPACTS, Mitigation Measure CR -1, CR -2, CR -3 and CR-4 pages C.7 -14 through CR.7 -16: , Mitigation Measure CR -] requires a "SCWC shall provide a qualified archaeological monitor at excavations for the proposed pipeline where it passes through area of moderate to high sensitivity for prehistoric and historic resources ". Given the potential to encounter buried deposits along the proposed pipeline route, as evidenced by our comments and documentation provided in response to the Notice of Preparation, it is requested that a qualified Native American monitor also be present during these excavation activities, as is proposed is Mitigation Measure CR -2. It is also requested that the archaeological and Native American monitor be present during "all excavation activities, including areas identified as having a low sensitivity for prehistoric and historic resources". The City had previously requested that a Phase I Site Survey of the Old Bolsa Chica Road area and the Boise 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 reservair on Bolsa Chica mesa. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.7, CULTURAL r RESOURCES, subsection C.7.3 BreLuOGRAPSY, page C.7 -19: The bibliography includes a report prepared by McKenna et al., titled "Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed SCWC Bolsa Chica waterline and Wastewater Service Project, Cary 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 Ize Whiuenberg, Director of Development Services, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 for Babe Cie. Wow Line ntac.cc Comma tam 9 February 2000 J -33 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Clay of Seal Beach Comment Lester re: Draft Supplemental BIB -Balsa Chins Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company' SCf1: 99071049 January 10, 2000 our files. The City of Seal Beach has an Archaeological Advisory Committee that reviews and makes recommendations to out City Council regarding impacts to 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, DlVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.8, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, subsection C.8.22 Comraccacxv ImPAcrs, 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 Chica Road if construction is to take place between May 15 and August 15. The intent of this mitigation measure is to protect territorial pairs or nests of a bird listed under the Migratory Bird Act (Title 50) of the Code of Federal Regulations. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.9, LAND USE AND RECREATION, subsection 0.9.1.1 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 Plans East"; please correct all references accordingly. ) o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSTS, Subsection C.9, LAND USE AND RECREATION, subsection C.9.1.2 Recreation, City of Seal Beach, page C.943: 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 Marina" and is owned by the County of Orange on property not within the Naval Weapons Station; please correct all references accordingly. o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.10, PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES, subsection C.10.1.1 PubEc Services, The Protection, page C.104: 7 -28 The first paragraph of this subsection indicates four cities - Cypress, Los Alamitos, Seal Beach and Westminster - are served by the "Orange County Fire Department (OCFD) ". The agency designation is incorrect, the agency is referred to as the "Orurge County Fire Authority (OCFA)'; please correct all references accordingly. Balsa Orea wares see aEIR.ee Cam= Law 10 February 2000 J -34 Final SE1R J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS City of Seed Beath Cwmnent Letter re: Draft Supplemental EIR - Baba C7uca Waver 7rcurso iuion Gore and Wastewater Service Project, Southern Ca4fonaa Water Company" SCN : 99071049 January I0, 2000 o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.10, PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES, subsection C.10.1.1 Public Services, Llbraries, Table C.10 -4, Libraries In the Proposed Project Area, page C.10 -7: This table indicates the Los Alamitos/Rossmoor Library is within the City of Los 7 -29 Alamitos. The city location is incorrect. Although the library primarily selves the City of Los Alamitos and the unincorporated community of Rossmoor, it is located within the City of Seal Beach; please correct all references accordingly within Table C.10-4 and the accompanying city descriptions on page C.10 -8 for Los Alamitos and Seal Beach. a Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.I0, PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES, subsection C.10.1.2 Utilities, Table C_10 -5, Utr'Eties 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 Balsa China Road o Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.10, PUBLIC • SERVICES AND UTILITIES, subsection C.10.2.3 Construction Impacts, Mitigation Measure PS-1, page C.10.15: The City of Seal Beach requests this mitigation treasure be enhanced to specify that all potentially affected agencies be notified since the project primaniy occurs 7 -31 along common city boundaries_ As an example, the Seal Beath Police Department and other emergency services often utilize Balsa China Road to access OW Balsa China Road and the College Park East neighborhood. The C'lty of Seal Beach supports this mitigation measure, as requested to be amended, as it responds to a concern of the City expressed in our corhme nts regarding the Notice of Preparation and the above comments. a Section C, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, Subsection C.10, PUBLIC _ SERVICES AND UTILITIES, subsection C.10.2.3 Construction Impacts, Utilities, page C.10 -16: No mitigation measure is proposed to reduce potential utility service disruptions during construction activities. The City request formulation of an additional 7 -32 mitigation measure to prevent potential disruptions of waxer and other utility service and Eo protect from potential accidental damage to those utilities. As an example, the City of Seal each could be severely impacted regarding access to the Qty's Balsa Chica Well site on Old Balsa China Road. This well site is a Bobs Cbiea Viatcr Live . Dme.ae Cceennot Lear 11 February 2000 3 -35 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Clay of Seal Beads Comment Letter re: "Dart Sarpplemeatal E!R —Botta Chico Water Transmission Line i and Wastewater Service Project, Southern California Water Company" SCA: 99071049 January 10, 2000 critical link in the City's water system and access to this site must be preserved. In addition, much of the work in Segment 6 will be in the vicinity of Seal Beach water transmission lines. Again, the City must be notified when work is occurring . i in this area to ensure a timely emergency response if nerrtsary. 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. o Section D, ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS, Subsection D.1.3, SUMMARY OF SCREENING RESULTS, Table D.1 -1, Akeraatires Screening Recommendations, page D-4: For the same reasons that the Westminster /Seal Beach Boulevard alternative was 7 -33 eliminated, the North Seal Beach Wellfield should be eliminated as well. The North Seal Beach Wellfield alternative will add one mile of additional street construction impacts over the proposed project. The proposed project alignment is within existing utility and non - roadway rights of way north of Lampson Avenue, whereas, the alternate alignment will effect one mile of Lampson Avenue and produce substantial traffic impacts. o Section D, ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS, Subsection • D.1.4.3, Westminster Avenue/Seal Beach Boulevard, page D-8: The second paragraph of this subsection discusses the potential of utilizing an 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 Wellfield as a source of water. Please review and remove or revise paragraph to clarify the intent of the paragraph in relation to the subject alternative. a Section D, ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS, Subsection • D.2, ALTERNATIVES SELECIED FOR COMPARA'nvE 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 charmel' being evaluated in the FIR, which is not the case. The "Bolsa Chica Channel" alternative is indicated on page D-4 as an "Alternative Eiminated from Further Consideration". Please revise Figure D-2 accordingly. o Section D, ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS, Subsection D.2.4, ALT ?1 '£ 4: NORIU SEAL BEAM W> 1.D, pages D-13 and 14: I 7 -36 Hai.. Cain Wafts Liao DMIEt.CC t.au.r t2 February 2000 J -36 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Caty of Seal Bead: Comment Letter re: "Draft Supplemental Flit — Baba °ire a Water 7) ananrisrfon Line and Wastewater Service Project, Southern Cdifarnia Water Company' SCH : 99071049 January 10, Xt» The proposed North Seal Wellfield falls within the jurisdiction of Seal Beach. The City of Seal Beach does not have any existing well facilities within the area shown on Figure D-2, page D-11. However, the City does intend to build a facility in the 7 -36 future near the location shown to improve reliability in our system that is north of the I-405 Freeway. The City's existing well facilities are located on Beverly Manor Road and on Old Bolsa Chica Road. Any future consideration of this alternative must include a detailed technical feasibility study that considers and complies with to the Qty's Water System Master Plan and the Orange County Water District 2020 Master Plan. o Appendix 1, Pipeline Route Segment Maps, Sheet 2 of 19, Water Transmission Line Route Maps, page 1 -2: 7 -37 This Sheet indicates 'City Boundaries" between the cities of Cypress and Los Angeles. The city boundaries should be between Cypress and "Los Alamitos", please correct as appropriate. o Appendix 1, Pipeline Route Segment Maps, Sheet 5 of 19, Water Transmission Lune 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 correct as appropriate. In addition, the is a City-owned 12" water line located in the Bolsa Chica channel at the I- 405/22 Freeway. Particular attention needs to be given to the protection of the integrity of that line during the water line installation. The City requests the ability to review project construction plans prior to initiation of construction activities in the immediate area of the water line to ensure adequate 7 -39 protection of this water line. In addition, as requested in our response letter regarding the Notice of Preparation, the City would request imposition of a mitigation measure requiring SCWC to provide an emergency connection between their proposed water transmission line and this existing City water transmission line. The usefulness of an emergency connection cannot be understated in providing the ability for the City and SCWC to better respond in an emergency situation with the existence of the requested emergency interconnection. The City Council considered and discussed the DSEIR document on January 10, 2000. The City Council authorized the Mayor to sign this letter indicating the official comments of the City of Seal Beach. Bois. CbiCL woes Liao nrst.ec Comae* user 13 February 2000 J-37 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Ciry of Seal Beath Comment Later ra• Srtpplonerrtal EZR - Bobo Chico wager Dwarf:Essig:a Line arrd wastew,na Senice Project, Soraher,, California Winer Cowpony" SCR : 99071049 January 10, 2000 Upon the preparation of the Final EIR for this proms 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. He will be most happy to provide any additional information or to provide clarification of the matters discussed in this comment letter Sincerely, ^ ;� Paul Yost, Mayor City of Seal Beach Distribution: Seal Beach City Council City Manager Seal Beach Planning Commission Director of Development Services Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee • • Saba Mice. wares tsar DER.CC eamieeoe. Law 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 SEIR 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 SEIR, 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 Final SEIR 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 9 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 indicate this 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 SEER. 7 -27 This error has been corrected as suggested. February 2000 J-41 Final SEIR J. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 7 -28 Comment noted. This has been corrected in the Final SEER. 7 -29 Comment noted. This has been corrected in the Final SEIR. . 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 SEER 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 Beach 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 342 Final SEIR Attachment 1 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 Aprzl 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 ( Tiro harp / / Vice Chairman, Planning Commission /0 0:": e Whittenberg, Secretary • Planning Commission • 3 Attachment 3 • FILE op Vicki L 3 00 WiN. Fllson, Di ower rector Street = O� A 3 ,s71. C OUNTY OF ORANGE Santa Ana, CA U O '-" 4 U P.O. Box 4048 ;� �# PUBLIC FACILITIES & RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Santa CA 92702 -4048 �� Telephone. 834 -2300 LIFOF� P � 14 ) Fax: (714) 834 -5188 January 23, 2003 ROWE I.D_ . No.: 2002 -037 J 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, D. CITY OF SEAL BEACH � JAN 2 7 200 Joh D. avlik, Chief Rig t o Way Engineering CEDAR T MEN T OF DEVEL OFMENT 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 1 CYPRESS 1 • • STANTON , , LOS ALAMITOS •-' -; _ — — ../ ,� Orangewc ROSSMOOR .; ` Los llamifos `> Chapman 1 • • _ • i Armed Forces m GARDEN t • i Reserve Center � _. ' i > • G R O L ampson I . i . f f ' Garden - Gra • ; 3h/ J. Cd . m Q. LI SEAL BEACH Trask - --- m CO WESTMINSTER co itl to Westminster Westminster • r • � PROPOSED 14 t% •1 . Hazard _ DOMESTIC WATER `' —' . TRANSMISSION LINE ..---- t v a as i Bofsa_ . m �' ;'-'=- Seal Beach CD —•—.i • fr _' = Navy Weapons Station McFadde -_ _ _ • _. i _ 4 HUNTINGT N ` T 1 : ci . . EA Edinge,- ! • N _ _ > y _ _ V W : = HeII C 0 c i � ,.- o 1:3 i . m o • - = 1 1 e �-.L. ♦ � �Y ti Warner Warner ^ • f ; - 4 Patos c i 1 _ '� Q .i �� • ti- ••. 1 °� / J // - Stater • K ! 1 -- = ` • Brightwater Line = OLSA CHICA PLANt� : ,� ` ` - ---..,.:--7- Ep and Wastewater Project COMMUNITY SITE . Proposed Water N 0 11/ Transmission °��� .••�u� Line Route Q Scale in Miles t Figure 2.2 • IMetroPointe Engineers • • ' A I 44' !- J.d..; 1 i• a rr,. -/'- r _- ` y • t. ,. a - , u • • - 7!...:•• 1•h 1 µ . - iine 9 1 --. I ) '• 2H a "i _ I n - c _( , N C. 1 *:" % :,T � Jer�1 Pk' 7' I? S 1' •-- - G . R I", � �•-r i . - • 1 .. r ; ' p _=e r .� ... - I -.I.n.l �� r ,;1 I+u --....r__ I . II e � I 1 • L ALAMITOS- 1 I - 1 1 ---- - % ',.., -i�j y I t.u' 4t. »tnaR , y -•--c I i ••,:�� 1. .' ' ' '' S --:;;...;:4:::-- ' j 1' ARNIF. , - , FOR ES RESERCY- rF.NTPR SEGMENT 3 l - •t `� a +_ , ' • � I 1 •;r �a i it 1 ; I .1 , �:at. • �.. . ( - . i , 'c t i 7 . h _ � - I ' I I • I - , . 1 , �" Y ? '' • � S ` -' , _ -- • "lSati -,s RB -' • • r r ���._ � � rN -} II ti _ 1 I I I I " > � ' -x 4 J . t3 r- t' �.�Y, RC)�,{�:���i'-'� 1--....7.-... r � .::---..-11:" � .a ., I ! :. '-` -_._.. . � • �3E1 Tom -?.. 1_ ..:_` wa TN -4 i _ -• -- -.,_, ,.r � rA i s 'AZIQNe - ,_ 7. 'A N ! Jt • �• •-r• .f .•_,17___.f......1 6 A II • � ! " � , ■ I e Yn�ln. t i 1 .` .. r a s i ' 19 • I I Rre'n • y l 1� 1 •) �i t...r.�w....} f ' , f. .1 ,� N ' - -- ', '' F . .N .w _- '\ n.6 ONX _..-. 1 4 , 11 I -ti Jt ^ P 1■ WAt1UARY - II S@GMENTII �i •' _ y ` " - I !! ..,..„ y •, s ` - r ; l): uonNnr; - S E GMENT ' ✓.rat y "� �.`� __._ � C' 1` - - ;, u - d. , t , - i i I I u A,..",41. � "q'- }� _. � a t , ..t , � ,;.. -� 1 f' .......=---_111 1 I � _ r K fo ,...' I, -•..,. � ..a11 .. „`.� - - -•} • � - - �', < c raw _s- i..:; a -- Mi • , ! 7 . ' -7 ) • • \y °w..a - - - ••^• -.,r ':Lj ,.•. 'OC• N .11 v_'i ! :llara- LI ,J.S.: - 1.i. ' � '� 1. 1 C0 •S BEAL -. 1 ....- -..._ ' ` • : J r • I 1 1 I l�� t�vr. Yv' L • + _-i • ' g ` ' I , a,\ - r - r ` � }J 1._ .F I d,1. 1 e r_ _ L� � T � .� �\ J- � mw. It _ illl.�. <<✓ • - ^I- I - -' - ,,Z �. - _ - ' ' Y'� " "L T - �.'• ; _ '7. ,` r ,1 I I `1 I` I. p . i • - I .. I .1 1 �,c ,,' 1 . i J + 1. :; ._� SEGMENT 2 -4;1 { t [t ( il � I' - ' � rt, •oq" �� • o. ' _ i33---••"•' 't, ' s..�,::: ' ,, ` [ a ..-1.1,11 , g� � ` fl: r - i I I _ ' U S 4 .. , . S a ' ` .c L baba 1i'it,,,i g J i I J .. -- t om � .4 " * 9-i- ... J...17.,1,::. 4 I 1 � . 't • i ' f' . } .� _ ; I I II ' a. : -:- '-' ' :� ;.- e;c . ,:. )' mammal-ER awl ---"---v d +1 , • I 9 1\\ I•,, - i III - • . - - •n- '. - -. - - • _.. . _. «' rµro . f i'�! J .i;11 -- r W- E A I'.• S/ 1 3: T A iT. V( i• �rr• - � y _ " •• ! . °1 � arlr 111 i . a o pt d ' ; { S A L BEACH � . }1.1:.'",k:1,0 . �y' I � ip a z ':• 4....--4-. A `r i : ' , . 'u'' , , Il 1 r -- ) t ,i;� `•' 1 j I . 1 . S ' 1 i. ) R ' a . eN d. .� r> ?• I [ - = C � � i" ; : I • I ` i 1......):\',4,••:::--j): . 2. _ "6O• � ,.,{.:: - r -- 1 EIT� I i. - j Ild 1I •• '7 [LG 'TAN } i E r l ► fi �.. - ,--- _A_n &au t ) _ • I ' r J� C \I RY \ f I �t } % " R A � 1) N A I. WII.DI IFI Rt FCY:! • I , i E Ivi •NT2 LA 1 7' ' /.a•rA p _• ? r , I i 1 r 11711 • , !;/ 1 7 SS I1 li ; SEGMENT 1 • - ! I 1 g r .. _ t `� � �:1� • , x j , ( r-, ` _- _ - ! a_ i I - iii _ ^r n �r • , f ' r- L -- + ' 1 • • - , I t' /� � 1 ,.....vl.- _ .. E . IMENTT ' Ri• -•• , - V\.N \TION• A - 9'+F - � ~ r' • l I ACA• . =�'• 1'!w N STA 111)N /' ,..__,,.,.......-...-.A1 -- -•■ - _�e ` ' �J.. ); y: . SEGME;14 1 1.1 ..1 _ 1 ? III. r10VYi V.ILUIIYE Rr..111:F ■- ' 1 - - _� _, NT 1,. ` �� i - .- •t ± ^- 1 � LEGEND � ' . - -11t3 I / �I _ „•._ .1 I '',I, 17 fr. 1 ° ji'l:•ztrii _ 1 1, ": ._ -'I f _ �� �_1l �:: DWTP ALIG MENT. ~ r y q. ' i i 2i sie;+ i - -2- � 1' � -1`f • CITY BOUNDARY LINES, ' : 1 ; j ' 1 FT �{ 1 : _ ■. 1 , `• � -- ,_ ,L , Z. i . a. LOCATION OF OCF II 1-. I ' I II ' ` A A i._; " U :: .,I. , ENCROACHMENT - - -- -- - :' '. ,'A • .. h 1.• Island r 1 ,--A--al.. i ■7.11 Nan :an,' JL y" I �R }' ..- �' __ _ .- . r.:.c- 9,?,1Fw �.^. P •.v :./ _ . F 1'S �.li I 6'aor.e•r• pl �r �' A• �"tl - - l.l. ,�. T{OB{NIM I: 1 h i.)YY -,` - ti sz- -, I � - - l!' '�F.. : • untt .J _. ._ �- 1 C"f"i fl L 4-... e � ,� tom -� �1 r ; -I\,, - :. i - .- -4 `G1 r-t E Ifi7F•J = _ ' 3 L'Ir . .. : a 1 t< _ 1 , l L �s = � . - b - 4.: � 1 .a- 6 , �` • •• - ' -- r`�4: ' j --•:-.-.---.-4-•-•-„,,,-,----..„:57-:-.7)%-.„.. , - _ ' �,Lr,� i L 2 w. a t I I ] tft Z ` �, f 3 ; : \: ,,I �, � - , = `I 11 TO - eM ii ` y 7, J% ' .. > T r 11., l s -- :_ - _ • t T01 A ,., .- Y _ n , ..07 -4 , i � $ �' 0, ✓j b) •fir °I 1.--a � 7 '' ' r I r'.'.41' I :z d Ily _'� � ' i 1 � _) [ - S ' q H :` q i -'�, k. -. \ . "try 11 It... 'r A r ._ 7 5 -1• • ' ::• ^ • , 1 i .- i • k •w:ti r .• /, r' ,,... i .p - ,} ••` : i °or- Y ) a; �° j 's . ..�. ^f :,.... . , .' � ., ° t4 i , nlll : ` ` `4... -•� .1. 3.re,a.n,e _, I' a 7 d t w ; y . ix � 1• • 0 Sun' t BC8CI1 ` . ".. 1`. :`�: �- 'J :i ; t p ] p�- 7)- t -t , M si:Pa s . ,r.N rr . 4'' "' _'•' - ' i� Isis i� ,,'1R,.y I . ..4 „•; 73 N .t.a.,;:it...41...,.." 1 .1 -.,:k 7 .:',9 L !,:. * I I FP it'-'. BOLSA CHI . - -i � s_ 6 I1,� -' � • :i - -' DOMESTIC WA T' = �� U P RATEih - " ° �° • s� i • T ' E V -2 ` 5 , ;11 t, , ; ) . �; a � I :;il:;• t �- '. - TRANSMISSION PIPEL E (F7 � ; 1 ii 'r ' _�L i _ = - = I N ` I J, I ..L itM 0?- 1 1 117 I% :V... -A " ,1•0 �, t VP 1 i . i': 1 . 1 'I 7 City Council Staff Report Subsequently, the project applicant presented a new design that consisted of installing 48 -inch box trees with at grade tree grates. See Attachment C for the Aerial Photo and Attachment D for the tree grate. Although, these grates are standard for use in sidewalks, installation within the street without curbs to protect the trees is not. Engineering Division is in favor of any streetscape type improvement that will make areas more +� pedestrian -friendly including mid -block crosswalk bulbs. Staff has taken a neutral position on this concept proposal because of its non - standard design and is requesting City Council direction regarding issuance of a permit. Several issues should be addressed before approving the current proposal: • The project seems to lack grandeur and does not make the architectural statement necessary to slow traffic. • The community and business owners acceptance of the proposal are unknown. This pilot project may set precedent for future projects. Staff is requesting that the project applicant obtain letters of support from the surrounding businesses and property owners. - - • There is a maintenance concern that the street sweeper will not be able to sweep adjacent to this area and trash and debris would collect at this location. Staff is concerned that higher maintenance cost could occur under this design. • There will be no irrigation and trees will need to be hand watered. Responsibility for - watering should fall upon the project applicant. • Since at grade street planters are untested and unproven, the project applicant will need to - hire a professional engineer who will prepare, sign, stamp the plan, and assume design liability. Additionally, it has been past policy to issue a non - standard encroachment permit where the adjacent property owners will assume liability and maintenance for the proposed improvement in the public right of way. The agreement could be modified to allow Trees for Seal Beach to be the permit holder. This format has been reviewed previously approved by the City Attorney. A draft is attached in Attachment G. • Adjacent curb and gutter will not be improved to alleviate ponding/flooding and access ramps will not be brought to standard. Staff has identified 3 alternatives to the proposed project as listed below: 1. Trees and bulb -outs could be installed at the intersection of Main and Electric Ave. This location can accommodate raised medians and would be similar to the bulb -outs at Main and Central. See Attachment E for pictures. 2. A different version of the previously approved Specific Plan mid -block crosswalk could be constructed at a price range of $30,000 to $40,000. See Attachment I. The different version would include new raised planters, trees, landscaping, curb, gutter, and wheel 2