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