Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-08 - Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee Meeting Agenda Packetr a Linda Water District AGENDA YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT PLANNING - ENGINEERING - OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, September 8, 2010, 4:00 PM 1717 E Miraloma Ave, Placentia CA 92870 COMMITTEE STAFF Director William R. Mills, Chair Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager Director John W. Summerfield Lee Cory, Operations Manager Anthony Manzano, Sr Project Manager Ken Mendum, Operations Superintendent John DeCriscio, Chief Plant Operator PUBLIC COMMENTS Any individual wishing to address the committee is requested to identify themselves and state the matter on which they wish to comment. If the matter is on this agenda, the committee Chair will recognize the individual for their comment when the item is considered. No action will be taken on matters not listed on this agenda. Comments are limited to matters of public interest and matters within the jurisdiction of the Water District. Comments are limited to five minutes. 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS This portion of the agenda is for matters such as technical presentations, drafts of proposed policies, or similar items for which staff is seeking the advice and counsel of the Committee members. This portion of the agenda may also include items for information only. 2.1. Monthly Groundwater Production and Purchased Import Water Report 2.2. Monthly Preventative Maintenance Program Report 3. ACTION CALENDAR This portion of the agenda is for items where staff presentations and committee discussions are needed prior to formal committee action. 3.1. Approval of Change Order No. 3, Final Progress Payment Number 15 and the Notice of Completion for the Hidden Hills Reservoir Project Recommendation: That the Committee recommend the Board of Directors approve Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $3,002.27 and one additional calendar day, Final Progress Payment No. 15 in the net amount of $418,871.04 to Pacific Hydrotech Corporation and 10% retention of $46,541.23; authorize staff to file the Notice of Completion and release the retention thirty five days following recordation if no liens have been filed, release the Labor and Material Bond, and release the Faithful Performance Bond in one year if no defects have been found for the Hidden Hills Reservoir Project, Job No. 200028. 3.2. Geotechnical Services for the Highland Booster Station Replacement Project Recommendation: That the Committee recommend the Board of Directors authorize execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Ninyo & Moore for a fee not to exceed $30,494, to provide geotechnical services for the Highland Booster Station Replacement Project. 3.3. Water Supply Assessment for the City of Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Housing Element Recommendation: That the Committee recommend the Board of Directors adopt the Water Supply Assessment for the City of Yorba Linda's Draft 2008 -2014 Housing Element and Implementation Plan, to be incorporated as part of the Project Draft EIR. 3.4. Well No. 20 Engineering Services Amendment No. 1 with Civiltec Engineering, Inc. Recommendation: That the Committee recommend the Board of Directors authorize approval of Engineering Services Amendment No. 1 with Civiltec Engineering Inc. for a fee increase not to exceed $9,500, resulting in a total fee of $89,320. 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS This portion of the agenda is for matters such as technical presentations, drafts of proposed policies, or similar items for which staff is seeking the advice and counsel of the Committee members. This portion of the agenda may also include items for information only. 4.1. Monthly Groundwater Producers Meeting Report 4.2. Status Report on Capital Projects in Progress 4.3. Future Agenda Items and Staff Tasks 5. ADJOURNMENT 5.1. The next regular meeting of the Planning- Engineering- Operations Committee will be held October 7, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. Items Distributed to the Committee Less Than 72 Hours Prior to the Meeting Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5, non - exempt public records that relate to open session agenda items and are distributed to a majority of the Committee less than seventy -two (72) hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection in the lobby of the District's business office located at 1717 E. Miraloma Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870, during regular business hours. When practical, these public records will also be made available on the District's internet website accessible at http: / /www.ylwd.com /. Accommodations for the Disabled Any person may make a request for a disability - related modification or accommodation needed for that person to be able to participate in the public meeting by telephoning the Executive Secretary at 714 - 701 -3020, or writing to Yorba Linda Water District, P.O. Box 309, Yorba Linda, CA 92885 -0309. Requests must specify the nature of the disability and the type of accommodation requested. A telephone number or other contact information should be included so the District staff may discuss appropriate arrangements. Persons requesting a disability - related accommodation should make the request with adequate time before the meeting for the District to provide the requested accommodation. AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: September 8, 2010 ITEM NO. 2.1 Subject: Monthly Groundwater Production and Purchased Import Water Report ATTACHMENTS: Name: Import2010 -2011 August.pdf Import2010 -2011 _August _Pie _Chart.pdf Import2010 -2011 August TWU.pdf Import2010 -2011 August YTD Prod Chart.pdf Consumption_ Tracking .pdf Description: Type: PEO Sheet Backup Material Pie Chart Backup Material Total Water Use Chart Backup Material YTD Prod Chart Backup Material Aug Consumption Backup Material YLWD SOURCE WATER SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2010 -11 85.0% 75.0% 65.0% 55.0% 45.0% 35.0% 25.0% 15.0% Allowable GW (YTD) 2,117.8 (AF) Underpumped 507.3 (AF) Conservation Percentage Since July 1, 2009 -18.0% GROUNDWATER PERCENTAGE 5.0% ' I I I I Jul -10 Aug -10 Sep -10 Oct -10 Nov -10 Dec -10 Jan -11 Feb -11 Mar -11 Apr -11 May -11 Jun -11 Month GW (AF) IMPORT (AF) TOTAL DEMAND (AF) MONTHLY GW (%) YTD GW (%) BUDGET (Demand Est.) (AF) DELTA ( %) MONTH Jul -10 793.2 1,476.0 2,269.2 35.0% 35.0% 2,483.5 -8.6% Aug -10 817.3 1,529.5 2,346.7 34.8% 34.9% 2,443.4 -4.0% Sep -10 2,143.8 Oct -10 1,808.3 Nov -10 1,428.5 Dec -10 1,285.0 Jan -11 1,120.4 Feb -11 1,071.9 Mar -11 1,270.2 Apr -11 1,588.8 May -11 2,101.6 Jun -11 2,354.8 FYTD 1,610.5 3,005.5 4,616.0 34.9% 4,926.9 -6.3% 85.0% 75.0% 65.0% 55.0% 45.0% 35.0% 25.0% 15.0% Allowable GW (YTD) 2,117.8 (AF) Underpumped 507.3 (AF) Conservation Percentage Since July 1, 2009 -18.0% GROUNDWATER PERCENTAGE 5.0% ' I I I I Jul -10 Aug -10 Sep -10 Oct -10 Nov -10 Dec -10 Jan -11 Feb -11 Mar -11 Apr -11 May -11 Jun -11 Month WATER SUPPLY FY 2010 -2011 August 2010 Water Supply GW 34.8% IMPORT 65.2% 2010 -2011 YTD Water Supply GW 34.9% IMPORT 65.1% GW BPP GOAL 45.9% am 2,500 2,000 FS ,07 0' 1,500 0 1,000 500 Total Water Use N° o o N° N° o%, e N° o° N(° NN o°' Noi o°' '.° o�' NQ, �. o N° NN Month 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 U- a 12,000 a� E 0 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Jul -10 2010 -2011 YTD Water Supply Aug -10 Sep -10 Oct -10 Nov -10 Dec -10 Jan -11 Feb -11 Mar -11 Apr -11 May -11 Jun -11 Month August 2010 Daily Average Demand (MG) 30.0 26.1 25.9 25.0 23.7 20.7 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Sunday 23.7 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday 25.5 Friday Saturday T ITEM NO. 2.2 AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: September 8, 2010 Subject: Monthly Preventative Maintenance Program Report ATTACHMENTS: Name: Description: Type: PM Report.pdf PM Report Backup Material PM PROGRAM 20010/2011 Fiscal 20010 -11 1 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN Percent of target 8% 25% 33% 42% 50% 58% 67% 75% 83% 92% 100% HYDRANTS (3,881) Target; all hydrants to be serviced annually. INSPECTED THIS MONTH 55 293 INSPECTED THIS YEAR 55 348 % OF TOTAL 1.4% VALVES (10,706/2= 5,353) Target; all valves to be operated every two years OPERATED THIS MONTH 536 378 OPERATED THIS YEAR 536 914 % OF TOTAL 10.0% 17.1% DEAD ENDS (155 X 2 = 310) Target; all dead ends to be flushed twice each year. FLUSHED THIS MONTH 0 0 FLUSHED THIS YEAR 0 0 % OF TOTAL 0.0% AIR VACS (309) Target; all air /vacs to be serviced annually. INSPECTED THIS MONTH 296 13 INSPECTED THIS YEAR 296 3091 1 % OF TOTAL 95.8% 100.0%1 1 SEWER CLEANING (802,560) Target; all sewers to be cleaned annually. CLEANED THIS MONTH 126,497 68,133 CLEANED THIS YEAR 126,497 194,630 % OF TOTAL 15.8% SEWER TELEVISING (200,640) Target; all sewers to be televised every 4 years. TELEVISED THIS MONTH 12,176 18,676 TELEVISED THIS YEAR 12,176 30,852 % OF TOTAL 6.1% 15.4% Meeting Date: To: From: Presented By: Prepared By: Subject: SUMMARY: AGENDA REPORT September 8, 2010 Planning-Engineering- Operations Committee Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager Anthony Manzano, Senior Project Manager Budgeted: Total Budget: Funding Source: Account No: Job No: Dept: Reviewed by Legal: Joe Polimino, Project Engineer CEQA Compliance: ITEM NO. 3.1 Yes $5,500,000 ID No. 2 GO Bonds 401 -2700 200028 Engineering No MND Approval of Change Order No. 3, Final Progress Payment Number 15 and the Notice of Completion for the Hidden Hills Reservoir Project Work is complete for construction of the Hidden Hills Reservoir and upgrades to the Santiago Booster Pump Station. Submitted for consideration is construction Change Order No. 3, Final Progress Payment Number 15 and authorization to file the Notice of Completion for the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee recommend the Board of Directors approve Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $3,002.27 and one additional calendar day, Final Progress Payment No. 15 in the net amount of $418,871.04 to Pacific Hydrotech Corporation and 10% retention of $46,541.23; authorize staff to file the Notice of Completion and release the retention thirty five days following recordation if no liens have been filed; release the Labor and Material Bond; and release the Faithful Performance Bond in one year if no defects have been found for the Hidden Hills Reservoir Project, Job No. 200028. DISCUSSION: In accordance with the contract documents, Pacific Hydrotech Corporation submitted Change Order No. 3 due to District requested additions and modifications during the course of construction to date. Proposed Change Order No. 3 includes the addition of wiring and labor for additional programming options requested by the Operations Department, related to the earthquake control panel and connections to the motor - operated seismic control valves. PHC is requesting one additional calendar day and $3,002.27 for this work. A copy of Change Order No. 3 is attached for review and information. Pacific Hydrotech Corporation has also submitted a request for Final Progress Payment No. 15, in the amount of $465,412.27, which is the final payment for all work on the project through the completion date of July 31, 2010. During this period, the contractor completed hydroseeding, fencing, electrical installation and testing and addressed remaining punchlist items for the project. This is the final pay request for this project. The status of the construction contract with Pacific Hydrotech Corporation is as follows: • The current contract is $5,037,862.83 and 445 calendar days starting May 11, 2009 (including Change Order No.1 which added $3,027.86 and 16 calendar days and Change Order No. 2 which added $22,376.97 and 29 calendar days). • If approved, Change Order No. 3 adds $3,002.27 (0.06% of the current contract amount) and 1 calendar day (0.2% of current contract calendar days). • If approved, the revised construction contract amount is $5,040,865.10 and 446 calendar days. • The final contract amount is $4,990,865.10 and 446 calendar days starting May 11, 2009 (which includes $28,407.10 in authorized change orders, offset by a credit to the District of $50,000.00 for unused field orders per the contract and approved time extensions of an additional 46 calendar days). • If approved, Progress Payment No. 15 is $465,412.27 (9.2% of the total contract amount), less 10% retention of $46,541.23 for a net payment of $418,871.04. • If approved, total payments including retention are $4,990,865.10 (100% of the total contract amount). As of July 2, 2010, the reservoir was placed in service and the District began receiving beneficial use. YLWD staff reviewed the change order request and final progress payment request and recommend approval. A copy of Change Order 3 and Final Progress Payment No. 15 is attached for your reference. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S): The Board has approved fourteen progress payments to date for this project, the last of which was approved July 22, 2010. ATTACHMENTS: Name: Description: Type: Hidden Hills Change Order No 3.pdf Hidden Hills Change Order No 3 PHC CorpordLIU11 Backup Material Pacific _Hydrotech_PPR_15 FINAL.pdf Final Progress Payment 15 Backup Material YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT %CHANGE ORDER NO. 403 DATE August 18, 2010 Page 1 of 1 CONTRACT NAME: Hidden Hills Reservoir Project CONTRACT AMT.: $5,037,862.83 DAYS: 445 CONTRACTOR: Pacific Hydrotech Corporation THIS CHANGE: $3,002.27 DAYS: 1 (0.06%) OWNER: Yorba Linda Water District REVISED CONTRACT AMT: $ 5,040,865.14 DAYS: 446 This Change Order covers changes to the subject contract as described herein. The Contractor shall construct, turnish equipment and materials, and perform all work as necessary or required to complete the Change Order items for a lump sum price agreed upon between the Contractor and Yorba Linda Water District otherwise ref erred to as Owner. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES +INCREASE IOR — DECREASE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT Additional Valve Actuator Wiring and Testing at Reservoir Site $ 3,002,27 NET CHANGE $ 3,002.27 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT AND TIME $5,040,865.10 CONTRACT TIME +EXTENSION fOR- REDUCTION (DAYS) 1 1 446 The amount of the contract will be increased 4desfeaszGI3,- by the sum of $ 3,002.27 and the contract time shall be increased deaFeased-. by 1 calendar day(s). The undersigned Contractor approves the foregoing Change Order as to the changes, if any, in the contract price specified for each item including any and ail supervision costs and other miscellaneous costs relating to the change in work, and as to the extension of time allowed, if any, for completion of the entire work on account of said Change Order. The Contractor agrees to fumish all labor and materials and perform all other necessary work, inclusive of that directly or indirectly related to the approved time extension, required to complete the Change Order items. This document wiff become a supplement of the contract and all provisions will apply hereto. It is understood that the Change Order shall be effective when approved by the Owner. This Change Order constitutes full, final, and complete compensation to the Contractor for all costs, expenses, overhead, profit, and any damages of every kind that the Contractor may incur in connection with the above referenced changes in the work, including any impact on the referenced work of any other work under the contract, any changes in the sequences of any work, any delay to any work, any disruption of any work, any rescheduling of any work, and any other effect on any of the work under this contract. By the execution of the Change Order, the Contractor accepts the contract price change and the contract completion date change, if any, and expressly waives any claims any�additi al ompensati ,: ages or time extensions, in connection with the above- referenced changes. ® IJ RECOMMENDED: ACCEPTED: APPROVED: /ENGINEER OR DATE: ngt DATE: XONTRACTOR Harns. 10WNER Kenneth R. Vecchlarelli, General Manager DATE: � / I / Ic) YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT FINAL PAY REPORT PROJECT Hidden Hills Reservoir PROGRESS PAY REQUEST NO. 15 LOCATION Varga Linda, CA PROJECT NO. J °200028 PAGE 1 OF 1 PAGES CONTRACTOR Pacific Hydrotech DATE August 31, 2010 DRIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $ 5,012,458.00 4UTHORIZED CHANGE ORDERS: 121,592.90} REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT: 4,990,865.10 PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE FOR PERIOD July 1, 2010 TO July 31, 2010 PREVIOUS THIS MONTH TO DATE VALUE OF WORK COMPLETED CHANGE ORDER WORK COMPLETED TOTAL VALUE OF WORK COMPLETED LESS RETENTION 10% LESS OTHER DEDUCTIONS NET EARNED TO DATE LESS AMOUNT PREVIOUSLY PAID BALANCE DUE THIS ESTIMATE (NOTICE TO PROCEED TIME )ROVED TIME EXTENSION$ "AL CONTRACT TIME E EXPENDED TO DATE E REMAINING Is 25,404.83 1 $ 3,002.27 $ 28,407.10 $ 4,525,452.83 $ 465,412.27 $ 4,990,865.10 Electronic Wire Fees $ 499,085.51 $ 300.00 $ 4,491,778.59 $ 4,072,907.55 $ 418,871.04 May 11, 2009 400 CALENDAR DAYS 46 CALENDAR DAYS 446 CALENDAR DAYS 446 CALENDAR DAYS 0 CALENDAR DAYS REQUESTED BY: �Z') ') 'f6f— DATE: Ronald WPacific Hydrotech APPROVED BY: DATE: ( _' OkAzz sus Sosa, Construction Inspe ctor, YLWD APPROVED BY; •�i� DATE: Steve Conklin, Engineering Manager, YLWD 08/31/10 Meeting Date: To: From: Presented By: Prepared By: Subject: SUMMARY: AGENDA REPORT September 8, 2010 Planning-Engineering- Operations Committee Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager Anthony Manzano, Senior Project Manager Budgeted: Total Budget: Cost Estimate: Funding Source: Account No: Job No: Dept: Reviewed by Legal: Joe Polimino, Project Engineer CEQA Compliance: ITEM NO. 3.2 Yes $5,500,000 $30,500 Water Revenue Bond 101 -2700 200814 Engineering No MND Geotechnical Services for the Highland Booster Station Replacement Project Staff issued a Request for Proposals for Geotechnical services for the construction of Highland Booster Station Replacement Project. The District received five proposals. Following evaluation, staff recommends award to Ninyo & Moore, for a fee not to exceed of $30,494. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee recommend the Board of Directors authorize execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Ninyo & Moore for a fee not to exceed $30,494, to provide geotechnical services for the Highland Booster Station Replacement Project. DISCUSSION: Staff prepared a Request for Proposal to provide geotechnical services for construction of the Highland Booster Station Replacement Project. Staff solicited proposals from six geotechnical firms experienced in this field. Five firms submitted proposals. The District's review team ranked and scored the proposals based on experience of staff and firm, content, and understanding of the project. Following the technical evaluation and ranking, separate envelopes with fees for each proposal were opened by staff. Results of the ranking and the proposed fee for each are as follows: Firm Evaluation Score Fee Ninyo & Moore 14.03 $ 30,494 Leighton 13.98 $ 49,819 MTGL 12.73 $ 11,997 Associated Soils Engineering 12.72 $ 27,935 Petra 11.78 $ 27,355 After extensive review of the five proposals, it was staff's determination that MTGL came in too low to perform the required tasks for the project and that Leighton was too high for the requested services. The three remaining firms (Associated, Ninyo & Moore and Petra) were all very close in their fees. The experience of personnel and past projects was then further reviewed. It was noted that all personnel with Ninyo & Moore have excellent experience and many more individual certifications when compared to the other firms, especially that of the technician who will be onsite. Therefore, based on experience and qualifications, staff recommends award to Ninyo & Moore. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S): On July 9, 2009, the Board of Directors approved the award of the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for design of the Highland Booster Pump Station Replacement Project to MWH Americas, for a fee not to exceed $469,593. On August 12, 2010, the Board of Directors awarded a construction contract to Pacific Hydrotech Corporation in the amount of $4,525,800. Meeting Date: To: From: Presented By: Prepared By: Subject: SUMMARY: AGENDA REPORT September 8, 2010 Planning-Engineering- Operations Committee Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager Anthony Manzano, Senior Project Manager Anthony Manzano, Senior Project Manager Budgeted Funding Source: Dept: Reviewed by Legal: CEQA Compliance: ITEM NO. 3.3 N/A N/A Engineering No EIR Water Supply Assessment for the City of Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Housing Element The City of Yorba Linda (City) recently released a Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the City's Draft 2008 -2014 Housing Element (Project) and Implementation Plan. This plan proposes rezoning of thirteen properties to higher density, multi - family residential communities, for a maximum of 1,106 dwelling units. Senate Bill 610 of 2001 requires that the District prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) report addressing water supply for projects with 500 or more dwelling units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee recommend the Board of Directors adopt the Water Supply Assessment for the City of Yorba Linda's Draft 2008 -2014 Housing Element and Implementation Plan, to be incorporated as part of the Project Draft EIR. DISCUSSION: On June 21, 2010, the City submitted a written request to the District for preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for their 2008 -2014 Housing Element project (Project) and Implementation Plan for the potential rezoning of thirteen properties to higher density, multi - family residential communities, for a maximum of 1,106 dwelling units. The District is required to submit a WSA per Senate Bill 610 of 2001. As discussed in the attached Draft WSA, staff estimates a maximum annual demand increase of 553 acre -feet per year for this Project, and, per the Qualifications section, states that "nothing herein shall be construed to create a right or entitlement to water service or any specific level of water service." The WSA further clarifies that "actual water service to the proposed project is predicated upon satisfaction of terms and conditions set forth by YLWD," thereby, allowing the District the ability to establish project specific terms for providing water service to portions of, or the entire Project. Staff recommends that the Committee support adoption of the WSA for the City's Project. The document will be incorporated into their Draft EIR which is currently scheduled for public release in September 2010. ATTACHMENTS: Name: Description: Type: Water Supply Assessment 08- 09- 2010.doc Draft Water Supply Assessment Backup Material YorbaLindaHE_IS.pdf City of Yorba Linda NOP 05 -26 -2010 Backup Material Yorba Linda Water District DRAFT Water Supply Assessment for the City of Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Housing Element INTRODUCTION Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD) is the public water system that will supply potable water service to the Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Housing Element (Project). As the public water system, YLWD is required by 2001 Senate Bill 610 to prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for defined types of projects consisting of 500 or more dwelling units. This WSA is in response to a letter dated June 21, 2010 from Steven K. Harris, City of Yorba Linda Director of Community Development, requesting YLWD to determine if available water supplies will meet projected eased water demands from the Project. This Project is under the direction of the City of Yorba Linda Community Development for development of approximately 1,106 multi family dwelling units on thirteen separate sites, as depicted on Exhibits 3 and 4 of the attached City of Yorba Linda Notice of Preparation (NOP) dated May 26, 2010. Eleven of the thirteen sites are already part of YLWD's service area. Although two sites are located outside of YLWD boundaries, within Savi Ranch, annexation was approved by LAFCO on August 11, 2010, pending completion of jurisdictional boundary changes by the State Board of Equalization. In the meantime, YLWD will continue to provide water service to this area. A more detailed description of the project is contained in the following section. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Housing Element (Project) is a multi family residential development, with approximately 1,106 units, located within portions of the City of Yorba Linda in northeastern Orange County. This Project includes thirteen sites with detailed descriptions of locations, proposed acreage and dwelling units, per the NOP, listed below. 1. Site 1 is located adjacent to and east of Prospect Avenue, north of Imperial Highway. The total number of proposed units is 165 on approximately 5.5 acres. The existing zoning is General Commercial (GC), and this site is currently vacant. 2. Site 2 is located near the Wabash Avenue /Rose Drive intersection, with 50 proposed units on approximately 1.7 acres. The existing zoning is GC, with a single family residential structure and a mini warehouse currently occupying this site. Site 3 is located near the Yorba Linda Boulevard/Prospect Avenue intersection with 122 proposed units on approximately 4.1 acres. The existing zoning is GC, with a medical office currently operating at this site. 4. Site 4 is located adjacent to and south of Bastanchury Road midway between Plumosa Drive and Lakeview Avenue (between Sites 9 and 12) with 255 proposed units on approximately 8.5 acres. The existing zoning is Planned Development (PD) with a nursery currently in operation at this site. 5. Site 5 is located within the Savi Ranch commercial /industrial development, at the south -east corner of Old Canal Road and Eastpark Drive, with 84 proposed units on approximately 2.4 acres. The existing zoning is PD /Support Industrial and the site is currently vacant. 6. Site 6 is located within the Savi Ranch commercial /industrial development, at the south -east corner of Oakcrest Circle and Eastpark Drive, with 96 proposed units on approximately 3.2 acres. The existing zoning is PD /Office Commercial on a vacant parcel that was previously occupied by Mitsubishi Motors. 7. Site 7 is located east of and adjacent to Lakeview Avenue, north of Yorba Linda Boulevard, with 94 proposed units on approximately 4.7 acres. The existing zoning is GC, and this site is currently vacant. 8. Site 8 is located at the northwest corner of Lakeview Avenue and Altrudy Lane, with 47 proposed units on approximately 2.4 acres. The existing zoning is Residential Suburban, and this site is currently vacant. 9. Site 9 is located at the southwest corner of Lakeview Avenue and Bastanchury Road, east of and adjacent to Site 4, with 82 proposed units on approximately 4.1 acres. The existing zoning is PD, and the site currently includes one single family residence with a barn. 10. Site 10 is located at the southeast corner of Eureka Avenue and Lemon Drive, with 5 proposed units on approximately 0.5 acres. The existing zoning is CG, and the site currently includes a specialty retail center with a self - service car wash. 11. Site 11 is located at the southeast corner of Eureka Avenue and Yorba Linda Boulevard, with 59 proposed units on approximately 5.9 acres. The existing zoning is Residential Estate, and the site currently includes a single family residential unit that was previously proposed to be part of the Nixon Archives. 12. Site 12 is located at the southeast corner of Plumosa Drive and Bastanchury Road, west of and adjacent to Site 4, with 43 proposed units on approximately 4.3 acres. The existing zoning is PD, and the site is occupied by a nursery that is currently in operation. 13. Site 13 is west of the Wabash Avenue/Rose Drive intersection, with 4 proposed units on approximately 0.4 acres. The existing zoning is Residential Urban, and is currently occupied by a single family residential development. Table 1 illustrates the projected water demands for the Proposed Project. Table 1 Water demands for projects identified in the 2008 -2014 Housing Element Planning Approximate Proposed Water Use Sites APN Acreage Units Ac. Ft. /Year* Site 1 322 - 121 -01/02 5.5 165 83 Site 2 322 - 101 -09/37 1.7 50 25 Site 3 334 - 273 -40/41 4.1 122 61 Site 4 323 - 111 -02 8.5 255 128 Site 5 352- 117 -13 2.8 84 42 Site 6 352- 117 -11 3.2 96 48 Site 7 323 - 231 - 12/13/14/15 4.7 94 47 Site 8 323 - 231 -08/08 2.4 47 24 Site 9 323 - 111 -04/05 4.1 82 41 Site 10 334 - 411 -05 0.5 5 3 Site 11 343 -561- 01/12/14/19 -21 5.9 59 30 Site 12 323 - 111 -01 4.3 43 22 Site 13 322 - 091 -02 0.4 4 2 TOTALS 48.1 1,106 553 *Note: Multi- family DU usage of approx. 0.5af/yr /du per S &S Water Facilities Master Plan, dated 11/25/2003 Please note that some sites are currently supplied with potable water from YLWD. For example, Site 3, St. Joseph's Medical Offices, has existing demands that are expected to be equivalent to the future Housing Element demands. Consequently, the net increase in demand for Sites 1 through 13 is expected to be less than the overall total water use of 553 acre - feet/year listed in Table 1. Please see the Qualifications section herein, page 7, for a listing of conditions to provide water service. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION YLWD prepares two major planning documents to guide water supply decision - making. The principle document is YLWD's Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). The CIP is a comprehensive document compiling data and analyses that YLWD considers necessary for its planning needs. YLWD also prepares an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), a document required by statute. The UWMP includes data prepared for the CIP, but contains defined elements as listed in the statute (Water Code Section 10631, et seq.), and as a result, is more limited that the CIP in the treatment of supply and demand issues. The UWMP is required to be updated in years ending with "five" and "zero," and YLWD is currently completing a 2010 UWMP. YLWD receives all of its import water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) through the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and therefore must rely on information supplied by these entities as documentation of YLWD's import supplies. The YLWD UWMP incorporates by reference Urban Water Management Plans adopted by the MWD and MWDOC. Additionally, this WSA incorporates by reference MWD's latest "Integrated Water Resources Plan Update." WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT A. YLWD's Urban Water Management Plan. As set forth above, the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project was accounted for in the most recently adopted UWMP. Therefore, pursuant to Water Code section 10910(c)(2), YLWD can comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Water Code section 10910 by incorporating by reference information from its 2005 UWMP. YLWD's UWMP projected a growth of approximately 1,500 service connections over the next 20 years and a corresponding increase in water demands of about 1,600 acre feet per year, not including this Project. Based on the NOP, this Project will add approximately 1,106 dwelling units and, per Table 1, estimated water demand increase of approximately 553 acre feet per year. Accordingly, the demand for this Project will be accounted for in the 2010 UWMP, to satisfy the above - referenced requirements. B. Identification of Existing Water Supply Entitlements, Rights or Service Contracts Relevant to the Identified Supply for the Proposed Project section 10910(d)). Pursuant to Water Code section 10910(c)(2), YLWD complies with section 10910(d) by incorporating by reference its 2005 UWMP. In addition, YLWD provides the following detailed information about potable water supplies: (1) Potable Supply — Imported Water Service Connections. Potable imported water is delivered to YLWD at various service connections from the imported water delivery system of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California: service connections OC -51 to the Orange County Feeder No. 2, and OC- 66 and OC -89 to the Allen- McColloch Pipeline. YLWD's entitlements regarding service from the MWD delivery system facilities are described in the following paragraphs. YLWD receives imported water service through Municipal Water District of Orange County, a member agency of MWD. (2) Allen- McColloch Pipeline (AMP) - currently available. (a) Agreement For Sale and Purchase of Allen- McColloch Pipeline, dated as of Jul 1, 1994 (Metropolitan Water District Agreement No. 4623) (AMP Sale Agreement). Under the AMP Sale Agreement, MWD purchased the Allen- McColloch Pipeline (formerly known as the Diemer Intertie) from MWDOC, the MWDOC Water Facilities Corporation and certain agencies, including YLWD, identified as Participants therein. Section 5.02 of the AMP Sale Agreement obligates MWD to meet YLWD's and the other Participants' requests for deliveries and specified minimum hydraulic grade lines at each connection serving a Participant, subject to availability of water. MWD agrees to operate the AMP as any other MWD pipeline. MWD has the right to operate the AMP on a "utility basis," meaning that MWD need not observe capacity allocations of the Participants but may use available capacity to meet demand at any service connection. The AMP Sale Agreement obligates MWD to monitor and project AMP demands and to construct specified pump facilities or make other provision to augment MWD's capacity along the AMP, at MWD's expense, should that be necessary to meet demands of all of the Participants (Section 5.08). (b) Agreement For Allocation of Proceeds of Sale of Allen- McColloch Pipeline, dated as of July 1, 1994 (AMP Allocation Agreement). This agreement, entered into concurrently with the AMP Sale Agreement, provided each participant, including YLWD, with a capacity allocation in the AMP, for the purpose of allocating the sale proceeds among the Participants in accordance with their prior contractual capacities adjusted to conform to their respective future demands. YLWD's capacity under the AMP Allocation Agreement is 30 cubic feet per second at YLWD's AMP connections. The AMP Allocation Agreement further provides that if a Participant's peak flow exceeds its capacity, the Participant shall "purchase" additional capacity from the other Participants who are using less than their capacity, until such time as MWD augments the capacity of the AMP. The foregoing notwithstanding, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the allocated capacities do not alter MWD's obligation under the AMP Sale Agreement to meet all Participants' demands along the AMP, and to augment the capacity of the AMP if necessary. Accordingly, under these agreements, YLWD can legally increase its use of the AMP beyond the above - stated capacities, but would be required to reimburse other Participants a portion of the proceeds received from the sale of the AMP. (3) Orange County Feeder No. 2 — currently available By an agreement dated November 9, 1964, YLWD secured rights and access to the MWD's Orange County Feeder No. 2 imported water system. This connection, commonly referred to as OC -51, is currently metered for ten cubic feet per second. The connection has a maximum rated capacity of 20 cubic feet per second. (4) Potable Supply — Groundwater — currently available Although the project identified for this WSA is supplied by imported water, YLWD is providing this following general information about groundwater supply. Orange County Water District Act (OCWD), Water Code App., Ch. 40 (Act). YLWD is an operator of groundwater - producing facilities in the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin). Although the rights of the producers within the Basin vis -a -vis one another have not been adjudicated, they nevertheless exist and have not been abrogated by the Act ( §40 -77). The rights consist of municipal appropriators' right and may include overlying and riparian rights. The Basin is managed by OCWD under the Act, which functions as a statutorily- imposed physical solution. The Act empowers OCWD to impose replenishment assessments and basin equity assessments on production and to require registration of water - producing facilities and the filing of certain reports; however, OCWD is expressly prohibited from limiting extraction unless a producer agrees ( §40- 2(6)(c)) and from impairing vested rights to the use of water ( §40 -77). Thus, producers may install and operate production facilities under the Act; OCWD approval is not required. OCWD is required to annually investigate the condition of the Basin, assess overdraft and accumulated overdraft, and determine the amount of water necessary for replenishment ( §40 -26). OCWD studied basin replenishment needs and potential projects to address growth in demand up to 2035. This is described in detail in the OCWD Long -Term Facilities Plan, dated June, 2009. (5) Imported Supply — Updated Regional Urban Water Management Plan. As described above, the imported supply from MWD is contractually subject to availability. To assist local water providers in assessing the adequacy of local water supplies that are reliant in whole or in part on MWD's imported supply, MWD provided information concerning the availability of the supplies to its entire service area per MWD's Regional Urban Water Management Plan November, 2005 (MWD RUWMP). MWD RUWMP indicates, in addition to "addressing average year and drought conditions, the act requires agencies to document the stages of actions that it would undertake in response to water supply shortages, including up to a 50% reduction in its water supplies." Therefore, although the MWD RUWMP predates the recent droughts, MWD's analysis was conservative enough to factor in this condition. Additionally, the MWD RUWMP states, "through effective management of its water supply, Metropolitan fully expects to be 100 percent reliable in meeting all non - discounted non - interruptible demands through the next twenty five years." More recently, on April 13, 2010, MWD's Board of Directors adopted a Water Supply Allocation Plan, establishing the levels of imported water supply which are projected to meet Member Agency Demands (including YLWD) through June 2011. MWD's margin of safety in its demand projections and MWD's reserve supplies, together with the availability of groundwater to most of the YLWD service area, build a margin of safety into YLWD's supply availability. C. New Water Supply Entitlements, rights or service contracts relevant to the Identified supply for the Proposed Project section 10910(e)). YLWD does not anticipate that the water supply for this Project will consist of new entitlements, rights or service contracts from which no water has been received in prior years. D. Groundwater (section 10910(f)). This Project will include groundwater as a supplement to the imported water. RESULT OF WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Subject to the qualifications listed below, based on the above WSA, YLWD determines that its water supplies will be sufficient to meet the demands of the Proposed Project. In light of this determination, YLWD is not required to provide the City with plans for acquiring additional supplies pursuant to Water Code section 10911. QUALIFICATIONS This WSA was prepared solely to comply with Water Code sections 10910 - 10915. Pursuant to Water Code section 10914, nothing herein shall be construed to: (i) create a right or entitlement to water service or any specific level of water service; (ii) impose, expand, or limit any duty concerning the obligation of YLWD to provide certain service to its existing customers or any future potential customers; or (iii) modify or otherwise change existing law with respect to projects which are not subject to the requirements pursuant to which this WSA is prepared. Actual water service to the Proposed Project is predicated upon satisfaction of terms and conditions set forth by YLWD. Until such time as actual service connections are approved for the Proposed Project, YLWD may withhold water service due to a water shortage declared by YLWD or MWD. BOARD APPROVAL YLWD staff will seek YLWD Board of Directors approval as required under Water Code section 10910(g)(1), prior to finalizing the WSA. REFERENCES - Yorba Linda Water District 2005 Urban Water Management Plan - The Regional Urban Water Management Plan for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, November, 2005 - 2005 Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Municipal Water District of Orange County, August 2005 - Integrated Water Resources Plan Update, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, July, 2004 - Draft 2010 Integrated Water Resources Plan Update, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Draft Release July 2010 - Board of Directors Water Planning and Stewardship, 04/13/2010 Board Meeting, Implementation of WSAP Metropolitan Water District of Southern California - Orange County Water District Long -Term Facilities Plan, June 8, 2009 NOTICE OF PREPARATION m�+rwwra>w rrn 'HC�RAORAttO �9b1 TO: Distribution List Lead Agency: Agency Name: City of Yorba Linda StreetAddress: PO Box 87014 City /State /Zip: Yorba Linda, California 92885 - Contact: 8714 Telephone: Steven K. Harris Director of Community Development (714) 961 -7130 Consulting Firm: Name: Impact Sciences StreetAddress: 803 Camarillo Street, Suite A CIVIState /Zip: Camarillo, California 93012 Contact: Ms. Susan Tebo Telephone: EIR Project Manager (805) 437 -190 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of Draft Program Environmental Impact Report and Public Scoping Meeting for the Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Housing Element and Implementation Programs The City of Yorba Linda will be the lead agency and will prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Housing Element and Implementation Programs. The Housing Element and Implementation Programs are citywide. The project applicant is the City of Yorba Linda. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information; which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials (which may also be accessed on the City's website at http: / /www.cl.yorba- linda.ca.us /YorbaLindaHE_IS.pdf . Due to the time periods mandated by state law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. As such, the comment period for the Notice of Preparation begins on May 26 2010 and ends on June 24, 2010. Please send your written response to Steven K. Harris at the address shown above. We would appreciate the name of a contact person in your agency. Also, the City of Yorba Linda will conduct a public scoping meeting on Tuesday, June 8, 2010, beginning at 6:00 t).m. at the Yorba Linda Community Center (Game Room)L located at 4501 Casa Loma Avenue. Yorba Linda, to accept comments on the scope of the EIR for the Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Housing Element and Implementation Programs. This meeting will serve as a public forum to discuss the environmental issues identified for the EIR, and any other issues identified by the public that should be included for further analysis within the proposed Program EIR. Date: May 2010 lz a', Title: Steven K. Harris, Director of Community Development Telephone: (714) 961 -7130 Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375 Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Draft Housing Element and Implementation Programs Initial Study May 2010 Lead Agency: City of Yorba Linda Community Development Department 4845 Casa Loma Avenue Yorba Linda, California 92886 (714) 961 -7130 Prepared by: Impact Sciences, Inc. 803 Camarillo Springs Road, Suite A Camarillo, California 93012 RRM Design Group 232 Avenida Fabricante, Suite 112 San Clemente, California 92672 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... ............................... 1 -1 1.1 Purpose of Initial Study .............................................................................. ............................... 1 -1 1.2 Initial Study Format and Contents ........................................................... ............................... 1 -2 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... ............................... 2 -3 2.1 Project Location ........................................................................................... ............................... 2 -3 2.2 Project Contact Person ................................................................................ ............................... 2 -3 2.3 Project Objectives ........................................................................................ ............................... 2 -3 2.4 Project Description ...................................................................................... ............................... 2 -3 2.5 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ......................................... ............................... 2 -13 2.6 Determination ............................................................................................ ............................... 2 -13 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .......................................................................... ............................... 3 -1 3.1 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -1 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ......................................................... ............................... 3 -3 3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................... ............................... 34 3.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................... ............................... 3-6 3.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... ............................... 3-8 3.6 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................ ............................... 3 -9 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................... ............................... 3 -12 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................... ............................... 3 -12 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................ ............................... 3 -15 3.10 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................ ............................... 3 -19 3.11 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................... ............................... 3 -20 3.12 Noise ........................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -21 3.13 Population and Housing .......................................................................... ............................... 3 -23 3.14 Public Services ........................................................................................... ............................... 3 -24 3.15 Recreation ....................................................................................................... ...........................3 -25 3.16 Transportation /Traffic .............................................................................. ............................... 3 -26 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................... ............................... 3 -28 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................... ............................... 3 -30 4. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... ............................4 -1 Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 1 May 2010 Initial Study EXHIBITS 1 Regional Location Map ............................................................................... ............................... 2 -9 2 Potential Multi - Family Housing Sites Key Map ..................................... ............................... 2 -9 3 Potential Multi - Family Housing Sites — Locations 1 thru 5, 9, & 12 ... ............................... 2 -11 4 Potential Multi - Family Housing Sites — Locations 6 thru 8, 10, 11, & 13 .......................... 2 -12 TABLES 1 Sites for Potential Rezoning to Multi - Family at 10, 20, and 30 units per acre .................... 2 -7 Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 11 May 2010 Initial Study 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Initial Study The City of Yorba Linda has prepared this Initial Study in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of this Initial Study is to determine whether the proposed project, as described below, may have a significant effect on the environment and to provide information to use as the basis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration. Included in this Initial Study is the checklist used by the City of Yorba Linda in its environmental review process and a corresponding preliminary assessment of each checklist topic. Based on the preliminary analysis contained in this Initial Study, the City of Yorba Linda proposes the preparation of an EIR for the actions that comprise the "project" for purposes of analysis under CEQA. This Initial Study has been prepared to provide information about the existing physical and regulatory environment that may affect adoption of the Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Draft Housing Element and associated Implementation Programs. The EIR for the Draft Housing Element and Implementation Programs is proposed to be a Program EIR that will evaluate the broad -scale impacts of the proposed action. Program EIRs are typically prepared for public policy programs such as a general plan, redevelopment plan, or new zoning districts; a series of related actions that can be characterized as one large project; or for large -scale multi -phase development projects such as specific plans. According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(a), a state or local agency should prepare a Program EIR, rather than a Project EIR, when a Lead Agency proposes any of the following: • A series of related actions that are linked geographically • Logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program • Individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways In a Program EIR, CEQA allows the general analysis of broad environmental effects of the program with the acknowledgement that subsequent project- specific environmental review may be required for particular aspects or portions of the program at the time of project implementation in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed Program EIR would serve as the first -tier environmental analysis. The Program EIR can be incorporated by reference into subsequently prepared environmental documentation to address issues such as cumulative impacts and growth-inducing impacts, allowing the subsequent documents to focus on new or site - specific impacts pursuant to Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 1 -1 May 2010 Initial Study Section 15168(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines. In order to assess the potential broad -scale environmental impacts that may result from implementation of the proposed Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Housing Element and Implementation Project, development assumptions have been made at this time and are described in the following sections. Please note that project development assumptions may be adjusted and refined as a result of the public review process. 1.2 Initial Study Format and Contents In addition to Section 1, Introduction, this Initial Study is organized into the following sections: • Section 2, Project Description: Includes a detailed description of the proposed project. • Section 3, Preliminary Environmental Analysis and Checklist: Contains the Environmental Checklist Form together with an environmental setting and an impact discussion for each of the checklist questions. The Environmental Checklist Form is used to determine potential impacts relating to implementation of the Specific Plan and are categorized as follows: - "Potential Significant Impacts" that may not be mitigated even with the inclusion of mitigation measures; - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," which could be mitigated with incorporation of mitigation measures; and, - "Less Than Significant Impacts," which would be less than significant and do not require the implementation of mitigation measures. • Section 4, References: Identifies the documents and individuals consulted in preparing this Initial Study. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 1 -2 May 2010 Initial Study 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location The City of Yorba Linda is located in northeast Orange County, California. The City is roughly located north of State Route 91 (Riverside Freeway) and east of State Route 57 (Orange Freeway), approximately 38 miles southeast of City of Los Angeles and 12 miles north of City of Santa Ana (Exhibit 1, Regional Location). Cities adjacent to Yorba Linda include Brea, Placentia, and Anaheim. Regional access to the City of Yorba Linda is provided by primarily by State Routes 91 and 57. The proposed Draft Housing Element location is citywide. 2.2 Project Contact Person Steven K. Harris, AICP sharris@yorba- linda.org Director of Community Development (714) 961 -7130 City of Yorba Linda 4845 Casa Loma Avenue Yorba Linda, California 92886 2.3 Project Objectives The primary objectives of the proposed project are as follows: • Certification of the Housing Element by the State Housing and Community Development Department • Adoption of the 2008 -2014 Housing Element and Implementation Programs • Allow the City of Yorba Linda to comply with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets 2.4 Project Description The proposed project consists of the adoption of the City of Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Draft Housing Element and associated Implementation Programs defined in the Element. The 2008 -2014 Draft Housing Element has been prepared by the City in compliance with the update cycle for jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region to address the legal mandates that requires each local government to adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The Housing Element is one of the seven State - mandated elements of Yorba Linda's General Plan and is intended to be consistent with and 1 California Government Code sections 65580 -65589.8 Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 2 -3 May 2010 Initial Study to further the objectives of the General Plan. The Housing Element identifies and assesses projected housing needs and provides an inventory of constraints and resources relevant to meeting these needs. Components of the housing element include: a housing needs assessment with population and household characteristics; identification of constraints to providing housing; an inventory of available sites for the provision of housing for all economic segments of the community; and a statement of goals, policies and programs for meeting the City's housing needs. Specifically, Yorba Linda's Draft 2008 -2014 Housing Element identifies the following overarching goals: 1. Preserving and improving housing and neighborhoods 2. Providing adequate housing sites 3. Assisting in the provision of affordable housing 4. Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment 5. Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities The Draft Housing Element identifies 20 Implementation Programs to assist the City in addressing these goals and meeting State housing element requirements. These Implementation Programs are discussed in detail in the Draft Housing Element and are listed below: Program No. 1 Residential Rehabilitation Program Program No. 2 Housing Community Preservation and Abatement Program No. 3 Section 8 Rental Assistance Program No. 4 Affordable Housing Development Assistance Program No. 5 Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP) Program No. 6 Mortgage Credit Certificate Program No. 7 Conversion of Multi - Family Rental to Affordable through Committed Assistance Program No. 8 Purchase of Existing Housing Units to Create Affordable Home Ownership Units Program No. 9 Second Units Program No. 10 Rezoning of Higher Densities Program No. 11 Town Center Specific Plan Program No. 12 Sustainability and Green Building Program No. 13 Annexation of Areas in Sphere of Influence Program No. 14 Multifamily development standards and Processing Procedures Program No. 15 Measure B Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 2 -4 May 2010 Initial Study Program No. 16 Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program No. 17 Administrative Adjustment Process Program No. 18 Zoning Ordinance Revision Program No. 19 Fair Housing Program No. 20 Accessible Housing As described in the Draft Housing Element, Yorba Linda has an identified regional housing growth need (RHNA) of 2,039 units for the 2006 -2014 planning period, distributed among very low, low, moderate and above moderate income categories. The RHNA represents the minimum number of housing units each community is required to provide "adequate sites" for through zoning, and is one of the primary threshold criteria necessary to achieve approval of the element by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Draft Housing Element establishes the following combination of mechanisms to fulfill Yorba Linda s RHNA allocation: 1. Development of single - family homes within entitled projects (Vista Del Verde, Yorba Linda Estates, Habitat for Humanity). These projects have already been through the CEQA process and thus are not the subject of this EIR. It should noted, however, that these projects will be addressed in the cumulative analysis; 2. Rezoning of 13 vacant and underutilized sites for multi - family residential use at densities of 10, 20, and 30 units per acre; 3. Converting market rate apartments to affordable levels using the City's committed assistance; 4. Provision of second units; and 5. Residential permits issued during the RHNA "gap period" (January 1, 2006 — May 1, 2008). Because the City faces a shortfall in adequate sites under current General Plan and zoning to address its RHNA - and multi - family sites to address its very low, low and moderate income RHNA requirements in particular — the Housing Element proposes a rezoning program. The City has conducted extensive community outreach and meetings with property owners to identify those sites most suitable for rezoning to multi - family use at 10 to 30 units per acre .2 Sites recommended for re- designation were selected based on several factors: existing land use and feasibility for redevelopment within the planning period; neighborhood compatibility and community context; property owner interest; location within a Redevelopment Project Area; and an overriding goal to disperse affordable housing opportunities throughout the community. 2 Housing Element statutes provide for the use of "default densities" to assess affordability when evaluating the adequacy of sites to address the affordability targets established by the RHNA. Yorba Linda falls within the default density of 30 units per acre for providing sites affordable to very low and low income households; sites suitable for moderate income households can be provided at 10 units per acre. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 2 -5 May 2010 Initial Study As presented in Table 1, Sites for Potential Rezoning to Multi- Family at 10, 20, and 30 units per acre, 13 sites have been identified for proposed rezoning in the Draft Housing Element, including properties with current single - family residential and commercial zoning. Redesignation of these 13 sites for multi - family use would accommodate the development of up to 1,106 units, providing sufficient sites at densities suitable to address the City's RHNA needs for all income levels. The Citywide locations of the 13 proposed rezone sites is provided in Exhibit 2, Potential Multi- Family Housing Sites Key Map; Exhibit 3, Potential Multi- Family Housing Sites — Locations 1 thru 5, 9, & 12; and Exhibit 4, Potential Multi- Family Housing Sites — Locations 6 thru 8, 10, 11, & 13. It is anticipated that HCD will provide Draft Housing Element certification conditional on the City successfully rezoning these 13 properties to accommodate higher - density residential land uses as well as adopting a number of Zoning Code amendments in order to implement the Draft Housing Element. Specifically, this would require the City to prepare a method in which the implementation of the Draft Housing Element Programs No. 10, 14, 16, and 18 could be achieved. The City is proposing to achieve this by several methods, including but not limited to the development of two new General Plan land use categories; Land Use Element and zoning text amendments; General Plan and zoning map revisions; the establishment of a set of residential development and design guidelines to regulate consistency with the character of Yorba Linda; updating Section 18.18 of the Municipal Code; and developing additional affordable housing incentives. In June of 2006 citizens of Yorba Linda successfully adopted Measure B, known as the "right to vote on land use amendment initiatives." This initiative requires Citywide elections to approve certain "major amendments" to City planning documents such as General Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and Specific Plans, and establishes new noticing and public hearing requirements for "regular amendments" to planning documents. Twelve of the 13 multi - family rezone properties considered in the Draft Housing Element and various minor amendments required to implement the plan and conform to HCD conditions of approval will require Measure B compliance and a Citywide vote. The preparation of the Draft Housing Element has been conducted through an open and public process with review of various drafts, assessment of methods to comply with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets, and evaluation of multiple candidate sites throughout the City to determine how to meet the State Housing Element statutes and RHNA requirements. Analysis in this document is limited to the review of potential environmental impacts resulting from the adoption of the Housing Element; there is no immediate physical development associated with the project as it is defined. The specific environmental effects of development on sites identified in the Housing Element would vary on a project -by- project basis, and would be evaluated as individual project proposals are submitted. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 2$ May 2010 Initial Study Table 1 Sites for Potential Rezoning to Multi- Family at 10, 20, and 30 units per acre Site Current Current Vacant Underutilized Potential No. Site Description Zoning General Plan Current Use Density Acres Acres Units Sites ni r A r 1 Prospect (Greenhouse) C G General Vacant 5.5 165 units APN #322 - 121- 01, -02 Commercial 2 Wabash & Rose C G General Single- Family — 1 du 1.68 50 units APN #322 - 101 -09 -37 Commercial Mini Warehouse — 23.550 tsf 3 Yorba Linda/ C -G Office Medical Office — 67.810 tsf 4.08 122 units Prospect Commercial APN #334 - 273- 40, -41 4 Bastanchury & PD Area Plan Nursery —3.590 tsf 1.8-3 8.5 (of 17 -acre 255 units Lakeview (middle parcel) (R- E/R -S) du /ac block) APN #323 -111 -2 5 Old Canal Road Annex PD /Support Manufacturing Vacant 2.8 84 units Savi Ranch* Commercial Industrial APN #352 - 117 -13 6 Mitsubishi Motors Site PD /Office Manufacturing Vacant 3.2 96 units Savi Ranch* Commercial Industrial APN #352 - 117 -11 Subtotal at 30 units per acre 8.3 17.46 772 units Sites 20 UajLi r A r 7 Lakeview /Strawberry -Field C -G Area Plan Vacant 4.7 94 APN #323 - 231 - 12,43,44,45 8 Lakeview /Altrudy R S Medium Vacant 3 du /ac 2.39 47 units APN #323 - 231 -08 -09 Residential 9 Bastanchury & PD Area Plan Barn — 1.912 tsf 1.8-3 4.11 82 units Lakeview (eastern parcel) (R- E/R -S) Single- Family —1 du du /ac APN #323 - 111 -4, -5 Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 2 -7 May 2010 Initial Study Site Current Current Vacant Underutilized Potential No. Site Description Zoning General Plan Current Use Density Acres Acres Units Subtotal at 20 units per acre 7.09 4.11 223 units Sites at 10 Units 12er Acre 10 Postal Annex C -G Area Plan Specialty Retail — 7.486 tsf 0.49 5 units SE Lemon & Eureka Self- Service Car Wash — 2 stalls APN #334 - 411 -05 11 Nixon Archive R -E Area Single - Family — 5 du 1.8 du /ac 5.9 59 units APN #343 -561- Plan/Medium 01 12 14 19 20 21 Low Residential 12 Bastanchury & PD Area Plan Nursery —1.770 tsf 1.8-3 4.34 43 units Lakeview (western parcel) (R- E/R -S) du /ac APN# 323 -111 -1 13 3741 Rose Drive R -U Medium High Single- Family — 1 du 4.0 du /ac 0.43 4 units APN #322 - 091 -02 Residential Subtotal at 10 units per acre 11.16 111 units TOTALS for ALL Multifamily Rezoning 15.39 32.73 1,106 units * Savi Ranch sites to be designated mixed use with an allowed residential density of 30 dulac Site No. matches Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 du = dwelling unit; tsf = total square feet; ac = acre. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 2 -8 May 2010 Initial Study 1 I Project Area LosAngeles County -_ 72 Orange County - 57 142 o�E, 90 c 105 - YDRBA F LLERT N 90 LINDA 91 91 j I 91�� 605 � q q 19 ' LINCOLN AVE. �? YPRE S 6 71 m F 57 241 5 55 KATELLA AVE. N Rq G 405 LDS 39 -+ 1 ALAMITO ARDEN GROVE 22 WES MIINSTE AVEJ17 ST. SEAL BOLS AVE S TJ%.t ST. TUSTIN 241 I WARNER ?%vc• f Sunset 55 405 Beach H N1 NGTO IR E 133 241 1 B CH m 0 e v Huntington Osr Beach MES NE O T H 133 73 Newport Beach 1.6 LAGUNA� 5 g 1 BEAC ' ���• LAGUNA C' NIGUEL eg DANA SAN POINT CAPIS Dana Point n NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. — May 2010 EXHIBIT 1 I Regional Location N 1029 - 002.051'10 L"11 NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: RRMDesign Group —March 2vto EXHIBIT 2 I Potential Multi - Family Housing Sites Key Map 1029-002.65/, 0 - Pow "Pd .: 'err ..,: r• r (4)�)2 ( MC Sx[anctiuTIL7(eview L"11 SCALE AS HOTEL ABOVE 4 wa,6xA1 wise ]rive for& DnAl ProsPed St. Joseph's Medlcal offoes 84 Chits @ 30 unitslacre . ,�• J Vacant Acres: 2$ Current Zoning: PD/ Support Industrlal 't d General Plan: W.Industrlal SOURCE: RRMDeslpn Group —March 2010 EXHIBIT 3 14 Potential Multi - Family Housing Sites �- Locations 1 thru 5, 9, & 1 1029- 002.05110 lddle#?a ' 255 Units 30 unitslacre Underutlllzed Acres: 8,5 Current Zoning: PD(R -EIRS) .r� General Plan: Area Plan r Pa 14 9 t 1 43 Units @ 10 unitslacre JnderutlIIzed Acres: 4,34 Current Zoning: PD(R -EIRS) . General Plan: Area Plan r, EaEte arcs '.'.. 82 Units 20 unitsla= .r Llnderutlllzed o res.4,11 r� Current Zoning: PD(R -EIRS) General Plan: Area Plan ,e for& DnAl ProsPed St. Joseph's Medlcal offoes 84 Chits @ 30 unitslacre . ,�• J Vacant Acres: 2$ Current Zoning: PD/ Support Industrlal 't d General Plan: W.Industrlal SOURCE: RRMDeslpn Group —March 2010 EXHIBIT 3 14 Potential Multi - Family Housing Sites �- Locations 1 thru 5, 9, & 1 1029- 002.05110 6 Vi&vkishi Vofors Sife - .SW �Ponck �6 L"11 SCALE AS NOTED ABOVE SOURCE: RRM Des gn Group —March 2010 1429 - 002.05110 77 Lakeview /SfrawkerT- TieWFn_ erls� � 8) CakeyievIA ".Cane fterfies 1 Nivon Arckive sme � •4.' '.. "�.i1 YMJr i�4i. iJ ti i. : ,q :tm _ •�. n+ yp 5 Units @ 10 unlW acre I 1 + Underutlllzed Acres: OA9 .� �$ Current Zoning: C-G • _ General Plan: Area Plan 'posfaI.X nnex - SEL'emon/ Eureka L"11 SCALE AS NOTED ABOVE SOURCE: RRM Des gn Group —March 2010 1429 - 002.05110 77 Lakeview /SfrawkerT- TieWFn_ erls� � 8) CakeyievIA ".Cane fterfies 1 Nivon Arckive sme � •4.' '.. "�.i1 YMJr i�4i. iJ i. •�. n+ yp ~ _ 1 4 Un 10 unitslacre �$ Clts UnderutlI[zed Acres:oA3 Zoning: R4J _ urrent General Plan: Mod Hlgh Res } 04 374f &se Drive EXHIBIT Potential Multi - Family Housing Sites — Locations 6 thru 8,10,11, & 1 2.5 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact' or is "potentially significant unless mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality X Biological Resources Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils Hazards /Hazardous Materials Hydrology /Water Quality X Land Use /Planning Mineral Resources Noise X Population/Housing Population/Housing X Public Services X Recreation Transportation/Traffic X Utilities /Service Systems X Greenhouse Gas Emissions X Mandatory Findings of Si nificance X 2.6 Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Steven K. Harris, AICP Director of Community Development City of Yorba Linda 4845 Casa Loma Avenue Yorba Linda, California 92886 Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 2 -13 Initial Study May 26, 2010 Date May 2010 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following environmental checklist analysis was prepared as a tool to screen potential environmental impacts and is consistent with that contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. An environmental impact analysis discussion and finding is included for each issue area. 3.1 Aesthetics Response a: The Draft Housing Element and Implementation Programs would make possible new residential development that could potentially affect scenic resources. As subsequent infill and redevelopment residential projects occur, potential project specific impacts to viewsheds would be assessed, and could require additional CEQA analysis in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Such projects would be required to adhere to applicable City design and development standards that have been, or are being, established with the Draft Housing Element to regulate development to be consistent with the quality and character of Yorba Linda. This topic will not be discussed further in the Draft EIR. Response b: The Draft Housing Element includes the potential rezoning of 13 sites, which are characterized by urban /suburban development. These areas do not contain any designated state scenic highways or significant trees, rock outcroppings, or similar significant scenic resources. This topic will not be discussed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -1 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than AESTHETICS - Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime X views in the area? Response a: The Draft Housing Element and Implementation Programs would make possible new residential development that could potentially affect scenic resources. As subsequent infill and redevelopment residential projects occur, potential project specific impacts to viewsheds would be assessed, and could require additional CEQA analysis in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Such projects would be required to adhere to applicable City design and development standards that have been, or are being, established with the Draft Housing Element to regulate development to be consistent with the quality and character of Yorba Linda. This topic will not be discussed further in the Draft EIR. Response b: The Draft Housing Element includes the potential rezoning of 13 sites, which are characterized by urban /suburban development. These areas do not contain any designated state scenic highways or significant trees, rock outcroppings, or similar significant scenic resources. This topic will not be discussed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -1 May 2010 Initial Study A Citywide Historic Property Survey was recently completed by Galvin Preservation Associates, and will be reviewed to determine if the 13 rezone sites would potentially contain historic resources. Any potential impacts to historic structures will be addressed in the Draft EIR under the Cultural Resources. Response c: Implementation of the Draft Housing Element and Implementation Programs would potentially alter the existing development patterns because new infill and redevelopment projects would occur. New development would be required to be in scale with existing development and adjacent uses, which are primarily commercial, institutional, and residential uses. One of the main tasks being conducted as part of the Draft Housing Element and Program 14 is the preparation of a set of multi - family residential development standards and design guidelines to regulate development consistent with the quality and character of Yorba Linda. Although the aesthetic character of the project area may change with implementation of the Draft Housing Element, the proposed guidelines and standards are proposed to improve area aesthetics and will address building scale, visual character, viewsheds, architectural design, and public realm improvements. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response d: As infill development /redevelopment occurs under the Draft Housing Element, there is potential for additional light sources to be added to the 13 rezone project sites. It is not anticipated that the project would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area since projects will be required to comply with City design standards and guidelines. Additional guidelines and standards may be included in the development standards and design guidelines being prepared as part of the Draft Housing Element to further minimize potential light impacts. This topic will not be discussed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -2 May 2010 Initial Study 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Responses a, b, and e: The 13 potential rezone sites are designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" by the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources agency; therefore, the proposed Draft Housing Element would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use. While one of the rezone sites is used for a nursery and another historically as a strawberry field, none of the 13 potential rezone sites are zoned for agricultural uses, nor are there any adjacently zoned agricultural uses that could cause a conflict with potential future residential land uses on these sites. The Draft Housing Element and rezoning of sites would not conflict with any existing agriculturally zoned uses or Williamson Act contracts, or result in other changes what would require the conversion of farmland to other nonagricultural uses. There are no Williamson Act contracts for the 13 rezone sites or for areas adjacent to the sites. The Draft Housing Element and Implementation Programs would not affect agriculture resources. These topics will not be discussed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -3 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural X use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as X defined in Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 ? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of X forest land to non - forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to X non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? Responses a, b, and e: The 13 potential rezone sites are designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" by the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources agency; therefore, the proposed Draft Housing Element would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use. While one of the rezone sites is used for a nursery and another historically as a strawberry field, none of the 13 potential rezone sites are zoned for agricultural uses, nor are there any adjacently zoned agricultural uses that could cause a conflict with potential future residential land uses on these sites. The Draft Housing Element and rezoning of sites would not conflict with any existing agriculturally zoned uses or Williamson Act contracts, or result in other changes what would require the conversion of farmland to other nonagricultural uses. There are no Williamson Act contracts for the 13 rezone sites or for areas adjacent to the sites. The Draft Housing Element and Implementation Programs would not affect agriculture resources. These topics will not be discussed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -3 May 2010 Initial Study Please refer to Responses b and d for a discussion of impacts to forest resources. There would be no impact to forest resources. Responses b and d: There is no forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g) on the 13 potential rezone sites. The Draft Housing Element and Implementation Programs would not affect forest resources. These topics will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. 3.3 Air Quality AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance Potentially criteria established by the applicable air quality Significant management or air pollution control district may Potentially Unless Less Than be relied upon to make the following Significant Mitigation Significant No determinations. Would the project: Impact Incor orated Im act Im act a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality X standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? Response a, b, and c: Implementation of the Draft Housing Element and the potential rezoning of 13 sites would alter existing development patterns, increase residential density, and result in the potential demolition of structures, construction and site grading, as well as traffic generation. The project area covered in the Draft Housing Element is located in the South Coast Air Basin, where air quality is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Draft EIR will analyze Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) consistency, short -term construction - related impacts, and long -term operations - related Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -4 May 2010 Initial Study impacts based upon the potential land use intensities defined for the Draft Housing Element. These topics will be further examined in the Draft EIR. Response d: Please refer to Response a, above. Further, as subsequent infill /redevelopment occurs under the Draft Housing Element, potential project - specific impacts to sensitive receptors would be assessed and may require additional CEQA analysis in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Such projects would be required to adhere to applicable air quality standards and regulations. Response e: During construction of potential development /redevelopment projects under the Draft Housing Element, diesel- operated machinery likely would be used in grading and building operations; this would result in short -term exposure of immediately adjacent areas to diesel odors. However, these odors would be transient and would not be anticipated to result in a substantial nuisance. In addition, long -term operations of residential uses associated with implementation of the Draft Housing Element would not be anticipated to generate substantially different odors than the existing development patterns in the area. As subsequent infill /redevelopment projects occur, potential project- specific impacts from odors would be assessed and may require additional CEQA analysis in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -5 May 2010 Initial Study 3.4 Biological Resources Responses a and b: While the Nixon Archive site reveals a few characteristics of being a previous drainage wash, all 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element are urbanized development and vacant, disturbed parcels. The General Plan Recreation and Resources Element (Exhibit RR-4, Sensitive Natural Resources) indicates that these rezone sites are not within or near any known riparian habitat or natural vegetation areas. In addition, the rezone sites do not contain or are not near any identified animal Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3$ May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, X policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, X policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct X removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or X migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree X reservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, X regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Responses a and b: While the Nixon Archive site reveals a few characteristics of being a previous drainage wash, all 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element are urbanized development and vacant, disturbed parcels. The General Plan Recreation and Resources Element (Exhibit RR-4, Sensitive Natural Resources) indicates that these rezone sites are not within or near any known riparian habitat or natural vegetation areas. In addition, the rezone sites do not contain or are not near any identified animal Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3$ May 2010 Initial Study movement corridors. Further, the existing General Plan EIR does identify any sensitive natural resources within the rezone sites. The rezone sites are also surrounded by urbanized uses. It is unlikely that the rezone sites would support native habitat, sensitive plant or wildlife species, or wildlife corridors. The Draft Housing Element would not conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations protecting sensitive species, riparian habitat, or sensitive natural communities. These topics will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response c: There are no federally protected wetlands located on the 13 potential rezone sites, thus no impacts are anticipated in association with the Draft Housing Element. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response d: Wildlife movement and habitat fragmentation would not occur as a result of the Draft Housing Element since the 13 potential rezone sites are largely developed and surrounded by existing urban /suburban development. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response e: The City does not have any local policies or ordinances regarding biological issues. Therefore, the Draft Housing Element would not conflict with local biological policies. The City does, however, require a tree removal permit that applies to activities on vacant or City -owned properties. Removal of any trees on vacant or City -owned properties would be governed by the tree removal process. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft E[R. Response f: The project area is largely urbanized, as noted previously, and there are no adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or any other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that include these sites. Moreover, the City does not have any local policies or ordinances regarding biological issues that may be of concern with the exception of tree removal permits required on vacant of City -owned parcels, as discussed above. Therefore, the Draft Housing Element would not conflict with local biological policies or ordinances and no impact would occur. The topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -7 May 2010 Initial Study 3.5 Cultural Resources Response a: There is potential for the Draft Housing Element to cause substantial adverse change in historical resources. The 13 potential rezone sites will be reviewed using the recently completed Citywide Historical Property Survey. This topic will be discussed further in the Draft EIR. Response b: The 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element are either presently developed or heavily disturbed, and according to the existing General Plan EIR, there are no known archaeological resources within the location of these sites. Compliance with Standard Condition Planning no. 06, which requires that unknown resources be adequately addressed, would ensure that impacts to such resources are less than significant. Additionally, as subsequent infill and redevelopment residential projects occur, any needed Native American consultation would be assessed, and could require additional CEQA analysis in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This topic will not be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. Response c: The 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element do not contain any unique geologic features. All of the 13 potential rezone sites are either presently developed or graded, and according to the General Plan EIR, there are no known paleontological resources within these areas. It is possible, however, that the paleontological resources may be uncovered during subsequent development /redevelopment and construction depending on the depth of any possible excavation. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -8 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than CULTURAL RESOURCES - Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in X Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource X pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic X feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Response a: There is potential for the Draft Housing Element to cause substantial adverse change in historical resources. The 13 potential rezone sites will be reviewed using the recently completed Citywide Historical Property Survey. This topic will be discussed further in the Draft EIR. Response b: The 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element are either presently developed or heavily disturbed, and according to the existing General Plan EIR, there are no known archaeological resources within the location of these sites. Compliance with Standard Condition Planning no. 06, which requires that unknown resources be adequately addressed, would ensure that impacts to such resources are less than significant. Additionally, as subsequent infill and redevelopment residential projects occur, any needed Native American consultation would be assessed, and could require additional CEQA analysis in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This topic will not be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. Response c: The 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element do not contain any unique geologic features. All of the 13 potential rezone sites are either presently developed or graded, and according to the General Plan EIR, there are no known paleontological resources within these areas. It is possible, however, that the paleontological resources may be uncovered during subsequent development /redevelopment and construction depending on the depth of any possible excavation. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -8 May 2010 Initial Study Compliance with Standard Condition Planning no. 07, which requires that unknown paleontological resources be adequately addressed, would ensure that impacts to such resources are less than significant. This topic will not be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. Response d: There are no known archeological resources within the area of the 13 potential rezone sites as indicated in Responses b and c. Although the potential for encountering human remains is remote, compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 would ensure that any unknown human remains discovered during construction activities for subsequent development /redevelopment are adequately addressed. This topic will not be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. 3.6 Geology and Soils Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -9 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporate Im act Im act a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- X or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), X creating substantial risks to life or property? Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -9 May 2010 Initial Study e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water X disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Response a.i: According to the existing City of Yorba Linda Official Zoning Map, none of the 13 rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element are within a designated Alquist - Priolo Fault Zone. While the Draft Housing Element would allow infill development /redevelopment, there is no immediate physical development associated with the project as it is defined. Subsequent development is not anticipated to alter the level of seismic risks that presently exist in the area. Consequently, no direct impacts associated with known earthquake faults are anticipated with the project. Site - specific geologic and soil engineering investigations are required for any subsequent infill development /redevelopment in accordance with seismic standards of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Therefore, earthquake fault hazards will not be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. Response a.ii: The project is located within the seismically active Southern California region, where seismic ground shaking is likely to occur due to earthquakes. The nearest known fault is the Whittier Fault Special Studies Zone in the foothills to the northeast of the downtown area, as shown in City of Yorba Linda Official Zoning Map. While the Draft Housing Element would allow infill development /redevelopment associated with the 13 potential rezone sites, there would be no immediate physical development associated with the project as it is defined. Subsequent development is not anticipated to alter the level of seismic risks that presently exist in the area. Site - specific geologic and soil engineering investigations are required for any subsequent infill development /redevelopment in accordance with seismic standards of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Consequently, seismic ground shaking will not be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. Response a.iii: The 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element are not in or near a Liquefaction Action /Subsidence area as designated by the General Plan Public Safety Element (Exhibit S-I). While the Draft Housing Element would allow infill development /redevelopment, there is no immediate physical development associated with the project as it is defined. Subsequent development is not anticipated to alter the level of risk associated with potential seismic - related ground failure or liquefaction that presently exists in the project area. Site - specific geologic and soil engineering investigations are required for any subsequent infill development /redevelopment in accordance with seismic standards of the UBC. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -10 May 2010 Initial Study Consequently, seismic - related ground failure and liquefaction hazards will not be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. Response a.iv: Terrain of the 13 rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element is relatively level, and no landslides are known to exist there. The rezone sites are not shown within or near a Landslide Area by as designated by the General Plan Public Safety Element (Exhibit S -I). While the Draft Housing Element would allow infill development /redevelopment, there is no immediate physical development associated with the project as it is defined. Subsequent development is not anticipated to alter the level of seismic risks due to landslides that may presently exist in the project area. Site - specific geologic and soil engineering investigations are required for any subsequent infill development /redevelopment in accordance with seismic standards of the UBC. Consequently, seismically induced landslides will not be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. Response b: Terrain of the 13 rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element is relatively level. While the Draft Housing Element would allow infill development /redevelopment, there is no immediate physical development associated with the project as it is defined. Soil erosion could, however, occur during subsequent construction and site preparation associated with future infill development /redevelopment. Compliance with standard erosion control measures in the City's Municipal Code (Section 14.40.090 and 15.40.510) would be required in future grading permits and would minimize any effects due to waterborne or airborne soil erosion. Other measures may also be identified in subsequent site - specific geologic and soil engineering investigations required for all future development. Consequently, soil erosion and loss of topsoil will not be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. Response c: Please refer to Responses a and b, above. This topic will not be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. Response d: Please refer to Responses a and b, above. This topic will not be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. Response e: All subsequent infill development /redevelopment associated with the Draft Housing Element would be connected to the municipal wastewater facilities and would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. This topic will not be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -11 May 2010 Initial Study 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Response a and b: Implementation of the Draft Housing Element and the potential rezoning of 13 sites would alter existing development patterns, increase residential density, and result in the potential demolition of structures, construction and site grading, as well as traffic generation. These activities have the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions and will require analysis. The analysis of the global climate change impacts due to the Draft Housing Element will be completed to meet the standards and requirements of the City of Yorba Linda and available guidance provided by relevant federal, state (AB 32 and SB 375), and local agencies. These topics will be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant X X impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing X emissions of greenhouse gases? X Response a and b: Implementation of the Draft Housing Element and the potential rezoning of 13 sites would alter existing development patterns, increase residential density, and result in the potential demolition of structures, construction and site grading, as well as traffic generation. These activities have the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions and will require analysis. The analysis of the global climate change impacts due to the Draft Housing Element will be completed to meet the standards and requirements of the City of Yorba Linda and available guidance provided by relevant federal, state (AB 32 and SB 375), and local agencies. These topics will be analyzed further in the Draft EIR. 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -12 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Im act Im act a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, X or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the X release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or X proposed school? Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -12 May 2010 Initial Study Response a: Development that could be allowed with implementation of the Draft Housing Element includes residential uses. Such land uses do not typically involve the routine use of hazardous materials. Substances used for maintenance and landscaping, such as common cleaners, solvents, paints, fertilizer, and pesticides, would be subject to all applicable regulations. In addition, subsequent projects would be reviewed for their potential impacts related to hazardous materials transport, use, and disposal in accordance with CEQA and Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) requirements, and an appropriate investigation would be conducted based on the individual circumstances involved. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response b: Development that could be allowed with implementation of the Draft Housing Element includes residential uses, which do not typically involve the routine use of hazardous materials. Substances used for maintenance and landscaping, such as common cleaners, solvents, paints, fertilizer, and pesticides, would be subject to all applicable regulations. Construction activities associated with the 13 potential Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -13 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use X airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the X project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response X plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Response a: Development that could be allowed with implementation of the Draft Housing Element includes residential uses. Such land uses do not typically involve the routine use of hazardous materials. Substances used for maintenance and landscaping, such as common cleaners, solvents, paints, fertilizer, and pesticides, would be subject to all applicable regulations. In addition, subsequent projects would be reviewed for their potential impacts related to hazardous materials transport, use, and disposal in accordance with CEQA and Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) requirements, and an appropriate investigation would be conducted based on the individual circumstances involved. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response b: Development that could be allowed with implementation of the Draft Housing Element includes residential uses, which do not typically involve the routine use of hazardous materials. Substances used for maintenance and landscaping, such as common cleaners, solvents, paints, fertilizer, and pesticides, would be subject to all applicable regulations. Construction activities associated with the 13 potential Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -13 May 2010 Initial Study rezone sites could include diesel- and gasoline - powered engines. A very minimal risk would be present from gasoline or diesel tank rupture. Compliance with state construction site safety regulations limits the risk of upset to less than significant levels. Because of the limited duration of these activities, the risk of hazardous spillage /upset conditions is considered less than significant. In addition, subsequent development projects would be reviewed for their potential impacts related to potential risks of upset and accident conditions in accordance with CEQA and OCFA requirements, and appropriate investigation would be conducted based on the individual circumstances involved. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response c: Development that could be allowed with implementation of the Draft Housing Element do not involve hazardous emissions or handling of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Substances used for maintenance and landscaping, such common cleaners, solvents, paints, fertilizer, and pesticides, would be subject to all applicable regulations. In addition, subsequent projects would be reviewed for their potential impacts related to hazardous materials issues in accordance with CEQA and OCFA requirements, and an appropriate investigation would be conducted based on the individual circumstances involved. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue are anticipated for components of the proposed Specific Plan. This topic will not be further addressed in the Draft EIR. Response d: The 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element have been developed with a variety of uses. While the Draft Housing Element would allow infill development /redevelopment on these sites, there is no immediate physical development associated with the project as it is defined. Any future development of the sites would require that a stand -alone HMS report be prepared that identifies any hazardous conditions and mitigation to alleviate such conditions. In other words, subsequent development projects would be reviewed for their potential impacts related to potential risks in accordance with CEQA and OCFA requirements, and an appropriate investigation would be conducted based on the individual circumstances involved. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response e: The Draft Housing Element project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public-use airport. Three public air travel facilities are located in Orange County, and they are located 10 miles or more from the City of Yorba Linda: John Wayne Airport (JWA), Fullerton Municipal Airport (FMA), and Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -14 May 2010 Initial Study Response f: The 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element are not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing on these sites. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response g: The City of Yorba Linda Emergency Plan (Municipal Code 2.32.080) provides for the effective mobilization of the resources of the City, both public and private, to meet any condition constituting a local emergency, state of emergency, or state of war emergency; and provides for the organization, powers and duties, services, and staff of the emergency organization. No component of the Draft Housing Element would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. All subsequent infill development /redevelopment would be required to comply with any and all such plans that may be applicable to any project or site. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response h: Rezone of the 13 potential sites associated with the Draft Housing Element would allow for infill development in an existing urbanized area. There is no interface with nearby or adjacent wildland areas. In addition, theses sites are not within a high wildfire hazard area as identified by the Orange County Fire Authority's Wildland Urban Interface Map. Lastly any new structure developed as part of the Housing Element would need to meet UBC Chapter 7A fire safety construction requirements as applicable. Therefore, the Draft Housing Element would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -15 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporate Im act Im act a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater X table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -15 May 2010 Initial Study Response a: Storm runoff from development associated with the Draft Housing Element, and discharges of runoff into and /or encroachment upon natural drainages, wetlands, and /or flood plains (if any) are subject to the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sections 1251 et seq.; CWA) and associated regulations, the State Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal. Water Code Sections 1300 et seq.) and associated regulations, and to requirements established by the U.S. EPA, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), County of Orange, and the City of Yorba Linda. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -16 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact planed uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner X which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a X manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planed stormwater drainage systems or provide X substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard X Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood X flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a X levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Response a: Storm runoff from development associated with the Draft Housing Element, and discharges of runoff into and /or encroachment upon natural drainages, wetlands, and /or flood plains (if any) are subject to the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sections 1251 et seq.; CWA) and associated regulations, the State Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal. Water Code Sections 1300 et seq.) and associated regulations, and to requirements established by the U.S. EPA, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), County of Orange, and the City of Yorba Linda. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -16 May 2010 Initial Study The City of Yorba Linda is required by the Santa Ana Region Municipal Permit to minimize short- and long -term impacts on receiving waters from new development and significant redevelopment to the maximum extent practicable. The City requires new development and significant redevelopment projects within the City to address storm water quality impacts through incorporation of permanent (post- construction) Best Management Practices (BMPs) in project design. "New development" includes land disturbing activities; structural development, including construction or installation of a building or structure; the creation of impervious surfaces; and land subdivision. "Significant redevelopment" means development that would create or add at least 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces on an already developed site as defined by the Municipal Permit. Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) are required for private and public "new development" and "significant redevelopment" projects. The City requires the project applicant to submit a project WQMP at the project processing and permitting stages. In general, the WQMPs shall follow guidelines set forth in Model WQMP, provided in the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. Potential development /redevelopment under the Draft Housing Element would be similar in nature to existing development in the area and vicinity. Existing requirements for development or redevelopment include the review by the City Engineer to ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided that meet City design standards and requirements. In addition, construction activities must be conducted in compliance with the approved Stormwater Pollutant Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and ongoing development operations must comply with an approved WQMP in accordance with all local, state, and federal regulations. BMPs are required in both plans to minimize potential waterborne pollutants. Potential water quality or waste discharge impacts for the Draft Housing Element would be less than significant due to the nature of the project and existing standards and procedures already in place. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response b: Domestic water would be provided for development associated with the Draft Housing Element via the municipal system. The Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD) provides water service for the Draft Housing Element project area. The City utilizes two primary sources of water supply: groundwater produced from YLWD wells and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District. The proposed project would increase demand on water supplies due to the development of the approximately 1,100 residential units that would result from implementation of the Draft Housing Element. Please refer to Section 3.17, Response d, where this topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response c: There are no streams or rivers within the area of the 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element. In general, these sites drain to the existing storm drain system. Remaining areas Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -17 May 2010 Initial Study discharge to surrounding streets and enter the public storm drain system. Subsequent development would require the study of localized conditions and construction of additional storm drains based on site - specific conditions and proposed development plans. City standards required developed storm flows to be less than or equal to existing storm flows. Please also see Response a, above. This topic will not be further addressed in the Draft EIR. Response d: Please refer to Responses a and c, above. There are no streams or rivers within the area of the 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element and are not located in a flood plain area. These sites are characterized by current urbanized development with scattered vacant and underutilized parcels. City standards require storm flows from proposed development to be less than or equal to existing storm flows. The potential for flooding is not anticipated to be substantially altered by actions presently under consideration. This topic will not be further addressed in the Draft EIR. Response e: The drainage patterns of the 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element would be generally retained. Appropriate drainage improvements would be made on individual sites to contain and direct stormwater flows as necessary. Each project would be required to demonstrate adequacy of drainage improvements. Please also refer to Response a, above, addressing potential waterborne pollutant impacts. The Draft Housing Element is not anticipated to create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planed stormwater drainage systems. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response f: Nonstructural and structural BMPs as noted in Response a, above, and related requirements would be used to reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response g: The 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element are not located within a flood hazard area, as disclosed in the General Plan Safety Element (Exhibit S -1, Public Safety Map) and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). The Draft Housing Element would not place housing within a 100 -year flood zone. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response h: The 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element are not located within a flood hazard area, as presented in the General Plan Safety Element (Exhibit S -1, Public Safety Map) and Federal Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -18 May 2010 Initial Study Management Emergency Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). The Draft Housing Element would not place structures within a 100 -year flood zone. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response is Please refer to Responses g and h. The 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element are not located within a dam or levee inundation area. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response j: There are no water bodies such as lakes, reservoirs, or oceans upstream of the 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element that could inundate the project area. The City of Yorba Linda is more than 15 miles inland and is not within a tsunami zone. There are no hillsides or significant slope areas adjacent to the 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element that could generate a mudflow. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue would be anticipated with the implementation of the Draft Housing Element. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. 3.10 Land Use and Planning Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -19 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than LAND USE AND PLANNING — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Im act Im act a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local X coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community X conservation plan? Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -19 May 2010 Initial Study Response a: Implementation of the Draft Housing Element would result in changes in land use in some cases, as described in Section 2, Project Description, Table 1. These changes would occur on the 13 potential rezone sites associated Draft Housing Element. As these areas are currently urbanized, the Draft Housing Element would not physically divide an established community. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response b: The City is proposing two new General Plan land use categories; Land Use Element and zoning text amendments; General Plan and zoning map revisions; the establishment of a set of residential development and design guidelines to regulate consistency with the character of Yorba Linda; updating Section 18.18 of the Municipal Code; and developing additional affordable- housing incentives. These actions will allow for the adoption of the Draft Housing Element and consistency with the General Plan. As subsequent infill and redevelopment residential projects occur, potential project specific impacts to land use would be assessed, however, and could require additional CEQA analysis in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response c: The development areas proposed under the Draft Housing Element are largely urbanized, as noted previously, and there are no adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or any other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that include theses areas. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. 3.11 Mineral Resources Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -20 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than MINERAL RESOURCES — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporate Im act Im act a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the X region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or X other land use plan? Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -20 May 2010 Initial Study Responses a and b: There are no significant deposits of mineral resources of regional or statewide importance on the 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element. General Plan Exhibit RR -5 (Managed Production of Resources) shows these sites be outside oil production zones and mineral resource production zones. No impact to mineral resources would occur with implementation of the Draft Housing Element. These topics will not be further addressed in the Draft EIR. 3.12 Noise Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -21 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than NOISE — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project result in: Impact Incorporate Im act Im act a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or X applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne X noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels X existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing X or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise X levels? Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -21 May 2010 Initial Study Response a: Implementation of the Draft Housing Element and the potential rezoning of 13 sites would alter existing development patterns and increase residential density. These activities could result in the potential demolition of structures, construction, and site grading, the location of residential uses near stationary noise sources, as well as increased traffic generation. All these activities have the potential to increase ambient noise and vibration levels within the City of Yorba Linda and to exceed acceptable noise standards. This topic will be further examined in the Draft EIR. Response b: As discussed in Response a, above, the proposed project may expose persons to excessive groundborne noise or vibration. This topic will be further examined in the Draft EIR. Response c: As discussed in Response a, above, the proposed project may generate a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. This topic will be further examined in the Draft EIR. Response d: As discussed in Response a, above, the proposed project may generate a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. This topic will be further examined in the Draft EIR. Response e: The 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element area not located within 2 miles of a public or private airport and would therefore not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. As noted under Section 3.7, above, the nearest airport (Fullerton Municipal Airport) is approximately 10 miles west of the project area. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response f: Please refer to Response e, above. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -22 May 2010 Initial Study 3.13 Population and Housing Response a: The 2000 Census documents 19,252 households in Yorba Linda, with an average household size of 3.05 persons. Approximately 13 single - family residential units (Site nos. 2, 9, 10, 11, and 13) currently exist on the 13 potential rezone sites. Assuming these existing residential units are occupied, there would be an estimated 40 occupants. As summarized in Section 2, Project Description, the rezone of the 13 sites could result in a net increase up to approximately 1,100 dwelling units under the Draft Housing Element with a corresponding net increase of approximately 3,355 persons. This increase could exceed General Plan population projections and Southern California Association of Governments growth forecasts. This topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Responses b and c: As discussed in Response a, approximately 40 residents are estimated to currently reside within the 13 potential rezone sites. Up to 13 existing residences could be affected by rezoning associated with the Draft Housing Element. However, increased housing opportunities are proposed as part of the Draft Housing Element for up to approximately 1,100 net new dwelling units. Potential displacement of persons is not considered "substantial" due to the limited number of potential residents affected and the planned provision of additional housing in the City. Such impacts are considered to be less than significant. These topics will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -23 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than POPULATION AND HOUSING — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for X example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of X re lacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere? Response a: The 2000 Census documents 19,252 households in Yorba Linda, with an average household size of 3.05 persons. Approximately 13 single - family residential units (Site nos. 2, 9, 10, 11, and 13) currently exist on the 13 potential rezone sites. Assuming these existing residential units are occupied, there would be an estimated 40 occupants. As summarized in Section 2, Project Description, the rezone of the 13 sites could result in a net increase up to approximately 1,100 dwelling units under the Draft Housing Element with a corresponding net increase of approximately 3,355 persons. This increase could exceed General Plan population projections and Southern California Association of Governments growth forecasts. This topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Responses b and c: As discussed in Response a, approximately 40 residents are estimated to currently reside within the 13 potential rezone sites. Up to 13 existing residences could be affected by rezoning associated with the Draft Housing Element. However, increased housing opportunities are proposed as part of the Draft Housing Element for up to approximately 1,100 net new dwelling units. Potential displacement of persons is not considered "substantial" due to the limited number of potential residents affected and the planned provision of additional housing in the City. Such impacts are considered to be less than significant. These topics will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -23 May 2010 Initial Study 3.14 Public Services Response a.i: The Orange County Fire Authority provides services to the 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element. Services include fire protection services, emergency medical services, ambulance transportation, and rescue operations. The proposed project would increase demand on fire protection services due to approximately 1,100 residential units which could be constructed as a result of the implementation of the Draft Housing Element. Such an increase will incrementally add to the number of service calls received and the number of staff necessary to service the area. This topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response a.ii: Law enforcement and crime prevention services are provided by the Brea Police Department. Police services indude patrol, investigations, traffic enforcement, traffic control, vice and narcotics enforcement, airborne patrol, crime suppression, community policing, tourist oriented policing, and detention facilities. The proposed project would increase demand on police protection services due to approximately 1,100 residential units that could be constructed as a result of the implementation of the Draft Housing Element. Such an increase would incrementally add to the number of service calls received and the number of patrols and staff necessary to service the area. This topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -24 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than PUBLIC SERVICES - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? X ii) Police protection? X iii) Schools? X iv) Parks? X v) Other public facilities? X Response a.i: The Orange County Fire Authority provides services to the 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element. Services include fire protection services, emergency medical services, ambulance transportation, and rescue operations. The proposed project would increase demand on fire protection services due to approximately 1,100 residential units which could be constructed as a result of the implementation of the Draft Housing Element. Such an increase will incrementally add to the number of service calls received and the number of staff necessary to service the area. This topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response a.ii: Law enforcement and crime prevention services are provided by the Brea Police Department. Police services indude patrol, investigations, traffic enforcement, traffic control, vice and narcotics enforcement, airborne patrol, crime suppression, community policing, tourist oriented policing, and detention facilities. The proposed project would increase demand on police protection services due to approximately 1,100 residential units that could be constructed as a result of the implementation of the Draft Housing Element. Such an increase would incrementally add to the number of service calls received and the number of patrols and staff necessary to service the area. This topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -24 May 2010 Initial Study Response a.iii: The Draft Housing Element project area is within the boundaries of the Placentia - Yorba Linda Unified School District (PYLUSD). The approximately 1,100 residential units that could be developed under the Draft Housing Element would directly impact local schools within the PYLUSD. Typically, residential developments would be required to pay school impact fees to reduce impacts to the school system. This topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response a.iv: Implementation of the Draft Housing Element would result in increased residential uses, which would result in incremental additional demand on existing parks and recreational facilities. Subsequent development permitted under the Draft Housing Element would be assessed development fees that would be applied to future park development to reduce potential impacts, according to the City's approved fee schedule. This topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response a.v: The Yorba Linda Public Library is located at 18181 Imperial Highway. The library houses a collection of over 140,000 books and audiovisual materials and provides a variety of services to the community. Existing regulations, such as the library fee included in residential property taxes, ensure that as the area is developed with more residential uses, adequate library service would be provided. Implementation of the Draft Housing Element would result in increased residential uses, which would result in incremental additional demand on library services. Subsequent development permitted under the Draft Housing Element would include the payment of library fees to reduce impacts. This topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. 3.15 Recreation Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -25 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than RECREATION — Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporate Im act Im act a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial X physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of X recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -25 May 2010 Initial Study Response a: Please refer to Section 3.13 regarding potential park impacts. This topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response b: Please refer to Section 3.13 regarding potential park impacts. This topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. 3.16 Transportation /Traffic Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -26 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC — Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporate Im act Im act a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorist travel and relevant X components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the X congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety X risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm e ui ment )? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or X pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -26 May 2010 Initial Study Response a: Implementation of the Draft Housing Element and rezone of 13 sites would result in an increase in both AM and PM peak -hour trips, as well as average daily trips. An estimate of vehicle trips was generated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' 2008 Trip Generation, 8th Edition. There would be a net increase of 349 AM (7:00 to 9:00) peak-hour trips and an increase of 390 PM (4:00 to 6:00) peak -hour trips. Average daily trips in the City of Yorba Linda would increase by approximately 4,185 net trips. These increases in vehicle trips could result in conflicts with City of Yorba Linda applicable plans, ordinances, or policies that establish measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system such as level -of- service standards being exceeded. This topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response b: Please see Response a, above. Response c: Air traffic movement would not be directly affected by the rezoning of the 13 sites associated with the Draft Housing Element. This is due to the absence of such facilities in or near the area and the limited potential for the Draft Housing Element to affect the existing conditions as discussed in Section 3.7. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR Response d: While the Draft Housing Element would allow infill development /redevelopment, there is no immediate physical development associated with the project as it is defined. Subsequent development of the 13 potential rezone sites would be analyzed on a project -by- project basis as design and layout of the projects are determined. Site - specific traffic analysis assessing potential hazard would be required for any subsequent infill development /redevelopment in accordance with City standards to reduce impacts to less than significant. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response e: While the Draft Housing Element would allow infill development /redevelopment, there is no immediate physical development associated with the project as it is defined. Subsequent development of the 13 potential rezone sites would be analyzed on a project -by- project basis as design and layout of the projects are determined. Site - specific traffic analysis assessing emergency access would be required for any subsequent infill development /redevelopment in accordance with City standards to reduce impacts to less than significant. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -27 May 2010 Initial Study Response f: As part of Draft Housing Element development, alternative modes of transportation will be evaluated and included as feasible, including infrastructure for pedestrian, bicycle, Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV), public transit, and automobile use, and recommended refinements to the plan travel ways and intersections that will strengthen sustainability of the project. All subsequent future development permitted under the Draft Housing Element would be required to comply with AQMD requirements, adopted plans, policies, or programs supporting alternative transportation. This topic will not be further addressed in the Draft EIR. 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -28 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporate Im act Im act a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control X Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of X which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements X needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes X and regulations related to solid waste? Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -28 May 2010 Initial Study Response a: Please refer to Response e, below. Response b: Please refer to Responses d and e, below. Response c: Each project proposed on the 13 potential rezone sites would be required to demonstrate adequacy of drainage improvements. Given that most of the project areas are developed with hardscape, impervious surfaces would not substantially increase under developed conditions. Due to the infill nature of the projects, the need for substantial new construction or expansion of storm drain facilities that would cause a significant environmental effect is not anticipated. This topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response d: The Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD) provides water service for the Draft Housing Element project area. The City utilizes two primary sources of water supply: groundwater produced from YLWD wells and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District. The proposed project would increase demand on water supplies due to the development of the approximately 1,100 residential units that would result from implementation of the Draft Housing Element. This topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response e: The City of Yorba Linda's local sanitary sewer system is tributary to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) District 2. Wastewater from the City sewer system and the YLWD system is conveyed to the County trunk and interceptor sewer to regional treatment and disposal facilities. The proposed project would increase demand on wastewater capacity due to the development of approximately 1,100 residential units as a result of the implementation of the Draft Housing Element. While it is anticipated there would be sufficient capacity in the existing sewer system downstream to handle the anticipated sewers flows, this topic will be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Responses f and g: All waste generated in the City of Yorba Linda is collected by Yorba Linda Disposal Services (YLDS). YLDS is a subsidiary of Taormina Industries, which also serves several surrounding cities. Waste is picked up in neighborhoods once a week and taken to the CVT Regional Materials Recovery Facility in Anaheim (MRF) for separation and processing. At the MRF, the waste is sorted into trash and recyclables. The trash is processed at CVT's Regional Waste Transfer Center before being transported to the Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -29 May 2010 Initial Study Olinda Alpha Landfill in Orange County. Olinda -Apha Landfill is a Class III landfill that accepts agricultural, construction /demolition, industrial, mixed municipal, and wood waste, and tires. In accordance with state law, the City of Yorba Linda has achieved steady gains in its diversion rate of solid waste from the landfill, through conservation, recycling, and composting. The City's diversion rate increased from 43 percent in 1995 to 60 percent in 2000. The City is required to maintain this diversion rate of 50 percent pursuant to AB 939, known as the Integrated Waste Management Act. In order to facilitate the diversion of waste from landfills, the City of Yorba Linda participates in over 20 programs. The proposed project would participate in all existing and future applicable recycling programs. The proposed project would increase demand on landfill capacity due to the development of approximately 1,100 residential units as a result of the implementation of the Draft Housing Element. While it is anticipated there would be sufficient landfill capacity to handle solid waste generated as result of the Draft Housing Element, this topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -30 May 2010 Initial Study Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant X or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the X effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on X human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -30 May 2010 Initial Study Response a: The 13 potential rezone sites associated with the Draft Housing Element are characterized by existing urban /suburban development and vacant /disturbed parcels. Theses sites are not subject to any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Additionally, no habitat areas are designated as being located in or adjacent to theses areas, according to the General Plan Recreation /Resources Element (Exhibit RR-4, Sensitive Natural Resources). Therefore, this topic will not be addressed further in the Draft EIR. Response b: The Draft Housing Element will allow for potential development opportunities in the City of Yorba Linda. Future development projects that may be implemented have potential to contribute cumulatively adverse environmental impacts (e.g., air quality, transportation, etc.). Therefore, the Draft EIR will discuss potential for cumulative impacts as a result of the Specific Plan. Response c: Please see Response b, above. The Draft EIR will include an evaluation of potential cumulative impacts (i.e., traffic, air quality, etc.) At this time, there are no known substantial adverse impacts on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. However, the Draft EIR will include an environmental evaluation of direct and indirect impacts that may occur as a result of the project. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 3 -31 May 2010 Initial Study 4. REFERENCES California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. ftp: / /ftp.consrv.ca.gov/ pub /dlrp /FMMP /pdf /statewide /2006 /fmmp2006_08_11.pdf. Accessed May 8, 2010. City of Yorba Linda. General Plan. 1993. City of Yorba Linda. General Plan EIR. 1993. City of Yorba Linda. Municipal Code. City of Yorba Linda. Official Zoning Map, June 2009. City of Yorba Linda. "2008 -2014 Draft Housing Element." September 2009. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurances Rate Maps for Yorba Linda, Community Panel No. 060238, December 3, 2009. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. Airport Environs Land Use Plan. April 17, 2008. Orange County Fire Authority. Wildland Urban Interface Map, January 2008. Placentia -Yorba Linda Unified School District. http: / /www.pylusd.org /home.asp. Accessed May 8, 2010. Yorba Linda Housing Element and Implementation Program 4-1 May 2010 Initial Study Yorba Linda Water District DRAFT Water Supply Assessment for the City of Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Housing Element INTRODUCTION Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD) operates and maintains the public water system that may supply potable water service to the Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Housing Element (Project). As the public water system, YLWD is required by 2001 Senate Bill 610 to prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for defined types of projects consisting of 500 or more dwelling units. This WSA is in response to a letter dated June 21, 2010 from Steven K. Harris, City of Yorba Linda Director of Community Development, requesting YLWD to determine if available water supplies will meet projected increased water demands from the Project. This Project is under the direction of the City of Yorba Linda Community Development for development of approximately 1,106 inulti family dwelling units on thirteen separate sites, as depicted on Exhibits 3 and 4 of the attached City of Yorba Linda Notice of Preparation (NOP) dated May 26, 2010. Eleven of the thirteen sites are already part of YLWD's service area. Although two sites are located outside of YLWD boundaries, within Savi Ranch, annexation was approved by LAFCO on August 11, 2010, pending completion of jurisdictional boundary changes by the State Board of Equalization. In the meantime, YLWD continues to provide water service to this area. A more detailed description of the project is contained in the following section. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed Yorba Linda 2008 -2014 Housing Element (Project) is a multi family residential development, with approximately 1,106 units, located within portions of the City of Yorba Linda in northeastern Orange County. This Project includes thirteen sites with detailed descriptions of locations, proposed acreage and dwelling units, per the NOP, as listed below. Site 1 is located adjacent to and east of Prospect Avenue, north of Imperial Highway. The total number of proposed units is 165 on approximately 5.5 acres. The existing zoning is General Commercial (GC), and this site is currently vacant. 2. Site 2 is located near the Wabash Avenue/Rose Drive intersection, with 50 proposed units on approximately 1.7 acres. The existing zoning is GC, with a single family residential structure and a mini warehouse currently occupying this site. 3. Site 3 is located near the Yorba Linda Boulevard/Prospect Avenue intersection with 122 proposed units on approximately 4.1 acres. The existing zoning is GC, with a medical office currently operating at this site. 4. Site 4 is located adjacent to and south of Bastanchury Road midway between Plumosa Drive and Lakeview Avenue (between Sites 9 and 12) with 255 proposed units on approximately 8.5 acres. The existing zoning is Planned Development (PD) with a nursery currently in operation at this site. 5. Site 5 is located within the Savi Ranch commercial /industrial development, at the south -east corner of Old Canal Road and Eastpark Drive, with 84 proposed units on approximately 2.4 acres. The existing zoning is PD /Support Industrial and the site is currently vacant. 6. Site 6 is located within the Savi Ranch commercial /industrial development, at the south -east corner of Oakcrest Circle and Eastpark Drive, with 96 proposed units on approximately 3.2 acres. The existing zoning is PD /Office Commercial on a vacant parcel that was previously occupied by Mitsubishi Motors. 7. Site 7 is located east of and adjacent to Lakeview Avenue, north of Yorba Linda Boulevard, with 94 proposed units on approximately 4.7 acres. The existing zoning is GC, and this site is currently vacant. 8. Site 8 is located at the northwest corner of Lakeview Avenue and Altrudy Lane, with 47 proposed units on approximately 2.4 acres. The existing zoning is Residential Suburban, and this site is currently vacant. 9. Site 9 is located at the southwest corner of Lakeview Avenue and Bastanchury Road, east of and adjacent to Site 4, with 82 proposed units on approximately 4.1 acres. The existing zoning is PD, and the site currently includes one single family residence with a barn. 10. Site 10 is located at the southeast corner of Eureka Avenue and Lemon Drive, with 5 proposed units on approximately 0.5 acres. The existing zoning is CG, and the site currently includes a specialty retail center with a self - service car wash. 11. Site 11 is located at the southeast corner of Eureka Avenue and Yorba Linda Boulevard, with 59 proposed units on approximately 5.9 acres. The existing zoning is Residential Estate, and the site currently includes a single family residential unit that was previously proposed to be part of the Nixon Archives. 12. Site 12 is located at the southeast corner of Plumosa Drive and Bastanchury Road, west of and adjacent to Site 4, with 43 proposed units on approximately 4.3 acres. The existing zoning is PD, and the site is occupied by a nursery that is currently in operation. 13. Site 13 is west of the Wabash Avenue /Rose Drive intersection, with 4 proposed units on approximately 0.4 acres. The existing zoning is Residential Urban, and is currently occupied by a single family residential development. Table 1 illustrates the projected water demands for the Proposed Project. Table 1 Water demands for projects identified in the 2008 -2014 Housing Element Planning Approximate Proposed Water Use Sites APN Acreage Units Ac. Ft./Year* Site 1 322 - 121 -01/02 5.5 165 83 Site 2 322 - 101 -09/37 1.7 50 25 Site 3 334 - 273 -40/41 4.1 122 61 Site 4 323 - 111 -02 8.5 255 128 Site 5 352- 117 -13 2.8 84 42 Site 6 352- 117 -11 3.2 96 48 Site 7 323 - 231 - 12/13/14/15 4.7 94 47 Site 8 323 - 231 -08/08 2.4 47 24 Site 9 323 - 111 -04/05 4.1 82 41 Site 10 334 - 411 -05 0.5 5 3 Site 11 343 -561- 01/12/14/19 -21 5.9 59 30 Site 12 323 - 111 -01 4.3 43 22 Site 13 322 - 091 -02 0.4 4 2 TOTALS 48.1 1,106 553 *Note: Multi - family DU usage of approx. 0.5af /Nr /du per S &S Water Facilities Master Plan, dated 11/25/2003 Please note that some sites are currently supplied with potable water from YLWD. For example, Site 3, St. Joseph's Medical Offices, has existing demands that are expected to be equivalent to the future Housing Element demands. Consequently, the net increase in demand for Sites 1 through 13 is expected to be less than the overall total water use of 553 acre - feet /year listed in Table 1. Please see the Qualifications section herein, page 7, for a listing of conditions to provide water service. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION YLWD prepares and updates a major planning document that is used to guide water supply decision making. This document is called the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Preparation of the UWMP is required by statute. The UWMP is required to be updated in years ending with "five" and "zero," and YLWD is currently working to complete the 2010 UWMP. YLWD receives all of its import water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) through the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and therefore must rely on information supplied by these entities as documentation of YLWD's import supplies. The YLWD UWMP incorporates by reference Urban Water Management Plans adopted by the MWD and MWDOC. Additionally, this WSA incorporates by reference MWD's latest "Integrated Water Resources Plan Update." YLWD also supplies water from the local groundwater basin, which is managed cooperatively between the agencies that overlie this local resource and that are within the Orange County portion of its watershed. The managing agency for the local groundwater basin is Orange County Water District (OCWD). Groundwater is extracted from the basin using wells operated by retail agencies like YLWD and is subject to a recharge assessment established by OCWD and based on pumping limitations and availability of recharge water to replenish the basin for sustainable use of this resource. OCWD has prepared a Long Term Facilities Plan that considers projected growth in water demands through 2035, and identifies the facilities needed to support sustainable yields from the groundwater basin needed to meet this growth. Additionally, OCWD prepared a Groundwater Management Plan that includes an integrated management of recharge and production to help ensure that the groundwater basin is maintained in balance to provide long term viability of the water supply. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT A. YLWD's Urban Water Management Plan. As set forth above, the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project was accounted for in the most recently adopted UWMP. Therefore, pursuant to Water Code section 10910(c)(2), YLWD can comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Water Code section 10910 by incorporating by reference information from its 2005 UWMP. YLWD's UWMP projected a growth of approximately 1,500 service connections over the next 20 years and a corresponding increase in water demands of about 1,600 acre feet per year, not including this Project. Based on the NOP, this Project will add approximately 1,106 dwelling units and, per Table 1, estimated water demand increase of approximately 553 acre feet per year. Accordingly, the demand for this Project will be accounted for in the 2010 UWMP, to satisfy the above - referenced requirements. B. Identification of Existing Water Supply Entitlements, Rights or Service Contracts Relevant to the Identified Supply for the Proposed Project (section 10910(d)). Pursuant to Water Code section 10910(c)(2), YLWD complies with section 10910(d) by incorporating by reference its 2005 UWMP. In addition, YLWD provides the following detailed information about potable water supplies: (1) Potable Supply — Imported Water Service Connections. Potable imported water is delivered to YLWD at various service connections from the imported water delivery system of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California: service connections OC -51 to the Orange County Feeder No. 2, and OC- 66 and OC -89 to the Allen- McColloch Pipeline. YLWD's entitlements regarding service from the MWD delivery system facilities are described in the following paragraphs. YLWD receives imported water service through Municipal Water District of Orange County, a member agency of MWD. 4 (2) Allen- McColloch Pipeline (AMP) - currently available. (a) Agreement For Sale and Purchase of Allen- McColloch Pipeline, dated as of July 1, 1994 (Metropolitan Water District Agreement No. 4623) (AMP Sale Agreement). Under the AMP Sale Agreement, MWD purchased the Allen- McColloch Pipeline (formerly known as the Diemer Intertie) from MWDOC, the MWDOC Water Facilities Corporation and certain agencies, including YLWD, identified as Participants therein. Section 5.02 of the AMP Sale Agreement obligates MWD to meet YLWD's and the other Participants' requests for deliveries and specified minimum hydraulic grade lines at each connection serving a Participant, subject to availability of water. MWD agrees to operate the AMP as any other MWD pipeline. MWD has the right to operate the AMP on a "utility basis," meaning that MWD need not observe capacity allocations of the Participants but may use available capacity to meet demand at any service connection. The AMP Sale Agreement obligates MWD to monitor and project AMP demands and to construct specified pump facilities or make other provision to augment MWD's capacity along the AMP, at MWD's expense, should that be necessary to meet demands of all of the Participants (Section 5.08). (b) Agreement For Allocation of Proceeds of Sale of Allen- McColloch Pipeline, dated as of July 1, 1994 (AMP Allocation Agreement This agreement, entered into concurrently with the AMP Sale Agreement, provided each participant, including YLWD, with a capacity allocation in the AMP, for the purpose of allocating the sale proceeds among the Participants in accordance with their prior contractual capacities adjusted to conform to their respective future demands. YLWD's capacity under the AMP Allocation Agreement is 30 cubic feet per second at YLWD's AMP connections. The AMP Allocation Agreement further provides that if a Participant's peak flow exceeds its capacity, the Participant shall "purchase" additional capacity from the other Participants who are using less than their capacity, until such time as MWD augments the capacity of the AMP. The foregoing notwithstanding, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the allocated capacities do not alter MWD's obligation under the AMP Sale Agreement to meet all Participants' demands along the AMP, and to augment the capacity of the AMP if necessary. Accordingly, under these agreements, YLWD can legally increase its use of the AMP beyond the above - stated capacities, but would be required to reimburse other Participants a portion of the proceeds received from the sale of the AMP. (3) Orange County Feeder No. 2 — currently available By an agreement dated November 9, 1964, YLWD secured rights and access to the MWD's Orange County Feeder No. 2 imported water system. This connection, commonly referred to as OC -51, is currently metered for ten cubic feet per second. The connection has a maximum rated capacity of 20 cubic feet per second. (4) Potable Supply — Groundwater — currently available The Project identified in this WSA will be supplied by both imported and groundwater. The following general information is about groundwater supply. Orange County Water District Act (OCWD), Water Code App., Ch. 40 (Act). YLWD is an operator of groundwater - producing facilities in the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin). Although the rights of the producers within the Basin vis -a -vis one another have not been adjudicated, they nevertheless exist and have not been abrogated by the Act ( §40 -77). The rights consist of municipal appropriators' right and may include overlying and riparian rights. The Basin is managed by OCWD under the Act, which functions as a statutorily- imposed physical solution. The Act empowers OCWD to impose replenishment assessments and basin equity assessments on production and to require registration of water - producing facilities and the filing of certain reports; however, OCWD is expressly prohibited from limiting extraction unless a producer agrees ( §40- 2(6)(c)) and from impairing vested rights to the use of water ( §40 -77). Thus, producers may install and operate production facilities under the Act; OCWD approval is not required. OCWD is required to annually investigate the condition of the Basin, assess overdraft and accumulated overdraft, and determine the amount of water necessary for replenishment ( §40 -26). OCWD studied basin replenishment needs and potential projects to address growth in demand up to 2035. This is described in detail in the OCWD Long -Term Facilities Plan, dated June, 2009. (5) Imported Supply — Updated Regional Urban Water Management Plan. As described above, the imported supply from MWD is contractually subject to availability. To assist local water providers in assessing the adequacy of local water supplies that are reliant in whole or in part on MWD's imported supply, MWD provided information concerning the availability of the supplies to its entire service area per MWD's Regional Urban Water Management Plan November, 2005 (MWD RUWMP). MWD RUWMP indicates, in addition to "addressing average year and drought conditions, the act requires agencies to document the stages of actions that it would undertake in response to water supply shortages, including up to a 50% reduction in its water supplies." Therefore, although the MWD RUWMP predates the recent droughts, MWD's analysis was conservative enough to factor in this condition. Additionally, the MWD RUWMP states, "through effective management of its water supply, Metropolitan fully expects to be 100 percent reliable in meeting all non - discounted non - interruptible demands through the next twenty five years." More recently, on April 13, 2010, MWD's Board of Directors adopted a Water Supply Allocation Plan, establishing the levels of imported water supply which are projected to meet Member Agency Demands (including YLWD) through June 2011. MWD's margin of safety in its demand projections and MWD's reserve supplies, together with the availability of groundwater to most of the YLWD service area, build a margin of safety into YLWD's supply availability. C. New Water Supply Entitlements, rights or service contracts relevant to the Identified supply for the Proposed Project (section 10910(e)). YLWD does not anticipate that the water supply for this Project will consist of new entitlements, rights or service contracts from which no water has been received in prior years. D. Groundwater (section 10910 This Project will include groundwater as a supplement to the imported water. RESULT OF WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Subject to the qualifications listed below, based on the above WSA, YLWD determines that its water supplies will be sufficient to meet the demands of the Proposed Project. In light of this determination, YLWD is not required to provide the City with plans for acquiring additional supplies pursuant to Water Code section 10911. QUALIFICATIONS This WSA was prepared solely to comply with Water Code sections 10910 - 10915. Pursuant to Water Code section 10914, nothing herein shall be construed to: (i) create a right or entitlement to water service or any specific level of water service; (ii) impose, expand, or limit any duty concerning the obligation of YLWD to provide certain service to its existing customers or any future potential customers; or (iii) modify or otherwise change existing law with respect to projects which are not subject to the requirements pursuant to which this WSA is prepared. Actual water service to the Proposed Project is predicated upon satisfaction of terms and conditions set forth by YLWD. Until such time as actual service connections are approved for the Proposed Project, YLWD may withhold water service due to a water shortage declared by YLWD or MWD. BOARD APPROVAL YLWD staff will seek YLWD Board of Directors approval as required under Water Code section 10910(g)(1), prior to finalizing the WSA. REFERENCES - Yorba Linda Water District 2005 Urban Water Management Plan - The Regional Urban Water Management Plan for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, November, 2005 - 2005 Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Municipal Water District of Orange County, August 2005 - Integrated Water Resources Plan Update, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, July, 2004 - Draft 2010 Integrated Water Resources Plan Update, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Draft Release July 2010 - Board of Directors Water Planning and Stewardship, 04/13/2010 Board Meeting, Implementation of WSAP Metropolitan Water District of Southern California - Orange County Water District Long -Term Facilities Plan, June 8, 2009 - 2009 Update Groundwater Management Plan, Orange County Water District, July 9, 2009 ITEM NO. 3.4 AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: September 8, 2010 Budgeted: Yes Total Budget: $2M To: Planning- Engineering- Cost Estimate: $9,500 Operations Committee Funding Source: All Water Funds From: Ken Vecchiarelli, General Account No: 101 -2700 Manager Job No: 200711 Presented By: Anthony Manzano, Senior Dept: Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by Legal: No Prepared By: Anthony Manzano, Senior CEQA Compliance: Exempt Project Manager Subject: Well No. 20 Engineering Services Amendment No. 1 with Civiltec Engineering, Inc. SUMMARY: Due to greater pumping capacity than anticipated, and the decision to retain Well 11 for emergency backup, a change in the design work scope is requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee recommend the Board of Directors authorize approval of Engineering Services Amendment No. 1 with Civiltec Engineering Inc. for a fee increase not to exceed $9,500, resulting in a total fee of $89,320. DISCUSSION: On March 11, 2010, the Board of Directors authorized execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Civiltec Engineering Inc. (Civiltec) for a fee not to exceed $79,820, to provide engineering design, bid support and construction management services for Wellhead Equipping of Well No. 20. In May 2010, when drilling and pump testing was completed, it was determined that Well No. 20 will be capable of efficiently producing approximately 3,000 GPM, which is 1,000 GPM more than originally anticipated. At that time, in a design review meeting with staff of the Operations Department and the design consultant, it was decided that the new well facilities should be upsized to take advantage of the greater production. It was also decided that rather than abandoning and removing the existing Well 11, it would be retained as emergency backup. These decisions to give the District more production capability and flexibility required changes in the design scope for disinfection, electrical and wellhead facilities. At the District's request, Civiltec provided the attached letter proposal describing the proposed additional design services and fee. District staff reviewed the proposed services and $9,500 fee increase, and recommends approval. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S): On March 11, 2010, the Board of Directors authorize execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Civiltec Engineering, Inc. for a fee not to exceed $79,820, to provide engineering design, bid support and construction management services for Wellhead Equipping of Well No. 20. ATTACHMENTS: Name: Description: Type: Civiltec Well No. 20 Amendment No. 1 08 -24 Civiltec Amendment No. 1 Backup Material 2010. doc. pdf CIVIT engi n Bering hnc. General Civil, Municipal, Water and Wastewater Engineering, Planning, Construction Management and Surveying Monrovia Prescott Phoenix August 24, 2010 0 Yorba Linda Water District Yorba Linda 1717 East Miraloma Avenue Water Distrio Placentia, CA 92870 Attention: Anthony Manzano, P.E., Sr. Project Manager Subject: Amendment No. 1 for the Engineering Design, Bidding Support Services, and Construction Management for Wellhead Equipping of Yorba Linda Water District's Well No. 20. Job No. 200711. Dear Mr. Manzano: Civiltec has been working closely with the Yorba Linda Water District to prepare preliminary design documentation, design plans, and construction specs in support of t making improvements to Well No. 20. Our efforts thus far have included preparing to final stages the Preliminary Design Report along with 50% drawings. On July 21st, Civiltec and YLWD met at the District's office to discuss review comments and necessary revisions and or clarifications to the report and design documents. Results of this meeting concluded that the District desired to include in the design preparation of plans to house a new 2 -ton brine storage tank underneath a new shade structure and canopy. The original scope of this effort was inclusive of a new brine storage tank that was to replace the existing tank within the existing disinfection building. Further, the District requested that the facilities at the Well No. 11 site be incorporated into the final Well No. 20 design by transferring PLC control from the existing Well No. 11 panel to the new Well No. 20 control system. Transferring the existing input and output signals from Well No. 11 will require additional coordination, research and design development not originally anticipated. In addition new service coordination will be required to serve both Well No. 20 and Well No. 11 with the utility. As a result additional design drawing sheets and specifications will need to be prepared to accommodate the design revisions. This effort assumes that the hard relay logic present at the Well No. 11 electrical control panel remains operable and useful. Our design will tie in the existing input and output signals from Well No. 11 to the new Well No. 20 PLC panel. Scope of Work (Amendment No. 1) Task 2: Preparation of Plans and Specifications A. Construction Drawings: Prepare detailed design plans for the shade structure and well No. 11 and Well No. 20 interface. The detailed design will be inclusive of the shade Yorba Linda Water District Anthony Manzano, P.E., Sr. Project Manager Amendment No. 1 for the Engineering Design of Wellhead Equipping of YLWD Well No. 20 August 24, 2010 Page 2 c IV If c Yorba Linda Yli leer'Fl 11Tf. Water District K structure plan, sections and structural and foundation details to support the structure. Electrical plans will include all inclusive 1/0 block diagrams inclusive of Well No-it input and output. 1. 90% Design Review - Revise current 50% drawings to include the new shade structure plans on all relevant sheets. 2. 100% Design Review — Update shade structure and electrical drawings to reflect YLWD input for 100% design. 3. Final Approval Review - Update shade structure and electrical drawings to reflect YLWD input for Final design. B. Technical Specifications: Prepare additional miscellaneous technical specifications to support the inclusion of the shade structure and electrical design into the final construction drawing set. All other items of scope will be performed pursuant to Civiltec's current Contract with YLWD for preparation of the Well No. 20 Wellhead equipping plans, specifications, and construction support services. Amendment to Designation of Subconsultants Civiltec proposes to subcontract the electrical portions of the work to an equivalent/alternate electrical engineering firm. To meet our internal metrics for project success and supporting the project with our best available resources, we have elected to have the electrical engineering work performed by a firm more local and with more specific YLWD experience than proposed in our original proposal. The electrical engineering will be performed by Mullen and Associates, Inc. of Fullerton, California. Mullen is a specialized electrical engineering firm. The Project Manager for Mullen will be Larry D. Mullen, P.E., Principal and Owner. Mr. Mullen has worked with Civiltec since 2005 in design of power systems, lighting systems and telemetry systems for pump stations, reservoirs and well facilities. Mr. Mullen has over 30 years of extensive experience in design and construction management, electrical and telemetry systems, lift station facilities, booster pumping facilities and reservoirs. Mr. Mullen's expertise includes design of motor controls, telemetry, power service and telephone service coordination. Yorba Linda Water District Anthony Manzano, P.E., Sr. Project Manager Amendment No. 1 for the Engineering Design of Wellhead Equipping of YLWD Well No. 24 August 24, 2014 Page 3 [0 A* 140 t '1 V Yorba Linda Water Dislrict 1,itgi�tttri :i� iru. Amendment No. 1 Fee Summary A breakdown of manhours and subconsultant fees associated with this effort are included in the Amendment No. 1 Fee summary that is attached hereto. We appreciate the opportunity to support the District in this very important project. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. CIVIL TEC engineering, ine. W. David Byrum, P.E. Senior Vice President and Principal Engineer k\2010\2010120.00ALWD -Weil No. 20 Job No. 200711 1Client\ContractlAmendment No. 11PM 10004.01 Yorba Linda Water District Well No. 20 Amendment No l .doe YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT Amendment No. 1 Equipping of Well No, 20 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT EQUIP PNNG OF WELL NO. 2-0 .. - - ...._._........................ - . - _._,_._.._._._.._.._._._ ._._.._.._._...._....._.._._.._........ ........................._.... _.....-............... ...._...._._........._......... ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE AMENDMENT NO. 1 j UPDATED -- �25- AAu-10 T_.___..._ _._ lm__ _ —_' ___ W_._W - - -- - -- _._....._.�•_.... -.__� HOURS BY HOURS BY HOURS BY HOURS BY HOURS BY HOURS BY HOURS BY _ HOURS BY _ ELECTRICAL TOTAL PE PM SE SUr — .._._._.._.._.,..._._.._ _..._.._._..........._._.......;......_......._..._....._.....;_.._ ............._....._._..._.._.. -- - -- PT ❑ AA -- - -- ._._.._.- SURVEY Mullen EXPENSES BUDGET RATE S 180.001, $ 145.00 ' S 130,00 1 $ 125.00 $ 95.00 ! 3 80,00 ' $ 66.00 ........ ... ......... ..----- $ 215.00 - ------------------- ..... - -- -- - -- -- - -- - -- -- - - -- - -- I i I TASK 2 - PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS j 1 A 0 0 2 4 14 $ 2,500,001 $ 4,380.00 B 1 4 4 8 j 4 s 2,520.00 $ 5,120.00 HOURS 4 4........._... 14 4 0 i 40 ..._.....__._..4.- ...._._._. - -- - - - -� - - -- - -I -- - -- - ................._ _._.. __....._.._................... .._.....................,...... -- -- -6 .- .._.- ._.._._.,. ....._.._. BUDGET S 720,001 $ $80.00 S 1,300.00 $ 600.00 a - $ 1,120.00 I. $ 260 :00 ..................._._...._._.. $ �._.. _....__......__...._._. - - -- - $ 5,020.00 S - - -- -- $ 9,500.00 - . i . _ _.._ SUE3TOTAL AMENDMENT NO.7 -- 9 f ORIGINAL GRAND TOTAL ? I ; $ 79,820.00 ; -� - -- - - - - - j — AMENDED GRAND TOTAL _74 39,320.001 PM10004.01 Yorba Linda Water District Well No. 20 Amendment No1.doo Budget.xls 8/25/2010 Page 1 ITEM NO. 4.1 AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: September 8, 2010 Subject: Monthly Groundwater Producers Meeting Report ATTACHMENTS: Name: Description: Type: GWP MtgNotes 11 Aug10.pdf GWP Meeting Report for August 2010 Backup Material 0 Yorba Linda Water District MEMORANDUM DATE: August 12, 2010 TO: Ken Vecchiarelli, General Manager FROM: Steve Conklin, Engineering Manager COPY: Pat Grady, Assistant General Manager Lee Cory, Operations Manager John DeCriscio, Chief Plant Operator SUBJECT: Groundwater Producers Meeting, August 11, 2010 You and I attended the Groundwater Producers (GWP) Meeting on August 11 at OCWD. A summary of each item discussed is as follows: 1. Annexation Workshop #1— General Issues. The Annexation Workshops are planned to be coincident with the Groundwater Producers' Meetings, with the workshops currently scheduled for August 11, October 13, December 8, 2010, and February 9, 2011. The topic for the August 11 workshop was titled "General," where they would identify issues from the previous annexation consideration process in 2006 as well as any new issues. At the meeting, a handout was provided with a summary of all of the issues raised in 2006, and the proposed future workshop date when each would be discussed. Previous issues raised, concerning the CEQA process and annexation policy, will be discussed at the October 13, 2010 workshop, as well as new questions and concerns on this topic. Regarding the Annexation MOU, it was noted that it has been approved by OCWD and IRWD, and is planned for approval by YLWD and the City of Anaheim on August 12 and 24, respectively. A meeting is planned for September 1 among OCWD and the three parties to discuss the process to retain the consulting firm to prepare the program CEQA document. 2. Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) Exemption Program. OCWD staff reported that they are in the process of adopting a BEA Exemption Program Policy, which will modify the 20- year -old program. It was established in 1989 as a partnership between OCWD and Producers to clean -up contaminated groundwater. Seven Producers have participated, three are currently in program, with two of those proposing to modify their projects. Under the program a Producer constructs and 1 operates a treatment plant to remove contaminants from the groundwater basin. OCWD exempts all or a portion of the BEA (the cost charged for groundwater pumped in excess of the BPP) to offset the Producer's cost to build and operate the treatment plant. The benefits to OCWD are that contaminants are removed from the basin, the Producer constructs and operates the treatment plant rather than OCWD, and further spreading of the contaminant in the groundwater basin is mitigated. The problems with the existing program are: 1) BEA- exempted pumping has increased in proportion to total groundwater production, 2) there is no longer MWD- discounted replenishment water to offset pumping from the program, and 3) there are no time - limits on the existing projects. The need to modify the program was brought to a head with two new proposed projects: 1) IRWD is requesting to add a new project and to remove an existing project from the program, and 2) Mesa Consolidated is requesting to modify its project under the program. An extended exchange followed on the benefits of the program, the impact on all of the other Producers in both direct cost and reduced BPP, and why new projects for IRWD and MCWD should be in the program. At the end of the long discussion, OCWD indicated that this item is scheduled to be considered at the August 25 OCWD Board meeting. 3. Other. Other items planned for discussion, the FY 2009 -10 Summary of Recharge Activities, and the Projections for Future BPP and RA, were tabled for discussion at the next Groundwater Producers Meeting on September 8. Handouts on each topic were provided for review in the interim. 2 ITEM NO. 4.2 AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: September 8, 2010 Subject: Status Report on Capital Projects in Progress ATTACHMENTS: Name: Description: Type: CIP Rept Sep10.pdf Status Report on Capital Projects in Progress Backup Material CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS STATUS REPORT Date: September 2, 2010 New Information since Last Report is Shown in Red IN CONSTRUCTION IN DESIGN Project Current Status Next Actions Comments 1 Highland Reservoir Reservoir placed online July Under -drain completed. On schedule with no significant Budget: $11,200,000 Job No. 200309 15. Contractor currently Temp. tanks have been issues outstanding. Project Contact: Joe Polimino backfilling around and over demolished. Fencing const. consultants and in -house team. Planned Completion Date: Oct. 2010 reservoir. will begin soon. 2 Hidden Hills Res & Santiago BPS Placed online June 30. Contractor working on final Will go to September 9 th Board Budget: $7,000,000 Job No.200028 from consultant then forward punch list items. Meeting, recommending the Notice Project Contact: Joe Polimino to City of Anaheim for with Anaheim and YLWD of Completion be filed. Planned Completion Date: August 2010 approval. experience. 3 Wells 1, 5 and 12 Upgrade W -5 refurbishments complete W -12 electrical & Developing plan of action for W -1. Budget: $190,000 Job No. 200813 and operating at approx. 2,200 instrumentation improvements W -12 refurbishments expected to be Project Contact: Anthony Manzano GPM. W -12 pump installed; to be completed within next complete this month. Project Completion: TBD electrical conversion nearly several weeks. Well 1 to be complete. analyzed next. IN DESIGN Project Current Status Next Actions Comments 1 Highland Booster Station Upgrade Issued Notice of Award to Forward PHC bonds, insurance Issue Notice to Proceed and set up Budget: $5,000,000 Job No. 200814 Pacific Hydrotech Corp and certificates to legal for review. pre - construction meeting with Project Contact: Hank Samaripa awaiting receipt of required Select and award contract for consultants and in -house team. Planned Completion Date: Nov 2011 contract documents by PHC. materials - testing firm. 2 Anaheim Intertie Connection Awaiting final design does Solicit Request For Proposals Review bids and select contractor Budget: $250,000 (YLWD Share) from consultant then forward to four approved contractors with Anaheim. Set up pre - Job No. 200906 to City of Anaheim for with Anaheim and YLWD construction meeting and schedule. Project Contact: Hank Samaripa approval. experience. Planned Completion Date: Dec 2010 3 Ohio /Oriente Pipeline Replacement Consultant completed Oriente Dr. layout to be Anticipate design completion for 1 Project preliminary plans & reviewed with City. combined Ohio /Oriente pipeline Budget: $530,000 Job No. 201005 geotechnical report for Ohio redevelopment plan and replacement in October 2010. Project Contact: Anthony Manzano St. & Oriente Dr. prepare RFP for prelim and Fairmont site design and partial Planned Completion Date: TBD from 920' to 1000' Zone, and final design of Fairmont and payment for construction of site 4 Emerg. Pumpout & VDV Valve Repl. The two projects have been Meet with City to discuss Bid documents are currently Budget: $350,000 Job No. 200903 combined for bidding. Design traffic control and phasing. scheduled for release in September 2 Project Contact: Derek Nguyen and construction phasing plan State will have 6 weeks to 2010. Planned Completion Date: TBD in process. review draft report and provide completion of State's review. 5 Well 20 50% design plans were Wellhead Equipping 90% Pumping capacity designed for Budget: $2,000,000 Job No.200711 reviewed and returned to design plans and 50% specs 3,000 GPM. Project Contact: Anthony Manzano consultant. due by mid September. Planned Completion Date: TBD IN PLANNING Project Current Status Next Actions Comments 1 Fairmont Site Improvements Developed plan for new Confirm Fairmont site Prepare draft agreement for Budget: TBD Job No. 200803 Fairmont pumping facilities, redevelopment plan and payment from Shapell in lieu of Project Contact: Anthony Manzano from 675' to 780' Zone, and prepare RFP for prelim and Fairmont site design and partial Planned Completion Date: TBD from 920' to 1000' Zone, and final design of Fairmont and payment for construction of site preliminary plan for upsizing Springview booster facilities. improvements. of Springview BPS. 2 Recycled Water Study Draft project report is being State will have 6 weeks to District will receive $37,500 upon Budget: $1,800,000 Job No. 200807 prepared by Consultant. review draft report and provide completion of State's review. Project Contact: Derek Nguyen Report is scheduled to be comments. Planned Completion Date: TBD completed by end of September. 3 West Wellfield Project Investigating additional Review hydrogeology data and May retain a Property Acquisition Budget: $9,000,000 Job No. 2009 -22 potential well sites east of contact land owners to Firm for assistance. Project Contact: Anthony Manzano Tustin Avenue. determine if there is interest in Planned Completion Date: TBD selling small site for well. 4 Sewer Master Plan Reviewed model and Modeling expected to be Consultant to refine and complete Budget: $350,000 Job No. 200916 preliminary analysis with complete by late summer 2010. model and start master plan report. Project Contact: Anthony Manzano consultant on Aug 19. Planned Completion Date: Oct. 2010 5 Lakeview Grade Separation Preliminary pipeline relocation Next design submittal due Awaiting final decision to Budget: TBD Job No. 201002 alignment finalized. OCTA within next 1 -2 months. determine agency financially Project Contact: Anthony Manzano Board resumed project after responsible for YLWD pipe Planned Completion Date: Sept. 2013 previously putting on -hold. relocation. 6 YL Blvd. Booster Station Met with City Manager to City Mgr will discuss with City Will finalize RFP for design Budget: TBD Job No. 200817 discuss proposed siting on City Council on Sep 7 and provide consultants for new pump station Project Contact: Hank Samaripa property (future linear park). comments back to District. based on comments from City. Planned Completion Date: Dec 2011 7 Elk Mountain Site Improvements Confirmed construction costs Will solicit a formal response Public access may create special Budget: $300,000 Job No. 200522 of artificial turf. Reviewed from City Manager on City's issues for development of the site. Project Contact: Hank Samaripa proposed dual -use plan with interest in project participation. Planned Completion Date: Dec 2011 City Manager and Parks Director. 8 2010 Waterline Replacement Project Project for replacement of Pre - Proposal mtg. scheduled Tentatively planned to go to Board Budget: $2M Job No. 201012 aged waterlines in 8 locations. for Sep 1. Design proposals for approval of design consultant in Project Contact: Anthony Manzano RFP completed and sent to due Sep 16. October 2010. Planned Completion Date: Oct. 2011 design consultants on Aug 23. 9 OC -51 Connection Upgrade GM forwarded staff Await further decision from Total project cost $334,600. Only Budget: $242,000 Job No. 200815 recommendation to MWDOC MWDOC and MWD. GM will $45,000 estimated for construction. Project Contact: Derek Nguyen & MWD for further review. determine if project is still $128,900 Design Fees resulted from Planned Completion Date: TBD Project status pending. economically beneficial. MWD's $160,700 review costs. 10 Urban Water Management Plan Met with consultant to review Review preliminary 2010 Templates from MWD and other Budget: $20,000 Job No. 2201013 2005 UWMP data and updated UWMP with department data to be part of YLWD 2010 Project Contact: Hank Samaripa data for new report. managers for final report. UWMP. Planned Completion Date: June 2011