HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-ATTACHMENT C(c) DRAFT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTSFinal Supplemental EIR and Responses to Comments
June 2017 1 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 1994071005
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
for City of Tustin
Prepared for;
Contact: Justina Willkom, Assistant Director - Planning
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, Cafifornia 92780
714.5 73, 3115
Prepared by;
PlaceWorks
Contact: Nicole Morse, Esq., Associate Principaf
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
info@piaceworks.com
www.placeworks.com
PLACEWORKS
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLPMENTAL E1R
CITY OF TUSTIN
Table of Contents
Section page
1. INTRODUCTION... ................... ............................. ...... ................. .................................. 1-1
1.1 INIRODUCTION................................ ............................................................................... .............................. 1"-1
1.2 FORMAT OF THE FSEIR ...... -,.-.... .................. ............................................................................................ 1-1
1.3 CEQA REQUIREII1I?NT5 REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSI ;S .......................... ....... 1-2
2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS...... ................................. — .... ......................... .......................... - 2-1
3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR....................................................................................I........... 3-1
3.1 IN I RODUCI'ION......... ...................................... .............. ........... ............ .............................................. .... .... -3-1
3.2 DSEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS .......... ................................ -- ..... 3-1
APPENDICES
Appendi.Y A. MWD Comment Letter Attachment
Appendix B. Southern Cahffirnia Gas Cotnpany Comment Letter Attachment
Appendix C. OPR Comment better
Pole 2017 Pine i
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL E}R
CITY OF TUSTIN
Table of Contents
lhispage intentionally left 6lafrk.
1>qp ti - Plrgd ot-kkr
1. Introduction
l'LlI Iai]11114AtD]
This Final Supplemental Environnnental Impact Report (I+'SEER) has been prepared in accordance with the.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code �5 21000 et seg.) and
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations �� 15000 et seq.).
According to the CEQA Gttiddiaes, Section 15132, the FSEIR shall consist of,
(a) The Draft [Supplemental] Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) or a revision of the
Draft.;
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the DSEIR either verbatim or in summary;
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies cornments on the DSEIR;
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review
and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the bead Agency.
This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (DSEIR) for the TListln Legacy Specific Plan Amendment during the public review period, which
began March 17, 2017, and closed May 1, 2017. 'Phis document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead .Agency. This document and
the circulated DSEIR comprise the FSEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132,
1,2 FORMAT OF THE FSEIR
This document is organized as follows:
Section 4 Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR.
Section 9 Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons
commenting on the DSEIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and
individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each corninent letter has
been reproduced and assigned a number (A-1 through A--10 for letters received from agencies and
organizations; no letters were received from residents). Individual continents have been numbered for each
letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number.
Jufae 2017 .Page 1-?
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
1. Introduction
Section 3. Revisions to the DuRELR. This section contains revisions to the DSEIR text and figures as a
result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or errors
and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DSEIR for public review.
The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the FSEIR. City
of Tustin (City) staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the
type of significant neer information that requires recirculation of the DSEIR for further public comment
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a
significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DSEIR. Additionally, none of this
material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified
environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances
requiring recirculation described in Section 15088,5.
1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and
public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DSEIRs should be "on the sufficiency of the
document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant
effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest
additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the
significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an FIR is
determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible.. , . CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every
test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When
responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not
need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure .is made
in the EIR."
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments
and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion
supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered
signiftcant in the absence of substantial evidence." Section 15204 (d) also states, "Each responsible agency
and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agetacys statutory
responsibility." Section 15204 (e) states, "This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to
comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as
recommended by this section."
In accordance. with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public
agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact
report. The responses will be forwarded with copies of this FSEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform
to the legal standards established .for response to comments on DSEIRs.
Page 1-2 Phrre {V opb
2. Response to Comments
Section 150$$ of the CEQ. I Guidelines requires the T.ead Agency (City of Tustin) to evaluate comments oil
environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DSEIR and
prepare written responses.
This section provides all written responses received on the DSEIR and the City's responses to each comment.
Comment letters and speciFtc comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where
sections of the DSE1R are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the
DSEIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and stj4keeti for deletions.
The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DSEIlZ during the public
review period.
Number
Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date o#Comment Page No,
Agencies & Organizations
Al
Airport land Use Commission for Orange County
May t, 2017
2-3
A2
California Department of Transportation District 12
May 1, 2017
2-7
A3
City of Irvine
April 19, 2017
2-13
A4
Irvine Ranch Water District
May 1, 2017
2-21
A5
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
April 18, 2017
2-25
A6
Orange County Fire Authority
April 3, 2017
2-29
A7
OC Public Works
April 27, 2017
2-33
A8
Orange County Transportation Authority
May 1, 2017
2-39
A9
South Orange County Community College District
May 1: 2017
213
A10
Southern California Gas Company
April 4, 2017
2-47
Note; Comment letter attachments are provided in the Appendices of this FSEIR. A comment letter from the State Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) is provided as Appendix C, of this FSEIR; the letter attaches a letter from Caltrans which was responded to in
Responses to Comments A2.
Rne 2017 Page 2-1
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT F[NAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
I h spay intentionally l jt blank,
Pt,g 2-2 Puce]Vot.kf
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
LETTER Al — Airport.Land Use Con-in-Assion for (1:ange County (ALUC) (2 pages)
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
r.-- � _)_
'4UW,. 3166 Airway Avenue a Costa Mesa, California 92626. 949.252,$174$ fax; 949,252,6012
May 1, 2017
Justin$ Willkom
Assistant Director of planning
City of Tustin
340 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Subject: NOA of Draft Supplemental EIR for Tustin legacy SP and OP Amendment
Dear Ms, Wilkom:
Thank you for the oppoznt'i ity to review the Draft Supplemental Bnvironrnen#al ,impact
Report (DSBIR) 'for P proposed' Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Arttehd1ncnt and General
Plan Amendment..}t'the context of the Commission's Airport Environs Band Use Plan for
John Wayne A'lrpgr1(AELUPfarJW,4),. The Specific Plan Arnendment 4uld change
the mix and layout of land uses to. be constructed in the project area, The A nendment
would allow 4 t-2 adOittonal Nmeg.and 1;75�,3jIb,��wgrsq�are freto£ngni�sidential
building spar 't k ' , ,1 i t 1 ;� , w
As noted in the DSE,IR, portions of the pxngo,* Jtroject area fall within the Federal
Aviation Regulation tFMW ),Pwt 77 Obstru 4ott Imaginary surfaces, fUr.;JWA, specifically
the: conical end transitional surfaresldr W �i `I �xt DISEIR does state that any structures
in the Specific,Plan that exceed the° Gigghht restnotich iii the.AELLUP for JWA would also.
be subject toren obst{uctton,evaluation by the Federal Aviation Adrmmstrattoa8(FAA)
and Aft
pgri Lurid CFse GiimRussron (ALUC).for Uange Cbtmty to determ whether
safety hazards,wouid result: The DSEIR states that height restrictions applieehle to the
Specific plan area,have not.changcd' We continue to ecotnrnend;that language be added
to the proposed spmific plan amendment and°the DSEIR stating: buildings and structures
within. the htst.in I egacy 5pecr6cPlan Area _shall not penetrate .FAR Pari 771magin ary
Obstruction Surfaces forJWA,
We also suggest that the. DSIIR identify if the project allows for heliports as defined in
the ACsLUFfbr Heliports, Should the development of heliports occur within your
jurisdiction, proposals to develop new heliports must be submitted through the City to the
ALUC for review and action pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661 ,5. Proposed
heliport projects must comply fully with the state permit procedure provided by law and
with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by FAA, by the ALUC for
(range County and by Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics,
Al -1
Al -2
03
jraree 2017 Pc`;e 2-3
TUSVN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
DSEIR for TLisdn Legacy SP & GP Amendment
5l1¢I7
PgpC 2
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DSEM Tease contact Lea Choum tit
(449) 252.5.123 or via email at. lchnUn@o4'ir.Com if you need any additional. details or,.
information regarding the ALUC for Orange County.
Sincerely;
Kari A, Rigoni
Executive. Officer
Frage 24 I�Iucefl'oe Z r
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
C€TY OF TUST?N
2. Response to Comments
Al. Response to Comments from Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, dated May
1, 2017.
111-1 The continent is introductory, including a description of the project, The comment does
not address the adequacy of the DSEIR and no response is needed.
A1-2 The comment addresses Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation
Regulations Part 77 imaginary surfaces overlying the project site, and requests that a
requirement be added to the Specific Plan and to the DSEIR that buildings and
structures onsite shall not penetrate such imaginary surfaces. DSEIR Section 5.3, Land
Use and Planning, Page 5.3-14, is hereby revised as follows: added text is shown
underlined and deleted text .in steikeett .
However, the Specific Plan area is within the AELUP-designated notification area and is
subject to Federal Aviation Administration (FLAA) notification and height restrictions
pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 (FAR Part 77). A,1-+444#4-4: die ° ~~rrfee,;e'
-
Buildings and structures in the Specific Plan area shall not penetrate FAR
Part 77 imaginary surfaces. Therefore, impacts related to the Modified Project's .AELUP
consistency remain less than significant,
Al -3 The comment asks whether the project would peri -nit development of heliports; states
that any such proposal must be submitted to the ALUC for review and must comply
with several regulations, The project would permit development of heliport or helipad,
as noted on Specific Plan Page 3-34.1 Any proposal for development of a heliport or
helipad would be submitted by the City to the ALUC for review, The City acknowledges
that any Heliport must comply with State pernnitting procedure and with all conditions
of approval set forth by the FAA, the ALUC, and Caltrans. The cointnent does not
assert an inadequacy of the DSEIR and no EIR revision is needed.
I A heliport is iut .export for helicopter use, with zippurtenant buildings and Facilities. A lielipaci is a helicopter latiding aad/or p.:rking
area oil an airport.
Jujre 2017 2? ige 2-5
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
This paSo intcntionaly l /% hlaiik-
Rge 2-6 Placell' ks
71JSTIN LEGAC`! SPECtF1C PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
1,1XI`L+°,R A2 — California Department of TtansporLation District 12 (2 pages)
io,a�r•,• U.t c � ul�x�samcaurctt�us.'nTb.:t t��3s�t:?sTAcn7t��nkr�:x�� _
v.___..�.._..._� .� T. ,�,....�. 5uaiw�n. a�ii...?�sx
OUPARTi1 ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ae
()ISTKC111 12
12.ORA-2017-00510
MG IIA1'TVOUIi141 SUITE llxx
Nr
SANTA AW,, CA 93705'
Serr yrs !fir w�hi.
i�ttaaNR t6S7112wr,7
ari3kft-timiYIirmPitl
.�. 3 •611�
a �XigDm ea WRY of "fe
��rr 711
17 71 1
YkllY !1L!i"Z'aw
May 01, 2017
W, Justina Willkorn,
File; IG'RiCEQA
01yof"Tustin
SQIW 1994071W5
300 Centennial Way
12.ORA-2017-00510
Tustin, CA 92780
SR -55, SR•2610n5'0-405
may Ms. 'Willkom,
"Thank you for inoludtng the; California Departmont of Transiiuriation (Caltruns) in the review of
The Draft Environmental Impact ReP(irl QVIR) for the proposed Tustin legacy Specif.e Plan
(SC11 #1994011(1d). The mission of Callrarts ie to provide: as safe,susfidna*., integrated and
O'flciont transportation system to eMance Culirornia's ixonomy and livability. TM 1.0cal
T7ev]opment-iittergavernmentai. review (Li)40Rj F coram: xrsvlery laa>d usee pr6)ects and ptuns
to ensure Consistency with our mission and state planning priorities of infill, conservation, anal
offaciern development. The project proposes the development caf t11,NX) :acro site to include over
6,M) dwol:ling units and itlmnosi 10,tt(1(1,W) square Tes;.tof non-residendal facilities.' The project
Js JoMtcd in pro unity of'Caltrans Right -o -(-Way (ROW) on State Rouie..55 (SR -55), 261. (SR -
266); Interstate 405 (1.405) and 605 (1-605); Caltrans is. a mramendrig agency ort this project,
and ha.�a the following cmaaiments on the DFIR-,
'I'rn'ffle. Operations:
1, Traffic Operations has found a diuropancy and is. requesting additional supporting
dac:urnents for darificati4n�
For travelers along Interstatt:5 (1-5), the most direct route- to the new development .would
lte through'lbstin Ranch Road, Mgure 5.7.1 shows that the Traffic Area Study indicates
that of the proj'eoed'i.2% or 28,775 vehicles wcauld N -utilizing Tustin hunch Rd towards
the 1-5 However, Table 7:5-1i.shows the LOS of tha'1 ustin .Manch SR 1-5 Uff-Raawp has a
volume increase of only i vehicle for the peak hour traffic in ai comparison of no -project
vs with -project traffic volumus..
TtaffIc Orations is questioning hots a development of 6,81.3 rasidunlial utiRs and
businesses and a total anticipated ADT for the areas of 239,797 vehicles.per day would
havo zt future impact of only one vehicle exiting the 5131-5 during peak hours att the
Tustin Ranch Rd 5B cuff -ramp: Pleaw show the stone supporting dncumrmts for all the 1•5
on and off -ramps at Tustin Ranch Rd and ianthorea Rd.
" Prorfrm a sq e. miffia07u,1n(vgnt7�d.mr1, :ren+lrr�ni rklrFur+aTriem
to '1luMw (WifolKa's dann�;m�n rd lo�rhdrt? "
A21
A2.2
June 2017 Pnga 2-7
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT F[NAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
Ms. Wilikom, City, of Tustin
Ililtay Oi, 200
Page 2.
L The docutnapt did not protide enough infoirnintit n.regarding future (ran%11r.1rcuWioD � AZ3.
syatam, `there are two t'axistitrg tru4 scrvic;es in thb victrltty of the pmjtsat area, which: are.
the VC Bus" by OCTA andthe "i8hot le' by the City q►f Iryino,.
Should thele be any.inereaw ire demand, espwtally to the Tustin Metrolink Station,
please make sure tq ewrdinale with OCTA and the city ofXrvine abou(expattdtng tiatisit A2'4
scrvims to the area.
?. .Part ofCaftrwW ml,'ron is to expand alteMati:Ve and sustainableforms of tr8tispnrtati'on.
/k,5 such, Caltrans cammcnds the -pity providing bikeways throughout the doWopment
and congealing to Wsting facilities, CArans would 4I0 liketo recommend a ddi(jonal
bipycle supporting facilities such as bike storage, bike signaJs,'bike cri*ings, and
dedicated blko delineaiianthroughout tl '-.1opment.
Pleaw continue to keep us informed of this project and: any Futuro developttrents.that could
potentially itupact State transportation. f aciltties, If you. have any questions or meed to Wallack us,
Ojew do not hesitate to c''ont rct Jude Miranda at (07) 328.6229 or IU&Mir"04 (04 doi.ca.gov,
sitxc rely,
MAID It EEN Bl;14A LAKE
Boaclt Cl►isf; ftegiprtai-.I:CiR=1'ratt5li Nartnkrig
Distriit 12
"lrarNka.wyw:$W*#N 1Akifto Ttkil a . ktokmrlfrivasjnllOp"*1"
M PrtAwc G"irft Wria "T K'c+ om)' cWj1 vbllHy"
A24
Page t -$ P ruel ' of
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2, Response to Comments
A2. Response to Comments California Department of Transportation District 12, dated May 1,
2017.
A2-1 The comment is introductory, including a description of the project. The comment does
not address the adequacy of the DSEIR and no response is needed, Please note the
reference to the 261 is SR -261 and reference to the 605 is not relevant since it is not near
the project.
A2--2 The commenter questions the traffic impacts to the ramps to and from the Interstate 5
(1-5) freeway at two streets. Specifically, the commenter questions whether development
of 6,813 residential units and 239,797 average daily trips could only result in one vehicle
existing the SB 1--5 during peak hours at the 'Tustin Ranch Road SB off -ramp. This
DSEIR is a "Supplemental' EIR, its required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections
15162 and 15163, the DSEIR focuses on Modified Project impacts determined to be
potentially significant as compared to the previously adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
(Adopted Specific Plan), which was analyzed by the FEIS/EIR, For a further
explanation of the approach and type of ETR, please refer to DSEIR Sections 1.1,
lntrodflaion, 1.2.2 Iype and Purpose of this .S.FTR, 2,'1, Purpose of' the Enuironmental lv;pact
Report, 2,33, Unavoidable S gnaficarntAdverre fmpacts, and 3,3, .Project_Baekground,
The project trip distribution of 12 percent on Tustin Ranch Road south of Walnut
Avenue as derived from the traffic model represents the distribution of the entirety of
the trips to and from the Project area and does not translate into project trips being
added to the baseline/no-project (i,e,, Adopted Specific Plan) results. The traffic model
takes into account the proposed Project land use changes which affect the traffic
patterns, both project -related and tion -project related, on the roadway system. Also both
uses have opposite distribution patterns. For example, due to employment, residential
trips are mostly outbound in the morning whereas non-residential trips are inbotuzd.
The change in traffic patterns due to the land use differences between the Adopted and
Proposed Specific Plan is the main reason that the reduction of non-residential and
increase in residential uses show only incremental volume changes.
Also note that the ITAM tnodel r7an assignments reflect how a roadway that is at or
approaching capacity and becoming more congested, will result in trips distributing to
other lower volume roadways in the network. Because of this, not all roadways in the
study area would show similar increases due to the Project.
A2-3 As detailed starting on Page A-107 of the Initial Study (Appendix A of the DSEIR), the
Modified Project would not result in changes that would conflict with policies, plans or
programs related to transit. The following transit bus services pass through or alongside
the project site;
me 20 17 Prize 2.9
TUST€N LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA; "OCBus") Routes:
59: north -south from City of Anaheim to City of Irvine; operates on Barranca
Parkway and Red Hill Avenue next to project site.
70: east -west from City of Tustin to the Community of Sunset Beach; operates on
Edinger Avenue in and next to the project site.
w 71, north --south from City of Yorba Linda to City of Newport Beach; operates on
Red Hilt Avenue next to the project site.
• 72: east -west from City of Tustin to the Community of Sunset Beach; operates on
Warner Avenue, Barratnca Parkway, 'Tustin Ranch Road, and Red Full Avenue in and.
next to the project site.
• 90: northwest -southeast from City of Tustin to City of Dana Point; operates on
Edinger Avenue in the project site.
• 472: north -south from City of Tustin to City of Newport Beach; operates on
Edinger Avenue and Red Hill.Avenue next to the project site.
• 473: north -south from City of -Tustin to City of Irvine; operates on Edinger Avenue
and Harvard Avenue in and next to the project site,
Irvine iShuttle Route:
• 401B: north -south from City of Tustin to City of Irvine; operates on Edinger
.Avenue and jamboree Road in the project site3
A2-4 Please refer to Response to Comment A2-3, The need for future transit is largely based
on factors that are determined by OCTA. Any increase in usage to the Tustin train
station or demand for transit not realized by OCTA will be a local effort or
collaboration with neighboring agencies depending on the need.
A2-5 The comment recommends provision of additional bicycle support facilities including
bike storage and bike signals. As hart of the City's General Plan, the City has a Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan that guides future development to include all users by providing
bike lanes and bike detection wherever feasible, The City also conditions large employers
to encourage non -vehicular modes of transportation by participating in Transportation
2 All routes frotil Orange. County'Cranspottariott A.uthority, "OC3us System hlap," Fcbntary 12, 2017,
h ttp: //www, octa, net/ cbusbook/RotttcPdf/ Sys te;tn.'N'lap,pd f.
3 Ofange County 1'ransportsticn Authority, "i5hwde Ro kitc 40CA & 401]3," February 12, 20'17,
https//www.octa tzet/ebusbook/RoutePDF/Rot.ttc_A_'I'imetalile.pdf.
Fuge 2-10 PIr:Al`ollar
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
Det'nand Management (TDM) measures that include providing on-site amenities such as
hike storage, locker Facilities, and showers (City of Tustin Municipal Code Article 9,
Chapter 9, Txartsportation Demand Management). Future development within the
Specific Phis would be rcgti&cd. to comply with the City's TDM measures.
jxie 2017 Page 2-11
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2, Response to Comments
This page intentionaly left blank.
I'irge 2-12
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
LETTER A3— City of Irvine (3 pages)
4 OF rq1,
Cirmmovv Lbo.WtpRme_rrr
3 ii41^1.ttRisf f'1e€e B, Irajny- CF �{rSC x:.146
April 19, 2017
Ms. Justina Wilikom
Assistant Director -Planning
Community Development Department
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
2. Response to Comments
_4k'l�I�rvil�B iifi4
Subject, Environmental Impact Report Tustin Legacy Specific Plan
Amendment 2015-001 and General plan Amendment 2015-002
Dear Ms. Willkom�
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above -noted projects ("Project"). The
Adopted Specific Plan established a non-residential ADT cap of 182,851 ADT for trip
budget and monitoring purposes based on trip rates established at the time (i.e., 2001
Final EtS1EIR)_ Residential unit trips are not included in that ADT cap. The Amendments
to the Specific Plan proposes conversion and relocation of uses and the addition of
2,818 residential units beyond those in the Adopted Specific Plan such that the Project
now proposes a total of 7,354 DUs. The Project also revises the non-residential trip
rates used to calculate the non-residential ADT cap based on updated ITE rates. With
the overall decrease in ITE trip rates between 2001 and current 2017 rates, particularly
the significant decrease in ADT rate for "Community Commercial" (i.e., old rate of 68.17
ADTITSF now decreased to 42.7 ADTITSF), the Project proposes conversion of
significant quantities of officeloffice park uses to community commercial uses in
Neighborhood D, while staying within the non-residential ADT cap. Although within the
non-residential ADT Cap, the Project as a whole including residential units, results in a
net increase of 12,322 ADT. This 0SEIR and related traffic study analyzes the net ADT
increase as well as the AM and PM Peak Hour periods to identify potential significant
impacts resulting from the proposed uses, using the City's (TAM model (Version 12.4).
The City of Irvine has reviewed the proposed amendments and has the following
comments:
A3-1
1 The Initial StudylNotice of Preparation (ISAVOP) for the Tustin Specific Plan
Amendment reviewed by the City in 2015 discussed the Project's analysis of various A3 2
roadway circulation altematives including the extension of Moffett Drive to Tustin
Ranch Road and to Carnegie, as well as a potential roadway through Tustin's PA8
Ju11e 201.7 Pwge 2-13
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FIR
CITY 4F TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
1Ms, Justine Willkorn
April 1u, 2017
Pago.2
to Hell Avenue near Red Hili Avenue. However,, the IpSI IR (.arid related traffic
analysis) appears to assume only the extension. of Moffett to Tustin Ranch Road,
with no roadway connection to Camegie.or 4onne6on to Red Hill vitt Bell Avenue.
Please explain why.the ISINOP discusses alternative roadway scenarlos'to be
studied, yet the DSEIR seems to: have eliminated these alternative roadway
scertahos, Also,,on Page 5,7-11 of the DSOR, the study states; "Victory Road is
proposed to be extended from WI .Avenue at Red Hill :Avenue to Armstrong
Avenue;,." According to Figure 5.7-1, Victory Road, is only defined as. the street
connecting Tustin Manch on the west to. Park.Avon4ie to"the east.. Discuss whether
the planned circulation.system Includes a Victory Road connectlon west:frorn Tustin
Ranch Road to: Armstrong ►Ila Bell,
2,: Please provide. the Post -2035 with Project model rung so that we may carrecOy
reflect Tustin's proposed' land use assumptions, and roadway network. in lhe.current
version of the Ch's traffic model (ITAM 1'3), It. is unclear: how Neighborhood G takes
access between Sa.tttti..0op and Tustin Ranch Road and how Neighborhood ,l3
takes access between Tustin Ranch Road and Warner:. The With Projpot runs will
help us'better understand and accurately reflect these assumptions in ITAM.. Please
contact Peter Anderson, Senior Transportation Analyst, at 949-724-7370,. for
assistance-Mth ITAM model runs.
A3.2
oONM
AM
3, Aqording to Figure 2 �' of the Traffic Study 10. plercent wf tire. total number of (Project A3-41
trips aro. assumed to stay Internal to the srte t3iscuss maw. this internal trip
percentage was determined.
4. Table. 5:7-4of the DSEIR (and. Table 2-1 of the traffic study) identifies a ne(Inc(ease
of 12,322 ADT with the Project when compared with the prior Adopted Specific Plan,
According to. Figure 5i7-1 of the OSEIR land Figure 2-3 of the traffic study), 11
percent of project traffic distributes along Warner west of Red Hill, 12 per'serd along
Tustin Ranch 'north of Edinger, and.7 peroent.a" Vote Karrnan south of ftfrarva.
Based on Figures 5- and 5-2 (e,g., 2035 No. Project and 2035. With Pro pot) it
appears that a majority ofth* additional 12,822 ADT proposed with the P ood travel
on Wamer.west of Red Hill (appr�oxirhatel 5,A00 ADT) and on Tustin Rarich north. Of
Edinger (approximately. 5,100 ADT), with;few traveling on roadways east:and south
of the Project; Forexanple,'gappears that there m- onty'a 400 ADT Increase ors Von
Korman south.o(Barranca and, actually o 300 ADT decrease on Barrancas between
Miliikan and Von Kaman). Please explain wt y there..appeam to be inc,"stency
between the project's distribution of trips and the' resulting net trip differences
between No Project and With Project conditions.,
A3-5
5. Revise the study to include the analysis of roadway links within Irvinecity lir'rtits in
accordance with the City of Irvine s Traffic impact.Analysis Guidelines Performance A3-6
Criteria (adopted. August 2004). This roadway link anatysis (ineluding.t:'eak Hour
P,ige 2-14 — Plrare if o)ks
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAi SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
Ms. Justina Wlllkom
April 19, 2017
Page 3
Link Analysis, if applioablej Is missing from both the Exi9ting and. Year 20.35{ A3.6
analyses. III
5, Identify whethor a phasing schedwie. has been established for implementation Q1,the
proposed S.peol lc Plan Amendment? If this information is available, please A3 7
coordinate with Peter Anderson, senior Transportation Analyst, to provide that'
schedule so that the City's ITAM interim -year scenario can reflect the e>ipeoted
irttpleMentation phasing.
City staff questions the sustallrsability of maintaining and monitoring the non-
residential trip budget of 182,8.51. APT that was originally established in 2001 if: 1)
those non�rssldential rates used to establish the trip cap are constantly updated
allorsiing. for more Intensification with each Amendment "within the cop'; and 2) the
incroase in numberof residential units proposed with each Specific Plan
Amendment has no effect. on the non-residentlai trip budget: City staff recommends
that as part of this Modification to the Specific plan City of TWO should: 1 j re. -
establish the original trip rates applied for each proposed nonares(derntlal land use to
determine it the original 182,851 ADT cap Isexceeded; and 2) establish a new trip
capthudget for, monitoring purposes that is bases# on :both residential and non-
residential uses, arid' define those trip rates such that they remain unchanged in
order to effectively monitor development,
If you have any questions, please contact me at 949�724�521 or by entail at
bjvalcabs a4cittroFlrvine.org.
mincer I
A
oil[ 4000� AICP
Principal Planner
ac: Tim Gehrich,. Deputy Director of Community Development
.Barry Curtis, Manager of Planning Services
Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner
Kerwin Lau, Project Development Administrator
Sun -Sun Murillo, Supervising Transportation Analyst
All 8anava, 5ehlor Transpolation Analyst.
Peter Anderson, Senior Transportation Analyst
Martin Mares -Perez, Program Assistant
08
Aix 2017 Page 2-15
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
Tfiispage intontaonally left blank
Prtge 2-16 Placelvolki
TUSTIN LFGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL E1R
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
A3. Response to Comments froin City of Irvine, dated April 19, 2017,
A3-1 The comment is introductory, including the trip rates used for the Adopted Project and
the Modified Project, and part of the traffic analysis conducted for the. Modified Project,
Please note that the Nonresidential Land Use Trip Budget tracking system is separate
from the average daily trips used to analyze traffic impacts in the FSEIR. As described
in Section 3.4.1.3, Nonresidenliall_ind Use/Trip Brydget, the tracking system was developed
as a mechanism for managing the forecast vehicular trips generated by the nonresidential
land use mix in the Specific Plan area. In order to manage die availability of roadway
capacity for the remaining, undeveloped land, the trip budget tracking systenx would
continue to be monitored with the .Modified Projcct. Although all land uses are
accounted for in the total average daily trips (AD'1) for the Modified Project, the trip
budget applies only to nonresidential uses. The tracking system establishes a maximum
limit on the ADT from, nonresidential uses for each neighborhood. That limit is
identified in the trip budget, which summarizes the square footage of nonresidential
uses in each neighborhood by planning area and the corresponding ADT.
Implementation and administration of the trip budget is provided in Section 4.1.5,
"Non-residential Land Use/Trip Budget," of the Specific Plan. Note that the
commenter is correct that the City uses the most recent ITE trip generation irate to
determine vehicle trips.
As demonstrated on Table 5.7-4 of the DSFIR, the trip generation used to analyze
traffic impacts associated with the Modified Project as compared to the Adopted
Specific Plan incorporates all laud uses and would result in an overall net increase of
12,322 average daily trips.
A3-2 The traffic analysis included an extension of Bell Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to
Armstrong Avenue as a secondary arterial which is now referred to as Victory Road. As
mentioned in the IS/NOP if needed, direct connection of this road between Armstrong
Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road would be analyzed, but it was deemed not necessary.
Also mentioned in the IS/NOP is Carnegie Avenue, as a discontinuous roadway, which
in the analysis serves as a local collector roadway intersecting with Red Hill Avenue and
Barranca Parkway.
A3-3 Peter Anderson was contacted and the traffic modeling files utilized for the traffic
analysis were forwarded by Stantec to his attention.
A3-4 The internal trip capture percentage was based on the results of the ITAM Year 2035
Cumulative Conditions With 'Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment using a special
traffic modeling procedure referred to as it select -zone run in which project trips are
isolated. In the select zone run using the traffic rrkodel, only the vehicular trips generated
from the project zones are distributed onto the circulation system, Trips not distributed
onto the circulation system are considered the project internal trip capture which are
Jui%e 201 ! base 4"'! 7
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
trips that begin and end within the project site. The select -zone run showed that 10
percent of the project trips remain internal to the Specific Pian area.
A3-5 The 2035 No Project and 2035 With Project ADT are based on separate ITAM Year
2035 Cumulative Conditions model run assignments. The trip distribution for the
Project was developed based on the results of the ITAM Year 2035 Cumulative select
zone run under the With Project conditions. The trip distribution shown in Figure 2-3
of the Traffic Study represents the distribution of the entirety of the trips to and from
the Project site, which differs from the incremental increases due to the Project as seen
by a comparison of Figures 5-1 and 5-2. The ITAM model run assignments reflect how
a roadway that is at or approaching capacity and becoming more congested, will result in
trips distributing to other lower volume roadways in the network. Because of this, not all
roadways in the study area would show similar increases due to the Project.
A3-6 The analysis of the arterial road system is based on intersection capacity since this is the
defining capacity limitation on an arterial highway system. There can be exceptions in
cases where certain facilities have long distances between signalized intersections,
however, that is not the case for this study area. Therefore, peak hour intersection
performance is the most representative measure for evaluating the study area arterial
road system. Furthermore, the Irvine Link Analysis defers to peak hour data and the
results of the impact analysis show that there are no project impacts at the Irvine
intersections on a peak hour basis, As a result, the traffic study has not been revised to
incorporate a roadway link analysis for roadways in the City of Irvine.
A3-7 The commenter requests a phasing schedule and interim year scenario for the Modified
Project in order to update ITAM. As stated in DSEIR Section 3.4,1,8, Phasing' Modified
Project buildout is expected by 2035. The timing of specific developments under the
Modified Project depends on market demand for planned land uses, the tithing of
environmental cleanup work, and is currently unknown. Therefore, no DSEIR revision
is required. However, assumptions on future approved project that should be included .in
the ITAM interim year modeling conditions were forwarded to Deter Anderson. 'These
assumptions are as follows:
0 TAZ 619 900 Students Heritage Elementary School (Buildout Enrollment)
• TAZ 620 32,500 SF Learning Center/Institutional (AI'EP Phase 1)
0 TAZ 624 892 Students High School (1 /2 of buildout)
• TAZ 643 390,000 SF Office. (The Flight Phase 1 Development)
m Victory Road (formerly Bell Avenue extension) between Red Hill Avenue and
Armstrong Avenue as four -lane secondary arterial,
Pc ae 2-18 Plarelx'04-r
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PIAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL. FIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2, Response to Comments
Moffett Drive from Park Avenue to the current terminus just west of Meridian
Way/Sonora Street as a two-lane local toadway.
6 Park Avenue northerly extension to Moffett Drive as a four -lane secondary arterial.
Access to'FUSD (i.e.., TAZ 624 centroids) on the southwest corner of Tustin Ranch
Road/Valencia Avenue.
A3-8 Refer to Response to Comment A3-1, The purpose of the trip budget is largely an
administrative process for tracking non --residential trips, However, the analysis includes
all proposed land uses, both residential and non-residential, to determine traffic impacts.
jviie 2017 Page 2-19
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC FLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
This -pa
,ge intentionally loft blank.
Pruge 2-20 Pl�ceioi ��
TUST{N LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
LETTER A4 — Irvine Ranch NY'atcr District (2 pages)
lrvine Ranch
WA1PP ass t.'r,
May 1, 2017
Ms.lustina Willkom
Assistant Director-- Planning
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re: NOA—Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR
Dear Ms. Wilikom:
Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has received the City ofTustin's Notice of Availability (NOA) forthe
Tustin Legacy Specific plan Amendment Draft Supplementai Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)- IRWD
has reviewed the Draft SEIR and offers the following comments.
The Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment (Modified Project) was analyzed as part ofthe March 2017
Tustin Legacy Sub -Area Master Plan (SAMP) Update. As more detailed planning area information is
identified, the developer will be required to consult with IRWD for possible updates tothe SAMP. For
questions regarding the Tustin Legacy SAMP, please contact Eric Akiyoshi at (949) 453-5552.
A4-1
In Table 5.8-3 on page 5.8-13, the source is unctear as it is simply listed as "IRWD 2015`; "IRWD 2015".
IRWD requests thatthis source be clearly identified so IRWD understands whatthe reference source is A4-2
for this information,
Information listed on pages 5.8-13 through 5.8-17 is inconsistent with other known IRWD data. For
example, on page 5.8-14 under the Groundwater section, there is no mention of IRWD's Dyer Road
We Ilfield from which most of the District's local groundwater supply is supplied. Additionally, within this
same section, it is implied that groundwaterfrom the former Marine Corps Air Station -El Toro, which is
contaminated with volatile organic compounds, is used for recycled water. This treated water is partof
the District's non -potable supply. On page 5.8-15, underthe Non -potable Water section, this should he
revised to the following_ "Non -potable watersources include recycled water, raw imported water,
groundwater treated at the Shallow Groundwater Unit Treatment Plant and the Principal Aquifer
Treatment Plant." Within the Recycled Water section on page 5.8-15, the last sentence in this
paragraph should be revised to the following: "Same of the groundwateratthe Shallow Groundwater
Unit Plant is used for irrigation purposes."
A4-3
Irvine Ra th Wafer MsMd , 15600 Sand Ca+yon A"u„ I,V^;. CA azr}1d • fAMIn9 AnaesV.O, 9- 571506. 1-n¢. CA 92519.7000 • da9-rs�-5,30d • W W VAJr y
Juste 2017 Page 2 21
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC, PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL LIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
Ms. Justina Wiilkom
IRWD Comment Letter re: Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Draft SEIR
Page 2
Some of the information in pages 5.8-13 through 5.8-17 is not consistent with information provided in
the Tustin Legacy Water Supply Assessment (WSA) approved by the IRWD Board of Directors on July 13,
2015. The information provided in the Tustin Legacy WSA should be used exactly as it is indicated in the
WSA. For questions regarding the Tustin Legacy WSA, please contact Kellie Welch at (949) 453-5504.
IRWD appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft SEIR. Ifyou have any questions
or require additional information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 453-5325 or Jo Ann Corey,
Engineering Technician III at (949) 453-5326.
Sincerely,
*OOK
Fiona M. Sanchez
Director of Water Resources
cc: Eric Akiyoshi, IRWD
Kellie Welch, IRWD
A4-4
irvine Ranch Water District - 1MUD 1hr4 ave„ lmnA CA 97618 • Mailing Addrese PQ Oft -570= Irvine. CA 9?679-7DM • 94&145'3-5300. W WNSiNrd. +>n+
Page 2-22 Place IT'atk
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
ASI. Response to Comments from Irvine Ranch Water District, dated May 1, 2017.
A4-1 The comnAent includes a notification that as developments tinder the Specific Plan are
proposed, developers will be required to consult with IRWD for possible updates to the
March .2017 Tustin Legacy Sub -Area Master Plan (SAMP) Amendment, The City
concurs that notification will be forwarded to developers as needed.
.A4-2 The commenter asks about a source cited as IRWD 2016 on DSEIR Page 5.8-13. The
source is IRWD's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan issued iu 2016, as stated on Page
5.8-27.
A4-3 The comment asserts that some of the statements on pages 5.8-13 through 5,8-17 are
incorrect. The commenter states that Page 5.8-14 under the Groundwater section, has
no mention of IRWD's Dyer Road Welifield from which most of the District's local
groundwater supply is supplied, However, the sources of IRWD groundwater are
accurately identified in the DSEIR as the Main Orange County Groundwater Basin,
Irvine Subbasin, and rake Forest Subbasin. IRWD wells and wellfields are not identified
in detail in the DSEIR, and such identification is not needed for understanding water
sources. No DSEIR revision is required.
The conunenter also states that the DSEIR implies that groundwater from the former
Marine Corps Air Station -El 'Toro, which is contaminated with volatile organic
compounds, is used for recycled water. Pursuant to the commenter's request, DSEIR
Section 5.8, Wilities and Service ,Systems, Page 5.8--14, is hereby revised as follows; added
text is shown underlined and deleted text in ,,�kee .
IRWD operates two treatment plants that clean up contaminated
groundwater and have combined capacity of about 3.7 mgd; the treated
water is used as eater part of IRWD's non -potable supe
(IRWD 2015),
Pursuant to the cornmenter's request, DSEIR Section 5.8, Utilities and Service Systems,
Page 5.8-15, is revised as follows; added text is shown underlined and deleted text in
Nonpotable water sources 'include recycled water, raw imported water,
1 -yift. r .t_ ..
: and_"oundwater treated at the Shallow Groundwater Unit
Treatment Plant and the. Principal Agtufer Treatment Plant,,
Pursuant to the conlmenter's request, DSEIR Section 5,8, Utilities and Service Systems,
Page 5.8-15, is revised as follows; added text is shown underlined and deleted text in
s#y4eertt.
June 2017 PX, 2-23
TUSTEN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
IRWD obtains raw imported water from the Municipal Water District
of Orange County. Some of the groundwater treated at the e
Deserter Shallow Groundwater Unit Plant is used for irrigation.
A4-4 The comment asserts that some of the information in pages 5.8-13 through 5.8-17 is
not consistent with information provided in the Tustin Legacy Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) approved by the IRWD Board of Directors on July 13, 2015. In .response to this
con -anent letter, IRWD was contacted to determine the specific inconsistencies
referenced.
Pursuant to the commenter's request, DSEIR Section 5.8, Utilities and Service
Systems, Page 5.8-14, is revised as follows; added teat is shown underlined and
deleted text in Wit.
Gfouudwster
Over half of IRWD's water is groundwater from the Main Orange
County Groundwater Basin (Basin), the Irvine Subbasin, and the Lake
Forest Subbasin, The Basin and the Irvine Subbasin are managed by
the Orange County Water District. The primary groundwater source is
the D er Road Weltfteld in the Basin. Groundwater from the Irvine
Subbasin is generally higher in total dissolved solids, color, and nitrates
than groundwater from the Basin. IRWD operates the Irvine Desalter,
which treats some of the groundwater from the Irvine Subbasin for
potable use; has 5 mgd capacity; and produces about 4.6 mgd treated
water.
(IRWD 2015).
Pursuant to the commenter's request, DSEIR Section 5.8, Utilities and Service
Systems, Page 5.8-14, is revised as follows; added text is shown underlined and
deleted text in strilteoE,
IRWD has drilled seven groundwater wells in the west Irvine, Tustin
Legacy, and Tustin Ranch portions of the Iiasind; four of the wells
reviousl + produced groundwater but none of the wells are currt tl
used as production wells. IRWD has acquired a site for another well
and treatment facility in addition to the seven aforementioned wells.
Page 2-2 _ — 1311arelvNIki
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
LETTER A5 Metropolitan \rater District of Southern California (2 pages; see Appenax A)
} uii
kTHE MOWOAOLITAN WAI M INSTRICr
OFSOUMERNCALIFORNIA
Office of the General Manager
April 18, 2017
7ustina Willkom, Assistant Director
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Dear Ms. Willkom:
Review of the Draft Supplemental Environmental impact Report for the
Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment
Via E -Mail
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) has reviewed the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment A5-1
and General Plan Amendment in the City of Tustin, California. The proposed project consists of
the zoning for the 1,606 -acre project area with a mixture of residential, commercial,
commerciallbusiness, entertainment/recreation, and park land uses_ The City of Tustin is acting
as the CEQA Lead Agency. This letter contains Metropolitan's continents to the potentially
affected public agency.
Metropolitan is a public agency and regional water wholesaler. It is comprised of 26 member
public agencies serving approximately 19 million people in portions of six counties in Southern
California, including Los Angeles County. Metropolitan's mission is to provide its 5,200 square
mile service area with adequate and reliable supplies of bigh-quality water to meet present and
future needs in an environmentally and economically responsible way.
Metropolitan owns and operates the 79 -inch -inside -diameter East Orange County feeder No. 2
within the proposed project area. The East Orange County Feeder No. 2 originates at
Metropolitan's Robert B. Diemer Treatment Plant in the City of Yorba Linda and transports
treated water to the San Joaquin Reservoir in the City of Newport Beach, The East Orange
County Feeder No. 2 within the proposed project area is located within public right-of-way of
Red Hill Avenue and Barranca Parkway.
Based on a review of the proposed project, the project has potential to impact Metropolitan's
East Orange County feeder No. 2. Metropolitan must be allowed to maintain its rights-of-way
and requires unobstructed access to its facilities in order to maintain and repair its system. In
order to avoid potential conflicts Kith Metropolitan's facilities and rights-of-way, we require that
any design plans for any activity in the area of Metropol'itan's pipelines or facilities be submitted
for our review and written approval, Metropolitan will not permit procedures that could subject
A5-2
700 N. Alameda Street, Las Angeles, California 30012 • Mailing Address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, Callfomia 900540153 . Telephone (213) 217-6000
frrue 201 % Pvge 2-25
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
THE METROP041TAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFOR)YJA
3ustina Willkony Assistant Director
Page 2
April 18, 2017
the pipeline to excessive vehicle, impact or vibratory loads. Any future design plans associated
with this project should be submitted to the attention of Metropolitan's Substructures Team.
Approval ofthe project should be contingent on Metropolitan's approval of design plans for
portions of the proposed project that could impact its facilities.
Detailed prime of drawings of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way may be obtained by
calling Metropolitan's Substructures Information Line at (213) 217-7515. To assist the applicant
in preparing plans that are compatible with Me )titan's facilities and casements, we have
enclosed a copy of the "Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties,
and/or Easement of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." Please note that all
submitted designs or plans must clearly identify Metropolitan's faoilities and rights-of-way.
In addition to potential impacts to Metropolitan's infrastructure, the DSEIR Chapter 5-08
analyzes water reliability and the California drought. This section references Metropolitan's
2004 and 2007 Integrated Water Resources Plan (TRP). A 2015 integrated Resources Plan is
available and accessible on Metropolitan's website. Given the 3 year Governor -declared
drought, the 2015 IRP must be analyzed in order to have an accurate understanding of current
water reliability -
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and we took forward to
receiving future documentation and plans for this project. For further assistance, please contact
Ms. Michelle Morrison at (213) 217-7906.
Very truly yours,
Vikki Dee Bradshaw
Inturim'ream Manager, Environmental Planning Section
NIM
Sliarc Puintri[y uC'rwfitADVtk for Me Twou WTacy Spruirw Plmi Amandarun
Enclosures: Planning Guidelines and Mup of Metropolitan Facilities in Project Vicinity
A5-2
1.'QNT'D
A5-3
Page 2-2G Place.fVwks
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC ?LAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
AS. Response to Comments from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD),
dated April 18, 2017.
A5-1 The con-iment is introductory, including descriptions of the project and of the MWD,
The cornment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no response is needed.
The commenter also provides attachments including a map and MWD's guidelines that
have been incorporated into Appendix A of this FSEIR.
A5-2 The comment states the project could impact MWD's East Orange County Feeder No.
2, a 79 -inch diameter pipeline extending in rights-of-way of Red I 1 Avenue and
I3arranca Parkway; and that any plans for projects near MWD's pipelines or facilities
trust be submitted to MWD's Substructures Team for review and approval. Please note
that the following statement has been added to the Specific flan,
"Projects proposed within the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan shall be consistent
with the `Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties,
and/or Easements of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.'
All submitted designs and/or plans shall clearly identify MWD facilities and
rights-of-way."
Additionally, persons or entities conducting excavations trust request underground
service alerts at least two days before the beginning of excavation pursuant to California
Govertirnent Code Section 4216. Compliance with such Section would prevent
excavation damage to the pipeline.
A5-3 The continent notes that MWD has issued a 2015 Integrated Resources Plan (IRP),
superseding 2004 and 2007 IRPs discussed in DSEIR Section 5.8, Utilities and Service
,Sjxtems, Please note that the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Modified Project
was adopted by the Irvine Ranch Water District (1RW1__)) on July 13, 2015. At that time,
the 2015 IRP was not yet approved and the WSA relied upon the 2004, 2007, and 2010
IRPs to guarantee water supplies to the project. Furthermore, TRWD's approach to
determining available water supply was conservative because it evaluated the percentage
reduction of MWD' State Water Project (SAT) water supplies documented in the 2007
IRP of 22 percent (or 16 percent of overall water supplies) through 20 years. Total
average MWD deliveries documented in the WSA were 1,968,000 acre-feet per year for a
20 year period (see Page 5.8-16 and 5.8-17 of the DSEIR).r The 2015 IRP reports an
average supply reliability target for SLS P and Colorado River of 2,034,833 acre-feet for a
25 year; 1,134,833 acre-feet from SWP and 900,000 acre-feet from the Colorado River
(see Table 6-1 of the 2015 IRP). The WSA relied on supplies less than those reported
under the 2015, The WSA meets the requitements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15155,
and no new impacts would occur.
Total average 'CYIWI7 deliveries were calcul,,ltcd by using the average SSFP deliveries, applying a 22 percent redaction of SWP
deliveries, and adding Colorado base average supplies (1,682,000 -370,000+656,000=1,968,000 Ai)
jv„le 2017 Page 2-27
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY 6F TUSTIN
2, Response to Comments
Thie page inteniiowa j /it blank:
llage 2.28 Pla,-470tks
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
LETTER A6 — Orange County Fire Authority (L page)
4LRr
ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
-7iIS • 1 FieAuthoritRoadI'A26U2P.O. Box I Irvine, C 92619
.teff Bowman. Fire Chie[
(714)573-6000 wwr4.orfa.ar;
i
April 3, 2017
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
AtLn: dustina Willkom, Assistant Director—Planning
Subject: Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment 2015.001 and General Plan Amendment
20t_5-002
Dear Ms. Wil Ikom:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document_ As stated in the document, The
Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) provides tire protection and emergency medical services
response to the project area. We have no comments regarding the subject document:
Sincerely,
Tamers Rivers
Management Analyst
(714)573-6199
A6-1
Saving the C'ilies or A11sa Viejo • nuaw Pack • Cypress • DAnB Point • hvitk - Laguna ntlLs - Laguna 4ipat • L.i&la WOW5 • Lake Fared- La Pnitno
I u Alamilm - Mlstirio Viejo • Piacencin - Rancho Santa kimprim •SLn Clemente - Sun lean Capigranp - Sma Ana - Seal Reads • Smnian - Tuslin - villa 11utk
Westminster • Yacba Linda -odd Utuacarparated Areas of o nnge Comity
RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS AND SNJOKE ALARTIS SAVE LIVES
Jwte 201 ' Page 2-29
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2, Response to Comments
This page intentionally lejGlaitk.
Page .2-30 Plxel oiks
TUSTIN LEGACY 8PEC1FiC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL -SUPPLEMENTAL elft
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
AG. Response to Comments from Orange County Fire Authority, dated April 3, 2017.
A6-1 The comment states that OCFA has no comments on the DSEIR. No response is
needed.
jvne 2017 Page 2 31
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
Thi.; pine intentlon&illy l ft bkwk.
Peg 2-32 Placeirdtka
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
LETTER A7 — OC Public V,'orks (2 pages)
:xM PublicWorks
Integrity, Accauntabillty, Service. Trust
Shane L. Silsby, Director
April 27, 2017 NCL -2415.01 Is
Justina Willkom
City of Tustin Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 927130
Subject: Notice of Availability of a Oran Supplemental EIR -Tustin Legacy Specific
Plan Amendment (CITY 2015-001) and General Plan Amendment (CITY 2015-002)
Dear Ms, Willkom:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject project. The County oforange offers the
following comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR - Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment
(CITY 2015.041) and General Plan Amendment (CITY 2015-002) R7 1
Flood Program Support reviewed the subject document and offers the following comments on I
behalf of Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD):
I. The proposed project area is tributary to both Peters Canyon Channel (OCFCD Facility No.
F06) and Barranca Channel (OCFCD Facility No. F09). These chamtels contain deficient A]_2
segments, The SEER should identify all OCFCD facilities that will potentially be impacted by
the project.
Z. Implementation of the revised land use and any new improvements to local drainage facilities
have the potential to deliver more flows and affect OCFCD's facilities and will require
appropriate analyses and mitigation ofpotentiai impacts. The City of Tustin (City) should A7-3
ensure the current General Plan Amendment is consistent with previously approved general
plans.
3. Since the City is responsible for land use planning and development within City limits, the
City should review and approve all local hydrology and hydraulic analyses including the
needed 100 -year flood pit wetion for proposed changes to the developments within the project A7.4
area. Proposed flood protection measures should not worsen eeisling conditions or move
flooding problems downstream or upstream of proposed developments.
4. Pal new changes should he consistent with existing agreements, such as Agreement D02-119
and Agreement D12-053 between Orange County Flood Control District and the City of A7-5
Tustin which pertain to the Tustin Legacy Development
300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana. CA 92703
P.O. Box 404a. Santa Ana. CA 1)2702404E
www. ocputR;%wrks.com
714,661M00 I In1a@tKPN-ocgov.com
_June 201- Purge 2-33
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
S. Any work within OGFCVD r 0(4 way will require encroachment permits Pram the Coanty^s
Pnbltc Propt r(y Pevrnit Section. In addition, all work witlun.o0cli right-of-way zhould.ba
petf =4 In: a martner'that will not adversely it p.w.t7cfaD faeJlitiaa.
A7.6
If you hove at)y questions regarding tbese oDoments, pleasotontact Anna Brzeziaki at (714) 447•
3969 or me at (714):447-3151,
Ifyou We any quostiotis]regardiog those cownwats,: please courser Rood. Programs, Anna
Brauzieki of (714,).647-3989 or, Robert MaLuaa at (714) 647-3951, in tC Dovelopment Sorvim
Linda Smith 4t(?14) 667-8848.
Sinrurel�+, f
L"4Works
�so,Manager,ManningDivision
[] Sezyice ?iXca/UC betiBlopment geevf,s9O0Flower Sires
Santa Ana, Cal ifotriia 92702-4048
Laree.alonW,4)ocpw,ocgoV,wm
60, Anna HrzozW, pC Fload Programs
Raba-rt.McLoari, OC Flood #r.Qgmms
800 N. Fka4vr S0oet. Swda Ma, rk 92*
P.O. tic Owe, sant Ma, CA 927024048
rywwd4x4kW0rxa:opn
714.567.8900 1 It,�Vr,oagay.anin
P�i�e
2-34 PlarerI orks
TUSTIN LEGACY SPEGIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
A7. Response to Comments from OC Public Works, dated April 27, 2017.
A7-1 The comment is introductory in nature and does not address the adequacy of the EIR;
no response is needed.
A7-2 The comment identifies two OC Public Works channels the project site is tributary to —
Peters Canyon and Barranca -- and states that both have deficient segments. Project site
drainage, including the two identified channels, was described in the Initial Study on
Page A-76 (Appendix A of the DSEIR).
ids stated, major storm drainage channels and storm drains in and surrounding the site
include Peters Canyon Channel extending through the eastern part of the project area;
Barranca Channel along the southern site boundary; the Santa Ana --Santa Fe Channel
just north of the north site boundary; and the Barranca Storin Drain in Red Hill .ilsenue
along the west site boundary, Storm drains in the. part of the project area east of Peters
Canyon Channel drain to Peters Canyon. Channel. The main storm drain systems onsite
are in the western part of the site and drain to the Barranca Channel.
Buildout of the Specific Plan Amendment would include development of a new
drainage system for the site and would require improvements to Peters Canyon Channel,
Barranca Channel along the south site boundary, and to the Santa ,Aria -Santa Fe Channel
along the north site boundary.
Projects developed pursuant to the Specific Plan Amendment would comply with
requirements of the municipal stormwater permit (MS4 Permit, Order No. RS -2009-
0030) issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB, and the drainage area management plan issued
by OC Public Works. Compliance with requirements of the aforementioned permit and
plan, including LID requirements described above in Section 5.91b, would limit rates
and volumes of runoff fromthe site. No new significant impacts associated with
implementation of the Modified Project would occur.
Furthermore, the cities of 'Tustin and Irvine and the Orange County Flood Control
District entered into an agreement (D02-119) establislvng that the City of Tustin would
be responsible for building infrastructure to support development of Tustin Legacy,
including improvements to Peters Canyon Channel to accommodate 100 -year storm
flows. The Peters Canyon Channel (Channel) improvement project from north of
Edinger Avenue to the City limits north of Warner Avenue consists of widening of the
channel on the eastern side and construction of a concrete channel lining. The project
will also provide improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle trail on the east side of the
channel.
A.7-3 The comment states that Modified Project development could increase runoff impacts,
including impacts to OCFCD (Onuige County Flood Control District) facilities. As
stated starting on Page A-76 of the DSEIR (Appendix A), Specific Plan Amendment
fpae 20 / 7 Pacg, 2-35
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPP! EMENTAL EIR
CITY O; TUSTIN
2, Response to Comments
implementation would involve construction of a network of new storm drains and
would requireimprovements to three existing drainage channels, New I.ID requirements
for infiltration, evapotranspiration, and/or runoff detention have been introduced since
certification of the FINS/EIR. 'Thus, runoff rates and/or volumes from the site after
buildout of the Specific Plan Amendment are expected to be less than would have
resulted from biuldout of the Adopted Specific Plan, No new significant impact would
occur,
As part of the 2004 Master Runoff Management Plan for Tustin Legacy, described
above, peak flow discharges and storm drain sizes were determined for each Planning
Area based on their full buildout condition (commercial, residential, etc.). Prior to
approval of individual projects within Tustin Legacy, the project must demonstrate that
the proposed project peak flows are equal to or less than the ultimate condition peak
flows in the master plan, For projects that will only occupy a portion of a Planning
Area, the runoff management plan includes subareas with detailed hydrology
calculations and peak flow limits to ensure the full buildout of .the Planning Area will
remain within the total allowable discharge. This analysis is reviewed and approved by
the City of Tustin.
As part of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, several of the Planning Areas are subject to
land use changes. "These changes include an overall increase in 2,212 residential units and
an overall decrease in 1,755,306 square feet of commercial spread out over
approximately 8 of the Planning Areas. The remaining Planning Areas will remain
unchanged. The net increase in residential units will increase the net acreage of
residential development, and the net acreage of commercial development wilt decrease.
Commercial development is modeled at 90 percent impervious cover, and residential
development is modeled at 80 percent (assuming high density) in accordance with OC
Hydrology Manual parameters. Due to the conversion of commercial development to
residential development, there will be a net overall decrease in impervious conditions in
the Planning Areas subject to land use changes, The net decrease in impervious surfaces
will result in a net decrease in pear flow runoff conditions. In addition, all projects built
within 'Tustin Legacy will still be required to demonstrate that the project peak flow
runoff is equal to or less than the assumed peak flow conditions associated with the
2004 Runoff Management Plan for Tustin Legacy. 'Therefore, there are no anticipated
impacts related to hydrology based on the decrease in impervious conditions, the
decrease in peak flows, and the requirement to confirm all project flows are within the
established peak flow rates for the ultimate development condition.
A74 As stated starting on Page A-78 of the DSEIR (Appendix .A), Peters Canyon Channel is
mapped as a 100 -year flood zone (Lone .A) by FEMA. Much of the eastern half of the
portion of the site in the City of Tustin is mapped as a 500 -year flood zone (Shaded
Zone X) by FETNEA (FEMA 2009). Specific flan Amendment buildout would not place
Page 2-316 PlweiVorkr
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
housing or structures in a 100 -year flood Lone, and no new substantial impact would
occur. Refer also to Response to Cornment A7-2.
.A7-5 The comment states that developments should comply with existing agreements
between C)CFCD and the City. The City concurs that developments would comply with
all such agreements in effect when the developments are proposed, Also see Response
to Comment A7-2, No DSETR revision is required.
A7-6 The comment states that work within QCFCD's rights-of-way would require County
permits and should not adversely affect OCFCD facilities, Projects developed under the
Modified Project would comply with such conditions. The comment does not address
the adequacy of the DSEIR and no revision is required.
Jflrg 2017 Pq 37
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENOMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL Elft
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
This pago intensional# l i% Glank.
Page 2-38 Plxeivolks
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
lE 1'ER A8 — Orange County Transpoxtation Authority (1 page)
M
OCTA
AFFVAr6D Aye 0i!0
To"t { g(W
L,, d iYanWv*Ian
AUWQ'
Sen4Ce Audvrly Or
F14en:3y EmAfflno7e
Cl nf1" W Tr& *"tw
Gar,��Wr ywtte!nrrc�xd
Agmy
$Wn AurhG* for
Afwp*nrsl Va*,as
May 1, 2017
Ms. Jusiina Wllikom
Assistant Director Planning
City of Tustin, Community Development
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Subject: Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment 2015-01 and
General Plan Amendment 2015~002 Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Willkom:
Thank you for providing. the Grange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) with
the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEI») for the Tustin
Legacy Specific Plan: Amendment 2015=ool and General Plan Amendment
2015-002 (Project). The following comment is provided for your consideration:
Page 3-26of'Me DSEIR, Section 3.4.1,6 ('Mobility and Transit') desc bes
the mobility plan for the. Project, The OC Foothills Bikeways Strategy (April
2016) identified Corridor B and Corridor H as regional bikeway corridors
within the Project vicinity. Please consider evaluation of the following
documents to ensure consistency with active transportation facilities plans
and encourage enhancements along regional corridors where possible.
o Nonmotorized Metrolink Accessibillty Strategy (,June 2413)
htto:t/octo.net/pdf/OCTAMetroiinkStatlon%20Acoess Final.odf
o OC Foothills Bikeways Strategy (April 2015)
htto:/Iwta.net/bdfl2LI69404 {)C%20Foothllls%208 ke a Final
%o20Filial.udf
Throughout the development of this project, we encourage communication with
OCTA on any matters discussed herein, If you have any questions or comments,
please contact me at (714) 5505907 or at dphuQocta,net
Sincerely,.
Dan Phu
Manager, Environmental Programs
aratVe County rrarafwnafkx Aulirnr ly
5.50Soulhkk'Yrn.Sfrg9tlP,4.Bdx1+l!&i/Orbrtye/GglNarnia BP8B3idR4/{7f9)5BC•4CTAr8282J
A8-1
Ju//e 2017 Page 2-39
TUSTIN LEGACY SPEC{FIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMFNTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
'I"hi.r page intentionally left bg'wk.
Rge 2-40 Placelvorkf
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL Elft
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
AS. Response to Comments from Orange County Transportation Authority, dated May 1, 2017,
A8-1 The comment addresses the Modified Project mobility plan, suggesting the DSEIR
evaluate the Modified Project for consistency Nvith the OC Foothills Bikeways Strategy
and the Nonmotorized Metrolink Accessibility Sttategy, Two regional bicycle corridors
proposed in the former document pass through or alongside the project site, Corridor H
(Warner -Edinger) passes through the site approximately along Warner Avenue and Park
Avenue; Corridor B (Lakeview -Santiago Creek)l passes along the southern and western
site boundaries on Barranca Parkway and Red Hill Avenue, respectively: The Initial Study
included as Appendt-, A to the DSEIR states that proposed parks onsite would be
connected by pedestrian and bicycle trails. Modified Project objectives identified in
DSEIR Section 3.2, Project Objectives, include "a well --connected system of roadways,
pedestrian paths, bicycle routes, and bus and shuttle routes that provide safe and
convenient access to uses within Tustin Legacy, the adjacent Metroluik Station, and
other offsite destinations," The OC Foothills Bikeway Strategy is consistent with the
objectives of and proposed bikeways in the Modified Project, and no DSFIR revision is
required.
Julie 1-017 Page 241
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left dank.
Paige 242 PlaceIV61-Ls
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2, Response to Comments
LETTER A9 — South Orange County Community College District (2 pages)
�+!jf3G0 A7AFG:IFfi]fF.l'hEllY1YAY_9dIb5lOV VIF.II), f: if �12fi43l3b:1", r !lh'J,9H7 a°-05757 + FA7(�3=17.;:ifi4. �!'Jd3 *� YIN.Yi.vd.S.GD.Y'.:ftl
4Zr _ 1iAl'ViYi f:IlnS:.ls C:nl I Elis: * li?4i. IF: V,1}, I,S"\ Crr4.1 k?l ls. « F11'1Vn N5:.fFYY TFf.'FIP, C.Ii.[ S+Y t1 f..11 1f: hf le)E`I {'hsyls
3=lie
May 1, 2017
VIA EMAIL
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
Attentions Justina Willkom, Assistant Director of Planning
306 Centennial Way
Tustin, (A 92780
Rel Tustin Legacy Specific Pian Amendment Draft Environmental Impact R"rt Notice of
Availab.ility
Dear Ms. Wlllkom,
The South Orange County Community College District ("SOCCCD') appreciates the opportunity to
review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR♦: Notice of Availability ("NOA")
prepared by the City of Tustin ("City") for the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment 2015-001
("Project"), SOCCCD's Advanced Technology Education Park ("ATEP") property is located in Tustin Legacy,
therefore, we have particular interest In the amendment to the. Tustin Legacy Specific Plan.
As you are aware, SOCCCD and the City entered into a Development Agreement allowing
development of the ATEP property with educational and noneducational uses, We appreciate that the
draft specific Plan Amendment?ncludes a footnote (1) on page 3-6 and that the DEIR Includes.a statement
en page 3-10 recognlzing the Development Agreement. These statements are helpful in providing the
readerwith a clear indication of the entitlement thatexistson the ATEP site. Although recognition of the
existence of the Development Agreement is provided In DEIR, a similar statement as is provided in
Footnote. l on page 3.5 of the Specific Plan isnot provided in the DEIR, We ask that a statement similar to
Specific Plan footnote 1 be added to the DEIR project description Table 3-3 Planning Area Trip Budget and
in Chapter 5,7 Transportation and Traffic to clearly Indicate that the Development Agreement provides
development and vehicle trip entitlements on the ATEP property,
As stated in my May 2015 comment letter on the Notice of Preparation, the number of average
dally trips ("ADT") assigned to the SOCCCD property is 10,470 under the Development Agreement, which
could be accommodated in the existing.and planned circulation system without additional environmental.
impacts.o( mitigation measures, Based on the findings of the EIR, we understand that although the overall
trip generation of the development planned in the amended Specific Plan would be the same, the revised
tand use mix and Ipterna.l circulation plan will result In changes In the distribution of traffic. However, we
also understand from the findings and fact that there are no changes to the previously approved
mitigatlon measures that none of the current or planned road segments and Intersectlons surrounding
the ATEP property are impacted and the build out of the ATEP property pursuant to the Development
Agreement
A9-1
A9-2
jinie 4017 I)age 2-43
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
Tustin Legacy Specific Pian Amendment CEQA - NOA
May 0017 Rae 2
will hat be affected by the SpeciPcPlan Amendment, Based on these.observations; SOCCCD. hes no further
comments on the DEIR,. A9-2
00N7D
SOCCCD appreciates the opportunity to comment on the. DER We look :forward to future
communications about this Project, Please do not heshate to contact me lfyou hive any questions:a.baut
this letter.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr; Debra L: Pitts€mons
Interim Chancellor
dao tX TW61F.es: I3tireittnJ. JAY, T I40)- eJEW.L. €}AM H_ L -NG, MARCIA NfnLCFNKM,
T.J. Pr m� ERcI.sr III, TkFFtI'Y wrr. JAm�u P.Wmcttr t7E$FfA L EmsiMorrs, irtTr a rx CHrt+cm part
AN EQUAk- 0WORTVNITY PMH_Q-FR
Page 244 Placeivolks
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
A9. Response to Comments from South Orange County Community College District, dated May
1, 2017.
A9-1 The comment expresses concern that the Development Agreement between the South
Orange County Conatutinky College District (SOCCCD) and the City, and potential ux e
of part of Planning Area 1 by SOCCCD, is not mentioned in the DSEIR. The City
acknowledges that the footnote and statement on pages 3-6 and 3-10 of the Tustin
Legacy Specific Plan. Please note that the DSEIR addresses the Modified project which
proposes changes in land uses in Planning Areas 8 through 19. Since no changes are
proposed within planning.Area 1, do DSEIR revision is needed.
A9-2 The City acknowledges that vehicle trips allocated to Planning Area 1 were made
pursuant to Development Agreement and Amended And Restated Agreement between
the City of Tustin and SOCCCD for Conveyance of a Portion of MCAS, Tustin and the
Establishment of an Advanced Technology Educational Campus.
jaile 2017 Page 245
TUSTiN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL Elft
CITY OF TUSTIN
2, Response to Comments
Tbirpine intentiortctZly /ej blank,
Page 246 llya [Voaks
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
LETTER x110 —Southern California Gas Company (2 pages; see Appendj.Y B)
SCG Transmission Notice of CONFLICT
Justina Willkom
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
jwilikom@tustinca.org
Plan File No. 0385-17-1017,1018
Subject: Project Title -.Tustin Legacy5pecific Paln Amendment 2015-001 and General
Plan Amendment 2015-002
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) Transmission Department has received your
request for pipeline locations within the general area of your proposed project. SoCalGas
Transmission operates and maintains high pressure natural gas lines) 1017, 1018 within the
limits of your construction project. Attached are copies of our pipeline Atlas sheets which show
the location of our pipelines. While we cannot guarantee the accuracy of these maps, they are
included to assist you in your planning and design.
Please be advised § 143.5 of General Order 112 F issued by the California Public Utilities
Commission prohibits a building or other encroachment to be constructed within the pipeline
right of way that would hinder maintenance activities on the pipeline or cause a lengthy delay
in accessing the pipeline facilities during an emergency.
Do Not Proceed with any grading, excavation or other construction activity within the
pipeline easement area and/or within ten feet (10) of the pipeline. This letter does not
constitute clearance for any construction work near or around SoCalGas' Transmission
pipeline(s).
Please note the following during planning and design:
• Consideration must be given to the safety of our pipeline during the design and
construction stages.
We will require "final' grading plans and construction profiles prior to the start of
construction.
June 'U 1
I:fiH1111
A10-2
A10-3
PaSe 2-f
sOUGZ
M0*44eAve
SoCalGas
A
91311
I l� %Addrm
A a,SenlpTa Energy *hty
P 0.Do- 2'w
0,.t—rHycA
9131 -TBW
KIL9314
Tel fl1&701d546
FN 810-701 `
April 4, 2017
Justina Willkom
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
jwilikom@tustinca.org
Plan File No. 0385-17-1017,1018
Subject: Project Title -.Tustin Legacy5pecific Paln Amendment 2015-001 and General
Plan Amendment 2015-002
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) Transmission Department has received your
request for pipeline locations within the general area of your proposed project. SoCalGas
Transmission operates and maintains high pressure natural gas lines) 1017, 1018 within the
limits of your construction project. Attached are copies of our pipeline Atlas sheets which show
the location of our pipelines. While we cannot guarantee the accuracy of these maps, they are
included to assist you in your planning and design.
Please be advised § 143.5 of General Order 112 F issued by the California Public Utilities
Commission prohibits a building or other encroachment to be constructed within the pipeline
right of way that would hinder maintenance activities on the pipeline or cause a lengthy delay
in accessing the pipeline facilities during an emergency.
Do Not Proceed with any grading, excavation or other construction activity within the
pipeline easement area and/or within ten feet (10) of the pipeline. This letter does not
constitute clearance for any construction work near or around SoCalGas' Transmission
pipeline(s).
Please note the following during planning and design:
• Consideration must be given to the safety of our pipeline during the design and
construction stages.
We will require "final' grading plans and construction profiles prior to the start of
construction.
June 'U 1
I:fiH1111
A10-2
A10-3
PaSe 2-f
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC FLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
• If a conflict Is identified and can only be resolved by the relocation of our facilities, which
relocation mayor may not beat the expense of SoUGas, please be advised that the
projected timetable for the completion of this relocation can take a year or longer. This
Includes planning, design, material procurement, cathodic protection, permits,
environmental issues,construction and capacity constraints.
• All work within 5o.Cal6as' eas.ement(s) and/or within 1D' of the pipelines) must be observed
by a SOCaIGas Transmission field representative: No work is authorized without the
representative. Arrangements for the required stand-by can be made by calling Adam
Juarez —714-ft3"19G.. Two -weeks minimum are needed to schedule a representative on
standby. We request that you pian accordingly.
+ Please call Underground Service Alert (USA)at (80.0) 422-4133 to hove SoCalGas
Transmission field representative locate and mark our active underground facilities at no
cost.
Please refer to our Document Control plan File # MS -17-1817,1018 on all correspondence.
For any correspondence directed to the SoCalGas Transmission Department in connection with
this project, please contact Christopher Coria, CCoriaf�semprautfikies.00nn.
If you have not already done so, please contact the Southeast Distribution Region of SoCalGas
for Information onthe location of Distribution pipelines. Depending an the location of your
project In relation to their pipelines, the above restrictions may apply to their pipelines as well.
You can contact them at (714) 634-5%7 and they will furnish you with any information you
may require.
Thank you for your notification.
Best regards,
SoCalGasTransm[WonUtilityReques,t@semptaufliitles.com
A10-3
CONT').
Al 0-4
Pa
ge 248 PlrVOV ';
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
A10. Response to Comments from Southern California Gas Company, dated April A, 2017,
A10-1 The coininenter provides maps showing the general location of high pressure natural
gas lines 1017 and 1018 and states that no building or other encroachment shall be
constructed within the pipeline right -of --way that would hinder maintenance activities or
cause a delay in accessing the facilities during an emergency. The City acknowledges
these cotrmnents and will comply with California Public Utilities Commission General
Order 112 F, Section 143.5, No physical development is being proposed as part of the
specific plan amendment at this time and future development would not be allowed to
encroach upon the high pressure natural gas lines or otherwise block. access.
A10-2 The City acknowledges that approval of the project does not constitute clearance for
any construction work near or around the SoCal.Gas Transmission pipelines.
A10-3 The City acknowledges the developer requirements during design and construction of
projects within the Specific flan.
.A10-4 The City acknowledges the contact and reference information provided by Southern
California Gas.
vyx 20 17 Page 2-19
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
2. Response to Comments
Thispage intentionally left blaak.
I'u�e 2-50 PhalvorAr
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains revisions to the DSEIR based upon 111) additional or revised information required to
prepare a response to a specific coininent; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the
time of DSEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation
measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to mitigation
requirements included in the DSEIR. The provision. of these additional mitigation measures does not alter
any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the DSEIR Changes made to the DSEIR are identified
here inqt6h-eattt em to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions.
3.2 DSEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
'Yhe following text has been revised in response to comments received on the DSEIR.
Page 5.3-14, Section 5.3, 1-4&1 Use aced Plaivdq. The following revision is made in response to Comment A1-2,
from Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County
However, the Specific Plan area is within the AELUP-designated notification area and is subject to Federal
Aviation Admitistration (FAA) notification and height restrictions pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations
Part 77 (FAR Part 77). ,
. Buildings and structures in
the Specific Plan area shall not penetrate FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces. Therefore, impacts related to the
Modified Projeces AELUP consistency remain less than significant,
Page 5.8-14, Section 5,8, Utilities and Service Systems. The following revision is trade in response to
Comment A4-3 frona the Irvine Ranch Fater District.
Over half of IRWD's water is groundwater from the Maim Orange Coti my Groundwater Basin (Basin), the
Irvine Subbasin, and the Lame Forest Subbasin. The Basin and the Irvine Subbasin are managed by the
Orange County `Mater District. The primary gLoundwater source is the Dyer Road Wellfield in the Basun.
Groundwater from the Irvine Subbasin is generally higher in total dissolved solids, color, and nitrates than
groundwater from the Basin. IRWD operates the Irvine Desalter, which treats some of the groundwater from
the Irvine Subbasirn for potable use; has 5 mgd capacity; and produces about 4.6 mgd treated water. Setfe
vjf e 2017 Peege 3-1
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
(IRWD 2015).
IRWD has drilled seven groundwater wells in the west Irvine, Tustin Legacy, and Tustin Ranch portions of
the Basin;-ftttd; four of the wells p—reviously produced groundwater but none of the wells are currently used as
production wells. IRWD has acquired a site for another well and treatment facility in addition to the seven
aforementioned wells.
.IRWD operates two treatment plants that clean up contaminated groundwater and have combined capacity
of about 3.7 mgd; the treated water is used as part of IRWD's non -notable rubbly (IRWD
2015).
Page 5.8-15, Section 5.8, Utilities and Service Systems. The following revision is made in response to
Comment A4--3 from the Irvine Ranch Water District.
Nonpotable water sources include recycled water, raw imported water,
Besalf.ef, ,.._a ..__ k...wate f- r..a.-_ If-vine
hake. and groundwater treated at the Shallow Groundwater Unit
'T'reatment Plant and the Principal Aquifer Treatment Plant,
IRWD obtains raw imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County. Some of the
groundwater treated at the T~- tte De ..1}..f Shallow Groundwater Utut Plant is used for irrigation.
Page 3-2 -- PlaefFo&'
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EJR
CITY OF TUSTIN
Appendix
Appendix A. MWD Comment Letter Attachment
flue 2017
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FfNAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
Appendix
Tfia`r pine intentionally left blank.
Guidelines for Developments in the
Area of Facilities, FOR Properties, and or Easements
0
i;,; Introduction
a. The following general guidelines should be
followed for the design of proposed facilities and
developments in the area of Metropolitan's facilities, fee
properties, and/or easements.
b. We require that 3 copies of your tentative and
final record maps, grading, paving, street improvement,
landscape, storm drain, and utility plans be submitted
for our review and written approval as they pertain to
Metropolitan's facilities, fee properties and/or
easements, prior to the commencement of any construction
work.
2. Plans Parcel and Tract Ma s
The following are Metropolitan's requirements for the
identification of its facilities, fee properties, and/or
easements on your plans, parcel maps and tract maps:
a. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and
its pipelines and other facilities must be fully shown and
identified as Metropolitan's on all applicable plans.
b. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements
must be shown and identified as Metropolitan's with the
official recording data on all applicable parcel and
tract maps.
C. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements
and existing survey monuments must be,dimensionally tied
to the parcel or tract boundaries.
d. Metropolitan's records of surveys must be
referenced on the parcel and tract maps.
-2-
3. Maintenance of Access Along Metro olitan's Rights-of-way
a. Proposed cut or fill slopes exceeding 10 percent
ase normally not allowed within Metropolitan's fee
properties or easements. This is required to facilitate the
use of construction and maintenance equipment, and provide
access to its aboveground and belowground facilities.
b. We require that 16 -foot -wide commercial -type
driveway approaches be constructed on both sides of all
streets crossing Metropolitan's rights-of-way. Openings
are required in any median island. Access ramps, if
necessary, must be at least 16 -feet -wide. Grades of ramps
are normally not allowed to exceed 10 percent. If the slope
Of an access ramp must exceed 10 percent due to the
topography, the ramp must be paved. We require a
40--foot-long level area on the driveway approach to access
ramps where the ramp meets the street. At Metropolitan's
fee properties, we may require fences and gates.
C. The terms of Metropolitan's permanent easement
deeds normally preclude the building or maintenance of
structures of any nature or kind within its easements, to
ensure safety and avoid interference with operation and
maintenance of Metropolitan's pipelines or other facilities.
Metropolitan must have vehicular access along the easements
at all times for inspection, patrolling, and for maintenance
of the pipelines and other, facilities on a routine basis.
We require a 20 -foot -wide clear zone around all above -ground
facilities for this routine access. This clear zone should
slope away from our facility on a grade not to exceed
.2 percent. We must also have access along the easements
with construction equipment. An example of this is shown on
Figure 1.
d. The footings of any proposed buildings adjacent to
Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must not
encroach into the fee property or easement or impose
additional loading on Metropolitan's pipelines or other
facilities therein. A typical situation is shown on
Figure 2. Prints of the detail plans of the footings for
any building or structure adjacent to the fee property or
easement must be submitted for our review and written
approval as they pertain to the pipeline or other facilities
therein. Also, roof eaves of buildings adjacent. to the
easement or fee property must not overhang into the fee
property or easement area.
3 -
e. Metropolitan's pipelines and other facilities,
e.g. structures, manholes, equipment, survey monuments, etc.
within its fee properties and/or easements must be protected
from damage by the easement holder on Metropolitan's
property or the property owner where Metropolitan has an
easement, at no expense to Metropolitan. If the facility is
a cathodic protection station it shall be located prior to
any grading or excavation. The exact location, description
and way of protection shall be shown on the related plans ,
for the easement area.
Co Easements on Metropolitan's Property
a. We encourage the use of Metropolitan's fee rights-
of-way by governmental agencies for public street and
utility purposes, provided that such use does not interfere
with Metropolitan's use of the property, the entire width of
the property is accepted into the agency's public street
system and fair market value is paid for such use of the
right-of-way.
b. Please contact the Director of Metropolitan's
Right of Way and Land Division, telephone (213) 250-63020
concerning easements for landscaping, street, storm drain,
sewer, water or other public facilities proposed within
Metropolitan's fee properties. A map and legal description
of the requested easements must be submitted. Also, written
evidence must be submitted that shows the city or county
will accept the easement•for the specific purposes into its
public system. The grant of the easement will be subject to
Metropolitan's rights to use its land for water pipelines
and related purposes to the same extent as if such grant had
not been made. There will be a charge for the easement.
Please note that, if entry is required on the property prior
to issuance of the easement, an entry permit must be
obtained. There will also be a charge for the entry permit.
S. Landsca in
Metropolitan's landscape guidelines for its fee
properties and/or easements are as follows:
a. A green belt may be allowed within Metropolitan's
fee property or easement.
b. All landscape plans shall show the location and
size of Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement and the
location and size of Metropolitan's pipeline or other
facilities therein.
6.
7.
- 4 -
C. Absolutely no trees will be allowed within 15 feet
of the centerline of Metropolitan's existing or future
pipelines and facilities.
d. Deep-rooted trees are prohibited within
Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements. Shallow -
rooted trees are the only trees allowed. The shallow -rooted
trees will not be permitted any closer than 15 feet from the
centerline of the pipeline, and such trees shall not be
taller than 25 feet with a root spread no greater than
20 feet in diameter at maturity. Shrubs, bushes, vines, and
ground cover are permitted, but larger shrubs and bushes
should not be planted directly over our pipeline. Turf is
acceptable. +We require submittal of landscape plans for
metropolitan's prior review and written approval. (See
Figure 3).
e. The landscape plans must contain provisions for
Metropolitan's vehicular access at all times along its
rights-of-way to its pipelines or facilities therein. -
Gates capable of accepting Metropolitan's locks are
required in any fences across its rights-of-way. Also,
any walks or drainage facilities across its access route
must be constructed to AASHTO H-20 loading standards.
f. Rights to landscape any of Metropolitan's fee
properties must be acquired from its Right of Way and
Land Division. Appropriate entry permits must be obtained
Prior to any entry on its property. There will be a charge
for any entry permit or easements required.
Fencing
Metropolitan requires that perimeter fencing of its fee
properties and facilities be Constructed, of universal chain
link, 6 feet in height and topped with 3 strands of barbed
wire angled upward and outward at a 45 degree angle or an
approved equal for a total fence height of 7 feet. Suitable
substitute fencing may be considered by Metropolitan.
(Please see Figure S for details).
or Easements
Metropolitan's policy for the alinement of utilities
permitted within its fee properties and/or easements and
street rights-of-way is as follows:
- 5 -
a. Permanent structures, including catch basins,
manholes, power poles, telephone riser boxes, etc., shall
not be located within its fee properties and/or easements.
b. We request that permanent utility structures
within public streets, in which Metropolitan's facilities
are constructed under the Metropolitan Water District
Act, be placed as far from our pipeline as possible, but
not closer than 5 feet from the outside of our pipeline.
C. The installation of utilities over or under
Metropolitan's pipeline(s) must be in accordance with the
requirements shown on the enclosed prints of Drawings
Nos. C-11632 and C-9547. Whenever possible we request a
minimum of one foot clearance between Metropolitan's pipe
and your facility. Temporary support of Metropolitan's
pipe may also be required at undercrossings of its pipe
in an open trench. The temporary support plans must be
reviewed and approved by Metropolitan.
d. Lateral utility crossings of Metropolitan's
pipelines must be as perpendicular to its pipeline
alinement as practical. Prior to any excavation our
pipeline shall be located manually and any excavation
within two feet of our pipeline must be done by hand.
This shall be noted on the appropriate drawings.
e. Utilities constructed longitudinally within
Metropolitan's rights-of-way must be located outside the
theoretical trench prism for uncovering its pipeline and
must be located parallel to and as close to its rights-
of-way lines as practical.
f. When piping is jacked or installed in jacked
casing or tunnel under Metropolitan's pipe, there must be
at least two feet of vertical clearance between the
bottom of metropolitan's pipe and the top of the jacked
pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. We also require that
detail drawings of the shoring for the jacking or
tunneling pits be submitted for our review and approlval.
Provisions must be made to grout any voids around the
exterior of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. If
the piping is installed in a jacked casing or tunnel the
annular space between the piping and the jacked casing or
tunnel must be filled with grout.
g- Overhead electrical and telephone line
requirements:
1) Conductor clearances are to conform to the
California State Public Utilities Coimmission, General
Order 95, for Overhead Electrical Line Construction or
at a greater clearance if required by Metropolitan.
Under no circumstances shall clearance be less than
35 feet.
2) A marker must be attached to the power pole
showing the ground clearance and line voltage, to help
prevent damage to your facilities during maintenance or
other work being done in the area.
3) Line clearance over Metropolitan's fee
Properties and/or easements shall be shown on the
drawing to indicate the lowest point of the line
under the most adverse conditions including
consideration of sag, wind load, temperature change,
and support type. We require that overhead lines be
located at least 30 feet laterally away from all
above -ground structures on the pipelines.
4) When underground electrical conduits,
120 volts or greater, are installed within
Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement, the
conduits must be incased ,in a minimum of three inches
of red concrete. Where possible, above ground warning
signs must also be placed at the right-of-way lines
where the conduits enter and exit the right-of-way.
h. The construction of sewerlines in Metropolitan's
fee properties and/or easements must conform to the
California Department of Health Services Criteria for the
Separation of Water Mains and Sanitary Services and the
local City or County Health Code ordinance as it relates to
installation of sewers in the vicinity of pressure
waterlines. The construction of sewerlines.should also
conform to these standards in street rights -of- way.
i. Cross sections shall be provided for all pipeline
crossings showing Metropolitan s fee property and/or
easement limits and the location of our pipeline(s). The
exact locations of the crossing pipelines and their
elevations shall be marked on as -built drawings for our
information.
- 7
J. Potholing of Metropolitan's pipeline is required
if the vertical clearance between a utility and
Metropolitan's pipeline is indicated on the plan to be'one
foot or less. If the indicated clearance is between one and
two feet, potholing is suggested. Metropolitan will provide
a representative to assists others in locating and
identifying its pipeline. Two -working days notice is
requested.
k. Adequate shoring and bracing is required for the
full depth of the trench when the excavation encroaches
within the zone shown on Figure 4.
1. The location of utilities within Metropolitan's
fee property and/or easement shall be plainly marked to
help prevent damage during maintenance or other work done
in the area. Detectable tape over buried utilities
should be placed a minimum of 12 inches above the utility
and shall conform to the following requirements:
1) Water pipeline: A two-inch blue warning
tape shall be imprinted with:
"CAUTION BURIED WATER PIPELINE"
2) Gas, oil, or chemical pipeline: A
two-inch yellow warning tape shall be imprizited
with:
"CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE"
3) sewer or storm drain pipeline: A
two-inch green warning tape shall be imprinted with:
"CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE"
4) Electric, street lighting, or traffic
signals conduit: A two --inch red warning tape shall
be imprinted with:.
"CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT"
5) Telephone, or television conduit: A
two-inch orange warning tape shall be imprinted
with:
"CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT"
- 8 -
M, Cathodic Protection requirements:
1) if there is a cathodic protection station
for Metropolitan's pipeline in the area of the proposed
work, it shall be located prior to any grading or
excavation. The exact location, description and manner
of protection shall be shown on all applicable plans.
Please contact Metropolitan's Corrosion Engineering
Section, located at Metropolitan's F. E. Weymouth
Softening and Filtration Plant, 700 North Moreno
Avenue, La Verne,, California 91750, telephone (714)
593-7474, for the locations of Metropolitan's cathodic
protection stations.
2) If an induced -current cathodic protection
system is to be installed on any pipeline crossing
Metropolitan's pipeline, please contact Mr. Wayne E.
Risner at (714) 593-7474 or (213) 250-5085: He will
review the proposed. system and determine if any
conflicts will arise with the existing cathodic
protection systems installed by Metropolitan.
3) Within Metropolitan's rights-of-way,
Pipelines and carrier pipes (casings) shall be coated
with an approved protective coating to conform to
Metropolitan's requirements, and shall be maintained in
a neat and orderly condition as directed by Metropolitan.
The application and monitoring of cathodic protection
on the pipeline and casing shall conform to Title 49 of
the Code of Federal, Regulations, Part 195.
4) if a steel carrier pipe (casing) is used:
(a) Cathodic protection shall be provided
by use of a sacrificial magnesium an (a sketch
showing the cathodic protection details can be
provided for the designers information).
(b) The steel carrier pipe shall be
protected with a coal tar enamel coating inside
and out in accordance with AWWA C203 specification.
n. All trenches shall be excavated to comply with the
CAI,/OSHA Construction Safety Orders, Article 6, beginning
with Sections 1539 through 1547. Trench backfill shall be
placed in 8 -inch lifts and shall be compacted to 95 percent
relative compaction (ASTM D698) across roadways and through
protective dikes. Trench backfill elsewhere will be
compacted to 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698).
8.
- 9 -
o. Control cables connected with the operation of
Metropolitan's system are buried within streets, its fee
properties and/or easements. The locations and elevations
of these cables shall be shown on the drawings. The
drawings shall note that prior to any excavation in the
area, the control cables shall be located and measures
shall be taken by the contractor to protect the cables in
place.
p. Metropolitan is a member of Underground Service
Alert (USA). The contractor (excavator) shall contact
USA at 1-800-422-4133 (Southern California) at least 48
hours prior to starting any excavation work. The contractor
will be liable for any damage to Metropolitan's facilities
as a result of the construction.
Paramount Right
Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's fee
properties and/or easements shall be subject to the
paramount right of Metropolitan to use its fee properties
and/or easements for the purpose for which they were
acquired. If at any time Metropolitan or its assigns
should, in the exercise of their rights, find it necessary
to remove any of the facilities from the fee properties
and/or easements, such removal and replacement shall be at
the expense of the owner of the facility.
9. Modification of Metropolitan's Facilities
When a manhole or other of Metropolitan's facilities
must be modified to accommodate your construction or recons-
truction, Metropolitan will modify the facilities with its
forces. This should be noted on the construction plans. The
estimated cost to perform this modification will be given to
you and we will require a deposit for this amount before the
work is performed. Once the deposit is received, we will
schedule the work. Our forces will coordinate the work with
your contractor. Our final billing will be based on actual
cost incurred, and will include materials, construction,
engineering plan review, inspection, and administrative
overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's
standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the
deposit, a refund will be made; however, if the cost exceeds
the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the
additional amount.
- 10 -
10 . Drams
a. Residential or commercial development typically
increases and concentrates the peak storm water runoff as
well as the total yearly storm runoff from an area, thereby
increasing the requirements for storm drain facilities
downstream, of the development. Also, throughout the year
water from landscape irrigation, car washing, and other
outdoor domestic water uses flows into the storm drainage
system resulting in weed abatement, insect infestation,
obstructed access and other problems. Therefore, it is
Metropolitan's usual practice not to approve plans that show
discharge of drainage from developments onto its fee
properties and/or easements.
b. If water must be carried across or discharged onto
Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements, Metropolitan
will insist that plans for development provide that it be
carried by closed conduit or lined open channel approved in
writing by Metropolitan. Also the drainage facilities must be
maintained by others, e.g., city, county, ham owners association,
etc. If the development proposes changes to existing drainage
features, then the developer shall snake provisions to provide
for replacement and these changes must be approved by Metropolitan
in writing.
11. Construction Coordination
During construction., Metropolitan's field representative
will make periodic inspections. we request that a stipulation
be added to the plans or specifications for notification of
Mr- of Metropolitan's Operations Services Branch,
telephone 2 ) 250- , at least two working days prior to
any work in the vicin ti y of our facilities.
12. Pipeline Loading Restrictions
a. Metropolitan's pipelines and conduits vary in
structural strength, and some are not adequate for
AASHTO H-20 loading. Therefore, specific loads over the
specific sections of pipe or conduit mast be reviewed and
approved by Metropolitan. However, Metropolitan's pipelines
are typically adequate for AASHTO 9-20 loading provided that
the cover over the pipeline is not less than four feet or
the cover is not substantially increased. If the temporary
cover over the pipeline during construction is between three
and four feet, equipment must restricted to that which
imposes loads no greater than AASHTO H--10. If the cover is
between two and three feet, equipment must be restricted to
that of a Caterpillar D-4 tract --type tractor. If the cover
is less than two feet, only hand equipment may be used.
Also, if the contractor plans to use any equipment over
Metropolitan's pipeline which will impose loads greater than
AASHTO H-20, it will be necessary to submit the specifications
of such equipment for our review and approval at least one
week prior to its use. More restrictive requirements may
apply to the loading guideline over the San Diego Pipelines
1 and 2, portions of the Orange County Feeder, and the
Colorado River Aqueduct. Please contact us for loading
restrictions on all of Metropolitan's pipelines and
conduits.
b. The existing cover over the pipeline shall be
maintained unless Metropolitan determines that proposed
changes do not pose a hazard to the integrity of the
pipeline or an impediment to its maintenance.
13. Blasting
a. At least 20 days prior to the start of any
drilling for rock excavation blasting, or any blasting, in
the vicinity of Metropolitan's facilities, a two-part
preliminary conceptual plan shall be submitted to
Metropolitan' as follows ;
b. Part 1 of the conceptual plan shall include a
complete summary of,proposed transportation, handling,
storage, and use of explosions.
c. Part 2 shall include the proposed general concept
for blasting, including controlled blasting techniques and
controls of.noise, fly rock, airblast, and ground vibration.
14. CEQA Requirements
a. when Environmental Documents Have Not Been
Pr.�ed
1) Regulations implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require that
Metropolitan have an opportunity to consult with the
agency or consultants preparing any environmental
documentation. We are required to review and consider
the environmental effects of the project as shown in
the'Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) prepared for your project before committing
Metropolitan to approve your request.
- 12 -
In
order to
th the
regulations implems
entingCCEEQAcwhere Metroompliance politan
the Lead Agency, the following minimumprocedures is not
ensure compliance with the Act have beeestablished:
a) Metropolitan shall be timely advised of
any determination that a Categorical Exemption
applies to the project. The Lead Agency is to
advise Metropolitan that it and other agencies
participating in the project have complied with
the requirements of CEQA prior to Metropolitan's
Participation.
b) Metropolitan is to be consulted during
the preparation of the Negative Declaration or
EIR.
C) Metropolitan is to review and submit any
necessary comments on the Negative Declaration or
draft EIR.
d) Metropolitan is to be indemnified for
any costs or liability arising out of any
violation of any laws or regulations including but
not limited to the California Environmental
Quality Act and its implementing regulations.
b. When Environmental Documents Have Seen Prepared
If environmental dotliments have been prepared for your
project, please furnish us a copy for our review and files
in a "timely manner so that we may have sufficient time to
review and comment. The following steps must also be
accomplished -
1) The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan
that it and other agencies participating in the project
have complied with the requirements of CEQA prior to
Metropolitan"s,parti.cipation.
2) You must agree to indemnify Metropolitan, its
Officers, engineers, and agents for any costs or
liability.arising out of any violation of any laws or
regulations including but not limited to the California
Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regulations.
15. Metro litan's Plan -Review Cost
a. An engineering review of your proposed facilities
and developments and the preparation of a letter response
- 13 -
giving Metropolitan's comments, requirements and/or approval
that will require 8 man-hours or less of effort is typically
performed at no cost to the developer, unless a facility
must be modified where Metropolitan has superior rights. If
an engineering review and letter response requires more than
8 man-hours of effort by Metropolitan to determine if the
proposed facility or development is compatible with its
facilities, or if modifications to Metropolitan's manhole(s)
or other facilities will be required, then all of
Metropolitan's costs associated with the project must be
paid by the developer, unless the developer has superior
rights.
b. A deposit of funds will be required from the
developer before Metropolitan can begin its detailed
engineering plan review that will exceed 8 hours. The
amount of the required deposit will be determined after a
cursory review of the plans for the proposed development.
C. Metropolitan's final billing will be based on
actual cost incurred, and will include engineering plan
review, inspection, materials, construction, and
administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance
with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the
cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made;
however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be
forwarded for payment of the additional amount. Additional
deposits may be required if the cost of Metropolitan's
review exceeds the amount of the initial deposit.
16. Caution
We advise you that Metropolitan's plan reviews and
responses are based upon information available to
Metropolitan which was prepared by or on behalf of
Metropolitan for general record purposes only. Such
information may not be sufficiently detailed or accurate for
your purposes. No warranty of any kind, either express or
implied, is attached to the information therein conveyed as
to its accuracy, and no inference should be drawn from
Metropolitan's failure to comment on any aspect of your
project. You are therefore cautioned to make such surveys
and other field investigations as you may deem prudent to
assure yourself that any plans for your project are correct.
- 14 -
17. Additional information
Should you require additional information, please contact:
Civil En ineer'n substructures Section
Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California
P.O. Sox 54153
Los Angeles, California 90OS4-Oi53
(213) 217-S000
JEH/MRW/lk
Rev. January 22; 1985
Encl.
".44 ftwmo .w. mL&AAMqftT NW
Ld
0
y%
= 1
r 1'�
i
r
".44 ftwmo .w. mL&AAMqftT NW
Ld
0
NO PERAMNENT STRUCTURES PERMITTED
Al W. 0 PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY
NO ROOF OVERHANG PERMITTED ----C
FOOTING MUST NOT
FNCROACH INTO
RIGHT OF WAYS
FINISHED
SURFACE
BUILDING
ADJACENT
TO RIGHT
OF WAY
~ Rf'OUIREJ
DEPT -M OF
I FOOTING
\ I.
_ T PICAL I
!
l...r I
AMD. PIPELINE
R ZOUIREMENTS FOR
NOTE . M.WD. PIPELINE SIZE, DEPTH, LOCATION BUILDINGS AND FOOTINGS
AND WIDTH OF PERMANENT RIGHT OF ADJACENT TO M. WD.
WAY !VARIES. RIGHT OF W,,4Y
FIGURE 2
17+17 M MMtrIM} MA</1M.-* $ [
1t." DUCT&MCFM'07T LWapm-T lots
—9 w
M17 AJ4V3dOb+d
�••w �e+ewe•.roar rut.a..�..n wss
o
r
oz
♦ a yt+.=W
OV
♦ ���Q
\� QO41tOkfZi
Q�Q
� Q
� W
�W
Q,
V
h
id't
-----------------------
€ f:
HE
b" I
h
v
N
SECTION "A -A"
i
• ~ x f'premolded
expansion j *
fi!!cr
Apertures os oyrected 4 D=in.
the E*fteer total valume
Mt ro exceed 2 the va/ume
of the sM
pporting iral/
Concrete support wer// to
be placed against undis-
fW6ed ground
D
CROSS SFC770N
I. Supporting wall shall have o firm bearr'Iig an the
sabgrade and against the side of the excapatiop.
2. Prerpolded expansion joint filler per ASTM D-175/-73
to be used in sopyvort for steel pipe only.
3. If trench width is 4 feet or greater, meawred along
centerline of M. W.D. pipe, concrete supp&vf must
be constructed.
4. if trench Width is less than 4 feet, clean sand bwt-
R/1, compacted to 90 % density in occorgonce wihJ
the provisions of ASTM Standard D -1557-7D may
be' used in lieu of the concrete svpport' wall,
"... ar.c„nww.t,o"
CTIOAI "A -,D -v
onch width
n
311preformed ezpansian
joint filler
� NOTES
rhis method to he -used where the
r' M.W.D. pipe vt/Iitr Iine is 24"or oreater in
diameter and the clearance
helween the VIN& line and M.W. D.
pipe is le or less.
2. Specia/ protection mar he required
SECTION A if the utility /int dioMeter is
greater than M.K! a pipe orif the
cover aver the atililr line to the
street surface is minimal and More
11 12"0,- less clearance between m
pipe *ad the 0t1/1& Ane.
3. /'reformed erponsioo %o;At filler to
comply with IN 40'r 4 / des/gnoaen
D-1731-73.
4. M. WA requests I2~n�inirnum
clearance whenever possih/e.
CROSS SECTION
31 00090"t-NaftT CLf&*POM* M1!
I
1. Introduction
a. The following general guidelines should be
followed for the design of proposed facilities and
developments in the area of Metropolitan's facilities, fee
properties, and/or easements.
b. We require that 3 copies of your tentative and
final record maps, grading, paving, street improvement,
landscape, storm drain, and utility plans be subuaitted
for our review and written approval as they pertain to
Metropolitan's facilities, fee properties and/or
easements, prior to the ccumncement of any construction
work.
2. Plans, Parcel and Tract Maps
The following are Metropolitan's requirements for the
identification of its facilities, fee properties, and/or
easements on your plans, parcel maps and tract maps:
a. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and
its pipelines and other facilities must be fully shown and
identified as Metropolitan's on all applicable plans.
b. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements
must be shown and identified as Metropolitan's with the
official recording data on all applicable parcel and
tract maps.
C.: Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements
and existing survey monuments must be dimensionally tied
to the parcel or tract boundaries.
d. Metropolitan's records of surveys must be
referenced on the parcel and tract maps.
- 2 -
3. Maintenance of Access Along Metro olitan's Ri hts-of-Wa
a. Proposed cut or fill slopes exceeding 10 percent
are normally not allowed within Metropolitan's fee
properties or easements. This is required to facilitate the
use of construction and maintenance equipment, and provide
access to its aboveground and belowground facilities.
b. We require that 16 -foot -wide commercial -type
driveway approaches be constructed on both sides of all
streets crossing Metropolitan's rights-of-way. openings
are required in any median island. Access ramps, if
necessary, must be at least 16 -feet -wide. Grades of ramps
are normally not allowed to exceed 10 percent. If the slope
of an access ramp must exceed 10 percent due to the
topography, the ramp must be paved. We require a
40 -foot -long level area on the driveway approach to access
ramps where the ramp meets the street. At Metropolitan's
fee properties, we may require fences and gates.
C. The terms of Metropolitan's permanent easement
deeds normally preclude the building or maintenance of
structures of any nature or kind within its easements, to
ensure safety and avoid interference with operation and
maintenance of Metropolitan's pipelines or other facilities.
Metropolitan must have vehicular access along the easements
at all times for inspection, patrolling, and for maintenance
of the pipelines and other,facilities on a routine basis.
We require a 20 -foot -wide clear zone around all above -ground
facilities for this routine access. This clear zone should
slope away from our facility on a grade not to exceed
2 percent. We must also have access along the easements
with construction equipment. An example of this is shown on
Figure 1.
d. The footings of any proposed buildings adjacent to
Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must not
encroach into the fee property or easement or impose
additiohal loading on Metropolitan's pipelines or other
facilities therein. A typical situation is shown on
Figure 2. Prints of the detail plans of the footings for
any building or structure adjacent to the fee property or
easement must be submitted for our review and written
approval as they pertain to the pipeline or other facilities
therein. Also, roof eaves of buildings adjacent to the
easement or fee property must not overhang into the fee
property or easement area.
- 3 -
e. Metropolitan's pipelines and other facilities,
e.g. structuress manholes, equipment, survey monuments, etc.
within its fee properties and/or easements must be protected
from damage by the easement holder on Metropolitan's
property or the property owner where Metropolitan has an
easement, at no expense to Metropolitan. If the facility is
a cathodic protection station it shall be located prior to
any grading or excavation. The exact location, description
and way of protection shall be shown on the related plans
for the easement area.
4. Easements on Metropolitan's Property
a. We encourage the use of Metropolitan's fee rights-
of-way by governmental agencies for public street and
utility purposes, provided that such use does not interfere
with Metropolitan's use of the property, the entire width of
the property is accepted into the agency's public street
system and fair market value is paid for such use of the
right-of-way.
b. Please contact the Director of Metropolitan's
Right of Way and Land Division, telephone (213) 250-6302,
concerning easements for landscaping, street, storm drain,
sewer, water or other public facilities proposed within
Metropolitan's fee properties. A map and legal description
of the requested easements must be submitted. Also, written
evidence must be submitted that shows the city or county
will accept the easement for the specific purposes into its
public system. The grant of the easement will be subject to
Metropolitan's rights to use its land for water pipelines
and related purposes to the same extent as if such grant had
not been made. There will be a charge for the easement.
Please note that, if entry is required on the property prior
to issuance of the easement, an entry permit must be
obtained. There will also be a charge for the entry permit.
S. Landscaping
Metropolitan's landscape guidelines for its fee
properties and/or easements are as follows:
a. A green belt may be allowed within Metropolitan's
fee property or easement.
b. All landscape plans shall show the location and
size of Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement and the
location and size of Metropolitan's pipeline or other
facilities therein.
6.
- 4 -
C. Absolutely no trees will be allowed within 15 feet
of the centerline of Metropolitan's existing or future
pipelines and facilities.
d. Deep-rooted trees are prohibited within
Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements. Shallow -
rooted trees are the only trees allowed. The shallow -rooted
trees will not be permitted any closer than 15 feet from the
centerline of the pipeline, and such trees shall not be
taller than 25 feet with a root spread no greater than
20 feet in diameter at maturity. Shrubs, bushes, vines, and
ground cover are permitted, but larger shrubs and bushes
should not be planted directly over our pipeline. Turf is
acceptable. We require submittal of landscape plans for
Metropolitan's prior review and written approval. (See
Figure 3).
e. The landscape plans must contain provisions for
Metropolitan's vehicular access at all times along its'
rights -of -wap to its pipelines or facilities therein:
Gates capable of accepting Metropolitan's locks are
required in any fences across its rights-of-way. Also,
any walks or drainage facilities across its access route
must be constructed to AASHTQ H-20 loading standards.
f. bights to landscape any of Metropolitan's fee
properties must be acquired from its Right of Way and
Land Division. Appropriate entry permits must be obtained
prior to any entry on its property. There will be a charge
for any entry permit or easements required.
Fencing
Metropolitan requires that perimeter fencing of its fee
properties and facilities be constructed, of universal chain
link, 6 feet in height and topped with 3 strands of barbed
wire angled upward and outward at a 45 degree angle or an
approved equal for a total fence height of 7 feet. Suitable
substitute fencing may be considered by Metropolitan.
(Please see Figure 5 for details).
7. Utilities in Metropolitan,
or Ad-iacent to Its Pine in
Metropolitan's policy for the
permitted within its fee properties
street rights-of-way is as follows:
or
alinement of utilities
and/or easements and
- 5 -
a. Permanent structures, including catch basins,
manholes, power poles, telephone riser boxes, etc., shall
not be located within its fee properties and/or easements.
b. We request that permanent utility structures
within public streets, in which Metropolitan's facilities
are constructed under the Metropolitan. Water District
Act, be placed as far from our pipeline as possible, but
not closer than 5 feet from the outside of our pipeline.
C. The installation of utilities over or under
Metropolitan's pipeline(s) must be in accordance with the
requirements shown on the enclosed prints of Drawings
Nos. C-11532 and C-9547. Whenever possible we request a
minimum of one foot clearance between Metropolitan's pipe
and your facility. Temporary support of Metropolitan's
pipe may also be required at undercrossings of its pipe
in an open trench. The temporary support plans must be
reviewed and approved by Metropolitan.
d. Lateral utility crossings of Metropolitan's
pipelines must be as perpendicular to its pipeline
alinement as practical. Prior to any excavation our
pipeline shall be located manually and any excavation
within two feet of our pipeline must be done by hand.
This shall be noted on the appropriate drawings.
e. Utilities constructed longitudinally within
Metropolitan's rights-of-way must be located outside the
theoretical trench prism' for uncovering its pipeline and
must be located parallel to and as close to its rights--
of-way lines as practical.
f. When piping is jacked or installed in jacked
casing or tunnel under Metropolitan's pipe, there must be
at least two feet of vertical clearance between the
bottom of Metropolitan's pipe and the top of the jacked
pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. We also require that
detail drawings of.the shoring for the jacking or
tunnel1mg pits be submitted for our review and approval.
Provisions must be made to grout any voids around the
exterior of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. if
the piping is installed in a jacked casing or tunnel the
annular space between the piping and the jacked casing or
tunnel must be filled with grout.
- 6 -
g. Overhead electrical and telephone line
requirements:
1) Conductor clearances are to conform to the
California State Public Utilities Commission, General
Order 95, for Overhead Electrical Line Construction or
at a greater clearance if required by Metropolitan.
Under no circumstances shall clearance be less than
35 feet.
2) A marker must be attached to the power pole
showing the ground clearance and line voltage, to help
prevent damage to your facilities during maintenance or
other work being done in the area.
3) Line clearance over Metropolitan's fee
Properties and/or easements shall be shown on the
drawing to indicate the lowest point of the line
under the most adverse conditions including
consideration of sag, wind load, temperature change,
and support type. We require that overhead lines be
located at least 30 feet laterally away from all
above -ground structures on the pipelines.
4) When underground electrical conduits,
120 volts or greater, are installed within
Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement, the
conduits must be incased in a minimum of three inches
of red concrete. Where possible, above ground warning
signs must also be placed at the right-of-way lines
where the conduits enter and exit the right-of-way.
h. The construction of sewerlines in Metropolitan's
fee properties and/or easements must conform to the
California Department of Health Services Criteria for the
Separation of Water Mains and Sanitary Services and the
local City or County Health Code Ordinance as it relates to
installation of sewers in the vicinity of pressure
waterlines. The construction of sewerlines should also
conform to these standards in street rights -of- way.
i. Cross sections shall be provided for all pipeline
crossings showing Metropolitan's fee property and/or
easement limits and the location of our pipeline (s) The
exact locations of the crossing pipelines and their
elevations shall be marked on as -built drawings for our
information.
- 7 -
j. Potholing of Metropolitan`s pipeline is required
if the vertical clearance between a utility and
Metropolitan's pipeline is indicated on the plan to be'one
foot or less. If the indicated clearance is between one and
two feet, potholing is suggested. Metropolitan will provide
a representative to assists others in locating and
identifying its pipeline. Two -working days notice is
requested.
k. Adequate shoring and bracing is required for the
full depth of the trench when the excavation encroaches
within the zone shown on Figure 4.
1. The location of utilities within Metropolitan's
fee property and/or easement shall be plainly marked to
help prevent damage during maintenance or other work done
in the area. Detectable tape over buried utilities
should be placed a minimum mum of 12 inches above the utility
and shall conform to the following requirements:
1) Water pipeline: A two-inch blue warning
tape shall be imprinted with:
"CAUTION BURIED WATER PIPELINE'
2) Gas, oil, or chemical pipeline: A
two-inch yellow warring tape shall be imprinted
with:
"CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE"
3) Sewer or storm drain pipeline: A
two-inch green warning tape shall be imprinted with:
"CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE"
4) Electric, street lighting, or traffic
signals conduit: A two-inch red warning tape shall
be imprinted with:
"CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT*
5) Telephone, or television conduit: A
two-inch orange warning tape shall be imprinted
with:
"CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT"
- 8 -
m. Cathodic Protection requirements:
1) If there is a cathodic protection station
for Metropolitan's pipeline in the area of the proposed
work, it shall be located prior to any grading or
excavation. The exact location, description and manner
of protection shall be shown on all applicable plans.
Please contact Metropolitan's Corrosion Engineering
Section, located at Metropolitan's F. E. Weymouth
Softening and Filtration Plant, 700 North Moreno
Avenue, La Verne, California 91750, telephone (714)
593-7474, for the locations of Metropolitan's cathodic
protection stations.
2) If an induced -current cathodic protection
system is to be installed on any pipeline crossing
Metropolitan's pipeline, please contact Mr. Wayne E.
Risner at ( 714) 593-7474 or ( 223) 250-5085'. He will
review the proposed_ system and determine if any
conflicts will arise with the existing cathodic
Protection systems installed by Metropolitan.
3) Within Metropolitan`s rights-of-way,
Pipelines and carrier pipes (casings) shall be coated
with an approved protective coating to conform to
Metropolitan's requirements, and shall be maintained in
a neat and orderly condition as directed by Metropolitan.
The application and monitoring of cathodic protection
on the pipeline and casing shall conform to Title 49 of
the Code of Federalf Regulations, Part 195.
4) If a steel carrier pipe (casing) is used:
(a) Cathodic protection shall be provided
by use of a sacrificial magnesium anode (a sketch
showing the cathodic protection details can be
provided for the designers information).
(b) The steel carrier pipe shall be
protected with a coal tar enamel coating inside
and out in accordance with AWWA 0203 specification.
n. All trenches shall be excavated to comply with the
CAL/OSHA Construction Safety Orders, Article 6, beginning
with Sections 1539 through 1547. Trench backfill shall be
placed in 8 -inch lifts and shall be compacted to 95 percent
relative compaction (ASTM D698) across roadways and through
protective dikes. Trench backfill elsewhere will be
compacted to 90 percent relative compaction {ASTM D698).
8.
9 -
o. Control cables connected with the operation of
Metropolitan's system are buried within streets, its fee
properties and/or easements. The locations and elevations
of these cables shall be shown on the drawings. The
drawings shall note that prior to any excavation in the
area, the control cables shall be located and measures
shall be taken by the contractor to protect the cables in
place.
p. Metropolitan is a member of Underground Service
Alert (USA). The contractor (excavator) shall contact
USA at 1-800-422--4133 (Southern California) at least 48
hours prior to starting any excavation work. The contractor
will be liable for any damage to Metropolitan's facilities
as a result of the construction.
Paramount Right
Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's fee
properties and/or easements shall be subject to the
paramount right of Metropolitan to use its fee properties
and/or easements for the purpose for which they were
acquired. If at any time Metropolitan or its assigns
should, in the exercise of their rights, find it necessary
to remove any of the facilities from the fee properties
and/or easements, such removal and replacement shall be at
the expense of the owner of the facility.
9. Modification of Metropolitan's Facilities
When a manhole or other of Metropolitan's facilities
must be modified to accommodate your construction or recons-
truction, Metropolitan will modify the facilities with its
forces. This should be noted on the construction plans. The
estimated cost to perform this modification will be given to
you and we will require a deposit for this amount before the
work is performed. Once the deposit is received, we will
schedule the work. Our forces will coordinate the work with
your contractor. Our final billing will be based on actual
cost incurred, and will include materials, construction,
engineering plan review, inspection, and administrative
overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's
standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the
deposit, a refund will be made; however, if the cost exceeds
the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the
additional amount.
.. 10
10. Drainage
a. Residential or commercial development typically
increases and concentrates the peak storm water runoff as
well as the total yearly storm runoff from an area, thereby
increasing the requirements for storm drain facilities
downstream of the development. Also, throughout the year
water from landscape irrigation, car washing, and other
outdoor domestic water uses flows into the storm drainage
system resulting in weed abatement, insect infestation,
obstructed access and other problems. Therefore, it is
Metropolitan's usual practice not to approve plans that show
discharge of drainage from developments onto its fee
properties and/or easements.
b. If water must be carried across or discharged onto
Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements, Metropolitan
will insist that plans for development provide that it be
carried by closed conduit or lined open channel approved in
writing by Metropolitan. Also the drainage facilities must be
maintained by others, e.g., city, county, ham<eowners association,
etc. If the development proposes changes to existing drainage
features, then the developer shall make provisions to provide
for replacement and these changes must be approved by Metropolitan
in writing.
11. Construction Coordination
During construction•, Metropolitan's field representative
will make periodic inspections. We request that a stipulation
be added to the plans or specifications for notification of
tele—ph—on—e--UM) ofM Metropolitan's Operations Services Branch,
, at least two working days prior to
any work in the vicinity of our facilities.
12. Pipeline Loading, Restrictions
a. Metropolitan's pipelines and conduits vary 3m
structural strength, and some are not adequate for
AASHTO H-20 loading. Therefore, specific loads over the
specific sections of pipe or conduit must be reviewed and
approved by Metropolitan. However, Metropolitan's pipelines
are typically adequate for AASHTO B--20 loading provided that
the cover over the pipeline is not less than four feet or
the cover is not substantially increased. If the temporary
cover over the pipeline during construction is between three
and four feet, equipment must restricted to that which
,imposes loads no greater than AASHTO $--10. If the cover is
between two and three feet, equipment must be restricted to
that of a Caterpillar D-4 tract --type tractor. If the cover
is less than two feet, only hand equipment may be used.
Also, if the contractor plans to use any equipment over
Metropolitan's pipeline which will impose loads greater than
AASHTO H-20, it will be necessary to submit the specifications
of such equipment for our review and approval at least one
week prior to its use. More restrictive requirements may
apply to the loading guideline over the San Diego Pipelines
1 and 2, portions of the Orange County Feeder, and the
Colorado River Aqueduct. Please contact us for loading
restrictions on all of Metropolitan's pipelines and
conduits.
b. The existing cover over the pipeline shall be
maintained unless Metropolitan determines that proposed
changes do not pose a hazard to the integrity of the
pipeline or an impediment to its maintenance.
13. Blasting
a. At least 2D days prior to the start of any
drilling for rock excavation blasting, or any blasting, in
the vicinity of Metropolitan's facilities, a two-part
Preliminary conceptual plan shall be submitted to
Metropolitan as follows:
b. Part 1 of the conceptual plan shall include a
complete summary of.proposed transportation, handling,
storage, and use of explosions.
C, Part 2 shall include the proposed general concept
for blasting, including controlled blasting techniques and
controls of.noise, fly rock, airblast, and ground vibration.
14. CEQA Requirements
a. When Environmental Documents Have Not Been
Prepared
1) Regulations implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQp,) require that
Metropolitan have an opportunity to consult with the
agency or consultants preparing any environmental
documentation. We are required to review and consider
the environmental effects of the project as shown in
the Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) prepared for your project before committing
Metropolitan to approve your request.
- 12 -
2) In order to ensure compliance with the
regulations implementing CEQA where Metropolitan is not
the Lead Agency, the following minimum procedures to
ensure compliance with the Act have been established:
a) Metropolitan
any determination that
applies to the project.
advise Metropolitan tha
participating in the p
the requirements of CEQ
participation_
shall be timely advised of
a Categorical Exemption
The Lead Agency is to
t it and other agencies
roject have complied with
A prior to Metropolitan*s
b) Metropolitan is to be consulted during
the preparation of the Negative Declaration or
EIR.
c) Metropolitan is to review and submit any
necessary comments on the Negative Declaration or
draft EIR.
d) Metropolitan is to be indemnified for
any costs or liability arising out of any
violation of any laws or regulations including but
not limited to the California Environmental
Quality Act and its implementing regulations.
b. When Environmental Documents Have Been Prepared
If environmental documents have been prepared for your
Project, please furnish us a copy for our review and files
in a timely manner so that we may have sufficient time to
review and comment. The following steps must also be
accomplished: -
1) The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan
that it and other agencies participating in the project
have complied with the requirements of CEQA prior to
Metropolitan's.participation.
2) You must agree to indemnify Matropolitan, its
Officers, engineers, and agents for any costs or
liability.arising out of any violation of any laws or
regulations including but not limited to the California
Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regulations.
15. Metropolitan's Plan -Review Cost
a. An engineering review of your proposed facilities
and developments and the preparation of a letter response
-- 13 ..
giving Metropolitan's comments, requirements and/or approval
that will require 8 man-hours or less of effort is typically
performed at no cost to the developer, unless a facility
must be modified where Metropolitan has superior rights. If
an engineering review and letter response requires more than
8 man-hours of effort by Metropolitan to determine if the
proposed facility or development is compatible with its
facilities, or if modifications to Metropolitan's manhole(s)
or other facilities will be required, then all of
Metropolitan's costs associated with the project must be
paid by the developer, unless the developer has superior
rights.
b. A deposit of funds will be required from the
developer before Metropolitan can begin its detailed
engineering plan review that will exceed 8 hours. The
amount of the required deposit will be determined after a
cursory review of the plans for the proposed development.
C. Metropolitan's final billing will be based on
actual cost incurred, and will include engineering plan
review, inspection, materials, construction, and
administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance
with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the
cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made;
however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be
forwarded for payment of the additional amount. Additional
deposits may be required if the cost of Metropolitan's
review exceeds the amount of the initial deposit.
16. Caution
We advise you that Metropolitan's plan reviews and
responses are based upon information available to
Metropolitan which was prepared by or on behalf of
Metropolitan for general record purposes only. Such
information may not be sufficiently detailed or accurate for
your purposes. No warranty of any kind, either express or
implied, is attached to the information therein conveyed as
to its accuracy, and no inference should be drawn from
Metropolitan's failure to comment on any aspect of your
project. You are therefore cautioned to make such surveys
and other field investigations as you may deem prudent to
assure yourself that any plans for your project are correct.
- 14
17. Additional Informatio
Should you require additional information, please contact;
_Civil Rmineerinc Substructures Section
Metropolitan Water District
Of Southern California
P.O. Sox 54153
Los Angeles, California 90054-0153
(213 ) 217-5000
JM/MRW/lk
Rev. January 22; 1989
Encl.
�.« 61CMA.c...wr C&AA4"m ww max
Ll -
4(
w+S�jfj'
�, _ Lam• .�
- _
_
i
�.« 61CMA.c...wr C&AA4"m ww max
Ll -
4(
NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES PERuI iTED
#v. WD. PERMANENT RIGHT ar WAY
i
NO ROOF d VERHAm PERMITTED �-
FOOTING MUST Nor,
ENCRO,4CN INTO
RIGHT OF WAYS
FINISHED
SURFACE
BUILDING
ADJACENT
TO RIGHT
OF WAr
'REOUIRED
DfPrH OF
I FOOTING
445'p 1
CAL 1
e
AM0. P/PELINF
Rt0lJ1REMEN7-S FOR
NOTc`: M.H!D. PIPELINE SIZE, DEPTH, LOCATION BUILDINGS AND FOOTINGS
AND WIDTH OF PERMANENT RIGHT OF ADJACENT TO Af W. D_
WAY VARIES. RIGHT OF W14Y
FIGURE 2
lt.44 ?4LTLA"W-r CLL..WIICY 1042
LU Lt.
V
e
y
lt.44 ?4LTLA"W-r CLL..WIICY 1042
i -ea MCTMCO.V"T CLAAMIMtT on$
9 ,
3N/7 .(1X3doyd
7MOOM1N
��FI
---------------------------------
1411
------r------.— ---ter.-----
}
i
�Q�-""7 �'-•'iFyi�J
h
rM
.y`
3xK
LL
as
4g,
s!!.
---------------------------------
1411
------r------.— ---ter.-----
}
i
�Q�-""7 �'-•'iFyi�J
h
Q
B-7
f
AMP Pipeline 1
w
0
!� j f � x 6°premolded
'• 3 Drain.
--
Cu • - •• the Engineer tots/ ro%rme
• : t' • ° nvt to exceed 2 the P vlume
,'� ,• of the sepparting SMI/
1• _
�. _ Concrete svpport we// to
* be placed against t►ndis-
;'��.• ,r; ' tcrrhed gror►nd----_—,..,
SECTION wA-A" D
CROSS SECTION
Supporting wall shall here o firm bearing ave rhe
subgrade and against the side of the excavation.
2. Pregro/ded expansion joint filler per ASMD-1751-73
to he used M sugoort for steel pipe only.
3. If trench width is 4 feel or greatermeasured along
centerline of M. W. D. pipe, concrete awport mwf
be constructed.
4. If trench width is less than 4 feet, dean send hoocA'—
fill, carr{pocted to 90 S density In actardance W idi
the provisions of ASTM Standar! D -1557-7D may
he- &sed in lien, of the concrete support No&.
■
_Qw
sM
ISO,
?nch wid,
r
3"Preformed expansion
.�� •�• wM f. -'� joint filler
�� NOTES
4 This method to be used where the
M.W.D. pipe utility Ane is Z4 or ,greater in
diameter and the clearance
between the WIV& line and M.W. D.
pipe is 12, or less.
Z. Special protection may be required
SECT/DN A if the utility Iine diameter is
greater than M.W. Q pipe or if the
cover over the VNIVy tine to the
street JVrface is minimal and there
is 12"or less clearance between M.W. Q
pipe and the w fity line.
3. Preformed exponslon joint filler to
canrp/y with ASTM designotien
D-1731-73•
4 MWA requests 1z"rrinimaM
clearance whenever possible.
CROSS SECTION
It.n 9*9MOIe-..wrCAAAM00"M
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
Appendix
This puga intentionally leblank.
NzelV ork r
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
Appendix
Appendix B. Southern California Gas Company
Comment Letter Attachment
Jmue 10/7
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
Appendix
'].'his p ge intationalyleft blank.
Plarelror'k
J��-% NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
10
DATE: March 16, 2017
TO: Agencies, Organizations and Interested Parties
SUBJECT: Notice of Availability of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report in Compliance
with Title 14, Section 15087(a) of the Callfornia Code of Regulations
NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092, and California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) State Guidelines Sections 15105 and 15087, notice is hereby given that a Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 1994071005, for an amendment to the
Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (formerly called the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan) and minor text amendment
to the City's General Plan, the Modified Project, is available for public review during the public comment
period (March 17, 2017 through May 1, 2017). The City of Tustin, as lead agency, has prepared the
DSEIR to analyze environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Modified Project; to
discuss alternatives; and to propose mitigation measures for identified potentially significant impacts that
will minimize, offset, or otherwise reduce or avoid those environmental impacts.
PROJECT TITLE: Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment 2015-001 and General Plan Amendment
2015-002
PROJECT LOCATION: As shown in Figure 1, Vicinity Map, the project area for the Tustin Legacy
Specific Plan (former MCAS Tustin), is in an urbanized area in the southern portion of the City of Tustin
and the northwest portion of the City of Irvine in Orange County, California. The 1,606 -acre project area
includes 1,511 acres in Tustin and approximately 95 acres in Irvine. The major roadways that border the
site are Red Hill Avenue on the west, Edinger Avenue on the north, Harvard Avenue on the east, and
Barranca Parkway on the south. Regional access to the project area is also provided by Jamboree
Road/State Route 261 (SR -261) and State Route 55 (SR -55).
DESCRIPTION: The WAS Tustin Specific Plan was adopted by ordinance on February 3, 2003, and
established the zoning for the 1,606 -acre project area. It also established the necessary plans,
development standards, regulations, infrastructure requirements, design guidelines, and implementation
programs on which subsequent, project -related development is founded. It is intended that local public
works projects, design review plans, detailed site plans, grading and building permits, or any other action
requiring ministerial or discretionary approval applicable to the project area be consistent with the Specific
Plan. The Specific Plan was amended six times between 2010 and 2014 in response to changing market
conditions.
The Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment and general plan amendment will guide development of the
remaining undeveloped area in the City of Tustin. These remaining parcels would be sold, leased, or
developed by the City of Tustin. Eventually these parcels would be developed by a number of landowners
within the framework established by the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Amendment calls for a range of
residential product types and education, commercial, commercial/business, entertainment/recreation, and
park land uses.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would change the mix and layout of land uses to be constructed
in the project area. Land uses for 9 of the 22 planning areas in the project area would not be changed by
the proposed project. Land uses in Planning Areas 1-7 and 20-22 would remain the same. As described
in the Initial Study, the mix and layout of land uses Planning Areas 8-19 would change under the
proposed project. Compared to the Adopted Specific Plan, the Specific Plan Amendment would allow
' NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
_t
2,212 additional homes and 1,755,306 fewer square feet of nonresidential building space.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Tustin has completed a DSEIR for the Tustin Legacy
Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment. The DSEIR analyzed impacts to eight
environmental topical areas: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise,
Population and Housing, Public Services (Schools), Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service
Systems. Mitigation measures have been adopted for air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and
transportation/traffic, Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162, the
changes proposed by the Modified Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of
impacts. Refer to Section 5.8.3 of the Initial Study (Appendix A of the DSEIR) for information on
hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: This Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) is available for public review and
comment pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15087(a) for 45 -days. Please
provide any comments by May 1, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. to the contact person listed below. The comment
period for the DSEIR begins March 17, 2017 and ends on May 1, 2017.
RESPONSES AND COMMENTS: Please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization
and send your responses and comments to: Justina Willkom, Assistant Director - Planning; Phone:
(714) 573-3115; E-mail: JWillkom@tustinca.org; Mailing Address: City of Tustin, Community
Development Department, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780; Website: http://www.tustinca.arg,
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The DSEIR is available for public review during regular business hours
at the City of Tustin Community Development Department listed above and the Tustin Library, 345 E.
Main Street, Tustin. The DSEIR can be viewed on the City of Tustin website at the following address
(URL): http://www.tustinca.org.
•
���,1 22 �'i� J � �..
i1►.�'N
5
,XI
73
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: This Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) is available for public review and
comment pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15087(a) for 45 -days. Please
provide any comments by May 1, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. to the contact person listed below. The comment
period for the DSEIR begins March 17, 2017 and ends on May 1, 2017.
RESPONSES AND COMMENTS: Please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization
and send your responses and comments to: Justina Willkom, Assistant Director - Planning; Phone:
(714) 573-3115; E-mail: JWillkom@tustinca.org; Mailing Address: City of Tustin, Community
Development Department, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780; Website: http://www.tustinca.arg,
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The DSEIR is available for public review during regular business hours
at the City of Tustin Community Development Department listed above and the Tustin Library, 345 E.
Main Street, Tustin. The DSEIR can be viewed on the City of Tustin website at the following address
(URL): http://www.tustinca.org.
W
d
WE
9
,— . 1I �P 13H —
i7 -7R9 joz3-J aUM zo-,Z-Lv
73vJ S015�n
IKI C-Rvg DO — &
co
to
C)
0
o
Lc),,; e
lid tti
.1, A. 0
4N
%,0
LLJ
m
In
17,
IKI C-Rvg DO — &
co
to
C)
0
15VD� 3�NdaQ N3H1l105 t -Zs[ Do •n, a31c.a ..e U,, n ama n
eIZ-r —'sn —A w.-e—...a omnia
l-�Rq D4
—u
N
N}
[p
U
O
1SI00 30nFdaO 1 L9 JO Tz rea=a :nu xdisrdaisxa Qa vow aos�3n
zrz-wa>e =��� d¢iaan so-ez-e v�o :xe ms�n�
-eCsig
H
u
1Stl00 3JNd2l0 5 O5L JO n315. �.az-t o::+a a31v3u� dons n
iY Y-*nb:311 tl 0l ca c t Matl sa ol9nle
U
O
0
DO "'W. - WIOJ-
'I .0133� 11 -1 —.0 G��m
ui
lop
-IL
VQ
41
CQ
lie
01,
Fr
isvo� 3�rroao asrunas
L5L 70
Y.�'i"LSLyh �]3u allsvu
'e 0,i aM1
c 69 70 BMs
1
N
L
N
u
is=szg,-1 =aii nilsvn ce a .e o31v�a� uota3n
L -M 00
I
I•
SVO3 391 qVti0 ro'resc�o ni n3 sm oo-al-° r o = e o]nw] xoui
i ZOB JO Lr'Y-ESLae X333 t101]]A 90 LL-! ']NY =A9 O]SL1 �1
1
6
.
C7:
1¢J#/kti
N
¢ V
6�
9 O
-
_
UO
H
�R
11
f
`�
tl
J�
J J
w.
I5
£-£S[ 00 . ---M
Q
Q
e66C-il Gul -MrJ f3a yv�lr
15V0� 3ONV y4 LI3H1f105 w-c-zosao :7n� a7lsre cs-r r +w axe oJer7a7 aof�7x
b-Zag DO ��'S LOP o :71J a0ta3n 50 -CB aa7 �A6 a3snJa
M
f
cv
0
U
O
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPFLEMENTAI FIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
Appendix
,r his page intontianally d? blank.
Ara 1volki
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC, PLAN AMFNDMFNT Fl W- SUPPLEMFNTAL E R
CITY OF TUSTIN
Appendix
Appendix C. OPR Comment Letter
,curie 2017
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL HR
CITY OF TUSTIN
Appendix
Thlr c:ge dnteniionaljy left Nank
Plarelk ork r
I
t r y
� fio
EDMMD G.13ROWN JR,
Gov$ReoR - May 2, 2017
FTA,TE OF CALIFORNIA-
Govm.- ox's OFFICE af_L NINGAND'REsW, CH.
'STATE •CIZAMNGHOUSEAND.PLANNING U1M
lustina Villkom
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Subject: Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendnient
SCH#: 199407.1005
Dear ]ustina Villkom:
RECEIVED
MAY 10 2017
Al'r fLF.
Kw WAiJEX
DnurMp,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT
The State Clearinghouse submitted the.a`bove named Supplemental EIR to selected state agencies for
review. On the enclosed Document betaiis Report please note that. the Clearinghouse has listed the state
agencies that reviewed.your document The -review period closed on May 1,.2017, and the comments from
the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the
State Clearinghouse immediately, please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in
future correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:
"A, responsible or other pilbbe agency shall only make substantive continents regarding those
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency, 'Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation."
'T'hese comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document, Should you need
more information or clarification of the -enclosed comments, we recormmend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges Haat you have complied with the.State Clearinghouse review requirements far
draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Please contact the
State Clearinghouse at (9x16) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the eAvironmental. review
process,
Sincerely,
:arMorgan:
Director, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
140010th Street P,O, box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044
(916) 4450613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.op�.ca.gov
Document :Detalls.Report•
State Clearing house'Datai-Base
SCHW 1994071005
project Title Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment
Lead agency Tustin, City of
Type 'SIR • Supplemental EIR
:Description The overall purpose of amending the Tustin.Legacy Specific Plan (formerly known as,the MCAS'Tustin
Specific Plan) is -to provide comprehensive direction -in terms of revislons.to development regulabons,
design guidance, and implementation of open space, circulation, and other infrastructure -for the
remaining project area owned by the city of7ustin, while Implementing the goals and-poiicles of the
city of Tustin general plan amendment calls for a range of residential product -types and education,
commercial,-commercial/business, eniertainmentlrecreation, acid park land uses,'The general plan
amendment would Include•minQr text amendments.to ensure consist#ncy,
Lead Agericy Contact
Name Justina Vitlkom
Agency City of Tustin
-Phone 744-573-31115 Fax
small
Address .300 Centennial Way
:City Tustin State CA .Zip. 92780
Project.Location
County Orange -
City Tustin
Region
4atALong 33° 42',29" N 1117' 49'46' W
Cross.Streets Barranca Parkway; Red Hill Avenue; Edinger Avenue; Tusfin'Ranch. Road
Parcel No, Various
Township 5S Range 9W Section Variou Base SBB&M
Proximity to:
Highways SR 55, SR 261, 1-5
Airports John Wayne (SNA)
Railways Metrolink-,
Waterways Peters Canyon Channel
.Schools Currie Middle School, ...
,I -and Use various
Project issues Air Quality; Economics/Jobs; Noise; Popuiation/Housing Balance; Public Services; Sewer Capacity;
Schools/Universities; Tr•affdCirculation; Water Supply; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects;
Otherissues
Reviewing Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Resources Agency; Department of Conservailon;
Agencies' Department of Fish' and Wildlife, Region 5; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water
Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12 Native
American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission
Date Received 03/17/2017 Star# of Review 03/1712017 End of Review 0510 1112 0 1 7.
NIM bl. ion 1. 4-tL C.nl,a,.... Jf Crv..-. I_ I .-.• -+.-- ---.-t- , -- i - - -, .
STA,['liC1,I�.faEjJ,JI�oRFIIA--C;AL1FY11��}�ASCA- + S A�Q%!t<.Y_,--, .,,,,_,,,,-- P�MlIH17C.uanwr�.:•..L'�:�rnar
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
D15TR1C r 1?
175{} PW;TFOUIt` H STREET. SME 100
SANTA ATEA, CA -92705.
Ptic M (557}328-6267 ser�orubrauAhs,
FAX (657)3Z-6510 a CQ�Winn cmurvatton
TTY
711 f Yqf
dOM914��9����1
May 0:1,.2011
M8. Iustina Vilkona
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, -CA 92780
.Dear .Ms. Wilkom,
MAY 012017
STATEcUaNPimm
.F.ile, 1GR/CEQA
'SCHO' 1.99407.1005
,12-ORA.;2017-00510
SR -55; -SR=261;I-5; 1-405
Thank. youlorincluding the•Californiabepartmeni of Transportation,(Caltranl ):in!the;xeview of
the.Draft,Environmental IMpact Report (DEIR) for the -proposed Tustin.l.egacy Specific Plan
(SCH #1'994071005j. Tile mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated`and
.efficient transportation -system' xo -enhance CaiifornWs economy and livability, .The'Local
Development-Intergovernmen-W Roview (LD-IGR)J` Togram reviews land use projects and,plans
to ensure -consistency with our mission and state,.planning-priorities ofinRlt, conservation„ and
,efficient. development. The project proposes the deve'lopment'of a 1,600 acre site to iuclude .over
6;800 dwelling units and'almost 10,000,000 square fee t.of non-residential facilifies, The prosect
is localed in,proximity of �CaltransRight-of Way (ROW) au State..Route-5.5 (SRW55.);261 (SR -
'266), Interstate 405 (I405.).and 605 0-605). Caltrans is -a-commenting agency on tKs project,
and has the followi,ng.commonts 'on the DEIR:
Traffic Dueradons:
1. Tiaffic,Operatiow has found a discrepancy and is requesting additional=supporting
documents for ciariatication.
For travelers along Interstate 5 (1-5), the.,most:direct mute to the new development would
be through Tustin:Rauch Road, Figure 5,7- :shows that -the Traffic.Area Stu4y-indicates .
that of-the;proj.ected fit%fir 28;775 vehicles would be utilizing Tustin;Ranch Rd:tuwards
the I=5, However, Table '7.5x:8 shows the LOS of the Tustin Ranch ,SB 1-5 �Of#`:Ramp has.:a
volume.inerease of,orily 1 vehicle for the peaklour.: raffic in'a•eompaTison.of-no'project.
ys,vwa,project traffic volumes,
-T.rafficOperatioos is questionmi g how a development of 6,813 residential -units •and -
'buainesses:and a. total:anacipated ADTfor:the area of 239,797 vehicles par day would
'have .a:future-impact of nrsly:ouc vehicle exiting, the SB J-5 during -peak hours at.the
TustrnRanch Rd SB off -ramp, Please show:the•same supporting -documents for.6h,the. I75
,on and off -ramps at -Tustin Ranch'Rd:and 7ambaree Rd,
Trans ortrativ annin
"f�rvvlo+r a mf�,. sastaGralte, in'CaSxaled.aMd e�jiatenl Rorfadlan.slwtem
Jo r-7rha+rct �'Cl(/ornia�a rcor+PR7)' a++i±llrabllUy-"
TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF TUSTIN
Appendix
This page intentionally !eft Clark.
PlacOr"o i