Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/1994 Item #100 February 14, 1994 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 1D APPROVED TO: Mayor & Members of the City Council FROM: Utilities Department -Z9J? SUBJECT: WELL SITE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PURCHASE OPTION FOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT TAMURA SCHOOL SITE GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve the Well Site Lease Agreement. 2. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. 3. Adopt the finding contained in the staff report pertaining to the Addendum No. 2 to the Final EIR for the Groundwater Development Project. BACKGROUND: As part of the City's Groundwater Development Project, it is necessary to acquire at least two well sites in the Fountain Valley area. The City has studied numerous potential well sites in the Fountain Valley area as a part of the project planning. The Environmental Impact Report for the project, certified last year, considered nine different well site locations for implementation of the project. This staff report relates to the well site (No. 5) on the Tamura School property. The school property is owned and operated by the Fountain Valley School District. The site is approximately 1,200 feet west of Magnolia Avenue and 300 feet north of Slater Avenue. The well site under consideration is a 60 foot wide by 125 foot long parcel at the southwest corner of the school campus. The site fronts Santa Suzanne Street. • The City has met and discussed acquisition of the property with the school district representatives on numerous occasions over the last 18 months. A public information and community meeting was held by the City and the school district December 16th, 1993 to present the proposed well site project to area residents and school board members. Despite some community opposition, the school district board has expressed a willingness to enter into a long -term lease - purchase arrangement for the site. The school district and the City previously agreed on an appraisal as a basis to negotiate further on the specific price for the property lease by the City. Previously, the City Council Utilities Committee requested that staff pursue a purchase of the site. The school district has indicated that • unless the district can declare the school property "surplus" property, by State law they could not offer it for sale. The Tamura School site is an active elementary school site. So long as the school is an active school site is not likely that the school site could to be declared "surplus ", and therefore, could not be offered for sale. In light of this, the City and the school district staffs have jointly prepared a lease agreement for Council and School Board consideration. The agreement is attached as Exhibit "A'. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT The Agreement provides the City with a long -term lease arrangement with an option (first right -of- refusal) to purchase the property from the school district should the site be declared "surplus" at some point in the future. The annual lease payment was established by taking the range of fee ownership property values in the vicinity for properties of similar size. • The appraised "fee ownership" value was converted to a "square foot basis" (determined to be $29.50 per square foot), and then was multiplied by the square footage (7,500 square feet), of the proposed site. Then, the annualized lease payment was determined by taking 10% of that value. The proposed annual lease payment for the site is $22,125. A summary of the significant terms of the Agreement include: A lease of a 60 foot by 125 foot parcel upon which the City may construct and operate water wells and related surface and subsurface facilities. 2. An annual lease payment of $22,125 for the first 5 years, thereafter the lease payment would be adjusted by the LA- Anaheim- Riverside all Urban Consumers Price Index (CPI). 3. An initial term of 10 years, with 9 additional renewable 10 -year term extensions at the option of the City. The term totals 100 years. • 4. A provision for the school district not to terminate the lease within the first 10 years, and thereafter only if they offer the school property to the City for purchase first. 5. A provision for appraising the value of the site for purchase via; either a mutually agreeable appraiser; or the lesser of the school district's independent appraised value, versus a third independent appraiser, if the parties cannot agree on a value. Ve2 SD Lease Agreement & Addendum No. 2 to FEIR No. 151 February 14, 1994 Previously, the City Council Utilities Committee requested that staff pursue a purchase of the site. The school district has indicated that • unless the district can declare the school property "surplus" property, by State law they could not offer it for sale. The Tamura School site is an active elementary school site. So long as the school is an active school site is not likely that the school site could to be declared "surplus ", and therefore, could not be offered for sale. In light of this, the City and the school district staffs have jointly prepared a lease agreement for Council and School Board consideration. The agreement is attached as Exhibit "A'. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT The Agreement provides the City with a long -term lease arrangement with an option (first right -of- refusal) to purchase the property from the school district should the site be declared "surplus" at some point in the future. The annual lease payment was established by taking the range of fee ownership property values in the vicinity for properties of similar size. • The appraised "fee ownership" value was converted to a "square foot basis" (determined to be $29.50 per square foot), and then was multiplied by the square footage (7,500 square feet), of the proposed site. Then, the annualized lease payment was determined by taking 10% of that value. The proposed annual lease payment for the site is $22,125. A summary of the significant terms of the Agreement include: A lease of a 60 foot by 125 foot parcel upon which the City may construct and operate water wells and related surface and subsurface facilities. 2. An annual lease payment of $22,125 for the first 5 years, thereafter the lease payment would be adjusted by the LA- Anaheim- Riverside all Urban Consumers Price Index (CPI). 3. An initial term of 10 years, with 9 additional renewable 10 -year term extensions at the option of the City. The term totals 100 years. • 4. A provision for the school district not to terminate the lease within the first 10 years, and thereafter only if they offer the school property to the City for purchase first. 5. A provision for appraising the value of the site for purchase via; either a mutually agreeable appraiser; or the lesser of the school district's independent appraised value, versus a third independent appraiser, if the parties cannot agree on a value. • e3 SD Lease Agreement & Addendum No. 2 to FEIR No. 151 February 14, 1994 6. A provision allowing the school district to review the • architecture of the proposed surface facilities. 7. A provision requiring the City to maintain the landscaping and appearance of the well building. 8. Mutual hold - harmless provisions. 9. A provision for the City to terminate the lease at any time, if it becomes impractical or uneconomical for the City to operate the wells on the site. Staff believes that these agreement terms are as favorable (or more) than any other site in the area. DISCUSSION ON COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA In accord with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3, Final EIR No. 151 for the • Groundwater Development Project was prepared and certified by the City Council on January 25, 1993 (Resolution No. 93 -2). The Groundwater Development Project encompasses four new wells, two each at two different sites. At the time the EIR was prepared and certified, the preferred well sites had not been identified. In the discussion of project alternatives (Chapter 5) the EIR identified nine potential well sites that were evaluated according to various criteria for their suitability. Subsequent to certification of the EIR and approval of the project, the City identified Well site No. 5, located at Tamura Elementary School in Fountain Valley, as one of the preferred alternative sites. In conformance with the requirements of Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City has conducted an investigation to determine whether the selection of Well site No. 5 would result in any potential impacts that would require additional mitigation or would change the conclusions contained in the Final EIR. Since the site is located in a residential area, the evaluation focused on potential impacts to adjacent residences. Primary areas of concern included • noise (both during construction and operation), visual impacts, and public safety. The analysis concluded that only minor revisions to the EIR are necessary in order to make it adequate for the proposed well site selection. These changes include updating the project description to reflect the selection of Well site No. 5 and identification of Fountain Valley School District as a Responsible Agency. Mitigation measures that have been previously adopted as part of the project and the additional stipulations contained in the lease agreement would reduce all potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. *e 4 D Lease Agreement & Addendum No. 2 to FEIR No. 151 February 14. 1994 Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines provide that the Lead Agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR, if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR adequate for the proposed action, and these • changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. Pursuant to the requirements of Guidelines under Section 15164, an addendum to Final EIR No. 151 has been prepared to address potential impacts associated with the selection of Tamura School as one of the two new well sites. The addendum concludes that the necessary revisions to the analysis contained in FEIR No. 151 represent only minor changes and do not raise any new issues or alter the conclusions of the EIR regarding the environmental impacts of the project. No new significant impacts will result, and no additional mitigation measures are required as a result to the revisions to the project. SUGGESTED CEQA ACTION Staff suggests that Council adopt the finding that: Final EIR No. 151, previously certified on January 25, 1993, and Addendum No. 2 to the Final EIR were considered prior to approval of the project. Together they were determined adequate to satisfy all requirements of CEQA. The Addendum does not raise any important new issues regarding the environmental effects of the project. The Final EIR and • Addendum reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. The Addendum No. 1 to Final EIR No. 151 is an attachment to this staff report. Refer to Exhibit "B ". STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: The proposed lease agreement will provide the City with a desirable site for two water wells at a reasonably attractive market lease cost. The long -term (100 year) lease with the right -of- first - refusal to purchase the site is nearly as favorable as an out -right purchase of the site. Staff recommends approval of the agreement. Staff has reviewed this Lease- Purchase Option Agreement with the Utilities Committee. The Committee reviewed this matter at their last meeting and forwarded a recommendation to the Council for approval of this Lease- Purchase Option Agreement. Respectfully submitted, • JEFF STRNEA(L7- Jeff Staneart, P.E. Utilities Director Attachments: Exhibit W': "Lease Purchase Option Agreement ", 7pp. Exhibit "B ": "Addendum No. 2 to Final EIR No. 151, iopp. JS: sdi • 0 RECORDING REQUESTED AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk City of Newport Beach Post Office Box 1768 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92659 -1768 0 Space above this line for Recorder's use only. WELL SITE LEASE AGREEMENT AND OPTION TO PURCHASE This Lease Agreement and Option to Purchase, (hereinafter referred to as the "Lease ") made this day of 1994 between the Fountain Valley School District (hereinafter referred to as "District ") and the City of Newport Beach, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "City") is made in reference to the following: RECITALS 1. City has plans for a groundwater development project to construct • extraction wells in the Fountain Valley area and transport water to its service area; and, 2. District is the owner of the Tamura School property in the City of Fountain Valley. A portion of the school property is suitable for an extraction water well site; and, 3. District is willing to lease - option a portion of the Tamura School property to City for construction and use of an extraction water well site. The parties hereto do agree as follows: 1.1 Leased Premises. District hereby leases to City the portion of the Tamura School property as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, (hereinafter referred to as the "leased premises' ) • 1.2 Term of Lease The term shall be 10 years from the date of this Agreement. City shall have the right to extend the term of this lease for nine (9) consecutive ten (10) year periods. City may exercise it's option to extend the term of this lease by giving District written notice of its intent to do so at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of this term or any subsequent term, or by failing to remove the well and related equipment on or before the expiration date. i E 1.3 Termination of Lease The Lease may be terminated under the following conditions: A. By City. City may terminate this lease upon a determination that • continued groundwater pumping from the extraction well site is no longer feasible due to contamination of the underground water or the inability to produce a sufficient quantity of water to make pumping economical given the cost of production, the cost of transmission, the cost of alternative sources of water. City shall give District at least one (1) year's written notice of it's intention to terminate this lease and the notice shall specify the date of termination. The notice of termination shall not be effective until City has paid District a sum equal to one (1) annual lease payment in addition to payments otherwise due pursuant to this lease. The notice of termination shall not be effective until the City has restored the lease premises to its original condition by removing all improvements and abandoning the well in accordance with all Federal, State and other regulatory requirements. B. By District. In consideration of the cost of improvements and installation of the extraction well, District agrees not to terminate the lease within the first ten (10) years without the City's written consent. In the event City exercises its option to renew this Lease, District may thereafter terminate the lease upon declaration that the Tamura school property is surplus and ready for sale pursuant to the California Education Code. District shall give the City one (1) years's written notice of its intent to terminate the lease. If District terminates lease and City does not exercise the option described in Section 1.4, then City shall restore the leased premises to its original condition by removing all improvements and abandoning the well in accordance with all Federal, State and other regulatory requirements. 1.4 Option to Purchase If District terminates lease pursuant to Section 1.3 above, City shall have the option and first right of refusal to purchase the leased premises. The purchase price shall be determined by each party by obtaining an appraisal from an appraiser that is a Member of the American Institute (MAI). The appraisals shall be based on the proposed use of the entire Tamura school property. After completion of the appraisals, City and District shall negotiate the purchase price • based upon the two (2) appraisals. If City and District can not agree on a negotiated price, then an appraisal shall be obtained from a third appraiser. The purchase price shall then be District's negotiated asking price or the value setforth in the third appraisal, whichever amount is the lowest. City and District shall share equally in the cost of obtaining the third appraisal. 0 0 1.5 Annual Lease Price. City shall pay to District upon the commencement of the lease a prorata share of the annual sum of $ 22,125. Thereafter, before the first day of July of each year commencing July 1, 1994, City shall pay District • in advance the annual sum of $ 22,125. After the first five years the annual lease payment shall be increased or decreased in accordance with the Los Angeles- Anaheim- Riverside all Urban Consumers Price index. It is agreed that the base for this index at the time of entering this lease is 149.8. 1.6 Permits. City shall obtain all permits required to construct the well on the leased premises. District as the land owner will sign all permit applications as required by the local agencies issuing the permits. 1.7 Architectural Approval. City shall submit all plans for buildings, landscaping and any other above ground improvements to District for architectural approval. District shall review all plans submitted and within thirty (30) days indicate in writing whether or not the plans are approved. District approval shall be based on safety and architectural compatibility with adjacent facilities. District's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. • 1.8 Maintenance and use of leased premises. City will not separate the above ground well facilities from the adjacent school facilities with a wall or fence. District shall be entitled to continue using the unoccupied portions of the leased premises except when these areas are being used by City for construction or maintenance of the well facilities. In consideration of District's use of the unoccupied portion of the leased area, District agrees to maintain this unoccupied area. After use of the unoccupied area by the City for construction or maintenance, City shall restore any disturbed portions of the area. City shall at all times be responsible for maintaining the exterior appearance of all above ground well facilities in a neat and orderly appearing condition. The exterior appearance of the well facilities shall at least be equal to the exterior appearance of the adjacent school buildings. All utility costs for the leased premises shall be bome by City. • 1.9 Notices. Except as otherwise set forth hereinabove, all notices, payments, transmittals of documentation and other writings required or permitted to be delivered or transmitted to any of the parties under this agreement shall be personally served or deposited in a United States mail depository, first class postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: If to District: Fountain Valley School District 17210 Oak Street Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention: Superintendent • If to i : City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Attention: Utilities Director or such other address or person as any party may direct to the other in writing. Except where service is by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, service of any instrument or writing shall be deemed completed forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in a United States mail depository. 2.0 Indemnification: A. The City shall indemnify and hold District and its officers, directors, employees, and representatives harmless from and against any damages or injury to any person or entity not a party to this Agreement caused by the negligent performance of this Agreement by City, its officers, councilmembers, employees, agents, • representatives and contractors in connection with the performance of this Agreement; provided, however, that City shall not be liable for, and shall not indemnify and hold the District harmless from any passive negligence on the part of City. B. District shall indemnify and hold the City and its officers, councilmembers, employees, and representatives harmless from and against any damages or injury to any person or entity not a party to this Agreement caused by the negligent performance of this Agreement by District, or by any negligent or wilful act of District, its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives and contractors in connection with the performance of this Agreement; provided, however, that District shall not be liable for, and shall not indemnify and hold the City harmless from, any passive negligence on the part of District. 2.1 Integration. Construction and Amendment: This Agreement • represents the entire understanding of District and City as to those matters contained herein, and no prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered by this Agreement. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and construed as if drafted by both District and City. This Agreement may not be modified, altered or amended except in writing signed by District and City. • • 0 0 2.2 Atttomey's Fees. If either party is required to initiate litigation to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement or to seek damages by reason of the breach of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred. 2.3 Successors. This Agreement, and all of the terms, conditions and provisions herein, shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, District and City, and their respective successors and assigns. 2.4 Authorization to enter Agreement. District represents that it is authorized by State law to enter into this Agreement and that this Agreement has been authorized by it's Board of Trustees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: al General Counsel Fountain Valley School District APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Robert Burnham ATTEST: By: City Clerk Wands Raggio 5 FOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT in President By: Secretary CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a Municipal Corporation Clarence Turner Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTYOFORANGE 0 ss. 1994, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for • the State, personally appeared known to me to be the Mayor of the City of Newport Beach and known to me to be the City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE On 1994, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State, personally appeared known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed the same in his authorized capacity(ies), and that by his(their) signature(s) on the instrucment the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed this instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State • 0 0 TAMURA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT u Lu PROPOSED WELL SITE EASEMENT 125' S'LY BOUNDARY - - -- SCHOOL SITE m APPROXIMATE WELL BUILDING FOOTPRINT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PROPOSED WELL SITE LEASE TAMURA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, FOUNTAIN VALLEY 655 EXHIBIT "A 6/21/93 N.T.S. FT 0 0 ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO FINAL FIR NO. 151 TAMURA SCHOOL WELL SITE NEWPORT BEACH GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT • • Prepared by: • City of Newport Beach Planning Department February 7, 1994 0 0 ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO FINAL EIR NO. 151 • TAMURA SCHOOL WELL SITE NEWPORT BEACH GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INTRODUCTION On January 25, 1993 the Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 93 -2 certifying Final EIR No. 151 (State Clearinghouse No. 91121068) for the Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project. The project consists of the development of at least four new water wells along with a water transmission line, storage reservoir and appurtenant facilities to serve the needs of the residents of Newport Beach. Public Resources Code Section 21166 provides that: "When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following • events occurs: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available." The Groundwater Development Project encompasses a minimum of four new wells, two each at two different sites. At the time the EIR was prepared and certified, the preferred well sites had not been identified. In the discussion of project alternatives (Chapter 5) the EIR identified nine potential well sites that were evaluated according to various criteria for their suitability. • Subsequent to certification of the EIR and approval of the project, the City identified Wellsite No. 5, located at Tamura Elementary School in Fountain Valley, as one of the preferred alternative sites. In conformance with the requirements of Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City has conducted an investigation to determine whether the selection of Wellsite No. 5 would result in any potential impacts that would require additional mitigation or would change the conclusions contained in the Final EIR. This addendum presents the results of that investigation. Addendum No. 2 to Final EIR 151 Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project 0 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Chapter 2 of the EIR contains the description of the Groundwater Development Project. The • portion of the project that is the subject of this analysis consists of the selection of Wellsite No. 5 as one of the preferred wellsite alternatives. (The preferred location of the second wellsite is still under investigation.) The preferred location of Wellsite No. 5 encompasses a 7,500- square -foot parcel (60 ft. x 125 ft.) located at the southwesterly corner of the Tamura Elementary School property near the intersection of Santa Suzanne Street and La Colonia Avenue in Fountain Valley (identified as "Site 1 on the attached vicinity map). An alternate site, located approximately 100 feet north of the southeastern corner of Tamura School, has also been identified for possible consideration ( "Site 2" on the vicinity map). Only one of these two sites on the Tamura School grounds would be utilized. The proposed site plan and architect's rendering are also attached. In addition to the required discretionary actions described in Section 2.6 of the Final EIR, the use of Wellsite No. 5 would require approval by the Fountain Valley School District, which owns the subject site and is a Responsible Agency under CEQA. ANALYSIS The proposed Tamura School wellsite was evaluated in light of the provisions of CEQA Section 21166 and to determine whether there is any potential for environmental impacts beyond those described in Final EIR 151. The following analysis follows the format of an Initial Study as prescribed by CEQA. Since the site is located in a residential area, this evaluation focuses on • potential impacts to adjacent residences. Primary areas of concern include noise (both during construction and operation), visual impacts, and public safety. A detailed discussion of these as well as the other subjects addressed in the EIR is provided below. 1. Earth Sec. 3.5 of the EIR contains an evaluation of earth resources. The selection of Wellsite No. 5 would not alter the analysis of earth resources contained in the EIR. Mitigation Measure No. 5 -1 requires that a grading permit be obtained prior to construction. A geotechnical report will be required prior to issuance of the grading permit to evaluate soil conditions and potential hazards, and construction plans will take into account any recommended corrective measures. There would be no significant difference between Site 1 and Site 2 with respect to earth resources. 2. Air Sec. 3.3 discusses potential impacts to air quality. Construction impacts: The EIR addresses air pollutants that will be released during construction, including equipment exhaust and dust. Mitigation Measures 3 -1 through 3 -9 have been adopted to • minimize these emissions, however, and no additional impacts would be created by selection of Wellsite No. 5. Although Site 1 is closer to a residential neighborhood by about 100 feet, this is not expected to result in any significant difference in the air quality impacts from the two sites. Operational impacts: The wells would operate with electrical pumps, therefore no air pollutants would be released from the pumps. Maintenance vehicles would visit the site occasionally, but this source of vehicle emissions is addressed in the EIR and is considered minor. There would be no substantial difference between Site 1 and Site 2. Addendum No. 2 to Final EIR 151 2 Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project 0 0 •3. Water Potential impacts to water resources are evaluated in Sec. 3.6. Selection of Wellsite No. 5 would not result in any changes to the EIR analysis of water resources. This site is one of the alternatives considered in the evaluation of potential impacts and mitigation measures. There would be no substantial difference between Site 1 and Site 2 with respect to water resources. 4. Plant Life Sec. 3.7 of the EIR addresses biological resources. Neither Site 1 nor Site 2 would have any impact on important vegetation since the school property is landscaped with grass and ornamental trees. No changes or additions to this section of the EIR are necessary. 5. Animal Life No changes to the discussion is Sec. 3.7 are necessary. No sensitive animal species would be affected by the selection of Wellsite No. 5 since it is entirely surrounded by urbanized area. 0 6. Noise Sec. 3.4 of the EIR discusses potential noise impacts. Construction impacts: The EIR notes that the project will generate temporary noise impacts during construction, and some residential properties are adjacent to the pipeline route. Wellsite No. 5 is located in a residential neighborhood, therefore adjacent homes would be exposed to temporary construction noise. Site I is immediately adjacent to residences while Site 2 is approximately 100 feet from the nearest residence. Because Site I is closer to homes, it would result in a greater temporary inconvenience for adjacent residents than would Site 2. Mitigation Measures impose the standard requirement for all construction equipment to have proper mufflers and sound attenuation which will reduce the temporary construction noise impacts to a level that is not significant. No additional impacts that are not already addressed in the EIR would result from the use of Wellsite No. 5. Operational impacts: The EIR notes that some noise will be caused by the well pumps, however the pumps will be operated by electric motors which are substantially quieter than gasoline or diesel pumps. In addition, Mitigation Measure No. 4 -1 requires that the pump enclosures be designed • and insulated so that pump noise will not exceed 55 dBA CNEL at any adjacent property line. This is the outdoor noise level that is normally considered acceptable for residential areas. Because Site 1 is closer to residential properties than Site 2, Site 1 has a greater potential for noise impacts, especially at night when ambient noise is lowest. The required acoustical insulation in the pump enclosure will ensure that noise is reduced to a level that is not significant. The selection of Wellsite No. 5 would not change the impacts discussed in the EIR nor require additional mitigation beyond those measures already imposed on the project. Addendum No. 2 to Final EIR 151 3 Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project E 0 7. Light and Glare Only standard facility and security lighting will be utilized at the wellsite except during • emergencies, therefore no significant impacts would result. S. Land Use Sec. 3.1 of the EIR discussed potential land use impacts. Selection of Wellsite No. 5 would not result in any additional impacts on land use plans and programs beyond those discussed in Section 3.1.2 of the EIR. Because of the additional requirement to obtain approval from the Fountain Valley School District, the following minor revision to Mitigation Measure No. 1 -1 is appropriate. 1 -1 Prior to award of a construction contract, the Utilities Director shall verify that the City has obtained all necessary permits and approvals from responsible agencies, including the City of Fountain Valley, the City of Huntington Beach, the County of Orange, the Fountain Valley chool District, and the California Coastal Commission. This modification is not considered significant. Potential conflicts between the project and adjacent residential and church uses are addressed in the • sections on air quality, noise, traffic and aesthetics. 9. Natural Resources The EIR notes that the project would have no significant effects on natural resources. No additional analysis is required regarding Wellsite No. 5. 10. Risk of Upset The EIR states that the project would have no significant impacts regarding risk of upset. Selection of the proposed well site would not alter this conclusion. 11. Population The EIR concludes that project would have no significant effect on population growth or distribution, and the proposed well site would not alter this conclusion. 12. Housing • The EIR concludes that project would have no significant effect on housing demand or distribution, and the proposed well site would not alter this conclusion. Addendum No. 2 to Final EIR 151 4 Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project • w 13. Transportation/Circulation • Sec. 3.2 of the EIR evaluates potential impacts in the area of traffic and circulation. The EIR acknowledges that the project will create temporary disruptions to traffic patterns during construction. As a result, mitigation measures will be required in order to minimize these disruptions through preparation of a traffic control plan, which may include restrictions on hours of construction, temporary elimination of on- street parking, temporary detours, etc (EIR Sec. 3.2.3). Since Wellsite No. 5 is located adjacent to an elementary school, special care must be taken to minimize traffic hazards while children are walking to and from school. This is standard procedure in the preparation of traffic control plans in the vicinity of schools and other sensitive areas, and no additional impacts or mitigation measures beyond those contained in the EIR are required. There would be no substantial difference between Site 1 and Site 2 with respect to these conclusions. 14. Public Services The EIR states that the project would have no significant effects on public services, and the proposed well site would have no impacts that would alter this conclusion. 15. Energy The EIR states that the project would have no significant effects on the use of energy, and the • proposed well site would have no impacts that would alter this conclusion. 16. Utilities The proposed project is a component of the City's water supply and distribution system, which would have no significant effects on other utilities. Selection of the proposed well site would not alter this conclusion. 17. Human Health In the Water Resources section of the EIR (Sec. 3 -6), a discussion of water quality is presented. The proposed well site would not alter this discussion. There are no other potential significant impacts in the area of human health. 18. Aesthetics The proposed pump enclosure would be approximately 30 feet wide by 100 feet long, and would not exceed 18 feet in height, which is similar in size to a single -story house (see attached plan and architect's rendering). The EIR states that the groundwater project would not obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the • public, or result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. Since the proposed well site is located adjacent to a public street (Santa Suzanne) and also private residences, a clause has been added to the well site lease agreement that would grant the District the authority to review and approve architectural plans for pump buildings and landscaping with regard to architectural compatibility with adjacent facilities. In addition, the agreement would require the City to maintain the exterior appearance of all facilities in a condition that is at least equal to the exterior appearance of the adjacent school buildings. These provisions would ensure that no significant aesthetic impacts would result from the proposed well site. There would be no substantial difference between Site 1 and Site 2 with respect to aesthetics. Addendum No. 2 to Final FIR 151 Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project 0 0 19. Recreation The EIR states that the project would have no impact on existing recreational opportunities. The • selection of Wellsite No. 5 would not alter this conclusion. 20. Cultural Resources Sec. 3.8 of the EIR discusses cultural resources. The preferred wellsite would have no impact on cultural resources since it is located in an urbanized area and no historical structures would be affected. No changes or additions to this section of the EIR are necessary. There would be no substantial difference between Site 1 and Site 2 with regard to cultural resource impacts. CONCLUSION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 151 was prepared for the Groundwater Development Project and was certified by the City Council on January 25, 1993. The proposed revision to the project has been evaluated and it has been determined that none of the conditions described in Section 21166 exist, therefore no additional EIR is necessary. Section • 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that the Lead Agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR adequate for the proposed action, and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. Pursuant to the requirements of Guidelines Section 15164, this addendum to Final EIR No. 151 has been prepared to address potential impacts associated with the selection of Wellsite No. 5 (Tamura School) as one of the well locations for the Groundwater Development Project. On the basis of the analysis presented above, this addendum concludes that the necessary revisions to the analysis contained in EIR No. 151 represent only minor changes and do not raise any significant new issues or alter the conclusions of the EIR regarding the environmental impacts of the project. No new significant impacts would result, and no additional mitigation measures are required as a result to the revisions to the project. Attachments 1. Vicinity map 2. Site plan 3. Architect's rendering • fl.. WNBIUTJLIFV•wE.L1.S"DDEND-2.EJR Addendum No. 2 to Final EIR 151 Newport Beach Groundwater Development Project • • SITE PLAN N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HISAMATSU TAMURA GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WELL SITE NO. 2 i 0 PETITIO TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CI'SJCOUNCIL MEETING # FEBRUARY 19,1994 /FOUNTAIN VALLEY SU OOL DISTRICT We, the undersigned, live in the immediate area of a proposed site for a well and pump houseproject to be undertaken by the Neeport. Bhach /I•`ountai.n Valley School By signing this petition, vrC qre _ating our opposition �,o the choice of location(s) for this project on the Tamura School grounds. Signature name,. Ad.dr:;ss Da to r �f(�cl< �.C'�� 7 - �_. i / .. �'• /��� �''� Ai_�,L.t(1L �<Sl. �, c{ Z�2 r�,�(C " —�._ —� '�`� J z f4 lal�lP li CL /lu5EW 9 %i i LA ZAtJA CT. �=.V. ;.,4 I�-S�F; / --P 7,. nc ��, F; 1l, :q-/ jJ ` C T -�, ?.= /y.:_. }�%7.j(,,,C� � -IcCu f •/Cj -J!, �'7l2 `/f7jPrtiA c'i i= ✓. ' - /` /jy S PA HUN Okk i7yv3 s��ry rr3 s�'��r✓JUt . z -iti ' �,q G) EU ate' r f PL'TITIO TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CI #COUNCIL MEETING FEPRUARY 14,1994 /FOUNTAIN VALLEY OOL DISTRICT We, the undersigned, live in the immediate area of a proposed site for a well and pump housepr.oject to be undertaken by the Newport Mach /;-'ounta.i.n Valley SChooL Pisl:i:ict. By signing thi -s petition, vr_ aro stating our opposition to the choice of location(s) for this project on the Tamura School grounds. gnatur� Print•_J naive ,1d.dress Date (Z1� Z- - -- - -- -�. - -- r - - -' - -- ` - �^ l �7C(Z1 SA,v7q S�7-A tee' u,1�(<y. crl i� 9�4 `)Z7a Ss c / j /UilNI✓E 02 -14 \ 175-/' S e- //Z,:) , i 1 v!a,n Va11P7V 339 CCCJJJ` C O - -_. X11 �� /•5 l >. �/ oar S %�/v C� City C! /,705 ��v L- r 7( , _le ntio • G��c ��v� LR Z2,�� C?.tf v_: v =qI I P11:9- c,) EcaD 0Fq) SPEECH TO NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL 2/14/94 1. My name is Bob Nigro 2. I reside at 8767 La Zana Court, Fountain Valley 3. I understand & fully support Newport Beach's quest for a local source of water. 4. My concern is with the choice of the Tamura School site as the pumphouse. As one of the concerned residents impacted by the possible use of the Tamura School site, I have addressed the Fountain Valley School District Board of Trustees. 5. I proposed 4 alternate locations. 6. Each of these sites are neither aesthetically offensive nor create noise pollution to homeowners. 7. It is my understanding that your plan for the Tamura School site will have a large pump house 25 feet off the southwest corner of the school property. 8. This will place the pumphouse within 55 feet of my second floor bedrooms. It will similarly impact other neighbors. 9. Your Environmental Impact Report #151 on page 40 states that the noise levels from the pumps (I assume including motors, fans, etc.) will not exceed 55 dB at the neighboring property lines. 10. For your information, a 3 dB increase represents a doubling of the sound level. A 6 dB increase represents a quadrupling of the sound level. 11. The sound level in my backyard at the Tamura property line is currently 49 dB. With the pumphouse, it will go to 55 dB. 12. So by installing & operating the pumps at the Tamura property, the noise level on my property will quadruple. 13. Remember, this is not a passing airplane or a chirping bird. This is a constant 55 dB whine 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. 14. In reviewing the EIR, another question came up. Page 64 contains a table of potential pumphouse sites and a rating of each site. The factors evaluated were: • Quality of aquifer • Impact on residences • Impact on roadways • Distance from service area 15. The Tamura site was ranked in the lower third. Yet, you are considering the use of the site. Does this make sense? 0 16. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I am supportive of your objective to assure that Newport Beach has an adequate water supply. 17. I don't believe that obtaining the water need be at the expense of others. 18. There are alternative sites and approaches that do not impact other homeowners. 19. These alternatives do not get any closer to a neighbor's house than 200 feet. 20. Please take some time to evaluate your alternatives prior to signing any agreement to purchase water and make a choice that meets your goals without impacting residences.