Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 RAWLINGS RESERVOIR RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENTAGENDA REPORT Agenda Item Reviewed: City Manager MEETING DATE: APRIL 19, 2011 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, INTERIM CITY MANAGER FROM: DOUGLAS S. STACK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER 10 SUBJECT: APPROVE RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT FOR RAWLINGS RESERVOIR REPLACEMENT PROJECT CIP 60136 SUMMARY Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the attached Right of Entry Agreement between the City of Tustin (City) and Oakhurst International Inc., (Owner). The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the terms and conditions to provide the basis for a Right of Entry Agreement between the City and the Owner for the construction of the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project CIP No. 60136. Staff is also recommending that the City Council approve Resolution No. 11-31 approving Addendum No. 1 to the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the Right of Entry Agreement with Oakhurst International, Inc. and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement on behalf of the City, in a form substantially consistent with the attached and subject to approval by the City Attorney; and also approve Addendum No. 1 to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project by adopting Resolution No. 11-31. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of this agreement will benefit the City and the adjacent property owner in reducing their respective construction costs and duration. The estimated net project cost savings that can be realized by the City with this Right of Entry Agreement is approximately $ 750,000. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND The Rawlings Reservoir project consists of demolishing the existing reservoir and replacing it with two (2) circular pre-stressed concrete reservoirs of 3.0 million gallons (MG) each. The City proceeded with final design of the project in such a manner as to minimize impacts on the adjacent properties. Accordingly, the original project design incorporated atie-back shoring system on the west side of the reservoir that would be embedded into the adjacent private property owned by Oakhurst International, Inc. The proposed tie-back shoring system would have been abandoned in place except for the upper layer of tiebacks (19 tiebacks) that would be excavated and removed at the end of construction to minimize the grading impact on the adjacent property. Using this shoring method would result in longer construction duration due to the need to stagger or sequence reservoir construction (i.e. north tank followed by south tank) and the time needed to construct the tie-backs on the adjacent property. During the constructability review of the project it was determined that there could be considerable cost savings for both the City and the Owner by grading back the adjacent property on the west in Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project, CIP No. 60136 Right of Entry Agreement/MND Addendum No. 1 April 19, 2011 Page 2 lieu of the tie-back shoring system. The savings to the City include significantly reduced shoring cost, accelerated project schedule (i.e. parallel tank construction), and ease of construction -site accessibility and construction staging/lay-down. Savings to the Owner include the excess utilization of the City's drain line capacity along Foothill Boulevard and any future remedial grading costs required to meet his project's geotechnical requirements directly adjacent to the City's reservoir site. Essentially, this agreement benefits both parties in reducing their respective construction costs and duration. Expected project cost savings for the City is estimated at $750,000. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project was approved by the City Council on April 17, 2006. The Notice of Determination was filed on April 18, 2006 and was recorded with the County Clerk of the County of Orange on April 18, 2006. By including the grading of the adjacent hillside in lieu of tie-back shoring, an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Resolution No. 11-31 provides for City Council approval of Addendum No. 1 to the MND in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and that the inclusion of the adjacent hillside grading does not create any new significant environmental effects or result in a substantial increase in the severity of any of the environmental effects previously identified and adopted by City Council. It is recommended that the City Council approve the Right of Entry Agreement with the neighboring property owner, Mr. Alan Trider and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement on behalf of the City, in a form substantially consistent with the attached and subject to approval by the City Attorney. 4 o g a S. Stack, P.E. i ct of Public Works/City Engineer Attachments: Right of Entry Agreement with Oakhurst International Location Map Resolution No. 11-31 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration S:\City Council Items\2011 Council Items\Approve Right of Entry Agreement for Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project CIP 60136.docx RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT WITH OAKHURST INTERNATIONAL Right of Entry Agreement for the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project PARTIES This Right of Entry Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into on by and between the City of Tustin ("City") and Mr. Alan Trider, President, on behalf of Oakhurst International Inc. ("Owner"). The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the terms and conditions between the City and the Owner to provide the basis for a right of entry onto the Owner's property for the construction of the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project CIP No. 60136 (the "Project"). The intent of this Agreement is for the City to obtain a right of entry to the Owner's property for the purpose of completing the construction of the Project, including, but not limited to, access, geotechnical investigation, grading, compacting, backfilling, and storage. The property is described as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN's) 393-181-13, 393-181-14, 393-181-15, 393-181-16, 393-181-17, 393-181-18 and Cole Lane as shown in the Tract Map Number 15591, as shown on Exhibit "A" (the "Property"). TERMS AND CONDITIONS It is mutually understood that this Agreement will benefit both parties by reducing their respective time of construction and related costs. The benefits to the City under this Agreement include, but are not limited to, savings in the shoring cost, accelerated Project schedule and ease of construction. The benefits to the Owner under this Agreement include, but are not limited to, the cost of over-excavation, compaction and 1 761431.1 rough grading the site to fulfill the Owner's geotechnical report requirements. It would also eliminate the need for the Owner to encroach upon City's property to perform the required remedial grading activities. The following terms provide the basis for the Agreement between the City and the Owner. 1. WORK TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY 1.1 The City will cover all reasonable costs associated with any additional geotechnical investigations and/or updating and revising the Geotechnical Report on the Owner's Property due to the effects of the City's proposed grading and the Owner's remedial grading for the benefit of both parties at the Property interface. The Owner will allow the City full access to the Property for the purpose of constructing the Project, including geotechnical investigation, grading, compacting, backfilling and storage. 1.2 The City will pay for all costs associated with the preparation of interim rough grading plans, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans and permits, and for post-construction site stabilization to satisfy requirements of the State Water Board and local agencies directly related to grading back the Owner's site for reservoir construction. The Owner will need to facilitate grading and remedial grading plan preparation, permitting from County as the Owner of the Property (i.e. reviewing and signing of documents as the property Owner). 1.3 The City will stub a 24-inch drain pipe into the Owner's Property along with a riser and inlet to grade to accommodate storm water run-off during the z 761431.1 Owner's construction, and to allow the Owner's development to establish a permanent connection to the drain line after construction is complete, subject to the excess capacity limits of the drain line and the hydraulic control of the County's storm drain. 1.4 The City will only over-excavate, bench and re-compact as a certified fill (per the geotechnical report's recommendations for the Owner's development) the City's needed portion of the hillside on the Owner's Property lying north westerly and immediately adjacent to the City's proposed reservoirs, all at no cost to the Owner. The grading will be done in such a manner, and for a sufficient distance into the Owner's Property, that Owner will not have to re-excavate said area near the proposed reservoirs (approximately 20 feet into the Owner's Property). All the remaining future grading necessary to complete the Owner's development including retaining walls will be performed by the Owner at his expense. 1.5 The City shall pay all construction costs for the Project. 1.6 The City will replace any Property corner monuments disturbed during the process of the City's proposed grading activities, and file the necessary documents with the County of Orange Survey Department at no cost to the Owner. 1.7 The City will repair any deteriorated asphalt in front of the Project site on Foothill Avenue per the City's plans prepared by Tetra Tech. 1.8 The existing construction trailer on the Owner's Property is in a state of disrepair. The City agrees to move the trailer to a suitable location on site 3 76143L1 at no cost to the Owner. Due to the deteriorated condition of the trailer, the Owner holds the City harmless for any damage caused to the trailer by the proposed move. 2. REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT 2.1 The City will cover all reasonable costs not to exceed eight thousand dollars ($8,000) incurred by the Owner for Civil Engineering fees assessed by his engineer for the various meetings, grading plan revisions, as-built surveys associated with City's grading activities, for the City's proposed use of the Owner's Property. 2.2 Any and all written agreements are to be reviewed by the Owner's attorney. The City shall pay for reasonable legal fees not to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000) incurred by the Owner for said review. 2.3 As provided in 2.1 and 2.2 above, costs to be reimbursed will include those incurred by the Owner starting on or after January 27, 2011, the date of the first formal meeting between the Owner and the City for the Agreement. 2.4 Each request for reimbursement as set forth in sections 2.1 and 2.2 above will require detailed backup documentation to substantiate actual expenses incurred by the Owner, subject to review and approval by the City. Monthly payments for substantiated expenses will be processed promptly (2 weeks) based upon the City's warrant schedule and will begin immediately upon the execution of the Agreement by all parties. 4 761431.1 3. FEES AND PERMITS 3.1 The City will allow the Owner to connect to City's private drain line along Foothill Blvd, and utilize the drain line's excess capacity which is further limited by the downstream hydraulic control of the County's storm drain. It would be the responsibility of the Owner to hire an engineer to demonstrate to the County and the City that additional flows from his proposed future development can be handled by the City's drain line and the County. The City can provide to the Owner the drain line sizing calculations performed by the City. 3.2 The Owner would need to comply with the water quality requirements set forth by the County of Orange including installation and maintenance of all appropriate treatment/retention/and BMP devices before discharging into the City's drain line. 3.3 The City will allow Owner to utilize the City's proposed concrete V-ditch on the north westerly side of the reservoirs as a temporary bypass during the Owner's construction to route off-site storm water around Owner's Property to avoid co-mingling this off-site run-off with the Owner's run-off. The costs for the temporary bypass and any required BMP's shall be borne by the Owner. The Owner shall give 30-day written notice to the City with his intent to utilize the City's V-ditch. 3.4 The City will prepare the necessary agreements to allow the Owner's development to utilize the City's drain line. 5 761431.1 3.5 The City will waive any fees that need to be paid by the Owner to the City for the development of the Owner's Property (Tract 15591) in the unincorporated County of Orange neighboring the City's Rawlings Reservoir. 4. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT 4.1 The existing reservoir demolition is tentatively scheduled to begin in July 2011 with final reservoir construction completed within the following 27 months at the latest (October 31, 2013). The Owner agrees that no withdrawal of the entry rights onto Owner's Property granted under this Agreement would be allowed before October 31, 2013 to provide sufficient time for the City to complete the Project. 5. TIME OF THE ESSENCE 5.1 The parties hereto recognize and agree that time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. The parties may, by mutual written agreement, extend the term of the Agreement. 5.2 In the event no time extension is mutually agreed to as a result of the delay in Project completion, the Owner agrees to allow a modified access for the City's ongoing construction activity at the southeast corner of Owner's Property to complete the Project. As such, the City agrees to replace and repair any damaged concrete and/or pavement along the Owner's street frontage caused by the City's ongoing activity. 6. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 6 76143 L! 6.1 Delivery: Any notices related to this Agreement should be delivered and addressed as follows: To Owner: To City: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Attention: Douglas S. Stack, P.E., Director Public Works/City Engineer 6.2 Severability: If any section, phrase or term of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, that section, phrase or term shall be stricken and all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 6.3 California Law: Interpretation of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 6.4 Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Any party may execute this Agreement by way of a facsimile signature, a copy of which will operate as an original. The party executing the 76143L1 facsimile copy shall promptly transmit a copy thereof to all other parties. 6.5 Waiver and Release: The Owner agrees that performance of this Agreement by the City, including the payments recited above, shall constitute full and fair compensation and consideration for any and all claims that the Owner, and its successors and assigns, may have against the City by reason of the improvement, possession, use and/or occupancy of the Owner's Property for the Project, and the Owner, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, hereby knowingly and voluntarily waives, and expressly releases and discharges the City and any and all of the City's employees, agents, officers, servants, representatives, contractors, attorneys and assigns, from liability in regard to, any and all such claims, including claims for severance or taking compensation or damages to the remainder not taken on account of the use of the Owner's Property or the location, establishment, construction and/or operation of the above-named Project. The foregoing waiver and release shall include the waiver and release of any and all rights or claims that the Owner has, may have or may in the future have under Article 1, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Eminent Domain Law, or any other law or regulation; except as provided herein. The Owner, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, further knowingly and voluntarily s 76143 L 1 waives and expressly releases and discharges the City, and any and all of the City's employees, agents, officers, servants, representatives, contractors, attorneys and assigns, from liability in regard to any claims for the following: relocation assistance or benefits, if any, to which the Owner may be entitled pursuant to applicable sections in Chapter 16 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code (Gov. Code sec. 7260, et seq.) ("California Relocation Assistance Law"), regulations adopted by the State of California to implement or pursuant to the California Relocation Assistance Law, and/or the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. sec. 4601, et seq.), regulations adopted by the Federal Government to implement 42 U.S.C. sec. 4601, et seq., pre-condemnation damages, lost business goodwill, lost profits, damage to or loss of improvements pertaining to the realty, machinery, fixtures, inventory, equipment and/or personal property, interest and claimed litigation expenses, attorney's fees and/or costs. The Owner is aware of and understands all potential benefits to which he/she/it is otherwise entitled and has had the opportunity to discuss potential benefits with legal counsel of his/her/its choice. 6.6. Waiver under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1542: The parties intend that this Agreement will result in a full, complete, and final resolution and settlement of any and all claims, causes of action or disputes which exist, or may exist, between them as to the 9 761431.1 possession and/or use of the Owner's Property for the Project by the City except as expressly provided herein. It is therefore understood that the waiver, under this Agreement, of any rights, damages, compensation or benefits to which a party is, or may be, entitled is intended to be full and complete. Accordingly, a. The Owner hereby waives any and all rights or benefits arising from and/or related to the City's possession and/or use of the Owner's Property that it may have under section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California which provides: "a general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." b. The Owner represents and warrants that he/she/it understands the effect of this waiver of section 1542 and has had the opportunity to discuss the effect of this waiver with counsel of their choice. 6.7 Binding on Successors: This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the City and the Owner, and their respective successors, assigns, and transferees, and their past, present and future officers, employees and agents; provided that this Agreement may only be assigned with the 10 ifil43Ll written consent of both parties, and any attempt to assign this Agreement without such consent shall be void. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed and entered into this Agreement as of the date first written above. CITY OF TUSTIN By Mayor, Jerry Amante ATTEST: By City Clerk APPROVED AS FORM: By City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: By Director of Public Works Oakhurst International Inc. By President, Alan Trider APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Property Owner's Attorney 11 76 143 L L ' ~ EXH'IBIT - A 02 ~ 6NEF7T 4 OF 4 SHEET ' SCALEI,.SD' 6 LQTS AND LOTS "A," d "8" TRACT 1 N0 5591 ACRE AGEI 4.238 '~ . AIL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 75591 DATE OF 9URVEY: MA4 1998 IN THE UNINCORPO RATED TERRITORY Or' THE QOUNTY CF ORANGE. i i STATE OF CALIFORNIA I SALKIN ENGINEERING CORPORATION J~ ~ GEORGE E• KERNS. R.C.E. '.19593 ~~ ' . I `; ', FD. 1" 1:P. l5 2210 I PER R.S. ',25/28 969.54'23"W 0'.33' 4 `ro FD• 1" I.P. LS 2210 ~~ /I " - ;' L P. LS 2210 ,~ / I PER R.S. 25/28 FD. 1 25/28 ~ 0 ' PER R S . ' " "' m m TE 587 30 . . w O.al 32 0 510.56'34'W 0.20' fee / '` : N54 j09'49"W ~ 4, ! / / ' " ~ SEE SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS FOR MONUMENT NOTES. BAS15 OF 10.00' I I N35. 55 11 E oo „F, / i 4 45' BEARINGS AND DATUM NOTE7B~u0AV2`(CouRVt- / . o~'• ` w w ALL STR uCTdRES SNAlC H6 6BU//fED '. t t N54.47_W I. / a •h i / ~ i0 N'/TN f/lE ti4/NKLERS LV/F IO 4RRDEOf g AY R AD ' ~ ,-- - ------- / I W 7 AL tEtS O ~, F/Rf DE/A,PTdfE4 ' FD. 1" 1.P.'LS 2210 ' I c '~. PER R.9. 25/28 lN54. 15'00"W n 5.15') / 29 589 S.F. N53. 32'49"w 115.15' / t0. 6710 ACRE57 ° ~ tO K' '~, 55'26'05"W (7.33' ° -- --- / ii FD. 1"II•P..LS 2270 ~ g 3 00 PER R•S• 25728 pLL LOTS ARE WITHIN A MIGM FIRE 4" 3 . ' 5' -. = I F.1Z N W, D. 1 5 5 26 ,0 RAZARO DUE TO wllDIAND ExPOSURE ALL LOTS ARE WITHIN A SPECIAL W I ® \ FIRE PROTECTION AREA AND MUST ' ~ ° of II 2 ;~ \ Z MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR y~ ~ DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THAT AREA. N II . o n .Z N W 9~ ` 1 ~\ d II ° ~~ ^ '' r 0 27.092 S.F. m ` '00- ' ~ ' \ 10.5301 ACRESI 1wi ~ 4 ,, I N \ ,~, T 4. ° O 1 \ W P III 1 ~~ ® \ FC. 1" I.P. LS 2210 S 25/28 PER R I ~ ~ I - \ I ~ \ . . 55.23'OB"W 0.12' ~~'' ~S~°' ."n OVg.. 2 I A0.00' L N60't5'4~- 5.944 W ~I 4O i4. N 0• P ~• --.. N47•51 .: R_AD-_~•B ~ S• D• A ® R C. FD• 1" 1 P. 1512210 sv0 REF. " 5 . ' ' I /•o ~ N o °o °o,\ ~"' , ~ /v \'. q ~ 7 ti '" ' '~ ' 27 E 0.10 23 22 a5 °° I ~ e ro ? >'i'¢ Z~,: b ~ I CURVE/LINE DATA „ I I 10' PRIVATE ?/~ ' Q 11 _ _ _ _ _ 3 SEWER EASEMENT ~ (1N56. O1'Wll -~ I - FOR THE BENEFIT ~ -~ -~- •$_Q. ~ q0 NP ' , FS3_'f4 ~9°W -- g ~ _ I 23.524 SUF. ;y OF PARCEL 3 , 100ACRES7 ^ 6 ~ c o5 ~ In ^ m~ ~ ~V' l j 'O ~ m 72.566 5'. F. I Fpe,4" IP °° (0.7976 ACRESi ~ J ^ HOLLOW NO REE ( "' I. a ', o 1948'15'31"W l ~ ' ~4 ~69'RA69-~ itF, 0.19' '~~' i 16. t7 ~ \\ 1 ~ ~: o I 0 7.0 I FO', 1" 1.P NO NU = _ < m ~ 8 •' " I ?I W 16 °i 2"tl N72"1302" .1 ' 21.04' 20 ' 24 1 :, 567 54 E. O.6j 33 N6~ 1 a q5• 2, TA5• ~ ~ ,F, Z'M ' 0 i z 9 ~ 00 HTq• 13 A ~, M ~ \ '~, Q DELTA/BE ARINO RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT t 21•]8'50" 200.00' 75.45' 36 /8' 2 71.57'47" 30.00' 37.63' 27. 7a' 7 20.26'03" 17.00' 6.06' 3 06 '~. a O6•}6'57" 1040.00' 120.09' 60 tt' 5 06.28'17" 1040.00' 117.47' 58.80" ~' 6 N14. 16'21"E - 26.64' - 7 165'Z1'48" 44.00' 126.99' 342.60' 8 2i•02'OB" 44.00' 20.76' 10.58' 9 55.16'49" 44.00' 42.45' 23.04' 70 39.48'54" 94.00' 65.32' 34.04' 11 21.76'50" 160.00' 67.90' 34.36' 12 N75.43'i9"W - 8.00' - 13 247.40'45" 44.00' 190.20' - 14 27.57'51" 94.00' 45.77' 23.32' 15 1.23'4!" 1.000.00' 24.35' 72.18' ~' I ~ rj ~ ^Iua '~, NOTF: FUEL MUO/f/G7JON KLAN SHACL W I 4 ~ ~ [TE REf//EL!/EO .9ND A//RODEO AP.tlT 25.59} S. F. n N YO /!J'UANCiF Of ANY Ai'RM/I fCR ~ ml 27.504 9.F. 10.5845 ACRE57 ' SE'Lr CDR. COM4UST/CLE [ONS7XUC//OA/. ' g "'I (0.6314 ACRE91 31°~ v' v' ('LOT 31 NTG• FD• NI I '. TIN ~¢ , ~ ~ o ~ ~ 1° ~ , Aq 56 .. . ~ I i of i 1°° z~ _ 25. B6' '. I I ~4, ~/ ~ 1`~Afi• 6 22.10' I N~ i ~ \ o :I '. SEE DET41L "A" THIS SHEET y\9,•o r I I 'Bivc. 379 •, _ .' ___. '1 °9.\ z I I i' t / ~ 0.OA O'+~p0•wl /~ LN7j6_51'15"E O 9 ~\ ~ ~ 0 ° {`Ot 1 T ~A9 8~00.0~ " -':331 •45 /^ °.4.j '. RAD . /N15•~-AatO r,Lj KSr t IN , Y. ,g•59 215 ~FBOU~ \~v RO EASfIrFNT NOTFS ~ ~N /\ ~~ '. C i NA RIGHT-OF-WAT ,IN FAVOR OF EL MODEM MUTUAL MATER COMPANY. FOR p \/ WATER CONVEYANCE PURP09E5• AS RECORDED NOVEMBER 9. 1911. 1N \-~, BOOK 203. PAGE-318 OF DEEDS. INDT PLOTTED - BLANKET IN NATURE) 9\i 'O\v '. (INDICATES RESTR •C TED ACCESS RIGHTS TO ANO FROM '., ;FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. EKCEPT AT STREET INTERSECTIONS 0 ° ;9 990•.06 ' i _ - `• 99y I I D • 68 ~~ ' ~4 :} A6 56' '. RAC-gQ.~9ft]l_^\\~ ~ 25.86' ;22.70' '. i ' DETAIL "A" O3 -AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURP09E9• AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF EL MODENA CITRUS LANDS. RECORDED 1N BOOK 6. PAGE 32. OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS. RECORDS DF ORANGE COUNTY. <4 >-AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES. RECORDED DECEMBER 28. 1951. ~ ~/ 1N BOOK 2268• PAGE 363. OF OFF 1C1Al RECDR05. SPAN EASEMENT FOR CULTIVATION PURPOSES. RECOROEC JANUARY 5. 1959• ~\ IN BGOK 2847. PAGE 506. OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. <6 SAN EASEMENT FOR. PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN ~/ LALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY. RECORDED MARCr. 28. 1956. 7N BOCK /\ 3452. PAGE 570.. OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (7 ?-AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. ]N FAVOR OF SOUTHERN ~/ COUNTIES GAS COMPANY. RECORDED JULY 16. 1956. IN BOOK /~ 3578. PAGE 419: OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (8 NAN EASEMENT FGR ROAD PURPOSES. FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ExIST,NG ~/ ROUSE LOCATED UN LOT 3 AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY 26/25 JOB NUMBER 3780 FIELD BOOK 142 V C LOCATION MAP H O U o~ Z~v ~ O~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ v .ry~j v = ~ ~~~ b v ~ti Z Q U ~~ ate. Odba J 'tis ~Py U ~ W ~~. \ \ O ~P \ ~ ~ ~'o \ stib~,o ~, \ ~~o\ ~~ ~~\ QO ~ ~P Jv ~o ~v ~ ~ b~ ~~ ~~ ~ ° cso O z 'U `. QU i J w oc 0 w w Q z o~ iu ~a z w O RESOLUTION NO. 11-31 RESOLUTION NO. 11-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING ADDENDUM No. 1 TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE RAWLINGS RESERVOIR REPLACEMENT PROJECT CIP 60136 The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby finds, determines and orders: A. That the City of Tustin ("City") proposes Amendment to the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project CIP 60136 by including the grading of the adjacent hillside in lieu of tie-back shoring system during construction. B. That the replacement of the Rawlings Reservoir constitutes a "project" that is subject to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et. seq.). C. That On April 17, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 06-49 approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project ("MND"). The MND evaluated the environmental impacts of the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project and other implementing actions. D. That as documented in the Addendum, the modified Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project does not create any new significant environmental effects or result in a substantial increase in the severity of any of the environmental effects previously identified in the MND that the City Council adopted pursuant to Resolution 06- 49. There have also been no changes in circumstances since certification of the MND that create any new significant impact or result in a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impact. Finally, no "new information of substantial importance" has surfaced since certification of the MND that must be addressed in an Subsequent MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, subsection (a) (3). E. That the City Council has considered the Addendum along with the MND prior to making a decision on the Rawlings Replacement Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, and approves the Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 19th day of April, 2011. JERRY AMANTE MAYOR PAMELA STOKER, CITY CLERK 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 is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 11-31 was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19t" day of April, 2011 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBERABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: EXHIBIT 1 RA WLINGS RESERVOIR REPLACEMENT PROJECT ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE 2006 INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA TON Prepared by: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 April 2011 Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Addendum No. 1 Page 1 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND On April 17, 2006, the City of Tustin (the "City") approved the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project (the "Project") and its associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (the "2006 MND"). The Rawlings Reservoir (the "Reservoir") is located at 13331 Foothill Boulevard in an incorporated island of the City of Tustin, west of Newport Avenue. The area surrounding the subject property is within unincorporated County of Orange. The Project was initiated after a 1996 engineering study found structural deficiencies in the Reservoir. The goal of the Project is to demolish the existing 3.82 million gallon Reservoir and construct two new concrete domestic water tanks within the same site. The two new tanks will be 3.0 million gallons each. The Project also calls for the construction of off-site storm drain facilities. 1.1.1 MODIFIED PROJECT DESIGN The Project design analyzed in the 2006 MND proposed grading on the subject property and some minor grading on the adjacent property. The Project proposed the incorporation of a tie- back shoring system on the west side of the reservoir that would have been embedded into the adjacent property and would have been abandoned in place except for the upper layer tiebacks which would have been excavated and removed at the end of construction. The Reservoir site is constrained, and the pace of the construction schedule is limited accordingly. To expedite the schedule, the City initiated negotiations and has proposed entering into an agreement with the owner of the property to the west of the site. Under the agreement, the City will: (1) grade a portion of the adjacent hillside to the west of the reservoir site; (2) use the graded portion of the adjacent property as a construction staging area; and (3) fill the graded area with compacted soil following the construction of the new reservoirs. This grading activity will require approximately 20,000 to 22,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. The use of this adjacent property as a construction staging area will expedite construction, reduce construction costs, and reduce impacts in adjacent properties. The City will also allow the adjacent property to connect to the City's new storm drain line and storm drain facilities that will be constructed as part of the Project. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the potential differences, if any, in the environmental effects associated with the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project previously approved by the City of Tustin, which were studied in the MND, and those associated with the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project, which is now proposed to include the grading and restoration of an adjacent hillside in lieu of utilizing a tie-back shoring system during construction. Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines stipulates that a lead agency (City of Tustin) may prepare an Addendum to an adopted MND "if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in [State CEQA Guidelines] Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration (i.e., MND] have occurred." Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Addendum No. 1 Page 2 SECTION 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project site encompasses approximately 1.7 acres and is located at 13331 Foothill Boulevard approximately 1,000 feet northwest of Newport Avenue. The property is an incorporated City of Tustin island surrounded by areas within unincorporated Orange County. Regional location and local vicinity maps are provided in the 2006 MND in Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. The project site is bound by Foothill Boulevard and Foothill High School to the south, an unnamed private road and single family residences to the east, a single family residence to the west, and a single family residence to the north. Exhibit 3 of the 2006 MND provides an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding areas. Existing site conditions are depicted on Exhibit 4 of the 2006 MND, and site photographs are provided in Exhibits 5a and 5b of the 2006 MND. The existing reservoir consists of a rectangular 3.82 MG trapezoidal bottom structure in the northern portion of the site. The reservoir is partially buried and has been cut into the natural, southeast-facing hillside. The existing reservoir was constructed in 1971 and has concrete-block perimeter walls and awood-framed roof. A concrete-block retaining wall is located along the northern property boundary at the toe of an ascending off-site slope. There are an existing residence and pool upslope from the reservoir. This retaining wall has a reinforced concrete foundation structurally integrated with the parallel northerly wall of the reservoir. A concrete wall and chain-link fence form the eastern project boundary and are adjacent to an unnamed private-access asphalt road. A booster pump station is located in the southern portion of the project site and is housed in a concrete structure. An earthen berm descends from the south side of the reservoir down to the paved driveway and pump station (refer to photographs provided in Exhibits 5a and 5b of the 2006 MND). The majority of the site contains landscape vegetation with various ornamental trees and shrubs. The understory and open areas on the property are dominated by invasive non-native grass species and barren ground. The most abundant ornamental tree and scrub genus on the project site include oleander (Nerium oleander), acacia (Acacia sp.), Russian thistle (Sa/so/a tragus), fig, (Ficus sp.), pine (Pinus sp.), pepper tree (Schinus sp.), rhus (Rhus sp.), and gum (Eucalyptus sp.). 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Rawlings Reservoir Replacement project involves the following components which are described below: (1) demolition of the existing reservoir, (2) construction of two new 3 MG water tanks on site and associated improvements, and (3) construction of off-site storm drain facilities. 2.2.1 RESERVOIR DEMOLITION The proposed project includes demolition of the existing 3.82 MG reservoir. During the first stage of demolition, the existing reservoir roof, roof-support columns, perimeter side walls to grade, and the reservoir membrane liner would be removed. Asbestos containing materials have been identified in the existing roof mastic; floor and wall mastic; and in the wall fiberboard. These materials would be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable procedures established by state and local agencies. In the second phase of demolition, the remaining portion of the existing reservoir would be removed, including the perimeter sidewall below grade elevation, the asphalt liner, and the column bases. Demolition of the existing reservoir is estimated to take approximately two months. Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Addendum No. 1 Page 3 The existing booster pump station located in the southern portion of the site would be shut down during the demolition and construction phases; however, it would not be removed. The City would provide water to the upper pressure zones through its East Orange County Water District connections. The reservoir structure to be demolished is approximately 52,000 square feet. Equipment to be used for demolition activities includes acrane, ascissor-lift, abackhoe/front-end loader, and a bulldozer. Approximately four dump trucks would be required to haul demolition materials. 2.2.2 NEW RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION AND ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS The existing reservoir would be replaced with two partially buried concrete domestic water tanks. The preliminary design of these tanks is depicted in Exhibit 6 of the 2006 MND and cross-sections are shown on Exhibit 7 of the 2006 MND. The two new 3.0 MG concrete water tanks would be circular with a floor elevation of 273 feet above mean sea level (amsl), seven feet lower than the existing reservoir (280 feet amsl). The new tanks would have a water depth of 30 feet; be 142 feet in diameter; and have an elevation of 307 feet amsl, one foot higher than the existing reservoir. The top of the new tanks would be lower than the existing reservoir's wooden roof structure. The new tanks would be located with one behind the other. Shoring would be placed and the site excavated to approximately seven feet below the existing elevation. The north tank would be buried, with the top three feet above ground. The area behind this tank would be paved with asphalt or concrete to provide access for City vehicles for maintenance and inspection purposes. The steel hoop reinforcement in the concrete sidewall and the tendons from the base to the sidewall allow the reservoir to flex, if necessary, without failing. The southern tank would be partially buried, with approximately 26 vertical feet of the tank face exposed on the southwest-facing side. A graded and landscaped slope would be provided around the exposed portion of the front tank. New underground water pipelines and valves would connect the existing booster pump station to each new tank. The existing masonry block wall for the booster pump station would be extended across the full front of the site, adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. On the east and west sides of the project site, new chain-link fencing would be installed to replace the existing chain-link fence. The access gate on the northeastern end of the site would be enlarged to improve access to the tanks. An additional gate may be added to provide access from Foothill Boulevard on the west site of the booster pump station. Concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter would be constructed along the project site's Foothill Boulevard frontage. Landscaping may consist of native and/or ornamental plants and would be planted along the perimeter of the site. The plant material would be selected to provide view screening of reservoir facilities. The exterior of the exposed portions of the two new concrete replacement tanks would receive appropriate coloration treatment to further screen and blend the facilities into and with the proposed landscaping and surrounding area. Based on the proposed project design, 27,000 cubic yards of earthwork would be removed from the project site during construction, and 24,000 cubic yards would be used following completion of the reservoir construction for backfill. Originally (and in the 2006 MND) it was estimated that a total of 60,000 cubic yards of earthwork would be transported. During reservoir construction the following equipment would be used: acrane, ascissor-lift, abackhoe/front-end loader, and a concrete pump. Concrete and delivery truck trips as well as construction-worker vehicular trips would also occur during construction. It is estimated that there would be 5 truck trips and 12 vehicle trips on an average day. Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Addendum No. l Page 4 Construction was estimated in the 2006 MND to take about 22 months, but it is now estimated that Reservoir construction would take approximately 18 months: site excavation and grading - 2 months; new tank construction - 12 months; site back fill - 1 month; pipeline construction and other appurtenances - 1 month; site paving - 1 month; and clean-up/demobilization -1 month. 2.2.3 OFF-SITE PROJECT FEATURES Runoff from the project site would be collected in new on-site storm drain lines that would connect to a new storm drain to be installed in Foothill Boulevard. There are two options under consideration for the storm drain lines within Foothill Boulevard and both options are addressed in this Initial Study (refer to Exhibit 8). Option 1 would extend to the west approximately 2,800 feet to the Orange County Flood Control District's (OCFCD) 63-inch reinforced concrete pipe in Hewes Street (OCFCD F07-P06). Option 2 would extend to the east approximately 850 feet to the OCFCD's 6-foot by 6-foot reinforced concrete box along Newport Avenue (OCFCD F13). For each option, the storm drain would be installed in the existing public street right-of-way. A temporary construction easement or right of entry is needed west of the project site. The construction easement or right of entry would extend onto private property and is needed to facilitate the excavation needed for the new reservoirs. This area could be used for grading or shoring. Additionally, this easement or right of entry would be used for temporary construction access and/or a staging area. SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Based on the environmental checklist form prepared for the Project and the supporting environmental analysis, the 2006 MND determined that the Project would have no impact or less than significant impacts in the following environmental impact areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazard and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Minerals Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Transportation/Traffic. The 2006 MND also determined that the Project would have the potential to have Air Quality, Geology and Soils, and Utilities and Services impacts and includes mitigation measures for those environmental impact areas to reduce the potential impacts to a level considered less than significant or to eliminate the potential impacts. One standard and three special mitigation conditions are identified in the 2006 MND for Noise. 3.1 MITIGATED IMPACT AREAS No substantial increases in the severity of previously identified potential Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Utilities and Services impacts are anticipated as explained in the following discussion: 1. The worst case project assumptions used in the 2006 MND Air Quality calculations are still valid. The maximum acreage to be disturbed per day is still two (2) acres, and the number of truck trips to and from the site will significantly decrease based on the decrease in transported earthwork from 60,000 cubic yards to 51,000 cubic yards. 2. Recommendations outlined in the Project Geotechnical Report are required to be incorporated into the grading plans to reduce potential geological impacts to a level considered less than significant. These recommendations are still valid and will not change as a result of the modified project design. Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Addendum No. I Page 5 3. The 2006 MND did not identify any potential noise impacts, but required the implementation of mitigation to address noise during project construction. The mitigation conditions will minimize construction noise for the Project as modified. 4. The Project includes construction within existing right-of-way to construct a new storm drain line. The 2006 MND identified short term impacts, including traffic disruption, and includes a mitigation measure that requires a traffic management plan. The Project as modified would involve additional grading and would not increase impacts to Utilities and Services. SECTION 4.0 ADDENDUM FINDINGS In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e), this section provides the City's findings on the proposed project: 1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous MND, as there are no new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified impacts. 2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous MND, as there are no new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified impacts. 3. The 2006 MND includes mitigation measures for the following environmental impact areas: Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Utilities and Services. No new or additional mitigation measures are necessary for the Project as modified. 4. The Project will not have any significant effects not discussed in the 2006 MND in that the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project, including the proposed grading and restoration of the adjacent hillside, will be similar or less than those previously examined in the 2006 MND. Copies of the Addendum, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Study may be obtained at the Community Development Department, City Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780. Contact Scott Reekstin, at 714-573-3016 original Initial of Tustin, 300 ~- l!- ~/ Date Elizabeth A. BinsacRJ Director of Community Development INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION f ~~ `4` li ~3~a~`r~ 7a~ li ~l4A WLINGS RESERVOIR REPLACEMENT PR OJEC T INITIAL STUC?Y~ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA TON Prepared fora City of Tustin Water Services 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Prepared by: ~~CY ~ G~ CONSULT 1 N G BonTerra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 December 21, 2005 6~~wlings /reservoir Repl~cerr~e,~f l~rcjecl lniPi~l Sfudy `~Q-BLE ®F ~~NTENTS $ectlon Page Section 1.0 Introduction ..............................................®...................................,................. 1 ~1 1.1 Purpose of the Initial Study ............................................................. ...... 1-1 1.2 Summary of Findings ..................................................................... ...... 1 ~1 1.3 Project Approval ............................................................................. ...... 1-1 1.4 Organization of the Initial Study ...................................................... ...... 1-2 Section 2.0 Environmental Setting and Project Background ................................... ...... 2-1 2.1 Existing Environmental Setting ....................................................... ...... 2-1 2.2 Project Background ........................................................................ ...... 2-1 Section 3.0 Proje ct Description .................................................................................. ...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................... ...... 3-1 3.2 Project Characteristics ................................................................... ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Reservoir Demolition .......................................................... ...... 3-1 3.2.2 New Reservoir Construction and On-Site Improvements .... ...... 3-1 3.2.3 Off-Site Project Features .................................................... ...... 3-2 3.3 Discretionary Approvals ................................................................. ...... 3-3 Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist Form ............................................................... ...... 4-1 Section 5.0 Environmental Evaluation ....................................................................... ...... 5-1 I. Aesthetics ...................................................................................... .......5-1 II. Agricultural Resources ................................................................... .......5-2 III. Air Quality ...................................................................................... .......5-3 IV. Biological Resources ...................................................................... .....5-10 V. Cultural Resources ......................................................................... .....5-12 VI. Geology and Soils .......................................................................... .....5-13 VII. Hazard and Hazardous Materials ................................................... .....5-16 VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................... .....5-19 IX. Land Use and Planning .................................................................. .....5-23 X. Mineral Resources ......................................................................... .....5-24 XI. Noise .............................................................................................. .....5-24 XII. Population and Housing ................................................................. .....5-26 XIII. Public Services ............................................................................... .....5-27 XIV. Recreation ...................................................................................... .....5-27 XV. Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................... .....5~2$ XVI. Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................... .....5-30 XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................ .....5-31 Section 6.0 Document Preparers and Cc~ntrihutors ...................................~......®......o,...., 5-1 R:\P~ojecfs\ Tustin\J003\IS-1?_2005.doc I I ~}ole O~ ~CJi7/'Gi?fS ?avv!inc~s Rese~~soir s-;'2placornov~t t'roje~At Initial Stud TABLES Table Page 1 SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance ............... .............. 5-6 2 Demolition Air Pollutant Emissions ................................................................ .............. 5-7 3 Grading Air Pollutant Emissions .................................................................... .............. 5-7 4 Construction Air Pollutant Emissions ............................................................. .............. 5-8 LIST ®F EXHIBITS Exhibit Follows Page 1 Regional Location ................................................................ ........................................ 2-1 2 Local Vicinity ....................................................................... ...................................... 2-1 3 Aerial Photograph ................................................................ ........................................ 2-1 4 Existing Site Conditions ....................................................... ........................................ 2-1 5a, b Site Photographs ................................................................. ........................................ 2-1 6 Conceptual Layout .............................................................. ........................................ 3-1 7 Cross-Sections .................................................................... ........................................3-1 8 Off-Site Project Features ..................................................... ........................................ 3-2 9 Typical Construction Noise Levels ....................................... .......................................5-25 LIST OF APPENDICES A Air Quality Calculations R'.1F'rojects\Tusfin\J003115-122005.doc II Tablo of ~'o~~tents ;~a~n~lirrgs r~~ser+r©ir 1~~pla>;er~a~nl ,°r®j~a;1 iniPi~l St~i~l, SECS ~~N 1 od INTR®D~CT~®N 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY The purpose of this Initial Study (IS) is to describe the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project and provide an evaluation of potential environmental effects associated with the project's construction and use. The project involves the demolition of the existing 3.82 million gallon (MG) Rawlings Reservoir and the construction of two new 3.0 MG each concrete domestic water tanks within the same site. The proposed project is located at 13331 Foothill Boulevard in an incorporated "island" within the City of Tustin, just west of Newport Boulevard. The area surrounding the site, including a sliver of property along Foothill Boulevard, is within unincorporated Orange County. The proposed project also involves implementation of an off-site storm drain connection. The project's storm drain system would be connected to a new storm drain to be installed in Foothill Boulevard that would extend to an existing storm drain facility along either Hewes Street or Newport Avenue. A construction easement within the area west of the project site is also required to facilitate the excavation needed for the new reservoirs. The IS has been prepared 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 §15000 et seq.). Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin is the lead agency for the project. The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The City of Tustin, as the lead agency, shall have the authority for project approval and certification of the accompanying environmental documentation. 1.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based on the environmental checklist form prepared for the project and supporting environmental analysis, the proposed Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project would have no impact or less than significant impacts in the following environmental impact areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Minerals Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Transportation/Traffic. The proposed project has the potential to have Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Utilities and Services impacts unless the recommended mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. According to the CEQA Guidelines, it is appropriate to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project because, after incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, potentially significant environmental impacts would be eliminated or reduced to a level considered less than significant. 1,3 PROJECT APPROVAL This IS and proposed MND have been submitted to the appropriate responsible anet trustee agencies for review and comment, the County Clerk of Orange County for posting, and made available for public review. The Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND for the project f°+as boon posted on the site. All documents referenced in the IS are available for rAvie?~~ at the City ref ~`ustin Community Development Department located at 300 Centennial Way. R:1Projec4slTustin1J003\iS~-.?1905 doc ~ -'~ iP"~$rO~UGd'AO9"1 feU~i,~rags ,4esenrvirrZe~aleceanenr ~°rc~jecd Ini#ial Study There will be a 30-day public review period for the IS and proposed MND. The review period has been established in accordance with §15073 of the CEC~A guidelines. In reviewing the IS and the proposed MND, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the potential impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project are proposed to be avoided or mitigated. Comments on the analysis contained herein may be sent to the following: Mr. Scott Reekstin Community Development Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 The City will consider comments from agencies, organizations, and members of the public. The City of Tustin City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider the project and the environmental documentation in February 2006 once the public review and comment period has expired. 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY The IS is organized into the following sections: • Section 1-Introduction. This section provides an introduction and overview describing the conclusions of the IS. • Section 2 -Project Background and Environmental Setting. This section provides background information regarding the proposed project and describes the existing environmental setting of the project area. • Section 3 -Project Description. This section provides a description of the proposed project's characteristics including construction activities. • Section 4 -Environmental Checklist Form. The completed City of Tustin CEQA checklist form provides an overview of the potential impacts that may or may not result from project implementation. The environmental checklist form also includes "mandatory findings of significance" required by CEQA. • Section 5 - Environmental Evaluation. This section contains an analysis of environmental impacts identified in the environmental checklist and identifies mitigation measures that have been recommended to eliminate potential significant effects or reduce them to a level that is considered less than significant. Reference sources used in the environmental evaluation are identified at the end of each environmental topic. • Section 6 -Document Preparers and Contributors. This section identifies those individuals responsible for preparing and contributing to the IS and proposed MND. ft.-\ProjectslTustin\J003\IS-121 °OS.doc i _~ lntrear3trcPir~~s ~~~vvlings r~desertroir pe~l~cement projec? lniri~l Study ~ECTI®N ~.® ~NVIR®NMENT~iL ~E°fTiNG e4NiD R~J~OT ~ACKGR®l9N® 2.1 EXISTING_ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site encompasses approximately 1.7 acres and is located at 13331 Foothill Boulevard approximately 1,000 feet northwest of Newport Avenue. The property is an incorporated City of Tustin island surrounded by areas within unincorporated Orange County. Regional location and local vicinity maps are provided in Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. The project site is bound by Foothill Boulevard and Foothill High School to the south, an unnamed private road and single family residences to the east, an undeveloped slope and a single family residence to the west, and a single family residence to the north. Exhibit 3 provides an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding areas. Existing site conditions are depicted on Exhibit 4, and site photographs are provided in Exhibits 5a and 5b. The existing reservoir consists of a rectangular 3.82 MG trapezoidal bottom structure in the northern portion of the site. The reservoir is partially buried and has been cut into the natural, southeast-facing hillside. The existing reservoir was constructed in 1971 and has concrete-block perimeter walls and awood-framed roof. Aconcrete-block retaining wall is located along the northern property boundary at the toe of an ascending off-site slope. There are an existing residence and pool upslope from the reservoir. This retaining wall has a reinforced concrete foundation structurally integrated with the parallel northerly wall of the reservoir. A concrete wall and chain-link fence form the eastern project boundary and are adjacent to an unnamed private-access asphalt road. A booster pump station is located in the southern portion of the project site and is housed in a concrete structure. An earthen berm descends from the south side of the reservoir down to the paved driveway and pump station (refer to photographs provided in Exhibits 5a and 5b). The majority of the site contains landscape vegetation with various ornamental trees and shrubs. The understory and open areas on the property are dominated by invasive non-native grass species and barren ground. The most abundant ornamental tree and scrub genus on the project site include oleander (Nerium oleander), acacia (Acacia sp.), Russian thistle (Sa/so/a tragus), fig, (Ficus sp.), pine (Pinus sp.), pepper tree (Schinus sp.), rhus (Rhus sp.), and gum (Eucalyptus sp.). 2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Tustin Water Services Division supplies domestic water to the entire community and adjacent areas and maintains water wells, water main tines, service laterals, hydrants, and water storage facilities. The City's water system is divided into three pressure Zones (1, 2, and 3) and currently provides for 7.83 MG of the total storage from five reservoirs. Before it was taken out of service in 2004, the Rawlings Reservoir provided an additional 3.82 MG of storage for pressure Zones 1 and 2 to meet operational and emergency storage needs. Water storage is a key element of any water distribution system. Reservoirs are constructed to provide water supply during peak periods of the day for fire protection and as a backup for emergency conditions. "Operational storage" is the storage volume required to supply peak system demands above the maximum day demand. "Fire storage" is water needed to provide a rate of flow for a required period of time as identified by the Fire Marshal for the types of development served by the system, "Emergency storage'" is the water supply needed at times when other sources of supply are out of service or reduced due to an emere~enr:y or repair ~ItUat9~n. ~~~ ~rvirobrcnt~l S~~rny ~n~; RiF rojecf s1' fustinU003\IS-9 21905. doc project background ~ ~ ~ >+ ~ F . ~~~ Xz.s ~ ~ + ,, ~ ~ ~ a s- ~~; ~ .~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ _ ~ ~ ~ d`r~ .~r - / ~ 'y t ~ Rancho / ~ i } ~ f / . - _ Cucamonga T .r r - 30 '~ ' --" ~ '~ Pasadena ~ ~ - / Rialto ~ I; f .~ .~Y 1 E West Covina 'Whittier 14 o~'r~~"i E' ' . .: -. ~~ ~~ s ;~ so ~ `~ ~`` .~ '; Buena Beach PACIFIC OCEAN Ontario I. ~`-e. Rrverstde .Corona ~ -_ . " ~~'Ll'~ Anaheim PfOJ@Ct ~_- ~ ~~ { ~ Matthews Location 4 f '_ ' . 1 ~, , _ >ro .:a J T 22 .'+~ Tustin - ~ - Cleveland Santa Ana s1 = ,`mss ' _ National ~ ;: 55 _ ~ ~ FOfeSt ~.°`. .i roY ?.i,°.`. .~ ~~ Costa Mesa \ ~~ Irvine Rancho Santa ' '- ~~-•~ argarita ~ ~ ~ - ~'73 t Mission _ - ~...._~ Viejo 74 ~ ~- a it { "~.~ ~. - ~ ; 133 ` S ~ -~ ~ ` ~ 1 - ~ 4 ~'r~ " ~Laguna Beach - ~* -- . San Juan .¢ . Regional Location Exhibit 1 Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project N W~E 5.5 2.75 0 5.5 s Miles ~~~ CONSIiLTI NC iphicslExl RL 700705.pdF Local Vicinity Exhibit 2 Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project R av 4 E 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 ,~drt?'~~-c~ s Miles coNSU~ri~~c R:\Projec~lTusHnW0031Graphics18x2 LV_701005.pdf ,X~ :i- ~ ~ ~ ;L ~ Y~ ' "4 ~'t ~ ~ '~ ' 1 •' '~'` ~ ~ ~ ~ l F ~ C ~.84 ~ 4 4 F f ~ a m ~ Z 14 M ~~k i~~'~ ~ .d" y ~' j "} p +t'~ M. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ T s f ~ ~, _: la `rS/ '7~ ~' ~ 4 4 ( ~g • ~:h iii ~ I Y i r ~'i" , J~ ~~ ;~nP~nt ~ i ` ~'.J' CL~, ~'~., i ~ "S+ ~ " `F '] ••F~ /~ O W ~ fr L ~ ~ 4 jj ~Ffp ,f~ ~n~ ar ' ~ ; ' r . A A ~ c~ ~ ~~ 'J R,.t ~~i y. ~5 yY,- 4" 4 r ' ' 4 -.3: m ~ :~. ~ ~ E k S: L f C7 Si ~ -" ~'~ ~°T'~ ~ ... P P""' ~' , l . 3, yy ~ 4i ~ '3 ~~z ~ ~~ ,t a ~ - F.C ~ ~ y , * ` : y 1. ,!E afi~. :r -~ ~ + ~ P ~ 4~~ ~ ~ Y ~~ ~ ; ~ Fi ~+ a~T} ~+ `_ ~ K i i ` •x r f. K ' >~ $ ' + ~y. "p~" rite ~~ ~ " ' ~'+J7 ` ~` ! S1 ~ ~ + ' ~~`~~F ~ ~ . } ~, ` Q t~~g ` *9~ i i - a ~ `~~ pap® i , f +.3~ yv . I r ~i ~ j _ '~ ~ ~'X`}b~f~?4 ~`yiA 3+.. f' i.•' S _R ~''~: ~"~" Y '~ ~ yp "'' ~+, ~ ~ ..~. ~ t ~e y ~ her "~ ~ r ~4. ~e:` !Y, ~ _ r'~f^ EiP ,y • '~'`~' ~ ~ ~ am ~ ` ''a ~.~sy r a'~ ;'~ "~F ~ ~q 'Yd~ 7 6 $ r ~ `~~ a _ ~ fir. ,~~~~, t,.~ ~ ~ l -` # ~ ,,~ „}Pa ~rP !fir - d~.~ o a, -,yr!~;x-v t!p n. e~ ~jy1Jr,~/~; ~.~ r ` ~ s ;a r~, r'ly" ~ ~~. t -1e! YA Y i +.. ~ ~G ~ .. ~ 7 < .ti ~'°' - . ~ ~~ 1'~,'- ~ P .. ,emu. ~ t :, w ~ ~1 4~ %,~ r° ' ' Ct ! ~.I ~ ib ~~ I f~? ~ n ".YY~ .B - ! t ~~nvw '~ ! • 7 r ~ 4 ~1. ~ _~.. y. ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~~j j ~ LL r .g ,~ y e'H ~~ ~ J hay ~ r ~ -;: v ~ - G Mi `~ ~S . ~ y7 ( i x , 4 ~. _ x, u ~ ~ --'F {{ +_ i _ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~P t Y }J' ~ ~J YI~ ~ O F 'd `~~ 1 ~ „Q ~ ® p ~ ^ r F t. :r~-v .;#i "a ,. k: 0 ~~J. ~ ~ ~ ~ {j°"~.... S ~ ~ y. '~" .. ~.~A ~ S ~ 7 , w y p '' e - ; } G-.f' ` ~ y,, 11 'i ~ a ~.. ~ Y #-'~.~.' , ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~„~,~ r G^ ~f j; ,.'-- } t ~~ ~' . ~ ~ • t l P ~1~ ~ a "~, "~ - ~~` '* 1 ~.1~~~y 4~ ":,~~°~k'~y~~a+ ~. ~ S-"~,y r f. t. '~'~iFt~ .,, t ~ ~ "k' ~ +\s ~ ~ ~ w ~ . . ,1 r `f ~ f „ b~ ~ # -s _ . ~ Le Z y l ~ ,' ~P;~`+~ ~ jj.•~l F - '{ - ( P 6 k * ~.af ~1~ ~ . ~ `L '13 P~'SOLOOL leiiae\EOOfW!lsni\sPafoid\O D:\Projecis\Tusti n\J003\Graphics\Ex4. ai ~~- .. _ __'~- -- - -___ - - - - ~- ~ _ _ i _ -- I _ _ __ ~ .____t _ -_ _ _ - __ __ r.. f t)~ - _ ~ - - -- -- - nj i ~~ - _ i_ - ,.. ~. _ _ .~.. _ -- - - Y, ~ ~ I- _ n ~ -- ~/ _ ~_ ~_ _:-- _ -- - --_ i _ _ ~ -~----- _ ~ I i, _ - ,~ ~ , ~,. - - _ __ „. y~ ~ - - -- -=_ r ®,. _ s. .. ;. , , ~''. i ~,,,I .-~ h!, i I~. '~ ~ it i, i ~ i ~~ 1 n,`. Jf ~~.. ,; I I,,,,i: I ' -- - L; I,,- I, I i ~~ _V ,, I I I ;7 I ~ X I ~ '~ ~ `~ ~ ~o -f i '~ G O- Z ~, ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~, I , i ,i ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ` ~ i ~_ G~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I Z ' li h ~ I,~ ~ , ~ __. ~ ~ ,. _ ---- _ _ I. I L, ~ mm J~pX ~-Ni I I ~ ZZ ~~ / ~_ ,- Site Photographs Exhibit 5a Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project ~~ ~ ~ C O N S U L T I N G ft:IProjecislTusti n1,10031GraphicslEx5a_SP_101105.pdf Photograph 2. View from western project site boundary looking east toward project site. Site Photographs Exhibit 5b Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project ,~o~~~ C O N S U L T I N G R:\PrujectsSTustin\J0031Graphics\ExSb_SP_ 101205.pdf Photograph 4. View from eastern project site boundary looking north toward project site. ~:awldngs Reservoir Replacement Project initial Stud In 1990 an engineering study identified storage and structural deficiencies in the City°s water system reservoirs. Improvement recommendations included increasing the storage of the Rawlings Reservoir. In 1996, an engineering analysis of the Rawlings Reservoir identified several structural deficiencies; demolition and replacement of the existing reservoir was recommended. The City's Public Works Department/Water Services Division evaluated the water supplies and demand and concluded that shutting down the reservoir on a temporary basis would not inhibit the City's ability to provide water to customers. Back-up water supply is available at the Vandenberg Well, Columbus-Tustin Well, and Main Street Facility, each providing approximately 2.0 MG of emergency supply. In November 2004, the City recommended demolition and replacement of the Rawlings Reservoir. As part of the proposed project, the existing Rawlings Reservoir would be replaced at the same site to increase overall system storage capacity to 13.83 MG. This represents an increase of 2.0 MG of storage compared to previous conditions and would provide adequate system-wide operational, fire, and emergency storage. It should be noted that after the operational and fire- flow storage is depleted, back-up water supplies for emergency purposes are provided from the Vandenberg Well, Columbus-Tustin Well, and Main Street Facility each providing approximately 2.0 MG of emergency supply. The proposed project would provide additional emergency water storage capacity to off-set the need to use these back-up water sources. R:\VarajecPS1"PiesQinU003\IS-9219DS.~oc ~ -_c'°A ~- --_- zaf7t39B"Onf't1Gf'~i~l ~ed'tln(~' ~~~:' Pra/yet Background ,~awlin~s h~eservoir Fzeplacemen'r ,~-'rt~j~ct Initial Study SECTI®N 3~~ I~ROJE+yT ®ESORIR`TIC~N 3.1 INTRODUCTION The proposed project is located at 13331 Foothill Boulevard, just west of Newport Boulevard. With the exception of a sliver of property along Foothill Boulevard, the project site is an incorporated island within the City of Tustin surrounded by unincorporated areas of Orange County. The Rawlings Reservoir Replacement project involves the following components which are described below: (1) demolition of the existing reservoir, (2) construction of two new 3 MG water tanks on site and associated improvements, and (3) construction of off-site storm drain facilities. 3.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3.2.1 RESERVOIR DEMOLITION The proposed project includes demolition of the existing 3.82 MG reservoir. During the first stage of demolition, the existing reservoir roof, roof-support columns, perimeter side walls to grade, and the reservoir membrane liner would be removed. Asbestos containing materials have been identified in the existing roof mastic; floor and wall mastic; and in the wall fiberboard. These materials would be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable procedures established by state and local agencies. In the second phase of demolition, the remaining portion of the existing reservoir would be removed, including the perimeter sidewall below grade elevation, the asphalt liner, and the column bases. Demolition of the existing reservoir is estimated to take approximately two months. The existing booster pump station located in the southern portion of the site would be shut down during the demolition and construction phases; however, it would not be removed. The City would provide water to the upper pressure zones through its East Orange County Water District connections. The reservoir structure to be demolished is approximately 52,000 square feet. Equipment to be used for demolition activities includes acrane, ascissor-lift, a backhoe/front-end loader, and a bulldozer. Approximately four dump trucks would be required to haul demolition materials. 3.2.2 NEW RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION AND ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS The existing reservoir would be replaced with two partially buried concrete domestic water tanks. The preliminary design of these tanks is depicted in Exhibit 6 and cross-sections are shown on Exhibit 7. The two new 3.0 MG concrete water tanks would be circular with a floor elevation of 273 feet above mean sea level (amsl), seven feet lower than the existing reservoir (280 feet amsl). The new tanks would have a water depth of 30 feet; be 142 feet in diameter; and have an elevation of 307 feet amsl, one foot higher than the existing reservoir. The top of the new tanks would be lower than the existing reservoir's wooden roof structure. The new tanks would be located with one behind the other, and construction of the tanks would be staggered (north tank and then the sore#h tank). Shoring would be placed and the site excavated to approximately seven feet below the existing elevation. ~f he north tank would be buried, with the top three feet above ground. The area r~ehind this tank would be paved ®~vith asphalt or concrete to provide access for City vehicles for maintenance and inspection ft:\Projects\; ustin\J003\IS-129505.doc _ ---- - ---~- ~_ ~ - l~ro~iec iJescription D: \Projects\Tustin\J003\Graphics\Ex6.ai D:1Proj acts\Tu stinlJ 0031 G ra phics\Ex7. a i Z tnv~G~OC~m c=mmp oo00-Iz `~p"'~mn ~ '~ZQ-i o~~~a ~ r =c~~0 v.~av~Z mZVO~ mZZr z~~3 ~mv'N OD~mO =Z~'"m ~z v z~Zo ~~~ ~~Z~ OmnN ~ cr ncmm mD'{D r ~~zv r ~nzn ~~~~ ~" z (n 0 Z D D _-' I I. I i O O O ~/ I I I I ~/ ~~ / I I III ~I I ~.. .j._ N III. __ r '- r- ~~~r ~ J1 ~ ~y~~...- I 'O1. _I I I l d~ ~ I IT~ ~1¢I i - l ~ o' l JI / J ~.. X... -i t II ~I_ I 1 .. F ~Aj ~~ ~ IZ ~,. I I _I IPI~OPE~*Vj L , Ne . ; I •l I l l III ~ I T~ k ~ ' ! _ I i _i-- ~ ~f-;-- - `- ~ - ~ I - ~- I j ~- - I I ~,d° II ~ f l l l I I ;. I IF I I / _ L ~ II ~ I I i I I ~ Ill I ~ I I ~II I I ,I I I I I,II~ ~!. _ l I , - -~ I I _, ~ I _. I_ nl I I L..I l ~ I - I , ~ f„~ i ~- j _b A ~ I I I ~ i ;.. Gi ~ C) ~~ ' ~ ' I I ; I I - - ~~ ;' I ~1 I I 0 0 0 I ~I~ Ii ~lil ll l I' O ~ ! I O i i = I ~I. ~... i- f ~ I-. ~._ I ~_ IN I I'i O O J O O N~ O O I ~j~ ~ ' I ' ~i Io I ~ ~ o I l III I ' ~ l l lli u ~ i. I~~ j ~ f N i p. O ~ ~ . -'A -'I I i i ~ i -j I- I r ~ I 1 I y.. ~. _~_ ., ~ - _ I ,~ ~,'~I I I ~i~i ' I _I ,l, I I i, -i ~..I ~ I~,-~ }"' 1 ~ I ....~ ~' I . ~ , I ~~ . ~_ ~, _ ~ _ II ~ i ~ I ' ~ . - ~~~~ I %7~ I I fl ~. ~ , r I , I ~ I I~ IIPf10REliTY~~ u -i ~ Nr . ~~ ui i1 '. ---f-~'C4 PRIVATE ~OPDI I -~ II;~a '1-~',~~ i. - I I E/~SEME~JT U E a ~ ~ ip ~ { A m ~ ', D.N I I I '~,.fl ~ I W ~'. ~'' ~ II 1 I n~, ~- O I ~ 'I I t!B I III~I ~! IOI '. it i0 ~iI i~ ~I~ ii ~ ti Ili ~, ~ !i ~I I i __. Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study purposes. The steel hoop reinforcement in the concrete sidewall and the tendons from the base to the sidewall allow the reservoir to flex, if necessary, without failing. The southern tank would be partially buried, with approximately 26 vertical feet of the tank face exposed on the southwest-facing side. A graded and landscaped slope would be provided around the exposed portion of the front tank. New underground water pipelines and valves would connect the existing booster pump station to each new tank. The existing masonry block wall for the booster pump station would be extended across the full front of the site, adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. On the east and west sides of the project site, new chain-link fencing would be installed to replace the existing chain-link fence. The access gate on the northeastern end of the site would be enlarged to improve access to the tanks. An additional gate may be added to provide access from Foothill Boulevard on the west site of the booster pump station. Concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter would be constructed along the project site's Foothill Boulevard frontage. Landscaping may consist of native and/or ornamental plants and would be planted along the perimeter of the site. The plant material would be selected to provide view screening of reservoir facilities. The exterior of the exposed portions of the two new concrete replacement tanks would receive appropriate coloration treatment to further screen and blend the facilities into and with the proposed landscaping and surrounding area. Based on the current project design, 20,000 cubic yards of earthwork would be removed from the project site during construction, and 40,000 cubic yards would be used following completion of the reservoir construction for backfill. During reservoir construction the following equipment would be used: acrane, ascissor-lift, a backhoe/front-end loader, and a concrete pump. Concrete and delivery truck trips as well as construction-worker vehicular trips would also occur during construction. It is estimated that there would be 5 truck trips and 12 vehicle trips on an average day. Reservoir construction would take approximately 22 months: site excavation and grading - 2 months; new tank construction - 15 months; site back fill - 1 month; pipeline construction and other appurtenances - 2 months; site paving - 1 month; and clean-up/demobilization - 1 month. 3.2.3 OFF-SITE PROJECT FEATURES Runoff from the project site would be collected in new on-site storm drain lines that would connect to a new storm drain to be installed in Foothill Boulevard. There are two options under consideration for the storm drain lines within Foothill Boulevard and both options are addressed in this Initial Study (refer to Exhibit 8). Option 1 would extend to the west approximately 2,800 feet to the Orange County Flood Control District's (OCFCD) 63-inch reinforced concrete pipe in Hewes Street (OCFCD F07-P06). Option 2 would extend to the east approximately 850 feet to the OCFCD's 6-foot by 6-foot reinforced concrete box along Newport Avenue (OCFCD F13). For each option, the storm drain would be installed in the existing public street right-of-way. It should also be noted that a temporary construction easement is needed west of the project site. The construction easement would extend approximately 60-feet onto private property and is needed to facilitate the excavation needed for the new reservoirs. This area could be used for grading or shoring. Additionally, this easement would be used for temporary construction access. R:1Projects\Tustin1J003115-121905.doc 3-2 Project Description D: \Proj ectslTu s ti n\J 0031Graph i cs1E x8. a i N °c 5 ~* W m ~ a ~ Vl m ~ r-r ~ (D 5 y O O O. N ~ 1 (D r'F n r"F ~~-w ~S O ~ ~ (() n ti- A 0 To y c _~ ~ O o° 77 w L iu m ~' ~ X io r_ ~ ~ y iT 0 7 o C I"'f ~ ~ i a i M W Q 6 Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study f 3.3 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS This IS and proposed MND is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all actions associated with the proposed project, including all discretionary approvals requested or required to implement the project. In addition, this is the primary reference document in the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring program for the proposed project. The City of Tustin and the following responsible agencies are expected to use the information contained in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for consideration of approvals related to and involved in the implementation of this project. CITY OF TUSTIN Following are the primary discretionary actions that will be considered by the Tustin City Council: • Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration • Approval of the project and required funding • Award of contract for construction In addition to the primary discretionary actions listed above, subsequent approvals by the City of Tustin may include: • Demolition permit • Grading permit • Building permit • Acquisition of temporary construction easement agreement on private property to the west OTHER AGENCIES This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration would also provide environmental information to responsible agencies and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals or coordinate with the City of Tustin as part of project implementation. These agencies include, but are not limited to the following: • California Department of Health Services (DOHS) -approval of amendment to City Water Supply Permit Number PN 05-08-03P-013 required for modifications to reservoir • County of Orange -approval of street improvement plans for Foothill Boulevard • Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) -approval of storm drain connection to OCFCD facility R:\Projects\TustinUtxl3\IS-121905.doc 3-3 Project Description Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This section includes the completed environmental checklist form. The checklist form is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The checklist form identifies potential project effects as follows: (1) Potentially Significant Impact; (2) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation; (3) Less Than Significant Impact; and, (4) No Impact. Substantiation and clarification for each checklist response is provided in Section 5 (Environmental Evaluation). Included in the discussion for each topic are standard condition/ regulations and mitigation measures, if necessary, that are recommended for implementation as part of the proposed project. R:\ProjectslTustinU003\IS-121905.doc 4-1 Environmental ChecYlist From Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Phone: (714) 573-3016 Project Location: 13331 Foothill Boulevard, Tustin, CA Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin/Water Services 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential and Public/Institutional Zoning Designation: Not Classified Project Description: The demolition of an existing 3.82 million gallons (MG) reservoir and the construction of two new water tanks (3 MG each) Surrounding Uses: North: Residential East: Residential South: High School West: Residential Other public agencies whose approval is required: ^ Orange County Fire Authority ^ City of Irvine r ^ Orange County Health Care Agency ^ City of Santa Ana ^ South Coast Air Quality Management District ® Orange County ® Other- State Department of Health Services ® Orange County Flood Control ' District r R:~Frojecte~7usenw003us-~zisos.aa 4-2 • Environmental From Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study 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/VUater Quality ^ Mineral Resources ^ Population/Housing ^ Recreation ^ Utilities/Service Systems C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT as 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. Preparers Scott Reekstin Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director C:1Doarnenle end SetlingswSReeksdn~Locai SettingslTemporery hitamet FileslpLK14WS-121505.dx Title Senior Planner Date /.?• ~Z.? •d,~ 43 Environmental Checklist From Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study 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 particular physical impact may occur, then 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. R:1Projects\TustinUO03\IS-121905.doc 4-4 Environmental Checklist From EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS -Would the project: a) Have 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? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ^ ^ ® ^ quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare 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 I 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? I e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ^ ^ ® ^ of people? 4-5 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 or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California I 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.) I through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native I 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: I a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 1 a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? 1[ 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 /mpact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ 4-6 1 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the 1 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 I Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. l 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 I 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 1 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 t public airport or public use airport, would the project result in f a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? I 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? 4-7 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 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? I 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? I 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 11 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? I j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? 4-8 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ 1 l) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- 1 construction activities? I 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 I storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? I 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 stormwater 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: I 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 groundbome noise levels? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Signiftcant Mitigation Signiftcant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ a-s 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 I 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 I public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? I 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? I XILPOPULATION 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)? I b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing I 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 Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ 4-10 XIV. RECREATION ~ a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational I facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require I the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -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)? I 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 I 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? I f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs I supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? I XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: I 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? I c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the I construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ 4-11 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or I expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment I 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? I 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 I 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 1 animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of 1 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or I 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 Signiftcant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ 4-12 Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study SECTION 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Signiffcanf Impact. The proposed site is surrounded by residential uses to the east, west, and north, and by Foothill Boulevard and Foothill High School to the south. Views of the site looking north from Foothill Boulevard are shown in Photograph 1 in Exhibit 5a. As shown in this photograph, views of the reservoir are obstructed by the booster pump station structure, an existing block wall, and mature site vegetation. Residential uses to the west and north are situated at a higher elevation than the Reservoir. The top of the existing reservoir is at an elevation of 306 feet, while the elevation of property to the west is 320 feet amsl and the property to the north is 330 feet amsl. Because these residences are located at a higher elevation, the primary visual focal point from these residences is of the distant background. The reservoir does not obscure the distant. views from these residences. The project site is separated from the residential uses to the east by an unnamed private road. Views of the project site from residential uses to the east are obstructed by existing walls and vegetation on both sides of the unnamed private road, as shown on Photograph 2 on Exhibit 5a. As shown on Exhibit 7, the proposed water tanks would be partially buried and the height of the structures would be similar to the existing reservoir structure. The new water tanks would not obstruct views from existing vantage points surrounding the project site. The City of Tustin General Plan (Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, page 8) does not identify any scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact The project site is developed with the existing reservoir and associated facilities including a booster pump station. There are no scenic resources located within the project site, nor is the project site located within proximity to a designated State Scenic Highway. Therefore, no impacts to scenic vistas are expected. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The visual character of the project site and surrounding areas is shown on the photographs provided in Exhibits 5a and 5b. The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing reservoir and the construction of two new water reservoir tanks on the same site. Most of the rear tank and a portion of the front tank would be buried. Additionally, the exposed face of the front tank as well as non-paved areas throughout the site would be landscaped, which would shield views of the site. The exterior of the exposed portions of the two new concrete replacement tanks would receive appropriate coloration treatment to further screen and blend the facilities into and with the proposed landscaping and surrounding area. The visual character of the site as viewed from Foothill Boulevard would not be substantially altered since the concrete wall and the structure housing the booster pump station would remain in place. The roadway improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) on the north side of Foothill R:1Projects\Tustin000311S-121905.doc 5-1 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study Boulevard as well as the additional landscaping would be consistent with similar improvements that existing east of the project site. The views of the site from the west, north, and east are not the primary focus of the viewsheds from these areas and the visual character of the site would not be not be substantially degraded or otherwise substantially altered. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Security lighting currently exists within the southern portion of the project site on the booster pump station. In addition to this lighting, the proposed project would .include security lighting at the tank hatches, in the event that emergency night work is required. The lights would be manually controlled, directed downward, and would be on during emergency night work only. No other additional site lighting is proposed. The roofs of the reservoirs where the lights would be located would have an asphalt and gravel coating over the concrete finish. The sides of the reservoirs would have a sprayed gunite-concrete finish. These exterior finishes would not generate any glare effects. It should also be noted that the reservoirs would be partially buried further reducing the potential for glare. Therefore, impacts associated with light or glare would be less than significant. Mitigation Program No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required. Sources • City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, Figure COSR-4 and pages 8 and 36, January 16, 2001. • Field Reconnaissance on September 20, 2005. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 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? No Impact. The project site is developed with the existing reservoir and associated facilities including the booster pump station, and is located within an existing developed urban area. Furthermore, the City of Tustin General Plan (Figure COSR-2) and the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (State Department of Conservation, 2002) do not identify any designated farmland on the project .site. Therefore, the project will not convert any farmland to non- agricultural use and no impacts would be expected. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use or protected by a Williamson 'Act Contact. No impact would result. R:~Prg~5~r~5n~uoosus-~2~eos.do~ 5-2 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study 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? No Impact. The project includes the demolition of the existing Reservoir and the construction of two new water tanks on the same site. The project would not involve any changes in the existing land use and could not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated and no impacts would be expected. Mitigation Program No standard conditions and regulations are applicable and no mitigation measures are required. Sources City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, Figure COSR-2, January 16, 2001 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, State Department of Conservation, 2002 III. AIR QUALITY Regulatory Setting The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (GARB). Other important air quality management agencies for the basin include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The EPA implements the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act. This Act establishes ambient air quality standards that are applicable nationwide. In areas that are not achieving the standards, the Clean Air Act requires that plans be developed and implemented to meet the standards. The EPA oversees the efforts in the SCAB and ensures that appropriate plans are being developed and implemented. SCAQMD and SCAG, in coordination with local governments and the private sector, have developed the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. The AQMP provides the blueprint for meeting state and federal ambient air quality standards. The 2003 AQMP is the current approved applicable air plan. The plan was adopted locally on August 1, 2003, by the governing board of the SCAQMD. CARE adopted the plan as part of the California State Implementation Plan on October 23, 2003. The 2003 AQMP was adopted by the EPA on April 9, 2004. State law mandates the revision of the AQMP at least every three years, and federal law specifies dates certain for attaining criteria pollutant standards and preparing plans to meet them. Under federal law, the SCAB has been designated by the EPA as anon-attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, and suspended particulates. The SCAB has met the federal nitrogen dioxide standards for the third year in a row, and, therefore, is qualified for redesignation to attainment. A maintenance plan for nitrogen dioxide is included in the 2003 AQMP. Under California state law, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) mandates the implementation of a program that will achieve the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) mandates the implementation of new air quality performance standards. a:~Pro~eas~T~sf~r,uooaus-izisos.doc 5-3 ~ Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study The overall control strategy for the 2003 AQMP is to meet applicable state and federal requirements and to demonstrate attainment with ambient air quality standards. The 2003 AQMP contains short- and long-term measures included in Appendix IV-B of the AQMP. Monitored Air Qualify Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates for the SCAB have been made for existing emissions. The data indicate that mobile sources are the major source of regional emissions. Motor vehicles (i.e., on-road mobile sources) account for approximately 45 percent of volatile organic compounds (VOC), 63 percent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and approximately 76 percent of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. The SCAQMD has divided the SCAB into 38 air-monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The project site is located in the area represented by air quality data measured at the Anaheim Monitoring Station, which is near the intersection of Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue in the City of Anaheim. Ozone, CO, nitrogen dioxide, PM,o, and PM2.5 conditions measured at the Anaheim Station are representative of the project site. The monitoring data show that ozone and particulate matter (PM,o and PM2.5) are the air pollutants of primary concern in the project area. The State 24-hour concentration standards for PM,o have been exceeded between 8 and 20 days each year over the past four years at the Anaheim Monitoring Station; however, during the same four-year period, the Federal standards for PM,o were not exceeded at the Anaheim station. The federal 24-hour standard for PM2.5 was exceeded one day in both 2001 and 2002, three days in 2003, and was not exceeded at all in 2004 at the Anaheim Monitoring Station. There does not appear to be a noticeable trend in either maximum particulate concentrations or days in the area that exceed the particulate standards. The State 1-hour ozone standard was exceeded between two and fourteen days each year over the past four years at the Anaheim station. The Federal 1-hour ozone standard was exceeded one day and the Federal 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded up to six days over the past four years at the Anaheim Monitoring Station. There does not appear to be a noticeable trend in either maximum ozone concentrations or days in the area that exceed the ozone standards. CO is another important pollutant that is caused mainly by motor vehicles. Currently, CO levels in the project region are in compliance with the State and Federal 1-hour and 8-hour standards. High levels of CO commonly occur near major roadways and freeways. CO may potentially be a continual problem in the future for areas next to freeways and other major roadways. The monitored data indicate that no State or Federal standards were exceeded for CO or N02 at the Anaheim station. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The South Coast AQMP discussed above is the air quality plan applicable to the proposed project. This section addresses consistency of the project with the AQMP, and specifically whether the project would interfere with the region's ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. A proposed project is considered to be consistent with the plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: R:\ProjectslTustinU003\IS-121905.doc S-4 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study ' (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP (except as ' provided for CO in Section 9.4 for relocating CO hot spots). (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Following is an evaluation of the project with respect to these criteria: • Criterion 1 -Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations: Based on the air quality modeling analysis provided under Checklist Item Ill.b below and the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, short-term construction and long-term operation would not result in significant impacts. Short-term construction activities would not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations due to required compliance with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations. Similarly, the emissions from the project are projected M to be a fraction of a percentage of the basin-wide emissions. Given that the project involves the replacement of an existing reservoir, there would be negligible long-term increases in operational emissions resulting from the periodic maintenance of the reservoir and the associated pump station and pipelines. The proposed project would not contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards; thus, the project is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. • Criterion 2 -Exceed the Assumptions in the AQMP: SCAG and the SCAQMD jointly prepare the South Coast AQMP. Through this partnership, SCAG provides housing and population growth projections, and SCAQMD estimates regional emissions based on the ~~ growth forecasts provided by SCAG. The project involves the replacement of an existing reservoir and would provide water supply to existing and planned land uses in the City of Tustin. -The project would not represent an expansion of services to meet the demand of land uses not already considered in SCAG local and regional growth forecasts. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the assumptions of the AQMP. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ~) 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)? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation. Air quality impacts are usually divided into short-term construction and long-term operational impacts. Short-term impacts are the result of demolition, grading, and/or construction operations. Long-term impacts are associated with the long-term operations of the proposed project. In the CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to assess the regional impact of project-related air pollutant emissions. Table 1 presents these significance thresholds. There are separate thresholds for short-term construction and long-term operational emissions. A project with daily emission rates below these thresholds are considered to have a "less than significant" effect on regional air quality throughout the SCAB. Because the project involves the replacement of an existing reservoir with the same use and would result in negligible changes in long-term emissions from reservoir and related infrastructure maintenance, this analysis focuses on short- term emissions. R:~Fro~ects~rustinu0033US-iz~eos.do~ 5-5 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study Short-Term Construction-Relafed Impacts Temporary air quality impacts would result from project construction activities. Air pollutants would be emitted by construction equipment and fugitive dust would be generated during demolition of the existing facilities and grading of the site. The air quality analysis assumes various types of equipment would be used during respective phases that will occur sequentially. The estimated type and amount of construction equipment to be used during construction is summarized in Section 3, Project Description. Specific equipment assumed for each phase of construction (Phase I -Demolition, Phase II -Grading, and Phase III -Construction) is identified in the calculation worksheets provided in Appendix A. Asphalt and paving are considered sub-phases under Phase III. Approximately 30 construction workers were assumed to commute to the project site for all three phases based on generation factors within the URBEMIS air quality modeling program (version 2.2) developed by the SCAQMD. Emissions from on-road hauling vehicles disposing of demolition materials and importing/exporting soils during grading were calculated by URBEMIS using the square footage of the existing reservoir to be demolished and cubic yards of soil imported/exported. Demolition The existing reservoir has a volume of 52,000 cubic feet. Demolition of the existing reservoir is projected to occur over atwo-month period. Based on the assumptions for equipment and construction workers, and the square, footage of structure to be demolished, the peak daily air pollutant emissions during demolition were calculated using URBEMIS. The results are provided in Appendix A and summarized below in Table 2. The datum presented in Table 2 show that the estimated pollutant emissions associated with the demolition of the existing reservoir would not be greater than the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and no significant impacts would result. R:~Pro~ects~rusfinuoo9us-izisos.doc 5-6 Environmental tvaluanon TABLE 1 SCAQMD REGIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSION THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study TABLE 2 DEMOLITION AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS Gradin Maximum Pollutant Emissions (Ibs/day) Activity CO ROG NOx PM~o Demolition 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 Off-Road Demolition Equipment 57.7 7.8 59.9 2.7 Debris Haul Trucks 5.0 1.4 24.5 0.7 Employee Travel 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Emissions 64.9 9.3 84.5 15.5 SCQAMD Thresholds 550 75 100 150 Source: URBEMIS v.2.2 Grading on the project site would be minimal considering the small size of the area to be graded (i.e., 1.7 acres). Cut and fill required for the project is expected to involve export of approximately 20,000 cubic yards and import of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of soil. Based on the assumptions for equipment and construction workers, and the anticipated amount of cut/fill and soil export import, the peak daily air pollutant emissions during grading were calculated using URBEMIS. The results are provided in Appendix A and summarized below in Table 3. TABLE 3 GRADING AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS Maximum Pollutant Emissions (Ibs/day) Activity CO ROG NOx PMao Fugitive Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 307.8 Off-Road Grading Equipment 65.2 8.7 65.3 2.9 Soil Haul Trucks 6.5 1.7 31.6 0.9 Employee Travel 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Emissions 72.1 10.5 96.9 311.6 Mitigation Measure 1 n/a n/a n/a -231.2 -Total Emissions After Mitigation 72.1 10.5 96.9 80.4 SCQAMD Thresholds 550 75 100 150 Source: URBEMIS v.2.2 The data presented in Table 3 show that the pollutant emissions associated with the grading of the project site would exceed the significance threshold for PM,o emissions established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The significant impact associated with PM,o emissions is primarily the result of release of dust during grading and transport of soil during export/import. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-1 (MM 3-1) would reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. Construction Construction is the longest phase of the proposed project with duration of approximately 20 months, which includes the architectural coatings and asphalt paving sub-phases during the last 2 months. Based on the assumptions for equipment and construction workers, and the R'\ProjectslTustinU003\IS-121905.doc 5-7 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Studv anticipated square footage to be painted or paved, the peak daily air pollutant emissions during construction were calculated using URBEMIS. The results are provided in Appendix A and summarized in Table 4. Delivery of concrete and other construction supplies to the project site would result in emissions that are not accounted for in the URBEMIS model. However, URBEMIS assumes that a single on-road diesel truck round-trip of 20 miles would result in emissions of 0.1 pound (Ib) of CO, 0.1 Ib of ROG, 0.6 Ib of NOx, and 0.1 Ib of PM,o. It was estimated that the proposed project would result in a maximum feasible number of diesel truck round-trip deliveries of 45 during a 10-hour work day (i.e., one delivery every 13 minutes). Delivery or "on-road diesel" emissions have been calculated using the URBEMIS assumptions and are included in Table 4. TABLE 4 CONSTRUCTION AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS 4 Maximum Pollutant Emissions (Ibs/day).. Activity CO ROG NOx PM,o Off-Road Diesel Equipment 53.8 6.8 48.7 2.0 On-Road Diesel Equipment 4.5 4.5 27.0 4.5 Architectural Coatings 0.0 62.2 0.0 0.0 Asphalt 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Employee Travel 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 Total Emissions 53.8 73.8 75.8 6.5 SCQAMD Thresholds 550 75 100 150 Source: URBEMIS v.2.2 The data presented in Table 4 show that the estimated pollutant emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project would not be greater than the significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. ~ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to air pollutants. Sensitive receptors include children, the elderly, and people with health problems. People with influenza, .chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing airborne particulate matter. Children may also experience a decline in lung function due to breathing in particulate emissions. Land uses with a high concentration of people with a high sensitivity to airborne particles or other pollutants are considered sensitive receptor locations. Sensitive receptor locations include primary and secondary schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes. As discussed in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Background, the project site is surrounded to the north and east by single-family residential land uses, to the south by Foothill Boulevard and Foothill High School, and to the west by a landscaped slope and single-family residential uses. Foothill High School would be considered a sensitive receptor in the immediate project vicinity. The proposed project involves the include uses that would generate existing sensitive receptors in the experience a temporary increase i R: \Projects\TustinU003\IS-121905. doc replacement of an existing water reservoir and would not substantial long-term pollutant concentrations or expose area to such pollutants. Although surrounding uses would i some airborne pollutants as a result of the project, this 5-8 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study f increase is not significant per the SCAQMD thresholds and would result in a less than significant impact. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would result in a short- term source of odor associated with construction activities (e.g., diesel exhaust and paint fumes). However, these potential odors are temporary and would not affect a substantial number of people. The proposed project does not involve a change in land uses or operations on site and would not result in long-term odor impacts on surrounding land uses or people. Although surrounding uses could potentially experience construction-related odors as a result of the project, this increase would not affect substantial numbers of people and would be less than significant. Mitigation Program Mitigation Measures MM 3-1 The contractor shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations including Rule 403. This requirement shall be included on the contractor specifications. Aplan to control fugitive dust during the project grading phase through implementation of reasonable available dust control measures shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Tustin Public Works Department. The plan shall specify the fugitive dust control measures to be employed. The plan may include, but shall not be limited to, the following fugitive dust control techniques: • Application of sufficient water prior to initiating any earth movement; • Suspension of grading operations during first and second stage ozone episodes ~, or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour, Watering portions of the project site undergoing earth moving operations a minimum of three times a day; • Sweeping and/or street cleaning where vehicles exit construction sites; Installation of bedliners in fill import and export vehicles; • Covering of fill import and export vehicles when carrying bulk material; • Installation of wheel washers where vehicles exit disturbed surface areas onto paved roads. Sources • AQMD Historical Air Quality Data by Year: http://www.agmd.gov/smog/historicaldata.htm (accessed on October 10, 2005) • Quality Assurance Air Monitoring Information: http://www.arb.ca.gov/gaweb /countyselect.php?c_arb_code=30 (accessed on October 10, 2005) • South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993 (with updates at www.agmd.gov/cequa/index.html accessed on October 10, 2005) R:1Projects\Tustin1J003115-121905.doc 5-9 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study 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? No Impact. A large portion of the site contains landscape vegetation, with various ornamental trees and shrubs. The understory and open areas on the property are dominated by invasive non-native grass species and barren ground. The most abundant ornamental tree and scrub genus on the project site include oleander (Nerium oleander), acacia (Acacia sp.), Russian thistle (Sa/so/a tragus), fig, (Ficus sp.), pine (Pinus sp.), pepper tree (Schinus sp.), rhus (Rhus sp.), and gum (Eucalyptus sp.). The project site provides marginal habitat for wildlife other than those animals typically found in a disturbed urban environment. The relative small size of the project site, its proximity to residential land uses, and its isolation from natural open space areas limits the potential for a substantial number of native wildlife species to occur on the project site. The potential for special status plant and wildlife species to occur on the project site is limited by the ornamental vegetation and lack of native habitat present. Therefore, no impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would occur. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site primarily contains upland ornamental vegetation; there are no areas within the project site that meet the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. CDFG uses Section 1603 to regulate activities that substantially affect the bed or bank of streams or lakes. As there is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community on site, no impacts would occur. Additionally, based on review of the City's General Plan (Figure COSR-2), the site has not been identified as being in an area with important natural resources (i.e., a sensitive natural community). 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? No Impact. The project site does not meet the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) criteria for wetlands and waters of the U.S., and would not be regulated as a wetlands or waters of the U.S. There is no wetland habitat on the project site; therefore; project implementation would not impact federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the 1987 Corps Manual. ^ R:+P~oi~s+T~Senuoosus-121905.doc 5-10 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study ' 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? No Impact. The project site provides little habitat for wildlife other than those animals typically found in a disturbed urban environment. The project site is located in a developed urban area and has not been identified as a crucial portion of the migratory path of any animal species. Additionally, there are no natural water sources or habitat for migratory species. No impacts would occur. ~ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. Two tree groups that are identified in the Tustin General Plan as important to the City are eucalyptus windrow and redwood grove. The proposed project would not result in the removal of, or otherwise adversely impact, these tree communities. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, fVatural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is within the County of Orange Central and Coastal Natural Communities Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). The NCCP/HCP was adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and participating agencies (including the City of Tustin) in 1996 to address protection and management of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat and CSS-obligate species, and other covered habitats and species. The NCCP/HCP mitigates anticipated impacts to those habitats and species, on a programmatic, sub-regional level, rather than on aproject-by-project, single species basis. The NCCP/HCP involved the establishment of an approximate 37,000-acre Reserve for the protection of CSS, other upland habitats, the coastal California gnatcatcher, and other species identified in the NCCP/HCP. The project site is not within the NCCP/HCP Reserve, rather it is within a development area identified in the NCCP/HCP. The proposed project would not conflict with the NCCP/HCP. Mitigation Program No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required. Sources • City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, Figure COSR-2 (January 16, 2001). Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan, County of Orange, Central and Coastal Subregion, July 17, 1996. Prepared for County of Orange,' Environmental Management Agency and United States Fish and Wildlife Service/ California Department of Fish and Game. • Field Reconnaissance on September 20, 2005. R:~Proiects~Tustinu003us-~21905.doc 5-11 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No Impact. Cultural resources are places, structures, or objects that are important for scientific, historic, and/or religious reasons to cultures, communities, groups, or individuals. Cultural resources include historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, architectural remains, engineering structures, and artifacts that provide evidence of past human activity. They also include places, resources, or items of importance in the traditions of societies and religions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, manuscript, or other resource listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historic resources, or ~, the Lead Agency. Generally, a resource is considered to be "historically significant" if it meets one of the following criteria: • is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. • is associated with the lives of important persons in the past. • embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The project site is not located within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District and is not the site of any historic resources as noted in Figure COSR-3 in the Tustin General Plan. The Reservoir is not associated in a significant way with important historic events or persons and is not likely to yield important historic information, and therefore, is not considered a historical resource per CEQA guidelines. The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any historical resource. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with an existing reservoir and is located within an existing developed urban area. Because the site is already developed and has been disturbed previously, there is little potential that project excavation and grading would encounter buried and undiscovered archaeological resources. The excavation and grading activities associated with the improvements would be conducted in accordance with the City's grading requirements. Although it is not expected that archaeological resources would be encountered, if archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, they are to be handled in accordance with Standard Condition 5-1 (SC 5-1) below. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with an existing reservoir and is located within an existing developed urban area. Because the site is already developed and has R:\Projects\Tustin0003\IS-121905.doc 5-12 Environmental Evaluation ~ Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study been disturbed previously, there is little potential that project excavation and grading would encounter undiscovered paleontological resources. Furthermore, the excavation and grading activities associated with the improvements would be in accordance with the City's grading requirements. Although it is not expected that paleontological resources would be encountered, if paleontological resources are discovered during excavation, they are to be handled in accordance with SC 5-1 below. ' d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with an existing reservoir and is located within an existing developed urban area. Because the site is already developed and has been disturbed previously, there is little potential that project excavation and grading would uncover any human remains. Furthermore, the excavation and grading activities associated with the improvements would be in accordance with the City's Grading Manual requirements. It is highly unlikely that human remains would be encountered. However, if human remains are discovered during excavation, they are to be handled in accordance with SC 5-1, below. Mitigation Program Standard Conditions and Regulations SC 5-1 Should any archaeological or paleontological resources be uncovered during grading or excavation activities, these activities shall be diverted to a part of the site away from the find, and an Orange County-certified archaeologist and/or paleontologist shall be contacted by the contractor to: (1) ascertain the significance of the resource, (2) establish protocol with the contractor to protect such resources, (3) ascertain the presence of additional resources, and (4) provide additional monitoring of the site, if deemed appropriate. If human remains are discovered on the site, the Orange County Coroner shall be contacted to examine the remains, and the provisions of Section 15064.5(3) of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. These requirements shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications and verified by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits. Sources City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, Figure COSR-3, January 16, 2001. 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: ~ 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. No Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act was signed into law in 1972. In 1994, it was renamed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-P Act). The primary purpose, R:~Projects~Tus6nU003as-~zisos.do~ 5-13 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study of the Act is to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The A-P Act requires the State Geologist (Chief of the California Geology Survey) to delineate "Earthquake Fault Zones" along faults that are "sufficiently active" and "well-defined." The boundary of an "Earthquake Fault Zone" is generally about 500 feet from major active faults and 200 to 300 feet from well-defined minor faults. The A-P Act dictates that cities and counties withhold development permits for sites within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacements from future faulting. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no currently known active or potentially active surface faults at or locally trending toward this site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site, as with all of Southern California, could be subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The closest active fault, the Elsinore-Whittier fault, is located approximately 8.5 miles (14 kilometers) southwest of the project site. However, the project does not propose construction of any structures that would t encourage frequent use of the site by people for any reason. Ground shaking impacts would be mitigated through compliance with the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard D110-95, American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 350, and the most current version of the Uniform Building Code. This would safeguard against major structural failures due to a seismic event. Seismic ground shaking impacts are considered less than significant when current standards and standard engineering practices are used. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? .Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when groundwater is forced out of the soil as it subsides. This excess water momentarily liquefies the soil, causing an almost complete loss of strength. If this layer is at the surface, its effect is much like that of quicksand for any structure located on it. If the liquefied layer is in the subsurface, the material above it may slide laterally depending on the confinement of the unstable mass. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, April 15, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Orange 7.5° Quadrangle, this site is not located inside a potential liquefaction-hazard zone. Project site earth materials consist of primarily clayey soils underlain by Miocene age sedimentary bedrock, which is not expected to liquefy. The liquefaction potential on-site is remote. In addition to liquefaction, during a strong seismic event, seismically induced settlement can occur within loose to moderately dense, unsaturated granular soils. Settlement caused by ground shaking is often non-uniformly distributed, which can result in differential settlement. The proposed reservoirs would be located on sedimentary bedrock. Therefore, seismically induced settlement under the tank would be less than '/e-inch to negligible. Seismically-induced differential settlement could be up to half of the total seismic settlement. Construction of the proposed project would occur in accordance with the current standards and standard engineering practices and impacts would be less than significant. R:\Projects\TustinW003\IS-1219t)S.doc 5-14 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study ~' iv) Landslides? No Impact. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, April 15, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Orange 7.5° Quadrangle, this site is not located inside an earthquake- induced landslide hazard zone. Additionally, no landslides were identified during site investigations by the engineering geologist. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations found in the project site's geotechnical investigation and with the most current safety standards of the Uniform Building Code and other related codes. With application of these codes and recommendations, construction of the proposed project would not impact slope stability. No impacts are expected. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would require excavation, grading, and other earthmoving activities, which would expose soils and thereby increase the potential for the erosion or loss of topsoil during construction. Refer to Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, for an evaluation of the proposed project's potential impact on soil erosion. Following construction, the amount of impervious surface on site would be increased, reducing the potential for on-site erosion compared to existing conditions. The project would have a less than significant impact related to soil erosion. 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? Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Settlement, liquefaction and landslide potential were addressed in Items Vl.a.iii and Vl.a.iv. Lateral spreading is a function of groundshaking and may .occur during an earthquake. Seismic ground-shaking impacts, including lateral spreading, are considered less than significant when current Uniform Building Code standards and standard ~~ engineering practices are used. It should also be noted that temporary cut slopes are required for the northern reservoir. During construction these slopes would be stabilized with temporary shoring. After the reservoirs are constructed this area would be backfilled to gentle slopes and the tank walls would support the backfill. The backfill would also buttress the existing retaining wall for the off-site slope which ascends to the residence north of the project site. Mitigation Measures 6-1 and 6-2 require that recommendations outlined in the project geotechnical report be incorporated into the grading plans and would reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing reservoir is underlain by sedimentary bedrock of the Miocene age Puente formation that- is highly expansive.. In .accordance with the recommendations found in the project site's geotechnical investigation, the new water tanks would be founded solely on sedimentary bedrock. Although the proposed project would be located on expansive soils, construction of the proposed project would occur in accordance with current standard engineering practices. Impacts would be less than significant and would not create substantial risks to life or property. R:\Projects\TustinW003\IS-121905.doc 5-15 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study ~` 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? No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste _ water disposal systems. Mitigation Program Mitigation Measures MM 6-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the contractor shall submit grading plans that incorporate recommendations of the geologic and soils engineer reports. Compliance with this requirement shall be verified by the Public Works Department.. MM 6-2 During construction, geotechnical observation and testing shall be provided by the geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist. Specifically, observation and testing shall occur during shoring installation, overexcavation, compaction of all backfill and/or when unusual geotechnical conditions are encountered. This requirement shall be included on the contractor's specification and verified by the Public Works Department. Sources • Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Two 3.5 mg Prestressed-Concrete Water Tanks, Leighton Consulting, Inc., July 8, 2005. • California Division of Mines and Geology, April 15, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Orange 7.5° Quadrangle. ' VII. HAZARD 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? Less Than Significant Impact. During the construction phase of the project, there is a limited risk of accidental release of hazardous materials such as ,gasoline, oil, or other fluids in the operation and maintenance of construction equipment. Compliance with standard State and local construction requirements would reduce the risk of any damage or injury from these potential hazards to a less than significant level. The project, which involves the replacement of a water storage reservoir with two new reservoirs does not .include the construction of any uses that would involve the use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials resulting in the risk of release or emission of hazardous emissions. 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? Less Than Significant With Mitigation. An asbestos and lead survey was conducted for the proposed project. The asbestos survey was conducted, and recommendations were made in RaProiea5~T~5er,uoosus-~zieoe.doc 5-16 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Studv compliance with all regulatory agency requirements including SCAQMD Rule 1403. Based on the results of the survey, there was no presence of materials with lead levels at or above the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines. Asbestos containing materials (AGMs) were commonly used in a wide variety of building products such as roofing shingles; composite siding; linoleum flooring; acoustic ceiling tiles; furnace and water heater exhaust piping and insulation; glues and mastics; stucco; joint compounds; and composite wallboards prior to 1980. AGMs can be divided into material considered friable (i.e., easily crumbled or reduced to powder) and nonfriable. Friable AGMs are regulated as hazardous materials due to the elevated long-term risk of developing lung cancer upon respiratory exposure and must be properly removed prior to renovation or demolition of any structure containing these materials. Asbestos is present in the reservoir's roof mastic, floor and wall mastic, and fiberboard. The AGMs in these compounds are in good to fair condition and are considered nonfriable. However, these materials could become friable if damaged or disturbed. Because exposure to such materials can result in adverse health effects in uncontrolled situations, several regulations and guidelines pertaining to abatement of and protection from exposure to asbestos have been developed for demolition activities. Prior to demolition of the existing reservoir, AGMs would be removed and disposed of by qualified contractors. With implementation of SC 7-1, potential hazards resulting from the removal and disposal of these- materials would be reduced to a level considered less than significant. These materials would be removed in accordance with the recommendations of the project's asbestos survey report and the remediation and mitigation procedures established by all federal, state, and local standards. With the application of these recommendations and standards, impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. Foothill High School is located south of the project site on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. As discussed under 7.b, during demolition of the existing Reservoir, AGMs found on-site would be removed in accordance with applicable standards. Impacts associated with the release of AGMs would be reduced to less than significant. However, the project does not include the construction of any uses that would involve the use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials resulting in the risk of release or emission of hazardous emissions. 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? No Impact. The project is not located on site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites. 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? No Impact. The proposed project is located approximately five miles from John Wayne Airport and is not located within the John Wayne Airport land use plan. The landing flight path of aircraft, however, is near or over the project site location. Generally, if a site is greater than two miles away from an airport and it is not under a direct flight path, then the impact and safety R:\Projects\TustinU003\IS-121905.doc 5-17 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study t threat from the airport is negligible. Safety hazards related to this issue would be less than significant. (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? No Impact. There are no private airstrips identified in close proximity to the proposed project location. The proposed project would not affect nor be affected by private airstrips. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed project involves the continuation of an existing use and would not 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? No Impact. The project site is located in an urban area with no wildlands in close proximity. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires. Mitigation Program Standard Conditions and Regulations SC 7-1 Prior to demolition of the existing reservoir, the contractor shall comply with notification and asbestos removal procedures outlined in SCAQMD Rule 1403 to reduce asbestos-related health risks. SCAQMD Rule 1403 applies to any demolition or renovation .activity and the associated disturbance of asbestos- containing material. This requirement shall be included on the, contractors' . specifications and verified by the Department of Public Works. Mitigation Measures MM 7-1 Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the contractor shall submit an Asbestos Management Program (AMP) to the Public Works Department. The. AMP set forth operational and maintenance guidelines to minimize fiber release which may be caused by the proposed project during demolition activities. The AMP shall incorporate recommendations from the Asbestos and Lead Survey report prepared for the project (National Econ, February 2005) and compliance with the this program shall be a requirement included on the contract specifications. Inclusion of these requirements on the specifications shall be verified by the ' Public Works Department. Sources ' Asbestos and Lead Survey, 13331 Foothill Boulevard, Orange County, City: of Tustin, State of California. National Econ Corporation, February 8, 2005. • City of Tustin General Plan, Public Safety Element, January 16, 2001. r R:\Projects\TustinU003US-121905.doc 5-18 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study ' VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Tustin, including the project site is, within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In addition to the requirements of the RWQCB, the project is subject to requirements of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, subsequently knovrn as the Clean Water Act (CWA). In 1972, the CWA was amended to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any. point source. In 1987, the CWA was amended to require that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish regulations for permitting under the NPDES permit program of municipal and industrial stormwater discharges. The regulations require that municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) discharges to surface waters be regulated by an NPDES permit. The MS4s are designated or used for collecting or conveying stormwater as opposed to wastewater or combined sewage. In January 2002, the RWQCB issued an NPDES permit (Order No. R8-2002-0010) applicable to northern Orange County cities (co-permittees). This permit will regulate storm water and urban runoff discharges from the project site to constructed storm drain systems in the project area. The co-permittees have developed a 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Pursuant to the CWA Section 402(p), requiring regulations for permitting of certain stormwater discharges, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has issued a statewide general NPDES Permit for stormwater discharges from construction sites (NPDES No. CAS000002). Under this Construction General Permit (effective March 2003), discharges of stormwater from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for stormwater discharges or be covered by the Construction General Permit. Coverage under the Construction General Permit is accomplished by completing and filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB. Each applicant under the Construction General Permit must ensure that a stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is prepared prior to grading and implemented during construction. The primary objective of the SWPPP is to identify, construct, implement, and maintain best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from the construction site during construction. In compliance with the NPDES program and DAMP, the proposed project would be required to incorporate post-construction BMPs to reduce the amount of pollutants introduced into the stormwater drainage system on a long-term basis. It is anticipated that the proposed project would implement structural BMPs including catch basin inserts/fossil filters and trash racks to remove paper, debris, and sediments before the runoff is discharged to the storm-drain system. ' A Water Quality Management Plan would be prepared for the project. Implementation of BMPs and compliance with local, state and federal water quality regulations would reduce potential long-term water quality impacts to a level considered less than significant. Long-Term Operational Water Quality Impacts The quality of the water runoff from the project site would be improved as compared to existing _ conditions. Currently, all surface runoff sheet flows from the site onto Foothill Boulevard and R:\Projects\TustinU003US-121905.doc 5-19 Environmental Evaluation t Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study r gravity flows to a catch basin in Hewes Avenue. There is currently no treatment of the water prior to its discharge to the public storm drain system. However, the amount of surface runoff would not substantially increase as a result of project implementation. Surface water from the ' project site would be captured in on-site storm drain facilities and conveyed to new storm drain pipes which would discharge to an existing storm drain pipeline as shown in Exhibit 8. Construction of the project would require an amendment to the City's Water Supply Permit Number 04-89-001 issued by the California Department of Health Services. The proposed project would not result in violations of any water quality standards or substantially degrade water quality. 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)? ` No Impact. Free groundwater was not. encountered during geotechnical borings drilled to a maximum depth of 41 feet. Seepage was encountered in hand-auger borings at depths ranging from 2.5 to 6 feet. However, since the Puente formation underlying the site is primarily impermeable, it is expected that the seepage was from perched groundwater and this may also be encountered during grading, particularly at the fill/bedrock contact, and trapped immediately under the existing reservoir. The amount of permeable surface on site is very small and would not change substantially with project implementation. The proposed project would not cause any long-term interference with groundwater recharge or affect existing aquifer volumes, and would not involve the depletion of groundwater supplies. No impacts would occur. 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? No Impact. Stormwater runoff from the project site currently sheetflows to the south and then drains to Foothill Boulevard and ultimately to existing stormdrains. The project site is not in close proximity to a stream or river, nor would -runoff from the site enter a stream or river and alter its course. Implementation of the proposed project would slightly increase the amount of impervious surface on-site; however, this increase would not result in substantial increase in the rate or amount of runoff from the site that would cause an increase in erosion or flooding. Additionally, the proposed project involves the construction of new stormdrains to capture site t runoff which would reduce the amount of erosion that currently occurs with the sheetflow condition. No significant impacts would occur. ' 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The amount of surface runoff would not substantially increase as a result of project implementation since the on-site uses would be similar to existing conditions and only a small amount of additional impervious surface would be added. Additionally, runoff from the project site already drains to the existing storm-drain facility in R:\Projects\TustinU003\IS-121905.doc 5-20 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Studv Hewes Street via gutters in Foothill Boulevard. As part of the proposed project, a new storm drain line would be installed in Foothill Boulevard to convey water to an existing OCFCD facility. As discussed in Section 3.2.3, Off-site Project Features, two options are under consideration for storm-drain line connections. The OCFCD facility along Newport Avenue has sufficient capacity to accommodate the drainage from the project site. There would be a negligible increase in the amount of water entering the facility in Hewes Street as this is where the site runoff currently flows. The proposed project would not involve the construction of any uses that would alter the type or amount of pollutants in the runoff from the project site. Less than significant impacts relative to stormwater runoff would result from the project. 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? No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is not located in a special flood hazard area (100-year or less floodplain). Additionally, the proposed project does not include the development of new housing. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts associated with flood hazards to housing or other structures. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Although the proposed project is not in proximity to any existing levee or dam, it would involve the construction of two new 3.0 MG concrete water storage tanks. The hoop reinforcing in the sidewall and the tendons from the base to the sidewall allow the reservoir to flex, if necessary, without failing. The proposed project would be designed and ' constructed in accordance with the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard D110-95, American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 350, and the most current version of the Uniform Building Code. This would safeguard against major structural failures. Adherence to ' these standards would reduce potential impacts associated with new construction to a less than significant level. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. A seiche is an oscillation of a landlocked body of water that can cause water damage to buildings, roads, and infrastructure that surround the body of water. There is no such body of water located in the City of Tustin. Therefore, impacts to the project study area associated with seiches would not occur. Additionally, the project site is approximately 9.6 miles from the Pacific Ocean or any body of water that could cause tsunami, also know as tidal t waves, to the area. There is no risk of tsunami associated with the project. By definition, mudflows are considered a type of landslide and the site is not located in an earthquake- induced landslide seismic hazard zone according to the April 15, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zones ' Map for the Orange Quadrangle. No impacts are expected. r k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? ^ Less Than Significant. Refer to Checklist Item Vlll.a which discusses the regulatory setting for water quality. The proposed project could result in short-term construction impacts to surface water quality from grading and other construction-related activities. Construction activities would result in the disturbance of soils on the project site and would result in increased erosion. Storm R:\Projects\TustinU003\IS-721905.doc - ~ 5-c~'I Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study water runoff from the project site during construction could contain soils and sediments from these activities. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery; construction staging areas, which typically include petroleum products such as fuel, oil and grease; and heavy metals can also enter runoff. Compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit and the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP would ensure that any impacts to down stream waters resulting from construction activities associated with the project site would be less than significant. Erosion control and treatment BMPs would be implemented per NPDES requirements. In addition to the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit, provisions of the Uniform Building Code and grading permit requirements include elements that also require reduction of erosion and sedimentation impacts during construction. Full compliance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations would reduce water quality impacts associated with construction to a less than significant level. I) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities? Less Than Si nificant Impact. Refer to the discussion under Checklist Items Vlll.a. and Vlll.e. 9 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? No Impact. As with existing conditions, the project does not include areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling; vehicle or equipment maintenance; waste handling; hazardous materials handling or storage; delivery areas; loading docks; or other outdoor work areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a potential for discharge of storm water pollutants as a result of these uses. n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? ' No Impact. As discussed above, the amount and quality of surface runoff from the project site would not substantially change compared to existing conditions. The proposed would not ' involve any activities that would result in impacts to the quality of the stormwater runoff. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of f stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? No Impact. The. amount of surface runoff would not substantially increase as a result of project ' implementation. There would be no significant change to existing stormwater flow velocity or volume as a result of the project. No impacts would result. ' p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? No Impact. Refer to the discussion for Checklist Item Vlll.c. As noted, the proposed project f would not result in a significant increase in erosion. R:\ProjectslTustinGlo0311S-121905.doc 5-22 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study ! Mitigation Program Standard Conditions and Regulations SC 8-1 Prior to the approval of grading plans, the contractor shall provide written evidence to the Public Works Department that a Notice of Intent has been filed with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit (CGP) (NPDES No. CAS000002, Resolution No. 2001-046, or the latest approved CGP). Pursuant to the permit requirements, the contractor shall develop an SWPPP that incorporates BMPs for reducing or eliminating construction-related pollutants in the site runoff. SC 8-2 Prior to approval of grading plans, the contractor shall submit a project water quality management plan (WQMP) to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The WQMP shall demonstrate compliance with the implementation plans ^ under the MS4 Permit, namely the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Sources • Federal Emergency Management Agency Q3 Flood Data, Orange County, 1996. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING ` Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is bounded by Foothill Boulevard and Foothill High School to the south, an unnamed private road and single family residences to the east, an undeveloped slope ' and a single family residence to the west, and a single family residence to the north. The existing reservoir was constructed in 1971, and there is also. a booster pump station on site. The use of the site for water storage purposes would remain the same with the proposed project and would not 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? No Impact. With the exception of a sliver of property along Foothill Boulevard within unincorporated Orange County, the property is an incorporated island in the City of Tustin surrounded by unincorporated area within Orange County, and has General Plan Land Use t Designations of Low Density Residential and Public/Institutional. The proposed project would be designated as Public/Institutional use and therefore would not conflict with the Tustin General Plan, zoning ordinance, other policies, or regulations applicable to the area. ' c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. Refer to the discussion under Checklist Item IV.f (Section IV, Biological Resources). As noted, the project site is within the County of Orange Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP. However, it would not conflict with the implementation of this program. The project site is within a development area. R:1Projects\TustinUp03\IS-121905.doc 5-23 Environments! Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study Mitigation Program No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required. Sources f City of Tustin General Plan, Land Use Element, January 16, 2001. 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? No Impact. The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) is the state agency with the ' responsibility to oversee the management of mineral resources in California. The CDMG considers a site to be significant with regard to mineral commodities if the site can be mined commercially and there is enough of the resource to be economically viable. There are no such resources on-site. The Tustin General Plan does not identify any mineral resources in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. 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? No Impact. The Tustin General Plan does not identify any mineral resources in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Mitigation Program ' No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required. Sources ' . City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, January 16, 2001. 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? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project ' vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant. The maximum allowable noise level for residential districts in Tustin is 55 dB from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 50 d6 from .10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Exceptions are r made for noise sources associated with construction activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. ' R:~Fro~ects~7ussnU003us-~2~sos.aoc 5-24 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study t and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, excluding City-observed federal holidays. Construction noise represents ashort-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators, can reach high levels. The greatest construction noise levels are typically generated by heavy grading equipment. As noted in Section 3, Project Description, site excavation and grading activities would last only two months. Exhibit 9 depicts typical noise levels generated by construction equipment. Pile driving would not be required for the proposed project. Construction noise levels generated by commonly-used grading equipment (i.e. loaders, graders, and trucks) generate noise levels that typically do not exceed the middle of the ranges shown on Exhibit 9. For the purposes of this analysis, an overall grading noise level of 89 dBA at 50 feet is used as the worst-case maximum exterior noise level. Using adrop-off rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, noise levels at 100 feet and 200 feet are estimated at 83 dBA and 77 dBA, respectively. The nearest homes are located across the private access road, approximately 30 feet to the east. Construction of the project would result in noise levels at surrounding residential areas in ' excess of the limits presented in the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance. However, the City's Noise Ordinance excludes noise control generated by construction activities during specific time periods, as stated previously. In accordance with this ordinance, construction of the project would not occur outside of these hours nor on Sundays or City-observed federal holidays. Therefore, noise generated by the construction of the project would comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and construction of the project would not result in a significant noise impact. It should be noted that although a significant noise impact would not result from construction of the project due to the temporary nature of the activity and the time constraints of the City's Noise Ordinance, the City retained Mestre-Greve Associates (MGA) to evaluate methods to further reduce construction noise levels. MGA's recommendations are listed as special conditions (Noise-1 through Noise-3) and are provided below. The special conditions would be incorporated into the project during construction. t b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ' No Impact. The proposed project would involve typical construction activities and equipment. There would be no construction or operational activities that would generate excessive groundbourne vibrations or noise. No impacts would result. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ' No Impact. Operations at the project site for the new water reservoirs would be similar to existing conditions. The existing booster pump station would remain. The proposed project ' would not generate operational noise above existing noise levels and no impacts would occur. 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? No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. ' R:\ProjectslTustin0003\IS-121905.doc 5-25 Environmental Evaluation i i i i i i i i i i X W L 6 W ~C m 0 0 A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) At 50 Feet Equipment fi0 70 80 90 100 110 ~ Compacter (Rollers) - .. ___ ... _ _ , . , ----- - -- ~- r FrontLoader I Backhoe _ . _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _. . Tractor I _ _ __.. .. _ .... .; .. _ ~ Grader Scraper , Paver _..__ ~ .. _ _ Truck - - _ . . ...._ _ : .. Concrete Mixer - .,_ :_ . ....._ ... _ _ ...... _:.. Concrete Pump - Crane (Movable) j _ ,_ _ .. Crane (Derrick) Pump _: _ __ Generator _ _ _ _ Compressor _.. _ . Pneumatic Wrench ~ Jackhammer and Drill _ ~ ~ _ _ . Pile Drivers (Peak Levels) ~ Vibrator _ _ Saw .. _ 60 70 80 90 100. 110 Source: "Handbook of Noise control," by Cyril Harris, 1979 Typical Construction Noise Levels Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Exhibit 9 ,~O/17~e'l~/ CONSUL 7 1 N G R:\ProjectslTustio W 003\Graphics\Ex9_NdseLevels_101105. pdt Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study ' 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? i No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Mitigation Program Standard Conditions and Regulations ' SC 11-1 All construction documents and contracts shall require that all construction activities meet the requirements of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance. In order to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, noise-generating activities must only occur during the hours when construction noise is exempted from the Noise Ordinance standards. The contractor shall ensure that all construction activities shall be subject to the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall only occur between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ' Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays excluding City-observed federal holidays. Special Conditions In addition to the standard condition identified above, the City will implement the following special conditions during project construction Noise-1 The contractor shall install a 24-foot temporary. noise barrier at the east and north property lines to provide noise reduction at adjacent residences during construction. The requirement for installation of this noise barrier shall be included on the contractor specifications and verified by the Public Works Department. Noise-2 The contractor shall utilize residential grade mufflers on all construction equipment. This requirement shall be included on the contractor specifications and verified by the Public Works Department. f Noise-3 The contractor shall clearly post construction hours on the project site to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. This requirement shall be included on the contractor specifications and verified by the Public Works Department. Sources • City of Tustin Noise Ordinance, Chapter 6, Noise Control, Municipal Code. • Memorandum from F. Greve, Mestre-Greve Associates to T. Andersen, BonTerra Consulting, dated November 23, 2005. r 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)? No Impact. The purpose of the proposed project is to provide improved water storage capacity ~ for existing customers, and to replace an aging reservoir that has structural deficiencies. The R:1ProjectslTustinUlxl3\IS-121905.doc 5-28 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study proposed project does not have the potential to induce population growth in the area. No impacts would result. 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? ' No Impact. There is no housing on the project site and implementation of the project would not displace any existing housing people. No impacts to population or housing would occur. ' 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? ' No Impact. Construction of two water tanks and underground storm drains would not create significant additional demand for, or alteration of, government facilities or services (fire and ' police protection, schools, parks, etc.). The project would facilitate the provision of water and fire protection in the water service area by improving. City water facilities. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the City's population and the site would be used for the purposes as existing conditions. Therefore, there would be no impacts to police services, ' schools, or parks and no need for new facilities that could cause environmental impacts. No impacts would occur. ' It should also be noted that the City's Capital Improvement Project fund includes funding resources for the proposed project and the City's Water Division Operating Budget includes funding for the operation and maintenance of the facility. ' Mitigation Program No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required. ' 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? ' No Impact. The proposed project would not increase population and housing in the area, and the demand for recreational facilities would not increase since the site would be used for the same purpose as it is currently. Therefore, there would not be an increased demand for R:\Projecis\TusfinW00311S-121905.doc 5-27 Environmental Evaluation t Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study ' recreational facilities and no physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities in the area would occur. 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? No Impact. The project site is not located in or adjacent to a City or County recreational facility and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities on-site or off-site. ' Therefore, implementation of the project would not have a physical environmental impact relating to recreational facilities. ' Mitigation Program No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required. ' Sources • City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, January 16, ' 2001. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ' 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)? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion beyond adopted policies and/or forecasts. Once the project is constructed, the only ' trips associated with the facility would be trips by City employees for maintenance and inspection consistent with existing conditions. There would be a short-term increase in traffic generated during the construction period. Vehicle trips would be associated with trucks hauling ' materials and supplies to the site and workers commuting to and from the- site (refer to the project description provided in Section 3). There would be an average of 17 daily trips. The additional trips would be temporary in nature and would not cause any impacts to existing ' roadway operating conditions. No short-term or long-term significant traffic impacts would result from the project. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established ' by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. The increase in traffic to the project site during construction would be negligible and ' short-term. After construction, the proposed project would not generate traffic above existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed any level of service standards. The Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), which is maintained by the ' Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and forms the basis of Orange County's Congestion Management Program (CMP), designates Newport Avenue as a primary arterial. By definition, a primary arterial is a four lane divided roadway designed to accommodate between ' 20,000 and 30,000 average daily trips (ADT). However, there are no roadways identified in the CMP that are adjacent to the project site, and the trips generated by the project would be ' R:\Projects\TustinW003\IS-121905.doc 5-28 ~ Environmental Evaluation ` Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study ' "immeasurable" as they only relate to an occasional trip made for maintenance purposes. No impacts would occur. ' 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? ' No Impact. The proposed project is not near any airports and would have no impact on air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project site would be used for the same purpose as existing conditions and the ' proposed project would not increase hazards. It should be noted that the access into the site from Foothill Boulevard would be improved with a new access point to the west of the booster ' pump station. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Signiffcant Impact. During construction activities, the existing private street east of the project site would be closed temporarily. This street serves residences to the north of the project site; however, a secondary access is also available from the north ensuring continuous emergency access. Following construction of the proposed project, current emergency access and evacuation conditions would be the same. No significant impacts to emergency access would result. fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project would not involve an increased demand for parking or the I removal of existing parking. No impacts would result. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative ' transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed reservoir replacement project does not require the incorporation of alternative transportation facilities and would not conflict with any alternative transportation ' policies, plans, or programs. The proposed project. would improve the north side of Foothill Boulevard including the provision of a sidewalk. No impacts would result. Mitigation Program No standard conditions and regulations are applicable and no mitigation is required. ' Sources ' City of Tustin General Plan, Circulation Element, January 16, 2001. • Master Plan of Arterial Highways, Orange County Transportation Authority, 2002. ' R:\Prgecls\TustinU003\IS-121905.doc ~ J-.29 EnVlfonmenf8l EV2IU81lOn Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not generate wastewater. Therefore, no wastewater treatment requirements would be exceeded. 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? No Impact. The proposed project involves replacement of an existing water reservoir to increase the City's water storage/supply capacity. The potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the project have been evaluated throughout this Initial Study. With implementation of the standard conditions and mitigation measures identified, no significant impacts would result. The proposed project would not generate wastewater and no new wastewater facilities would be required. 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 With Mitigation. The proposed project would involve construction of a new storm drain line from the project site, within Foothill Boulevard to an existing OCFCD along Hewes Street or Newport Avenue. Each of these off-site storm drain connection options would require installation of a new storm drain in Foothill Boulevard. This construction would occur within the existing street right-of-way and would result in short-term, construction-related impacts, including traffic disruption. This impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of traffic management plans. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The proposed project would improve the City's water supply system. No water supply is necessary to serve the project because the project would not involve the increase of population or consumption of water. 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? No Impact. As with existing conditions, the proposed reservoirs would not generate wastewater and would not demand any wastewater treatment capacity. R:\ProjectslTustin0003\IS-121905.doc 5-30 Environmental Evaluation ' Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study ' f) 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? ' Less Than Significant Impact. Demolition of the existing reservoir, site preparation (vegetation removal and grading activities), and construction activities would. generate typical construction debris, including wood, paper, glass, plastic, metals, cardboard, and green wastes. Solid waste ' generated from the proposed project site would most likely be disposed at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill (closest landfill to the site) which is part of the Orange County landfill system operated by the County's Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD). This landfill has a projected closure date of 2022 with a remaining disposal capacity of 75.5 million cubic yard (cy) as of June 20, 2005. The construction-related solid waste generated by the project would be negligible, and could be accommodated within the permitted capacity. of the County's landfill system. Similar to existing conditions, operation of the new reservoirs would not generate solid ' waste. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. 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)? No Impact The proposed project would involve the construction of a new storm drain line that would connect to an existing structural OCFCD facility. The proposed project does not involve ' the implementation of any new or retrofitted storm water treatment control BMPs. Therefore, no environmental impacts would result. ' Mitigation Program Mitigation Measures ' MM 16-1 Prior to approval of street improvement plans, the contractor shall submit Traffic Management Plans to the County of Orange for review and approval. The Traffic Management Plans shall describe traffic control measures that shall be implemented ' to maintain traffic flow in all directions where utility improvements are being implemented in existing roadways. Said traffic management measures shall be implemented on-going during road construction. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes the replacement of an existing reservoir on the same site. There are no sensitive biological resources, habitat, or species located on the project site that would be affected by the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project ' would not impact any archaeological or historical resources as construction activities would. occur in previously disturbed areas and no historical resources are located on-site. R:~Frojects~Tusenuo03us-12190s.d~ 5-31 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study ' 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). ' Less Than Significant Impact. The potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project have been evaluated in this Initial Study and have been determined to be less than significant or mitigated to a level considered less than significant. The project involves the replacement of an existing water reservoir with two new reservoirs on the same site. The project site is already developed and is located in an urbanized area. The proposed project would not result in impacts that are cumulatively considerable. ' c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed water reservoir replacement project would not alter the use or operation of the project site compared to existing conditions and would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. R:1ProjectslTustin0003\IS-121905.doc 5-32 Environmental Evaluation Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project Initial Study SECTION 6.0 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ' City of Tustin Community Development Department I Community Development Director ....................................................Elizabeth A. Binsack Senior Planner ........................................................................................... Scott Reekstin Public Works Department ..... Director of Public Works/City Engineer ................................................... ......Tim Serlet ' Water Services Manager .......................................................................... Fred J. Adjarian Water Treatment Supervisor, Water Service Division ................................Art Valenzuela Associate Engineer, Water Service Division .............................................. Victor Sagredo Consultants BonTerra Consulting (Preparation of Environmental Document) Principal/Project Manager .................................................... ........... Christina L. Andersen Environmental Planner ......................................................... ......................Jennifer Marks Environmental Planner ......................................................... .............................. Julie Cho Environmental Planner ......................................................... ............................. Paula Fell Environmental Planner/Air Quality ........................................ .........................Sam Stewart GIS/Graphics ....................................................................... .................... Jennifer Harding Word Processing .......................................:......................... ...................... Kathy Linklater g ................................................................. Word Processin Heidi Hollstein ....................... Tetra Tech, Inc. (Project Engineer) Senior Project Manager .................................................................. Steve R. Conklin, P.E. Project Engineer ...................................................................................... Mark Bush, P.E. Leighton Consulting, lnc. (Geotechnical Engineer) 9Y ............................................................................ Director of Geolo Ed Burrows, C.E.G. National Econ Corporation Asbestos and Lead Survey .................................................................. Danny De La Rosa I R:\ProjectslTustinU0 0 3115-1 2 1 9 05.doc 6-'I Document Preparers APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS Page: 1 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.5.0 File Name: P:\Rawling Reservoir.urb Project Name: Rawling Reservoir Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2006 *** ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 10.06 89.05 70.51 0.44 240.41 3.47 236.94 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 10.06 89.05 70.51 0.44 62.53 3.47 59.06 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2007 *** ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 6.99 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 6.99 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2008 *** ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 68.17 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 68.17 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 5.29 5.41 58.23 0.03 5.29 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 5.29 5.41 58.23 0.03 5.29 Page: 2 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.5.0 File Name: P:\Rawling Reservoir.u rb Project Name: Rawling Reservoir Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Ange les area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT ' (Pounds/Day - Winter) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM10 PM10 *** ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2006 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 10.06 89.05 70.51 0.44 240.41 3.47 236.94 , TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 10.06 89.05 70.51 0.44 62.53 3.47 59.06 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2007 *** ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 6.99 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 6.99 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2008 *** ROG NOx CO 502 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 68.17 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 68.17 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.65 0.03 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 4.65 7.82 56.10 0.03 5.29 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTI MATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) M M i t I 4.65 7.82 56.10 0.03 5.29 Page: 3 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.5.0 File Name: P:\Rawling Reservoir.urb Project Name: Rawling Reservoir Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/ Year) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM10 PM10 * ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2006 ** TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.77 6.62 5.89 0.00 5.74 0.26 5.48 TOTALS (tpy, mitigated) 0.77 6.62 5.89 0.00 1.82 0.26 1.56 PM10 PM10 PM10 ** ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2007 * TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.84 6.36 7.20 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 TOTALS (tpy, mitigated) 0.84 6.36 7.20 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** ROG NOx CO 502 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2008 TOTALS (tpy unmitigated) 1.55 1.39 1.63 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 , d) i c~ i_3q 1.63 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 TOTALS (tpy, mitigate AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.93 1.13 10.50 0.01 0.97 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTI MATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.93 1.13 10.50 0.01 0.97 Page: 4 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.5.0 File Name: P:\Rawling Reservoir.urb Project Name: Rawling Reservoir Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los An geles area On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2. 2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) Construction Start Month and Year: April, 2006 Construction Duration: 24 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 2 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 2 acres Single Family Units: 0 Multi-Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 74000 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day) Source ROG NOx CO 502 *** 2006*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - Off-Road Diesel 7.82 59.94 57.68 - On-Road Diesel 1.35 24.46 5.02 0.44 Worker Trips 0.09 0.11 2.20 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 9.26 84.51 64.90 0.44 Ph e 2 - Site Grading Emissions PM10 PM10 PM10 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST 11.97 - 11.97 2.71 2.71 0.00 0.69 0.58 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.01 15.38 3.29 12.09 as - - - - 236.82 Fugitive Dust Off-Road Diesel 8.71 65.33 65.21 - 2.91 On-Road Diesel 1.31 23.70 4.87 0.42 0.67 Worker Trips 0.04 0.02 0.43 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 10.06 89.05 70.51 0.42 240.41 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80 50.54 51.19 - 2.21 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.20 0.11 2.37 0.00 0.03 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 7.00 50.65 53.56 0.00 2.24 Max lbs/day all phases 10.06 89.05 70.51 0.44 240.41 *** 2007*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel D.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.18 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 6.99 Max lbs/day all phases 6.99 2.91 0.56 0.00 3.47 2.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.21 3.47 236.82 0.00 0.11 0.01 236.94 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 236.94 _ - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ _ - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.57 52.53 - 2.02 2.02 0.00 0.11 2.23 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 *** 2008*** Page: 5 Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.17 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 62.23 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.17 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.06 Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 5.67 Asphalt On-Road Diesel D.O1 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 Maximum lbs/day 68,.17 Max lbs/day all phases 68.17 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.o0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.63' 53.83 - 1.85 1.85 0.00 0.10 2.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.10 2.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 39.93 44.23 - 1.63 1.63 0.00 0.22 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Apr '06 Phase 1 Duration: 2.0 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1254000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 28500 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) 1056 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Cranes 190 0.430 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun '06 Phase 2 Duration: 2.0 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1022 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Graders 174 0.575 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 1 Skid Steer Loaders 62 0.515 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Aug '06 Phase 3 Duration: 20.0 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Au g '06 SubPhase Building Duration: 18.0 months Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Cranes 190 0.430 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Skid Steer Loaders 62 0.515 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectura l Coatings: Feb '08 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 2 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Feb '08 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 2 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Paving Equipment lil 0.530 1 Rollers 114 0.430 1 Surfacing Equipment 437 0.490 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (lbs/day) Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 a.o 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 Page: 6 PM10 PM10 PM10 ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST Source *** 2006*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 11.97 - 11.97 Off-Road Diesel 7.82 59.94 57.68 - 2.71 2.71 0.00 On-Road Diesel 1.35 24.46 5.02 0.44 0.69 0.58 0.11 Worker Trips 0.09 0.11 2.20 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 9.26 84.51 64.90 0.44 15.38 3.29 12.09 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emission s Fugitive Dust - - - - 58.94 - 58.94 Off-Road Diesel 8.71 65.33 65.21 - 2.91 2.91 0.00 On-Road Diesel 1.31 23.70 4.87 0.42 0.67 0.56 0.11 Worker Trips 0.04 0.02 0.43 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 10.06 89.05 70.51 0.42 62.53 3.47 59.06 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80 50.54 51.19 - 2.21 2.21 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.20 0.11 2.37 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00. Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 7.00 50.65 53.56 0.00 2.24 2.21 0.03 Max lbs/day all phases 10.06 89.05 70.51 0.44 62.53 3.47 59.06 *** 2007+++ Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80 48.57 52.53 - 2.02 2.02 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.18 0.11 2.23 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 6.99 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 Max lbs/day all phases 6.99 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 *** 2008*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80 46.63 53.83 - 1.85 1.85 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.17 0.10 2.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 Page: 7 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 62.23 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.17 0.10 2.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 Asphalt off-Gas 0.06 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 5.67 39.93 44.23 - 1.63 1.63 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.01 0.22 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 68.17 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03 Max lbs/day all phases 68.17 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03 Construction-Related Mitigation Measures Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0°s NOx 0.0% CO 0.0s S02 0.0% PM10 50.0%) Phase 2: Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0s NOx 0.0°s CO 0.0°s S02 0.0°s PM10 9.5%) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 3x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0°s CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 45.0%) Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Apr '06 Phase 1 Duration: 2.0 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1254000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 28500 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1056 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Cranes 190 0.430 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun '06 Phase 2 Duration: 2.0 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1022 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Skid Steer Loaders 62 0.515 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Aug '06 Phase 3 Duration: 20.0 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Aug '06 SubPhase Building Duration: 18.0 months Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Cranes 190 0.430 8.0 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Skid Steer Loaders 62 0.515 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Feb '08 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 2 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Feb '08 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 2 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 1 Surfacing Equipment 437 0.490 8.0 Page: 8 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Wood Stoves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fireplaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping - No winter emissions Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page: 9 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO 802 PM10 Warehouse 4.65 7.82 56.10 0.03 5.29 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 4.65 7.82 56.10 0.03 5.29 Does not include correction for passby tr ips. Does not include double counting adjustme nt for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2007 Temperature (F): 50 Season: Winte r EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips Warehouse 8.41 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 74.00 622.34 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.20 1.80 97.80 0.40 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 3.30 94.00 2.70 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.10 1.90 96.90 1.20 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.10 1.40 95.80 2.80 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.40 0.00 50.00 50.00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 17:60 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 8.30 83.30 8.40 Travel Conditions Resident ial Commercia l Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Co mmute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 a of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) 2.0 1.0 97.0 Warehouse Page: 10 Changes made to the def ault values £or Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths Demolition Truck Hauling Miles/Round Trip changed from 30 to 20 Site Grading Fugitive Dust Option changed from Level 1 to Level 2 Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 3x daily has been changed from off to on. Changes made to the default values for Area The natural gas option switch changed from on to off. The wood stove option switch changed from on to off. The fireplcase option switch changed from on to off. The landscape option switch changed from on to off. The consumer products option switch changed from onto off. Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2007. The home based work selection item changed from e to 7. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non-work selection item changed from 9 to e. ' The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: none Page: 11 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.5.0 File Name: P:\Rawling Reservoir.urb Project Name: Rawling Reservoir Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) Construction Start Month and Year: April, 2006 Construction Duration: 24 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 2 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 2 acres Single Family Units: 0 Multi-Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 74000 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO 502 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2006*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 11.97 - 11.97 Off-Road Diesel 7.82 59.94 57.68 - 2.71 2.71 0.00 On-Road Diesel 1.35 24.46 5.02 0.44 0.69 0.58 0.11 Worker Trips 0.09 0.11 2.20 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 9.26 84.51 64.90 0.44 15.38 3.29 12.09 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emission s Fugitive Dust - - - - 236.82 - 236.82 Off-Road Diesel 8.71 65.33 65.21 - 2.91 2.91 0.00 On-Road Diesel 1.31 23.70 4.87 0.42 0.67 0.56 0.11 Worker Trips 0.04 0.02' 0.43 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 10.06 89.05 70.51 0.42 240.41 3.47 236.94 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80 50.54 51.19 - 2.21 2.21 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.20 0.11 2.37 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 7.00 50.65 53.56 0.00 2.24 2.21 0.03 Max lbs/day all phases 10.06 89.05 70.51 0.44 240.41 3.47 236.94 *** 2007*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 worker Trips o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emission s Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80 48.57 52.53 - 2.02 2.02 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.18 0.11 2.23 0.00 0.03 0.00. 0.03 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 6.99 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 Max lbs/day all phases 6.99 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 *** 2008*** Page: 12 Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust Off-Road Diesel 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.17 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 62.23 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.17 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.06 Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 5.67 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.01 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 Maximum lbs/day 68.17 Max lbs/day all phases 68.17 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.63 53.83 - 1.85 1.85 0.00 0.10 2.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.10 2.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 39.93 44.23 - 1.63 1.63 0.00 0.22 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Apr '06 Phase 1 Duration: 2.0 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1254000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 28500 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1056 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Cranes 190 0.430 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun '06 Phase 2 Duration: 2.0 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1022 Off-Road Equipment No_ Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Graders 174 0.575 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 1 Skid Steer Loaders 62 0.515 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Aug '06 Phase 3 Duration: 20.0 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Aug '06 SubPhase Building Duration: 18.0 months Off-Road Equipment No. Type. Horsepower Load Factor 1 Cranes 190 0.430 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 1 Skid Steer Loaders 62 0.515 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Feb '08 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 2 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Feb '08 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 2 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Paving Equipment ill 0.530 1 Rollers 114 0.430 1 Surfacing Equipment 437 0.490 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTZMATES MITIGATED (lbs/day) Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Hours/Day 8.0 8.0 8.0 Page: 13 Source ROG *** 2006*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel 7.82 On-Road Diesel 1.35 Worker Trips 0.09 Maximum lbs/day 9.26 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emission s Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel 8.71 On-Road Diesel 1.31 Worker Trips 0.04 Maximum lbs/day 10.06 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.20 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 7.00 Max lbs/day all phases 10.06 *** 2007*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emission s Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.18 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 6.99 Max lbs/day all phases 6.99 *** 2008*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.17 NOx CO 502 59.94 57.68 - 24.46 5.02 0.44 0.11 2.20 0.00 84.51 64.90 0.44 65.33 23.70 0.02 89.05 65.21 4.87 0.43 70.51 0.42 0.00 0.42 50.54 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 o_oo 50.65 89.05 51.19 2.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.56 70.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 PM10 PM10 TOTAL EXHAUST 11.97 - 2.71 2.71 0.69 0.58 0.01 0.00 15.38 3.29 58.94 - 2.91 2.91 0.67 0.56 0.01 0.00 62.53 3.47 2.21 2.21 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OC 2.24 2.21 62.53 3.47 PM10 DUST 11.97 0.00 0.11 0.01 12.09 58.94 0.00 0.11 0.01 59.06 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 59.06 _ _ - '0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.57 52.53 - 2.02 2.02 0.00 0.11 2.23 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.63 53.83 - 1.85 1.85 0.00 0.10 2.08 .0.00 D.03 0.00 0.03 Page: 14 62.23 Arch Coatings Off-Gas - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.17 0.10 2.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.06 - - _ - - - f Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 5.67 39.93 44.23 1.63 1.63 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.01 0.22 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 68.17 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03 Max lbs/day all phases 68.17 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03 Construction-Related Mitigation Measures Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0°s CO 0.0% 802 0.0°s PM10 50.0%) Phase 2: Stockpiles: Cover all stock pil es with tarps Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0°s PM10 9.5%) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Water all haul r oads 3x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% 802 0.0% PM10 45.0%) Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Apr '06 Phase 1 Duration: 2.0 months ' Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 12540 00 Building volume Daily (cubic feet): 28500 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1056 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Cranes 190 0.430 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun '06 Phase 2 Duration: 2.0 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1022 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Skid Steer Loaders 62 0.515 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Aug '06 Phase 3 Duration: 20.0 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Aug '06 SubPhase Building Duration: 18.0 months Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Cranes 190 0.430 8.0 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Skid Steer Loaders 62 0.515 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Feb 'OB SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 2 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Feb '08 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 2 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 1 Surfacing Equipment 437 0.490 8.0 Page: 15 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 ' Wood Stoves - No summer emissions Fireplaces - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 16 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Warehouse 5.29 5.41 58.23 0.03 5.29 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 5.29 5.41 58.23 0.03 5.29 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustmen t for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2007 Temperature (F): 90 Season: Summe r EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips Warehouse 8.41 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 74.00 622.34 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.20 1.80 97.80 0.40 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 3.30 94.00 2.70 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.10 1.90 96.90 1.20 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.10 1.40 95.80 2.80 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.40 0.00 50.00 50.00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 17.60 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 8.30 83.30 8.40 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 °s of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 °s of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Warehouse 2.0 1.0 97.0 Page: 17 Changes made to the def ault values for Land Use Trip Percentages ' Changes made to the default values for Construction The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths Demolition Truck Hauling Miles/Round Trip changed from 30 to 20 Site Grading Fugitive Dust Option changed from Level 1 to Level 2 Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 3x daily has been changed from off to on. Changes made to the default values for Area The natural gas option switch changed from on to off. I The wood stove option switch changed from on to off. The fireplcase option switch changed from on to off. The landscape option switch changed from on to off. The consumer products option switch changed from on to off. Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2007. The home based work selection item changed from e to 7. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to e. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 6. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based non-work selection item changed from 9 to e. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to e. The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: none Page: 18 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.5.0 File Name: P:\Rawling Reservoir.urb Project Name: Rawling Reservoir Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) Construction Start Month and Year: April, 2006 Construction Duration: 24 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 2 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 2 acres Single Family Units: 0 Multi-Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 74000 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (tons/year) PM10 PM10 ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST Source *** 2006*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel 0.18 1.32 1.26 - On-Road Diesel 0.02 0.54 0.12 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 Total tons/year 0.20 1.86 1.42 0.00 h 2 - Site Grading Emissions PM10 DUST 0.26 - 0.26 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.08 0.26 - 5.22 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 5.22 P ase - _ _ 5.22 Fugitive Dust Off-Road Diesel - 0.20 1.44 1.44 - 0.06 On-Road Diesel 0.02 0.52 0.10 0.00 0.02 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year . . . Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.35 2.80 2.80 - Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.35 2.80 2.93 0.00 Total all phases tons/yr 0.77 6.62 5.89 54 0.00 5.30 96 1 22 1 0 0.00 *** 2007*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off-Road Diesel 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.84 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Total tons/year 0.84 Total all phases tons/yr 0.84 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 5.74 0.26 5.48 _ - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ _ - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.36 6.96 - 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.36 7.20 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 6.36 7.20 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 +** 2008*** Page: 19 Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions _ 0.00 - 0.00 Fugitive Dust 00 0 00 0 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 . O£f-Road Diesel 0 00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . On-Road Diesel 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . Worker Trips 0 00 00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . Total tons/year . Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions _ 0.00 - 0.00 Fugitive Dust 00 0 00 0 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 . Off-Road Diesel 00 0 . 00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . On-Road Diesel 0 00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . Worker Trips Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction _ 02 0 0 02 0.00 Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.07 0.51 00 0 0.59 02 0 00 0 . 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 . . . Arch Coatings Off-Gas 1.36 0 00 - 00 0 - 04 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . Arch Coatings Worker Trips . . Asphalt off-Gas 0.00 el 0.12 d Di - 0.88 - 0.98 0.04 0.04 0.00 es Asphalt Off-Roa halt On-Road Diesel 0.00 As 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 p Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 0 0.00 06 0 0.00 06 0 . 0.00 Total tons/year 1.55 1.39 1.63 . . . Total all phases tons/yr 1.55 1.39 1.63 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Apr '06 Phase 1 Duration: 2.0 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1254000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 28500 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1056 Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Load Factor Ho urs/Day No. Type 190 0'430 8.0 1 Cranes 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun '06 Phase 2 Duration: 2.0 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1022 Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day No. Type 174 0.575 8.0 1 Graders 190 0.620 8.0 1 Other Equipment 352 0.590 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 62 515 0 8.0 1 Skid Steer Loaders 79 . 465 0 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes . Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptio ns Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Aug '06 Phase 3 Duration: 20.0 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Aug '06 SubPhase Building Duration: 18.0 months Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day No. TYPe 190 0.430 8-0 1 Cranes 2 other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Skid Steer Loaders 62 0.515 8-0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architect ural Coatings: Feb '08 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 2 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Feb ' OB SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 2 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day No. Type 1 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0:430 8.0 1 Surfacing Equipment 437 0.490 8.0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (tons/year) Page: 20 PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2006*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.26 - 0.26 Off-Road Diesel 0.18 1.32 1.26 - 0.06 0.06 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.02 0.54 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.20 1.86 1.42 0.00 0.34 0.08 0.26 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emission s Fugitive Dust - - - - 1.30 - 1.30 Off-Road Diesel 0.20 1.44 1.44 - 0.06 0.06 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.02 0.52 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.22 1.96 1.54 0.00 1.38 0.08 1.30 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.35 2.80 2.80 - 0.10 0.10 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.35' 2.80 2.93 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 Total all phases tons/yr 0.77 6.62 5.89 0.00 1.82 0.26 1.56 *** 2007*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.84 6.36 6.96 - 0.24 0.24 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas o.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.84 6.36 7.20 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 Total all phases tons/yr 0.84 6.36 7.20 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 *** 2008*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.07 0.51 0.59 - 0.02 0.02 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 i Page: 21 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 1.36 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - _ - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.12 0.88 0.98 0.04 0.04 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 1.55 1.39 1.63 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 ' Total all phases tons/yr 1.55 1.39 1.63 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 ' Construction-Related Mitigation Measures Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0s S02 0.0% PM10 50.0%) Phase 2: Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 9.5%) I Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 3x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0s S02 0.0% PM10 45.0%) Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Apr '06 Phase 1 Duration: 2.0 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1254000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 28500 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1056 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Cranes 190 0.430 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun '06 Phase 2 Duration: 2.0 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1022 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Skid Steer Loaders 62 0.515 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Aug '06 ' Phase 3 Duration: 20.0 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Aug '06 SubPhase Building Duration: 18.0 months Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Cranes 190 0.430 8.0 2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Skid Steer Loaders 62 0.515 8.0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Feb 'OS ' SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration : 2 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Feb '08 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 2 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Paving Equipment .111 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 1 Surfacing Equipment 437 0.490 8.0 Page: 22 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 wood Stoves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fireplaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - - - - TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 23 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Warehouse 0.93 1.13 10.50 0.01 0.97 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 0.93 1.13 10.50 0.01 0.97 Does not include correcti on for passby tr ips. Does not include double c ounting adjustme nt for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMI SSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2007 Temp erature (F): 90 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips Warehouse 8.41 trips / 1000 sq. ft_ 74.00 622.34 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.20 1.80 97.80 0.40 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 3.30 94.00 2.70 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.10 1.90 96.90 1.20 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.10 1.40 95.80 2.80 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.40 0.00 50.00 50.00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 17.60 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 8.30 83.30 8.40 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 °s of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 a of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Warehouse 2.0 1.0 97.0 Page: 24 I Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the def ault values for Construction The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths Demolition Truck Hauling Miles/Round Trip changed from 30 to 20 Site Grading Fugitive Dust Option changed from Level 1 to Level 2 Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 3x daily has been changed from off to on. Changes made to the def ault values for Area I The natural gas option switch changed from on to off. The wood stove option switch changed from on to off. The fireplcase option switch changed from on to off. The landscape option switch changed from on to off. _ The consumer products option switch changed from on to off. Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2007. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. ' The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to e. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to e. The commercial based non-work selection item changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to e. ' The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: none