HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 09-23RESOLUTION N0.09-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE TUSTIN
AVENUE WELL SITE PROJECT INCLUDING: ADOPTION
OF THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS
ADEQUATE FOR THE TUSTIN AVENUE WELL SITE
PROJECT; ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AS REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND,
APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLANS
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That the Tustin Avenue Well Site Project is considered a "Project"
pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act;
B. An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared
for this project and distributed for public review. The Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration evaluated the implications of the proposed Tustin
Avenue Well Site Project.
C. Prior to approving of the Project, the City Council evaluated the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration and determined that, with incorporation of
the mitigation measures, the project would not have a significant effect on
the environment.
D. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration was advertised for public review
in compliance with Section 15105 of CEQA.
E. The City Council of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented
by the Community Development Director and other interested parties
regarding the subject Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
including the Responses to Comments, at the May 5, 2009, meeting.
A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been
completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The City Council has
received and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including the Responses to Comments, prior to recommending
approval of the proposed Project and finds that it adequately discusses the
environmental effects of the proposed project. On the .basis of the initial study
and comments received during the public review process, the City Council finds
that although the proposed project could have impacts, there will not be a
Resolution No. 09-23
Page 1 of 124
significant effect because mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration mitigate any potential significant effects to a point where
clearly no significant effect would occur. In addition, the City Council finds that
the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or
cumulatively, on wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Code. The City Council hereby adopts the Final Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
III. The conceptual design plans for the Project are approved subject to the
conditions that are identified as "mitigation measures and implementation
measures" in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto
as Exhibit B.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on
the 5th day of Mav. 2009.
PA T ,
City Clerk
Resolution No. 09-23
Page 2 of 124
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 09-23 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 5~' day of
May, 2009, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Davert, Amante, Gavello, Nielsen, Palmer (5)
COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None (0)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None (0)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None (0)
c~'r~'
P ELA STOK
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 09-23
Page 3 of 124
EXHIBIT A
TO
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 09-23
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title Tustin Avenue `,Tell Site
Project Location: 1822 N. Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana
Project Description: Demolition of an existing water well facility and the development and equipping of a
higher capacity replacement water well facility. Replacement of two undersized water mains.
Project Proponent: City of Tustin
Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Telephone: 714/573-3016
The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance
with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
and on the basis of that study hereby finds:
^ That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
® That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans
and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial
Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community
Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this
Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and
extends for thirty (30) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review
period may be extended if deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON OCTOBER 25, 2008
Date ~•.~~•d~ C~t*~ ~~~
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
~ N ITIAL STUDY
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title: Tustin Avenue Well Site
Lead Agency: City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Phone: (714) 573-3016
Project Location: 1822 N. Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin/Water Services Division
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
General Plan Designation: General Commercial
Zoning Designation: Community Commercial
Project Description: The demolition of an existing water well facility and the development and
equipping of a higher capacity replacement water well facility; replacement of
two undersized water mains.
Surrounding Uses:
North: Commercial
South: Commercial
East: Tustin Avenue, Commercial
West: Old Tustin Avenue, Commercial,
Health Care Facility
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
[~ Orange County Fire Authority ^ City of Irvine
^ Orange County Health Care Agency ® City of Santa Ana
^ South Coast Air Quality Management ^ Orange County
District EMA
® Other -State Department of Health Services
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D
below.
^ Aesthetics
^ Air Quality
^ Cultural Resources
^ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
^ Land Use/Planning
^ Noise
^ Public Services
^ Transportation/Traffic
^ Mandatory Findings of Significance
^ Agriculture Resources
^ Biological Resources
^ Geology/Soils
^ Hydrology/Water Quality
^ Mineral Resources
^ Population/Housing
^ Recreation
^ C.Tiiliiies/Service Systems
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signifcant 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.
^ I find that although 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 in the 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, and no further documentation is required.
Preparer~: ~ Scott Reekstin / Title Senior Planner
~~L~~ _ e S~f~ Date p:23 ~
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Directions
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level,
indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a pa~i.;itlar physical impact may occur, ti~en the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is
required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-
referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and,
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) EIave a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its sturoundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glaze which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality 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 standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Signiftcant Mitigation Significant
Lnpact Incorporation Impact No Impact
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ® ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ a
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project:
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, 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 ~:
regional plans, 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 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 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 preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
^ ^ o
^ ^ ^
^ a ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ a
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ® ^ ^
^ ® ^ ^
^ ® ^ ^
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
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
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- 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), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, 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 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 proposed school?
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, 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 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 project area?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Sigrtiftcant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Lnpact
^ ^ ^
^ o ^
^ ^ o
^ n ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ® ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response 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 urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
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 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 planned 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 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 manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard 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 flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff' from construction
activities?
Less Than
Slgnlj tCRll t
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
o ^ o
^ ^ ^
^ o ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ " ^
l) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-
construction activities?
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater
pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment
fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including
washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or
storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work
areas?
n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect
the beneficial uses of the receiving waters?
o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow
velocity or volume of stotmwater runoff to cause
environmental harm?
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site
or surrounding areas?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
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 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 conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE -
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ® ^ ^
^ ^
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above 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 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 excess noise levels?
XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
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:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Signifcant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
^ ^ ^
^ ® ^ ^
^ ~ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
~,,..
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATIGN/TItAFFIC -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county 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 risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
o ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements 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 project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
~ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water
treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g.
water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands),
the operation of which could result in significant
environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
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 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 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 human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
0 ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
ATTACHMENT A
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT WATER WELL SITE
1822 N. TUSTIN AVENUE, SANTA ANA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing water well facility (well
enclosure, pump, piping, fencing, and pavement) and the development a ::d ectuipping
of a replacement water well facility on a trapezoidal shaped site at 1822 N. Tustin
Avenue (AP. No. 396-333-02) in the City of Santa Ana. The purpose of the proposed
replacement with a higher capacity water well is to improve water services throughout
the Tustin water service area. The Conceptual Site Plan/Floor Plan and Elevations are
provided in Exhibits 1 to 3.
The project site is bounded by one (1) commercial property to the south, one (1)
commercial property to the north, Tustin Avenue, vacant land and commercial property
to the east, and Old Tustin Avenue and commercial offices and a healthcare facility to
the west. The project site is about 7,200 square feet in area and is currently developed
with an existing City of Tustin well facility. This existing well site will be dismantled and
the well destroyed in accordance with the California Department of Water Resources
Water Well Standards (Bulletin Nos. 74-81 and 74-90.) Temporary construction
easements will be required for the project.
The following design features have been incorporated into the project design:
The well equipment would be contained within an enclosed building, 2,025 square
feet in size. The building would be setback approximately 43 feet from the property
line along Tustin Avenue and approximately 34 feet from the property line along Old
Tustin Avenue. The security walls and gates would be setback approximately
twenty (20) feet from Tustin Avenue and fifteen (15) feet from Old Tustin Avenue_
The building would be setback a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the north property
line and would be directly adjacent to the south property line.
The sand settling basin would be located at the northwest portion of the site. Sand
and other particulates that are extracted from the well water are deposited in the
basin. An electrical transformer would be located to the west of the building within
the enclosed service yard at the southwest portion of the site. Pumping equipment,
a sand separator, electrical and chlorination equipment, a standby generator, control
and monitoring equipment, and a chlorine scrubber system would be located within
the building.
The building would be constructed mainly of cement block finished with stucco. The
bottom four feet of the south elevation would be finished with a flagstone veneer.
The entire building would be topped with cornices for additional architectural accent.
The overall maximum height of the building is eighteen (18) feet which is compatible
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 2
with the predominantly commercial character of the area. Two sets of metal double
doors and two roll-up doors would face north. One set of double doors and one
single door would face west. The south and east facing elevations would include
acoustical louvers, but no other openings.
The proposed paved service area would be used for parking maintenance vehicles,
and for locating the settling basin, fuel tank, and aboveground transformer cabinet
(to be installed by Southern California Edison). This area would be enclosed by
eight (8) foot tall block walls and two V°hiCIP. gates. The walls would be designed to
be compatible with the arci~itecture of the building and would include ornamental
pilasters with bull nose stone caps.
• Landscaping including trees, bushes, vines, and ground cover would be planted to
enhance the appearance of the site.
The total construction period for the entire facility is estimated at approximately sixteen
(17) months. Well drilling, testing, and well construction operations will take place over a
period of about twelve (12) weeks. While the majority of drilling activity will occur during
the day, a limited number of activities will be conducted throughout the night. The
following activities will occur 24 hours per day for a total maximum of twenty-one (21)
days (non-consecutive):
• Pilot borehole drilling (six days)
• Borehole reaming (six days)
• Well casing installation (two days)
• Gravel packing (two days)
• Constant rate discharge test (five days).
The remaining fourteen (14) months of construction activity include the installation of
security fencing and a temporary 24-foot high noise attenuation wall, the construction of
the masonry structure, the installation of utilities, permanent pumping and chlorination
equipment, and the planting of landscaping.
A temporary noise attenuation wall will be constructed prior to the start of the drilling
phase. The noise attenuation wall is removed after drilling activities have been
completed.
The proposed project also includes the replacement of two (2) sections of undersized fl-
inch water main lines on Tustin Avenue (north of Seventeenth Street), and on
Seventeenth Street (west of Carroll Way) with 12-inch water main lines. The two (2)
sections are 365 and 115 feet in length. The purpose of these water main lines is to
connect the new Tustin Avenue Well to the City of Tustin's water distribution system. The
locations of the proposed water main line replacements are shown in Exhibits 4 to 6.
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 3
AESTHETICS
Items a through c - "No Impact": The project is a replacement potable water well
facility including perimeter walls and an enclosed structure to house the well,
chlorine room, the emergency generator, and the chlorine scrubber. The proposed
site is approximately 7,200 square feet in area. Most of the site would be enclosed
with block walls and two steel security entrance gates which would contain the well
structure, a settling basin, a parking area for maintenance vehicles, an electrical
transformer, and a fuel tank. The ~ rAmainder of the site outside. the black walls
would be landscaped with trees, shrubs, vines, and grour;d cover to improve `the
aesthetic appearance of the site.
The proposed structure is a one story building of approximately 2,025 square feet
in area constructed mainly of cement block finished with stucco. The bottom four
feet of the south elevation would be finished with a flagstone veneer. The entire
building would be topped with cornices for additional architectural accent. The
overall maximum height of the building is eighteen (18) feet which is compatible
with the predominantly commercial character of the area. Two sets of metal
double doors and two roll-up doors would face north. One set of double doors
and one single door would face west. The south and east facing elevations
would include acoustical louvers, but no other openings. The proposed paved
service area used for parking maintenance vehicles and the location of the
settling basin and an aboveground transformer cabinet (to be installed by
Southern California Edison) would be enclosed by eight (8) foot tall block walls
and two vehicle gates. The walls would be designed to be compatible with the
architecture of the building and would include ornamental pilasters with bull nose
stone caps.
The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any scenic vistas,
would not substantially damage scenic resources, and would not substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
Item d - "Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated": Lighting during
construction of the facility would need to meet the minimum requirements of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA); however, lighting would be shielded
from adjacent properties and Tustin Avenue and Old Tustin Avenue. Permanent
security lighting for the facility would be designed to appear unobtrusive and would
be directed downward.
With mitigation incorporated, the project would not create a new source of
substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area.
Sources: Conceptual Plans and Elevations
Field Observations
City of Tustin Public Works Department
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 4
Mitigation Measures:
The City shall install permanent security lighting fixtures that direct
lighting downward to prevent spill and glare on neighboring properties.
• The City shall require the contractor to install temporary construction
light fixtures that direct lighting downward to prevent any spill and glare
on neighboring properties and the public right-of--way.
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Items athrough c - "No Impact": The project site for the replacement potable
water well facility is located on an existing developed water well site within a
developed urban area. The proposed project will have no impacts on any
farmland, nor will the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract. 1"he project will not involve any changes in the existing
environment and could not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.
No impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated.
Sources: Public Works Department
Field Observations
Mitigation Measures: None Required
3. AIR QUALITY
Items athrough e - "No Impact": The project involves the construction of a
replacement potable water well facility with a gas chlorination system. Emissions
related to the construction and operation of the site are calculated based on the
type of construction vehicles, average number of daily trips, average daily soil
removal, and number of drilling days. Construction of the water well will include
the drilling of a 42 inch diameter borehole to a depth of 50 feet and the installation
of a 36 inch diameter steel conductor casing pipe. A 12 to 18 inch diameter pilot
borehole will then be drilled from the bottom of the 36 inch diameter pipe to a
depth of approximately 800 to 1,000 feet during a period of six to eight days for an
average of 180 cubic feet of soil removal per day. The pilot borehole will be
reamed out to a diameter of 30 inches, and an 18 inch diameter stainless steel
well casing pipe will be installed from the bottom to the top of the well.
The drilling operation will be performed in accordance with the City's project
specifications, and the requirements of the California Department of Water
Resources, the California Department of Public Health, and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
The project would be constructed with a limited amount of heavy equipment,
including a drill rig, backhoe, crane, and other construction vehicles such as trucks
and loaders and an average of 10 or fewer daily trips. The construction site is
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 5
approximately 7,200 square feet in area, plus a temporary construction easement
area of 6,900 square feet, and paved roads are available to the site.
A diesel powered emergency generator is included as part of this project. The
generator will be sized to provide electrical power to all on-site equipment in the
event of a SCE power failure. The generator will be housed in a sound
attenuated room and will not be in operation during normal facility operations.
The generator will be tested once a month during the daytime fora 15 minute
period as part of the City's regular maintenance program.
The chlorination room will be isolae~; with no open access and v,iiil be designed to
contain any potential leaks. A chlorine scrubber will be provided to neutralize and
contain gas in the unlikely event of a leak. The proposed chlorine facilities will not
result in the creation of any health hazards or expose people to hazardous
materials. Risks from a chlorine leak contained in the building with a scrubber are
very minimal and would be addressed in the California Accidental Release
Program (CaIARP) Risk Management Plan for this aspect of the Tustin Avenue
'Nell operations. Any potential leakage would be contained within the confines of
the proposed structure.
Grading activities for construction of the project will be conducted in compliance
with the City of Tustin Grading Manual and the SCAQMD. The project would
specifically be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). SCAQMD Rule
403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se, but rather, sets
forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other
fugitive dust sources) in the South Coast Air Basin. The general requirement
prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from
construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust
remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions
source. SCAQMD Rule 403 identifies specific dust control measures that must
be implemented to reduce emissions. Any potential impacts related to air quality
will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for construction
activities and for project operations. The following table shows SCAQMD's
thresholds of significance.
SCAQMD's Thresholds of Significance for
~.~a..~~„~ ~.~ yap ~~.. 75 55
Corn ounds
Nitro en Oxides 100 55
Sulfur Oxides 150 150
Particulate Matter 150 150
Note: The SCAQMD no longer requires construction activities to be evaluated by quarterly
significance thresholds (SCAQMD, 2001 b).
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 6
With regard to CO emissions emitted by vehicle trips associated with project
operations, the SCAQMD CEQA handbooks considers the following concentration
increases to be significant:
• 1 hour = 1.0 part per million
• 8 hour = 0.45 part per million.
Due to the small scale nature of the project and very limited amount of heavy
equipment that will be present on-site on any Given construction day, project
emissions would not exceed the air quality thresholds established by SCAQMD
and summarized in the above Table.
Furthermore, the project does not have the capacity to conflict with or obstruct
implementation of any applicable air plan, violate any air quality standard, result in
a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by
federal or ambient air quality standard, nor will it expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. With adherence to SCAQMD requirements, no
impacts to air quality are anticipated.
Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules &
Regulations
City of Tustin Grading Manual
City of Tustin Public Works Department
Conceptual Plans and Elevations
Implementation Measures:
The City shall require the contractor to operate all construction
equipment and the emergency generators for construction activities in
accordance with SCAQMD rules and regulations. This requirement
shall appear conspicuously on final construction plans and/or working
drawings.
At the time of plan check, the City shall ensure that the specifications for
the chlorine scrubber system meet all applicable SCAQMD rules and
regulations.
The City shall require the contractor to comply with all City policies
pertaining to short-term construction emissions, including periodic
watering of the site and prohibiting grading during second stage smog
alerts and when wind velocities exceed 15 miles per hour. This
requirement shall appear conspicuously on final construction plans
and/or working drawings.
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 7
• The City shall require the contractor to implement dust control measures
during site disturbance activity, including, for example, regular watering
in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. This requirement shall appear
conspicuously on final construction plans and/or working drawings.
• Prior to putting the project out to bid, the Public Works Department shall
submit the construction drawings to the Santa Ana Fire Department
(SAFD) for their review, approyat, and stamp.
• Prior to start up of the chlorination facility, the Public Works Department
shall obtain approval from the SAFD. As part of this approval, a
hazardous material and inventory disclosure form will be prepared
including an emergency response/evacuation plan for the facility.
• The construction documents and plans shall specify that the facility shall
be designed for detection and containment of any potential leakage.
• A Risk Management Plan with specific provisions regarding the
procedures and responsible parties shall be prepared by the Public
Works Department/Water Services Division or an assigned contractor in
accordance with the CaIARP Program, and reviewed and approved by
the SAFD. Appropriate education and training of the Risk Management
Plan shall be provided to all staff responsible in the operation of the site.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Items athrough f - "No Imaact": The proposed project site for the replacement
water well facility is located in an urban area with no unique, rare, or endangered
species of plant or animal life identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. No impacts to protected wetlands, native or migratory fish, or
wildlife corridors are anticipated. Development of the site does not conflict with
any local policies or ordinances for tree preservation, or regional or state habitat
conservation plans.
Sources: Public Works Department
Field Observations
Mitigation Measures: None Required
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Item a- "No Impact": The project site is located in an urbanized area with no
identified existing historical, archeological, or paleontological resources on the
property or on adjacent properties.
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 8
Sources: Public Works Department
Field Observations
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Items b through d - "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated":
Construction of the replacement water well will include the drilling of a 42 inch
diameter borehole to a depth of 50 feet and the installation of a 36 inch diameter
steel conductor casing pipe. A 12 to 18 inch diameter pilot borehole will then be
drilled from the bottom of the 3E inch c;ameter pipe tc~ a deptl~i of approximately
800 to 1,000 feet during a period of six to eight days for an average of 180 cubic
feet of soil removal per day. The pilot borehole will be drilled out to a diameter of
30 inches, and an 18 inch diameter stainless steel well casing pipe will be installed
from the bottom to the top of the well.
The excavation activities associated with surface improvements would be in
accordance with the City's Grading requirements. It is highly unlikely that
archeological or paleontological resources could be encountered. However, if
archeological or paleontological resources are discovered during excavation, they
are to be handled in accordance with the Cal'rfomia Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and other applicable regulations.
Mitigation Measure:
In case of an accidental discovery of historical or unique archeological or
paleontological resources, the contractor shall immediately halt
construction activity and promptly notify the City of the discovery. The
City shall then retain a qualified archeologist or paleontologist to
evaluate the discovery. If the find is determined to be a unique,
historical, archeological, or paleontological resource, appropriate
protection and preservation measures shall be taken in accordance with
Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
Public Resources Code Section 21082.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Items athrough e - "No Impact": The project site is not located in proximity to a
known earthquake fault (Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map). The project
will not have substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death
because of proximity to a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking,
landslides, or unstable soil for waste-water disposal. No impacts from construction
and operation of the site are anticipated.
The project site is not in close proximity to an area that is designated as a
liquefaction zone in a Preliminary Map released on October 15, 1997, by State
Department of Mining and Geology. According to the Santa Ana General Plan, the
project site is located in an area of potential subsidence. Construction of the
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 9
project will require preparation of a soils report and structural calculations for the
proposed structures in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and other
related codes.
Construction of the replacement water well will include the drilling of a 42 inch
diameter borehole to a depth of 50 feet and the installation of a 36 inch diameter
steel conductor casing pipe. A 12 to 18 inch diameter pilot borehole will then be
drilled from the bottom of the 36 inch diameter pipe to a depth of approximately
800-1,000 feet-during a period of six to eight days for an average of 180 cubic feet
of soil removal per day. The pilot borehole will be drilled out to a'iameter of 30
inches, and an 18 inch diameter stainless steel well casing pipe will be installed
from the bottom to the top of the well. The excavation and grading activities
associated with surface improvements would be in accordance with the City's
Grading requirements. With adherence to accepted building practices, no impacts
are anticipated.
Sources: Preliminary Seismic Map
Santa Ana General Plan Seismic Element
Uniform Building Code
City of Tustin Public Works Grading Criteria
Implementation Measure:
• At the time of plan check, construction plans shall be prepared to
ensure conformance with the requirements of the Uniform Building
Code and all other applicable state and local laws, regulations and
requirements.
7. HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Items a. c through h - "No ImpacY': Construction and operation of a water well
facility does not have the capacity to cause significant hazards such as explosions,
hazardous material spills, interference with emergency response plans, or wildland
fires, etc. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity
of a private airstrip.
Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department/
Water Services Division
Orange County Health Care Agency
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Item b - "Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated": The long-term well
operation includes a chlorination system that would use chlorine gas to meet
California Department of Public Health drinking water quality requirements. The
chlorination system would have the capacity of 50 pounds each day with two 150
pound cylinders with a directly mounted vacuum regulator on each cylinder. Both
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 10
chlorine cylinders would be securely attached to the storage room wall by a
restraint system to ensure their integrity pursuant to the CaIARP Program. The
chlorination room would be isolated with no open access and be designed to
contain any potential leaks. The chlorination system would be connected to an
emergency scrubber system that would act as a chlorine neutralizer and air
remover to exhaust the flow of gas from the enclosed space through the system in
the unlikely event of a leak.
The chlorination station would be kept locked at all times and accessed only by
City staff or emergency responders. C)perati~n and maintenance of the chlorine
scrubber system would be closely monitored, and all operations would meet the
SAFD requirements. The materials for construction of the scrubber are required to
comply with all applicable federal, state, and local ordinances. The proposed
chlorination equipment is unlikely to result in the creation of any health hazards or
expose people to hazardous materials. Any potential risks from a chlorine leak
would be contained in the building with a scrubber and contained within the
confines of the project site and mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department/
Water Services Division
County of Orange Environmental Health Division
Mitigation/Implementation Measures:
• Prior to putting the project out to bid, the Public Works Department shall
submit the construction drawings to the SAFD for their review, approval,
and stamp.
• Prior to the start up of the chlorination facility, the Public Works
Department shall obtain approval from the SAFD. As part of the SAFD
approval, a hazardous material and inventory disclosure form shall be
prepared including an emergency response/evacuation plan for the
facility.
The facility shall be designed to reduce any risk and potential human
impacts to a level of insignificance by appropriate detection and
prevention of any potential leakage. These prevention measures shall
be incorporated in the construction plans and documents subject to
review and approval of the SAFD and County of Orange Environmental
Health Division.
A CaIARP Risk Management Plan with specific provisions regarding the
procedures and responsible parties shall be prepared by the Public
Works Department/Water Services Division (or an assigned contractor),
and reviewed and approved by the SAFD. Appropriate education and
training of the Risk Management Plan shall be provided to all City staff
responsible for the operation of the well site.
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 11
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Items a through a - "No Imaact": Construction and operation of the replacement
water well facility is unlikely to affect standing or moving bodies of water or create
significant runoff water. During drilling, water quality testing, construction, and
operation of the well site, all requirements of the Clean Water Act and National
Pollutant Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) shall be adhered to by the Public
Works Department or the assigned contractor. All drill cutting, rotary fluid, and
other by-products are to be retained on-site to be transported and disposed of by
the contra~;tor in accordance with the applicab3a rec~uiations.
A maximum of approximately 1,500-3,000 gallons per minute are expected to be
withdrawn from the groundwater table. These amounts are not significant because
the Basin is managed by the OC Water District (OCWD), and the OCWD sets a
maximum basin pumping percentage (BPP) each year for all of the agencies
pumping groundwater from the Basin. The BPP therefore takes into account all of
the active production wells throughout the OC Basin, plus other factors to prevent
over-pumping of the Basin. The development of the water well will not have a
significant impact in lowering the local ground water table level nor will it deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge that would result in a
net deficit in aquifer volume.
The capacity of the groundwater basin beneath the City of Tustin's water service
area is more than sufficient to sustain the pumping levels contemplated by this
project. This fact is based on current information about the condition of the
Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin (Basin) provided by the OCWD. The
OCWD will be implementing key Basin resource management programs over the
next 20 years as part of its Long Term Facilities Plan (LTFP). The OCWD is the
groundwater management authority for the Basin, including that portion of the
Basin which underlies the Tustin Avenue Well project site.
Regarding overall Basin conditions, a January 2006 report by OCWD indicates
that groundwater levels rose significantly (between 20-40 feet on average)
throughout the Basin from November 2004 to November 2005. Basin water levels
have declined somewhat in 2007 and 2008 due to current drought conditions.
OCWD has identified the possibility that additional storage capacity may exist in
the future within the Basin, which would benefit all Orange County groundwater
producers, including the City of Tustin. Further engineering analyses will continue
to be done by OCWD to refine models of the Basin's anticipated ultimate capacity,
in concert with the LTFP process.
Construction of the water well would require approval by the OCWD and an
amendment to the Cites Water Supply Permit Number 05-08-03P-013 issued by
the California Department of Public Health (issued on June 24, 2003).
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 12
Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department/
Water Services Division
Orange County Health Care Agency
Orange County Water District
California Department of Public Health
Mitigation Measures: None Required
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Items athrough c - "No Impact": The project site is located in the City of Santa
Ana, has a Santa Ana General Plan land use designation of General Commercial,
and has a Santa Ana zoning designation of Community Commercial. The facility
shall be designed in consideration of the adjacent commercial properties. The
building would be setback approximately 43 feet from the property line along
Tustin Avenue and approximately 34 feet from the property line along Old Tustin
Avenue. The security walls and gates would be setback approximately twenty
(20) feet from Tustin Avenue and fifteen (15) feet from Old Tustin Avenue. The
building would be setback a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the north property
line and would be directly adjacent to the south property line. The overall
maximum height of the building is eighteen (18) feet which is compatible with the
predominantly commercial character of the area. The proposed project does not
conflict with the Santa Ana General Plan, Santa Ana Zoning Ordinance, or other
policies and regulations applicable to the area. The project will not physically divide
an established community, nor conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan.
Sources: Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Map
Santa Ana Zoning Map
Submitted Plans
Field Observations
Mitigation Measures: None Required
10. MINERAL RESOURCES
Items aand b - "No ImpacY': Construction of a potable water well facility will not
result in loss of a known mineral resource or availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site.
Source: Santa Ana General Plan Conservation Element
Mitigation Measures None Required
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 13
11. NOISE
Items b c eand f - "No Impact": The project site is located directly adjacent to
commercial uses, Tustin Avenue, and Old Tustin Avenue. Operation of the well
would be within an enclosed building constructed of masonry and sound
attenuation materials to minimize noise levels to the outside. A diesel powered
emergency generator is included as part of this project. The generator will be
sized to provide electrical power to all on-site equipment in the event of a SCE
power failure. The generator will b~ housed in a sou~ld-attenuated room and wil:
not be in operation during normal facility operations. The generator will be tested
by Water Services staff once a month during the daytime fora 15 minute period.
Based on the findings of the "Noise Assessment for the Tustin Avenue Water
Well° dated December 17, 2007, the only potentially significant noise emissions
would be from the exhaust fans, and potential noise impacts from the long-term
operation of the well would be less than significant. According to the Noise
Assessment, if the well structure were similar to the well structure at 17575
Vandenberg Lane, operational noise levels would not be expected to exceed the
adjusted Noise Ordinance limits or noise level criteria at the nearest commercial
or residential areas. The proposed Tustin Avenue well structure will actually be
constructed with materials that are more sound-attenuated than those that were
used at the Vandenberg Lane facility.
The maximum allowable outdoor operational noise level for commercial uses in the
City of Santa Ana is 75 dB(A) CNEL. With the masonry construction, sound
panels, and insulation, the operation of the facility will not expose persons or
generate noise levels in excess of standards established by the City of Santa Ana,
nor will it expose persons to excessive groundbome vibrations.
The project is not located within an airport land use plan or vicinity of a private
airstrip. In addition, the Tustin Avenue well facility is not a sensitive noise receptor
and is not impacted by aircraft noise.
Sources: Noise Assessment for the Tustin Avenue Water Well
City of Santa Ana
Santa Ana City Code Sections 18-308 to 18-321
City of Tustin Public Works Department/
Water Services Division
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Items aand d - "Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated": The
proposed project will be constructed in two phases. Dunng the first (drilling)
phase, the well will be drilled to a depth of between 800 and 1,000 feet below
ground surface, followed by pumping development and well testing utilizing a
portable testing pump. During the final (equipping) phase, the permanent
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 14
masonry structure will be constructed, followed by the installation of utilities,
water pumping, water treatment equipment, and landscaping.
Well drilling, testing and well construction operations will take place over a period
of about twelve (12) weeks. Drilling operations will occur 24 hours per day for a
total maximum of twenty-one (21) days (non-consecutive). Most of the drilling
activities must proceed continuously to keep the drilled boring open. Specific
drilling activities will include pilot borehole drilling, borehole reaming, well casing
installation, gravel packing, airlift swabbing, test pumping, and constant rate test
pumping.
Based on the findings of the "Noise Assessment for the Tustin Avenue Water
Well" dated December 17, 2007, without mitigation the temporary constnaction
activities are expected to exceed the noise limits in the City of Santa Ana Noise
Ordinance. However, with the temporary soundwall in place, construction activities
will not exceed the noise limits in the City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance.
Construction of a masonry structure, installation of utilities, and installation of
permanent pumping and chlorination and emergency power generation
equipment will follow the drilling activities. These activities will last approximately
fourteen (14) months and will only occur during the daytime hours consistent with
the City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance (Santa Ana City Code Section 18-
314(e)), which allows construction activity between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, excluding federal holidays. Because noise
generated from these activities will only occur during the least noise sensitive
daytime hours and will cease upon completion of the project, these impacts are
considered less than significant.
The operation of the proposed well may generate a negligible amount of noise
that may be audible from the adjacent properties. However, the facility will be
designed to meet the standards contained in the City of Santa Ana Noise
Ordinance. Adequate interior insulation would be installed to ensure that any
operational noise generated from the facility is less than the ambient adjusted
daytime and nighttime noise standards for the residential areas in the vicinity of
the project site. Furthermore, the contractors for construction and operation of
the project would be required to schedule deliveries to the site of equipment and
chemicals during normal City working hours Monday through Friday to mitigate
any potential noise impacts.
Sources: Noise Assessment for the Tustin Avenue Water Well
Santa Ana City Code Sections 18-308 to 18-321
City of Tustin Public Works Department/
Water Services Division
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 15
Mitigation/Imalementation Measures:
• During well drilling, well installation, and test pumping operations,
approximately 640 feet of temporary noise attenuation wall,
approximately 24 feet in height, shall be in place around the perimeter
of the construction site.
The contractor shall use a drilling rig that is equipped with a hospital
grade muffler such that the drilling rig is capable of not exceeding a
steady noise (L50) of 64 dDA ut 100 feet (if no soundwall .were
present).
• During construction, limited noise monitoring shall be conducted at
nearby residences to confirm that the actual noise levels are consistent
with the levels predicted in the "Noise Assessment For the Tustin
Avenue Water Well" dated December 17, 2007.
• Pumping development and step drawdown tests and well structure
installation activities shall be restricted to the hours exempt from the City
of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance; that is, between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, excluding federal holidays.
Noise generating well maintenance operations shall be restricted to the
hours exempt from the City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance, that is,
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sundays and
federal holidays.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Items a b and c - "No Imaact": The proposed project for construction of a
replacement water well facility on a site zoned Community Commercial does not
have the capacity to increase population in the area or displace existing housing or
people. The potable water pumped from the well is necessary to serve the City of
Tustin's existing customers in accordance with the public health and safety
mandates of the Califomia Department of Public Health.
Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department
Water Services Division
Califomia Department of Public Health
Mitigation Measures: None Required
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
Item a - " No Impact": Construction of a potable water well facility will not create
significant additional demand for, or alteration of, government facilities or services
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 16
(fire and police protection, schools, parks, etc.). The City's Capital Improvement
Program includes funding resources for construction of the facility. The City's
Water Division Operating Budget includes funding for the operation and
maintenance of the facility.
Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department/
Water Services Division
Mitioation Measures: None Required
14. RECREATION
Items aand b - "No Impact": The proposed construction of a potable water well
facility would not impact neighborhood parks or recreational facilities.
Source: Santa Ana General Plan Open Space and Parks and
Recreation Element
Mitigation Measures: None Required
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Items a through g- "No Imaact": The proposed destruction of the existing water
well, dismantling of the facility, and construction and operation of a replacement
water well facility will not significantly affect traffic in the project area. The project
would be constructed using a drill rig, backhoe, crane, and other construction
vehicles such as trucks and loaders and an average of 10 or fewer daily trips.
Once completed, the well site would operate without on-site staff. There may be
1-2 trips a day to and from the site for facility security inspections and well
monitoring which would have a minimal impact on traffic in the area. The project
will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, inadequate emergency access,
inadequate parking capacity; nor will it exceed a level of service standards
established by the County congestion management agency for designed roads or
highways or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation.
Sources: Tustin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measures: None Required
16. UTILTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Items a through h - "No Impact": No impacts to water treatment, wastewater
treatment, or solid waste disposal are anticipated in conjunction with the
construction of the replacement water well facility. The proposed improvements ~""
will meet all the requirements of the Cites NPDES permit. No storm water
treatment control measure would result in significant environmental effects.
Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Tustin Avenue Well Site
Page 17
The proposed project will result in an increased potable water supply and
enhanced reliability to the City's Water Service area, as well as improved water
quality and pressure. The additional local water supply will help reduce the City's
dependence on more expensive imported water from regional/state sources.
Sources: NPDES Permit
City of Tustin Public Works Department/
Water Services Division
Mitigation Measures: None Required
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Items a b and c - "No Impact": The proposed project consists of the
destruction of an existing water well and dismantling of the facility and the
construction of a replacement well facility to improve water services throughout
the City. The project design, construction, and operation will comply with the
regulations of the City of Tustin, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
Santa Ana Fire Department, Orange County Water District, and Califomia
Department of Public Health which reduces any potential impacts related to
geological problems, water quality, air quality, health, hazards and noise to a
level of insignificance. As such, the project does not have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment nor achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. It does not have impacts that are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would cause substantial
adverse impacts on human beings.
Sources: Santa Ana Fire Department
Orange County Water District
California Department of Public Health
South Coast Air Quality Management District
City of Tustin Public Works Department
S:\Cdd\Scott\Environmental Etc\Tustin Avenue Well Initial Study 2008.doc
Exhibits 1 to 3
Conceptual Site Plan/Floor Plan and Elevations
I ns 'rd
l _-
I v
fn$TRc � C
oRBfYa �;
iraR� �
1
NfY
rrlrrI �N
APN 396-333-01
ip�\\ \
I� = SNG,ER/ b QRBfYY ((w
I Q 6 GNrE
Vd b R R GfNfMip't 4 UY NN^f0 T \
.4 E1EtlRAAI
9YIrfILEM NELL lOOMN[Nrim
RNA
T o r+ o + \
N+ S/O 1 /Pd BO f6•d - - - iD of w- w0
� KPUCED
}
or d�.- i\\\ ,\ \\
` rfYRYB CLYSTRLCTIOY ._. - \ \
EE
APN 396-311-24 1"` �•\\\ \
Y
Eu WMW
• u VCYRCY IS. 2005
. ( 1
� V
F�
J
------------
-
--------
rocaRvrE
6uxA'
tlPl
(riWE.
IPC0.9YCE
01
zi
Yftff'XE
W
`
EI.6 EI
EERM
wNl — 2054
0.WIAVEIT4 M45TER
le P1
LGNf PI
AYC qxl IoSE 5/dE GY'
/dR
+
C.
W41 .//
+
RIPI
fYERGErnY / WTM
SI(�[pI
R
+
5 [ ShCWE/1x 11
dEwASN
ao'. au
'q
4
domoRauw
nau uv uvR
�
rrRCndm IwY
�
at n
nt RO)Ir �
�
I
F
�
o
do Y.0.
adY4
6'$
JYo
J2d
J2o
NORTH ElE
ATlON OF TUSTIN AVE.
WELL FACILITY
inr�w�
romvCE
aOTNi
Y
aYi ACOY5TK
F
— - ExIERq'i
WUn rasa ev
Cw rKc wa
PRASTER•(
Q
ExIER:PR
I.CYT lNPI
R fITP (Y'
o
Pl
I.CM/ (MPI
QQY4l[RK
9R1 YCSE STg1E co
`
vLAW
Inn
1)
cw Brmr N.w.
�WIR sruro rnn
4
a
9
+
c Q
y
TucslwrE
P YERCER
Tf adYO
Yd
J2d
!20
0
SOUTH
ELEVATION OF TUSTIN AVE.
WELL FACILITY
—
sc4f: N'•Io
`
QTY ON T .N •CALIMRNIA
IRI PAC{ACA, wm W
t.YNII
RP NRR WIRR1
%VIN& CAL IA 114Y
rs
�—
A
J
------------
-
--------
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — i
-�RON EYIERtlR—
uRn I—
EYIEA-
,—L"rMP)
cw srN rr
Rn uutto mNi
O
.l EtECIRCK
AANIIYCE
'Q
1100Y
JO+/l
- EREAY{M
NDN
srER/
EYE WR]
EYE FAA
a
6'YNY Z
OOUBI[ pPOR
I e WEAN CA e
EAST ELEVATION OF TUSTIN AVE. WELL FACIUTY
SCAIE: %' • I9
:RnI zos�a awA'�ArcriwK s�s c �
ARD wUA9zL SIpRE FAL CN
fLAG rW VENEER
AEJW NID W FAU
WEST ELEVATION OF TUSTIN AVE WELL FACIUTY
scA£, A, f 10
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — --
Exhibits 4 to 6
Location Map and Si~..e Plans
Proposed Water Main Replacements
PROJECT NAME; Twm AVENUE AND 17TH STREET WATER MAIM REPLACEMENTS (CIP N0.6146)
I + • I I IF f P " !V1 ' • . r" • , 71 " Ty • , nn r>n m r» i1 in rn I" , m r" 111 111 71
-------------------------------
ONSTRUCT 342.99 L:F - f2 -INCH CLASS 350 CMl
LP
- EN ....WR P
-- IMI- H DOUBLE DOSE �[ETHY
_ , .I oC ryyrt»a6 - --� f 4[+-- �.. _ •-_ _ E... R1N CLASS
PLM fall Ar[ ,y .%W. NN
- r-
. I
170
It
COWAVAUL
I
- - 160 1 -
._. ..-._ SCALES+._......... .
VERT: T'•4'
11.00 � m,F 12.00 13.00 14.00
10.00 PEN arT or TW-
ciowwY ff 1 CASs is SrA Ot6 WIC JW IMW CASs
OafW. anum ow
SENJIE'S DELICATESSEN
RESTAURANT E+1As aA. y
Iata N1a[n arm • � Aro OM
N[NpC ` S % xausr
V[Ai oy \ \ i of nwusC rA rt ACo lNC
MANA AAAA. NRNnr s.Nr �, \ ° mC SIArdAf. FW [rats
.tar Ayror Cd11mA1[ � 1 rDAar P1C nrus m
AffEIH1 ru ArY STA nett pd `� \ �\ \� d NAT[A111R NRN LiN
0I Mlsl STA/s ASO RF v \ t SR,Ep R.L SCO SI[LNC
\ \ r r �r A25 S Ct � wr OCrf[' per/ I�
CDSTAS ■ SC[ K® C NKAILNw L .r rNWOC CNS
'•. , s ® AV rNOSI 61Aft5 KR
�*P ASAI S/AIONp tEC1t7' r / ME y[ AW, A'[/IKC Cnfrs
— 4 _\\ y N� W eaKna�w rca roC QAC rD YRt id CYRB. WIrEN. Ap mArl
a v ro ACArA JarT TAN sr on PER CEIRRY
To slr ! ffA GRa. •YSF C
r_": �\ a , SEE W Crary sarvaA
EETs RArr NAT ,Z H
rotor rwe ArEA AAn J K \ P, Afp1dL ti A1C ART
AND OAus rMK E $ _ - -- . AAYc s1 .— _ — —
"sN°"i a VN arws s+rN An ro --� _ — -
O.N.'S DO UT CH FARANLC N —�• ;�___L —
1216 ( yP' TW r[All 10
or OLKE
–
Conn � E' S AE 1' MY lAICES '�
TAYLOR SHANSA
OP AAA
jai
4 W
CONTRARY MARY'G – – -- a ––
UNIOUEI2T SHOP =
to
Z –
ORANGE COUX7Y CUSTOM
WHEELS AND ACCESSORIES CONSTRUCTION NOTE R °
II 1810
KMrs PER Orr AA• ND.t
rARNAM MI Wr SAIRA ANA E MAUI NAClWoC , I EI'll UA
CTT M TU[TIN .CArAPWlN1A �PACNC�fYT W
O At Ab KPIRZ (rats dAl �1rT �i Nr IRv1NL CALA .A 111Y
Nsea, -La CO LAKor a01Cw+'�
P[R OOYWm srA •�4 ..w.�.'
OS ALL CMKs r1Rt K .AN/LD .'077n1tt �. 1Vrtrn oaCy Rw.
AAN an irW, A of AM r7U --�� "` Paoracr NA
AIM OK IAINCN WATRRLINS
m
MAN AND PR017LR _
---------- latior— V N
� � -8
-------------
rIYT//IG
IlJ 0�'n CY
rRWvrEW cGunR.a� y
RENS•E EXSTMC
S e«xr CP ro RE.wEsr
,oWr t.fEEr vNNUYI
�—IZ. f C,OSS M/M
FQVavE Ma Ld vRXft
RAEME-fW PUSMLW/
?GiE vNYE 4VF VCVE
rPUSN , Hfl iflE . PVSNp,
f GTE YRYE
8i NP . CP� �- EYISrNG
rRWSRYN cuavwc �w�cN Ycv
8 -INCH ACP CONNECTION AT YORBA STREET(@
.orfs.
4 @wR,crdt Suu IVrN01E l0 pfrfRw/E DEPTH,
r4CKXN AYO RKERWS P` TRE EYKTMC ao4n+ AYD
IPRtJI WKERYMRs IR.OR rG SUBNSSd' Of SNGP QRWIM.S.
L NST Es
PER E Of N N SrAVaW CRWRCS
EYJ mo ID,.
nTAv�N1Rro ryerRCs mLnxGs PEa
�mw /GM1 p• TusrN
A WGRR sl/ TME PLCE NM1xG THE RfiNr.
Notre NssessmeM Por ire
TUSiIN AYENUE
YIIATER WELL
CIiY OF SAIITII ANTI
Pre ared For:
THE CITY OF ~USTIN
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Submitted By:
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Fred Greve, P.E.
Mike Holritz, INCE
27812 El Lazo Road
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Phone 949-349-0671
Fax 949-349-0679
Report #07-199-B
December 17, 2007
Table Of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................1
2.0 Existing Setting ............................................................................ .1
1 Pr%ect Description ............................................................................... 1
2
.
2.2 Background Information on Noise ...................................................... .. 3
2.3 Noise Criteria Background ................................................................... 3
2.4 Noise Assessment Metrics .................................................................. 5
2.5 Noise Criteria ..................................................................................... .. 6
2.5.1 City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance ........................................ .6
_ 2.5.2California Noise/Land Use ~Jmpatibility Guidelines .............. ..8
2.6 Existing Noise Environment ............................................................... .. 8
3.0 Potential Noise Impacts ............................................................... 11
3. > Noise impact Criteria ......................................................................... 11
3.2 Short-Term Construction .................................................................... i 1
3.2.1 Overview of Drilling and Construction Activities .................... 12
3.2.2Well Drilling, Reaming, Well Casing, and Gravel Packing ..... 12
3.2.3Airlift Swabbing ...................................................................... 15
3.2.4Constant-Rate Pump Testing ................................................ 21
3.2.5Permanent Structure Installation ........................................... 23
3.3 Long-Term Operations ....................................................................... 23
3.4 Indoor Noise Levels ........................................................................... 25
4.0 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 25
4.1 Short-Term Construction .................................................................... 25
4.1.1 Well Drilling and Construction ............................................... 25
4.1.2Test Pumping ........................................................................ 26
4.1.3Permanent Structure Installation ........................................... 26
4.2 Long-Term Operations ....................................................................... 27
5.0 Noise Impacts After Mitigation ..................................................... 27
APPENDIX .......................................................................................... 28
Existing City of Tustin Water Well Facilities .......................................28
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report #07-199-B Page 1
1.0 Executive Summary
The construction and operation of a replacement water well is proposed for parcel owned by the
City of Tustin and located at 1822 N. Tustin Avenue in the City of Santa Ana (AP. No. 396-333-
02). There is an existing well on the same property within 250 feet of the replacement well site,
which has been in operation since 1952. The potential for noise impacts from both construction
and operations are evaluated in this report. The construction of t'.:e well will occur in many
phases including drilling, borehole reaming, well casing, gravel packing, airlift swabbing,
pumping development and step-down testing, and constant-rate test pumping. Some of these
construction activities will occur on a 24-hour basis.
The project is immediately adjacent to existing commercial .land uses to the north and south.
Existing residential uses are near the project, but not directly adjacent to it. Noise levels were
measured both during the day and night to determine the existing noise levels at the property line
and the nearest residences. Traffic noise from Tustin Avenue and Old Tustin Avenue dominates
the noise environment at and around the project site.
The City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance contains noise limits, which apply to noise sources on
private property impacting adjacent residential properties. These limits were considered for the
evaluation of project-generated noise during both the construction and operational phase. The
California Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contain recommended noise level limits for
commercial land uses, and these were used to evaluate potential operational noise impacts.
The various phases of construction and operation of the Tustin Avenue Water Well were
evaluated for their noise potential. As part of the project, a 24-foot temporary soundwall will be
constructed around the drilling and well development activities. Drilling, borehole reaming, well
casing, gravel packing, and constant-rate test pumping are not projected to exceed the noise
limits applied to the project. With the mitigation measures proposed, no significant noise
impacts will result from the construction and operation of the water well facility.
2.0 Existing Setting
2.1 Project Description
The purpose of this report is to predict the potential noise impacts from the construction and
operation of the proposed Tustin Avenue Water Well Project located in the City of Santa Ana.
The project site is adjacent to commercial uses. There is an existing well on the same property
within 250 feet of the replacement well site, which has been in operation since 1952. The
nearest private residential land use is approximately 430 feet away to the east. To the north is
the Benjie's Deli restaurant. Immediately to the south are various commercial buildings
including a donut shop, watch repair, an import/export service, and a nail salon. Farther south
are other commercial buildings including Fazoli's Italian restaurant, Wok Experience, Philly's
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report #07-199-B Page 2
Best, Ami Sushi, Curves, Farmer Boy's Hamburgers, and a 7-Eleven convenience store. To the
west is the CareHouse healthcare facility (the nearest residential land use), various medical and
law office buildings, and light industrial buildings. Farther west are other residential areas,
which are largely shielded from the project site by intervening buildings.
The proposed project includes the drilling, development and equipping of a replacement well
facility with a higher capacity, which will improve water supply and reliability throughout the
City of Tustin water service area. The well is proposed to be located on a parcel owned by the
City of Tustin at 1822 i~l. Tustin Avenue. Figure l shows the proposed project location, the
recommended noise barrier location, and the locations of the nearby land uses in the aerial
photograph base map.
Figure 1-Proposed Tustin Avenue Water Well Site
Project Location and Noise Wall
(during drilling and test pumping)
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report l0!W-199-8 Page 3
Sound levels generated during the drilling of the well aze a focus of the report. Well drilling,
testing and construction operations will take place over a period of about nine weeks. Drilling
operations will occur 24 hours per day for a total maximum of nineteen days. Specific activities
will include borehole drilling and reaming, well casing installation, gravel packing, airlift
swabbing, test pumping, and constant-rate testing.
Borehole drilling may last up to six days. Borehole reaming may also last up to six days. This
process would be followed by the installation of the well casing for two days. Gravel packing
will also take two days. All this work may take place on a 24 hours per day basis.
During airlift swabbing, the aquifer zones would be cleaned of fine organic materials often
referred to as "fines". Once this work is finished, the drilling rig will be removed from the site,
and test pumping will proceed using a portable testing pump. The well pumping development
and step drawdown tests may be performed during daytime hours. The final test in the sequence
would be the constant-rate testing, which generally Lasts for up to three days total and occurs 24
hours per day.
The City of Tustin has required the placement of a temporazy sound-attenuating wall 24 feet in
height to mitigate the project-related noise levels at the surrounding land uses. The sound wall
will remain in place during the drilling, well construction, and test pumping activities.
Construction of a masonry structure, installation of utilities, and installation of permanent
pumping and chlorination equipment will follow. The construction and installation activities
will be restricted to daytime hours. Noise generated during regular well operation will primarily
be from exhaust fans located on the walls of the structure. With the masonry construction, any
noise from 24-hour operation of the pumping and chlorination equipment will be at the nearby
commercial areas. Scheduled maintenance activities that could generate significant noise levels
will occur during weekday daytime hours, which are exempt from the Santa Ana Noise
Ordinance limits.
2.2 Background Information on Noise
2.3 Noise Criteria Background
Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency
(pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel
(dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide
range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the
Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dB
higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; and 20 dB higher four times as loud; and so
forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud).
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report X07-199-8 Page 4
Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-
dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted
decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a
manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Community noise levels are measured in
terms of the "A-weighted decibel", abbreviated dBA.
Sound levels decrease as a function of distance from the source as a result of wave divergence,
atmospheric absorption, and ground attenuation. As the sound travels away from the source, the
sound energy is dispersed over a greater azea, thereby dispersing the sound power of tine wave.
Atmospheric absorption also influences the levels that are received by the observer. The greater
the distance traveled, the greater the influence and the resultant fluctuations. The degree of
absorption is a function of the frequency of the sound, as well as the humidity and temperature.
Noise has been defined as unwanted sound and it is known to have several adverse effects on
people. From these known effects of noise, criteria have been established to help protect [he
public health and safety and prevent disruption of certain human activities. These criteria are
based on such known impacts of noise on people as hearing loss, speech interference, sleep
interference, physiological responses and annoyance. Each of these potential noise impacts on
people are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs:
HEARING LOSS is not a concern in community noise situations of this type. The
potential for noise-induced hearing loss is associated with occupational noise exposures
in heavy industry or very noisy work environments. Noise levels in neighborhoods, even
in very noisy airport environs, are not sufficiently loud to cause hearing loss.
SPEECH INTERFERENCE is one of the primary concerns in environmental noise
problems. Normal conversational speech is in the range of 60 to 65 dBA, and any noise
in this range or louder may interfere with speech. There are specific methods of
describing speech interference as a function of distance between speaker and listener and
voice level.
SLEEP INTERFERENCE is a major concern with traffic noise or noise from a 24-hour
operation such as well drilling or test pumping. Sleep disturbance studies have identified
interior noise levels that have the potential to cause sleep disturbance. Note that sleep
disturbance does not necessarily mean awakening from sleep, but can refer to altering the
pattern and stages of sleep.
PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES aze those measurable effects of noise on people that
are realized as changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, etc. While such effects can be
induced and observed, the extent is not known to which these physiological responses
cause harm or aze sign of harm.
ANNOYANCE is the most difficult of all noise responses to describe. Annoyance is a
very individual characteristic that varies widely from person to person. What one person
considers tolerable can be quite unbeazable to another person of equal hearing capability.
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report X07-199-B Page 5
2.4 Noise Assessment Metrics
The description, analysis and reporting of community noise levels around communities is made
difficult by the complexity of human response to noise and the myriad of noise metrics that have
been developed for describing noise impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify noise
levels with respect to community response. Most of the metrics use the A-weighted noise level
to quantify noise impacts on humans. A-weighting is a frequency weighting that accounts for
differing human sensitivity to different frequencies.
Noise metrics can be divided into two categories, single-event and cumulative. Single-event
metrics describe the noise levels from an individual event such as an aircraft flyover or perhaps a
heavy equipment pass-by. Cumulative metrics average the total noise over a specific time
period, which is typically one or 24 hours for community noise problems. For this noise
assessment, cumulative noise metrics will be used.
Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account
for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on
man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that
occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time
of day. They are designed to account for the known health effects of noise on people described
previously. Based on these effects, the observation has been made that the potential for a noise
to impact people is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise.
A number of noise scales have been developed to account for this observation. Two of the
predominant noise scales are the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL). These scales, as well as L% metrics, are described in the following
paragraphs.
LEQ is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same
total energy as atime-varying signal over a given sample period. LEQ is the "energy"
average noise level during the time period of the sample. LEQ can be measured for any
time period, but is typically measured for one hour. This one-hour noise level can also
be referred to as the Hourly Noise Level (HNL). It is the energy sum of all the events
and background noise levels that occur during that time period.
CNEL, Community Noise Equivalent Level, is the predominant rating scale now in use
in California for land-use compatibility assessment. The CNEL scale represents a time
weighted 24-hour average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. Time weighted
refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is given
more significance for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10
p.m.) weights noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are weighted
by 10 dBA. These time periods and weighting factors were selected to reflect increased
sensitivity to noise during these time periods. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a
"CNEL of 60 dBA", "60 dBA CNEL", or simply "60 CNEL".
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report SO7-199-B Page 6
L(%) is a statistical method of describing noise which accounts for variance in noise
levels throughout a given measurement period. L(%) is a way of expressing the noise
level exceeded for a percentage of time in a given measurement period. For example
since five minutes is 25% of 20 minutes, L(25) is the noise level that is equal to or
exceeded for five minutes in atwenty-minute measurement period. It is L(%) that is
used for most noise ordinance standards. For example most city, state and county noise
ordinances use a daytime exterior standard of 55 dBA for 30 minutes per hour, or an
L(50) level of 55 dBA. In other words, the noise ordinance states that n^ noise level
should exceed 55 dBA for more that fifty percent of a giveii period.
2.5 Noise Criteria
This report examines different sources of noise generated by the project that could potentially
impact nearby residences or commercial properties. The noise ordinance contained in the Santa
Ana City Code is used as the "yardstick" by which potential impacts are measured.
2.5.1 City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance
The City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive, and
annoying sounds emanating from incorporated areas of the City by setting limits that cannot be
exceeded at adjacent residential properties. The noise ordinance requirements cannot be applied
to mobile noise sources such as cazs and trucks when traveling on public roadways. Federal and
State laws preempt control of the mobile noise sources on public roads. Likewise, Federal laws
preempt control of civil aviation noise.
The Noise Ordinance designates all residential land uses in the entire City of Santa Ana as
"Noise Zone 1". The Noise Ordinance specifies noise levels that cannot be exceeded at adjacent
residential properties for a specified period of time. Both interior and exterior noise standards
are specified for residential properties (Section 18).
The applicable exterior (Section 18-312) and interior (Section 18-313) noise standards for
residential areas are summarized in Table 1.
The first column of Table 1 presents the maximum amount of time in a one-hour period that the
noise levels shown in Columns 3 and 4 can be exceeded. Column 2 lists the equivalent noise
metric in terms of "percent noise level" or L% (The L% metric is described in Section 1.4).
Columns 3 and 41ist the daytime and nighttime noise levels that cannot be exceeded for the time
specified in the first column. For example, at residential azeas, a noise level of 55 dBA cannot
be exceeded for riore than 30 minutes in an hour during the daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). A noise
level of 60 dBA cannot be exceeded for more than 15 minutes in an hour, 65 dBA cannot be
exceeded for more than five minutes in an hour, 70 dBA cannot be exceed for more than one
minute in an hour and 75 dBA cannot be exceeded at anytime. During the nighttime (10 p.m. to
7 a.m.), the residential noise limits are reduced by 5 dB.
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report #07-199-B Page 7
Table 1
City of Santa Ana Noise Standards
Noise Level Not To Be Exceeded
Maximum Time of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Exposure Noise Metric (daytime) (nighttime)
NOISE ZONE 1 EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS
30 Minutes/Hour LSO SS dBA SO dBA
1S Minutes/Hour [.2S 60 dBA SS dBA
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 65 dBA 60 dBA
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 70 dBA 6S dBA
Any period of time Lmax 7S dBA 70 dBA
NOISE ZONE 1 INTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 55 dBA 45 dBA
1 MinutelHour L 1.7 60 dBA 50 dBA
Any period of time Lmax 65 dBA 55 dBA
Section 18-312 of the Santa Ana City Code states that "In the event the ambient noise level
exceeds any of the first four (4) noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to
said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient
noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said
category said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level". This
exception is included in the ordinance because loud ambient noise levels will mask quieter noise
generated by a source. lluring field monitoring (described below), it was found that the ambient
noise levels exceeded the adjustable Noise Ordinance limits at some locations. The adjusted
Noise Ordinance criteria are presented in Section 2.6 of this report.
Santa Ana City Code Section 18-314(e) exempts "Noise sources associated with construction,
repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place
between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on
Sunday or a federal holiday".
Section 18-314(1) further exempts "Noise sources associated with maintenance of real property,
provided said activities take place between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday or
a federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a federal
holiday".
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report #07-199-B Page 8
2.5.2 California NoiseJLand Use Compatibility GuideUnes
The City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance does not contain any noise level limits for commercial
land uses. For the commercial areas adjacent to the project, we are applying a 67 CNEL noise
level criteria, per the California Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. The California
Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines are used by the City of Santa Ana in some of their
environmental assessments. The California guidelines are used to evaluate the long-term
compatibility of a noise saurce with various land uses. Therefore, they will only be used to
evaluate the operational noise levels of the project as they impact the commercial areas.
2.6 Existing Noise Environment
On September 17, 2007 and October 24, 2007, ambient noise level measurements were made at
four locations which represent the project property line, the nearby health care facility, and the
two nearest residential areas. The measurement locations are shown in Figure 2.
The measurements were performed at the project site boundary (Site A); at the residential area to
the west (Site B), which is located near the cul-de-sac in front of 2125 E. 20"' Street; at the
CazeHouse Health caze facility (Site C), which is directly west of the project site across Old
Tustin Avenue; and at the neazest residential area to the east (Site D), which is located on the
south side of Lenita Lane. The results of the ambient noise measurements aze summarized in
Table 2. It should be noted that the minimum noise levels that were measured are also reported
in Table 2, although not a requirement of the noise ordinance. During the field measurements, it
was noted that the dominant noise contributions are from vehicle traffic on Tustin Avenue,
vehicle traffic on Old Tustin Avenue, and typical parking lot noise such as car passes and car
doors being closed. The majority of the daytime measurements were made during the late
afternoon rush hour. The nighttime measurements were begun at 10:00 p.m.
+_ �'�'!`�"' �'' � f^, - ►7 � � � t� , �". ' (' y-- err �� tR, ,�� i'r .�
earwwood�Lane
..r1iMi yam. Jf�' y a1� ►� b. y
JOi{•. "OWA, f li.fi�i
t %
oV: - Pear R. god',L'ant
SM
Ao
$�..x';,P,lumwood Lane.Fi' ;
t ii l
i, -
1 s Future
•' } - �., 'Kll4 ,-iilr— 1 j �-, A � t� . 01
Well • • Mc rtl Str "e
�' East.2ilth-Streit ,..:�K• t
Y �►""AM
10,
Wa
_
a
• •
E. 1`7th Street > apt In
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report #t0T-199-B Page 9
Table 2
Existing Ambient Noise Level Measurements ~dBA
Noise Level Exceeded Noise Daytime Nighttime
for More Than .... Metric (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Property Line (Site A)
Lmin 53.3 53.3
30 Minutes/Hour L50 58.3 ~ 56.0
15 Minutes/Hour L2S fiU.0 58.5
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 62.8 60.0
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 65.3 63.3
Any period of time Lmax 77.6 68.8
Residential Area to West (Site B)
Lmin 47.8 46.5
30 Minutes/Hour L50 50.3 48.0
15 Minutes/Hour L25 51.0 48.5
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 55.8 48.8
1 Minute/Hour L 1.7 62.5 51.5
Any period of time Lmax 75.2 58.6
Health Care Facility (Site C)
Lmin 47.8 52.2
30 Minutes/Hour L50 58.3 57.0
15 Minutes/Hour L25 64.0 59.8
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 67.5 65.5
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 70.0 70.5
Any period of time Lmax 79.0 75.1
Nearest Residences (Site D)
Lmin 48.2 52.3
30 Minutes/Hour L50 56.8 56.3
15 Minutes/Hour L25 58.3 58.0
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 60.3 60.0
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 62.3 61.8
Anv period of time Lmax 67.2 69.5
During the field monitoring, it was found that some ambient noise levels exceeded the Noise
Ordinance criteria. Therefore, some of the Noise Ordinance criteria need to be increased based
on the measured ambient noise levels. The Noise Ordinance criteria after adjustments are
presented below in Table 3.
Mestre Greve Associates
Report a1~07-199-8
Tustin Avenue Water Well
Page 10
Table 3
Citv of Santa Ana Noise Standards (Adiusted for Ambient Conditions
Noise Level Not To Be Exceeded
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Maximum Time of Exposure Noise Metric (daytime) (nighttime)
Adjusted Exterior Noise Standards
For Residential Area to the West (Site B)
30 Minutes/Hour L50 55 u13A 50 dBA
15 Minutes/Hour ~:25 6U dBA 55 dBA
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3
1 Minute/Hour L 1.7
Any period of time Lmax 65 dBA
70 dBA
75 dBA 60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Adjusted Exterior Noise Standards
For Residential Area to the East (Site D)
30 Minutes/Hour L50 57 dBA 56 dBA
15 Minutes/Hour L25 60 dBA 58 dBA
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 55 dBA 60 dBA
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 70 dBA 65 dBA
Any period of time Lmax 75 dBA 70 dBA
The most stringent standard for the project when it is operating 24-hours per day becomes the
nighttime criteria. The project generates the same level of noise whether it is operating during
the day or at night. And since the noise levels from drilling, test pumping and the other
operations are fairly steady, the most restrictive standards for the project will be the L50 noise
levels. This standard will be the focus of much of the discussion in the following pages.
The City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance does not contain any noise level limits for commercial
land uses. Therefore, no adjusted noise limits for these areas are shown.
The exterior noise standards are not applicable to the healthcare facility because there are no
exterior living areas at the facility. However, there are indoor noise standards that would apply
to the healthcare facility and all residential areas. The indoor noise standards are shown in Table
4.
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #~07-199-B
Tustin Avenue Water Well
Page 11
Table 4
Citv of Santa Ana Indoor Noise Standards
Noise Level Not To Be Exceeded
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Maximum Time of Exposure Noise Metric (daytime) (nighttime)
Adjusted Exterior Noise Standards
For Residential Areas and Healthcare Facility
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 55 dBA 45 dBA
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 60 dBA ~0 dBA
Any period of time Lmax 65 dBA 55 dBA
3.0 Potential Noise Impacts
3.1 Noise Impact Criteria
Noise impacts for this project are measured against the City of Santa Ana noise standards
presented above. Legally, the project will not be in violation of the Noise Ordinance if these
levels are exceeded for the reasons discussed previously. However, these limits are being used
in this environmental assessment to determine if a significant noise impact will or will not occur.
3.2 Short-Term Construction
The construction of the well will take place in three general phases. During the first phase, the
well will be first drilled and completed. During the next phase, pumping development and well
testing will take place utilizing a portable testing pump. During the final phase, the permanent
masonry structure will be constructed, followed by the installation of utilities, water pumping
and water treatment equipment. The following sections analyze each of these phases.
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report #07-199-B Page 12
3.2.1 Overview of Drilling and Construction Actlvlt/es
Drilling and constructing the well involves a sequence of activities. Some of these activities will
occur only during the daytime hours exempt from the Noise Ordinance, while other activities are
necessarily 24-hour operations that continue during nighttime hours. The general sequence of
activities is as follows:
• Installation of security fenci::g and temporary 24-foot noise wall.
• Drill a 42-inch borehole and grout into place a 36-inch casing.
• Drill a nominal 18-inch pilot borehole.
• Conduct downhole geophysical logging.
• Perform as many as five aquifer zone tests.
• Ream the pilot borehole to 30 inches in diameter.
• Construct the well, including installation of the 18-inch diameter well casing, gravel pack
and sanitary seal.
• Mechanically develop the well by airlift swabbing
3.2.2 Well Drilling, Reaming, Well Casing, and Grave/ Packing
Drilling of the pilot borehole will occur 24 hours a day for up to six days. There will then be a
pause in the 24-hour activities for a couple of days while the geophysical logging, aquifer zone
tests and laboratory water analyses are completed. Assuming the above tests and analyses prove
favorable, reaming of the pilot hole to 30 inches in diameter will occur 24 hours a day for up to
six days. After this, the steel well casing and gravel pack will be installed. These activities will
occur 24-hours a day for up to four days.
The loudest of these operations is expected to be the well drilling. Noise measurements were
obtained for this operation at a very similar project (the Pasadena Avenue water well in Tustin).
Noise measurements were performed during the well drilling operations on January 2, 2007. The
noise monitor used to measure the noise levels was a Briiel & Kja;r Type 2260 Sound Level
Meter with a Briiel & Kjaer Type 4189 1/2" electret condenser microphone. The measurement
system was calibrated before and after the measurements with a Bruel & Kjaer Type 4231 sound
level calibrator, with calibration traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The results of the measurements are presented below in Table 5.
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report #07-199-8 Page 13
Table 5
Measured Mitigated Well Drilling Noise Levels (dBA)
At Approximately 100 Feet From
Pasadena Avenue Water Well
Noise Level Exceeded Noise
for More Than .... Noise Metric Level
30 Minutes/Hour L50 63.9
15 Minutes/Hour L25 64.3
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 65.0
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 66.5
Any period of time Lmax 69.3
These noise levels were used to extrapolate the mitigated well drilling noise levels expected at
the land uses near the project site.
The nearest commercial land use is the Benjie's Deli restaurant immediately north of the project
site. This building is approximately 30 feet from the well drilling site. The Noise Ordinance
does not apply to commercial uses, however, the noise level projections are shown for
informational purposes.
The nearest residential land use is the CazeHouse healthcare facility to the west of the project site
across Old Tustin Avenue. This building is approximately 190 feet from the well drilling site.
The projected indoor noise levels are shown for this facility and compared to the indoor Noise
Ordinance criteria. It was assumed that windows would be opened, and therefore, there would be
at least a 15 dB outdoor to indoor noise reduction. The nearest private residences are the
Ponderosa Apartment building to the east of the project site on Lenita Lane. These residences
are approximately 430 feet from the well drilling site. The nearest residential land use to the
west of the project is the home at 2125 E. 20'~ Street. This residence is approximately 480 feet
from the well drilling site. The projected noise levels at these four locations are shown in Table
6. For the residential areas to the west, a 5 dB shielding factor was included to account for
shielding provided by the intervening buildings.
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #07-199-8
Table 6
Projected Mitigated Drilling Noise Levels (dBA)
At Nearest Ad'lacent Land Uses
Tustin Avenue Water Well
Page 14
Commercial Health Care Facility
Pra jetted
Noise Level Exterior Exterior Projected Interior
Exceeded for More Noise Noise Noise Interior Noise
Than .... Metric Levei Standard Noise Level Standard
0 Minutes/Houi L50 74.4 NA 43.3 NA
15 Minutes/Hour L25 74.8 NA 43.7 NA
Minutes/Hour L8.3 75.5 NA 44.4 55 / 45
1 Minute/Hour L 1.7 77.0 NA 45.9 60 / 50
ny period of time Lmax 79.8 NA 48.7 65 / 55
Residential (East) Residential (West)
Adjusted Adjusted
Projected Exterior Exterior
Noise Level Exterior Noise Projected Noise
Exceeded for More Noise Noise Standard Exterior Standard
Than .... Metric Level Da / Ni ht Noise Level Da / Ni ht
0 Minutes/Hour L50 51.2 57 / 56 45.3 55 / 50
15 Minutes/Hour L25 51.6 60 / 58 45.7 60 / 55
Minutes/Hour L8.3 52.3 65 / 60 46.4 65 / 60
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 53.8 70 / 65 47.9 70 / 65
n eriod of time Lmax 56.6 75 / 70 50.7 75 / 70
NA - No Applicable Standazd
The data in Table 6 shows that no adjusted Noise Ordinance criteria are exceeded at any
residences. All of the L% noise levels aze less than the adjusted Noise Ordinance limits. It
should be noted that the Lmax levels listed above represent worst-case estimates, since aircraft
flyovers were included in the measurements. Even these worst-case Lmax estimates do not
exceed the adjusted Noise Ordinance limits.
For reference purposes, Figure 3 shows the 50 dBA (L50) noise contour line (red) and the 60
dBA (L50) noise contour line (blue) for the well drilling operations with the 24-foot high
temporary noise wall in place.
Pp�77I.M.Wo d Lanc40
Now
r '
-T-r Y.. =Idow.'eft 1!
R • .vw i
1
'rT -v a.
ow:
"Peat Lane
p 10
F It
7.
ter- i - �'� •^�1 Ad
14
7
s
mta C
;.: 'Piumwood Lane
r iWell Building
,, ,�.. • _ for diSt'
t
Edit 20th Street _ - _ )r e�
"VOL 'k I
el
791
jj
...... +---- r, E. 1'7th•Street I.`...._�.. .,e .. .. ,...,_r.� a �;+�hStrrri
_ m ass
N
Mestre Greve Associates
Report X07-199-8
3.2.3 Airlift Swabbing
Tustin Avenue Water Well
Page 15
The next activity is to mechanically develop the well, removing any fine-grained materials from
the aquifer zones by airlift swabbing. This operation involves pulling drill pipe in and out of the
borehole (swabbing) while injecting air into the well to lift the produced water. Moving between
aquifer zones also involves the making and breaking drill pipe connections, which can generate
noise from the banging of drill pipe. Airlift swabbing will occur during daytime hours for up to
several days. After airlift swabbing, the dulling eyuipmert will be removed from the site during
daytime hours over aone-day or two-day period.
On June 25, 2005, we monitored the noise levels during airlift swabbing of Huntington Beach
East Well #I-33, located near the northeast corner of the playing fields of The Pegasus School
and adjacent to the northwest corner of Arevalos Park, City of Huntington Beach. This is an
available facility which best represents the operations that will occur at the Tustin Avenue water
well site. While this well is relatively shallow (only 160 ft. bgs), it was drilled by the Layne
Christensen Company using astate-of-the-art Taylor Model No. RT-4000 water well drilling rig.
The Taylor RT-4000 rig is powered by 500 HP Caterpillar diesel motor and has more than
enough lifting capacity to drill the Tustin Avenue water well. This rig has abuilt-in "hospital-
quality" noise muffler (Mr. Lee Lovell, Taylor Rigs, LLC, personal communication) for drilling
in urban areas. This rig is representative of the type of rig that will likely be used to drill the
Tustin Avenue well and, depending on the successful bidder, may turn out to be the actual model
of drilling rig used.
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #07-199-B
Tustin Avenue Water Well
Page 16
Figure 4 shows the Huntington Beach well location relative to an L-shaped noise wall (24 feet
high, with wall segments 12U feet and 4U feet long, respectively). The noise wall was designed
to mitigate noise levels at the adjacent residences and playing tlelds; but provides no mitigation
for Arevalos Park, which was closed for the duration of drilling and construction. Noise level
measurements were made as a function of distance (SU, IUU and 2UU feet) a[ three locations on
the school playing fields where noise levels were being mitigated by the 12U-foot long, 24-toot
high noise wall. The mast of the drilling rig was located approximately midway along and
approximately 2U feet from the 12U-toot noise wall The exhaust stack from the diesel motor
was located approximately l6 feet above ground level and 12 feet closer=to the 40-foot iong wait.
Figure 4. Taylor RT-4000 rig at Huntington Beach East #I-33 Well.
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #07-199-8
Tustin Avenue Water Well
Page 17
Noise level measurements were made as a function of distance at three locations on the school
playing fields, where noise levels are mitigated by the 120-foot long, 24-toot high noise wall.
This is the same height of noise wall that will be used for the drilling operations at the Tustin
Avenue well. The playing fields provided an ideal site for measuring how the mitigated noise
levels decrease with distance from the noise wall under soft-site conditions. figure 5 shows the
closest monitoring location 50 feet from the noise wall figure 6 shows the distant monitoring
location 200 feet from the noise ~~~all.
Figure 5. Noise monitor SU feet west of noise wall, Pegasus School.
Figure 6. Noise monitor 200 feet west of noise wall, Pegasus School.
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #07-199-B
Tustin Avenue Water Well
Page 18
Table 7 summarizes the mitigated noise levels that were measured at the three playing field
locations during airlift swabbing.
Table 7
Measured Mltlgated Noise Levels (dBA)
Durina Airlift Swabbins~
Noise Level Exceeded for
More Than .... Noise
Metric Measured Noise
Levels
50 ft. from Noise Wall
30 Minutes/Hour L50 54.0
15 Minutes/Hour L25 55.5
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 57.5
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 58.U
Any period of time Lmax 59.4
100 ft. from Noi
30 Minutes/Hour L50 54.5
15 Minutes/Hour L25 56.0
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 57.5
1 Minute/Hour L 1.7 61.0
Any period of time Lmax 65.1
200 ft. from Noi
30 Minutes/Hour L50 51.5
15 Minutes/Hour L25 52.5
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 54.5
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 57.5
Any period of time Lmax 63.8
These noise levels were used to extrapolate the mitigated airlift swabbing noise levels expected
at the land uses near the project site. The projected noise levels at these four locations are shown
in Table 8.
Mestre Greve Associates
Report X07-199-B
Tustin Avenue Water Well
Page 19
Table 8
Projected Mitigated Noise Levels (dBA)
During Airlift Swabbing
At Nearest Adjacent Land Uses
Commercial Health Care Facility
Projected
Noise Level Exterior Exterior Projected Interior
Exceeded for More Noise Noise Noise Interior Nofse
Than .... Metric Level Standard Noise Level Standard
0 Minutes/Hour L50 58.4 NA 36.9 NA
15 Minutes/Hour L25 59.9 NA 37.9 NA
Minutes/Hour L8.3 61.9 NA 39.9 55 / 45
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 62.4 NA 42.9 60 / 50
ny period of time Lmax 63.8 NA 49.2 65 / 55
Residential (East) Residential (West)
Adjusted Adjusted
Projected Exterior Exterior
Noise Level Exterior Noise Projected Noise
Exceeded for More Noise Noise Standard Exterior Standard
Than .... Metric Level Da / Ni ht Noise Level Da / Ni ht
0 MinuteslHour L50 44.9 57 / 56 38.9 55 / 50
15 Minutes/Hour L25 45.9 60 / 58 39.9 60 / 55
MinuteslHour L8.3 47.9 65 / 60 41.9 65 / 60
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 50.9 70 / 65 44.9 70 / 65
n riod of time Lmax 57.2 75 / 70 51.2 75 / 70
NA No Applicable Standard
The data in Table 8 shows that no adjusted Noise Ordinance criteria are exceeded at the nearest
residence or at the commercial areas adjacent to the project.
Figure 7 shows the 50 dBA (L50) noise contour line (red) for the airlift swabbing with the 24-
foot high noise wail in place. The 60 dBA (L50) noise contour is so close to the well building
that it cannot be clearly shown on the exhibit, and can be considered insignificant. As can be
seen from the exhibit, the L50 noise levels at the nearby residences will not exceed 50 dBA
during airlift swabbing.
Ap
Pear.wood-Lane,:r; it Z']
V%oO...4&i11111► 4F
IMAWsift . ; .
Now fTF ;1
PCAchwood Lane . 3. ► rl
"IN
Lenita Lane =• r{
'Plumwood Lane-,
s
G\
4A1 r • a1 s r 4 Building
t_ _S
.',Med urcl tree
East 2Qth Street 4W
f^ - µ�► w — e s -.. k t fir, ;lit
,�
M -
Wit
voo
wo
.
}
-t e
r � � �M• � r _ f S r T h � L7 � 1.
{{{� 4+, r � �R .•.+ �E��A �1 'gyp,. ;ts�t` � ...en �y _ ,.:w,,,- �
r O
7
.�=Ea1t ] 1h titres•
_� �•
E. 1'7t5 Strut
a
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #07-199-8
Tustin Avenue Water Well
Page 20
Spectral noise level measurements were also made at a distance of 100 feet from the noise wall
in order to determine the spectral content of the noise that is being diffracted over the top of the
noise wall. A Bruel & Kj~r Model 2238 sound level meter was used to record ten successive
(and cumulative) I/3-octave sweeps (20 Hz to 12.5 kHz) over 35 minutes elapsed time. higure 8
shows both the raw and A-weighted noise spectra. The A-weighted noise spectrum from airlift
swabbing is broad and nearly tlat between 83 and 6300 Hz, which should make the noise less
annoying to nearby residents.
Noise Spectra at 100 feet From Noise Wall
~o
60
~ 50
J 40
m
.o
Z 30
A
L
..
v
m
~ 20
10
Q A' O -O - --
b `C! O
~a-o ,
~-o
- - +~
b_p,o,o`
o-
~. -
,~
- O- Raw Data
T A-weighted
10 100 1000 10000
log (frequency)
Figure 8. Spectral noise reasurements 100 feet west of noise wall, Pegasus School.
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report #07-199-B Page 21
3.2.4 Constant-Rate Pump Testing
Following the completion of airlift swabbing, the drilling rig and mud tanks are removed from
the site and a temporary test pump is brought onsite for pumping development and test pumping
of the well. The Draft Technical Specifications for the Tustin Avenue well require:
• Pumping development for up to 5 days (daytime only)
• Performing a step drawdown test up to 1 day (daytime only)
• Performing aconstant-rate discharge test up to 3 days (24-hours per day)
The step drawdown test can be conducted during daytime hours since it only lasts for 12 hours.
Sometimes the constant-rate discharge test immediately follows the step drawdown test. Noise
measurements were obtained for this operation at a very similar project (the Pasadena Avenue
water well in Tustin).
Noise measurements were performed during the constant-rate testing operations at the Pasadena
Avenue Water Well on March 28, 2007. The noise monitor used to measure the noise levels was
a Bruel & Kj~r Type 2260 Sound Level Meter with a Briiel & Kjaer Type 4189 1/2" electret
condenser microphone. The measurement system was calibrated before and after the
measurements with a Briiel & Kjaer Type 4231 sound level calibrator, with calibration traceable
to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The results of the measurements are
presented below in Table 9.
Table 9
Measured Mitigated
Constant-Rate Test Pumping Noise Levels (dBA)
At Approximately 100 Feet From
Pasadena Avenue Water Well
Noise Level Exceeded
for More Than ....
Noise Metric Noise
Level
30 Minutes/Hour LSO 62.5
15 Minutes/Hour L25 62.5
5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 63.5
1 Minute/Hour L 1.7 64.5
Any period of time Lmax 66.5
These noise levels were used to extrapolate the mitigated constant-rate test pumping noise levels
expected at the land uses near the project site. The projected noise levels at these four locations
are shown in Table 10.
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #07-199-B
Tustin Avenue Water Well
Page 22
Table 10
Projected Mitigated Constant-Rate Test Pumping Noise Levels (dBA)
At Nearest Adjacent Land Uses
Commercial Health Care Facility
Projected
Noise Level Exterior Exterior Projected Interior
Exceeded for More Noise Noise Noise Interior. Noise
Than .... Metric Level Standard Noise Level Standard
0 Minutes/Hour L50 73.0 NA 41.9 NA
15 Minutes/Hour L25 73.0 NA 41.9 NA
Minutes/Hour L8.3 74.0 NA 42.9 55 / 45
1 Minute/Hour L 1.7 75.0 NA 43.9 60 / 50
n eriod of time Lmax 77.0 NA 45.9 65 / 55
Residential (East) Residential (West)
Adjusted Adjusted
Projected Exterior Exterior
Noise Level Exterior Noise Projected Noise
Exceeded for More Noise Noise Standard Exterior Standard
Than .... Metric Level Da /Ni ht Noise Level Da /Ni ht
0 Minutes/Hour L50 49.8 57 / 56 43.9 55 / 50
15 MinuteslHour L25 49.8 60 / 58 43.9 60 / 55
Minutes/Hour L8.3 50.8 65 ! 60 44.9 65 / 60
1 Minute/Hour L 1.7 51.8 70 / 65 45.9 70 / 65
ny riod of time Lmax 53.8 75 / 70 47.9 75 / 70
NA - No Applicable Standard
The data in Table 10 shows that no adjusted Noise Ordinance criteria are exceeded at the nearest
residence.
Figure 9 shows the 50 dBA (L50) noise contour line (red) and the 60 dBA (L50) noise contour
line (blue) for the test pumping with the 24-foot high noise wall in place. As can be seen from
the exhibit, the L50 noise levels at the nearby residences will not exceed 50 dBA during test
pumping.
+R•YII y�
P.fel,IAO od,lane t, 11 - ..i r ;.•
WNW, .A
I�� M, �tf_-----apt�flk`— i i '+r� � � � 2 � "'' �..�,�.. f * `t�r•�� • ;'� � ♦ ` ..
o. ' Prachwood,Lanr n♦ f y 1, i 1 s
` o�
-.Lf liitd:Ldnf_,P"
-
31
16
KIM
J
[ • 1r
East if Street
OIL- -4i t' jai
_+
a •
09
aar 4�!Q0
wo
On
.. � ..+:- _ •„ +:-East 17,h Strfe
-- ----r, - - x - E. lith Street r:
ILI
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report X07-199-8 Page 23
3.2.5 Permanent Structure lnstaliat/on
The final phase of construction will be final grading of the site; construction of the masonry
building; installation of the electrical transformer, electrical pumping and chlorination
equipment; and installation of hardscape (i.e., block walls and pavement) and landscaping. This
phase of construction is expected to take place over a six to eight week period during daytime
hours when there is an exemption for construction activities. The highest noise levels associated
with this phase of construction will likely be due to any required earthmoving equipment.
However, earthmoving should be very limited at the site and will only occur for a very short
portion of this phase of construction. One would expect no more than one piece of equipment
(e.g., a front loader or backhce) operating at a time. A loader or backhoe could generate outdoor
noise levels as high as 80 dBA at the nearest residences for short periods. Average outdoor noise
levels would likely be around 64 dBA while the tractor was operating. As long as the activities
associated with this phase of construction occur during the hours exempt from the Noise
Ordinance limits, they will not result in a significant noise impact.
3.3 Long-Term Operations
After construction is completed, the well's electric pump and chlorination equipment will
normally operate continuously for 24 hours a day. A technician will visit the site each day for 15
to 30 minutes. Routine maintenance may require a pump rig with a 20-foot mast to remove the
pump and treat the well. This maintenance would be required between one and three times each
year and would last for two to three weeks. Maintenance operations will take place during
daytime hours, which are exempt from the Noise Ordinance limits.
On June 9, 2005 and July 7, 2005, a technician visited and photographed six of the operating
well sites in the City of Tustin. There is considerable variability in the size and design of the
existing well sites, as shown in the photographs in the Appendix. The proposed Tustin Avenue
well structure will be similar to but somewhat larger than the building at 17575 Vandenberg
Lane, and significantly smaller than the two-story well structure at 18602 17"' Street. The
daytime field surveys revealed that the only significant noise emissions are from exhaust fans
mounted on one wall of the well structures. The technician returned after 10:00 p.m. to make
noise measurements at three wells with operating exhaust fans. The measurement results are
given in Table 11.
Table 11
Measured L50 Noise Levels (dBA) from Well Exhaust Fans
Well Location Distance Measured Noise Level
(Feet) Noise Level at 40 Feet
17575 Vandenberg Lane 19 60.5 54.1
17575 Vandenberg Lane 38 54.5 54.1
Beneta Way 40 51.0 51.0
Columbus Tustin Park 15 48.5 40.0
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report X07-199-B Page 24
Since the exhaust fan noise levels are very steady, only the L50 levels are meaningful.
Therefore, we are only presenting these noise levels in the table below. The highest noise level
(an L50 of 54.5 dBA at a distance of 38 feet) was observed at the Vandenberg well, where it
sounds as if the exhaust fan bearings may be starting to wear. The two measurements at this site
show the exhaust fan is acting as a point source with adrop-off of 6 dB per doubling of distance.
Using the Vandenberg noise level as a "worst-case" value, the predicted outdoor noise levels
from the exhaust fans are presented below in Table 12.
Table 12
Projected Noise Levels (dBA) from Well Exhaust Fans
Commercial Health Care Facility
Projected
Noise Level Exterior Exterior Projected Interior
Exceeded for More Noise Noise Noise Interior Noise
Than .... Metric Level Standard Noise Level Standard
0 Minutes/Hour L50 -- NA -- --
15 Minutes/Hour L25 -- NA -- --
Minutes/Hour L8.3 -- NA 25.6 55 / 45
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 -- NA 25.6 60 / 50
ny period of time Lmax -- NA 25.6 65 / 55
-- CNEL 63.3 67 -- --
Residential (East) Residential (West)
Adjusted Adjusted
Projected Exterior Exterior
Noise Level Exterior Noise Projected Noise
Exceeded for More Noise Noise Standard Exterior Standard
Than .... Metric Level Da / Ni ht Noise Level Da / Ni ht
0 Minutes/Hour L50 33.5 57 / 56 27.5 55 / 50
15 Minutes/Hour L25 -- 60 / 58 -- 60 / 55
Minutes/Hour L8.3 -- 65 / 60 -- 65 / 60
1 Minute/Hour L1.7 -- 70 / 65 -- 70 / 65
n riod of time Lmax -- 75 / 70 -- 75 / 70
As can be seen from Table 12, the exhaust fan noise levels are not expected to exceed the
adjusted Noise Ordinance limits or noise level criteria at the nearest commercial or residential
areas.
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report #07-199-B Page 25
3.4 Indoor Noise Levels
The daytime indoor noise ordinance criteria are 10 dBA more stringent than the L8.3, L 1.7, and
Lmax exterior criteria during daytime hours. Similarly, the nighttime criteria are 15 dBA more
stringent than the corresponding exterior criteria. With windows open, normal building
construction provides approximately 15 dBA outdoor to indoor noise reduction. With windows
closed, the outdoor to indoor noise reduction increases to 20 to 25 dBA. Therefore, compliance
with the exterior noise ordinance criteria will insure that the indoor criteria wilC ,also be met.'
Therefore, the impacts for the indoor noise levels essentially mirror the outdoor noise impacts,
and where an impact is identified based on the outdoor noise criteria, a similar indoor impact
may occur. For example, the closest residential area is the Ponderosa apartments on Lenita Lane,
and is expected to experience L8.3 noise levels of 52.3 dBA during drilling. The most stringent
indoor limit in the Noise Ordinance is the L8.3 criteria of 45 dBA during nighttime hours.
Assuming aworst-case situation with windows open, the indoor levels would be less than 45
dBA. At the healthcare facility on Old Tustin Avenue, the building is expected to experience an
outdoor L8.3 noise level of 59.4 dBA during drilling. The indoor limit is the L8.3 criteria of 45
dBA during nighttime hours. Assuming 15 dB noise reduction with windows open; the indoor
levels would be about 44.4 dBA. This is less than the interior noise standard of 45 dBA. These
noise levels are below the indoor Noise Ordinance criteria, and no impact would be anticipated
during drilling at these locations. The airlift swabbing and test pumping would also be below the
Noise Ordinance criteria. (There are no interior noise standards for the commercial land uses).
4.0 Mitigation Measures
4.1 Short-Term Construction
4.1.1 Well Drilling and Construction
A. Provide Temporary Noise Attenuation Walls
The requirement for temporary noise attenuation walls will go a long way toward mitigating the
noise levels expected from the well drilling, well installation and test pumping operations. Our
analysis and review of the mapping indicates that about 640 feet of noise wall will be required.
Figure 1 shows the recommended location of the noise wall. The recommended noise wall
would begin at the northwest corner of 1822 N. Tustin Avenue, and run eastwazd about 170 feet
along the northern property line from Old Tustin Avenue to Tustin Avenue, between the
proposed building location and the restaurant to the north. The noise wall would then proceed
south about 40 feet along Tustin Avenue, west about 130 feet along the northern edge of the
commercial shops, south about 100 feet, and west about 60 feet to Old Tustin Avenue. The noise
wall would then proceed north about 140 feet to meet the beginning point described earlier. This
noise wall configuration will provide maximum mitigation for the adjacent land uses. Properly
designed gates can provide vehicle access to the well site.
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report #07-199-B Page 26
B Require Hospital Grade Mufflers
This study has analyzed the mitigated noise levels from a Taylor model RT-4000 drilling rig that,
depending on the successful bidder, could ultimately be used to drill the Tustin Avenue well.
This analysis indicates that the mitigated noise levels. at nearby residences from drilling
operations are unlikely to exceed the daytime Noise Ordinance limits, but may exceed the
nighttime Noise Ordinance limits by up to several decibels (e.g., up to 5 dBA).
Based upon this analysis, the L50 noise 1FVels from drilling or gravel packing could be up to 16
dB louder than from airlift swabbing. This assessment depends, of course, on the particular
drilling rig that will be used. It will be important for the drilling rig to have ahigh-performance
muffler, and it should be recognized that drilling contractors may use "hospital-quality" to refer
to a wide range of mufflers. The drilling rig should be capable of not exceeding a steady noise
(L50) of 64 dBA at 100 feet (with no soundwall present). As stated previously, the Taylor model
RT-4000 drilling rig that we measured passed this requirement, while the Ingersoll-Rand RO-
300 rig did not. When drilling commences, limited noise monitoring should be conducted at the
potentially impacted homes to confirm that the actual noise levels are consis±ent with the levels
predicted by this analysis.
4.1,2 Test Pumping
A Provide Temporary Noise Attenuation Walls
The 24-foot noise wall should remain in place until the test pumping has been completed.
B Use of Hospital-Grade Mufflers
Any portable engines used for test pumping should be equipped with hospital-grade mufflers.
The contractor shall adhere to this requirement per the project specifications.
4.1.3 Permanent Structure /nstallation
A. Restricted Hours for Construction
Installation of the permanent structures for the well is not projected to result in a significant noise
impact. This assumes that noise-generating activity during this phase of construction will be
restricted from occurring during the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including
Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday", as mandated in the City of Santa Ana
Noise Ordinance.
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report #07-199-B Page 27
4.2 Long-Term Operations
A. Sound Attenuating Exhaust Louvers
Any louvers located on the north side of the building should be sound-attenuation louvers such
as IAC Model R or the equivalent.
B. Restricted Hours for Maintenance Operations
Regular operation of the well is not projected to result in any significant noise impact. This
assumes that noise-generating well maintenance operations will be restricted to the hours exempt
from the City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance (i.e., between the hours of 7:00 a.m, and 8:00 p.m.
on any day except Sunday or a Federal holiday).
C. Quality Doors
Installation of high-quality doors and roll-up doors should be required. The doors should have
no gaps along the bottom, sides or top, and no significant gaps between the door panels when
closed.
D. Interior Treatment of Well Building
Noise-absorbing textured materials should be placed on the interior walls of the well facility to
further dampen noise generated by the well pump, motor, and other equipment.
5.0 Noise Impacts After Mitigation
With the implementation of the mitigation measures presented above the proposed project will
not result in any significant noise impacts at the nearby residential or commercial areas.
Mestre Greve Associates
Report X07-199-B
Tustin Avenue Water Well
Page 28
APPENDIX
Existing City of Tustin Water Well Facilities
Mestre Greve Associates Tustin Avenue Water Well
Report #07-199-B Page 29
17575 Vandenberg Lane
Columbus Tustin Park
Mestre Greve Associates
Report #07-199-8
Tustin Avenue Water Well
Page 30
Beneta Way
18602 17th Street
Response to Comments
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCH N~. 2008101001
City of Tustin
Water Services Division
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Contacts:
Mr. Fred Adjarian
(714) 573-3381
fadjarian@tustinca.org
Mr. Scott Reekstin
(714) 573-3016
sreekstin@tustinca.org
April 23, 2009
Tustin Avenue We115ite Project
Responses to Comments
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Public Notification and Review Process .............................................................1-1
2 Responses to Comments ............................................................................................2-1
2.1 Responses to Comment Letters Received .........................................................2-1
Table of Contents
Tustin Avenue Welt Site Project
Responses to Comments
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Tustin conducted an Initial Study (IS) for the Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources
Code §21000 et seq.) and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq.). In summary, the proposed project involves the demolition
of an existing water well facility and the construction of a replacement water well facility housed
in a 2,025 square foot structure eighteen feet in height, with an enclosed paved service yard,
and surrounded by landscaped grounds. The project also includes the replacement of two (2)
sections of undersized water mains on Tustin Avenue and Seventeenth Street.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2), the City of Tustin determined that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was the appropriate environmental document for the
project. Public Resources Code Section 21091(f) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15074
require that the lead agency must consider the MND before approving the project. Specifically,
Section 15074(b) states:
"Prior to approving a project, the decision making body of the lead agency shall consider the
proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process. The decision making body shall adopt
the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds an the
basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received),
that there is no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the
environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the
lead agency's independent judgment and analysis."
1.2 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW PROCESS
Section 15072 of the State CEQA Guidelines states:
"(a)A lead agency shall provide a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or
mitigated negative declaration to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and
the county clerk of each county within which the proposed project is located, sufficiently
prior to adoption by the lead agency of the negative declaration or mitigated negative
declaration to allow the public and agencies the review period provided under
Section 15105.
(b) The lead agency shall mail a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated
negative declaration to the last known name and address of all organizations and
individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing and shall also give
notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration by at
least one of the following procedures to allow the public the review period provided
under Section 15105:
(1) Publication at least one time by the lead agency in a newspaper of general
circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area is
affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from
among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas.
1-1 Responses to Comments
513266.1
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
(2) Posting of notice by the lead agency on and off site in the area where the project is
to be located.
(3) Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project.
Owners of such property shall be identified as shown on the latest equalized
assessment roll.°
The City of Tustin complied with the requirements to notify agencies and interested individuals
about its intent to adopt an MND for the Tustin Avenue Well Site Project. The Notice of Intent
was first distributed on September 24, 2008, to various agencies, organizations, and individuals
including the County of Orange Clerk/Recorder, property owners within 300 feet of the project
site and others in the vicinity. The notice was also published in the Tustin News on September
25, 2008, informing all Cit~ customers and residents of the greater Tustin area of the availabilit
of the MND. The Notice of Intent was again distributed on October 28, 2008, and November 25,
2008, because the public review period was extended twice. The Notice of Intent was also
posted at the site (1822 N. Tustin Avenue) and at Tustin City Hall (300 Centennial Way).
Comments on the Initial Study and Notice of Intent to adopt an MND were received through the
State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research, and the City of Tustin from September
25, 2008, through December 19, 2008.
Following is a list of the public agencies, organizations, and individuals that submitted
comments on the IS/MND:
STATE AGENCIES
Department of Public Health (October 16, 2008)
2. Department of Transportation, District 12 (October 20, 2008)
3. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (October 31, 2008)
4. Department of Fish and Game (November 18, 2008)
5. Department of Toxic Substances Control (November 18, 2008)
REGIONAL/LOCAL AGENCIES
6. Orange County Fire Authority (October 17, 2008)
7. City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency (October 21, 2008)
8. Orange County Public Works (October 27, 2008)
9. City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency (December 16, 2008)
INDIVIDUALS
10. Alan Edward Koby (October 23, 2008)
11. Lloyd and Noriko Weinstein (December 17, 2008)
12. Daniel Koby (December 19, 2008)
1-2 Responses to Comments
513266.1
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
SECTION 2
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
2.1 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
Per CEQA, the lead agency is not required to prepare formal responses to comments received
on the IS/MND; however, the City of Tustin has elected to prepare written responses to
comments. This section includes responses to substantive comments on the IS/MND received
by the City of Tustin. This section is formatted so that the respective comment letters are
followed immediately by the corresponding responses. The comment number provided in the
right margin of the letters corresponds with the responses provided.
2-1 Responses to Comments
S ! 3266. I
• State of California-Health and Human Services Agency
•~ ~ California Department of Public Health
• CDPH
~ RECEIVED
inc. No~roN, ro. r~tt
°~°` OCT 2 p 200
October 16, 2008
ca~rtY osvso~wroeR
Mr. Scott Reekstin
Senior Planner
City of Tustin, Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way '
Tustin, CA 92780
..~t~w
~,
System No. 3010046---INITIAL STUDY-TUSTIN AVENUE WELL SITE PROJECT
Dear Mr. Reekstin:
On September 25, 2008, our office received a Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Public Review Period, a Draft Initial Study and Negative
Declaration, and a Noise Assessment for the Tustin Avenue Well Site Project. The
proposed project involves the destruction of the existing City of Tustln well, the
construction of the replacement well, and the replacement of two sections of undersi2ed
water mains on Tustin Avenue and Seventeenth Street.
We have reviewed the Inifial Study and have no comments. However, please be aware
that the California Department of Public Health adopted new drinking water regulations,
referred to as the Waterworks Standards, which became effective in March 2008. The
Waterworks Standards have several new requirements for new water supply sources and
for materials and installation of water mains and appurtenances. Regulation text is
located in Chapter 18, Title 22, California Code of Regulations and are available online at:
www.cdph.ca.gov/certlicldrinkingwateN Pages/Lawbook.aspx
We appreciate the opportunity to comment. As a reminder, please submit to this office a
copy of the Notice of Determination when it has been filed with the County Clerk. ff you
have any question concerning this letter, please contact Yen Tran at (714) 558-4707.
Sincerely,
C
Oliver Paafico, P.E.
District Engineer
Santa Ana District
1
Southern CaNrorNa Drinkkp Water Fleld Operations Branch. 3anb Ana D
805 West Santa Ana BMd. BuUdinp 28, Room 325, Sari Me. CA 92701
Telephone: (714)5584110 Fax: (714)587-7282
Internet Address: www.odoh.ca.oov
Mr. Scott Reekstin
Page 2
October 16, 2008
cc: Mr. Frederick J. Adjarian
Water Services Manager
City of Tustin, Water Service Division
PO Box 4S6
Tustin, CA 92781
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 1
Department of Public Health
Oliver Pacifico, District Engineer, Santa Ana District
October 16, 2008
This comment letter states that the Department of Public Health has reviewed the Initial
Study and has no comments. As requested in the letter, a copy of the Notice of
Determination will be submitted to the Department of Public Health at the time it is filed
with the County Clerk.
2-2 Responses to Comments
513266.1
~-'ATE OF ~~- reOR..~_~ ~ TRANSPOtTATNNi A_-~ NOU9M0 AdENCY Qw1- n tn~ur~a~uo~rrs ~^
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
District 12
3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380
T~% 9a9j n~2~2 i~ RECENED
Fax: (949) 7Z+-2392 ~Y~~Po+~~rl
OCT 2 42008 Be e-~er~ s~9e~rur
October 20, 2008
OOA~Nitt1Y DEVELOP~If T OEp?
Mr. SCOtt Reekstin
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Subject: Tustin Avenne Well Site
Dear Mr. Reekstin,
File: IGR/CEQA
SCH#: 2008101001
Log #: 2131
SR•55
'Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Miti;sted Ne6ative Declaration for the
Tustin Avenne WeU Site Project. The project will consist of demolition of an existing water well
facility and the development and equipping of a higher capacity replacement water well facility and the
replacement of two water mains. The nearest State route to the project site is SR-55.
The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this ,~
project aad we have no comment at this time: However, in the event of any activity within the
DepartmenYsnght-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. ~
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could
potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have auy questions or need to contact us, please
do not hesitate to caU Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2267.
Sincerely, + // _ A,~
~~~
~h /~~lt t ~''~
Ryan Chamberlain, Branch Chief
Local Developmendlntergovetnmental Review
C: Terry Roberts, OfFce of Plaaning and Research
"Caln,m~t wob~ltry, aaan Cdg6rnb •
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 2
Department of Transportation
Ryan Chamberlain, Branch Chief, District 12
October 20, 2008
This comment letter notes that the California Department of Transportation (Department)
is a commenting agency on the project and has no comments at this time, and that any
activity within the Department's right-of-way requires an encroachment permit. The City
of Tustin will obtain any required encroachment permits from the Department of
Transportation. However, the need to obtain an encroachment permit from the
Department is not anticipated.
2-3 Responses to Comments
513266.1
~~- •.
~.~~ ~ ,~
-ti ~ ,
Aat~ota8~a
clovsawoa
STAT$ OF CALIFORNU
~OR'S OFFICB of PLANNING AND RF..~EARCH
STATB CLSARINGHOU88 AND PLANNING UNIT
October 31.2001
RECEIVED
NOV 0518
soon xeelutin
City of Tustia
300 Ceatennial Wey
Tustin. CA 91610
Subject: 'hutin Avenue WeIl Site
3CHN: 2008101001
Deal Scott R,eebtin:
CORY JF11TY OEVELOP6ENT DEPT
.~
~v l .
.~•
The State ClearioEhome mbasitoed the above named Mitred Negative DeclQation to selec0e~d state
sEencies for reviewr. The raviev- period claaed ~ Ocoober 30.2008, aad ao state aiencies a~b~bed
cammenb by that date, Thu gaffes aclmow-ledEa that you hive complied w~ the State ClazamBhouse
review tequuame~ far draft eavico~ental doct®enb. pmwaat do the Califa®ia Emrn+onmeatil QealitY
Ad.
Please call the State ClearinEhovse at (916) 445-0613 if yon have any gnations re8ardinE the
environmamtal.revie~v process. If yon have a questiam abort the above-named project. Please refs do the
~~ State Cleariaghouse n~ber when candctinB this oiSoe. ,
Siocarely.
~~
Tway Roberts
Di~+ector, State Clatiaghowe
140010th Shed PA. Boa 3044 Staameata Cali6otait 95112-3014
(916)445-0613 FAZ (916) 323-3011 tan-.opra.go-
Dowtn~nt Details R~potrt
Stab Cl~auinphoutN Data Bass
StrtN . 200101001
~d T11ti Tuatln Avarrus Wd 9lle
LeadAOency Twtln, CKy d
TYPE N!O MNigatad Nsgatlw Dsdaratlon
Dasralptlon The dsrtwU6on d an s~delkp wader weN hdllty and the devebpmsrd and squlppkrg d a hiptrsr
y replacement water wd fidgly; neplacamerrt d two undsralzed wskr Heins.
Lead Aponcy Contact
~ Soolt ReeksfJn
Apsnsy C6y d Tustln
Phone (714)513.3018
ernes
Aa~ea. 30o Cer~t.rrnw way
pqr Tusrrr
14ut
stab cA ~ 92eeo
ProJtwt Location
t~rargs
dqr sank Ana
Let /Lore
caroaa stleeb Twtln Avernus and Ssvenbeenlh street
PraroN Na 396.333-02
ToMnuhfp ~~ Sectbn Baca
Proximlt~l to:
Alrporb
IgeMweyi
rtltrt.r,~wyre
Sdrools TUSD, SAUSD
Land tJae WalervreN fadlly/ConxrxnUy Conarrerdal
Pnp~ataaua. Aesthstl~JVisush ~ Land: Ale Wdly: Ardrasobgia~Hfslorl~ Bbbgiai Resources: Flood
PWNFloodrp: t3solopir:l8eYrnl~ MnaraN; Nolw; Popuwbr>tFlouskrg Bslarws; Pubpc ssrvlas:
R~~rlp~; • sop :solid Wastis;
To~ddHazardous: TraAlclt~rCUlatlon; Wabr t]uaYly: Weber supply: WetlandlF~parlan: WAd1Na;
Larrrlrrse
RevNw6ts Reaoracss Agency: Departrrrsrrt d Conssrvatlon; Dspartrnsrrt d Fwi and Oarrre~ Region 8;
AgsrreNa Depattrrrent d Parks and Recrealbn; Deparbrrsnt d Walsr Resarrcas; Cdbmia Hlghvray Patrol:
Cabana. Dh6rid 12: Irrbpr•bsd Wash Menpamant Board: stets Walsr Resources Control Board.
Clean Water Program: stab Water Resorxcea Contrd 8wrd. DNfsbn d water Rtghb: Regbnal
Water (lualMy Control Board. Region 8; Clepsrtnrant d Tordc sutufarrces Control: Mauve Amsrban
Fleritage CorrNr~lssion
Dab Racelred 091301'1008 start dfi~avlew 10101/2006 End dRevbw 10/3012008
• - ' - • Olwwlr~ M dsls A~la~ wr.~ Iw..w M~..Iliwird I..in~welYM nerwa.ls.1 11N IOS/I snrrv
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 3
California Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Terry Roberts, Director, State Clearinghouse
October 31, 2008
This comment letter acknowledges that the City of Tustin complied with the State
Clearinghouse review required pursuant to CEQA.
2-4 Responses to Comments
513266.1
State of fallromla -The Resources Aae~y ARNaD Gowrnar
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME RECENED
http: / /www.dfg.n.gov
E"rro~trand ~^" ra Parf~mng 1~V 192004
1416 Winlh StrNt, 3ui1~ 1240
Sscra~tisnb, CaiWbmis 96814
COIMN~Nf Y 01Yd01~A~Mf D~f
CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination Form
Applicant Name: City d Tustin
Dab Submitbd: October 22.2008
Applicant Address: 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
Project Name: Tustin Avarua Well Site
CEt]A Load Agency: City d Tustin
CEtaA Document Type: (ND~ MND~ EIR) MND
SCH Number and/or local agency ID number. N/A
Project Location: 1822 North Tustin Avenue, Santa Ans
Brief Project Deecriptlon: The demolitlon d an existing water weA facility and the
development and equipping d a higher capacity replscement wabr weN facility; and
replacement d two undenrized water mains within existing right-ot~vay. Ths well
equipment would be enclosed within a building d 2,025 squsro feet in aims. The project
site is 7,200 squaro fast in sine and is within a developed urban area.
Debrminatton: Based on a roview d the Project as proposed, the Department d Fish
and Gams has determined that for purposes d the asseserrrent d CEQA flNnp fees
[FbG Code 711.4(c)] the project has no pobntisi eflbct on fish, wildlilb and habitat and
the project as described does nest requlro payment d a CEQA fNing fee. This
determinatison does nest in anyway imply that the project is e~oempt from CEQA and
does nest detsnnins the significance d any pobMbl project effects evaluated pursuant
to CEQA.
Pbase retain this original debrmbatlon for your records; you are roquired to flb a copy
d this debrminatbn with the County Cbrk atdsr your project is approved and at the time
of fllirp of the CE0/4 bad agency's Notice of Determination (NOD). K you do rat flb a
Dopy d this debsrmination with the County Cbrk at the tithe d filing d the NOD, the
appropriate CEt3A fllMg fee wiY be due and peyabb.
Without a valid No Effiect Deterrninatbn Form or proof d fee payrt~ent, the project wiN
not bs operative, vested. or final and any local permit issued for the project wiN bs
invaNd, purausnt ~ Fish and Game Cods Section 711.4(c)(3).
DFG Approval By: `~.L. '1/l,,fr -~ Ltsl K IVe u1+n-fQccd Date: l i - i Y- Zov f
TIb' EnVlrorw~unha~ •Sutn~sf'
1
GL~ORNA DEP'[ OF ~MD GrMit
~ansertring Ca~~forniu's ~ Sims 1870
a~N o~ G 9Z12~1
Tustin Avenue WeN Site Project
Responses fo Comments
Comment Letter 4
Department of Fish and Game
Leslie Newton-Reed, Environmental Scientist, South Coast Region
November 18, 2008
This letter notes that the Department of Fish and Game has determined that for
purposes of the assessment of CEQA filing fees the project has no potential effect on
fish, wildlife and habitat and the project as described does not require the payment of a
CEQA filing fee.
2-5 Responses to Comments
513266.1
und. 3. AdMrr
s.c~wn ror
Fnvironm«rtM Frotsctton
November 18, 2008
RECENED
NOV 2 41008
~OMrU~lrn ~s~~,GPyg~ Q~T
Mr. Scott Reekstin
City of Tustin
30b Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND)
FOR THE TUSTIN AVENUE WELL SITE PROJECT, 1822 N. TUSTIN AVENUE, AT
17T" STREET, SANTA ANA, ORANGE COUNTY (SCH# 2008101001)
Dear Mr. Reekstin:
`t .
.. ~ .
~l
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your
submitted Notice of Intent, a Mitigated Negative DeGaratlon (ND) and Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist Form for the above-mentioned project. The following
project descxiptbn is stated in your document: "Demolition of an existing water well
facility and the development and equipping of a higher capadty replacement water well
facility; replacement of two undersized water mains.' DTSC has the #ollowing
comments; please address:
1) The ND should identify the current or historic uses at the project site that may
have resulted M a release of hazardous wastesJsubstanc~s. For all identNied
sites, the ND should identify the known or potentially contaminated sites within
the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the ND should evaluate
whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the
environment Following are some databases of regulatory agencies that might be
applicable to the site:
EnviroStor. An online database maintained by DTSC, at
www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov.
National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database
of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA.
~/~ l
_ f!.-~J
.-...
.~
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Maureen F. Goraen, D(recbor
5798 Corporate Avenue
CYPress, California 90830
1
Prlnrd m RecYcNd Psp~r
Mr. Scott Reekstin
November 18, 2008
Page 2 of 4
• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Infomnation System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained
by U.S.EPA.
• Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California
Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as
dosed and Inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations.
• Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) /Spills, Leaks, Investigations and
Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control
Boards. 1
• Local Counties and Citles maintain lists for hazardous substances deanup sites
and faking underground storage tanks.
• The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly
Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
For future CEQA documents, please specify the databases that were consulted.
2) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation I
and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government
agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. ff necessary, DTSC would Z
require an oversight agreement in order to review such documer~. Please see I
comment No. 8 below for more infomwtjon.
3) All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediatbn for the site should
be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency
that has jurtsdictlon to oven3ee hazardous substance deanup. The findings of
any investigatoms, including any Phase I or It Environmental Site Assessment 3
investigations should be summarized in the document AU sampling results in
which hazanious substances were found should be dearly summarized in a
table. AU closure, certification or remediation approval reports by these agendas
should be included in the ND. All closure, c~rtificatlon or remediation approval
reports by these agendas should be included in the ND.
4) Your document states: 'The project site is for the replacement potable water well
facllity located on an existing developed water well site within a developed urban I
area. The existing well site will be dismantled and the well destroyed in
accordance with the California Department of Water Resources Water Well 4
Standards.' If buildings, other structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surtace
areas are being planned to be demolished, an investgation should also be
conducted for the presence of other hazardous chemicals, mercury, and
Mr. Scott Reekstfn
November 18, 2008
Page 3 of 4
asbestos containing materials (AGMs). If other hazardous e;hemicals, lead-based
paints (LPB) or products, mercxJry or AGMs are identified, proper precautions
should be taken during demol'~ion activities. Additionally, the contaminants
should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations
and polities.
5) Your document states: "Well drilling, testing, and well oonstructi~ operations
will take place over a period of about 12 weeks. The remaining 14 nwnths of
constuution activity include the installation of security fendng and a temporary
high noise attenuation wall, the construction of the masonry structure, the
installation of utilities, permanent pumping and chlorination equipment, and the 5
planting of landscaping ' Project construction may require soil excavation or
filling in certain areas. Sampling may be required. ff soil is contaminated, it
must be properly disposed and not simply placed in another kacation onsite. .
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the
project proposes to import soil to badcfill the areas excavated, sampling should
be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination.
6) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during any construction or demolition activities. If necessary, a health risk 6
assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate government agency
should be conducted by a qualified health risk assessor to determine if there are, I
have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk
to human health or the environment.
7) Your document states: "Prior to the startup of the chlorination facility, the Public
Works Departrnent shall obtain approval from the Santa Ana Fire Department
(SAFD). As part of the SAFD approval, a hazardous material and inventory
disclosure from shay be prepared including an emergency responseJevacuation
-plan for the fadlity." If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be,
generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed In
arxordance with the California Hazandous Waste Control Law (California Health
and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5), and the Hazardous Waste Control 7
Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is
determined that hazardous wastes will be generated. the facility should also
obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number
by contacting (800) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or
hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from
the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the
requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA.
8) DTSC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental
Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies, or a Voluntary Cleanup 8
Agreement (VGA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA or ~
Mr. Scott Reekstin
November 18, 2008
Page 4 of 4
VCA, please see www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Brownflelds, or contact
Ms. Maryam Tasnif-Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at
(714) 484-5489.
9) In future CEQA documents please provide the contact person's email address.
Also, if the project title changes, please provide historical project title(s). 9
i
If you have any questjons regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Teresa Hom, Project
Manager, at thorn@dtsc.ca.aov or by phone at (714) 4845477.
Sincere ,
Greg Holmes
Unit Chief
Brownflelds and Environmental Restoration Program -Cypress Office
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
state.clearinghouse~opr.ca.gov.
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis
1001 I Street, 22nd Floor, M.S. 22-2
Sacxamento, California 95814
gmoskat~dtsc.ca.gov
CE(]Afi2316
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 5
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Greg Holmes, Unit Chief, Cypress Office
November 18, 2008
There is an existing water well on the project site which has been in operation since
1952. The water well site has been regularly monitored since 1952 and, based on
monitoring observations, is not known to have resulted in the release of any hazardous
wastes or hazardous substances. No hazardous material is known to exist on the project
site. However, should such contamination be discovered, demolition and construction
activities would cease and health and safety measures would be implemented in
compliance with applicable local, state, and federal requirements.
2. There are no hazardous substances on the site that require investigation, sampling
and/or remediation. No oversight agreement is required. See Response No. 1.
3. See Response No. 2.
4. The existing well site will be dismantled and the well destroyed in accordance with the
California Department of Water Resources Water Well Standards. In addition, the
construction of the water well would require approval by the Orange County Water
District and an amendment to the City's Water Supply Permit issued by the California
State Department of Health Services. These agencies would ensure that all appropriate
precautions are taken prior to construction of the water well. Asphalt will also be
removed from the site. Although no hazardous chemicals, mercury, asbestos containing
materials, lead-based paints, etc. are anticipated, an investigation will be conducted to
determine whether proper precautions and handling need to be taken during demolition
activities.
5. There is an existing water well on the project site which has been in operation since
1952 and is not known to have resulted in the release of any hazardous wastes or
hazardous substances. It is not anticipated that the on-site soils have been
contaminated. However, should contaminated soils be encountered they would be
disposed of properly in accordance with all applicable local, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, state, and federal requirements. No backfill soil will be needed for
the project.
6. Based on an investigation of the project site, there is no evidence that the project site
has been subject to improper handling or release of chemicals or other hazardous
materials. The IS/MND identifies that the proposed project will include a chlorination
system. However, with the mitigation measures incorporated, the potential impacts
related to an unlikely chlorine leak would be reduced to a level considered less than
significant. These mitigation measures include the installation of a leakage detection
and containment system and a chlorine scrubber system.
7. See Response No. 6.
8. An Environmental Oversight Agreement is not anticipated to be necessary for the
proposed project.
9. The comment regarding contact email addresses and project title changes is noted.
2-6 Responses to Comments
513266.1
ORANGE COUNTY FIRE A UTHORI T Y
P.O. Bas 57115, ovine, G! 92619-7115.1 FinAathnt~ty Rd, Irving CA 92602
Chip Prather, Fire Chef wwtv.ocfa.org (714) 573-6199
October 17, 2008
City of Tustin
Scott ltcekstin
300 Centennial Wy
Tustin, CA 92780
SUBJECT: Tustin Ave Wei Site MND
Dear Mr. lteekstin:
Thaak you for the opportunity to review the subject document. Given the nature of the project, ~
the impacts to the OCFA are insignificant and the project is under the review of the City of Santa ~
Ana
Please contact me at 714573-6199 if additional information is requu~ed.
S' ,
Michele Hernandez
Strategic Services
michele ~, _ _nra
~L the Cities of AWo Vigo • Buena Patk • Cypaa • Daaa Paint • hvine • Iaprnt FiiUa • ~ Nipel • Lapm Waob • Ialm Fareet • [.~ Pahoa •
Lae Alamiloa • Minion Viejo • Plaoeotia • Raot'bo Santa Marprita • Sea Clemeole • San Jun CapLtrano • Seal Beech • Stanma • Tustin • ViW Park •
Weafmiiu0er • Yarha l~oda • and Unmeorpaaeed Arse of Orage Coonq
a1S1DIENML StAIIV1Q.F.RS AP1D ~1lOI~ D6rZCrOlls 9~AVE L1VfFa
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 6
Orange County Fire Authority
Michele Hernandez, Strategic Services
October 17, 2008
This comment letter acknowledges that OCFA has reviewed the document and
acknowledges that the project is under the review of the City of Santa Ana.
2-7 Responses to Comments
5 13266.
MAYOR
MfpuN A. Ptiildo
MAYOR PRO TEM
Claudia C. ANaraz
COUNC0.MEMBER3
David 9armvkMs
Carlos 8ugamm~ta
MiClmis Martlrmz
VincerR F. SamNer~to
sal Tk-ajaro
CITY OF SANTA ANA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY M-93
P.o. eox ~ese
Sarn. Arm. Calironrs 9Y7o2
CITY MANAGER
David N. Ream
CITY ATTORNEY
JoNph W. FN1CImr
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Patrida E. Hsayr
RECENED
October 21, Zoos
Mr. Scott Reekstin
Senior Planner
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
OCT 2,4 20~
~RroEVaoP~wrt~r
SUBJECT': CITY OF TUSTIN WATER WELL PROJECT; 1822 N. TUSTIN AVENUE, SANTA ANA
Dear Mr. Reekstin:
The City of Santa Ana received a Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and public
Review Period, dated September ZS, 2008, regarding the project referenced in subject line above.
According to the notice, the project involves demolition of ao existing water well facility and
construction of a replacement facility at the subject location, and replacement of water mains in Tustin
Avenue and Seventeenth Street. The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. ~
With regard to the constriction of the 12" water main line in Tustin Avenue north of Seventeenth
Street, the City of Santa Ana completed a pavement nxonstruction project in May of 2008. Purauaat to
City of Santa Ana code, the street shall not be cut far a period of five years aRer following completion
of construction, Exception to tha street-cat moratorium period may be permitted by the City Engineer
upon a showing of good cause. AU work within the public right of way and private property will
regwre the proper permits. Please contact Nasser Rizl~ at (714) 647-5036, if you have any questions.
Sincerely
Taig Higgins
Principal Civil Engineer
Public Works Agency
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 7
City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency
Taig Higgins, Principal Civil Engineer
October 21, 2008
This comment letter notes that the construction of the 12" water main line in Tustin
Avenue north of Seventeenth Street will require an exception to the street-cut
moratorium by the Gity Engineer upon a showing of good cause. The City of Tustin will
request an exception from the City of Santa Ana.
2-8 Responses to c;ommenrs
513266.1
O R A N O N C O Y N T 11 ~Y~ BPM~- DirC(O-
300 N. Fkrwu Strom
PublicWorks ~'~~
~~~~~
Orr C~wwrr/fr. Orr Crwwlfw~rf.
ToNphorNK (714) ei4-2300
Fax (714) 89A-6t8S
RECEIVED
OCT 27 200e NC[. oe-o~a
October 23.2008
Mr. Scott Reekstin
City of Tustin
Communliy Development Department
Tustin CA 92780
SUBJECT: Tustin Avenue Well Site
Dear Mr. Reekstin:
The above mentioned item is a Draft InWal Study and Negative Declaration for the
Tustin Avenue Well Site located in the City of Tustin.
The County of Orange has reviewed the Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration '
and has no comments at this time. However we would like to be advised of any further ~
developments.
If you have any questions please corritact Mary Ann Jones at (714) 834-5387.
Si
Ronald L. Tippets,
Current and Environmental Planning
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 8
Orange County Public Works
Ronald L. Tippets, Chief, Current and Environmental Planning
October 23, 2008
This comment letter notes that the County of Orange has reviewed the Draft Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration and has no comments at this time.
2_g Responses to Comments
513266.1
MAYOR
MlOtwl ~ R/do
MAYOR PRO TEY
CYtds C. Miawa
oalNCa M~IeERs
P. DatAO 9~rtnA~daa
Catba 9urlrttrtb
Midti 11ar/tt~
Vtiow~t F. 8~ItI011b
~~
December 16, 20~
scoff Reef
senior Planter
city of Tustin
30o cenoemlial way-
Tustin, CA 92780-3715
CITY OF SANTA ANA
~~ttNrto a auao~w aot~r
20 awt: c«+I~ ~ p~~o)
P.o. sax 1aee. en.. Mt., Carbtttia s~7a2
(714) ~l-7/00 fait (714) X1461
~~
CITY MANAGER
Oarid N. Rttattt
CITY ATI~ORI~l1/
Jos.pb w. FMdtar
aEroc aF TFE COUNCIL.
PaNt,1a E Httsllr
RECE~D
DEC 181ti0e
corm, ctve~~Mear cepr
RE: INITIAL STUDY / MtITGATED NEC3ATIVE DECLARATION FOR DEMOLITION AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW WATER WELL FACII.ITY AT 1822 NORTH TUS'I'IN
AVENUE, SANTA ANA
Dear Mr. Reebtin:
Thank you far the opparaatity m n~view and provide an the Initial StLdy/Mitigated Negative
DecladLtion fa the water weU project st 1822 North Tustin Avem~e.
The City is auppartive of the project, however, the site plan and elevations included u pmt of the
Negative Declaration did not provide the dotal netxsatry for the City to identify the specific project
iaslles associatied with the new water well facilihr. Because the proposal imrolves the caostivctian of a
new bsrilding within the City of 3sata Ana, the project will need be comply with all applicabb City codes
and stsndat~ds. Therefoi+e, prior m permit review and issl>mce, the City is requesting that the project be
formally st>bmiteea into the site plan review pr+acess Eor formal review sod cow. This process will
identfy- project lewd and will rewlt in written comments pr+avided m the city of Tustin foe the propaed
water well project.
We appreciate the opportunity do review and provide cozmoents as this project. should you have any
queaeiatas feel flee to contact me st (714) 667 2747.
Siaeaely,
~ ~~~
Bill Apple
Associate Planner
1
BA:tr
HA1~6o~uUi 1000R~ b aA~ qlr CBQA doorwl~4WMewY 1aDilr ~ 1110{
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 9
City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency
Bill Apple, Associate Planner
December 16, 2008
This comment letter notes that the City of Santa Ana requests that the project be
submitted into the site plan review process for formal review and comment. City of
Tustin staff has met with Santa Ana staff to discuss the review process and will submit
the required documents to the City of Santa Ana following certification of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration by the Tustin City Council.
2_~p Responses to comments
513266.1
' ~ %0 '23-0
- --~--- .e~~_-
__--- ;
+: ,.--
. ~~~ T •
/1 / _ -_
2-
~ - -- --
~i / .
.. ..,
r
.
--
~
l
!/ ~ /
1 /w w ._ /i.. /J_ !~ , l/ /ate ~/w~i/ Tom' ~ 7~/ if w _ - - ~ ~ iulwYi~
___ -_ -___ -T_-_ _._. - - _ __-- __ ..__ _.._ _ - ~
• ~ 5
----------..--- ---~.~.--a-~-- -4r-~ -~-~-- ---
-~..~.~..~ zG
1~j ~dai~.._ --
i. ~ ~
is
~~ ~
-
// x
'"
_
~ ~
..
_'
i ` ~L .o_ ~ ..~ ~G , _ i . s 7
~ i
- - ~- ~ ~a~.~.
11,,
- 0 ~ - -~ __
---- - _ -~
li
11
~;
- -
-~- --
-- --- - -
--_.._._ 5~ -,fN
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 10
Alan Edward Koby
October 23, 2008
The public review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was extended
twice, for an additional 55 days, until December 19, 2008. Thus, the commenter's
request for an extension was granted.
2. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15072, subdivision (b), the City may choose one of three
methods to provide notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration. These
methods include: (1) publication at least one time in a newspaper of general circulation
in the area affected by the proposed project; (2) posting of notice by the City on and off
site in the area where the project is to be located; or (3) direci mailing to the owners and
occupants of contiguous properties shown on the latest equalized assessment roll."
Here, the notice of intent was published in the Tustin News on September 25, 2008.
Further, the notice of intent was posted at the project site and at Tustin City Hall located
at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. Finally, the notice of intent was mailed to the
owners and occupants of contiguous properties shown on the latest equalized
assessment roll and to the owners of all property within 300 feet of the project site.
Although the City was only required to use one of the methods specified by the CEQA
Guideline, the City in fact utilized all three methods to provide notice of the intent to
adopt the mitigated negative declaration. The City's notification procedure, therefore,
exceeded the requirements of state law.
3. The public review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was extended
twice, for an additional 55 days, until December 19, 2008. Thus, any concerns regarding
the October 25, 2008, date are no longer applicable.
4. A copy of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for
public inspection during the public review period (regular business hours) at the City of
Tustin Community Development Department and a copy was provided to the City of
Santa Ana. Due to a misunderstanding at the Community Development Department
front counter on one occasion, a copy of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration was provided in person directly to the commenter.
5. Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines states:
"A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or
mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
(a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole
record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment, or
(b) The initial study identified potentially significant effects, but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant
before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released
for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effects would occur, and
2-11 Responses to Comments
5 13266. I
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency,
that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
The proposed Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for the proposed
project based on Section 15070(a)(1). No impact has been identified as potentially
significant in the Initial Study because all potential impacts have been determined to be
"less than significant" or "less than significant with mitigation incorporation," which is
consistent with the determination made in the Initial Study.
6. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration considered the whole action involved,
including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level, indirect, direct, construction, and
operation impacts, as described in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts. The
potential impacts of the Nroject on adjacent properties, including the adjacent business
to the south of the project site, which has outdoor seating and adrive-through window,
were analyzed most particularly in the noise and air quality evaluations. There is no
evidence that this project would have any potential impact on the health, safety, and
welfare of people within the proximity of the project. The City will take all necessary
precautions to ensure that the adjacent receptors and property are adequately protected
during project construction. Such precautions include the installation of a temporary
noise attenuation wall and the implementation of dust control measures. In addition to
ensuring that contractors comply with all applicable federal, state and local health
requirements, additional measures will be incorporated into the project to address the
potential impacts of the project. As documented in the IS/MND and its supporting
technical data, all potentially significant impacts (most of which would occur on a
temporary basis during construction only) would be mitigated to a less than significant
level. These impacts include potential impacts from airborne dust and noise. Other
construction related impacts, including impacts from construction emissions from heavy
equipment and dust, would be less than significant. Pollutant emissions generated
during construction would be below applicable South Coast Air Quality Management
District significance thresholds (see Pages 4-7 of the IS/MND).
7. No potential impacts associated with pedestrian and vehicular safety were identified in
the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Furthermore, a traffic control plan which has
been reviewed by City of Santa Ana and County of Orange staff will be implemented for
the water main replacement in Tustin Avenue and Seventeenth Street. The water main
replacement is one component of the proposed project. The traffic control plan shows
signs, devices, and striping needed to divert traffic around the proposed work area. A
specific traffic control plan is not anticipated for the construction of the replacement well
facility. Any equipment deliveries or operations conducted by the contractor which would
only temporarily impact traffic are usually performed in accordance with either
the WATCH manual or Caltrans Manual of Traffic Controls. Access issues relating to
the property to the south of the project site may be addressed by the City of Santa Ana
during the site plan review of the proposed project. No reciprocal access or parking
agreements exist that would obligate the project to provide for access or parking to the
property to the south of the project site. In fact, the project site could be fenced at any
time without any environmental review.
8. During construction of the project, there may be intermittent odors from the initial
chlorination treatment of the well, vehicle exhaust and paint. However, these temporary
odors would be similar to those of any typical construction project, and the project will
not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
2-12 Responses to Comments
513?66.1
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Resoonses to Comments
9. No water run-off will result from well-flushing procedures. All water will be kept on-site
and will discharge into a storm drain connection that is already in place.
10. The City retained Mestre Greve Associates to complete a comprehensive noise study for
the Tustin Avenue Well Site project. Based on the findings of the Noise Assessment for
the Tustin Avenue Water Well dated December 77, 2007, with the temporary soundwall in
place, construction activities will not exceed the noise limits in the City of Santa Ana Noise
Ordinance pertaining to residential properties. The City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance
does not specify any noise level limits for commercial land uses. However, it should be
noted that the proposed project would only generate noise levels at the adjacent
commercial properties which exceed the standards applicable to residential properties
during drilling operations for a maximum of twenty-one (211 days (non-consecutive) and
perhaps during other brief periods. to addition, Santa Ana City Code Section 18-314(e)
exempts "Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any
real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday."
Thus, the residential standards only apply on Sundays, federal holidays, and during
nighttime hours. Long-term operational noise will be negligible.
11. See Response No. 5. The City has determined that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment, but that the significant effect can be reduced to a level of
insignificance through the incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, a mitigated
negative declaration, not an EIR, is appropriate here. The preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report is not required, nor justified.
2-13 Responses to Comments
5I l2GG.1
RsNcstin, Scott
From: Lloyd Weinstein (Ibydaw®benjiesdeN.com]
SerMr Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:04 PU+1
To: Reskstln, Scott
Subjsc~ Tustin Avs weN project
Scott,
ft was nice mestlng with you today. Hero aro my written comments and cbncems about the impacts of the welt project and
locafbn of security walb on my business (eenjies).
1. Relocate the placement of the security waN and gets on the asst (Tustln Avs) side se far from the street as possbM
to provfde moro vistbiNty d my business. Also, rather than making the waN parallel to the stroet, aquas i4 aff to the N 3 S ~
walls. This wtN also provide moro visibilty.
2. Locals the north security waN 2 tD 3 feet 1ir+om the north properly Itns (sidewak aide) whld~ wiN provide a little moro Z
room from my building as the building is built at zero lot Nne dsaronce.
3. ProvkJe extsrbr Nghting around the psrimitsr.of the pnojsct, and a security camera system would be poeitlve sddNlorN 3
tD deter pontentlsl vandaNeim and graAltl sctlvities. I
4. Provide another driveway for the parkirq area behind the south property (strip center and doughnut shop) at the 4
aoutl~wsst locatlon on Old Tustin Avs.
Thank you for your consideratlon,
Lbyd and Ncrilw Weinstein
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 11
Lloyd and Noriko Weinstein
December 17, 2008
The proposed security wall and gate adjacent to Tustin Avenue will be setback a
minimum of twenty (20) feet from the property line. This setback may be increased, if
feasible, to accommodate requests from the adjacent business owners.
2. The subject property is only 40 feet in width. If the proposed wall along the north (or
south) property line were setback two to three feet, there would not be sufficient width
within the site to accommodate the well enclosure and vehicular access.
3. The City shall install permanent security lighting throughout the site to deter vandalism
and other criminal behavior. A security camera system may be added in the future, but
is not a part of the proposed project.
4. The City of Tustin does not own the property to the south of the project site and is not
responsible for providing access to that property. However, the owner of the property to
the south of the well site may wish to request approval from the City of Santa Ana to
provide another driveway to the parking area along Old Tustin Avenue.
2-14 Responses to Comments
513266.1
RECEIVED
DEC 2 2 20~-- ------per- ~
. .
. 9Z~po ---~--------._.._... --- _... .
.T ._....
_. -_ ...
,, . , _
i~
7i1~ s'73'~1~...
;~ ' • . r
~.
----_ - ----- k 1
_._.._..-. _.... ._~._.ty_
:,
~~
.__~..__ r - - - . / l ~ /
-,-
~. ~~_
~~~
t
1 ...
2
I ..
3
E _ ~__......___ --.._...---~ - - - - ... _-..__.. _ ---
___. ` F
~ .
• G.L. 4 ~._
- ~
__ ___ ... ___.. -_s~,...~.,,t~..P,...,~ , - ---
,. 5
_.____-____--.- .~_ ._ ._ ~--- _ . 6
-'~--~.
~•
~..~.-~.
. _. _ ~ ~~s
"~' - _ dry _ .---= ~..:.~tl._ ~..S~w~ !! ......~ ::.~ ;1tt. 9
~~
~_ .. __ ~,
~~ ~
12
~'~. L_1~,........ .... _._ ,
_~•_~~...~1~._ 14 .
i
,.
,.16
_-. ~.-. t
.S
_._._._..__~.______~._.:..._- . ... ._. __ . ._._._ .. ___ ._.._._ _.._~.r _ ..... .._.. _ .. .
Tustin Avenue Wetl Site Project
Resoonses to Comments
Comment Letter 12
Daniel Koby
December 19, 2008
1. The information contained in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is
accurate and factual. No impact has been identified as potentially significant in the Initial
Study because all potential impacts have been determined to be "less than significant" or
"less than significant with mitigation incorporation."
2. It is unclear from the comment how item nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 in Section D of the Initial
Study were not properly addressed. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration were prepared in accordance with State law.
3. The installation of a temporary noise attenuation wall, approximately 24 feet in height,
will be required around the perimeter of the site during construction. Any potential shade
and shadow impacts on adjacent properties would be minimal and temporary, especially
to the south. The maximum height of the proposed building is eighteen (18) feet, and
approximately 60 percent of the proposed building is fifteen (15) feet in height. These
heights are compatible with the adjacent commercial buildings. The proposed project
would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings,
but would improve the aesthetics of the area by providing landscaping, removing asphalt
paving, and improving the site with an aesthetically compatible structure.
4. As noted on Pages 4-7 of the IS/MND, due to the limited amount of grading and the
small scale nature of the project and very limited numbers of heavy equipment that will
be present on site on any given construction day, project emissions would not exceed
the air quality thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD). Nonetheless, the Initial Study identifies numerous measures that
are designed to reduce pollutant emissions during construction, including measures that
specifically address dust emissions. Note that all construction projects within the South
Coast Air Basin must comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which contains a comprehensive
list of pollutant control measures that must be adhered to during grading and
construction activity. With the implementation of performance measures, no impacts to
air quality are anticipated.
5. No impacts to common song birds, doves, and pigeons are anticipated. There is no
existing habitat for birds on the project site.
6. Construction of the project will require the preparation of a soils report and structural
calculations for the proposed structures in accordance with all applicable building codes.
No impacts from seismic-related ground failure are anticipated.
7. As noted on pages 9-10 of the IS/MND, the proposed chlorination equipment is unlikely
to result in the creation of any health hazards or expose people to hazardous materials.
Any potential leaks would be contained in the building with a scrubber that would act as
a chlorine neutralizer. Moreover, the Initial Study has identified a number of
mitigation/implementation measures that are designed to reduce potential impacts
relating to the use and storage of chlorine on site to a level of insignificance. A
maximum of two 150 lbs. chlorine cylinders will be transported at any one time in one-
ton utility bed trucks that feature lift gates, specially constructed tie-down brackets, and
safety placards on all four sides. The drivers of the trucks are required to have drivers
licenses with hazardous materials endorsements. The chlorine cylinders are seamless
2-15 Responses to Comments
5132GG.1
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
steel containers designed according to Department of Transportation Specification
3A480 or 3AA480. Furthermore, the valve is enclosed in a steel cap such that the
cylinder will not leak if tipped over.
8. Construction activities are unlikely to negatively impact storm water runoff. All
requirements of the Clean Water Act and National Pollutant Elimination Discharge
System (NPDES) shall be adhered to by the Public Works Department or the assigned
contractor.
9. The proposed project will not physically divide an established community. The project is
compatible with the commercial character of the area, and a well site has been operating
on the property since 1952 with no effect of dividing an established community.
10. The City retained Mestre Greve Associates to complete a comprehensive noise study for
the Tustin Avenue Well Site project. Based on the findings of the Noise Assessment for
the Tustin Avenue Water Well dated December 17, 2007, with the temporary soundwall in
place, construction activities will not exceed the noise limits in the City of Santa Ana Noise
Ordinance pertaining to residential properties. The City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance
does not specify any noise level limits for commercial land uses. However, it should be
noted that the proposed project would only generate noise levels at the adjacent
commercial properties which exceed the standards applicable to residential properties
during drilling operations for a maximum of twenty-one (21) days (non-consecutive) and
perhaps during other brief periods. In addition, Santa Ana City Code Section 18-314(e)
exempts "Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading. of any
real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday."
Thus, the residential standards only apply on Sundays, federal holidays, and during
nighttime hours. Long-term operational noise will be negligible.
11. The proposed facility will not create a significant additional demand for fire services or
result in inadequate emergency access. In fact, the ability to pump additional water may
improve fire protection in the area. Emergency vehicles will be able to access the
project site and the adjacent sites from Tustin Avenue and Old Tustin Avenue.
12. No potential impacts associated with pedestrian and vehicular safety were identified in
the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Furthermore, a traffic control plan which has
been reviewed by City of Santa Ana and County of Orange staff will be implemented for
the water main replacement in Tustin Avenue and Seventeenth Street. The water main
replacement is a component of the proposed project. The traffic control plan shows
signs, devices, and striping needed to divert traffic around the proposed work area. A
specific traffic control plan is not anticipated for the construction of the replacement well
facility. Any equipment deliveries or operations conducted by the contractor which would
only temporarily impact traffic are usually pertormed in accordance with either
the WATCH manual or Caltrans Manual of Traffic Controls. Access issues relating to
the property to the south of the project site may be addressed by the City of Santa Ana
during the site plan review of the proposed project. No reciprocal access or parking
agreements exist that would obligate the project to provide for access or parking to the
property to the south of the project site. In fact, the project site could be fenced at any
time without any environmental review. The construction of the 12" water main line in
Tustin Avenue north of Seventeenth Street will require an exception to the street-cut
moratorium by the City of Santa Ana City Engineer upon a showing of good cause. The
City of Tustin will request an exception from the City of Santa Ana.
2-16 Responses to Comments
5 ] 37.66. I
Tustin Avenue Well Site Project
Responses fo Comments
13. The proposed project itself will generate additional water supplies and will not require the
construction of new waste water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities.
The proposed replacement of two (2) sections of undersized water main mains on Tustin
Avenue and Seventeenth Street is a part of the proposed project that was analyzed in
the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.
14. The proposed project will generate additional water supplies and will not require new
water supplies to serve itself. Tustin's existing sources of water supply include seven (7)
untreated or "clear" groundwater wells that pump directly into the City's water distribution
system, two treatment facilities that treat the groundwater from five (5) additional wells,
seven (7) imported water connections via the East Orange County Water District, and
four (4) emergency interconnections with neighboring agencies. In addition to being
more cost effective and locally controlled, groundwater is considered to be more reliable
than imported water supplies. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
[Metropolitan's] regional water treatment and distribution facilities are periodically taken
out of service for maintenance and inspection. This typically requires a minimum
shutdown time period of 7-10 days. Additionally, many of Metropolitan's transmission
lines cross active earthquake faults that may make Southem California's regional
imported water supply vulnerable to damage and/or disruption in a seismic event.
Tustin's long-term objective is to supply 85 - 90% of its customer water needs from
groundwater, with the balance from imported sources.
Accordingly, the ultimate objective of the City of Tustin Water Services Division long-
range capital improvements program is to increase groundwater supply as required to
satisfy normal water demands up to and including maximum day demand, while utilizing
system reservoirs to supply peak demands. As a member agency of the Orange County
Water District [OCWD], the City of Tustin Water Services Division is entitled to
groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. OCWD is moving forward
with its Long-Term Facilities Plan, a comprehensive program designed to implement a
series of innovative groundwater recharge projects to increase Basin yield. In addition to
other groundwater producers, OCWD's projects will also benefit Tustin's service area
and enhance the City's investment in its future groundwater water supplies.
15. The proposed project does not impinge on any existing property rights. The operation of
the proposed replacement well may generate a negligible amount of noise, but any noise
generated would be similar to the noise level of the existing well. Construction noise
would be temporary and intermittent and in compliance with the City of Santa Noise
Ordinance.
16. See previous responses.
2-17 Responses to Comments
S 13266. I
EXHIBIT B
TO
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 09-23
TUSTIN AVENUE WELL SITE PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097(a), the
public agency that approves or carries out a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) has identified potential significant effects "shall adopt a program for monitoring or
reporting on the....measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental
effects." An MND has been prepared for the Tustin Avenue Well Site Project which addresses
the potential environmental impacts and, as appropriate, recommends measures to mitigate
these impacts. Recommended mitigation identified in the mitigation monitoring program (MMP)
include mitigation measures (MM) and implementation measures (IM), as shown in the attached
matrix. The City of Tustin, as lead agency for the implementation of the Tustin Avenue Well Site
Project, is responsible for implementation of the MMP.
The MMP for tt~€ Tustin Avenue Well Site Project will be in place through construaion of the
project or until all mitigation and implementation measures are implemented. The City of Tustin
Department of Pubic Works is the primary agency responsible.
MITIGATION MONITORING
MITIGATION COMPLIANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT
MEASURE
TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY
RESPONSIBILITY
Air Quality
IM 3-1
The City shall require the contractor to operate all construction
Verify requirements on contractor
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
equipment and the emergency generators for construction
specifications prior to issuance of
activities in accordance with SCAQMD rules and regulations.
a grading permit
This requirement shall appear conspicuously on final
construction plans and/or working drawings.
Implementation during
construction
IM 3-2
At the time of plan check, the City shall ensure that the
Verify requirement on contractor
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
specifications for the chlorine scrubber system meet all
specifications prior to issuance of
applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations.
a grading permit
IM 3-3
The City shall require the contractor to comply with all City
Verify requirements on contractor
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
policies pertaining to short-term construction emissions,
specifications prior to issuance of
including periodic watering of the site and prohibiting grading
a grading permit
during second stage smog alerts and when wind velocities
exceed 15 miles per hour. This requirement shall appear
Implementation during
conspicuously on final construction plans and/or working
construction
drawings.
IM 3-4
The City shall require the contractor to implement dust control
Verify requirements on contractor
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
measures during site disturbance activity, including, for
specifications prior to issuance of
example, regular watering in accordance with SCAQMD Rule
a grading permit
403. This requirement shall appear conspicuously on final
construction plans and/or working drawings.
Implementation during
construction
_
IM 3-5
Prior to putting the project out to bid, the Public Works
Prior to project bid
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Department shall submit the construction drawings to the Santa
Ana Fire Department (SAFD) for their review, approval, and
stamp.
IM 3-6
Prior to start up of the chlorination facility, the Public Works
Prior to start up of the chlorination
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Department shall obtain approval from the SAFD. As part of
facility
this approval, a hazardous material and inventory disclosure
form will be prepared including an emergency
response/evacuation plan for the facility
IM 3-7
The construction documents and plans shall specify that the
Verify requirements on contractor
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
facility shall be designed for detection and containment of any
specifications prior to issuance of
potential leakage.
a grading permit
IM 3-8
A Risk Management Plan with specific provisions regarding the
Prior to issuance of a grading
Public Works Department or
Public Works Department
procedures and responsible parties shall be prepared by the
permit
assigned contractor
Public Works Department/Water Services Division or an
assigned contractor in accordance with the CaIARP Program,
and reviewed and approved by the SAFD. Appropriate
education and training of the Risk Management Plan shall be
provided to all staff responsible in the operation of the site.
Cultural Resources
MM 5-1 1 In case of an accidental discovery of historical or unique I Veri . fy requirement on contractor LProject Contractor/Public Public Works De artment
MITIGATION MONITORING
MITIGATION COMPLIANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT
MEASURE
TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY
RESPONSIBILITY
archeological or paleontological resources, the contractor shall
specifications prior to issuance of
Works Department
immediately halt construction activity and promptly notify the
a grading permit
City of the discovery. The City shall then retain a qualified
archeologist or paleontologist to evaluate the discovery. If the
Implementation during
find is determined to be a unique, historical, archeological, or
construction
paleontological resource, appropriate protection and
preservation measures shall be taken in accordance with
Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA and Public Resources Code Section.
Geology and Soils
IM 6-1 At the time of plan check, construction plans shall be
Prior to issuance of grading permit
Public Works Department or
Public Works Department
prepared to ensure conformance with the requirements of the
assigned contractor
Uniform Building Code and all other applicable state and
local laws, regulations and requirements.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM 7-1
Prior to putting the project out to bid, the Public Works
Prior to putting the project out to
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Department shall submit the construction drawings to the SAFD
bid.
for their review, approval, and stamp.
MM 7-2
Prior to the start up of the chlorination facility, the Public Works
Prior to start up of the chlorination
Public Works Department or
Public Works Department
Department shall obtain approval from the SAFD. As part of
facility
assigned contractor
the SAFD approval, a hazardous material and inventory
disclosure form shall be prepared including an emergency
response/evacuation plan for the facility.
MM 7-3
The facility shall be designed to reduce any risk and potential
Prior to issuance of grading permit
Public Works Department or
Public Works Department
human impacts to a level of insignificance by appropriate
assigned contractor
detection and prevention of any potential leakage. These
prevention measures shall be incorporated in the construction
plans and documents subject to review and approval of the
SAFD and County of Orange Environmental Health Division.
MM 7-4
A CaIARP Risk Management Plan with specific provisions
Prior to issuance of grading permit
Public Works Department or
Public Works Department
regarding the procedures and responsible parties shall be
assigned contractor
prepared by the Public Works Department/Water Services
Division (or an assigned contractor), and reviewed and
approved by the SAFD. Appropriate education and training of
the Risk Management Plan shall be provided to all City staff
responsible for the operation of the well site.
Noise
MM 11-1
During well drilling, well installation, and test pumping
Prior to well drilling, well
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
operations, approximately 640 feet of temporary noise
installation, and test pumping
attenuation wall, approximately 24 feet in height, shall be in
lace around the perimeter of the construction site.
MM 11-2
The contractor shall use a drilling rig that is equipped with a
Prior to commencement of drilling
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
hospital grade muffler such that the drilling rig is capable of
activities
not exceeding a steady noise (L50) of 64 dBA at 100 feet (if
no soundwall were present).
MM 11-3
During construction, limited noise monitoring shall be
During construction activities
Public Works Department or
I
Public Works Department
conducted at nearby residences to confirm that the actual noise
Pro ect Contractor
Scott\Environmental\Tustin Avenue Well Mitigabon Monitoring Program.doc
MITIGATION MONITORING
MITIGATION COMPLIANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT
MEASURE
TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY
RESPONSIBILITY
levels are consistent with the levels predicted in the "Noise
Assessment For the Tustin Avenue Water Well" dated
December 17, 2007.
MM 11-4
Pumping development and step drawdown tests and well
During construction activities
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
structure installation activities shall be restricted to the hours
exempt from the City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance; that is,
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday, excluding federal holidays.
MM 11-5
Noise generating well maintenance operations shall be
During well maintenance
Public Works Department or
Public Works Department
restricted to the hours exempt from the City of Santa Ana Noise
assigned contractor
Ordinance, that is, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m., Monday through Saturday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on Sundays and federal holidays.
Aesthetics
MM 1-1
The City shall install permanent security lighting fixtures that
Prior to operation of facility
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
direct lighting downward to prevent spill and glare on
neighboring ro rties.
MM 1-2
The City shall require the contractor to install temporary
During construction
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
construction light fixtures that direct lighting downward to
prevent any spill and glare on neighboring properties and the
public right-of-way.
Scott\Environmental\Tustin Avenue Well Mitigabon Monitoring Program.doc