Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08 DESIGN REVIEW 2016-026, SIMON RANCH RESERVORI, BOOSTER PUMP STATION & PIPELINE (CIP 60114)
AGENDA REPORT 110 DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 2016 TO: JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER Agenda Item 8 Reviewed: City Manager Finance Director` FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 2016-026, SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR, BOOSTER PUMP STATION, AND PIPELINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (CIP 60114) SUMMARY: Design Review 2016-026 is a City of Tustin Water project that involves the demolition of the existing 1.4 million gallon Simon Ranch Reservoir at 11811 Outlook Lane and the construction of a new 1.0 million gallon concrete domestic water tank on the same site. Also proposed are a new on-site below -ground booster pump station with emergency backup power generator, retaining and screen walls, landscaping and irrigation, and off- site pipeline improvements. The proposed project would provide vital system -wide operational, fire suppression, and emergency storage for the Tustin Water Service Area. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council take the following actions: Adopt Resolution No. 16-66 approving the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate for Design Review 2016-026 for the Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement project and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 16-67 approving Design Review 2016-026 to demolish the existing 1.4 million gallon Simon Ranch Reservoir at 11811 Outlook Lane and construct a new 1.0 million gallon partially -buried concrete domestic water tank and related improvements on the same site; and 3. Authorize the Director of Public Works, or his designee, to initiate discussions with property owners, make offers, and execute agreements for the acquisition of temporary construction easements and perpetual pipeline easements. FISCAL IMPACT: Design Review 2016-026 is a City -initiated project. Funds in the amount of $1,000,000 are currently budgeted for the final design of the project in Fiscal Year 2016-17. Construction funding consists of 2013 Water Bond Funds in the amount of $8,200,000. Design Review 2016-026 November 15, 2016 Page 2 CORRELATION TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: The proposed project furthers Goal B of the City of Tustin Strategic Plan pertaining to Public Safety and the Protection of Assets, in that the project will improve vital public facilities which enhance Tustin's readiness in responding to fire and drought conditions. ENVIRONMENTAL: A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program have been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and are attached as Exhibit A of Resolution No. 16-66 (Attachment C). BACKGROUND: The project site encompasses approximately 0.44 acres and is located at 11811 Outlook Lane. The project site is an incorporated island of the City of Tustin that is surrounded by unincorporated areas of Orange County (Attachment A — Location Maps). The project site is bounded by Outlook Lane to the southeast, Valhalla Drive to the southwest, and single-family residences to the north, northeast, and northwest (Figure 1). The site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Public/Institutional (P/1). The proposed project would continue to be a Public/Institutional use and therefore would not conflict with the Tustin General Plan, zoning ordinance, other policies, or regulations applicable to the area. Figure 1- Surrounding Land Uses Design Review 2016-026 November 15, 2016 Page 3 The existing reservoir on the site consists of a rectangular 1.4 million gallon (MG) trapezoidal bottom, partially buried structure in the northern portion of the site. The existing reservoir was constructed in 1960 and has concrete -block perimeter walls, a concrete roof, and is lined with gunite. The tank is approximately thirty (30) feet deep. An existing eight (8) foot high concrete block wall along the northwestern boundary of the site retains soil from the adjacent property and supports the concrete roof panels of the existing reservoir. The existing Simon Ranch Booster Pump Station was constructed in 1960 and consists of two pumps located in a below -grade vault located at 11921 Simon Ranch Road, which is to the southeast of the reservoir site. The City of Tustin Water Services Division supplies domestic water and maintains water wells, water main lines, service laterals, hydrants, pump stations, pressure reducing valves, and water storage facilities. The City's water system is divided into three pressure Zones (1, 2, and 3) and currently provides for 13.83 MG of the total storage from six (6) existing reservoirs. 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 emergency or repair situation. The City completed technical studies of the existing reservoir and booster pump station in 1990, 1996, and 2000, and determined that, due to age and the existing deteriorated condition, the Simon Ranch Reservoir should be rehabilitated or replaced. The City also determined that the Simon Ranch Booster Pump Station has reached the end of its service life and should be replaced. In 2006, a Preliminary Design Report was prepared for the project and the proposed design was recommended as the best alternative to achieve the project objectives. DISCUSSION: Project Description The Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement project involves the following components which are described below: (1) demolition of the existing reservoir, (2) construction of a new 1.0 MG water tank and associated improvements, including a booster pump station, and (3) construction of off-site pipelines. Reservoir Demolition The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing 1.4 MG reservoir. The reservoir structure to be demolished is approximately 121 feet long by 100 feet wide, with a side wall height varying from 27 to 31 feet. During demolition, the existing concrete roof, Design Review 2016-026 November 15, 2016 Page 4 block wall, roof -support columns, concrete foundation, gunite reservoir walls, and hopper bottom would be removed. Also, the portion of the Zone 1 pipeline that crosses the property at 11861 Simon Ranch Road would be cut at both sides of the property, plugged, filled, and abandoned in place. Non -friable asbestos containing materials have been identified in the existing mastic in the roof panel and stucco, and lead has been identified in the existing paint. These materials would be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable procedures established by state and local agencies. Demolition of the existing reservoir is estimated to take approximately two months. Because there are no alternate sources of water supply to Zone 3, operation of the existing booster pump station must be maintained during the construction of the new reservoir and booster pump station. The existing booster pump station may be upgraded in the future to serve as a back-up facility. New Reservoir Construction and On -Site Improvements The existing reservoir would be replaced with a new partially buried circular pre -stressed concrete tank on the same site. The preliminary design and cross sections of the tank are depicted in Figures 1, 2, and 3 below, and in Attachment B. The roof structure of the new 1.0 MG concrete water tank would be approximately the same height as the existing reservoir's roof structure. Figure 2 - Elevations Design Review 2016-026 November 15, 2016 Page 5 Figure 3 — Elevations Figure 4 - Elevations Shoring would be placed parallel to the existing wall on the northwest side of the site, and the site would be excavated to approximately the same elevation. The new tank would be partially buried, with approximately two (2) to eleven (11) feet of exposed tank wall, and an exposed roof. The site would slope from north to south. A small portion of the site near Valhalla Drive would be paved to provide access for City vehicles for maintenance and inspection purposes. The remainder of the site would be covered with permeable ground cover. A graded and landscaped slope would be provided around the exposed portion of the tank. The wall has been designed to blend with the adjacent residential neighborhood, and a drought tolerant plant palette is proposed in accordance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Design Review 2016-026 November 15, 2016 Page 6 A new booster pump station is proposed at the southwest corner of the reservoir site. The below -ground facility would include two pumps and one fireflow pump. An emergency backup power generator would be positioned above ground and screened from view from the street. To facilitate construction of the reservoir and on-site improvements, temporary construction easements are needed on the two adjacent residential properties. Off -Site Project Features A new 16 -inch inlet/outlet pipeline of about 1,600 feet in length is proposed within street rights-of-way along Simon Ranch Road and Valhalla Drive to replace the existing 10 - inch pipeline. In addition, other pipeline improvements are proposed, including approximately 400 feet of 16 -inch Zone 3 piping, 1,800 feet of 12 -inch Zone 3 piping, and 290 feet of jack and bore from the Tustin Hills Racquet Club to Racquet Hill. Drain line improvements are also proposed in the vicinity of the reservoir site (Attachment B — Design Plans) The existing 6 -inch pipeline through the Tustin Hills Racquet Club parking lot is proposed to be utilized as a drain line from the reservoir and a new 12 -inch pipeline through to Racquet Hill would take its place. A temporary construction easement and a perpetual pipeline easement are needed for the new alignment. Community Outreach Community meetings on the proposed project were held on May 19, 2016, and August 31, 2016. Approximately twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) community members attended one or both of the meetings. Based on the input received, the design of the proposed facility was modified to include decorative stone veneer on the exposed portion of the proposed reservoir. A courtesy notice was mailed to all owners of property within 500 feet of the reservoir site, notifying them of the Council's consideration of Design Review 2016-026 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. As of November 10, 2016, staff had not received any inquiries from the public in response to the courtesy notice. Environmental Analysis A Final Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project (Exhibit A of Resolution No. 16-66). The attached Initial Study discusses potential impact categories and appropriate mitigation measures. Any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and mitigation measures are listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The public comments period for the environmental documents was from October 6, 2016, to October 26, 2016. The City did not receive any written comments from state, regional, and local agencies, or from the general public. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures that are required to avoid or substantially lessen the significant Design Review 2016-026 November 15, 2016 Page 7 effects of the Project identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to meet the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. The MMRP, which is included within Exhibit A to Resolution No. 16-66 provides a checklist of mitigation measures and implementation measures (existing regulatory requirements) identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and which Program is proposed to be adopted if the Project is approved. Estimate Project Schedule Reservoir construction would take approximately 21 months as follows: demolition — 2 months; grading — 6 months; reservoir construction — 7 months; site backfill earthwork and paint — 1 month; pipeline excavation and grading — 1 month; pipeline installation — 3 months; and cover and repave —1 month. Art Valenzuela Water Services Manager Scott Reekstin Principal Planner Attachments: A. Location Maps B. Design Plans C. City Council Resolution No. 16-66 D. City Council Resolution No. 16-67 Stack, P. E. Public Works/City Engineer Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director ATTACHMENT A Location Maps W Chapman Ave F4t' Orange ss E Lftiipman Ave ElModena t Chrprnsn Avg C8 irievi N'e N N w m 1u16e Orange ; s { n 4 VY lw Veta'Ave T� ,g � � E U Meta Ave � *� e � a MainPlace Fairhaven Ave a z ss Y Y a 4i m W Santo Clara Are w E Santa Ows Ave .� North Tustin s r fi 17th S1 17th S1 17th St o {� 261 x � F r PRS CT SITEq v F 4M 1 iry ne Brvd 1 ' w,rs:st Santa Aria EFuSt51 Tustin $anla Ana Zoo Y E nnain St r ; f W Bishop 51'� y r� den Ave C McFadden Ave S5 �F Ei f rt.�glyrvagx �' 'ebr7c� A F FkngN lve �. � 41, Y r� N in N N J 52 x E K%frjel live i 95 � 4r f water Ad. E oyer Rd r A SOUTH CUAST� r +� 741 ONWARD STI E RO I , YYDaafiUAV'1 r , Ave In VINE BtrSA IKESs comptfir 4¢ Ry 4 CO- Ir A N t --I I mile SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin Regional Location Map 1W' -400w, #PROJECT SITE Pioneer Middle School *I 4 -I..w F. -h civus Reach Park 7 ; . Sierra Vista tionols° Peters Canyon 4F Rd Peters Canyon Ownerd" School: r ;2 Pfont@' Rh SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin Local Vicinity Map Location Map 11811 Outlook Lane "I N, VISTA 29.11' a �y �% T r/ 7T `i9 RZSi 1T�� T �e 00 ATTACHMENT B Design Plana or�,E xo� SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin September 21, 2016 a r 1a m SG4E: 1'•3a FIGURE 10 Conceptual Layout FINAL GRADING r. w e FWAL GRADING r- �o SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin August 5, 2016 FIGURE 11 Cross Sections and Grading ATTACHMENT C City Council Resolution No. 16-66 RESOLUTION NO. 16-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR DESIGN REVIEW 2016-026, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That Design Review 2016-026 is considered a "Project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; B. An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project and distributed for public review. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluated the implications of the proposed Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement project. C. Prior to approving of the Project, the City Council evaluated the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and determined that, with incorporation of the mitigation measures, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. D. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration was advertised for public review for 20 days in compliance with Section 15105 of CEQA. E. The City Council of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties regarding the subject Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, at the November 15, 2016, meeting. II. A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The City Council has received and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, prior to recommending approval of the proposed Project and finds that it adequately discusses the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial study and any comments received during the public review process, the City Council finds that although the proposed project could have impacts, there will not be a significant effect because mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration mitigate any potential significant effects to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur. In addition, the City Council finds that the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, Resolution No. 16-66 Page 2 either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. The City Council hereby adopts the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the purpose of approving Design Review 2016-026, and adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto within Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 15th day of November, 2016. JOHN NIELSEN MAYOR ERICA N. RABE CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 16-66 ERICA N. RABE, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 16-66 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 15th day of November, 2016, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: ERICA N. RABE CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A W City Council Resolution No. 16-66 SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR REPLACEMENT PROJECT DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Lead Agency: City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Project Contact: City of Tustin Water Service Art Valenzuela 1472 Service Rd. Tustin, Ca. 92780 (714) 573-3375 CEQA Consultant: Environment Planning Development Solutions, Inc. (EPD) 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92614 October 6, 2016 Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 5 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY........................................................................................ 5 1.2 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES (PDFs) AND STANDARD CONDITIONS/EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, OR POLICIES (PPPs).................................................................................................... 5 1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION............................................................................................. 6 2 PROJECT SETTING........................................................................................................... 7 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION........................................................................................................... 7 2.2 EXISTING LAND USES..........................................................................................................7 2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES................................................................................................ 7 2.4 TUSTIN'S WATER SYSTEM.................................................................................................... 8 2.5 EXISTING PUMP STATION................................................................................................... 8 2.6 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS................................................................ 27 2.7 PROJECT BACKGROUND.................................................................................................. 27 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................. 29 3.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 29 3.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS............................................................................................. 29 3.2.1 RESERVOIR DEMOLITION.......................................................................................................29 3.2.2 NEW RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS......................................29 3.2.3 OFFSITE PROJECT FEATURES.................................................................................................35 3.2.4 CONSTRUCTION PHASING................................................................................................... 36 3.3 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS........................................................................................... 36 3.4 Project Design Features (PDFs).......................................................................................... 37 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM............................................................................. 43 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..................................................... 43 4.2 DETERMINATION...............................................................................................................43 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST QUESTIONS........................................................................ 46 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .......................................... 135 5.1 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS................................................................... 135 5.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES...................................................................... 135 6 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS........................................................... 145 Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 3 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration APPENDICES APPENDIX A TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. REGIONAL LOCATION MAP.................................................................. FIGURE 2. LOCAL VICINITY MAP.......................................................................... FIGURE 3. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH......................................................................... FIGURE 4. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS................................................................. FIGURE 5. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS............................................................................ FIGURE 6. SURROUNDING LAND USES MAP .......................................................... FIGURE 7. EXISTING WATER SYSTEM.................................................................... FIGURE 8. EXISTING ZONE 3 SYSTEM................................................................... FIGURE 9. SCHEMATIC OF EXISTING FACILITIES....................................................... FIGURE 10. CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT......................................................................... FIGURE 1 1 . CROSS SECTIONS AND GRADING......................................................... FIGURE 12. ZONE 1 AND ZONE 3 PIPING............................................................... APPENDICES APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX C NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX D TRIP GENERATION MEMO Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration ...................................... 9 ....................................11 ....................................13 ....................................15 ....................................17 ....................................19 .................................... 21 .................................... 23 .................................... 25 .................................... 31 .................................... 33 .................................... 39 4 I INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the following: • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.); • California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15000 et seq.) Pursuant to CEQA, this Initial Study has been prepared to analyze the potential for significant impacts on the environment resulting from implementation of the proposed Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project. As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, this Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepared by the Lead Agency, the City of Tustin, in consultation with other jurisdictional agencies, to determine if a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is required for the project. This Initial Study informs City decision -makers, affected agencies, and the public of potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. A "significant effect" or "significant impact" on the environment means "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project" (Guidelines §15382). Given the current information about the project site and environs, the City's intent is to adhere to the following CEQA principles: • Provide meaningful early evaluation of site planning constraints, service and infrastructure requirements, and other local and regional environmental considerations. (Pub. Res. Code §21003.1) • Encourage the City to incorporate environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design, and planning at the earliest feasible time. (State CEQA Guidelines §5004[b][3]) • Specify mitigation measures for reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects, and commit the City to future measures containing performance standards to ensure their adequacy when detailed development plans and applications are submitted. (State CEQA Guidelines §15126.4) 1.2 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES (PDFs) AND STANDARD CONDITIONS/EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, OR POLICIES (PPPs) Throughout the impact analysis in this Initial Study, reference is made to 1) City -initiated Project Design Features (PDFs), and 2) existing Standard Conditions applied to all development on the basis of federal, state, or local law, and Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies currently in place which effectively reduce environmental impacts. Standard Conditions and Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies are collectively identified in this document as PPPs. Where applicable, PDFs and PPPs Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 5 are listed to show their effect in reducing potential environmental impacts. Where the application of these measures does not reduce an impact to below a level of significance, a project -specific mitigation measure is introduced. The City would include these PDFs and PPPs along with mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project to ensure their implementation. 1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This IS/MND includes the flowing sections: Section 1.0 Introduction Provides information about CEQA and its requirements for environmental review and explains that an Initial Study/MND was prepared by the City of Tustin to evaluate the proposed project's potential to impact the physical environment. Section 2.0 Settina Provides information about the proposed project's location. Section 3.0 Proiect Description Includes a description of the proposed project's physical features and construction and operational characteristics. Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist Includes the Environmental Checklist and evaluates the proposed project's potential to result in significant adverse effects to the physical environment. Section 5.0 Mitiaation Monitorina and Reportina Program Provides a table of the project's mitigation measures and the applicable PDFs and PPPs. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 6 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 2 PROJECT SETTING 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site encompasses approximately 0.44 acres and is located on two adjacent lots on the northerly corner of the intersection of Outlook Lane and Valhalla Drive at 1 181 1 Outlook Lane, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 104-611-31) and 2081 Valhalla Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 (APN: 104-611-321333). Although the site address is in Santa Ana, the property is an incorporated City of Tustin island surrounded by areas within unincorporated County of Orange. Regional location and local vicinity maps are provided in Figure 1, Regional Location Map, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity Map, respectively. The project site is bound by Outlook Lane to the southeast, Valhalla Drive southwest, and single-family residences to the north, northeast, and northwest. Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, provides an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding areas. 2.2 EXISTING LAND USES The site appears to be a vegetated slope from the abutting streets, with minimal improvements, including ornamental ground cover and shrubs and trees, associated irrigation, storm drainage features and a low, approximately 1 to 3 -foot concrete masonry unit (CMU) block exposed tank wall. The existing reservoir is covered with a thin layer of soil that has little or no vegetation. A CMU 8 -foot tall block wall borders the north-west of the site, retaining soil from the adjacent property and supporting the concrete roof panels of the existing reservoir, as shown in Figures 4, Existing Site Conditions, and 5, Site Photographs. Behind the wall is an approximately 3 -foot tall vent structure, low-level equipment housing and a 121 -feet long by 100 -feet wide dirt pad, under which is a partially -buried water reservoir. Existing site conditions are depicted in Figure 4, Existing Site Conditions, and site photographs are provided in Figure 5 Site Photographs. The existing tank consists of rectangular 1.4 million gallon (MG) trapezoidal bottom, partially buried structure in the northern portion of the site. It was constructed in 1960 and has concrete - block perimeter walls, a concrete roof, and is lined with gunite. The tank is approximately 30 feet deep (see Figure 4, Existing Site Conditions). The existing roof was constructed with cast -in-place (CIP) concrete columns and precast double tee beams with perimeter concrete walls that varied in height from 8 feet along the southwest side to approximately 12 feet high along the northwest side. The existing 8 -foot -high CMU block wall along the northwestern boundary retains soil from the adjacent property and supports the concrete roof panels of the existing reservoir, as shown in Figure 4, Existing Site Conditions. above. 2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES The area immediately surrounding the existing Simon Ranch Reservoir is residential, with one nearby commercial facility, the Tustin Hills Racquet Club as shown in Figure 6, Surrounding Land Uses Map. The reservoir sits on the northerly corner of the intersection of Outlook Lane to the southeast, and Valhalla Drive to the southwest. Outlook Lane is a cul-de-sac, and Valhalla Drive turns in to Highview Drive as the street bends to the northeast, also as a cul-de-sac. To the southwest of the reservoir is Simon Ranch Road, and directly south is Liane Lane. Encircling Liane Lane to the south are the joining streets, Pavillion Drive on the eastern side of Liane Lane, and Salt Air Drive on the western side. To Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 7 the east of the existing reservoir is the Tustin Hills Racquet Club. The southeastern side of the racquet club is where the County of Orange border is with the City of Tustin. 2.4 TUSTIN'S WATER SYSTEM The City of Tustin's domestic water system, as shown in Figure 7, Existing Water System, provides service to portions of Tustin territory north of Warner Avenue and Edinger Avenue, and west of Red Hill Avenue, Alder Lane and its northerly extension, Browning Avenue and Ranchwood Lane. The system also serves unincorporated Orange County territory west of the 55 Freeway and south of Fairhaven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The service area elevations vary from 60 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Red Hill Avenue to 435 feet amsl in the Lemon Heights area. In order to accommodate these large variations in elevation and provide adequate pressure to customers, the water system consists of three pressure Zones (1, 2, and 3). A pressure zone is a designated area covering a range of elevations supplied with water having a common pressure. Tustin's water pressure zones serve different elevations of increasing height as the zone numbers increase. Thus, the average ground elevations for Zones 1, 2, and 3 are 210 feet, 280 feet, and 400 feet amsl, respectively. Simon Ranch Reservoir provides water storage for the City's Pressure Zone 1 to satisfy peak hour water demands and to deliver emergency water in the event of a fire, and also serves as storage for the Simon Ranch Booster Pump Station. The existing Simon Ranch Booster Pump Station is located at 1 1921 Simon Ranch Road, to the southeast of the reservoir, south of Salt Air Drive in the Lemon Heights area of the County of Orange, as shown in Figures 5, Site Photographs, 6, Surrounding Land Uses Map, and 7, Existing Water System. The booster pump station brings water from the Zone 1 system to the Zone 3 system. The Zone 3 system also includes the 0.17 MG Lyttle Reservoir, which has a high water level of 480 feet amsl. Lyttle Reservoir, shown in Figure 7, Existing Water System, sits south of Foothill Boulevard at the northerly extension of Vista Mar. 2.5 EXISTING PUMP STATION The Simon Ranch Booster Pump Station was constructed over 50 years ago, and consists of two 25 horsepower single stage horizontal centrifugal pumps located in a below -grade vault behind the curb on the north side of Simon Ranch Road, as shown in Figure 5, Site Photographs. Behind the vault, located in a structure built into the slope, are the electrical switchgear, service meter, pump controls, and 10,000 gallon hydropneumatic tank. The pump station takes suction from an existing 10 -inch diameter asbestos cement (AC) Zone 1 pipe on Simon Ranch Drive, and pumps into an 8 - inch diameter AC Zone 3 pipe. The Zone 3 system piping consists of 4 -inch, 6 -inch, and 8 -inch pipes that are not capable of providing the required fire flow to many areas of Zone 3. The Zone 3 system is shown on Figure 8, Existing Zone 3 System. A portion of the existing Zone 1 pipe that supplies the Simon Ranch Reservoir crosses the private property at 1 1861 Simon Ranch Road. The Zone 1 system that feeds the Simon Ranch Booster Pump Station includes the Rawlings Reservoir, which has a high water level of 305 feet amsl, and the Simon Ranch Reservoir with a high water level of 305 feet amsl. A schematic of the existing project facilities is presented on Figure 9, Schematic of Existing Facilities. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 8 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration z W Chapman Ave Orange ss E Chapman Ave EI Modena E Chapman Arm Canyon I'f,,, PYe v M 241 Wile ('Orange m a { r, r W La Veta Ave 8 E La Veia Ave w y 77 8 MainPlace Mall1 Fairhaven Ave 'Yee m W Santa Clara Ave u, E Santa Clara Ave a i z w North Tustin 17th St z l 7th SE 17 t e 261 Z !T XPR4CT SITE# ,"F 4th Sr Irvine Blvd 9 d 4P wlstst Santa Ana EFirst St Tustin Santa Ana Zoo dk palieh G.Rf r+AA ] rfii E Main St w bishop S; 261 den Ave E Mc Fadden Ave EI r. N{1RFNPAA7{ � DAtpk�� E Edinger Ave' 10 V} N 03 U. a d Q it 261 'T EWarnerAye PVI)m itd E Dyer Rd c°c sa�jTH COAST H WAST ETRo I -Ja1rt g WC W"ffiH?Y _e tij1 Ave Anton B;'16 40 12•. if71���1FAllS1hIFS5 G',�� 133 COMPI Fi rv!w 4 N 1 mile SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT FIGURE I City of Tustin Regional Location Map August 5, 2016 MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 10 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration a $ ¢a a Peters Canyon Al. r'a O` �rn � � n a y � a $ ¢a a Peters Canyon SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin August 5, 2016 FIGURE 2 Local Vicinity Map �rn � � n t s a R ti3h � a ars 'a C-1'on x Rd { Peters Canyon Elementary School ¢ *PROJECT SITE m m gP r a Pioneer Middle School pa° 4 � t r W ro -Q, C � �d "a m 4111 f o �9ps9au - Mari s�0ia �' a � A iust4nRanchRd Ciirrf5 Ranch Park f•��e o Q° 4a � ° G000le Sierra Vista ■ �z Q� N 1/4 mile SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin August 5, 2016 FIGURE 2 Local Vicinity Map MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 2 {� 0. j ;.. PROJECT - YYSITE' TUS IN HILLS 1 RACQUET CIJJB w, Ar o �-1 d v� Simon Ranch Rd � it MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 14 EXIST 13' 11-10UTLET - 3732'=1'-0• SECTIONAL PLAN rz°s•o r 2' a' a s' 3' 7' 313'=r'-3' SECTION SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin August 5, 2016 FIGURE 4 Existing Site Conditions MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 16 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin September 21, 2016 5a. View of Simon Ranch reservoir from intersection of Valhalla Drive and Outlook Lane. 5b. View of northwest boundary wall and single-family home beyond, as seen from Valhalla Drive. 5c. View of existing booster pump station KEY MAP FIGURE 5 Site Photographs MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 8 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration M , t _ _ Single -Family r ti Homes ti �T i a PROJECT 0/0 SITE IL,0. 5 1;� • f � �- ` r - i J iii .4 #6 i..Single-Family • Domes :rF#• w 4 - r _ ,r r r TUSTIN MULS xi� .= RACQU)ET "CLUB } - R 116100, z 5 Yrr' •�� � f _ Simon Ranch Rd MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 20 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 22 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin August 5, 2016 FIGURE 8 Existing Zone 3 System MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 24 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration W •W 0 a - oP (O M N R i0 V O Z 0 „ate E � w >+ o 'ow V)e 2 c�Nd Ecm� �F uOE U 5`v�i NLL' � 7 U z m 90 C euoz o �- m ON = o Erc o o N E TO V o oom 2 o. m� 30 111 wa Z� f o E 11111 w O c ; O >jN Z2i� yz U � w - C=m % 'E o>- o ° o v A o f zU U' ZQU O Nm �= N d o w�Eo N $z mj c IL E E m n 3 0 E rc� y o taro nm N N Ky2 c - mE > n cLL of � m' S�: m c 0 N J - N N E N- x_ 3 N C 3 O 2 N w N F � = m 3 q N o Z F r O E w 3 o DE m3 >io c > w_mE O O T c c .-;zo na w .0. c - > N o w A U .�N LL >o m C a'o E E w p � rn LL OI C m K N - N= F C �! E U! O F N M 0 U 3 E _ E - v, o C3zo n N v v v N 3 t N C C C O O Ol ! O O O y A o a` o o>+o m W 2 LL N N N LL F W a n m m 0 d�oLL U > dLED- c 0 m W w LL M LL - h w N E r � A v3o a A U V E a=- Y 2im E Ol LL E c N C O > > O v oom a = r A � rn U A O y E c y '3 O E E E E E > .�� g Y O A U 3 v'�oo c_ "30 E A - v c > 3 a U 3 K o A wN N - N O N O m N U O O N E N . D D C G) J W •W MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 26 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 2.6 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS The project site is an incorporated City of Tustin island within unincorporated County of Orange. The site has a City of Tustin General Plan land use designation of Public/Institutional (PI).1 The surrounding residential neighborhood has a land use designation of Suburban Residential (0.5 — 18 DU/Ac.) and County of Orange zoning of Small Estates (E4).2 The nearby Racquet Club has a Tustin land use designation of PI and is zoned General Agriculture (A1). 2.7 PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Tustin Water Services Division supplies domestic water to the project area and adjacent areas and maintains water wells, water main lines, service laterals, hydrants, and water storage facilities. The City's system currently provides for 13.83 MG of the total storage from six different reservoirs, and the existing Simon Ranch Reservoir's storage capacity is approximately 1.4 MG. 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 emergency or repair situation. The existing pump station needs to be replaced, and its electrical room is not sufficiently sized. The hydropneumatic tank's pressure rating is lower than the Zone 3 operating pressure at the pump station, and therefore it does not currently have the capacity to provide fire protection to Zone 3. The City completed technical studies of the existing reservoir and pump station in 1990, 1996, and 2000, and determined that, due to age and existing deteriorated condition, the Simon Ranch Reservoir should be rehabilitated or replaced. The City also determined that the existing Simon Ranch Pump Station has reached the end of its service life and should be replaced. The required fireflow for zone 3 is 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm), and the maximum fireflow of the current station is only 1100 gpm. Also, fire hydrant spacing requirements are not currently met. A Preliminary Design Report was prepared for the City of Tustin on the Simon Ranch Reservoir, Pipeline, and Booster Pump Station Project, and project design approach that follows was determined to be the best alternative (Black and Veatch 2006). City of Tustin General Plan Land Use Map. 2 Land Use Element Map, Orange County General Plan, available at http://ocplanning.net/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=40198. Suburban Residential (1 B) maximum density ranges from 0.5 — 18 DU/Ac, 2.59 persons per DU, 1-47 persons per acre. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 27 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 28 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION The Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement project involves the following components which are described below: 1) demolition of the existing reservoir, 2) construction of a new 1 MG water tank and associated improvements, including a booster pump station, and 3) construction of offsite pipelines. 3.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3.2.1 RESERVOIR DEMOLITION The proposed project includes demolition of the existing 1.4 MG reservoir. The reservoir structure to be demolished is approximately 121 -feet long by 100 -feet wide, with a side wall height varying from 27 to 31 feet. The existing side walls are sloped at a 1:1 ratio, and are lined with four inches of gunite. The tank has a single 10 -inch inlet/outlet pipe that enters the reservoir from the bottom, and an 8 -inch overflow pipe that exists the reservoir wall and discharges onto Valhalla Drive. During demolition, the existing concrete roof, grouted CMU block wall, the reservoir's concrete roof - support columns, concrete foundation, gunite reservoir walls, and hopper bottom would be removed. Also, the portion of ten -inch Zone 1 pipeline that crosses private property at 1 1861 Simon Ranch Road would be cut at both sides of the private property, plugged at the ends, filled with a concrete slurry mix, and abandoned in place. Non -friable asbestos containing materials have been identified in the existing mastic in the roof panel and stucco, and lead has been identified in the existing paint. These materials would be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable procedures established by state and local agencies. Demolition of the existing reservoir is estimated to take approximately two months. Because there are no alternate sources of water supply to Zone 3, operation of the existing pump station must be maintained during construction of the new reservoir and pump station. The existing pump station may be upgraded in the future to serve as a back-up facility. 3.2.2 NEW RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION AND ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS The new fireflow pump would be able to pump 2,500 gpm alone, which would meet the required fireflow for zone 3. The two regularly operating 850 gmp pumps used in conjunction with the new fireflow pump would reach over 3,200 gpm if necessary. Five additional fire hydrants would be added to the system to ensure fire hydrant spacing requirements are met. The existing reservoir would be replaced with a new partially buried circular tank at the same site as the old tank. The new tank would consist of pre -stressed concrete, with steel hoop reinforcement in the concrete sidewall and the tendons from the base to the sidewall which allow the reservoir to flex, if necessary, without failing. The new tank would exhibit an interior diameter of 95 feet, a finished floor elevation of approximately 283 feet, an overflow elevation of approximately 305 feet, a water depth of 30 feet, a total volume of 1 MG, and a tank roof elevation of approximately 309 feet. The roof elevation of the new tank would be approximately the same height as the existing reservoir's roof structure. The preliminary design of the tank is depicted in Figure 10, Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 29 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, Conceptual Layout, and cross-sections are shown on Figure 1 1, Cross Sections and Grading. Shoring would be placed parallel to the existing wall on the northwest side of the site, and the site would be excavated to approximately the same elevation. The tank would be partially buried, with approximately 2- to 1 1 -feet of exposed tank wall, and an exposed roof. The site would slope north to south. A small portion of the site near Valhalla Drive would be paved to provide access for City vehicles for maintenance and inspection purposes, and the rest of the site would be covered with permeable ground cover. A graded and landscaped slope would be provided around the exposed portion of the tank. A new Zone 3 pump station would be constructed on the southwest corner of the reservoir site, as shown in Figure 12, Zone 1 and Zone 3 Piping. The pump station would be a below -ground reinforced concrete structure with two pumps, one fireflow pump, an emergency generator, and a Zone 3 and Zone 1 interconnection through a pressure regulating valve. Duty pumps are sized to meet the Zone's peak hour demands, which would be necessary when the Lyttle Reservoir is out of service. The emergency generator would be constructed to power the pump station during commercial power outages, because the Simon Ranch Booster Pump Station is the only City facility that can provide supply to Zone 3, and its operation is necessary to deliver the required fire flows. New underground water pipelines and valves would connect the new booster pump station to the new tank. The booster pump station would take suction from a 16 -inch stainless steel Zone 1 reservoir outlet pipeline and discharge into a 16 -inch ductile iron Zone 3 pipeline on Valhalla Drive. New isolation valves would make it possible to supply the pump station from the Zone 1 system when the new reservoir needs to be removed from service for maintenance. Variable frequency drives would be provided for each pump for supplying the daily system demands when Lyttle Reservoir is out of service, and a pressure regulating valve from Zone 3 to Zone 1 would also reduce excessive system pressure during periods of very low flows. An electrical service and motor control center would also be constructed above ground for the pump station. The onsite pump station improvements would significantly increase the reliability of water storage in the eastern portion of its distribution system by providing a water system with a potable water storage capacity at least equivalent to existing storage capacity in Zone 1 and increase pumping capacity to Zone 3 for adequate fire protection. Another onsite project feature includes a new 8 -foot solid wall (height varying due to elevation changes on the abutting streets) that would be built on the southwest and southeast sides of the site along Valhalla Drive and Outlook Lane. The wall would be designed by an architect to fit in with the neighborhood surroundings, and would be setback from Valhalla Drive and Outlook Lane to provide space for landscaping. Landscaping would be installed by the City of Tustin between the curb and the proposed wall. A drought tolerant planting palette has been created based on the County's standard plant list. Furthermore, a water quality feature such as a modular wetlands or filterra unit would also be included on the site to filter storm water runoff contaminates prior to leaving the site. Access would be available via an access gate on Valhalla Drive, and a concrete stairway to the roof of the tank would be built. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 30 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration �tdl INSPEOTION rPUMP yTATION DRAIN VAULT - / `- N L 7 r_ CONCRETE BLOCK RETAINING WALL � �4 TRANSFORM\ AE '- v x ► GDNGRETE BLDGK PERIMETER WALL IB HIGH) GNI ONCRETE BLOCK ERIDETERIMETERWALL IO HIGFi1S �i ' x TANK ROOF ACCESS STAIRS RROPOSED BELOW GRADE L Y j;. aaosTER PUMP STATION 1.0 MG RESERVOIR CONCRETE BLOCK INSIDE RADIUS=47.5' _ RETAINING OVAL L TOP OF ROOF SLAB AT EDGE 309.]] TOP OPM1ALL 301 .00 I � TE �� WI G TE \ ' GENERATOR ACCESS STAIRS PERIMETER WALL (8 HIGH) I GDNGRETE BLOCK 1 1, F{LTERRA UNIT BACKUP EMERGENCY D165tl1L.Q\E\N\yERA R I / 1 9 � I BG m / / — 0 O CETEBLDGK ESERVOIRCR DT VE VAD ' PERIMETER WALL (e' HIGH I� O)31� OOy �, ass 1 DECORATIVE RETAINING (TYPICAL) s h G i SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin September 21, 2016 B s iB' zB' SCALE v=zB' FIGURE 10 Conceptual Layout MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 32 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration A FINAL GRADING E ORA Y EASE SENT NN- LTo N. REM vEOA ND REI cED' ANO -Ic IL 320 ENCPOSEE 359,7 ASP- LTGR vEL 3,5. s( -P) PF III SUED SUFFACE O (EOG OE OATI I. ON OOF( P) DG OFv n 55(0 ER O ( OPE N -WL3 3 =cR WL - � 300 ROD R GR 1- 12 t------------ MI INTE M D RAIN(3 P) �F S E 'Famom mml 16,m tam 280 K TEED 9�EpAR 30 IL PVC INER PER%IOK -7 LOOR GRAIN ER DI AIL 1 320 300 280 Tot 0971 MSP- LTIGR VEL -P j T,; O (EDG O COATI OON OOF( P) E 5(EO6 -.F FE T) PROP' RED 12 SL -L Fill IISHE ALL VA- LLA DF P 09. 0 EXIST URFA E 305 (VERF OW) -� 01— GHW 303 ( WLIN 5 -WL 295 00 INTURI12 MIN IN ERIM ;RAI L 03P0, L 283..5 (HP) RAI O ADING K(MIN) t—INII—C E RAIN K(MI _) CKFILGSU DRAI 320 320 300 300 260 260 280 A FINAL GRADING B FINAL GRADING SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin August 5, 2016 FIGURE I I Cross Sections and Grading Tot 0971 MSP- LTIGR VEL -P j T,; O (EDG O COATI OON OOF( P) E 5(EO6 -.F FE T) PROP' RED 12 SL -L Fill IISHE ALL VA- LLA DF P 09. 0 EXIST URFA E 305 (VERF OW) -� 01— GHW 303 ( WLIN 5 -WL 295 00 INTURI12 MIN IN ERIM ;RAI L 03P0, L 283..5 (HP) RAI O ADING K(MIN) t—INII—C E RAIN K(MI _) CKFILGSU DRAI 320 320 300 300 280 280 260 260 B FINAL GRADING SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin August 5, 2016 FIGURE I I Cross Sections and Grading MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 34 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3MMIMOMMIM"ff M, 3.2.3 OFFSITE PROJECT FEATURES The project includes the following offsite pipeline improvements, shown in Figure 12, Zone 1 and Zone 3 Piping. A new 16 -inch inlet/outlet pipeline would be constructed to replace the 10 -inch pipeline. The new pipeline would be routed within the County right-of-way along the Simon Ranch Road and Valhalla Drive. The pipeline would be 1,600 feet long and would connect to the reservoir serving Pressure Zone 1. The pipeline would be connected to the south end of the reservoir, run south down Valhalla Drive, then west and northwest along Simon Ranch Road. Several reaches of the existing Zone 3 piping would be replaced with larger pipes in order to meet the required fire flow for Zone 3. A new 16 -inch diameter pipe would be provided between the new booster pump station and Simon Ranch Road. A new 12 -inch diameter Zone 3 pipe would be constructed on Simon Ranch Road and Pavillion Drive between Liane Lane and the entrance to the Tustin Hills Racquet Club with connections to the existing Zone 3 piping at Pavillion Drive and Liane Lane. A new 12 -inch Zone 3 pipe would be constructed through the Tustin Hills Racquet Club parking lot and on Racquet Hill to Vista Mar, with connections to the existing pipes on Las Luces and Vista Mar. Also, new 8 -inch diameter Zone 3 pipes and fire hydrants would be constructed on Via Rancho and Vista Mar cul-de-sacs, replacing the existing 4 -inch diameter pipes. The project would construct approximately 400 feet of 16 -inch Zone 3 piping, 1,800 feet of 12 -inch Zone 3 piping, and 290 - feet of jack and bore from Tustin Hills Racquet Club to Racquet Hill, and five new fire hydrants. The new Zone 1 and Zone 3 piping that would be constructed is shown in Figure 12, Zone 1 and Zone 3 Piping. The project also includes reservoir drain line improvements. The new reservoir would have a drainage facility that would primarily consist of 600 feet of existing 8 -inch and 900 feet of 6 -inch diameter Zone 3 piping that would be paralleled with new, larger Zone 3 pipes. These pipes would be converted into a reservoir drain facility. Approximately 200 feet of existing 4 -inch Zone 3 pipe would be replaced with 270 feet of 6 -inch pipe, extending to an existing catch basin at the south- east end of Racquet Hill. The project would also include a 60 -foot sewer relocation on Simon Ranch Road. The proposed reservoir drain is shown in Figure 13, Reservoir Drain. 3.2.3.7 Temporary Construction Easements To maximize the size of the tank, a temporary construction easement would be required to access, modify, and repair two immediately adjacent properties, and a 2 -inch gas line would need to be relocated. The portion of the existing gas line to be relocated is shown in Figure 13, Reservoir Drain. The residential property adjacent to the project site along Valhalla Drive has a perimeter wall tied to the existing Simon Ranch Reservoir wall, as described above. Demolishing the existing reservoir may damage this wall, and the landscaped backyard of the Valhalla Drive property. A 10 -foot wide temporary construction easement would be required for demolition and repair of the backyard, as shown in Figure 1 1, Cross Sections and Grading. The residential property adjacent to the site along Outlook Lane has a steep vegetated slope leading up to the existing reservoir site. Proposed shoring for the interim grading would extend into this property line. A 15 -foot wide temporary construction easement, proposed in Figure 11, Cross Sections and Grading, would be required to grade down the existing slope that borders the site, Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 35 install shoring (on the City's property), and to repair the adjacent property as required once the project is completed. 3.2.4 CONSTRUCTION PHASING Equipment to be used for demolition activities would include a crane, a loader, concrete trucks, an onsite concrete pump, a compact, and an air compressor. Concrete and dump truck trips and construction -worker vehicular trips would also occur during construction. Approximately 12 to 14 workers would be present on the project site on any given day. A lay down area would be approximately five miles from the project site. Construction is expected to begin in the first quarter of 2017. Traffic would always be allowed, and no street closings would occur. No construction work would be performed on weekends or nights. Construction start time would be after lam. Traffic control plans for egress and ingress would be established. Reservoir construction would take approximately 22 months, assuming the following phases: Phase 1 — Demolition (2 months) Phase 2 — Grading (6 month) Phase 3 — Reservoir Construction (7 months) Phase 4 — Backfill Earthwork and Paint (1 month) Phase 5 — Excavate and Grade Pipeline (1 month) Phase 6 — Pipeline Installation (3 months) Phase 7 — Cover and Repave (1 month) 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 IS/MND 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 (CIP-601 14) • Award of contract for construction In addition to the primary discretionary actions listed above, subsequent approvals by the City of Tustin may include: Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 36 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration • Demolition permit • Grading permit • Building permit • Acquisition of temporary construction easement agreements on private properties to the northeast and northwest • Creation of new pipeline easements OTHER AGENCIES This IS/MND 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 (DOHD) — The plans will be approved by the DOHD, and the amendment to the permit will need to be approved before putting the tank online. • County of Orange — o Approval of an encroachment permit for all work done in the County right of way for pipeline, paving, and temporary grading and shoring. Impacted Streets including Valhalla Drive, Outlook Lane, Simon Ranch Road, Racquet Hill, and Via Rancho. o Approval of landscaping plans o Approval of WQMP o Traffic Control Plans as required • Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) — approval of storm drain connection to OCFCD facility 3.4 Project Design Features (PDFs) The following PDFs are incorporated into the project by the City's project to avoid and minimize impacts. These features would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PDF 1: Wall Design The project shall install an 8 -foot solid wall along the southeastern and southwestern property boundary (Valhalla Drive and Outlook Lane frontages) incorporating building materials that blend with the surrounding neighborhood. The wall shall be set back to provide space for landscaping. PDF 2: Landscaping Landscaping in front of the wall along the Valhalla Drive and Outlook Lane frontages shall be planted, irrigated, and maintained by the City of Tustin. PDF 3: Pump Station Maintenance The existing pump station shall continue to be maintained by the City of Tustin, and shall be painted once per year. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 37 MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, PDF 4: Northern Noise Barrier Prior to demolition, the project shall install a solid, 15 -foot high sound barrier consisting of acoustical blankets, plywood, or other material with a transmission loss of at least 15 dB along the northeastern and northwestern site boundaries. The City of Tustin, at its discretion, may conduct noise studies throughout implementation of the project to demonstrate the noise barrier may be removed if the noise study establishes that interior noise levels for adjacent sensitive receptors would be 50 dB or less. PDF 5: Southern Noise Barrier Prior to demolition, the project shall install a solid, 10 -foot high sound barrier consisting of acoustical blankets, plywood, or other material with a transmission loss of at least 10 dB along the southwestern and southeastern site boundaries. The City of Tustin, at its discretion, may conduct noise studies throughout implementation of the project to demonstrate the noise barrier may be removed if the noise study establishes that interior noise levels for adjacent sensitive receptors would be 50 dB or less. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 38 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 40 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 42 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 4 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. 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below (X) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 4.2 DETERMINATION To be completed by the Lead Agency. On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 43 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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 as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as 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, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less 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 "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analysis 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. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 44 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3=1111111-1111170MMIMMIff M, (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 should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 45 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration MMW-lvr-mml--gmff M, 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. 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 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? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur if the vista was screened from view, the access to a formerly available public viewing position was blocked, or visual resources were obstructed by view or access to them. The General Plan describes the City of Tustin as having "hillside areas which offer sweeping panoramic views of the Pacific Coast and Saddleback Mountains."3 The City encourages the preservation of views as much as possible, and will consider protecting public views along the ridge lines, views toward the inland mountains and along scenic transportation corridors. Significant public scenic resources in Tustin are conceptually identified in the Tustin General Plan's Conservation/Open Space/Recreation (COSR) Element. Also, it is the policy of the City to "monitor and limit development of Peters Canyon Ridgeline consistent with the requirements of the East Tustin Specific Plan, Grading and Excavation Code and Grading Manual," through the Hillside Review process.4 3 City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element (November 20, 2012), available at http://www.tustinca.org/civicax/f i lebank/blobd load.aspx?B lobl D=23071. 4 Id. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration EN MMW-lvr-mml--gmff M, The proposed site is surrounded by residential uses to the east, west, north, and south. There is one commercial facility to the southeast, the Tustin Hills Racquet Club. The residential uses immediately surrounding the reservoir are situated at a lower elevation than the Reservoir, except for Valhalla Drive to the northwest, which is situated at a higher elevation than the reservoir. The top of the existing reservoir is at an elevation that varies from 308 to 312 feet, while the property to the northwest is approximately 317 feet amsl. The other surrounding properties are situated at a lower elevation than the Reservoir. Because the residence to the northwest is located at a higher elevation, the primary visual focal point from it is of the distant background. The Reservoir does not obscure the distant views from this residence. Views of the project site from residential uses to the southwest are obstructed by vegetation and large ornamental trees on the project site. Views of the project site to the immediate northwest are obstructed by an existing 8 -foot high CMU block retaining wall along the northwestern boundary on the residential side. Views of the project site from the northeast are obstructed by vegetation. Some views of the project site from the east are not obstructed. The proposed project would replace the existing reservoir with a new tank, which would not alter the land use. As shown in Figures 10, Conceptual Layout, and 1 1, Cross Sections and Grading, the proposed water tank would be partially buried and the height of the structure would be similar to the existing reservoir structure. Only the residence to the northwest of the project site on Valhalla Drive has a view of mountains, but it is a private view which would not change. Public views are only afforded from streets, and these views would not change with implementation of the project. The new water tank would not obstruct views from existing vantage points surrounding the project site. The 8 -foot high wall that would be built around the tank would alter the visual appearance of the project site, but would not result in an adverse effect on a scenic vista. The proposed wall would completely block the tank from the view of the residential uses to the northeast. Based on the County of Orange General Plan Scenic Highway Plan Map and the City of Tustin General Plan (Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element), there are no designated scenic highways or vistas in the project area.5 The photographs demonstrate that views of scenic resources would not be obstructed by the project, so upgrading the water system would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic resources. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. According to the California Department of Transportation, the City of Tustin does not contain any officially eligible state scenic highways.6 The nearest Officially Designated State Scenic Highway is State Route 91, 6.82 miles away.? The nearest Eligible State Scenic Highways that are not officially designated are State Route 1 (approximately 12 miles away), State Route 74 (19 5 Scenic Highway Plan Map, Ch. IV, County of Orange General Plan (November 8, 2004), available at http://ocplanning.net/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=8588; Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, City of Tustin General Plan; Officially Designated County Scenic Highways, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/l 6_livability/scenic_highways/lists/OD_County_Scenic_Hwys_2015.pdf; and California Scenic Highway Mapping System (last updated September 7, 201 1), Caltrans, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/l 6—livability/scenic—highways/index.htm. 6 California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Caltrans. 7 Id. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 47 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration miles), State Route 57 (13 miles), and another section of State Route 91 (9 miles). These are included in Orange County's General Plan Scenic Highway Map.8 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is part of the City of Tustin, and has a General Plan designation of Public/Institutional (PI).9 The project site lies within an unincorporated County of Orange residential neighborhood, which is designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) and Suburban Residential.10 The nearby Racquet Club is also PI. The visual character of the project site and surrounding areas is shown in Figures 5, Site Photographs, and 6, Surrounding Land Uses Map. As shown, the project area is dominated by single family -residential and one nearby commercial use (Tustin Hills Racquetball Club). The project site itself appears to be a sparsely landscaped slope. The existing reservoir would be replaced with a new partially buried circular tank at the same site as the existing tank. The proposed tank would consist of pre -stressed concrete, with steel hoop reinforcement in the concrete sidewall and the tendons from the base to the sidewall which allow the reservoir to flex, if necessary, without failing. The new tank would exhibit an interior diameter of 95 feet, a finished floor elevation of approximately 283 feet, an overflow elevation of approximately 305 feet, a water depth of 30 feet, a total volume of 1 MG, and a tank roof elevation of approximately 309 feet. The roof elevation of the new tank would be approximately the same height as the existing reservoir's roof structure. The preliminary design of the tank is depicted in Figure 10, Conceptual Layout, and cross-sections are shown on Figure 11, Cross Sections and Grading. Shoring would be placed parallel to the existing wall on the northwest side of the site, and the site would be excavated to approximately the same elevation. The tank would be partially buried, with approximately 2- to 1 1 -feet of exposed tank wall, and an exposed roof. The site would slope north to south. The reservoir would have an 8 -foot security/screen wall around it, as well as landscaping, that would shield views and buffer view of the site. View simulations were prepared for the proposed project. Figure 14, Site Perspective 1, provides a before and after view of the project site from the intersection of Valhalla Drive and Outlook Lane. Figure 15, Site Perspective 2, is a before and after view from Valhalla Drive, west of the project site, looking northeast at the project site. Figure 16, Site Perspective 3, is a before and after view of the project site from Outlook Lane, east of the project site looking west. 8 Scenic Highway Plan Map, Ch. IV, County of Orange General Plan. 9 City of Tustin General Plan Land Use Map. 10 Land Use Element Map, Orange County General Plan, available at http://ocplanning.net/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=40198. Suburban Residential (1 B) maximum density ranges from 0.5 — 18 DU/Ac, 2.59 persons per DU, 1-47 persons per acre. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 48 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration EXISTING SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT FIGURE 14 City of Tustin September 21, 2016 Site Perspective 1 MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 50 CONCEPT SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin September 21, 2016 FIGURE 15 Site Perspective 2 MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 52 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR PROJECT City of Tustin September 21, 2016 FIGURE 16 Site Perspective 3 MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 54 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration ©11113111 • • As shown, the top three -feet of the reservoir tank would be visible from certain public vantage points. The small segment of reservoir visible above the perimeter wall would be painted in varying neutral tones to blend in with the wall and surrounding landscaping. As proposed, the architectural design and low-lying California native plant landscaping would ensure that the proposed project is visually appealing and compatible with the surrounding single-family homes. The proposed project would change the character of project site from a sparsely landscaped vacant -appearing slope, to an 8 -foot perimeter wall with extensive landscaping, similar, but slightly higher than immediately adjacent residential perimeter walls. Although the visual character of the site as viewed from Valhalla Drive and Outlook Lane would be altered, the proposed wall and landscaping would shield the site. The wall would be built according to PDF 1 and landscaping would be planted according to PDF 2. The views of the site from the west, north, east, and west are not the primary focus of the viewsheds from these areas and the visual character of the site would not be substantially degraded. The suburban residential character of the area would not change with the implementation of the project; the alteration would be from a vacant, sparsely landscaped lot to a gated reservoir. The materials used for the wall would be neutrally -toned and would blend the site with the surrounding residences. Additionally, the existing booster pump station associated with the reservoir is located at 11921 Simon Ranch Road, southeast of the reservoir, is also surrounded by the same single-family residential neighborhood. With the construction of the new on-site booster pump station, the existing station would be used as an emergency backup. Pursuant to PDF 3, the City of Tustin would be required to maintain its appearance. There would be no change in the visual character or quality of the old booster pump station and its surroundings. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the visual quality and character of the site and its surroundings. Because of the nature of the proposed project and its compatibility with the current use of the site, visual impacts associated with development of the proposed project would be less than significant. 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. Spill light occurs when lighting fixtures such as streetlights, parking lot lighting, exterior building lighting, and landscape lighting are not properly aimed or shielded to direct light to the desired location and light escapes and partially illuminates a surrounding location. Sensitive uses (e.g., residential uses) surrounding the project site could be impacted by the light from development within the boundaries of the project site. Glare is the result of improperly aimed or blocked lighting sources that are visible against a dark background such as the night sky. Glare may also refer to the sensation experienced looking into an excessively bright light source that causes a reduction in the ability to see or causes discomfort. Glare generally does not result in illumination of off-site locations but results in a visible source of light viewable from a distance. Glare could occur from building materials of the new structures, including glass, concrete, stucco, wood, and other materials. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours. Any construction -related illumination during evening and nighttime hours would consist of the minimum lighting required for safety and security purposes only and would occur only for the duration required for the temporary construction Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 55 ©D • process. Due to its limited scope and short duration, light resulting from construction activities would not substantially impact sensitive uses, substantially alter the character of off-site areas surrounding the construction area, or interfere with the performance of an off-site activity. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and light impacts associated with construction would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. The project site is currently illuminated by nighttime security lighting, street lighting, and wall lighting. Surrounding lighting conditions are typical of similar urban environments with residential uses. The proposed project includes security lighting at the tank hatches, in the event that emergency night work is required. Beyond the project site there are existing sources of light from surrounding residential communities and the Racquet Club. The City's Zoning Code has light and glare standards applicable to all exterior lighting.'' Outdoor lighting must minimize impacts from light trespass and glare to reduce conflict from unnecessary illumination for nonresidential development related to design, height, installation, and maintenance. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, these lighting requirements are reviewed and verified by the City under Standard Conditions of Approval (Site Lighting Requirements). Adherence to all applicable sections of the City's Municipal Code, Uniform Security Code, Zoning Code, and Standard Conditions of Approval would ensure that new sources of light or glare would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, a less than significant impact would be incurred as a result of this project. The roof of the reservoir where the lights would be located would have an asphalt and gravel coating over the concrete finish. The sides of the reservoir would have a sprayed gunite-concrete finish, and the tank itself is partially buried. This exterior finish would not generate any glare effects. No other additional site lighting is proposed. All lighting fixtures are required to have light shielding pursuant by Municipal Code Section 9271 hh, which would prevent light spillage off of the property.12 Also, the 8 -foot solid wall surrounding the tank would be not generate any glare effects. In addition, the use of landscaping along new boundary wall, and light shielding required by Municipal Code Section 9271 hh would prevent direct views of light sources and reduce the potential for glare.13 The 8 -foot wall enclosing the water tank would screen passing motorists from light and glare impacts. The project would create limited new sources of light or glare from security and site lighting but would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area given the similarity of the existing lighting onsite and in the surrounding urban environment. Therefore, impacts associated with light or glare would be less than significant because the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in the amount of new nighttime light, and no mitigation is required. 11 City of Tustin Municipal Code section 9271 hh. 12 Tustin, California, Municipal Code § 9271 hh. 13 Id. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration W ©11113111 • • Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies PDFs The following PDFs are incorporated into the project by the City, and would reduce impacts related to aesthetics of the site wall, landscaping, and existing pump station. These actions would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PDF 1: Wall Design The project shall install an 8 -foot solid wall along the southeastern and southwestern property boundary (Valhalla Drive and Outlook Lane frontages) incorporating building materials that blend with the surrounding neighborhood. The wall shall be set back to provide space for landscaping. PDF 2: Landscaping Landscaping in front of the wall along the Valhalla Drive and Outlook Lane frontages shall be planted, irrigated, and maintained by the City of Tustin. PDF 3: Pump Station Maintenance The existing pump station shall continue to be maintained by the City of Tustin, and shall be painted once per year. PPPs The following measures are standard conditions of development and existing plans, programs, or policies (collectively referred to as PPPs) that apply to the proposed project and would help to reduce and avoid potential impacts related to aesthetics, lighting, and glare. These actions would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PPP 1.1: Construction Hours. Project construction hours will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city -observed federal holidays. PPP 1.2: Lighting. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City shall submit a photometric lighting plan showing compliance with the Tustin Municipal Code Section 8102, which requires a minimum one foot-candle of light on the private drives and parking surfaces and a minimum of one- quarter foot-candle of light on the walking surfaces. The lighting plan is to be overlaid onto a tree landscape plan. The photometric plan must also show no light spillage pursuant to Tustin Municipal Code Section 9271 hh. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as there are no adverse impacts related to aesthetics. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 57 Potentially Significant Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51 104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact ❑■ No Impact 0/ Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 58 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, 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 State of California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) is charged with producing maps for analyzing impacts on the state's agricultural resources.14 California's agricultural lands are rated based on soil quality and irrigation status. The classification system is contiguous with US Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil surveys and current land use. Most public land areas are not mapped.15 These maps are updated every two years, with the most recent data being from 2014. For CEQA purposes, the following categories qualify as "agricultural land": Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Important, and Grazing Land.16 Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance are different ratings given to California agricultural lands based on soil quality and irrigation status. "Prime Farmland" is the top-rated farmland with the best combination of features to sustain long-term agricultural production, including soil quality, growing season, and moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production to be Prime Farmland. "Unique Farmland" is of lesser quality than Prime Farmland, is used for production of California's leading crops, and is usually irrigated. "Farmland of Statewide Importance" is similar to Prime Farmland but has minor shortcomings. "Non- agricultural use" is "existing farmland, grazing land, and vacant areas which have a permanent commitment for development." The project site is developed with the existing reservoir and associated facilities including pipelines, and is located within an existing developed urban residential area. There are currently no farmland or agricultural activities in the project area. The project site is not used for agricultural production and is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the California Important Farmland Finder or the Orange County Important Farmland map, and the project site is designated as "Urban and Built -Up Land." 17 Therefore, the project would not convert any farmland to non-agricultural use, and there would be no impact. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act of 1965) restricts the use of agricultural and open space lands to farming and ranching by enabling local governments to 14 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp. 15 For example, public land areas that are not mapped include National Forests and Bureau of Land Management holdings. 16 Important Farmland Categories, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/mccu/Pages/map_categories.aspx; California Public Resources Code Section 21060.1. 17 "Urban and Built -Up Land" is defined as containing "structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10 -acre parcel." This includes residential, commercial, institutional facilities, and water control structures. Orange County Important Farmland 2014, available at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/ora 14.pdf; State of California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder (State of California 2014), available at http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 59 contract with private landowners for indefinite terms in exchange for reduced property tax assessments. According to the Agricultural Preserves 2004 map of Williamson Act Parcels in Orange County, CA, the project site is classified as "Residential/Other." 18 The nearest Prime Farmland is 1 mile to the north/northwest of the project site.19 The project site is a City of Tustin island within unincorporated County of Orange, and has an Orange County General Plan designation of 1 B (Suburban Residential).20 The area surrounding the project site to the east and south is zoned by the City of Tustin as PC RES (Planned Community Residential).21 The site is not used for agricultural production, is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not protected by, or eligible for, a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract would occur, and no mitigation is required. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. "Forest land" is defined as "land that can support 10 -percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits."22 "Timberland" is defined as "land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees."23 "Timberland Production Zone" (TPZ) is defined as "an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51 112 or 51 113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h)."24 The project site is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or TPZ. The project does not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or TPZ. Therefore, there would be no impact related to a conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. 18 Agricultural Preserves 2004 Williamson Act Parcels Orange County, California, available at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Orange—WA-03—OA.pdf. 19 Id. 20 Orange County General Plan (July 22, 2014), available at http://ocplanning.net/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=40198. 21 Zoning Map of the City of Tustin (October 7, 2014), available at http: //www.tustinca.org/ci vi cax/fi/ebank/bl obdl oad.aspx?BI ob /D=24712. 22 California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). 23 California Public Resources Code Section 4526. 24 California Government Code section 51 104(g). "Compatible use" as defined by section 51 104(h) is "any use which does not significantly detract from the use of the property for, or inhibit, growing and harvesting timber." Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 60 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 311113111WOMOMMIMMIff M, d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. The project site is located on a tract of land containing the existing reservoir, and does not contain forest land. The project site is currently a disturbed lot with a buried water tank that has been graded and contains ornamental landscaping. The project site does not contain forest land and is not zoned for forest land or timberland. The project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. There would be no impact related to a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. The project site consists of a barren lot that contains the existing buried water tank, has been graded, and is surrounded by residential housing. No forest land is located within the project site or the vicinity of the project site. The project includes the demolition of the existing reservoir and the construction of a new water tank on the same site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in changes to the environment which, due to its location or nature, could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or converting forest land to non -forest use. The project site does not fall under any farmland category, and no agricultural activity currently occurs at the site. The project site is disturbed, graded, and contains fill and ornamental trees. Therefore, there would be no impact from implementation of the proposed project because there is no existing farmland or forest land at the project site. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to agriculture and forest resources. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as there are no adverse impacts related to agriculture and forest resources. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 61 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ® ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located within the City of Tustin, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin includes all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality within the Basin is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 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). SCAQMD and SCAG, in coordination with local governments and the private sector, have developed and adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards.25 The 2012 AQMP is the current approved applicable air plan. The main purpose of an AQMP is to describe air pollution control strategies to be taken by a city, county, or region classified as a nonattainment area in order to bring the area into 25 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (February 2013), available at http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2012-air-quality-management-plan/final-2012-agmp-(february-2013)/main-document-final-2012.pdf. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 62 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ® ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located within the City of Tustin, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin includes all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality within the Basin is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 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). SCAQMD and SCAG, in coordination with local governments and the private sector, have developed and adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards.25 The 2012 AQMP is the current approved applicable air plan. The main purpose of an AQMP is to describe air pollution control strategies to be taken by a city, county, or region classified as a nonattainment area in order to bring the area into 25 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (February 2013), available at http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2012-air-quality-management-plan/final-2012-agmp-(february-2013)/main-document-final-2012.pdf. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 62 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration compliance with federal and State air quality standards. A nonattainment area is considered to have air quality worse than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (National AAQS) as defined in the federal CAA. The Basin is in nonattainment for the federal and State standards for ozone (03), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment for the State particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PMlo) standard, and in attainment/maintenance for the federal PMlo, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standards. Consistency with the 2012 AQMP for the Basin (2012 AQMP) means that a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the federal and State air quality standards. Per the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993), there are two main indicators of a project's consistency with the applicable AQMP: (1) whether the project would increase 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 2012 AQMP; and (2) whether the project would exceed the 2012 AQMP's assumptions for 2030 or yearly increments based on the year of project build out and phasing. For the proposed project to be consistent with the AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, the pollutants emitted from the project should not exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold or cause a significant impact on air quality, or the project must already have been included in the AQMP projections. Additionally, if feasible mitigation measures are implemented and shown to reduce the impact level from significant to less than significant, a project may be deemed consistent with the AQMP. The project site is part of the City of Tustin, and has a General Plan designation of Public/Institutional (PI). The project site lies within an unincorporated County of Orange residential neighborhood, which is designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) and Suburban Residential. No land use changes are proposed. Therefore, the project is already included in the AQMP projections. As discussed in Responses III -b), III -c), III -d), and III -e), below, the proposed project's emissions would be below the emissions thresholds established in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook.26 Furthermore, the project's land use designation is not changing and it is included in the AQMP projections. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the AQMP and would not result in any impacts related to implementation of the AQMP. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant Impact. 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 impacts 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 Basin. Because the project involves the replacement of an existing reservoir with the same use and would result in negligible 26 Giroux & Associates, Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas CalEEMod Worksheets (2016). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 63 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration changes in long-term emissions from reservoir and related infrastructure maintenance, this analysis focuses on short-term emissions. Table 1. Daily Emissions Thresholds27 Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM -10 150 150 PM -2.5 55 55 sox 150 150 Lead 3 3 Short -Term Construction -Related 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 would occur sequentially. The estimated type and amount of construction equipment to be used during construction on-site (reservoir) and off-site (pipeline improvements) is summarized in the Table 2. Approximately 12- 14 construction workers per day were assumed to commute to the project site for all three phases based on generation factors within CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2. Emissions from on -road hauling vehicles disposing of demolition materials and importing/exporting soils during grading were calculated by using the square footage of the existing reservoir to be demolished and cubic yards of soil imported/exported. Because the reservoir and booster station construction would occur at the project site, a separate CalEEMod run was made for the pipeline improvements. Demolition Demolition of the existing reservoir is projected to occur over a two-month period, producing 52,000 SF of debris. 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, and are presented in Table 3 below. 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. Grading Grading on the project site would be minimal considering the small size of the area to be graded (i.e., .42 acres). Cut and fill required for the project is expected to involve export of approximately 16,000 cubic yards and import of approximately 4,000 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, and the 27 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev.; Table 5, Giroux & Associates (2016). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 64 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3=1111111-11111TOMMIM"Iff M, results are provided in Appendix A and summarized below in Table 3. The estimated pollutant emissions associated with the grading 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. Construction Construction is the longest phase of the proposed project with a duration of approximately 7 months. Based on the assumptions for equipment and construction workers, and the anticipated square footage to be painted or paved, the peak daily air pollutant emissions during construction were calculated. The results are provided in Appendix A and summarized in Table 3. Table 2. Construction Activity Equipment Meet - Phase Name and Duration I Equipment Water Tank and Booster Station Phase 1 — Demolition (2 months) 1 Crane 1 Dozer Loader Backhoe Phase 2 — Grading (6 months) 1 Excavator 1 Dozer 2 Loader/Backhoes Phase 3 —Reservoir Construction (7 months) 1 Crane 1 Loader/Backhoe 1 Pump 1 Air Compressor 1 Forklift 1 Concrete truck Phase 4 — Backfill and Paint (1 month) 1 Compactor 1 Loader/Backhoe 1 Roller Pipeline Phase 5 — Excavate and Grade Pipeline (1 month) 1 Concrete Saw 1 Trencher 1 Air Compressor 2 Loader Backhoes Phase 6 — Pipeline Installation (3 months) 1 Crane 1 Forklift 1 Bore Rig 1 Loader Backhoe Phase 7 — Cover and Repave (1 month) 1 Paver 1 Compactor 4 Cement Mixers 1 Loader Backhoe 1 Roller 28 Table 6, Giroux & Associates 2016. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Utilizing the above indicated equipment fleet and durations, the following worst case daily construction emissions are calculated by CaIEEMod. Table 3. Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)29 Maximal Construction Emissions ROG NOx CO SO2 PM -10 PM -2.5 Reservoir 2017 2 20.9 18.9 0 2.3 1.5 2018 9.5 13.1 11.6 0 1.2 0.9 Pipeline 2017 1.9 14.7 12.9 0 1.4 1.1 Total 2017 3.9 35.6 31.8 0 3.7 2.6 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No As shown in Table 3, peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds without the need for added mitigation. Operation The project would generate less than significant air emissions during operations. Operational air pollution emissions would be minimal. Electrical generation of power would be used for pumping. Electrical consumption has no single uniquely related air pollution emissions source because power is supplied to and drawn from a regional grid. Electrical power is generated regionally by a combination of non -combustion (nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) and fossil fuel combustion sources. There is no direct nexus between consumption and the type of power source or the air basin where the source is located. Operational air pollution emissions from electrical generation are therefore not attributable on a project -specific basis. Criteria pollutants would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary for operational air emissions. Project demolition, grading, construction and operations would neither violate any air quality standard nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds during demolition, grading, construction or operation of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. 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)? Less than Significant Impact. "A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved [air quality plan] . . . which provides specific 29 Table 7, Giroux & Associates (2016). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration C.M requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located."30 The project site is located within the Basin, which is the cumulative study area for air quality. The Basin is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. It is possible that cumulative development, including the proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin combined could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. However, SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology recommends that when an individual project contributes criteria pollutants (listed above) in excess of SCAQMD's thresholds, then it would also cause a cumulative increase of the pollutants that Basin is in non -attainment for. As previously discussed in Items Ill.a) and Ill.b) above, the project's contribution to criteria pollutants during the temporary construction period would be localized and below the SCAQMD's thresholds. Operational activities would generate negligible quantities of air pollutants that are not deemed cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in 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? Less than Significant Impact. Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For the proposed project, LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM1o, and PM2.5. The following significance thresholds for LSTs have been established by the SCAQMD: • 148 lbs/day of NOx • 1,519 lbs/day of CO • 24 lbs/day of PM10 • 8 lbs/day of PM2.5 Projects in the Basin with emissions that exceed any of the LSTs above are considered significant by the SCAQMD.31 For the proposed project, the primary source of possible LST impacts would be construction. LSTs are applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours, such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility. LST screening tables are available for 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500 -meter source -receptor distances. For this project, the nearest sensitive receptors are the residential uses adjacent to the project site and therefore, the most conservative 25 -meter distance was modeled.32 The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CaIEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant screening level concentration data is currently published 30 CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(h)(3). 31 California Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005). 32 Giroux & Associates, Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (2016). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 67 for 1, 2 and 5 acre sites for varying distances. The most stringent thresholds for a 1- acre site were applied and the following thresholds and emissions were determined: Table 4. LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day)33 LST 1.0 acre/25 meters Central Orange County CO NOx PM -10 PM -2.5 LST Threshold 647 81 4 3 Max On -Site Emissions 19 21 2 2 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No LSTs were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As shown in Table 4 above, emissions would meet the LST for construction thresholds and would be less -than -significant without the application of additional discretionary mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed water tank replacement project would not include land uses typically associated with the emission of objectionable odors, such as agricultural uses or wastewater treatment plants. However, odors may be generated during construction, such as diesel exhaust, asphalt paving and application of paint, which could be noticed in the vicinity of the project site, and be considered objectionable. Odors would be briefly detectable during application of the interior epoxy coating and outdoor paint application on the reservoir shell. Good painting practice (low wind speeds and high efficiency sprayers) would minimize odor or overspray and paint transport. These odors would dissipate rapidly as they mix with the surrounding air, and would be short in duration, ceasing upon completion of construction. Project operations (pumping, treatment and storage) are an essentially closed system with negligible odor potential. The reservoir is designed with adequate freeboard (head space between the top of the water and the roof) to contain any surges without forcing the emergency vents to open. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact regarding objectionable odors, and such impacts would not affect a substantial number of people. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies PDFs There are no PDFs related to air quality. PPPs The following measures are standard conditions of development that apply to the proposed project and would help to reduce and avoid potential impacts related to air quality. This action would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PPP 3.1: Fugitive Dust The project would comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Construction contractors and subcontractors shall be required to employ the following 33 Table 8, Giroux & Associates (2016); CalEEMod Output in Appendix A. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 68 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3=1111111-1111170MMIMMIff M, enhanced dust control measures during construction to minimize particulate matter (PM -10 and PM - 2.5) emissions: 1. Suspend the use of all construction equipment during any smog alerts. 2. Apply soil stabilizers such as hay bales or aggregate cover to inactive areas. 3. Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. 4. Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. 5. Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times/day. 6. Cover all stock piles with tarps. 7. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly. 8. Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. 9. Trenches shall be left exposed for as short a time as possible. 10. Identify proper compaction for backfilled soils in construction specifications. 1 1. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 12. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. 13. Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. 14. Minimize in -out traffic from construction zone. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as there are no adverse impacts related to air quality. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 69 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 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 Game34 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 Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ■❑ 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? El El ■❑ n d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑ ❑ ❑ any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact ❑■ ►_N 34 Effective January 1, 2013, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) became the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. See https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/department-name-change-effective- tomorrow/. The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form has not been updated to reflect this new name. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 70 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 Game35 or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site has been previously graded for the construction of the existing tank, which is mostly buried. The site is a developed parcel in a residential setting surrounded by existing residential uses, and has no native habitat. The perimeter of the site contains landscape vegetation, with various ornamental trees and shrubs. Approximately one small shrub, 14 immature small trees, 2 tall palm trees, 1 medium-sized palm tree, and 2 large pine needle trees line the southwest border of the project site along Valhalla Drive. In the middle of the project site, there is at least one small ornamental tree and one small shrub. Along Outlook Lane to the southeast, there are various different types of groundcover, and a medium-sized shrub. Along the border with the resident to the northeast is a line of medium to tall shrubs and bushes. The project site contains mostly fill and compacted soils from prior grading for the existing tank, which provides no habitat value. The open areas on the property are dominated by barren ground, with some patchy coverage from low-lying foliage. 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 special status plant and 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, and no federal or state listed species occur on the project site.36 Because the site does not contain sensitive species, there is a low likelihood implementation of the project would impact such species. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an 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 Wildlife (DFW) or by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. There are no surface waters or drainages with riparian habitat on or in the vicinity of the site. No sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by DFW or USFWS are present.37 There are no areas within the project site that meet the DFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code.38 For this reason, no 36 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species, Species Lists and Accounts, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/ (accessed April 27, 2016); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (accessed April 27, 2016). 37 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species, Species Lists and Accounts, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/ (accessed April 27, 2016). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Endangered Species, http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (accessed April 27, 2016). 38 DFW uses Section 1603 to regulate activities that substantially affect the bed or bank of streams or lakes. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 71 direct or indirect impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are anticipated on site, and no mitigation is required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The .42 -acre site is developed with an existing reservoir. No natural hydrologic features or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) occur onsite, and the project site does not meet the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) criteria for wetlands and waters of the U.S.39 Therefore, no direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of a wetland area would occur with development of the Project site. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. 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. Common wildlife species such as coyotes, raccoons, skunks, and opossums could be expected to travel within the project site. Due to the presence of trees and shrubs on the project site, there is a potential for birds protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to nest at the project site. The MBTA makes it illegal to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 50, Part 10), including feathers, nests, eggs, or other avian products. This includes active nests of all bird species, including common species. Existing trees and other vegetation on the project site would be removed during the demolition phase of project construction. These activities have the potential to disturb nesting birds and destroy their eggs and/or nests. To prevent impacts to nesting birds and their eggs and nests, if possible, vegetation removal should occur during the non -nesting bird season (between September 1 and February 28). If vegetation removal occurs during the nesting season (between March 1 and August 31), proposed project activities could impact an active nest. To reduce this potential impact, MM BIO -1 requires a pre - construction survey for nesting birds and describes the methods for managing any active nest sites, if encountered. The project site and surrounding areas are developed urban residential areas, and do not support any other wildlife movement. No wildlife corridors traverse the site or the surrounding area and there is no potential for the site to be utilized as a native wildlife nursery site 40 Implementation of MM BIO -1 would reduce potential impacts related to nesting birds to a less than significant level. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 39 Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 (section 404). 40 California Department of Fish and Game and California Department of Transportation, California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning/connectivity/CEHC. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 72 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration No Impact. The Tustin General Plan states that "[t]he Eucalyptus groves and remaining Eucalyptus windrows in East Tustin lend a nostalgic rural and agricultural character to the local landscape," and many of these trees need substantial care 41 Also identified is a "Cedar/Redwood grove on a passive community park site in the northeasterly portion of East Tustin that is unique and visually prominent."42 The proposed project would not result in the removal of, or otherwise adversely impact, these tree communities because no Eucalyptus windrows or Cedar/Redwood groves are located onsite. The City of Tustin General Plan also lays out specific preservation and maintenance policies pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) to maximize protection of the California Gnatcatcher and its habitat of the coastal sage scrub43 In compliance with Tustin's General Plan policies and the NCCP, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and would have no impact. 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? No Impact. The project site is located in the unincorporated County of Orange and is City of Tustin property within areas covered by Central/Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP)44 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 species45 The NCCP/HCP mitigates anticipated impacts to those habitats and species, on a programmatic, sub -regional level, rather than on a project -by -project, single species basis46 The Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP involved the establishment of an approximate 37,000 -acre Reserve for the protection of Coastal Sage Scrub, other upland habitats, the coastal California gnatcatcher, and other species identified in the NCCP/MCP47 The City of Tustin is a signatory to the Central/Coastal Orange County NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement, and therefore the City is required to comply with the terms of the Implementation Agreement48 The City must ensure that 41 Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, Eucalyptus, Cedar, and Redwood Trees, p. 8 (2012). 42 ICI. 43 Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element #27, 28. Natural Community Conservation Plan, p. 61-62 (2012). 44 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, NCCP Plan Summary: County of Orange (Central/Coastal) NCPP/HCP, https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/Orange-Coastal. 45 ICI. 46 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, NCCP, https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP. 47 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Summary of NCCPs (August 2015), available at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=15329&inline. 48 Implementation Agreement Regarding the Natural Community Conservation Plan for the Central/Coastal Orange County Subregion of the Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Program (1996), available at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=10873&inline. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 73 any project in its jurisdiction that requires approval meets the requirements and conditions of the plan 49 The project site is not located within the designated Reserve system or classified as Special Linkage Area, so there are no construction or development restrictions for the project site.50 Additionally, the project site and the immediate area do not contain protected or covered habitats, so the project would not have direct or indirect impacts on protected or covered habitats or species.51 Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP. No impacts would result and mitigation is not required. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to biological resources. Mitigation Measures MM BI0-1: Compliance with the MBTA. Prior to approval of grading plans, the Community Development Department shall verify that the following note is included on the contractor specifications to ensure compliance with the MBTA: "To avoid impacts on nesting birds, vegetation on the project site should be cleared between September 1 and February 28. If vegetation clearing occurs inside the peak nesting season (between March 1 and August 31), a pre -construction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to identify if there are any active nesting locations. If the Biologist does not find any active nests within the impact area, then vegetation clearing/construction work will be allowed. If the Biologist finds an active nest within the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted by construction activities, the Biologist will delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the species and the type of construction activity. Construction activities would be prohibited in the buffer zone until a qualified Biologist determines that the nest has been abandoned." 49 Id. 50 Orange County Central Coastal NCCP/HCP, https://data basin.org/datasets/ed49d 8389c2349f2aOc9e56cfc7c48ef. 51 Id. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 74 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? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No Impact. CEQA defines a "historical resource" as including a resource that (1) is listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register)52; (2) is listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k);53 (3) is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) is determined to be a historical resource by a project's Lead Agency.54 Generally, a resource is considered to be "historically significant" if it meets one of the following criteria:55 • 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. 52 Pub. Res. Code section 5024. 1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq. 53 See, e.g., Tustin Historical Resources Survey (2003). Background available at http://econnect.tustinca.org/departments/commdev/documents/planningandzoning/Background.pdf; Building Information available at http://econnect.tustinca.org/departments/commdev/documents/planningandzoning/Building lnformation.pdf. 54 PRC Section 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). 55 These criteria are required for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Pub. Res. Code section 5024. 1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852; State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 75 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ® ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No Impact. CEQA defines a "historical resource" as including a resource that (1) is listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register)52; (2) is listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k);53 (3) is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) is determined to be a historical resource by a project's Lead Agency.54 Generally, a resource is considered to be "historically significant" if it meets one of the following criteria:55 • 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. 52 Pub. Res. Code section 5024. 1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq. 53 See, e.g., Tustin Historical Resources Survey (2003). Background available at http://econnect.tustinca.org/departments/commdev/documents/planningandzoning/Background.pdf; Building Information available at http://econnect.tustinca.org/departments/commdev/documents/planningandzoning/Building lnformation.pdf. 54 PRC Section 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). 55 These criteria are required for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Pub. Res. Code section 5024. 1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852; State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 75 • 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. Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project primarily involves demolition of the existing reservoir and construction of a new tank and pump station. Although the existing reservoir and booster pump station were built in 1960, they are not considered "historical resources." First, the project site is not listed in, and has not been determined eligible for listing in, the California Register.56 Second, the project site is not listed in a local register of historical resources.57 Third, the project site has not been identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g). Finally, the project site has not been determined to be a historical resource by the project's Lead Agency, the City of Tustin. Furthermore, the reservoir and pump station are not "historically significant" because they were not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage, were not associated with the lives of important persons in the past, and do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, do not represent the work of an important creative individual, do not possess high artistic values; and have not yielded, and are not likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The project site is not located within the City's Cultural Resource District and is not the site of any historic resources as noted in Figure COSR-3 in the Tustin General Plan.58 Because the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any historical resource, there would be no impact, and no mitigation is necessary. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less than Significant Impact. Archaeological resources are the physical remains of past human activities and can be either prehistoric or historic in origin. Archaeological sites are locations that contain significant evidence of human activity. Generally, a site is defined by a significant accumulation or presence of one or more of the following: food remains, waste from the manufacturing of tools, tools, concentrations or alignments of stones, modification of rock surfaces, 56 See California Historical Resources, California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation, http://ohp.pa rks.ca.gov/Listed Resources/?view=county&criteria=30. 57 Tustin Historical Resources Survey (2003). Background available at http://econnect.tustinca.org/departments/commdev/documents/planningandzoning/Background.pdf; Building Information available at http://econnect.tustinca.org/departments/commdev/documents/planningandzoning/Buildinglnformation.pdf. The project site is also not located within the City of Tustin's Cultural Resources District. See City of Tustin Cultural Resources District, Residential Design Guidelines, p. 1, 3, available at http://econnect.tustinca.org/departments/commdev/documents/planningandzoning/CRD_ResidentialDesignGuideline s.pdf. 58 City of Tustin Code of Ordinances, Section 952 Cultural Resource District; City of Tustin General Plan, Figure COSR-3, p. 37 available at http://www.tustinca.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BloblD=23071 (map of Tustin's Cultural Resources District and Historic Resource Areas). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 76 3=111111111-1111111TOMMIM"ff M, unusual discoloration or accumulation of soil, or human skeletal remains. Archaeological sites are often located along creek areas and ridgelines. The project site is developed with an existing reservoir and is located within an existing developed urban residential area. The depth of man-made fill encountered by the geotechnical report (Leighton Consulting 2015) was 5 feet or less, and deeper fill of up to 10 to 20 feet was encountered below the proposed pipeline alignment on Simon Ranch Road. Native soils were encountered below the fill, and consisted of thickly bedded, porous old granular Quaternary age old alluvium capping heavily weathered bedrock of the Tertiary -age Undifferentiated Vaqueros Sespe Formation. The borings drilled to a maximum depth of 44 feet and did not encounter any groundwater. The 2005 borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 52 feet below the existing and also did not encounter any groundwater. The fill material was assumed to have been placed during grading of Simon Ranch Road and construction of the Simon Ranch Reservoir. The bottom of the existing reservoir sits at 280 feet amsl, so grading has occurred to at least 280 feet amsl. The proposed project would require a minimum overexcavation to 278.67 amsl, and 276.70 amsl for piping. Undifferentiated Vaqueros Sespe Formation is a bedrock formation, and is not considered archeologically sensitive. Because the project site is already developed and has been disturbed previously, and because it is either underlain by bedrock or fill, 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. An archeological field survey was not completed due to the completely developed status of the project site, the 10-20 feet of existing fill in the location of the pipeline alignment, and the bedrock underneath the reservoir. The project site is highly disturbed, having previously been graded at substantial depths to develop the existing reservoir and surrounding roadways, and it is not expected that sensitive archeological resources would be encountered during construction. Trenching for installation of the pipeline would occur at depths between 6 and 8 feet, would be within existing fill material, and would not disturb native soil. However, since there would be some overexcavation related to the installation of the reservoir, MM CUL -1 the City or its designee will retain a qualified archeologist, who will be contacted in the event that undiscovered cultural resources are encountered during grading. Compliance with the procedures defined in MM CUL -1 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered archeological resources to less than significant. Assembly Bill 52 Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., Assembly Bill [AB] 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project's potential to impact "tribal cultural resources." Such resources include "[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical resources or included in a local register of historical resources."59 AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a "tribal cultural resource." 60 59 Public Resources Code section 21074(a). 60 California Senate Bill 18, Ch. 905 (2004); Public Resources Code section (a)(2). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 77 Also pursuant to AB 52, Native American consultation is required upon request by a California Native American tribe that has previously requested that the City provide it with notice of such prof ects.6 1 A search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) was requested for the project by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the immediate project area. Letters detailing the project and requesting information were sent to the Native American contacts on the City's AB 52 consultation list. One response and request for consultation was received by Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. The City and that tribe commenced consultation by meeting to discuss the proposed project on September 26, 2016. The City and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation's representatives discussed mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources. The consultation process concluded on September 29, 2016 when the parties reached agreement on the appropriate recommendations to make to the City Council concerning "tribal cultural resources" and the project, as outlined in Mitigation Measure C-3. Mitigation Measure C-3 requires a qualified Native American monitor shall be retained by the project manager to provide professional Native American monitoring services for any construction activities that may disturb native soils (i.e., previously undisturbed soil). Mitigation Measure C-1 requires that an archaeologist be retained provide on-call services in the event archeological resources are discovered and Mitigation Measure C-2 requires a qualified paleontologist in the event that paleontological resources are discovered. Implementation of Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-3 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered cultural resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, on this basis and as a result of the City's consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, the City has concluded that, with implementation of Mitigation Measure C-3, potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural resources would also be reduced below a level of significance. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. These resources are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. There are two types of resources: vertebrate and invertebrate paleontological resources. These resources are found in geologic strata conducive to their preservation, typically sedimentary formations. Paleontological sites are those areas that show evidence of prehuman activity. Often they are simply small outcroppings visible on the surface or sites encountered during grading. As discussed above, the project site is highly disturbed, having previously been graded at substantial depths to develop the existing reservoir and surrounding roadways, and it is not expected that sensitive archeological paleontological resources would be encountered during construction. Undifferentiated Vaqueros Sespe Formation is a bedrock formation, and is not considered paleontological Iy sensitive. Trenching for installation of the pipeline would occur at depths between 6 and 8 feet, would be within existing fill material, and would not disturb native soil. However, since there would be some overexcavation related to the installation of the reservoir, if paleontological resources or unique geologic features are discovered during excavation, they are to be handled in accordance with migration measure MM CUL -2, below. Furthermore, the 61 Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 78 excavation and grading activities associated with the improvements would be in accordance with the City's grading requirements. A paleontological field survey was not completed due to the completely developed, built -upon, and previously disturbed status of the project site. Compliance with the procedures defined in MM CUL -2, the City's Municipal Code, and California Public Resources Code would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered paleontological resources or unique geologic features to less than significant. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact. As previously stated, the project site has been largely graded, is developed with the existing reservoir, and is located in a developed urban area. The project would require specific grading permits from the City. During previous ground disturbance activities, no human remains were identified or recorded onsite, and the probability that construction of the project would impact any human remains is low, given the degree of past disturbance of the site. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that all activities cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately. The Coroner would also be contacted pursuant to Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone.62 The NAHC would then be required to contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who would then serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains.63 Compliance with the above established regulatory framework would reduce potential impacts involving disturbance to human remains would be less than significant. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies PDFs There are no PDFs related to cultural resources. PPPs The following measure is the standard condition of development that applies to the proposed project and would help to reduce and avoid potential impacts related to cultural resources. This action would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PPP 5.1: Cultural Resources — Human Remains Should human remains be discovered during project construction, the project would be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the body until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be 62 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c). 63 Public Resources Code Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 79 notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. Mitigation Measures MM CUL -1: Archaeological Resources Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the City shall provide a letter to the City of Tustin Community Development Department, or designee, from a qualified professional archeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualifications for Archaeology as defined at 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A stating that the City has retained this individual and that the archeologist shall provide on-call services in the event archeological resources are discovered and to provide spot-check professional archaeologist monitoring services for any construction activities that may disturb non-native soils. The archeologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference to establish procedures for archeological resource surveillance. The archaeologist shall be on-site for a maximum of 2 hours per week during to provide spot-check professional archaeologist monitoring services. In the event a previously unrecorded archaeological deposit is encountered during construction, all activity within 50 feet of the area of discovery shall cease and the City shall be immediately notified. The archeologist shall be contacted to flag the area in the field and determine if the archaeological deposits meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)) and/or unique archaeological resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)). If the find is considered a "resource" the archaeologist shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. If unique archaeological resources cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the City's expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the archaeologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The archaeologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. Excavation as a treatment option will be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project. MM CUL -2: Paleontological Resources Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the City shall provide a letter to the City of Tustin Community Development Department, or designee, from a paleontologist selected from the roll of qualified paleontologists maintained by the County, stating that the City has retained this individual and that the paleontologist shall provide on-call services in the event resources are discovered. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. In the event paleontological resources are encountered during construction, ground -disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. The paleontologist shall examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered. The paleontologist shall develop a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate adverse impacts to unknown buried paleontological Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 80 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 31111311111111110WOMMIMMIff resources that may exist onsite for the review and approval by the City. Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens will be made explicit. If a qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by project planning, then recovery may be applied. Actions may include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes. Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the City's expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the paleontologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. MM CUL -3: Grading Native Soils Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, a qualified Native American monitor shall be retained by the City or construction manager to provide professional Native American monitoring services for any construction activities that may disturb native soils (i.e., previously undisturbed soil). The Native American monitor from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, shall be selected by the City or construction manager and verification of retention of the Native American monitor shall be provided to the City of Tustin Community Development Department on tribal letterhead, including the monitor's name and contact information. The Native American monitor and a City of Tustin Community Development Department designee shall be present at the pre -grading conference to establish procedures for Native American resource surveillance. The Native American monitor shall be present during all ground disturbing activities of native soil (i.e., previously undisturbed soil) including but not limited to post holing, auguring, boring, grading, excavation and trenching. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 8 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration A 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? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 82 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration No Impact. In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act was signed into law. In 1994, it was renamed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A -P Act). The primary purpose 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 with 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 site zones are not threatened by surface displacements from future faulting. A Geotechnical Investigation Report was originally prepared for the project in May 2015 by Leighton Consulting.64 The Geotechnical Report evaluated seismic and other hazards on the site. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.65 Because the project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, there is no impact associated with the potential for rupture of a known fault within such a zone. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. The project site lies within a region of active faulting and seismicity in Southern California. Known regional active and potentially active faults that could produce significant ground shaking at the site include the San Joaquin, Elsinore, Puente Hills Blind Thrust, and Newport -Inglewood faults located at approximately 5.0, 9.2, 1 1.1, and 12.7 miles, respectively, from the site.66 The peak ground acceleration for the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCEG) adjusted for the Site Class effects (PGAM) is 0.54g.67 Based on the USGS online interactive deaggregation program (USGS, 2008), the modal seismic event is Moment Magnitude (MW) 7.0 at a distance of 10.4 miles.68 Although the project site is not within a currently designated A -P Earthquake Fault Zone, strong ground shaking is anticipated due to seismic activity. In order to reduce the effects of strong ground shaking from regional seismic events, design would be performed in accordance with applicable building codes, including American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard D1 10-95, American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 35069, and the California Building Standards Code (CBSC)70, also known as California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 and the City Building Code. CBSC and City Building Code are designed to preclude 64 See Appendix B Geotechnical Investigation Report (Leighton, 2015). 65 Id. at 3. 66 Id. 67 Id. 6s Id. 69 American Concrete Institute (ACI), 201 1, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-1 1) and Commentary. 70 California Building Standards Commission, 2013, 2013 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on 2012 International Building Code, Effective January 1, 2014. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 83 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration significant adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. This would safeguard against major structural failures due to a seismic event. The Geotechnical Report provides seismic design criteria and design recommendations for the project site, which, when implemented, would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. The project does not propose construction of any structures that would encourage frequent use of the site by people for any reason. The only exposure that people would have onsite would be employees conducting emergency testing once per week, for 15 minutes. A secondary effect of seismic ground shaking could be flooding from reservoir breach. However, the reservoir would be a more reliable cylindrical shape, specifically designed not to fail. Current standards and standard engineering practices would be used in building the tank. Also, if in the unlikely event that breach of the reservoir occurred, the tank is mostly buried and most of the water would be released into the ground. The new tank would also have a perimeter wall and bioretention facility that would capture any leakage without affecting the surrounding streets or residential neighborhood. 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. Therefore, impacts related to exposure of people or structures to substantial adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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 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. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain size, relative density, groundwater level, confining pressures, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking. In general, materials that are susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated granular soils having low fines content under low confining pressures. The project site is not located in a potential liquefaction -hazard zone.71 The presence of bedrock and the absence of shallow groundwater table also indicate that the liquefaction potential is very low.72 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 reservoir 71 Leighton at 3, Figure 4: Seismic Hazard Map; see also California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Orange, California 7.5 -Minute Quadrangle, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 01 1; 1998a, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Tustin, California 7.5 -Minute Quadrangle, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 012; 1998b, Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Orange, California 7.5 -Minute Quadrangle, April 15, 1998; 2001, Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Tustin, California 7.5 -Minute Quadrangle, January 17, 2001. 72 Leighton at 3. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 84 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration would be constructed on undisturbed, competent bedrock.73 If any fill soils or weathered bedrock is exposed at the bottom of the proposed excavation, pursuant to the geotechnical report, they would be removed and replaced with fill of uniform thickness to reduce potential for differential settlement occurring.74 The geotechnical report recommended that any such fill required would extend a minimum of 3 feet beyond the edges of the foundation where feasible.75 Construction of the proposed project would occur in accordance with the current standards and standard engineering practices and impacts would be less than significant. For these reasons, there is a less than significant impact associated with the potential for seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: iv. Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, this site is not located inside an earthquake - induced landslide hazard zone.76 The project site is relatively flat, with an approximate total relief across the site of up to 3 feet, sloping down toward the south. There are no hillsides or steep slopes on the site or in the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, no evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities were identified during the geotechnical investigation.77 Due to the flat topography of the project site, the potential for landslide or rockfall in the future is considered to be very low and there would be no impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations found in the project site's geotechnical investigation and with building code safety standards and other related codes. This includes placing shoring to keep the existing wall bordering northwestern boundary of the site from collapsing during demolition and construction. Also, the hoops 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 D1 10- 95, American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 350, and the most current version of the Uniform Building Code. This would safeguard against major structural failures. With application of these codes and recommendations, construction of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on slope stability. b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. The potential for erosion or loss of topsoil would be negligible with development and implementation of erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) required of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for any development on the project site. An 73 Leighton at 5. 74 Id. 75 Id. See also at 1 1, 12 for additional recommended foundation design parameters. 76 See FN 18; see also Leighton at 4, Figure 3: Regional Geology Map. 77 Leighton at 9, Figure 3: Regional Geology Map. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 85 Erosion Control Plan would be prepared prior to construction as part of the overall SWPPP to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and other water quality impacts associated with construction. The SWPPP would establish BMPs for erosion and sediment control and non -storm water management during construction activities. During construction, the project would be required to comply with the SCAQMD's Fugitive Dust restrictions.78 Project site grading and infrastructure would be designed to City standards to minimize erosion potential.79 Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP with an Erosion Control Plan is required by PPP 6.1, detailed below. Preparation and implementation of a WQMP is required by PPP 6.2, discussed below. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 is a standard condition of development and is incorporated into the project as PPP 3.1. Compliance with these PPPs, which implement standard conditions and BMPs required by local and State regulation, would reduce any potential impacts to below a level of significance. 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Settlement, liquefaction and landslide potential were addressed in Items VI -a) -iii) and VI -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. Temporary cut slopes would be required for the reservoir, and during construction these slopes would be stabilized with temporary shoring. After the reservoir is 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 Measure GEO-1 requires 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 in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The existing reservoir is located within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province at the southeastern margins of the Los Angeles Basin.80 The site is at the extreme southeastern flank of a series of low lying hills in the EI Modena Volcanic region, a sequence of middle Miocene to late Miocene age pyroclastic rocks that crop out in an eight -mile square of the North Tustin area of Orange County.81 78 Rule 403, SCAQMD's Fugitive Dust Restrictions. 79 Id. 81 Leighton at A. 81 Id. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 86 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration ©11113111 • • The existing reservoir is underlain by undocumented artificial fill, Quaternary age old alluvium and Tertiary age Undifferentiated Vaqueros Sespe bedrock.82 The old alluvium found at the site was derived from weathering and erosion of underlying weathered bedrock sediments, accelerated during the pedogenic soil development, and consisted of a relatively thin mantle overlying highly weathered bedrock.83 This alluvium was encountered at approximately 5 to 7 feet deep, and consisted of reddish brown, dense silty sand and stiff sandy clay.84 Pores were lined with manganese and/or calcium carbonate.85 According to the project site's geotechnical investigation, this material should be considered moderately expansive and unsuitable to provide structural support for the reservoir if encountered once demolition of the reservoir is complete.86 Although the proposed project is located on expansive soil, construction of the proposed project would occur in accordance with current standard engineering practices, and would be subject to the recommendations of the geotechnical report, and future recommendations associated with future grading and building permits, which would ensure that any potentially unstable soils present on the project site are appropriately remediated through site design considerations. To ensure these recommendations are adhered to in final project designs, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is required. With the application of this mitigation measure, the risk associated with unstable soils causing harm to humans or structures would be less than significant. 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. Therefore, there is no impact related to soils being incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies PDFs There are no PDF's related to geology and soils. PPPs The following measures are standard conditions of development and existing plans, programs, or policies (collectively referred to as PPPs) that apply to the proposed project and would help to reduce and avoid potential impacts related to geology and soils. These actions would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PPP 3.1: Fugitive Dust Refer to III. Air Quality for the text of this PPP. 82 Id. 83 Id. 84 Id. at 4, 5. 85 Id. at 5. 8e Id. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 87 PPP 6.1: Stormwater Pollution/Erosion Control In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the proposed project shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. • The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. • The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. • A WQMP shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. • Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. PPP 6.2: Water Quality Management Plan The project would comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for control of discharges of sediments and other pollutants during operations of the facility through preparation and implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in compliance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit in effect for the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit application. Mitigation Measures MM GEO-1 All grading operations and construction shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in the geotechnical documents prepared by Leighton (included in Appendix B of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration [IS/MND]). Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the City of Tustin City Engineer, or designee, prior to the start of grading to verify that requirements developed during the geotechnical design evaluation have been appropriately incorporated into the project plans. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City Building Code and the California Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading, as well as the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final report subject to review by the City Engineer, or designee, prior to the start of grading activities. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 88 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Explanation Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Constituent gases of the Earth's atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in the Earth's radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth's surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (03), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N20), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth's natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07. The framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is underway. Local jurisdictions have the authority and responsibility to reduce GHG emissions through their police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions resulting from its land use decisions. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the global climate change potential of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant global climate change impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 89 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration For CEQA purposes, emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to "select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate." The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CaIEEMod, as was used in the ensuing analysis. The significance of those emissions then must be evaluated; the selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration what level of GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero net emissions threshold. If the lead agency does not have sufficient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise. The SCAQMD has initiated a Working Group to develop a detailed methodology for evaluating GHG emissions significance under CEQA. The SCAQMD's most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use projects.87 Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above threshold, they have not been formally adopted. The City of Tustin currently does not have an adopted climate action plan to reduce GHG emissions within its jurisdictional boundaries, and no other regional GHG reduction plans have been adopted.88 The City uses SCAQMD thresholds for projects located in the Basin.89 Therefore, the proposed project would be considered to create a significant cumulative GHG impact if the it would exceed the annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e.90 Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Construction GHG Emissions Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as site grading, utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles on-site, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from onsite construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The buildout timetable for the proposed project is assumed to be approximately 18 months. During project construction, the CaIEEMod2013.2.2 computer model predicts that the construction activities would generate the annual CO2e emissions identified in Table 5, below. 87 SCAQMD Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal, 3-13 (October 2008) available at http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/hand book/g reenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega-signif icance- th resholds/ghgattachmente.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 88 Id. 89 See SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds, http://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/cega/air-quality- analysis-handbook/local ized-sig nificance-threshoIds. 90 GHG Study. Giroux and Associates. 2016. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Out Table 5. Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e)91 2017 CO2e Reservoir Construction 278.5 Pipe Installation 84.1 Tota 1 362.6 Amortized 2017 12.1 2018 Reservoir Construction 74.3 Amortized 2018 2.5 Amortized Total 14.6 SCAQMD GHG emissions policy from construction activities is to amortize emissions over a 30 -year lifetime. The amortized level is also provided. GHG impacts from construction are considered individually less -than -significant. The SCAQMD's GHG emissions policy for construction is to amortize emissions over a 30 -year time period.92 Construction of the proposed project would result in average emissions of 14.6 MT of CO2e per year over the course of 30 years. The estimated construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD's threshold criteria of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year. Therefore, project construction would be considered to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions and would not, directly or indirectly, have a significant impact on the environment and no mitigation is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the project would be required to implement construction exhaust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 for other air quality topics discussed above, including minimization of construction equipment idling and implementation of proper engine tuning and exhaust controls.93 Both of these measures would reduce GHG emissions during the construction period. Operational GHG Emissions The emergency generator for the reservoir would be tested for a total of 15 minutes, once per week, during the middle of a weekday. Except for this minor system maintenance, the only other operational source of GHG emissions would be associated with pumping operations. Although the project pump station replaces an existing use, calculations were made as if it introduced a new use. Electricity is generated from a variety of resources at various locations in the western United States. The California Climate Action Registry Protocol (2009) states that each megawatt -hour (MW -HR) of electricity consumption in California results in the release of 0.331 MT of CO2(e). 91 CaIEEMod Output provided in Appendix A. 92 SCAQMD Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal at 3-9 (October 2008). 93 SCAQMD Rule Book, Regulation IV — Prohibitions, Rule 402 available at http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf?sfvrsn= (adopted May 7, 1976), Rule 403 available at http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4 (amended June 3, 2005). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 91 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration The new pumping operations for this project are expected to consume 400 HP or 298 KW per hour. Even with a 100% load factor, this would translate to an annual average of 2,600 MW per year in increased project electrical consumption. Electricity use would result in GHG emissions from the fossil fueled fraction of Southern California's electrical resource calculated as follows: 2,600 MWH/year x 0.331 MT/MWH = 864 MT/year The screening threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2(e) GHG emissions would not be exceeded. Both the construction and operations GHG emissions would be far below the 3,000 MT CO2(e) advisory threshold for impact significance. Therefore, project operation would be considered to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions and would not, directly or indirectly, have a significant impact on the environment. No mitigation would be required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact. The City currently does not have an adopted climate action plan to reduce GHG emissions within its jurisdictional boundaries, and no other regional GHG reduction plans have been adopted.94 While the SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold for assessing the significance of GHG emissions, the draft screening value for residential use is 3,000 MT of CO2e per year.95 As discussed above, the proposed project would result in operational and amortized construction GHG emissions that are significantly below the suggested 3,000 MT of CO2e per year metric. As a result, the proposed project is consistent with SCAQMD's adopted plans and policies, which were determined by SCAQMD to be consistent with California's State -level plans, policies, and regulations related to GHG. Therefore, the proposed project is also consistent with State -level plans, based on its consistency with the 3,000 MT of CO2e per year threshold, and no mitigation is required. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies There are no PDFs or PPPs related to greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation Measures There are no mitigation measures related to greenhouse gas emissions. 94 State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, "2016 California Jurisdictions Addressing Climate Change" available at https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/2016_California_Jurisdictions_Addressing_Climate_Change_Summary.pdf (updated 3/16/16). 95 SCAQMD Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal, 3-13 (October 2008). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 92 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 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? MMW-lvr-mml--gmff M, Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 93 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration MMW-lvr-mml--gmff M, 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 a new reservoir does not include 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. An asbestos and lead survey was conducted for the proposed project.96 The asbestos survey was conducted and recommendations were made in compliance with all regulatory agency requirements including SCAQMD Rule 1403.97 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 Guidelines.98 Asbestos containing materials (ACMs) were commonly used in a wide variety of building products such as roofing shingles; composite siding; linoleum flooring; acoustic ceiling tiles; compounds; and composite wallboards prior to 1980.99 ACMs can be divided into material considered friable (i.e., easily crumbled or reduced to powder) and nonfriable.100 Friable ACMs 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. 101 According to the asbestos survey, asbestos is present in the existing reservoir. The survey found that the ACMs in these compounds are in good to fair condition and are considered nonfriable. Prior to demolition of the existing reservoir, ACMs would be removed and disposed of by qualified contractors. With implementation of existing regulations, 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 (National Econ, 2015) and procedures established by all federal, state, and local standards. 96 Asbestos and Lead -Based Paint Inspection (National Econ, 2015 97 SCAQMD Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities (Amended October 5, 2007) (specifying work practice requirements for limiting asbestos emissions). 98 Asbestos and Lead -Based Paint Inspection, Lead -Based Paint Inspection at 2. 99 HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead -Based Paint Hazards in Housing, Ch. 1, 6-8 (2012) available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=lbph-03.pdf. loo Asbestos and Lead -Based Paint Inspection, Asbestos Survey at 1. 101 See, e.g., EPA Guidance on Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) and Demolition, available at https://www.epa.gov/large-scale-residentia I-demolition/asbestos-conta in ing-materia Is-acm-and-demolition. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 94 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration During construction, the proposed project would involve the transport of general construction materials (i.e., concrete, wood, metal, fuel, etc.) as well as the materials necessary to construct the proposed reservoir. Construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels and greases for the fueling and servicing of construction equipment. Such substances may be stored in temporary storage tanks/sheds that would be located on the project site. The proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act.102 The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials used in construction of the facility would be carried out accordance with federal, state, City and County regulations. No extremely hazardous substances (i.e., governed under Title 40, Part 335 of the Code of Federal Regulations) are anticipated to be produced, used, stored, transported, or disposed of as a result of project construction.' 03 As needed, Material Safety Data Sheets for all applicable materials present onsite would be made readily available to onsite personnel as required by the Orange County Fire Authority.' 04 During construction of the facility, non -hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of in local landfills. Sanitary waste would be managed using portable toilets, with waste being disposed of at approved sites. With the application of existing regulations, impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The nearest school sites are Pioneer Middle School, Ladera Elementary School, and Red Hill Elementary School. Ladera Elementary, located at 2515 Rawlings Way, Tustin, CA 92782, is .31 miles from the project site. Pioneer Middle School, located at 2700 Pioneer Road, Tustin, CA 92782, is .49 miles from the project site. Red Hill Elementary School, located at 1 191 1 Red Hill Ave, Santa Ana, CA 92705 is .62 miles away from the project site. 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. Since no schools are proposed to be located within one-quarter mile of the project site, there would be no hazardous materials impact to schools located one-quarter mile of the site. 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 a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to the State of California Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with this hazard. 102 49 U.S.C. section 5103(a) -(b) (201 1). 103 See 40 CFR Part 335, Appendices A, B "The List of Extremely Hazardous Substances and Their Threshold Planning Quantities." 104 See Orange County Fire Authority, Guideline G-06, Completion of the Chemical Classification Packet, 2 (2014). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 95 MMW-lvr-mml--gmff M, e) For a project 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 nearest public airport, John Wayne Airport, is located approximately 6.73 miles southwest of the project site. The proposed project is not located within the John Wayne Airport land use plan.' 05 The project is a water tank that would not expose people and structures to airport risks because no people live or work on the site. 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 airfields or airstrips identified in close proximity to the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. There would be no impact. g) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Tustin Police Department oversees emergency management for the City. The City's Emergency Plan was approved in 201 1.106 The proposed project involves the continuation of an existing use and would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the City's Emergency Plan. The project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation, the proposed project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by OCFA and the City. Because the project would not impede any existing emergency vehicle access or evacuation routes, and would not otherwise conflict with the City's emergency response plans, there is no impact related to the project impairing the implementation of 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 urbanized residential community, with no wildlands in close proximity. The project area is not mapped as an area of high wildland fire hazard by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).107 Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires. 105 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (amended April 17, 2008) available at http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JWA_AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf. 106 California Emergency Management Agency (Cal/EMA), City of Tustin Hazard Mitigation Plan (January 2009), available at http://haza rdm itigation.ca lema.ca.gov/docs/a p proved_lhm ps_under_2008_fema_guidance/Tusti n_Haza rdMitigati onPlan_Revl.pdf; Cal/EMA State of California Emergency Plan (July 2009), available at http://www.caloes.ca.gov/P lanningPre pared nessSite/Documents/00%20SEP%207-01-09%20covrev%20(12).pdf. 107 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE), Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA: Tustin (October 201 1) http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/orange/c30_Tustin_vhfhsz.pdf; CAL Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 96 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3=111111111-1mr-MMIM"ff M, Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies There are no PDFs or PPPs related to hazards and hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures There are no mitigation measures related to hazards and hazardous materials. FIRE Orange County Fire Hazard Severity Zones (adopted November 7, 2007), available at http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/orange/fhszs_map.30.pdf; CAL FIRE Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA (September 2007) available at http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/orange/fhsz106_1_map.30.pdf; and CAL FIRE Very High Hazard Severity Zones in LRA (recommended November 201 1) available at http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/orange/fhszl—map.30.pdf). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 97 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood f lows? Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration MMW-lvr-mml--gmff M, Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IN MMW-lvr-mml--gmff M, i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. This section is divided into analyses for Short-term Construction Impacts and Long-term Operational impacts. Short -Term Construction Water Quality Impacts During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete -related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via storm runoff into receiving waters. The project is subject to regulation under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. To implement NPDES requirements, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued the statewide NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities.108 Under this Construction General Permit, individual NPDES permits or Construction General Permit coverage must be obtained for discharges of stormwater from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres and are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for stormwater discharges or be covered by the Construction General Permit. During construction, the total disturbed soil area would be .42 acres. Because the proposed project disturbs less than 1 acre of soil, the project is not subject to the requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities. Coverage under the Construction General Permit is accomplished by completing and filing Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) with the SWRCB prior to commencement of construction activities. Among the PRDs are a Risk Assessment, a Site Map, and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 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. The Construction General Permit requires dischargers to assess the risk level of a project based on both sediment transport and receiving water risk, and each project would then be categorized into Risk Level 1, 2, or 3, with increased monitoring required for certain higher -risk sites. Sections 8923 and 8924 of the Tustin Municipal Code provide additional regulation of erosion and sediment control and water quality requirements. 108 Order No. 2009-009-DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 99 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3=1111111-1111170MMIMMIff M, Pursuant to PPP 6.2, the project would be required to prepare a SWPPP and implement construction BMPs that are detailed in the SWPPP during construction activities. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Implementation of BMPs and compliance with the NPDES and Tustin Municipal Code requirements would reduce the project's construction -related impacts to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements during and after construction to a less than significant level. Lona -Term Operational Water Quality Impacts The quality of 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 gravity flows to a catch basin located in the County. There is currently no treatment of the water prior to its discharge to the public storm drain system. 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 an on-site bioretention facility or a Filterra unit and conveyed to new storm drain pipes which would discharge in to a new storm drain pipeline as shown in Figure 13, Reservoir Drain. Discharge is currently handled under the City of Tustin's NPDES de minimus permit to discharge surface waters. The project would not alter this practice, and discharge would continue to be handled under the de minimus permit to discharge surface waters, which is permitted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Discharges must be sampled and reported to the Board, and there are specific limits outlined in the permit for water constituents that are allowed to be discharged. The Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer (drain) systems (MS4s). The Orange County Flood Control District, the County of Orange, and the City of Tustin, along with other incorporated cities in Orange County (Permittees), discharge pollutants from their MS4s.These discharges are regulated under countywide waste discharge requirements contained in Order No. R8-2009-0030 (as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062), Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Area - wide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County, which was approved on May 19, 2011. The Permit requires the development and implementation of a program addressing storm water pollution issues in development planning for private projects. The County Model WQMP was developed as part of the municipal storm water program to address storm water pollution from new Development and Redevelopment by the private sector, which the City of Tustin uses as a template for project WQMPs. The Model WQMP describes the process for preparing Conceptual or Preliminary WQMPs and final Project WQMPs for certain new development and significant redevelopment projects called "Priority Projects," which the project would be considered. As a Priority Project, the project would be required to prepare a WQMP that specifies the proposed BMPs to mitigate storm water pollution from the proposed development. The Model WQMP contains a list of the minimum required BMPs that must be used for a development project. These requirements are reflected in PPP 6.2. Additionally, the project would be subject to compliance with the City's Master Plan of Drainage and CMMC Title 15 Chapter III. The proposed project would not result in violations of any water Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 100 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration quality standards, and compliance with these requirements would reduce the project's potential impacts to water quality to less than significant levels. 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. The project site is within the service area of the City of Tustin Public Works Department, Water Services Division. The Water Services Division prepared a 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which provides information on the present and future water resources and demands and assesses water resource needs for the utility. According to the UWMP, the main sources of water supply are groundwater pumped from wells within the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin and imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County through East Orange County Water District. The UWMP reported current water demand to be 13,000 acre-feet per year, consisting of 1 1,1 10 acre-feet of groundwater and 1,890 acre-feet of imports, and projects a 7 percent increase in population by the year 2035. Accompanying the increase in population would be a 17 percent increase in demand for water, including the addition of over 1,200 new residential accounts. The UWMP determined that the City is capable of meeting the water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2015 and 2035, taking into account the projected increase in demand. The project would construct a circular water tank that is within the total increase in demand anticipated by the UWMP. Groundwater was not encountered during geotechnical borings drilled to a maximum depth of 44 feet or in previous borings performed in 2005 to a maximum depth of 52 feet. According to the Seismic Hazard Zone Reports for the Orange 7.5 Minute Quadrangle (CDMG, 1997) and the Tustin 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, (CDMG, 1998a), the historically high groundwater table was reported to be greater than 40 feet below the ground surface within the canyon incisions surrounding the reservoir's hilltop site.109 Based on these factors, project implementation would result in a less than significant impact involving long-term interference with groundwater recharge, existing aquifer volumes, or groundwater supplies. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 109 Appendix B (Leighton 2015); Seismic Hazard Zone Report, Orange 7.5 Minute Quadrangle (CDMG, 1997) and Tustin 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, (CDMG, 1998a). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 101 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Less Than Significant Impact. Stormwater runoff from the project site currently sheetflows to the southeast towards Outlook Lane, then drains on to the streets, Outlook Lane and Valhalla Drive. The project site is not in close proximity to a stream or a river, nor would runoff from the site enter a stream or river and alter its course. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface on-site. Since the on-site uses would be similar to existing conditions, implementation of the project would not result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of runoff from the site that would cause an increase in erosion or flooding. It would also not involve the construction of any uses that would alter the type or amount of pollutants in the runoff from the project site. Runoff from the project site is not currently captured by a storm -drain facility because none exist in the area. As part of the proposed project, a new storm drain line would be installed on Valhalla Drive to convey water to an existing OCFCD facility. The project would also construct a new onsite bioretention facility. The project involves limited earthworks of 16,000 CY of cut and 4,000 CY of fill. As required by regulation and implemented through PPP 6.2, the project would comply with NPDES requirements for control of discharges of sediments and other pollutants during construction. This requires preparation of a SWPPP, which is submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. The project would also comply with NPDES de minimus requirements for control of discharges of sediments and other pollutants during operation of the facility, and the proposed construction of a bioretention facility would capture site runoff and would reduce the amount of erosion that currently occurs with the sheetflow condition. Therefore, no significant impacts to the drainage pattern, runoff, or stormwater drainage would occur. 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).110 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, including 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 a new 1 -MG concrete water storage tank. The hoops 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 D1 10-95, 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. 10 FEMA National Flood Hazard Map 06059C0168J (effective December 3, 2009). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 102 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow No Impact. A seiche is an oscillation of a landlocked body of water, such as a lake, that can be caused by seismic activity and 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 is approximately 9.6 miles from the Pacific Ocean and is outside of the nearest Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning. Since the project site is not near the coastline, there is no risk of tsunami. 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 would occur on the site as a result of a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies PDFs There are no PDFs related to hydrology and water quality. PPPs See PPP 6.2, above. Mitigation Measures There are no mitigation measures related to hydrology and water quality. I ' Seismic Hazard Zone Report, Orange 7.5 Minute Quadrangle (CDMG, 1998a). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 103 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the existing land use, parcel configuration within the project site or within the local area, nor would it change the existing street layout. The project site is surrounded by primarily residential uses, with one commercial facility, the Tustin Hills Racquet Club. The project site is bounded by Valhalla Drive to the west and Outlook Lane to the east, a single family residence to the northwest and a single family residence to the northeast. The existing reservoir was constructed in 1960. The existing booster pump station is located on Simon Ranch Road, and was built in 1960. The new booster pump station would be constructed on the project site where the reservoir is located. Vehicular access to the project would continue to be provided by a driveway on Valhalla Drive. The project would not result in the closure of any public rights-of-way or otherwise impede movement in the area. The use of the reservoir site for water storage purposes would remain the same with the proposed project, would be compatible with the surrounding community, and would not physically divide an established community. There would be no impact. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The reservoir and pump station locations are City of Tustin land islands surrounded by unincorporated Orange County Suburban Residential (1 B) communities (0.5 — 18 DU/Ac.).112 The project site has a General Plan designation of Public/Institutional (PI), and the surrounding 112 Orange County General Plan (July 22, 2014), available at http://ocplanning.net/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=40198. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 11iM community is Low Density Residential (LDR).113 The proposed project would replace the existing water reservoir, and the land use would not change. The land use designation would not change from PI with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, with adherence to all applicable plans, policies or regulations, no impact would be anticipated. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The project site falls within the County of Orange Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP boundary.' 14 However, the project site is not designated as existing use, reserve, conservation easement, non -reserve open space, or special linkage.' 15 As discussed in more detail in section IV, above, implementation of the project would not conflict with the program because the project site is not within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, but is within a development area.' 16 Therefore, there would be no impact. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to land use and planning impacts. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required because no significant impacts to land use and planning have been identified. 113 City of Tustin General Plan Land Use Map, available at http://econnect.tustinca.org/departments/commdev/documents/planningandzoning/Genera I_Plan_Land_Use- MAP.pdf. 114 NCCP Plan Summary — County of Orange (Central/Coastal) NCCP/HCP, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/Orange-Coastal. 115 Orange County Central Coastal NCCP/HCP, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, https://data basin.org/maps/new#datasets=ed49d 8389c2349f2aOc9e56cfc7c48ef. 116 City of Tustin General Plan, Land Use Element, January 16, 2001. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 11iR XI. 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 a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 Tustin General Plan defines "mineral resource" as "(I)and on which known deposits of commercially viable mineral or aggregate deposits exist," and applies this designation to sites that are determined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) as being a resource of regional significance.' 17 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.'1 8 The Tustin General Plan identifies only one mineral resource in the Tustin Planning Area, which is the Mercury -Barite deposit in Red Hill. The Red Hill deposit is approximate 1/2 mile from the project site.'1 9 There are no known mineral resources onsite, and the project site is not utilized and has never been utilized for mineral extraction.120 The proposed project would replace an existing water tank onsite, and would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, there would be no impacts and no mitigation is required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 117 Tustin General Plan Glossary p. 13. 118 Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands, California Surface Mining and Reclamation Policies and Procedures, Division of Mines and Geology, 5, 8 ("California Mineral Land Classification System Diagram"). Specifically, when a mineral deposit is classified as MRZ-2a ("reserves" that have demonstrated or measured/indicated economic value) or MRZ-2b ("inferred resources" that have inferred economic value) by the State Geologist, this constitutes sufficient evidence of significant mineral deposits. 119 Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS), United States Geological Survey, http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/map.html; Red Hill Mine, http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/show- mrds.php?dep_id=10040695. 120 Tustin General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element p. 40 (2013). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 106 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3=111111111-1111111TOMMIM"ff M, No Impact. The project site is not located within an area known to be underlain by regionally- or locally -important mineral resources, or within an area that has the potential to be underlain by regionally- or locally -important mineral resources.121 The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, and therefore there would be no impacts and no mitigation is required. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to mineral resources impacts. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required because no significant impacts to mineral resources have been identified. 121 City of Tustin General Plan, ConservationlOpen Space/Recreation Element p. 40 (2013). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 107 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Explanation Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ General Plan Noise standards for the City of Tustin are contained in the General Plan, Noise Element and in the Tustin City Code, Chapter 6, Noise Control. The City of Tustin's noise standards are provided in Table 12-1, Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix.122 The Noise Element of the General Plan contains noise compatibility standards for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. CNEL guidelines for specific land uses are classified into four categories: (A) "clearly compatible," (B) "normally compatible," (C) "normally incompatible," and (D) "clearly incompatible." The City of Tustin considers noise levels of up to 60 dB CNEL "clearly compatible" for residential use and levels of up to 65 dB CNEL to be "normally" compatible. Normally compatible requires 122 City of Tustin General Plan, Noise Element General Plan Table N-2. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 108 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration that new development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. State Law An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section T25-28) for multiple family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms. In 1988, the State Building Standards Commission expanded that standard to include all habitable rooms in residential use, including single-family dwelling units. Conventional construction practices, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning normally suffice. Municipal Code Noise standards are also contained in the Tustin Municipal Code, Chapter 6, Noise Control. The Municipal Code limits the noise level generated on a property that can cross to a neighboring property, primarily to minimize any adverse impact adjoining residential uses. Ordinance limits apply to "stationary" sources such as mechanical equipment, manufacturing activities, or vehicles operating on private property. Control of on -road transportation noise is pre-empted from local control. Because the City of Tustin cannot regulate noise generation by the source (traffic), it regulates the pattern of land use exposed to such noise through the Noise Element of the General Plan. For stationary noise sources such as mechanical equipment (pumps, air conditioners, etc.) the City does have legal authority to establish noise performance standards designed to not adversely impact adjoining residential uses. Section 4614 of the City of Tustin Municipal Code, shown in Table 6, provides noise ordinance limits which are stated in terms of a 30 -minute limit with allowable deviations from this 501h percentile standard. The louder the level becomes, the shorter the time becomes that it is allowed to occur. Tustin noise standards apply to all property within a designated noise zone as follows:123 Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period 1 Residential 55 dB 7:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. 50 dB 10:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. 2 Commercial 60 dB anytime 3 Industrial 70 dB anytime 4 Churches, Hospitals, Public Institutions 55 dB anytime 5 Mixed Use Properties 60 dB anytime "It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any residential, public institutional, professional, commercial or industrial property, either within or without the City, to exceed the applicable noise standards: (a) For a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; (b) Plus 5 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; 123 Tustin Municipal Code Section 4614 - EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS; Table 1 (Giroux 2016). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 109 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration (c) Plus 10 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; (d) Plus 15 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (e) Plus 20 dB(A) for any period of time. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four (4) noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level." 124 The City of Tustin limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city -observed federal holidays. Construction activities that occur during allowable hours are exempt from noise standards. There are no specific performance standards in the Tustin Municipal Code that apply to construction. The code places time -of -day restrictions on construction permits. Adherence to this schedule is considered to be in compliance with the noise code. However, code compliance by itself is an insufficient basis for supporting a finding of a less -than -significant impact. The allowable hours of construction occur during time of lesser noise sensitivity with heavy equipment to operate 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, excluding federal holidays. However, the noise impacts associated with project construction can create temporary high-level noise impacts at sensitive receptors surrounding the project site. In order to evaluate construction noise impacts, a Noise Study was prepared for the project125. A site-specific criterion was adopted for use on this project. One indicator that construction noise could interfere with daytime activities would be speech interference, and an indicator that construction noise could interfere with nighttime activities would be sleep interference. Since project construction is proposed to occur only during the daytime hours, only the speech interference threshold is used in this analysis to define potential "substantial" noise impacts. A speech interference threshold is used to identify substantial increases in noise resulting from temporary construction activities. Noise generated by construction equipment could result in speech interference at nearby residences if the noise level in the interior of the building exceeds 50 dB. A typical residential building can reduce noise levels by 25 dB with the windows closed (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1974). Sensitive Receptors The project site is located in a residential area and is surrounded by single-family homes. Two homes share a property line with the project site, and five others are located immediately to the south, across the street from the site. Along the western perimeter, the nearest residence to the project site is located to the northwest, on Valhalla Drive and shares a property line with the project site. There is an existing 5 -foot high noise/privacy wall along the property line. The elevation of this home is about 10 feet higher than 124 Id. 125 Giroux & Associates, Appendix C, Noise Impact Analysis, August 3, 2016 Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 110 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Table 6. Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix126 LAND USE CATEGORIES C0MML TY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVET. Specified Lund use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal CNEL CATEGORIES USES X55 60 65 70 7; 8(> RESIDENTIAL Single Fauuly, Duplex, Multiple F iitih• A A F C C P 1) RESIDENTIAL Mobile Houle A A B C C D I) COMMERCIAL Hotel. Motel, Transient Lodging Regional, District A A B B C: [. t =1NIXIERCLNL Commercial Retail, Bunk, Restaurant, Regional, Village Movie Theater A A A A B b [_ District, Special CO\MIERCIAL Office Building, Research and Develop- Iti-DLSTRIAL rnent, Professional Offices, City Office A A A B B C D Building INSTITLTIONAL (-C):\ L'cIERCIAL Amphitheater, Concert Hall Recreation INSTITUTIONAL Auditorium, Meeting Hail B B C C P D D Civi[ Center COQ BJERCTAL Children's Anursement Pari:, Miniature Recreation Golf Course, Go-cart Track, Equestrian A A A B D E, Center, Sports Club CU),WERCIAL Automobile Senice Station, Auto General Special Dealership, Nfanufacturin& 1 A F B B Wareliortsing,117molesale, Utilities INDUSTRIAL, R\'STITLTIOtiAL INS=-TIONTAL Hospital, Church, Librarv, Schools' General Classroom OPEN SPACE Parks A A F C D D OPIIti SPACE Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers 1 A A F Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat AGRICULTURE Agriculture A A A A A A � INTERPRETATION ZONE A Specified Lund use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal CLEARLY COMPATIBLE conventional construction without any special nos -se insulation requirements. ZONE B New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction NORNIALLY COMPATIBLE requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. ZOITE C Now construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development NORMALLY INCOMPATIBLE does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design ZONE D New construction or development should generally not be tuidertaken. CLEARLY INCOMPATIBLE Source! J.J. Van Houten & Associates 126 Tustin Noise Element; Figure 1, Tustin Noise Compatibility Standards (Giroux 2016). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration the project site. The closest point of the new reservoir would be 26 feet to the shared property line and about 50 feet from the residential structure. A 10 -foot temporary construction easement on this residential property is proposed for the demolition, grading, and construction phases. Along the eastern perimeter, the nearest home borders the site to the northeast, on Outlook Lane. This lot sits about 10 feet below grade of the project site. The closest point of the new reservoir would be 13 feet to the shared property line and about 50 feet from the residential structure. A 15 -foot temporary construction easement on this residential property would be proposed for the demolition, grading, and construction phases. The new pump station would be adjacent to the Valhalla Drive property line. The residential structure to the pump station is located to the southwest, across Valhalla Drive, approximately 80 feet away. This home is below roadway grade by approximately 10 feet and has a noise/privacy wall at the top of grade. The residence is about 20 feet below the grade of the project site. Pipelines are planned to connect the project to improve fire protection, improve capacity and upgrade older deteriorating lines. Pipeline installation and replacement would occur within the roadway right-of-way. Would the project: 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 Impact. Impacts from noise are evaluated for short-term (temporary) impacts associated with project construction and long-term (permanent) impacts resulting from project operation. Short-term Construction Impacts Short-term construction noise is governed by the City of Tustin's ordinance limits on allowable times of equipment operations. The City of Tustin limits construction activities to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, and never on Sundays or City -observed federal holidays. Construction activities that occur during allowable hours are exempt from noise standards. Development of the proposed project would result in short-term noise increase from operating heavy equipment during the construction phase. Construction noise levels would fluctuate. Table 7 below identifies the highest (Lrncx) noise levels associated with each type of equipment identified for use, and adjusts the noise level for distance to the closest sensitive receptor and the extent of equipment usage (Leq). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 1 12 Table 7. Construction Noise Impact127 Table 7 describes the noise level from operation of individual pieces of construction equipment, which can be combined to represent a worst-case condition. However, the site is small and it is not physically possible for more than two pieces of large equipment to operate simultaneously. 127 Roadway Construction Noise Model, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2006 (includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emissions levels); Table 2, Noise Impact Analysis, Giroux & Associates (August 3, 2016). 128 Represents the actual hours of peak construction equipment activity out of a typical 8 -hour day. 129 Estimates the fraction of time each piece of equipment is operating at full power during a construction operation. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 1 1 3 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Reservoir and Pump Station Phase Name Equipment Usage Factor128 Hours of Operation 2 Reference Noise Level @ 50 feet (d B) Cumulative Noise Level p@ 50 feet (d B) Demolition Dozer 40% 3.2 82 78 Crane 16% 1.3 81 73 Concrete Saw 20% 1.6 90 84 Loader/Backhoe 40% 3.2 84 80 Grading Loader/Backhoe 40% 3.2 84 80 Dozer 40% 3.2 85 81 Excavator 40% 3.2 81 78 Facilities Construction Forklift 20% 1.6 75 68 Air Compressor 40% 3.2 78 74 Pump 28% 2.2 81 75 Loader Backhoe 37% 3.0 78 74 Crane 16% 1.3 81 73 Paving Compactor 50% 4.0 77 74 Loader Backhoe 37% 3.0 78 74 Roller 38% 3.0 80 76 Pipeline Installation Phase Name Equipment Usage Factor Hours of Operation Reference Noise Level p@ 50 feet (d B) Cumulative Noise Level a@ 50 feet (d B) Excavate, Trenching and Pavement Cutting Jackhammer 20% 1.6 89 82 Trencher 50% 4.0 85 82 Concrete Saw 20% 1.6 90 83 Loader Backhoe 37% 3.0 78 74 Pipe Installation Forklift 20% 1.6 75 69 Loader Backhoe 37% 3.0 78 74 Crane 16% 1.6 81 73 Horizontal Bore Rig 25% 2.0 82 76 Repaving/Cover Paver 42% 3.4 77 74 Roller 38% 3.0 80 73 Compactor 20% 1.6 80 72 Table 7 describes the noise level from operation of individual pieces of construction equipment, which can be combined to represent a worst-case condition. However, the site is small and it is not physically possible for more than two pieces of large equipment to operate simultaneously. 127 Roadway Construction Noise Model, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2006 (includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emissions levels); Table 2, Noise Impact Analysis, Giroux & Associates (August 3, 2016). 128 Represents the actual hours of peak construction equipment activity out of a typical 8 -hour day. 129 Estimates the fraction of time each piece of equipment is operating at full power during a construction operation. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 1 1 3 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3=1111111-111170MMIMITIllff MI Therefore, the combined noise level from the two noisiest pieces of equipment for each construction activity was totaled to describe maximum construction noise exposure. Table 8 indicates the resulting noise level at receptor locations. Table 8. Maximal Construction Levels per Phase130 Phase Name Equipment Cumulative Noise Level p@ 50 feet (d B) Combined Noise Level p@ 50 feet (d B) Reservoir and Pump Station Demolition Dozer 78 85 Crane 73 Concrete Saw 84 Loader/Backhoe 80 Grading Loader/Backhoe 80 84 Dozer 81 Excavator 78 Facilities Construction Forklift 68 78 Air Compressor 74 Pump 75 Loader Backhoe 74 Crane 73 Paving Compactor 74 78 Loader Backhoe 74 Roller 76 Pipeline Installation Excavate, Trenching and Pavement Cutting Jackhammer 82 85 Trencher 82 Concrete Saw 83 Loader/Backhoe 74 Pipe Installation Forklift 69 78 Loader Backhoe 74 Crane 73 Horizontal Bore Rig 76 Repaving/Cover Paver 74 77 Roller 73 Compactor 72 Noise levels along the various pipeline alignments are estimated to be as high as 85 dB Leq at 50 feet. The noisiest activities occur during pavement jackhammering and sawing. These maximal noise levels would be limited to the time it takes to remove pavement adjacent to any residence which would be brief, and would affect a given sensitive receptor for only a short period of time. While such noise levels would be noticeable at times, these exceedances would be sporadic (not continuous) in nature, limited in duration, and would occur only when equipment is typically operated over 50 feet of a given receptor. Additionally, activities would be limited to daytime hours when most people are away from their homes. Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable 130 Table 3, Noise Impact Analysis, Giroux & Associates (August 3, 2016). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 1 14 3=1111111-1111170MMIMMIff M, 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 2 months. Pile driving would not be required for the proposed project. On-site construction equipment, under direct line -of -sight conditions, could create a peak exterior noise level at the closest residence as high as 85 dB. Noise impacts would be significant if they caused a violation of any adopted standards. There are no specific performance standards in the Municipal Code that apply to construction. 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 not result in a significant noise impact. Although construction equipment noise may not exceed any standards, the noise could create a disturbance even with the time restrictions placed on permits because the on-site noise impacts could last for months instead. Therefore, because of the length of time project construction would occur and the anticipated noise levels, a 15 -foot sound barrier along the northwest and northeast property lines and a 10 -foot sound barrier along the southeast and southwest property lines area included as project design features (PDFs). For the homes northeast and northwest of the project, a peak exterior noise level of 85 dB is expected, but would be reduced by 15 dB with the installation of a 15 -foot sound barrier, to 70 dB. As outlined in PDF 4, the sound barrier should be 15 feet high and shall be solid; it may consist of acoustical blankets, plywood, or other material with a transmission loss of at least 15 dB. A typical residential building can reduce noise levels by at least 25 dB with the windows closed. Therefore, an exterior level of 70 dB can allow for an interior level of 45 dB. For the homes southeast and southwest of the project site, with a peak exterior noise level of 82 dB is expected, which would be reduced by 10 dB with the installation of a 10 -foot sound barrier, to 72 dB. With building noise attenuation, an exterior noise level of 72 dB would maintain an interior noise environment of 47 dB with windows closed during the day, which is considered acceptable on a short-term basis. Since construction would occur only during the day, windows could be opened during the evenings and night. The 10 -foot noise barrier is described in PDF 5. These noise levels are acceptable for residential interior use and are below the 50 dB speech interference threshold; no further mitigation would be necessary. Long -Term Operational Noise Although operations at the project site for the new water reservoir would be similar to existing conditions, the existing booster pump station on Simon Ranch Road would be shut off, and a new booster pump station would be built on the reservoir site. The loudest project activity would be the electric water pumps. However, the pumps would operate within a completely enclosed pump station and would be located below ground. Only the control panels would be above ground. The maximum noise level of an unenclosed pump of this size aboveground would typically be 76 dB at a distance of 50 feet. However, a below ground vault could easily provide 35-40 dB of noise attenuation. There would also be a 10 foot CMU wall with a canopy shielding the pump station from the roadway which would provide another 10 dB of noise attenuation. The resulting noise level would be below ambient levels and a 25-30 dB noise level would not be audible at the closest home. Operation of the pump station would meet the City's daytime noise standard of 55 dB L50. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 1 15 MMW-lvr-mml--gmff M, The emergency generator is another possible noise contributor, but would be only used briefly (for approximately 15 minutes) and intermittently (approximately once per week). Testing would typically occur during daytime hours of lesser noise sensitivity. While the daytime noise standard is 55 dB L5o applies, this noise standard plus 5 dB(A) is permitted for a cumulative period of no more than fifteen minutes in any hour. Since testing for the emergency generator would be limited to 15 minutes, once per week, there would be a less than significant impact for emergency generator noise. The existing 5 -foot privacy wall on the northwest property line, distance separation, and varying elevations would shield the surrounding residential uses from project noise associated with the pump station and emergency generator testing. The 8 -foot privacy wall (PDF 1) would ensure that residences across Valhalla Drive and Outlook Lane are also not exposed to excessive noise from the pump station and emergency generator testing. Additionally, there would be no long-term noise impacts associated with the pipeline installation. Therefore, operation of the pipelines, emergency generator, and pump station would result in less than significant long-term noise impacts according to established standards. There would also be a less than significant impact regarding any increase in ambient noise levels. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Groundborne vibration occurs when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures. The range of vibration used to determine structural damage is as follows: Table 9. Human Response to Transient Vibration131 Average Human Response ppv (in/sec) Severe 2.000 Strongly perceptible 0.900 Distinctly perceptible 0.240 Barely perceptible 0.035 The City of Tustin Zoning Code has a general prohibition against creating a nuisance from excessive dust, smoke, odors, noise or vibrations, etc. However, no specific qualitative thresholds for "excessive vibration" have been established. Furthermore, the project's construction activities do not include activities known to induce strong vibration effects, such as those produced by tunneling or blasting. Although there are no Caltrans or Federal Highway Administration standards for vibration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard R 8-96132 describes three categories of damage to buildings from vibration: 1) Threshold cracking; 2) Architectural or Minor Damage; and 3) Major Damage. Based on AASHTO guidelines, a threshold 131 Table 4, Human Response to Transient Vibration, Noise Impact Analysis, Giroux & Associates (August 3, 2016); Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2013. 132 AASHTO, 2004. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 116 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration damage criterion of 0.5 in/sec PPV is appropriate to evaluate vibration impacts by transient and irregular sources. The closest residence would be located at least 50 feet from the proposed reservoir. Maximum vibration levels that could be generated by construction equipment operating at the project boundary are presented in Table 10. Table 10. Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction133 Equipment PPV at 25 ft (in/sec) PPV at 50 ft (in/sec) PPV at 75 ft (in/sec) PPV at 100 ft (in/sec) Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.017 0.011 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.027 0.015 0.010 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.007 0.004 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.001 <0.001 Because of the size of the site, it is not anticipated that a large bulldozer would be used. Loading trucks could only be staged along the roadways. Therefore, as indicated in Table 10, based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operation that would be used during project construction would range from 0.001 to 0.012 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at 50 feet from the source of activity. Therefore, vibration levels associated with operation of heavy construction equipment at the project boundary are not expected to exceed the 0.5 in/sec PPV threshold for cosmetic damage from transient vibration. There is no significant impact and no need for mitigation. Pump Station Vibration For electrical pumps to transmit vibration into their mounting pads and into the underlying ground, they must become seriously unbalanced, which rapidly destroys the pump. Pumps are mounted on heavy springs to prevent wobble, and are periodically checked for vibration. As noted in the construction vibration analysis, operation of a jackhammer could generate ground motion that would be below the human vibration detection threshold at the nearest residence. Water pumps cannot impart as much ground shaking as a jackhammer unless they are close to falling off their mountings. Also, the proposed pump station is below ground such that vibration waves would be further dampened. Vibration effects from pump operations would be imperceptible. Vibration Noise Construction activities generate ground -borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground -borne vibration include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Vibration related problems generally occur due to resonances in the structural components of a building because structures amplify groundborne vibration. Within the "soft" sedimentary surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration 133 Table 5, Estimated Vibration Levels During Project Construction, Noise Impact Analysis, Giroux & Associates (August 3, 2016); FHWA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 1 17 is quickly dampened. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors.1 34 Ground -borne vibration related to human annoyance is generally related to velocity levels expressed in decibel notation (VdB), the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of VdB is as follows: 65 VdB — threshold of human perception 72 VdB — annoyance due to frequent events 80 VdB — annoyance due to infrequent events 94-98 VdB — minor cosmetic damage To determine potential impacts of the project's construction activities, estimates of vibration levels induced by the construction equipment at various distances are presented in Table 1 1. Table 11. Approximate Vibration Levels Induced by Construction Equipment The onsite construction equipment that would create the maximum potential vibration is a loaded truck. The stated vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for such equipment is 86 VdB at 25 feet from the source. The closest sensitive uses are the two houses, one approximately 50 feet to the northeast, and the other 50 feet to the northwest. By 75 feet the vibration level dissipates to 77 VdB which is within the threshold of human perception, and would be within the threshold of annoyance if it occurred frequently. However, loaded trucks would only be used intermittently during a short period of time during demolition, which is scheduled to last approximately 60 days and because heavy equipment is mobile, it would only operate at the project perimeter for a short period of time. Municipal Code Section 4617 states that noise associated with construction is exempt from the noise standards if the allowable hours are limited to the daytime.1 36 This limitation of construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. would be effective since it would prohibit construction noise during the hours when people normally sleep and would prohibit construction noise during the early morning and evening when people are typically within their home and more sensitive to noise effects. Therefore, noise impacts from construction vibration would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Structural Vibration 134 FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 2006. 135 FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 2006. 136 Tustin Municipal Code section 4617. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 1 1 8 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB)135 Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 75 feet 100 feet Large 87 81 78 75 Bulldozer Loaded Truck 86 80 77 74 Jackhammer 79 73 69 67 Small Bulldozer 58 52 43 46 The onsite construction equipment that would create the maximum potential vibration is a loaded truck. The stated vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for such equipment is 86 VdB at 25 feet from the source. The closest sensitive uses are the two houses, one approximately 50 feet to the northeast, and the other 50 feet to the northwest. By 75 feet the vibration level dissipates to 77 VdB which is within the threshold of human perception, and would be within the threshold of annoyance if it occurred frequently. However, loaded trucks would only be used intermittently during a short period of time during demolition, which is scheduled to last approximately 60 days and because heavy equipment is mobile, it would only operate at the project perimeter for a short period of time. Municipal Code Section 4617 states that noise associated with construction is exempt from the noise standards if the allowable hours are limited to the daytime.1 36 This limitation of construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. would be effective since it would prohibit construction noise during the hours when people normally sleep and would prohibit construction noise during the early morning and evening when people are typically within their home and more sensitive to noise effects. Therefore, noise impacts from construction vibration would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Structural Vibration 134 FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 2006. 135 FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 2006. 136 Tustin Municipal Code section 4617. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 1 1 8 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures. Because vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance thresholds. A vibration descriptor commonly used to determine structural damage is the peak particle velocity (ppv) which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal, usually measured in in/sec. The range of such vibration is as follows in Table 12: Table 12. Human Response to Transient Vibration Average Human Response137 ppv (in/sec) Severe 2.00 Strongly perceptible 0.90 Distinctly perceptible 0.24 Barely perceptible 0.03 According to Caltrans, the threshold for structural vibration damage for modern structures are 0.5 in/sec for intermittent sources. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1990) identifies maximum vibration levels for preventing damage to structures from intermittent construction or maintenance activities for residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls to be 0.4-0.5 in/sec.138 The damage threshold criterion of 0.2 in/sec is appropriate for fragile buildings.139 Old Towne Tustin Cultural Resources District is located approximately 2 miles southwest of the project site.140 The closest fragile buildings are approximately 2 miles from the project boundary on Valhalla Drive. Because the Cultural Resources District is 2 miles from the project site, there is no risk of building damage. Construction vibration would not exceed any damage thresholds at the nearest sensitive uses. Furthermore, operation of the pipeline facilities would not result in significant noise impacts, since these facilities would be located below ground surface. The pump station replaces an existing use, and would be below ground behind a 8 -foot solid wall with an overhead canopy. Operational noise would therefore be less than the vibration standard, and would not affect sensitive uses. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than significant impact. Typically, long-term noise impacts from projects are primarily from project -related traffic on roadways adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would generate one vehicle trip per day, at most. Therefore, the project would generate less than significant traffic noise impacts. Long-term operational noise impacts related to operations at the 137 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2013. 138 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1990). 139 Id. 140 See Zoning Map of the City of Tustin (2012), available at http://econnect.tustinca.org/depa rtments/commdev/documents/planningandzoning/Zoning-MAP.pdf. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 119 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration project site for the new water reservoir pump station are discussed in Section 7a above. Impacts would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. John Wayne Airport is located 6.73 miles southwest of the project site. There are no other private airfields or airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, a private airstrip is not proposed as part of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people to excessive noise levels associated with operations at a private airstrip or helipad; no impacts would result from excessive noise generated by a private airstrip. There would be no impact. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies PDFs The following PDFs are incorporated into the project, and would reduce impacts related to construction noise. This action would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: PDF 1: Wall Design (Refer to Section I, Aesthetics for the text of this PDF) PDF 4: Northern Noise Barrier Prior to demolition, the project shall install a solid, 15 -foot high sound barrier consisting of acoustical blankets, plywood, or other material with a transmission loss of at least 15 dB along the northeastern and northwestern site boundaries. The City of Tustin, at its discretion, may conduct noise studies throughout implementation of the project to demonstrate that the noise barrier may be removed if the noise study establishes that interior noise levels for adjacent sensitive receptors would be 50 dB or less. PDF 5: Southern Noise Barrier Prior to demolition, the City shall install a solid, 10 -foot high sound barrier consisting of acoustical blankets, plywood, or other material with a transmission loss of at least 10 dB along the southwestern and southeastern site boundaries. The City of Tustin, at its discretion may conduct noise studies throughout implementation of the project to demonstrate the noise barrier may be removed if the noise study establishes that interior noise levels for adjacent sensitive receptors would be 50 dB or less. PPPs The following measures are standard conditions of development and existing plans, programs, or policies (collectively referred to as PPPs) that apply to the proposed project and would help to reduce and avoid potential impacts related to noise. These actions would be included in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program: Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 120 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, PPP 1.1: Construction Hours (Refer to Section I, Aesthetics for the text of this PPP) Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required because no significant impacts to noise have been identified. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 121 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? 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 project would not create permanent jobs, but would create temporary construction jobs. Temporary construction workers are usually commuters. The 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 numbers of people. No impacts to population or housing would occur. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to population and housing impacts. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required because no significant impacts to population and housing have been identified. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 22 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated XIV. 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of a water tank 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. 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. Fire Protection, Police Protection, and Other Public Facilities Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 123 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3=1111111-1111170MMIMMIff M, During project construction, there could be occasional calls for fire protection or police protection, in the cases of medical emergency or construction equipment theft. However, because these calls for service would be temporary, if they occur, and because the site would not be occupied at project completion such that calls for service are generated, impacts would be less than significant. Also, although Simon Ranch Reservoir would be offline during the demolition and construction phases, adequate fire protection would be available to the area if needed from the other nearby sections of the Tustin water system. Once the new reservoir has been brought online, there would be adequate fire protection for the Simon Ranch segment of Tustin's water system. Impacts would be less than significant. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to public services impacts. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required because no significant impacts to public services have been identified. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 124 XV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated? No Impact. The Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement project involves the demolishing of an existing water reservoir, the construction of a new reservoir within the same project site, and associated onsite and offsite pipeline improvements. The proposed project would not increase population or housing in the area, which drive the demand for recreational facilities. Therefore, there would not be an increased demand for recreational facilities and no physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities in the area would occur. b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. As stated above, the project involves construction of a new reservoir only. The project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities onsite or offsite. Therefore, implementation of the project would not have any physical environmental impact relating to recreational facilities. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to recreation impacts. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required because no significant impacts to recreation have been identified. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 125 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site would replace the existing reservoir, and uses would not change upon project implementation. The only possible interference with the circulation system would occur during construction. Therefore, only construction trip generation is Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 126 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration analyzed below, as compared to existing traffic volumes. It is also important to note that no construction activities would interfere with peak a.m. and p.m. traffic hours, and that at no time would any road be closed. Existing Traffic Volumes Vehicles access the site from Irvine Boulevard using Browning Avenue, Simon Ranch Road, Valhalla Drive, and Outlook Lane. All of the roadways that provide access to the project site are two-lane undivided residential roadways. According to the City of Tustin Average Daily Traffic Volumes map (2014), Browning Avenue currently carries approximately 2,400 daily trips north of La Colina Drive and 1,800 daily trips south of La Colina Drive. Browning Avenue north of Irvine Boulevard is not classified on either the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) or the City of Tustin Arterial Highway Plan.141 However, it is consistent with the description of a Collector Roadway, which according to the City's General Plan has a capacity of 12,500 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and according to the MPAH has a capacity of 7,500 to 10,000 ADT. The lowest capacity of 7,500 was utilized. Project Construction Trip Generation142 Browning Avenue north of La Colina Drive currently carries 2,400 daily trips, or approximately 32 percent of its capacity. This would be considered Level of Service (LOS) A. Adding 308 PCE trips would increase the volume to 36 percent of its capacity, which would still be LOS A. Therefore, the project would not cause any decrease in the LOS on Browning Avenue. The project would be constructed in the following 7 phases: Phase 1 — Demolition (2 months) Phase 2 — Grading (6 month) Phase 3 — Reservoir Construction (7 months) Phase 4 — Backfill Earthwork (2 weeks) Phase 5 — Excavate and Grade Pipeline (1 month) Phase 6 — Pipeline Installation (3 months) Phase 7 — Cover and Repave (1 month) As shown in Appendix E, Trip Generation, Phase 2 (Grading) of the proposed project would be the phase with the highest trip generation, and would last one month. During Phase 2, there would be 308 passenger car equivalent (PCE) construction trips generated per day, with 35 vehicle trips (56 PCE trips) during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This would likely be seen as an inconvenience to residents in the area, however, the construction trip generation would not cause any LOS deficiencies on surrounding roadways. Construction trips are temporary, and the highest trip generation would only occur for one month. Based on this trip analysis, it is unlikely that significant, permanent traffic impacts would occur due to project construction. 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? 141 Figure C-2, Circulation Element, City of Tustin General Plan. 142 Appendix D herein: Simon Ranch Reservoir Reconstruction Construction Trip Generation, Transpo Group (July 29, 2016). Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 127 No Impact. The height of the proposed project's reservoir would not change from its current condition. An 8 to 10 -foot wall would be constructed around the perimeter of the site. The tank and its perimeter wall would not impact air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. There would be no impact. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? Less Than Significant 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 would be improved with a new access point on Valhalla Drive. The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact related to increased hazards, and no mitigation measures would be required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. During construction activities, the existing private streets of Valhalla Drive and Outlook Lane would remain open. These streets serve residences to the north of the project site. Following construction of the proposed project, current emergency access and evacuation conditions would be the same. No significant impacts to emergency access would result. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. Transit service near the project site is provided by Orange County Transportation Authority. The project suite is served by Community and Shuttle Route 167 with stops on Newport Boulevard and Local Route 79 with stops on Irvine Boulevard. There are no pedestrian facilities in the project area, such as sidewalks and crosswalks, and there are no bike trails. Impacts would be less than significant. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to transportation and planning impacts. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required because no significant impacts to transportation and traffic have been identified. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 28 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ® ❑ ❑ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to ❑ ❑ ❑ serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 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? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact. The 1972 Clean Water Act established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which authorizes states to regulate sources of water pollution that discharge in to waters of the United States via a permitting process. NPDES permits are administered by the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The RWQCB applicable to the project site is Region 8 — Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana RWQCB has issued permits to municipalities of Northern Orange County (including Tustin), and to the County of Orange, which acted as the principal permittee. NPDES permits are Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 129 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration issued for 5 years, and the City is currently operating under its 41" permit.143 Implementation of the proposed project would not increase wastewater generation, and thus, would not increase the demand for wastewater treatment. Therefore, given the residential nature and scope of the proposed development, project implementation would not cause an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB. Impacts would be less than significant. 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 the replacement of an existing water reservoir to increase the City's water storage and supply capacity. The potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the project, including construction, have been evaluated throughout this Initial Study. The project would not result in the construction of wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. With implementation of the standard conditions and mitigation measures identified, no significant environmental effects would result. Therefore, there would be no impact. 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. The offsite storm drain connection would require installation of a new storm drain. 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 less than significant with implementation of the SWPPP and construction 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. Therefore, there would be no impact with regard to having sufficient water supplies to serve the project from existing or new entitlements. 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 reservoir would not generate wastewater and would not demand any wastewater treatment capacity. Therefore, there would be no impact. 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? 143 See 10 Status Report, City of Tustin's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program 01-19-10, available at http://econnect.tustinca.org/WebIink8/0/doc/133087/Pagel.aspx. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 130 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3=1111111-1111170MMIM"Iff M, 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, approximately 9 miles to the east) which is part of the Orange County landfill system operated by the County's Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD). This landfill has a maximum permitted tonnage of 11,500 tons per day and residual capacity of nearly 6,800 tons per day.144 It is permitted to operate through the year 2053, though it has adequate capacity to continue operations to 2065.145 The construction -related solid waste generated by the project would be accommodated within the permitted capacity of the County's landfill system. Similar to existing conditions, operation of the new reservoir would not generate solid waste. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. Based on the programs in effect to limit the generation of waste, and the availability of capacity at the local landfill to service the project, there are less than significant impacts related to solid waste. Project Design Features & Standard Conditions/Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies No PDFs or PPPs are applicable to utilities and service systems impacts. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required because no significant impacts to utilities and service systems have been identified. '44 See Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, County of Orange Waste and Recycling, http://oclandfills.com/landfill/active/bowerman. '45 See Facility/Site Summary Details: Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF (30 -AB -0360), Solid Waste Facility Permit, available at http://www.caIrecycle.ca.gov/SWFaciIities/Directory/30-AB-0360/Detail. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 131 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Less Than No SIGNIFICANCE. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ® ❑ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ ❑ ® ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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, located in a developed residential area of the city. The project site is currently occupied by the existing buried reservoir and is mostly occupied by the tank. The project site is not populated or used by any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status, and does not contain habitat that would support sensitive species. There are no sensitive biological resources, habitat, or species located on the project site that would be affected by the proposed project. The project site is not within or adjacent to the NCCP/HCP Habitat Reserve. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As discussed in Section V above, there are no historical resources located with the project site. In addition, due to the development of the project site and previous disturbances associated with the construction and operation of the existing site use, the potential for encountering paleontological and archeological resources is considered low. However, in the event that cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during ground -disturbing activities, implementation of mitigation measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 would ensure that impacts to cultural and paleontological resources remain less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, and impacts would be less than significant. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 132 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 311113111WOMOMMIMMIff M, 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. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the development when added to the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, developments taking place over a period. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 (a) and (b), states: (a) Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. (b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. 146 The potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project have been determined to be less than significant. The project involves the replacement of an existing water reservoir with a new reservoir on the same site. The project site is already developed and is located in an urbanized area. As discussed above, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact under any impact area. There are currently no significant projects in the entitlement process or under development within the vicinity of the project site. Cumulative impacts would therefore be less than significant. 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. As described in Sections I through XVII, above, the proposed project would not require any mitigation measures because the project does not have any potentially significant impacts. Furthermore, the implementation of project design features and City standards, and guidelines would ensure that there would be no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Project Design Features & Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies Refer to PDFs and PPPs from sections I (Aesthetics), III (Air Quality), V (Cultural Resources), VI (Geology and Soils), and XII (Noise). These PDFs and PPPs are City -initiated actions or existing plans, programs, or policies which effectively reduce potential environmental impacts. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 133 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3=1111111-IMOMMIMMIff M, Mitigation Measures Refer to MMs from sections IV (Biological Resources), V (Cultural Resources), and VI (Geology and Soils). These MMs effectively reduce environmental impacts to less than significant. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 134 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 5.1 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS PRC Section 21081.6 (enacted by the passage of AB 3180) mandates that the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or mitigation monitoring programs: The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the Project or conditions of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a Responsible Agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. The Lead Agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. A public agency shall provide the measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment that are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design. Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or MND, a Responsible Agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to the Lead Agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the Responsible Agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the Project, or refer the Lead Agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a Lead Agency by a Responsible Agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance by a Responsible Agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a Project with that requirement shall not limit that authority of the Responsible Agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the Lead Agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law. 5.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES The mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compliance with PRC Section 21081.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City to ensure that all mitigation measures, project design features, and plans, policies and procedures adopted as part of the proposed project would be carried out as described in this IS/MND. Table 5-1 lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this IS/MND and identifies the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 135 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Eƒ a_ �0 J7 )+ ; k� _ _ _ _ _ / - \ » � ¥ 5 \ƒ \ \ - §6 B o o j 2 2 % \� ) ) ou> % % % % % ) & & & & & u u u u u $ ( § § § § § § _ _ \ \ \ \ \ Z 6 6 6 6 6 o G G G G G §,] E§. E J® »G - 2 »G - 2 »G - 2 »G - 2 »G - 2 - *s_ *s_ *s_ *s_ *s_ L y!§ y!§ y!§ y!§ y!§ �2 ecu ecu ecu ecu ecu L# 0 )§ 2 ) z k \ 0 \ k ƒ \ \ \ \ 7»777 33 ��°°° \§§: -\\ j:}f°°e _- -; ; \\ _ : w o cIE\2»GE)\®u Zoo >=q -_ ;:g =- e»2/- �0^-� ; ew = - e E- \=te 7EEfk=G _2=-;fg:E v �7\» GzzzzE/ {}3�G°»@e 0 _e cm3 2/°2 \-E} a ¥ass 5$= 5@ a£ )0 o-V)GG® | »tf 5 ={o» } �7a\�2%o § oo u »)\)%§ 7ƒ& !» \/\) �2°- L`0 / @ƒ 227 =3 )% :� )k\!2j/2; - °: \\@/\2 eee /_!° \\/ E)==: : 3=2 /�2 =g e 0 :� : ==lJ= �0 &ƒ 00o< )®/[7\f�= e:-;o=,=� 5;3=�: _; :_e wz \ao; �2.zU�=;;_ z6E )o =_§ �=7®7 %3 =ee� ¥= Ew E 0 J2 =E!75 = /oG g/G\ 92\ ): /G/ 7\}:7)w(_:/ e0 mo �g� to Lu \ § § k E k ^ ) p 2 § 2 ) ) }} j 2 «2g k}$/ Eƒ a_ \ } �} « 2 0 ); /\\ 0 0 U / \ ) .E E 0 E _ K /%0c 0 / > �o / u $ 0 o>Z \ 2$0 6 2 §-] E0 u .�� �- EZ® -0 LU \}0 �2 ecu L# 0 )§ 2 # K ■ § \ § § k 0\ F ■ w=-= Cl) . ;:N 0 0 }epee / @` § ° \ 2 0 % 0 O/0 E0 ® /)/( 0 ) a ` \ 2 0 _ //\\2� w:fELo - 2 2 \§ //) \ g<:: $ ! 2ee»��\\ ) § i }§;2 \/® © -mo=w o=:_ et o t g 0 / g . _{ »\ ) u7}/2e :B7°`� ^ § !-:#77` ):_ o !{\jj&:\\e \/\j\ƒ \3\9jf/®®) » x -0>or t \\/=2\§w/\ ! ;f: _ ; _� ;\ ; _® ro Q) 0 »> o- _ -;_-: ;:_ e_ - ez±� k 0=s }7§7 : %:!2 !B : I B`llee7&7% 0���`�� . ■ mut-2= a2»z =299 *2 _ =se0 :e§G2§$)G° § fj\{/{///»(\ E � \ 2>-:=2 =u0 00 = /tee_:-=%�-�? - : B {) / ® - . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ o : - _ ; 2 y x w _ / 0 _ : - G 2 5 » _. g7:=!» 7`t�==;§00 = 05_0-0 = a2o�= __ =�e===��2l3!/j§&/�{±\�7j5 =-E2 : �-000 t-�; %t: §e ===gysa2mlfjQEQ) > 2>Q)> ®Qeee/22�`EQ)Q) ee/\o;;J:2 & } $ (t e t 4 ; �. � m ; � u � c-Cle � u e g m : » 0/=u= -s =2 .e e2 w w ¥ W « < a « \ _ § \ / 2\\ k ( ) E 2 \§} k \ % E» a/ / )) =\\z o //u! k� 0 o _ 0 CL:=u 0 2 \ / E 0 E gg \ \ ( \ CL = c /%0c \Im )a 0 E CL 0 ou> % % ) & & u u $ 0 >Z \ \ 2$2 6 6 z §-] E§= \ \ .a.� � 0 - 2 _E t \}\ \}0 �2 ecu ecu L# 0 )§ 2 # 7 ± § z 2 } 2 z E ° » o ) ( \ § ' § E /\ 2 :E3\ §J w/� 0 0 00 00c0 0000- -_ o _ g:&-f=33;=:==a t±� e- (-). »�=�>�-te®%o 5, �]\k\ƒ%})»%%�.»/( ƒ/°- \t/ §� 3-22\±ij«§ 7& ° y=y\( X322 7® \{==«2-2 —u - o= �2-»±:: z\�» > 0--,-/�)#�tzg\&2 ; j/{( _»S»0C7 0 u 0 ;; -G! 2=©«-o;ee�: 55 )\\$ °y ;!»°y;:=72»$ ��0${&/\}�®�E& o_a °©!� ®77- . e_¥s0 =__;_; =-00;2§02 2»3ƒ >0.2 >\\�*)/Q) r)7/ G==;t: __;;_�: %§0yE =:eea$»:E-c -0 ^�®`-°22228. )t` j ° G0 e^2° c'0-0 =-Ek /a baY=»!==�/5!/{{ �G-2% , ¥ g - _ ; _ = 2 f e = { ; » 2 t `�_§ �- 7 2§::&�_ ;-ae /§ 2��° e -meq w> 72{2a 2- �■ oa 0 2$f ;%2=;\tat*})\7)4» §!2; OL Q) 2:oa» , ©�:m` mss- �� § , ==5E °y7=��=9�G7=c°°e% c % _ ; f r ; g a Z » : f a § % _ � J% X2/2} § m : » » eLU \/ \� \k 2 E : ° 2 : \ : t om � 0 Lo \2/\}\k7 k/\}} 2 % E» a/ ■ « § 0 CL 0 § 0 LU 3§ L# 0 )§ 0 � 0 ■ 0 a 0 � ■ 0 ■ 2 E 0 /»///)'f N2E )00,Q 0 \ƒLo Q) ®Z0 ===263 \7{\k\\/}}/ t;Q)Q) Z 0 u�=a }/\}//\/0�ƒ$ ��)»m»y2= t%/#3-=ecE0 o}((" \ \ \\/R0 2E !=0o- \j\ /2ge0° -»§o�u{»f®/$ Q) Q) Q) 0 CL ew0> c w�2\ƒ\3% }: c 0 f o! o t b ;u�>$\/a>0 \(\)/ _e&PE—0a)ee< K \ u � § /} \\ \} ww:7}37z725 Oe - 7;Q) 0 kk\/\/=��){ /3 )U > 22 E\/%)\() 2»®00::E .2 u00ate%=:.2 :w s:�lgl,# �G:/J//):jG° G . \-E ®`§ee�;§ 225\3��5° _ 0»\0{3%\®/)& a0 _%(7c »7\�0 77e _9 =y -0=��2=;:>3- 2&2\2=3=>2G§ -=-e55-=mow \®!;*f ©5= G; §mac=m44ff2ee k_ $7 2jZ°=-CM-0 Q) g3=z =f 2; 0) 0) e2G)oQe-;2� =o==G* :3§e :7-0 Q) e2;5 -:FE -0 Q) / ƒ7§$=3Q) 5 0o=2°°° /0 o-5: -c—o $g\$/\`2&2=/ sae0cQ) 0 0 g > _ § � 533 =Q) -0c a 2 : 2 @ : \ #m2°%7 J_lagf /2>E \)7770.0 =!2//j%»szz §}y; .;=yD00 ;�o®ter:.== Bes$\(B§E§7 CO 0 V O V •- m a 0 a a V m c p m E > V a a 2 � N (3) C, Z L N a .� N m CIR G -0 a c O a �n c V = C O Q c d� N o O � V O � z a� c o o � CL a T O V O - S LM a a •y � • C •O N 7 ~ 0 O yOV> o d T V � (D c O_ O => t o_ a - Oo O =� � Z_ •`-' E V F O -2 a d L- Q) o Q. N £ > W N N O N O D Ln Z a 0 V LU J co ,Q,^ V Q 0 '> Z OC C Q a V Z = O O o ._ H Q O C c O c (D N O O d CH C j N}No N j o o NO NO ON -Q_N oO N o a -O) o O°N Na NS Ny� ta) o > E.a -E U OT }N O _ O N 4 o NV = :� ,o EF EN U> Q Ot- C E O c N O sQ > p 0 00 0 oS 0p 0o to 'Oo- N OO M N Q SO Q C ) O O O 0 ,Qs0h Q> D_Q O Q Q) o`- o O a) E o O E O O Ld C Q Q� 40O 0 O 3 O} }}> O O D O X L5 -Uc S 0 0 0 O�� S `o 0 0 0 o o s � — o H a N o o o 3 s s 0 0 w } N OLo N o N o a H O 0 0 N O Q .'^ O N c~ � N V} O N N} O 0}= O } `E v 0 0)Q) t -p 0 S O S= s 0 N Q) N N N O V N N O S O i� H N ` Q S N i} N N N S S S S N .�w c Q S- 0 N E N N c�} 7 O N 0 0 V N c N T U Q O S N>> O j '� a 7 C Q} N H Q) S C o SQ S OS 0 a) 0)OC Q) O Na N O O O o U .}_ O-. '� o 3� 0 p c c} c 4 E T~ E ao ri aoi Q) Q p 00 O>> O .v Q p > N '} w N> O p 0 --2 O O O V O E- Q E N N v O 2 O 2 D U N - '� N O O} O> t S j c ti c> O - V O CV O D a V 0 0 Q Q O O� d N O Q Q Q N N N N N O V N O .E r J_ £ V Z :E 0 V O V •- m a 0 a a V m c p m E > V a a 2 � N (3) C, Z L N a .� N m CIR G -0 a c O a �n c \ Eƒ a_ �0 J7 )+ o k� _ 2 j E & E gg \ 2 C _ /%0c \LM 0 ECL / 0 > �0 / u $ 0 >Z \ 2$2 6 0 2 §-] E§. . a. � �- EZ® -2 \}0 �2 ecu L# 0 )§ 2 # K ) ■ § 4� � !� 2 k \} 2-=-�>�9_000u _- -_�__ _ /5f§=�=E�°g:�222e$�2zz _ ;�_0_:� _:��- ��fog X52= ¥=e:wg® ��; ` 0 0 ;;_:=::-§E55®�: »=e;: _-+ -I.--0 -.- . ;;E 'e\mQ)Q) .2 QE) §-� ser/»`& EE© °°`$e[a'e2 =eL\�E7Ot�ee ; _: ;/>;r: e`===.8=- 0> o2ss<x =l;oo _ ;4- 2=t;:= oo»:=:==9;:o= )ooG3»; ® 2\:°te&»°2 �2- ;2;=-� :=->e �\__� M-0 > 2z -5a E - 0) wo=e IE _ )�4�f§/5//{2#00)u ]/®® j\\77§/w/E/= ¥;Q:—Q)0 eg> u 0) Oa 32& _� e° oo 222/5=%�22$G\\ EE e2 g.7m:®/o Gx. of :� 2 @ _ 0$=22/2m-:.°°-§ -2:§»�-0 :� e ;� =:e � 4 = - eea�-e=2= , } 0 CL)c -5\/3} §latae -0u E=!et \)!\\23¥»/!®/M \ =l:22); -C -u 0 =: . os o= __ �e = ;9\j73Em$y0�to2r/®-c2;w _ 2�§ 2{7¥!a\\/j\Q=§ §-e: t ; e _@%_ {)\}/ƒ2@E 2— ee-=e / ; = e;!}- ; o=: �2«2w-5)t.; ;->-Q) =; :°»=Eee e > 1 E »::°tee <:\55;-=;ez,o &°eeof-/-= //=2§ate wa=�- / .;:@\;2e gu ;lG5:�2�:¥os. u22/ G &/( �t=�e`7 'eeeeea\�3\ �_w- -- =o±_ 2e jawE£ 43=�: ��+��=°=34\=2�:£��/ " G% -�GE:2:21=))»� /2/\Q)>Q)o ;_ ;�S w s!{;6:;�=>g�l� :o= o�:o Q) _ 0-2�;.3e%3% 2LD =:- o-§ -S®§ye/§a>.�\ems->f»®/E® » --/°� -=°e: / $ % : E « / ©7 ƒ / G = S / � ° 2 Q) 2 w e > /Gtr OEStz! §=�;e;2=B=;_eZs\@/2&g&;e ±===;s B; \ � E 7 2 \ Eƒ a_ q �0 J7 )+ o k� 2 / E E gg \2 CL _ /%0c \LM 0 ECL / 0 > �0 / u $ 0 0>Z \ 2$.0 6 0 2 §-] E§. . a. � �- EZ® -0 \}0 �2 ecu L# 0 )§ 2 # K ■ \ 0 A ±\ § CL e k ■ \& 2> =7 : z;} : t - e -_- 2 - ___- _-w= = 2$= 7= 2 = 2° j} 2 f 2: 2 = f s� fo) 5\# la !\) /z � L ƒ§/-0O-/�ƒ\ CL /»)\/\\� \-0 }-,; \V) §\\/)\ #/%33 _5`\} $G �°_ :»m 7§=&{25 \»»z{` ea% 5§/§7JJ/!E• E cL :�� - .=e== S0 22C- - E)\ )/`\��:/e/G °:2'�7 gam`\==p &=e §)26x@.2 0 0X &/ ! , E0-2.!00 0 =§tet =fe =t ° ;»ew-=ems a `\ � 0 Q) CL Q)e / » » - U 0-Q) \ \ / } V) CL Q) G ƒ/t _ jee.\wee§£° C) 3 & e o - g : ; ; _ _ _ > ;:�.e; ; _ _ -. 2 - _ o ; .=m& e=� 2 2 a 2 ! ': -�-!}�® Z%\ 0 CL :§^ 7z= -0- \\-\\� ! /=->ag�$=Ew 5 _© a&=! \ =\\=3} k�\m e\- ° \ )022\/\/G[/ a _-_% §& \= {55 B /74 ! !»�tA 0!53»/@ .0-- 2}»§\730 . 0»-t=:�Q) �2}!2.4 E mgeoesG�% 00 ,CL 0)> -0u E0 =2� §_&�»=«�;e k\ 2 � - E 0 / . \ 2 0 0 a= CL q CO V E :_ �n c V = = O a� a Q c d� o N O � V O o a� a� _ a o £ O � O � � D - N d Q N O O N = c } a1 _T V O LM a a _ W •O ~ ~ 0. > O .0 V> 0 N 0 V V w Q c � O 0 O =>Z O = a t a' CL _T a— O O N i N (D = a Q o = H O \ a E > o 0 0 _ 1� QLU V = O 0 N O 0 1 Z a 0 V LU J co IQI^ Q Z C 0 O Z i C 0 CO C Q V a Z =E O o a L V _ 0 U7 O Q) 3 Q) O p N a 4 c O. E a� :� Q) 0 V S Q O O CJ m — o Z`< O O H a V y 3 0 � S _ 3 0 Q) a) 7 C o L� y\� j j } N C '0 N y° �� ° 0 o a - a� V) a Q) E } = } 0 E ° Q) oV 3 0 `x O 0�0 �}}CL O a} �OypOc 0.oQ4y_�ptto N Z in 0 a in O m s O a) N S}� N aj N O O O w 0 0 3 N S p O} 7 X p� O O y O m c O y Q N ca E Ty Q)a E N c c t O� c}— s p V N a� N } O O N Dp p y 0 S p O V c a) " ._ O O E N 3 c N .L) c- } '} c O a) .O O O- N O .0 - N a p O Z N w > p �_ O S O O V E H a o a (1 V o a) _T .- V a% o Q) N ms's 0 0 0a3 O E E 0 Q� o �. O .Y a 0-- _o o o - E E V E N o a Q o o a — o° �o V oa n mo y Q V .ESL) y� oO.Eca a a Q� o a cN ° w O p C a " 7 z d a C :Ex 0 a 0 Z 0 a d a CO V E :_ �n c 7 �0 J7 )+ o k� / / \ \E E 2/ 0 \( 0( CL _ C _ /%0c \Im )a 0 E CL 0 ou> % % ) & & u u $ 0.0 >Z \ CL 2$2 6 6 $ a) E§= \ 0 .a.� � -0\ -2\ _EJ® \}\ \}0 �2 ecu ecu L# co (D 0 } ƒ D } / A \ \ k F 07 ■ _ 0 ) j` 7/ a 2 G a Z% E w=__ - 0tom%: 2,,2;f=2= y0 cQ) _0> 62Q)o.u�0 -2:=.ge2° \g`0 EQ) 8 e:�=e 7_9±e. ;» �%)u72}0 22E -c ) / 2 Cof\\/ 2 Q) 3 = E w� r/2�;;0;9= u Q) -0 e E E c: -, /B{:_2�§* 52 ®(}©:ƒu \®f\\±E) ! 0 ' )°a\/%t§;» a2»=e2=wCc § ==fes 3� muoEo >5\©-=��_ / &Z§U-c--C 2 ° E .;o O)» we=>t / § ! 2 0 0) GQ 7J20z@ !0 ! �§§\5 \ =) G / G E -} �so° s=a e f �)/7\\�& 7tJ=7\ )\$ )\°- .-Q2; °�%o--/0 !«\ 293;9®2- \\( /tu 229 ; , ©_§ 2 5=: u#- f; a= 5= B& e E 2 7 o b e �ƒ �«e ) k/< LA\2 .OL� a% t: 2 kz V)CL §jk\ 7 6 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS Lead Agency City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Project Contact: City of Tustin Water Service Art Valenzuela 1472 Service Rd. Tustin, Ca. 92780 (714) 573-3382 CEQA Consultant: Environment Planning Development Solutions, Inc. (EPD) 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92614 Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration MMMIMOMMIM"ff M, This page intentionally left blank. Simon Ranch Reservoir Replacement Project 146 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT D City Council Resolution No. 16-67 RESOLUTION NO. 16-67 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 2016-026 FOR THE SIMON RANCH RESERVOIR REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT 11811 OUTLOOK LANE. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That Design Review 2016-026 is a City -initiated project that involves the demolition of the existing 1.4 million gallon Simon Ranch Reservoir at 11811 Outlook Lane, and the construction of a new 1.0 million gallon concrete domestic water tank on the same site. Also proposed are a new on-site below -ground booster pump station, retaining and screen walls, landscaping and irrigation, and off-site pipeline improvements; B. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held for said project on November 15, 2016, by the City Council; C. That the proposed project is consistent with the Tustin General Plan in that the property is designated as "Public/Institutional' which provides for the establishment of public facilities. In addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub -Element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub -Element; D. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin City Code, the City Council finds that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed project will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, or the present or future development therein as a whole. In making such findings, the Council has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk, and area of buildings; 2. Setbacks and site planning; 3. Exterior materials and colors; 4. Type and pitch of roofs; 5. Roof structures; 6. Location, height, and standards of exterior illumination; 7. Landscaping; 8. Location and appearance of equipment located outside an enclosed structure; 9. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood 10. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares; and 4W Resolution No. 16-67 Design Review 2016-026 Page 2 11. Development guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. E. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommended for approval by the City Council. II. The City Council hereby approves Design Review 2016-026, subject to the Mitigation Measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is within Exhibit A to City Council Resolution No. 16-66, and subject to the condition that all applicable State, regional, and local agency permits are obtained. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 15th day of November, 2016. JOHN NIELSEN MAYOR ERICA N. RABE CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 16-67 ERICA N. RABE, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 16-67 was dul� passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 15t day of November, 2016, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: ERICA N. RABE CITY CLERK