Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 4435 DocuSign Envelope ID:ACB04EC4-EDB8-4F3F-B8CD-D1129EA95335 RESOLUTION NO. 4435 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR DESIGN REVIEW 2021- 0002, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2021-0001 , SUBDIVISION 2021-0001/VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17822, AND A DENSITY BONUS AND VOLUNTARY WORKFORCE HOUSING AGREEMENT INCLUDING A CONCESSION/INCENTIVE FOR A REDUCTION IN PRIVATE AND COMMON OPEN SPACE AND A WAIVER OF PARK FEES FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS, FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONTAINING 137 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 7,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE AT 13751 AND 13841 RED HILL AVENUE (APN # 500-141-09 & 500-141-10) WITHIN THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application has been submitted by Irvine Asset Group, LLC ("Applicant") for the development of a new four (4) story, mixed use project on approximately 3.39 acres within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area. The mixed-use project would consist of 137 residential units and 7,000 square feet of commercial space within six (6) buildings and include pedestrian amenities such as urban plazas with benches, landscaping and public art. B. That collectively, DR 2021-0002, DA 2021-0001 SUB 2021- 0001/VTTM 17822, density bonus, voluntary workforce housing agreement, concession/incentive, and park feee waiver constitute a "project" that is subject to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et. seq.). C. On October 18, 2018, the City of Tustin certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIR considered the potential environmental impacts associated with 325,000 square foot of additional commercial development and 500 additional residential units within the RHASP area. DocuSign Envelope ID:ACB04EC4-EDB8-4F3F-B8CD-D1129EA95335 Resolution No. 4435 DR 2021-0002, DA 2021-0001 and SUB 2021-0001/VTTM 17822 Page 2 D. An Environmental Checklist has been prepared and concluded that these actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIR. As a result, the City has prepared an Addendum to the FEIR and the Addendum and the FEIR will serve as the environmental review for the proposed mixed-use project. The Planning Commission will consider the Addendum along with the FEIR prior to making a recommendation to the City Council on the DR 2021-0002, DA 2021-0001 and SUB 2021-0001/VTTM 17822, the density bonus, voluntary workforce housing agreement, concession/incentive, and park fee waiver (Exhibit A and B). E. That pursuant to Sections 15051 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency for the CEQA compliance associated with the project because it will approve, carry out, and implement the project and will be the first agency to approve the project. F. That an Addendum to the FEIR for the project is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the project because: a. The project does not change the land uses that are currently permitted within the RHASP, the impacts of which have been previously analyzed in the FEIR; b. The project would not permit an intensification of permitted uses that would lead to increased environmental impacts beyond those that are already identified in the FEIR; c. The project does not modify previously-analyzed projects in any substantive way; d. No new mitigation measures are required e. None of the conditions identified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines applies; and f. No new significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas were identified, nor would any project-specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse as a result of implementing the Project. G. Based on the initial study analysis and environmental checklist prepared for the Project and pursuant to Sections 15162, 15164, DocuSign Envelope ID:ACB04EC4-EDB8-4F3F-B8CD-D1129EA95335 Resolution No. 4435 DR 2021-0002, DA 2021-0001 and SUB 2021-0001/VTTM 17822 Page 3 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that: a. The Project was examined in light of the FEIR and has been adequately analyzed in the FEIR because the Project does not substantively modify the previously-analyzed development anticipated under the RHASP; b. The Project would not have any effects that were not already examined in the FEIR, no new mitigation measures are required, and there are no new significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas that were identified, nor would any project-specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse as a result of implementing the Project; c. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIR have been incorporated into subsequent actions that the City and the project applicant commit to fully implement; d. There is no information indicating that a different alternative should be implemented or is feasible under the RHASP; e. The Project does not propose substantial changes to the RHASP which would require major revisions to the FEIR due to new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than previously analyzed in the FEIR; f. There have been no substantial changes in circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would require major revisions to the FEIR due to new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than previously analyzed in the FEIR; and g. No new information of substantial importance as described in subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 has been revealed that would require major revisions to the FEIR or its conclusions. H. That the Planning Commission has considered the Addendum along with the FEIS/EIR, prior to making a recommendation to the City Council on DR 2021-0002, DA 2021-0001 .SUB 2021- 0001/VTTM 17822, the density bonus, voluntary workforce housing agreement, concession/incentive, and park fee waiver for six (6) affordable housing units pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15164, and recommends approval of the Addendum attached hereto as Exhibit A. DocuSign Envelope ID:ACB04EC4-EDB8-4F3F-B8CD-D1129EA95335 Resolution No. 4435 DR 2021-0002, DA 2021-0001 and SUB 2021-0001/VTTM 17822 Page 4 I. That DR 2021-0002, DA 2021-0001,SUB 2021-0001/VTTM 17822, the density bonus, voluntary workforce housing agreement, concession/incentive, and waiver would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts that were identified in the FEIR and these impacts are overridden for the reasons set forth in the previously adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit B. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 27th day of July, 2021. DocuSigned by: D327386D898A43D... AMY MASON Chairperson E�DocuSigned by: � �. K)U&� ED45DA2623854A5... JUSTINA L. WILLKOM Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Justina L. Willkom, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California and that Resolution No. 4435 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 27th day of July, 2021 . PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: Chu, Higuchi, Kozak, Mason (4) PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: Mello (1) PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: DocuSigned by: ED45DA2623854A5... JUSTINA L. WILLKOM Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit A: Addendum to FEIR Exhibit B: Resolution 18-78 mini ADDENDUM TO THE RED HILL SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2017041031 ) FOR THE RED HILL MIXED-USE PROJECT Lead Agency: City of Tustin Planning Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Project Applicant: Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 Macarthur Boulevard East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CEQA Consultant: ENVIRONMENT PLANNING DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. 2 Park Plaza, Suite 1 120 Irvine, CA 92614 July 2020 This page left intentionally blank. Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................3 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE..................................................................................................................................3 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES.................................................................................................................4 1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION...................................................................................5 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...........................................................................................................7 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION.....................................................................................................................................7 2.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE................................................................................................................................7 2.3 EXISTING LAND USES AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE.....................................7 2.4 SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS.......................................................7 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................19 3.1 PROJECT SITE PLANNING AND CEQA BACKGROUND....................................................................... 19 3.2 RHASP FINAL EIR ASSUMPTIONS FOR PROJECT SITE......................................................................... 19 3.3 PROPOSED PROJECT.................................................................................................................................. 19 3.3.1 Project Overview..................................................................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Project Features........................................................................................................................................ 19 3.3.3 Construction and Phasing.......................................................................................................................21 3.3.4 Operational Characteristics...................................................................................................................21 3.3.5 Discretionary Approvals, Permits, and Studies...................................................................................21 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST......................................................................................................35 4.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................35 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED........................................................................36 4.3 DETERMINATION:........................................................................................................................................36 4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS......................................................................................37 4.4.1 Terminology Used in the Checklist.........................................................................................................38 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................39 5.1 AESTHETICS...................................................................................................................................................39 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES..............................................................................................43 5.3 AIR QUALITY.................................................................................................................................................46 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................................................53 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................................................57 5.6 ENERGY............................................................................................................................................................62 5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS...............................................................................................................................65 5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...............................................................................................................72 5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..............................................................................................75 5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY......................................................................................................82 5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING.......................................................................................................................90 5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................................................94 5.13 NOISE.............................................................................................................................................................96 5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING................................................................................................................107 5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES.......................................................................................................................................1 1 0 5.16 RECREATION...............................................................................................................................................115 5.17 TRANSPORTATION....................................................................................................................................118 5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................................1 24 5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...........................................................................................................127 5.20 WILDFIRE.......................................................................................................................................................133 5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.......................................................................................136 6 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS.........................................................................139 1 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------- _ _ -- --------- 7 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................140 Tables TABLE 2-1:SURROUNDING EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS.......................................................................................7 TABLE3-1: UNIT BREAKDOWN.............................................................................................................................................................1 9 TABLE LU-1: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH RHASP POLICIES...............................................................................................................91 TABLE N-1:GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT STANDARDS......................................................................................................................99 TABLE N-2:CITY OF TUSTIN EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS.................................................................................................................100 TABLE N-3:CITY OF TUSTIN INTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS..................................................................................................................100 TABLE N-4: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS......................................................................................................................101 TABLE N-5: INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS...................................................................................................................................................102 TABLE PS-1:OCFA FIRE STATIONS IN TUSTIN...................................................................................................................................1 1 1 TABLE PS-2:SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BETWEEN 201 4-1 5 AND 2020-2021 ....................................................................................1 1 2 TABLE T-1:COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROJECT TRIPS AND RHASP BUILDOUT TRIPS ANALYZED IN FINAL EIR................................120 TABLE UT-1:MWDOC PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY(AF).................................................................................................................129 Figures FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL LOCATION.........................................................................................................................................................9 FIGURE2-2:LOCAL VICINITY................................................................................................................................................................1 1 FIGURE2-3:SITE PHOTOS....................................................................................................................................................................1 3 FIGURE2-4:AERIAL..............................................................................................................................................................................1 5 FIGURE 2-5: RED HILL SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION.............................................................................................................................1 7 FIGURE 3-1:CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN...................................................................................................................................................23 FIGURE 3-2:ELEVATIONS BUILDING A..................................................................................................................................................25 FIGURE 3-3:ELEVATIONS BUILDING B...................................................................................................................................................27 FIGURE 3-4:ELEVATIONS BUILDING C..................................................................................................................................................29 FIGURE 3-5:ELEVATIONS BUILDING D..................................................................................................................................................31 FIGURE 3-6:CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN........................................................................................................................................33 FIGURE N-2: EXTERIOR/INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL ZONES.......................................................................................................................103 Appendix Appendix A. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix B. Acoustical Analysis Appendix C. Trip Generation Assessment for Tustin Red Hill --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTRODUCTION 1 .1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This document is an Addendum to the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) (SCH # 2017041031) certified by the City of Tustin (City) in 2018.The Final EIR, in conjunction with this Addendum, serve as the environmental review for the proposed Red Hill Mixed-Use Project (proposed Project).The Project proposes development of a site consistent with the approved uses in the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, City General Plan, and zoning designations, and within the assumptions that were evaluated in the Final EIR. On October 16, 2018, the Tustin City Council adopted the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) and certified the Final EIR.The 43.1 1-acre RHASP area (inclusive of 7.32 acres of roadway right-of-way) would allow for up to 500 additional dwelling units (primarily integrated mixed use) and 325,000 sf of non- residential uses in a predominantly developed part of the City. Streetscape improvements could include new medians, landscaping, and Class II bike lanes. Total development (existing development plus RHASP development) would be 521 dwelling units and 621,446 sf of non-residential development. Development within the RHASP area is subject to mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, the development regulations in the RHASP, and the City's municipal code. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.2, the Final EIR must be conclusively presumed to be valid with regard to its use for later activities unless any of the circumstances requiring supplemental review exist.' The Project evaluated herein involves a vesting tentative tract map,design review, development agreement, density bonus and voluntary workforce incentive agreement, and infrastructure construction and reimbursement agreement for construction and operation of approximately 137 rental homes and 7,000 square feet (SF) of commercial space within six buildings on an approximately 3.39-acre site located at 13841 and 13751 Red Hill Avenue within the center of the City of Tustin. The site is designated Mixed-Use by the RHASP and has a General Plan land use designation of RHASP and zoning designation of RHASP, and as such,the Final EIR evaluated mixed-use development on the site. In November 2020,the Community Development Director approved Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) 2020-001, which allocated 114 residential units for the site per Section 4.5 of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, subject to obtaining the required entitlements. The Final EIR identified potential impacts from buildout of the RHASP and included mitigation measures for development projects. The RHASP assumed development of up to 160 residential units and 30,000 SF of retail commercial within Traffic Area Zone JAZ) 1 of the RHASP, which includes the proposed Project site. The proposed Project would result in 23,000 fewer SF of non-residential uses and 23 fewer dwelling units than analyzed by the RHASP Final EIR, as detailed in the following evaluation. This environmental checklist provides the basis for an Addendum to the previously certified Final EIR and serves as the appropriate level of environmental review of the proposed Project, as required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines.This Checklist confirms that the Project is within the scope of the RHASP analyzed in the Final EIR as provided in State CEQA Guideline Section 15168 and the Addendum augments the analysis in the Final EIR as provided in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 and provides the basis for the City's determination that no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required to evaluate the proposed Project. Environmental analysis and mitigation measures from the Final EIR have been incorporated See Pub.Resources Code,§21 167.2;Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v.Regents of the University of California(1993)6 Cal.4th 17 12, 1 130 ("[a]fter certification, the interests of finality are favored"); Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v.City of San Jose (2003) 774 Cal.App.4th 689,705-706.) 3 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- into this Addendum, and applicability of each has been described. In cases where mitigation measures from the Final EIR have been satisfied by studies prepared for Addendum, it is noted. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines,the City, as the Lead Agency,is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed Project. As part of the decision- making process, the City is required to review and consider the potential environmental effects that could result from construction and operation of the proposed Project. The analysis in this document discusses the impacts identified within the Final EIR for buildout of the site and compares them with the impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Project. This Addendum compares the impacts of constructing and operating the proposed Project to impacts to impacts identified in the Final EIR, which evaluated the buildout of the site pursuant to the RHASP, City General Plan, and the zoning designation standards. Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) and Project Design Features (PDFs) Throughout the analysis of this document, reference is made to requirements that are applied to all development on the basis of federal, state, or local law. Existing Plans, Programs,or Policies are collectively identified in this document as PPPs. Where applicable, PPPs are listed to show their effect in reducing potential environmental impacts. The Project incorporates various measures that serve to reduce potentially significant impacts. These measures are referred to as Project Design Features (PDFs), which are required to be incorporated into the Project and are listed below. Additionally, applicable Mitigation Measures from the RHASP EIR are included herein and will be incorporated into the Project.As shown throughout the analysis, the Project does not result in any new impacts and no additional mitigation measures are required. All references to mitigation measures relate only to those from the RHASP. 1 .2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City's review of the Checklist and Addendum will determine if approval of the requested discretionary actions and subsequent development could cause a change in the conclusions of the certified Final EIR and disclose any change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would substantially change the conclusions of the Final EIR. This environmental Checklist and Addendum provide the City with information to document potential impacts of the proposed Project. Pursuant to Section 21 166 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the following conditions are met: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following: a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration. b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. d) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared "if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written Checklist to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR. Under Section 15168, where if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document is required. In reviewing this Addendum,the question before the City decisionmakers is not whether the Final EIR complies with CEQA, but only whether one of the events triggering the need for subsequent environmental review has occurred. (A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1 993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773; Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32.) This Addendum and the technical studies in support of the analysis review the proposed Project and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the Final EIR was certified. It also reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that the Final EIR was certified. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21 166 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the proposed Project. This Addendum relies on use of the Environmental Analysis provided herein, which addresses environmental issues on a section-by-section basis and provides a comparison to the findings in the Final EIR. On the basis of the findings of the certified Final EIR and the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City as the Lead Agency determined that, as documented in this Addendum to the previously certified Final EIR, no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required to review the proposed Project. 1 .3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION As directed by CEQA,this Addendum relies on the environmental analysis in the RHASP Final EIR.A summary of the previous environmental documentation and how it relates to the proposed Red Hill Mixed Use Project is provided below. The RHASP Final EIR evaluated buildout of the RHASP area pursuant to RHASP design criteria and residential and non-residential allowances. For the area within the RHASP north of Interstate 5,including the Project site, the RHASP Final EIR analyzed construction and operation of approximately 395 dwelling units and 175,000 SF of non-residential uses, as allowed pursuant to the RHASP's Mixed Use designation. Within TAZ 1,in which the Project is located, the RHASP EIR evaluated up to 160 residential units and 30,000 SF of commercial uses. The Final EIR identified that the RHASP would have significant and unavoidable environmental effects related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and traffic. The Final EIR also identified six environmental impact areas for which mitigation measures were required to reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level: (1) air quality; (2) cultural resources; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) hazards and hazardous materials; (4) hydrology & water quality; (5) noise; (6) recreation; (7) transportation and traffic; and (8) utilities and service systems. This Addendum incorporates by reference the Final EIR and the technical documents that relate to the proposed Project or provide additional information concerning the environmental setting of the proposed Project. The information within in this Addendum is based on the following technical studies and/or planning documents: • The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (https://www.tustinca.org/DocumentCenter/View/548/Red-Hill- Avenue-Specific-Plan-PDF) • The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR and certifying resolutions and findings (https://www.tustinca.org/DocumentCenter/View/544/Red-Hill-Avenue-Specific-Plan-Final-Draft- EIR-Volume-1-PDF) • City of Tustin Municipal Code (https://Iibrary.municode.com/ca/tustin) • The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and reporting Program (https://www.tustinca.org/DocumentCenter/View/543/Mitigation-Monitoring-and-Reporting- Program-MMRP-PDF) • Technical studies, personal communications, and web sites listed in Section 6, References In addition to the websites listed above, all documents are available for review at the City of Tustin Planning Department, located at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed 3.39-acre Red Hill Mixed-Use Project (Project or proposed Project) site is located within the central portion of the City of Tustin. As depicted on Figure 2-1, Regional Location, the City of Tustin is in central Orange County, approximately 5 miles northeast of the downtown Irvine, 35 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles, and 15 miles southeast of Los Angeles County. As depicted on Figure 2-2, Local Vicinity, the Project site is located at 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue (APNs 500-141-09 and 500-141-10), on the west corner of San Juan Street and Red Hill Avenue. Regional access to the site is provided via Interstate 5 (1-5), located approximately 0.1 mile to the southwest, and State Route 55 (SR-55),located approximately 1 mile to the west of the Project site. Local access is provided by Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street. 2.2 EXISTING PROJECT SITE The Project site consists of two parcels (APNs 500-141-09 and 500-141-10). The northwestern portion of the Project site, at 13751 Red Hill Avenue, is developed with a commercial office building, associated parking, and ornamental landscaping, as shown on Figure 2-3, Site Photos. The southwestern portion of the site, at 13841 Red Hill Avenue, is completely vacant but disturbed and contains one driveway to Red Hill Avenue. As shown in Figure 2-4, Aerial, the site is surrounded by Tustin High School sports fields to the northwest; a car wash and U-Haul to the southwest; Red Hill Avenue followed by commercial uses to the southeast; and San Juan Street followed by single-family residences to the northeast. 2.3 EXISTING LAND USES AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE The Project site has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP). As shown on Figure 2-4, Red Hill Specific Plan, within the RHASP, the Project site is designated as Mixed Use.According to the RHASP,the Mixed Use designation provides for Commercial/Office and Mixed- Use elements. The Mixed-Use type provides for a variety of future development opportunities as market conditions are suitable for high-value use of the property. It allows for mixed-use developments with commercial retail and/or office on the ground floor and either residential or office uses on upper floors in a vertical mixed-use environment or commercial/office uses and residential uses in a horizontal mixed-use setting on a single development site. 2.4 SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS The Project site is located within a fully developed and urbanized area. Land uses surrounding the Project site are described in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning Designation Designation Northwest Tustin High School baseball fields. Public/Institutional (PI) Public and Institutional (PI) Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning Designation Designation Southwest Car wash and U-Haul store. Red Hill Area Specific Red Hill Area Specific Plan Plan (RHASP) (RHASP) Southeast Commercial uses and parking lot. Red Hill Area Specific Red Hill Area Specific Plan Plan (RHASP) (RHASP) Northeast Single-family and multi-family High Density Multiple Family Residential (R3) residences. Residential (HDR) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------s Regional Map Villa Park Anaheim ,a, Orange �t •, 22 Unincorporated n itr L. r Santa Ana Project Site i za. Tustin Ail Irvine .ta A., . CostatMesa Cwb' Newport Beach " N 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles I I I I I I I I I A Red Hill Specific Plan Addendum Figure 2-1 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------- _ _ -- --------- This page intentionally left blank. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- io Local Vicinity Edit 2nd Stretq yyl `Y m ..... iurvrlr7 F f lltPRfrC E � y I JEast 3rd Sweet ,... /r d,�,,'q w• 4 ',�, Fast Main 5rre '. _East Mai05crM. 05 C�)M.Pohqi t� � �h��, A,aor•m�rrrs sllnSY c� P < � "pvrF Afrarrmtnrs EaSl 5rn st<�" [.E tomberr ;ai°' iusren cord !j 1% Flemen[veyCP 0 ,• Key nCato a Pork 44. Ile f �p J �tl r rusrm High S S(hOO Red ,� .� -�kn•,: tea°' Mor/erre ,,,yyy ., Y[eh Ererntnrwy ,t, ryla iiia 17rdhirl $ChOo! <Zk If o "Browning ., C C,,Ute .^ t F, 11 °� Oddle qhs is s2 r School vallvro 1% Parke {e `. aen)omfn d q Feirc[ pa 1901 49Grfefl. o $ p �} BriR,yran •, "`� ~`�,- `rcy f py �` CoRRb1.i.Rryfrb5 � �y ' ��/",• 4-0 ��iRld!r r lhC Rl"aM+1 ,,.�4�\-• J° Avvr r..... h �d Inds ,.r. f."C,l•' r5zt ' R- "v Tusttrr Place atgn,rr Aparrraencs xlnwr .pec c�' r Y10*.01� CC: F 4v r'nvrnrr N J� 1 0. 0.1 0.2 Miles I I /Ltd ! r I ! r r I Q Project Site Red Hill Specific Plan Addendum Figure 2-2 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------- _ _ -- --------- This page intentionally left blank. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 i Y mw4 Site Photos m Project - facing • 1 47,. mow. �'.."°, .�,•, i"°` Projectfacing • i G Project s - facing -• Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------- _ _ -- --------- This page intentionally left blank. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Aerial ^ r JI s S 1 � y 1 7 � .,may!• `� '�' A P a R + / r t Red Hill Specific Plan Addendum Figure 2-4 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------- _ _ -- --------- This page intentionally left blank. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 Red Hill Specific Plan Land Use h • '_ ,. 4 �jy�.1" 'tip . s Projed Boundary Mixed Use t r ara' M I \ 1 k'y f„ ti, f X., ti `s 'r'Z . �r k D Project Site Red Hill Specific Plan Addendum Figure 2-4 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------- _ _ -- --------- This page intentionally left blank. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- is Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT SITE PLANNING AND CEQA BACKGROUND As previously discussed, the City adopted the RHASP and certified the Final EIR in 2018. The 43.11-acre RHASP area (inclusive of 7.32 acres of roadway right-of-way) allows for up to 500 additional dwelling units (primarily integrated mixed use) and 325,000 SF of non-residential uses in a predominantly developed part of the City. Streetscape improvements could include new medians, landscaping, and Class II bike lanes. Development pursuant to the RHASP is subject to mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and the City's Municipal Code. In November 2020, a Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR 2020-001), which allocated 114 residential units for the site,was approved for the Project,subject to obtaining the required entitlements. 3.2 RHASP FINAL EIR ASSUMPTIONS FOR PROJECT SITE The RHASP Final EIR describes that buildout of the RHASP would result in a total of 521 dwelling units and 621,446 SF of non-residential uses (commercial and office uses),which would be an increase of 500 dwelling units and 325,000 SF of non-residential uses over the existing conditions. The Project site is developed with 2,077 SF of commercial uses that are included in these RHASP existing conditions. The Project site has a RHASP land use designation of Mixed Use which allows development of residential and commercial/office uses on the Project site. Additionally, the Project is located within TAZ 1 of the RHASP. TAZ 1 identifies a proposed mix of up to 160 residential units and 30,000 SF of retail commercial uses. 3.3 PROPOSED PROJECT 3.3.1 Project Overview The Project proposes to construct 137 residential units, with six low-income units, and 7,000 SF of retail commercial uses. The Project applicant would construct the proposed 137 residential units within the 3.39- acre site for a density of 40.4 dwelling units per acre. The Project would also include driveway entrances from Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street, public and private drives, as well as on-site amenities including open air courtyards, a pool and spa, club room, fitness center, mailroom/lounge, co-working area, bike storage room, dog walk/garden courtyard area and tenant storage areas, as shown on Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan. 3.3.2 Project Features Building Summary The proposed residential units would be developed as rental units within six 3- to 4-story buildings. The proposed units would include studios,one-bedroom apartments,two-bedroom apartments,and ten live-work units, ranging in size from 515 SF to 1,351 SF, as shown in Table 3-1. The Project would also include approximately 7,000 SF of ground-floor retail commercial uses, with 3,362 SF of retail and a 761 SF co- working area in Building A and 3,675 SF of retail in Building B. Table 3-1: Unit Breakdown Unit Type Number of Units Studio 16 One-Bedroom 62 Two-Bedroom 49 Live/Work 10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed buildings would have a modern traditional architectural style, with board and batten siding, decorative metal railings,and decorative exterior light figures,as shown on Figure 3-2,Building A Elevations, Figure 3-3, Building B Elevations, Figure 3-4, Building C Elevations, and Figure 3-5, Building D Elevations. The six buildings would be a maximum of 50 feet in height, excluding architectural projections. The maximum height including the architectural projections, parapet walls, and elevator towers, would be 59 feet. Affordable Housing Component Of the Project's 137 total unit count, six units would be designated as affordable units, consistent with the City's "Workforce Housing Ordinance." The six would be designated as very-low income units would consist of one studio unit,three one-bedroom units and two two-bedroom units. The Project has a base allocation of 114 units and 20% or 23 density bonus units as provided by the new Workforce Housing Ordinance. The Project would include a Density Bonus Waiver for a reduction of common and private open space requirements. Access and Parking Access to the site would be provided via a public driveway on Red Hill Avenue and private resident driveway on San Juan Street. Onsite drives would provide residents and guests access to commercial guest spaces and residential garages. The Project would provide parking at a rate of 1.45 stalls per residential unit and 1 stall per 1,000 SF of commercial space for a total of 227 onsite parking stalls. Additionally, the Project would include 12 parallel parking spaces on Red Hill Avenue, as shown on Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan. Recreation and Open Space The Project includes approximately 11,325 SF of common open space throughout the site. The open space areas would be landscaped and paved, as shown in Figure 3-6, Landscape Plan, and include two courtyards and three public plazas. Recreational amenities would include a fitness center, club room, pool, and spa within Building B. Landscaping The Project would install new drought tolerant ornamental landscaping throughout the Project site pursuant to RHASP requirements, which would include 15-gallon and 24-inch box trees, such as: Italian cypress,coral tree, Brisbane box, and Mexican fan palm. In addition, a variety of ornamental shrubs, vines, and groundcovers would be installed.The proposed Project would result in an increase of impervious areas onsite from 85% pervious within existing conditions to 7.6% pervious post development. Lighting The proposed Project would install new exterior lighting onsite for security, to accent landscaping, and to light signage, walkways, and parking areas. The new lighting would be focused on the site, shielded from offsite areas, and be in compliance with lighting regulations in Municipal Code, Section 9271. Infrastructure Improvements The proposed Project would construct onsite infrastructure including new internal streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and storm drain improvements, wet and dry utilities, and related infrastructure improvements. The Project would also widen Red Hill Avenue, pursuant to the RHASP, and install a new public sidewalk and landscaped parkway. Water and Sewer Improvements The Project would construct private domestic water lines and private fire water lines that would connect to a proposed drinking water line within Red Hill Avenue and 8-inch drinking water line within San Juan Street. Based on Orange County Fire Authority fire flow standards and demands, a new water main in Red Hill Avenue will be constructed to a minimum 10" line. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Improvements A series of onsite storm drain facilities with Low Impact Development (LID) and Peak Storm elements are proposed. Project runoff will be directed to three discharge locations. Runoff in Drainage Management Areas (DMA) A1, A2, and A3 would be collected via storm drains that serve the southwestern half of the site, which would convey water to the west corner of the site to an underground infiltration gallery where runoff will be retained. Similarly, DMA A4 will drain towards the parking lot between Buildings A & B. Runoff would then enter the catch basin at the south corner of the parking lot. Runoff would be routed to the proposed underground infiltration gallery below the parking lot. High flows will be diverted via storm drain to the south corner of property, where it will tie into an existing storm drain at Red Hill Avenue. All flows outside the property line within the public right-of-way along Red Hill Avenue will drain towards the street. Runoff in DMA B1 and Clwould drain in a northeasterly direction to an underground infiltration gallery located at the northeast corner of the property. High flows will bypass the facility and either flow through a parkway culvert onto Red Hill Avenue (DMA B 1) or surface flow out of the driveway on San Juan Street (DMA C1). Off-site Improvements The Project would include a street dedication of 10-feet along the Red Hill Avenue frontage for future widening of Red Hill Avenue to obtain the full 120-foot right-of-way. Within this area, the project would include striping of twelve (12) parallel parking spaces along with a Class II bike land along Red Hill Avenue pursuant to the circulation plan of the RHASP. The Project would construct a signalized intersection at Red Hill Avenue and the proposed Project driveway. Additionally, the Project would stripe a pedestrian crosswalk at the proposed intersection. 3.3.3 Construction and Phasing Construction activities for the Project would occur over one phase and include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. Construction is expected to occur over 20 months and would occur within the hours allowable by the City of Tustin Municipal Code Section 4614, which states that construction is prohibited between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.,Monday through Friday and 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays and during all hours Sundays and city observed federal holidays. 3.3.4 Operational Characteristics The Project would be operated as residential rental units and retail commercial. Typical operational characteristics include employees, customers, and residents traveling to and from the site, delivery of materials and supplies to the site, and truck loading and unloading. Proposed retail commercial uses are expected to operate during standard retail times, 7 days a week. 3.3.5 Discretionary Approvals, Permits, and Studies The following discretionary approvals and permits are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the proposed Project: City of Tustin • Adoption of this Addendum • Design Review • Subdivision/Vesting Tentative Tract Map Approval • Development Agreement • Density Bonus and Voluntary Workforce Incentive Agreement --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • Concession/Incentive • Waiver of Park Fees for affordable units • Infrastructure Construction and Reimbursement Agreement • Approvals and permits necessary to execute the proposed Project, including but not limited to, demolition permit, grading permit, building permits, etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22 - --------------------- ----- -------------------- 'iS NVnr-NVS 1 LL --------- - ------------- I J_d ------ ----- 411- A- Ll ir Rml Hill 11111111 Hill ij cl Q w IP" 74— Ai 7rt F7 ---- ----------- II oe W a.o LLv a� w wx 'v Q- N Z y d d « O O u- E -'o Gw v v Q Y G a v 0 c 0 .0 v v .. a 0 a. U H r c M o LU .,9-,89 = w 40�=0 �Qe�Q�Qyw�zw 1. ° LL VIII' LL o CIO z � W �U w IF z z a W J } W a H �i LL, } .9 W - oi „1.6 ..l.Ol ..l.Ol ,l-,Sl oW, � J a a !AIDJ w Z w ooi I „l-,6 ..l Ol .l-,Ol ori Al- I. .. i �� - 2 P--' o —S+ �� vow .. .i LLJ :m0 U q ® �� a z Ifs l a 11�111�''ill';' u i u z z LLJ — _ — O O - €� W �� J •-__V __ yr �,A I MILLJ •• ` - 'E 0 a fi W m I 3:1 010 s .JAI .n0� J II o0 a O� .. �I N °o �LLJII LL ❑ ��. oAY Lo co (D -= LLI g aE� i z O lipa W W . ... CO G >W C I Q oe C - a i u N OII Z d W a.o LLv a� w wx 'v Q- N Z y d d « O O u- E -'o Gw v v Q Y G a v 0 c 0 .0 v v .. a 0 a. U H r c Cl) K k - w - --- " W m WO w D m � � - $ z n w Z Ulu Q U Q 0 LL_ a .o-,ss p 0 C �w „�sl� �aL��aL� W ❑��-��� - Z „L-,sl U M — f u� J� > to t CO LLJ C) --* QLLJ W R ni CO ...._ Z f� ..._... D ~ O D I I ¢ Z J LLL EA x W Q - 1-7-77.I�. I'l IF 7T71” Q CO W LLJ Q l II Ii� wloIca Z i oll� a . 9'-1" 10-1.. 10,_1„ 15,_i„ W 0.6SCO ■ WW - w .0-,65 N 1 N ` El- -j- F0m LaLI - I - �. - o N LLI 11iFTO I❑� z II � Z LLL--LUI QiLM I��� If 1� f l rj - W c o u - > ■ W w m v 1 w F o� � ol- 0 o ss 1 —IL__I Z o c 0 c v Mat Q c FFRI NN oe U "6 GI W a.o LLv a� w wx 'v Q- N Z y d d « O O u- E -'o Gw v v Q Y G a v 0 c 0 .0 v v .. a 0 a. U H IT C S �c? Cl) a • Fz��c �, m z 2czc zc > pccz N W � NZC cz �0 5 z KFS Vc?O�c Kc c�c c D K cz c C pp m c� 0 W I o ® LD O_ c a .,0-,65 J p l-.11 .l.Ol I,d,Ol 4Zl W WLL p oFl f�—^-•'� __ Q L Z °�I is .,l-,ol l-,ol „hzl p y p C) z w z LLJ 0 U CD � 2 Z Z O O ai z W Z cl I rLu W w O w �. J U) Lu _ '0 w v a 91_1. 10•_1 10•_1•• 12•_1•• Z Q O n�, Iiia �� W H .,I I ..__. �. H - .o-,ss W J I W F „0-,69 (n W 41 ml , I _ r C 7 AT AS_._C"10 C76. Q c Z Q E-- .. I.. Z T + - I I " �.. o Q LU Ln r � I n Z n n r p. 7 C N I a C a CL V V N a. oeN S GI W a.o LLv a� w wx 'v Q- N Z y d d « O O u- E -'o Gw v v Q Y G a v 0 c 0 .0 v v .. a 0 a. U H O c Cl) o W - - ao N. .. ?� m Z _* 0,9E g 0~ ¢wi „L 6 6.06 ..L-.M of a � Z(� a - Z Oz LLJ Q JJ w� w ii Iii � HU H - O� O _�� _. Z U) o ¢wli I_' ® `Z z oui _ � o J J I_ l W ® � UT aI"iHl ' Zwc F W LoZ�'i ° Lo z! xw, a xwi WLLi V V oeN Q N S GI W a.o LLv a� w wx 'v Q- N Z y d d « O O u- E -'o Gw v v Q Y G a v 0 c 0 .0 v v .. a 0 a. U H c 10 o m � n d 5 a e e d n s aa3R� g€ g m _.w 1,33211So Aivnr NK, c a', Wm 0 I O 0 000 OO OO O 00 _l cp LU J I _ I. - � m � J y m a _ a Q a o ri' I] i tl o n 12 } -1 J I \ �a CO l oe W a.o LLv a� w wx 'v Q- N Z y d d « O O u- E -'o Gw v v Q Y G a v 0 c 0 .0 v v .. a 0 a. U H Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 4.1 BACKGROUND Date: July 15, 2021 Project Title: Red Hill Mixed-Use Project Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Lead Agency Contact: Erica Demkowicz EDemkowicz@tustinca.org Project Location: The Project site is located at 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue (APNs 500-141-09 and 500-141-10), on the southwest corner of San Juan Street and Red Hill Avenue. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 Macarthur Blvd East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Land Use and Zoning Designation: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) Project Description: The Project applicant proposes to construct 137 residential units, with six low-income units, and 7,000 SF of retail commercial uses. The Project would construct the proposed 137 residential units within the 3.39- acre site for a density of 40.4 dwelling units per acre.The Project would also include driveway entrances from Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street, private and private drives, as well as on-site amenities including open air courtyards, a pool and spa, club room, fitness center, mailroom lounge, co-working area, bike storage room, dog walk/garden courtyard area and tenant storage areas. A more detailed description of the proposed Project is provided in Section 3, Project Description. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Project site is within an urban environment, is partially developed with commercial uses, and is surrounded by residential, commercial, and public institutional uses. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: None --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forest ❑ Air Quality Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology Water Quality ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Wildfire ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 4.3 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation ❑ No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.Also,there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project without modification. ® The Checklist/Addendum concludes that none of the conditions or circumstances that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exists in connection with the design of the Project. No substantial changes have been proposed to the project described in the Final EIR that require major revisions to Final EIR. No new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental effects would occur. The Checklist/Addendum also indicates that there have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the project site, including the project, would be undertaken that would require major revisions to the Final EIR.The Checklist/Addendum concludes that no substantial changes with respect to circumstances under which the project is undertaken have occurred that have not already been accounted for.The Checklist/Addendum also concludes that no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the Final EIR was certified, shows that the project would cause or substantially worsen significant environmental impacts discussed in the Final EIR, that mitigation measures or alternatives found infeasible in the Final EIR would in fact be feasible, or that different mitigation measures or alternatives from those analyzed in the Final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant environmental effects found in the Final EIR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ❑ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous ND, MND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, all new potentially significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant. Therefore,a Subsequent MND is required. ❑ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project in the changed situation.Therefore,a Supplemental EIR is required. ❑ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3) such as one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT EIR is required. Avdu�_ i p zi Sig ure Date Justina L.Willkom,Community Development Director City of Tustin Printed Name For 4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The evaluation of environmental impacts in this addendum summarizes conclusions made in the Final EIR and compares them to the impacts of the proposed Red Hill Mixed-Use Project.Mitigation measures referenced are from the Mitigation Monitoring Final adopted as part of the Final EIR and are described as either being previously implemented,applicable to the proposed Project,or not applicable. This comparative analysis has been undertaken pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, to provide the factual basis for determining whether the proposed Project, or any new information that has come to light that permits or requires the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. The analysis herein follows the outline and format, and applies the impact thresholds of, the Final EIR, as required by CEQA. (Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (201 A) 227 Cal.App.Ath 788.) As discussed previously in Section 1.2 Environmental Procedures, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162,when an EIR has been previously certified that includes the scope of development of a site or area, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following three conditions are met: 1) the project would result in new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR; 2) changes in the circumstances surrounding the project result in new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR; or 3) new 37 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- information has come to light showing that new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR will occur. 4,4,1 Terminology Used in the Checklist For each question listed in the Environmental Checklist, a determination of the level of significance of the impact is provided. Impacts are categorized in the following categories: Substantial Change in Project or Circumstances Resulting in New Significant Effects. A Subsequent EIR is required when 1) substantial project changes are proposed or substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and 2) those changes result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and 3) project changes require major revisions of the EIR.2 New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than Previous EIR. A Subsequent EIR is required if new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified, shows 1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; or 2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR.3 New Information Identifying New Mitigation or Alternative to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined. A Subsequent EIR is required if new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified shows 1) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible (or new mitigation measures or alternatives are considerably different) and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.4 With regard to the foregoing three categories, a Supplement to an EIR can be prepared if the criterion for a Subsequent EIR is met, and only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the EIR adequately apply to the proposed Project.5 Minor Technical Changes or Additions. An Addendum to the EIR is required if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the criteria for a subsequent EIR is met.6 No Impact. A designation of no impact is given when the proposed Project would have no changes in the environment as compared to the original project analyzed in the EIR. 2 CEQA Guidelines.California Code of Regulations(CCR),Title 14, Division 6,Chapter 3,§ 15162,as amended. 3 CEQA Guidelines.§ 15162. 4 CEQA Guidelines.§ 15162. 5 CEQA Guidelines.§ 15163. 6 CEQA Guidelines.§ 15164. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist.The section briefly summarizes the conclusions of the Final EIR, and then discuss whether or not the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Final EIR, or if further analysis is required in a supplemental or subsequent EIR. Mitigation measures referenced herein are from the Final EIR. 5.1 AESTHETICS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No Change in Information Information Technical New Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact Circumstances Greater New or No Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR analyzed programmatic impacts from buildout of the RHASP related to aesthetics from page 4.1-1 to 4.1-12. The RHASP EIR described that the RHASP area is generally flat and includes commercial, office, and residential uses. The City of Tustin General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas or viewpoints in the City. The RHASP area has some distant views of the Santa Ana Mountains to the east and the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. However, these views are limited and often obstructed by existing structures within the RHASP area.The City of Tustin General Plan EIR determined buildout according to the General Plan would not result in the obstruction of existing public or scenic views.The height limitations for the RHASP are the same as the existing height limitations under existing Tustin General Plan and zoning designations for the RHASP area and building height would be 50-feet and a maximum of 4 stories. According to the RHASP Final EIR, there are no rock outcroppings or any other scenic resources within the RHASP area. There are ornamental trees located in landscaped areas, but the trees are not considered scenic resources. Additionally,there are no State scenic highways adjacent to or in the vicinity of the RHASP area. The RHASP area is not within a State scenic highway, nor is the RHASP area visible from any officially designated or eligible scenic highway. The RHASP EIR described that the RHASP allows for reuse of existing structures and sites, redevelopment of underutilized parcels, and the development of vacant parcels with commercial, office, and residential uses in a mixed-use. Future development projects within the RHASP could have short term visual effects during --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- construction activities. Any construction impacts associated with individual development projects within the RHASP area would be temporary in nature and would be expected to be typical for projects located in an urban environment with surrounding development. Construction activities would be required to comply with the RHASP,the City's General Plan, and the Tustin City Code requirements. Ongoing development within the RHASP area would alter the existing character and quality of the area. While the aesthetics of a project can be subjective, future development projects in the RHASP area would be required to comply with the proposed Red Hill Avenue Development Standards and Design Criteria. Individual projects would also be subject to design review by the City. Implementation of the RHASP was proposed to improve the visual character and quality of the area. According to the RHASP Final EIR, sources of lighting include streetlights, signage, and on-building and freestanding security lighting. Future development projects within the RHASP area would have the potential to create new sources of light. The addition of buildings in areas that are undeveloped would result in new sources of light and glare consistent with that found in an urban area. Reuse of existing sites would have similar sources of lighting as currently exists in the area. However,the RHASP provides requirements related to lighting for implementing projects. Because the RHASP area is located within an urban environment, the lighting associated with implementation of the RHASP would not substantially increase light and glare within the RHASP area or its surroundings. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that no impacts would occur from buildout of the RHASP on scenic vistas.The Project site is located in an urbanized commercial and residential area of the City of Tustin. The Tustin General Plan does not designate any scenic vistas within the City.The Project site and surrounding public rights-of-way do not feature any scenic views. The Project would be consistent with the existing RHASP designation. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas from the proposed Project would not occur. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that no impacts would occur from buildout of the RHASP related to state scenic highways. The proposed Project is not located within view of a state scenic highway, as there are no designated state scenic highways within the vicinity of the site. The nearest state-designated scenic highway is Route 91, located approximately 7.47 miles north of the Project site.The Project would not result in impacts to trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources would occur. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project 40 - Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded implementation of the RHASP would alter the existing visual character or quality of the RHASP area with the goal of improving them. With compliance with the Specific Plan Design Criteria and Land Use Regulations, the City's General Plan, and the Tustin City Code, impacts to visual resources from buildout of the RHASP would be less than significant. As described previously, the Project site is located within an urbanized area and is surrounded by roadways, single-family and multi- family residences, and commercial uses. The existing character of the Project site and surrounding area is neither unique nor of special aesthetic value or quality. The proposed Project would replace the existing commercial office space and would develop 137 dwelling units,7,000 SF of retail commercial, open space areas, and private streets on the Project site. RHASP. The Project site and surrounding area to the northeast, southeast, and southwest are designated as Mixed Use within the RHASP. Areas to the northwest are designated Public/Institutional (PI) by the City of Tustin General Plan. The proposed Project would have a density of 40.4 du/acre, which is consistent and compatible with the surrounding multi-family residential densities. Thus, the Project would not conflict with applicable RHASP buildout densities that govern scenic quality. In addition, the Project would comply with Chapter 5 of the RHASP, Design Criteria, which provides a framework for high-quality design within the RHASP area. Additionally, the Project would be consistent with the RHASP development standards. The Project would be at or below four stories and would be a maximum of 50 feet in height, minus architectural projections, which is consistent the RHASP maximum of 50 feet. The Project would be consistent with the required setbacks and, with approval of the Density Bonus Waiver, would be consistent with the open space requirements. Thus, the Project would not conflict with applicable RHASP criteria and other regulations governing scenic quality. As the Project would develop the site with multi-family and commercial uses, which is consistent with the land uses adjacent to the site and assumed by the RHASP,the Project would be visually compatible with the surrounding uses. Hence,the proposed Project would not degrade the visual character of the Project site and surrounding area and impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded future development within the RHASP area would introduce new sources of lighting. However, compliance with the land use regulations and the Design Criteria of the Specific Plan, the General Plan and the Tustin City Code would preclude significant impacts. The Project site is currently partially developed with one permanent building and parking lot. The Project would replace existing sources of light and introduce new sources of light from new building lighting, exterior lighting, interior lights shining through building windows, and headlights from nighttime vehicular trips generated by the Project. However, the Project would only slightly increase lighting fand glare compared to the existing condition and new landscaping would be provided throughout the Project site that would limit impacts from new sources of light and glare. Landscaping, including trees, would limit spill of light to adjacent properties. Also, as a standard condition of Project approval, the proposed Project would be required to comply with lighting standards detailed in the City's Municipal Code, which would require Project lighting to be shielded, diffused, or indirect to avoid glare to both on offsite residents, pedestrians, motorists. Compliance with the Municipal Code would be implemented through the construction permitting and plan check process. Therefore, impacts associated with new lighting would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. Conclusion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding aesthetics. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no mitigation measures are required for aesthetics. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural Substantial New New Minor No resources are significant environmental effects, lead Change in Information Information Technical New agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact/ Circumstances Greater New or No Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1 997) Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as New Effects than or an optional model to use in assessing impacts on Significant Previous EIR Alternative agriculture and farmland. In determining whether Effects to Reduce Significant impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are Effect is significant environmental effects, lead agencies may Declined refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51 104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP EIR analyzed programmatic impacts from buildout of the RHASP related to agriculture and forest resources on page 1-4.The RHASP Final EIR described that the RHASP area does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of the RHASP area is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally,the area does not include forest resources, including timberlands, and is not zoned for agriculture. For these reasons, the Final EIR concluded that no impacts would occur related to farmland or timberland. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR found that no impacts would occur related to farmland. The Project site is currently partially developed with a commercial office building and parking lot. The site is not designated as Prime, Unique,or Farmland of Statewide Importance (CDC 2021).Therefore,the proposed Project would not have impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR found that no impacts would occur related to farmland. The Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act of 1965) restricts the use of agricultural and open space lands to farming and ranching by enabling local governments to contract with private landowners for indefinite terms in exchange for reduced property tax assessments. The Project site is not zoned for agricultural use or located within an Agricultural Resource Area. Additionally, the Project site does not have a Williamson Act contract. As such,the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with an Agricultural Resource Area or Williamson Act contract, and no impacts would occur. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR found that no impacts would occur related to forest land and timberland. The Project site is partially improved with one commercial office building and associated parking lot. The site does not contain forest land and there are no forestland resources in the vicinity of the Project site. It is not designated or zoned as forest land or timberland or used for timberland production. As a result, the Project would not result in impacts on timberland resources. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that no impacts would occur related to forest land and timberland. As discussed previously, there are no forest or timberland resources on or in the vicinity of the Project site. The proposed Project would not convert forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No New Impact.The RHASP EIR concluded that no impacts would occur related to farmland and forest land. The site is developed and is not used for agricultural purposes. The site is not designated or zoned for forest land. The proposed Project would not convert farmland to a nonagricultural use or convert forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and the Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding agriculture and forest resources.There have not been 1)changes related development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site undertaken that require major revisions of the previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe agriculture and forest resources impacts would result from the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for agriculture and forest resources. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.3 AIR QUALITY I Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Where available, the significance criteria Substantial New New Minor No established by the applicable air quality Change in Information Information Technical New Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact management or air pollution control district may be Circumstances Greater New or No relied upon to make the following determinations. Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact Would the project: New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard)? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP EIR analyzed programmatic impacts from buildout of the RHASP related to air quality from page 4.2-1 to 4.2-21. The RHASP Final EIR described that a project may be inconsistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) if it would generate a considerable increase in regional air quality violations and affect the region's attainment of air quality standards, or if it would generate population, housing, or employment growth exceeding forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. The 2016 AQMP, the most recent AQMP adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at the time the RHASP was adopted, incorporates local municipalities' general plans and Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population, housing and employment growth. The RHASP allows for the development of 500 additional residential units and 325,000 additional square feet of non- residential development. According to the RHASP EIR, buildout of the RHASP could generate 1,520 additional residents and 722 new employment positions. Although the RHASP would be consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS to reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated air pollutant emissions, the RHASP would exceed population forecasts, on which the AQMP is based. Further, implementation of proposed mitigation measures and compliance with SCAQMD rules would reduce conflicts and obstruction of the AQMP; however, the combined emissions from RHASP buildout would exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds. According to the RHASP Final EIR, construction activities associated with future development would occur in incremental phases over time based upon numerous factors, including market demand, and economic and planning considerations. Construction activities would consist of grading, demolition, excavation, cut-and-fill, paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings. In addition, construction worker vehicle trips,building material deliveries,soil hauling,etc.would occur during construction. Due to the unknown nature of future construction activities associated with implementation of the RHASP, construction-related air quality impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable due to the potential magnitude of construction that could occur from implementation of the RHASP. RHASP operational emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for NOx due to the amount of vehicle trips to, from, and within the RHASP area. The RHASP EIR included MM 4.2-1,MM 4.2-2, and MM 4.2-3 to reduce impacts related to regional operational emissions; however, impacts would still be significant and unavoidable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The RHASP Final EIR described that CO concentrations are low and RHASP buildout would not generate CO emissions above thresholds, the RHASP would not result in the creation of CO hotspots. The I-5 bisects the RHASP area,and the I-5 freeway segment that crosses Red Hill Avenue experiences an average of 324,300 trips per day. Residential units could be constructed as close as 100 feet from I-5.The proximity of potential future development to I-5 poses a concern for Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) exposure. Therefore, implementation of MM 4.2-5 is required to ensure a project-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is conducted for future residential uses located within 500 feet of I-5. Implementation of MM 4.2-5 would reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. According to the RHASP Final EIR, the RHASP would include residential and commercial development. Commercial development within the Specific Plan area would likely consist of retail facilities. As retail land uses are not identified as land uses associated with odor complaints by SCAQMD, implementation of the RHASP would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. RHASP EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1:Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the City's Building Official shall confirm that project plans and specifications designate that vehicle parking spaces developed within the Specific Plan area shall be EV ready to encourage EV use and appropriately size electrical panels to accommodate future expanded EV use. MM 4.2-2: Vanpool/Rideshare Programs. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City's Building Official shall confirm that future commercial uses within the Specific Plan area include Codes,Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that provide for a voluntary vanpool/shuttle and employee ridesharing programs for which all employees shall be eligible to participate. The voluntary ride sharing program could be achieved through a multi-faceted approach, such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride- sharing vehicles,designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and/or providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides. This measure is not applicable to residential uses. MM 4.2-3: Operational Emissions Reductions. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City's Planning Official shall confirm that project plans and specifications consider and mitigate the impacts on regional air quality and GHG emissions when reviewing proposals for new development. Impacts shall be evaluated in accordance with SCAQMD recommended methodologies and procedures. Recommended mitigation measure may include, but are not limited to,the following: • Install heat transfer modules in all furnaces; • Install solar panels for water heating systems for residential and other facilities; • Incorporate renewable energy sources in the project design (e.g., solar photovoltaic panels). • Include passive solar cooling/heating design elements in building designs; • Include design elements that maximize use of natural lighting in new development; • Include provisions to install energy efficient appliances and lighting in new development. • Install higher efficacy public street and exterior lighting. • Increase project density. • Incorporate design measures that promote bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation use. • Provide preferential parking spaces for alternatively-fueled vehicles. • Incorporate measures that reduce water use and waste generation. • Provide informational materials on low ROG/VOC consumer products, cleaners, paints, and other products, as well as the importance of recycling and purchasing recycled material. Informational materials shall be provided to residential and commercial occupants through CC&R requirements • Incorporate measures and design features that promote ride sharing and consistency with the commute-reduction requirements of SCAQMD Rule 2202 (On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MM 4.2-4: Toxic Air Contaminants/Health Risk Assessment. A project-specific Health Risk Assessment shall be conducted for future residential development proposed within 500 feet of the Interstate 5 right-of-way, pursuant to the recommendations set forth in the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. The Health Risk Assessment shall evaluate a project per the following SCAQMD thresholds: • Cancer Risk: Emit carcinogenic or toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million. • Non-Cancer Risk: Emit toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum hazard quotient of one in one million. The SCAQMD has also established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs. Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a "hazard index," expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index less than one (1.0) means that adverse health effects are not expected. If projects are found to exceed the SCAQMD's Health Risk Assessment thresholds, mitigation shall be incorporated to reduce impacts to below SCAQMD thresholds. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR found that implementation of the RHASP would incrementally exceed population growth forecasted in the RHASP on which the 2016 AQMP is based, as well as exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The current AQMP is the 2016 AQMP, that was adopted in March 2017 and is based on buildout of the land use designations in the City of Tustin General Plan, with which the RHASP is consistent. The Final EIR assumed that the Project site would be developed as mixed use and assumed that a large portion of the 160 dwelling units within TAZ 1 would be allocated to the Project site due to its infill potential. As discussed previously, the proposed Project would result in the development of 137 multi-family dwelling units and 7,000 SF of retail commercial. Therefore, the site's square footage and density is within the maximum development assumptions for area Project site in the Final EIR. However, as discussed above, buildout of the RHASP would exceed population projections within the AQMP. Assuming 3.04 persons per household,consistent with the RHASP EIR,the Project has the potential to generate 417 residents,which would be 27% of the residents assumed to be generated by buildout of the RHASP. Additionally, based on an employment density factor of 450 SF per employee for commercial retail development in Orange County, the Project would generate approximately 16 permanent employment opportunities, which would be 2.2% of the employees assumed to be generated by buildout of the RHASP. Additionally,the emissions from the Project would be less than those anticipated by the Final EIR.As detailed previously, up to 160 dwelling units could potentially be developed on the Project site based on residential allocation within the RHASP for TAZ 1. Additionally,the Project would only develop 7,000 SF of the 30,000 SF of commercial uses analyzed within the TAZ. The smaller residential density and commercial retail square footage would lead to a reduced number of vehicle trips; and therefore, the emissions generated by the proposed Project would be less than those identified by the RHASP Final EIR. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or substantially increase the severity of any previously identified impacts. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard)? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR found that buildout of the RHASP would result in cumulatively considerable net increases of pollutants during construction and operation, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following: (1) demolition of the existing structures and removal of the existing infrastructure and pavement, (2) site preparation, (3) grading, (4) building construction, (5) paving, and (6) architectural coating. The quantity of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring. It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the proposed Project site,covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 1 2-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 is included as PPP AQ-1. In addition, implementation of SCAQMD Rule 11 13, which governs the VOC content in architectural coating, paint, thinners, and solvents is included as PPP AQ-2. The proposed Project would consist of construction of 137 du of the maximum 160 du, and construction of 7,000 SF of the 30,000 commercial SF analyzed within TAZ 1.As such, potential pollutant emissions from construction of the proposed Project would be less than those analyzed in the RHASP EIR. Operation As discussed above under threshold 3(a),the emissions from the Project would be less than those anticipated by the Final EIR. As detailed previously, up to 160 dwelling units could potentially be developed on the Project site based on residential allocation within the RHASP. The proposed Project would only develop 137 of the 160 dwelling units analyzed for the Project site. Additionally, the Project would only develop 7,000 SF of the 30,000 SF analyzed within TAZ 1. The smaller residential density and commercial retail square footage would lead to a reduced number of vehicle trips. Additionally, vehicle trips would be reduced due to the mixed-use aspect of the Project,with local-serving retail commercial and residential amenities including a fitness center, pool, and spa. Therefore, the emissions generated by the proposed Project would be less than those identified by the RHASP Final EIR. Furthermore, Project emissions would be reduced through implementation of RHASP EIR MM 4.2-1, with requires the construction of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and RHASP MM 4.2-2, which requires implementation of a vanpooling program.Additionally, the Project would include energy efficient appliances, bike parking, pedestrian-oriented retail, and preferential parking spaces for alternatively fueled vehicles pursuant to RHASP EIR MM 4.2-3. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR found that buildout of the RHASP could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; however, impacts would be less than significant with the inclusion of MM 4.2-4. Sensitive receptors can include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities.The nearest sensitive receptors are existing residences located northeast of the Project site, across San Juan Street, the Tustin High School baseball field, and the multi-family residences to the northwest of the site. The distance between the Project site boundary and the closest existing residence is 5 feet northwest of the Project site. The distance between the Project site boundary and the Tustin High School baseball field is approximately 25 feet. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Construction Construction of the proposed Project may expose nearby residential sensitive receptor to airborne particulates as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants(i.e.usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following SCAQMD's standard construction practices (Rules 403, as included as PPP AQ-1). Additionally, potential Project pollutant emissions from construction would be significantly less than those from maximum development of the site pursuant to the RHASP. As such, potential pollutant emissions from construction of the proposed Project would be less than those analyzed in the RHASP EIR. Operation According to SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g. transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The proposed Project does not include such uses, and thus, due to lack of stationary source emissions, would not have a significant impact. Additionally,the Project site is located further than 500 feet from the I-5 corridor and the Project would not expose future Project residents to substantial pollution concentrations due to proximity with the I-5. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The proposed Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. The Project site is not located near existing agricultural uses. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities. However, any construction odors would be temporary in nature. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City's solid waste regulations. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to implement CARB Rule 2485 regulations that limit idling to 5 minutes (13 CCR, Chapter 10 Section 2485), which would reduce odors from the smell of truck exhaust. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odor impacts associated with the proposed Project's construction and operations would not be significant compared to what was previously analyzed and determined in the Final EIR. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding air quality. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP) PPP AQ-1: SCAQMD Rule 403. The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403: • All clearing,grading,earth-moving,or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas,shall occur at least three times a day,preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less. PPP AQ-2: SCAQMD Rule 1113. The following measure shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1 1 1 3. The Project shall only use "Low-Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)" paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1 113. PPP AQ-3: SCAQMD Rule 445. The following measure shall be incorporated into construction plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 445. Wood burning stoves and fireplaces shall not be included or used in the new development. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required Final EIR mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project would be implemented as intended by the RHASP and the Final EIR. After implementation of Final EIR mitigation measures, no new impacts nor substantially more severe air quality impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for air quality. Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-1:Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the City's Building Official shall confirm that project plans and specifications designate that vehicle parking spaces developed within the Specific Plan area shall be EV ready to encourage EV use and appropriately size electrical panels to accommodate future expanded EV use. (Applicable to the proposed Project and will be included in its MMRP). MM 4.2-2: Vanpool/Rideshare Programs. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City's Building Official shall confirm that future commercial uses within the Specific Plan area include Codes,Covenants,and --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Restrictions (CC&Rs) that provide for a voluntary vanpool/shuttle and employee ridesharing programs for which all employees shall be eligible to participate. The voluntary ride sharing program could be achieved through a multi-faceted approach, such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride- sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and/or providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides. This measure is not applicable to residential uses. (Applicable to the proposed Project and will be included in its MMRP). MM 4.2-3: Operational Emissions Reductions. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City's Planning Official shall confirm that project plans and specifications consider and mitigate the impacts on regional air quality and GHG emissions when reviewing proposals for new development. Impacts shall be evaluated in accordance with SCAQMD recommended methodologies and procedures. Recommended mitigation measure may include, but are not limited to,the following: • Install heat transfer modules in all furnaces; • Install solar panels for water heating systems for residential and other facilities; • Incorporate renewable energy sources in the project design (e.g., solar photovoltaic panels). • Include passive solar cooling/heating design elements in building designs; • Include design elements that maximize use of natural lighting in new development; • Include provisions to install energy efficient appliances and lighting in new development. • Install higher efficacy public street and exterior lighting. • Increase project density. • Incorporate design measures that promote bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation use. • Provide preferential parking spaces for alternatively-fueled vehicles. • Incorporate measures that reduce water use and waste generation. • Provide informational materials on low ROG/VOC consumer products, cleaners, paints, and other products, as well as the importance of recycling and purchasing recycled material. Informational materials shall be provided to residential and commercial occupants through CC&R requirements • Incorporate measures and design features that promote ride sharing and consistency with the commute-reduction requirements of SCAQMD Rule 2202 (On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options). (Applicable to the proposed Project and will be included in its MMRP). MM 4.2-4: Toxic Air Contaminants/Health Risk Assessment. A project-specific Health Risk Assessment shall be conducted for future residential development proposed within 500 feet of the Interstate 5 right-of-way, pursuant to the recommendations set forth in the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. The Health Risk Assessment shall evaluate a project per the following SCAQMD thresholds: • Cancer Risk: Emit carcinogenic or toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million. • Non-Cancer Risk: Emit toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum hazard quotient of one in one million. The SCAQMD has also established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs. Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a "hazard index," expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index less than one (1.0) means that adverse health effects are not expected. If projects are found to exceed the SCAQMD's Health Risk Assessment thresholds, mitigation shall be incorporated to reduce imp acts to below SCAQMD thresholds. (Not applicable to the proposed Project.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No Change in Information Information Technical New Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact Circumstances Greater New or No Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP EIR analyzed programmatic impacts from buildout of the RHASP related to biological resources on page 1-5. The RHASP EIR describes that RHASP area is a developed area within the City of Tustin. The area does not include sensitive habitat or protected wildlife species. It does not contain riparian habitat or any water resources (e.g., streams, creeks, channels,vernal pools). Therefore, no impacts to riparian habitat would result from RHASP buildout. Additionally,the RHASP area does not contain waters, including wetland waters,that are subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The RHASP would be implemented consistent with the City General Plan and the City's Master Tree Plan (Tustin City Code Section 7309). All applicable policies would be enforced as a part of future development within the RHASP area. Therefore, the RHASP EIR concluded that no impacts would occur from RHASP buildout related to biological resources. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur to candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The Project site is partially developed,completely disturbed, and located within an urban area that does not contain any native habitats. Due to the disturbed status of the site, it does not provide habitat that could be utilized by species listed or candidates for listing by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or California Native Plant Society (CNPS). However, the existing ornamental landscaping trees on the site have the potential to provide for nesting migratory birds.Many of these trees would be removed during construction.Therefore,the proposed Project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation and trees are removed during the nesting season. Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (United States Code Title 33, Section 703 et seq.; see also Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code, and the City requires compliance with these federal and state protections within standard conditions of approval. Therefore, should removal of the existing landscaping occur during the nesting/breeding season, the existing permitting process would ensure that the MBTA is implemented and that impacts related to nesting birds would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological resources. Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to be important wildlife corridors. As described above,the Project site is completely disturbed, and partially developed with commercial uses, a parking lot, and ornamental landscaping. No riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities exist on the site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans would result from proposed Project implementation, and no mitigation is required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological resources. As described previously, the Project site is completely disturbed and partially developed with urban uses. No natural hydrologic features or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur onsite, and the Project site does not meet the Army Corps of Engineers criteria for wetlands and waters of the U.S. (FWS, 2021). Therefore, no direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of a wetland area would occur with development of the Project site. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological resources. The Project site does not contain wildlife habitat and is located within a developed urban area. The proposed Project area is developed and surrounded by urban developed land uses,including roadways. Therefore, no impacts to wildlife corridors would occur. The existing ornamental landscaping trees on the site have the potential to provide habitat for nesting migratory birds. Many of these trees would be removed during construction. However, nesting birds are protected under the MBTA (United States Code Title 33, Section 703 et seq.; see also Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code that is implemented through the City's permitting process. Therefore,should removal of the existing landscaping occur during the nesting/breeding season, the existing permitting process would ensure that the MBTA is implemented and that impacts related to nesting birds would be less than significant. With required adherence to existing regulations that would be implemented through the City's permitting process, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. RHASP Final EIR concluded that no significant impacts related to biological resources would occur. As described previously,the Project site is partially developed and located within an urban area. No biological resources are located on the site. Consistent with the conclusions of the Final EIR, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources. Additionally, the Project would comply with the City's Master Tree Plan, which would apply to any trees within City sidewalks or rights-of-way, as verified through the permitting and plan check process. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. With required adherence to existing regulations that would be implemented through the City's permitting process, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 55 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological resources. The Project site is located within the County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). The Central and Coastal Sub-region is a 208,000-acre area that includes the central portion of Orange County, incorporating the area from the coastline inland to Riverside County. However, the City of Tustin is not located within the 37,378-acre NCCP habitat Reserve System. Therefore,the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding biological resources. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP) PPP BI0-1: The Project shall comply with the MBTA (United States Code Title 33, Section 703 et seq.; see also Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe biological resources impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for biological resources. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No New Change in Information Information Technical Impact Project or Showing Identifying Changes No Circumstances Greater New or Impact Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR analyzed impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources from pages 4.3-1 to 4.3-14. The RHASP Final EIR discussed that there are buildings and structures of historical, cultural, and architectural importance within the City.The Tustin Historic Resources Survey identified over 400 sites of possible distinction and notable recognition. None of these sites are within the RHASP area. Outside of but adjacent to the RHASP area on the northeast corner of Red Hill Avenue at Walnut Avenue, the property at 14462 Red Hill Avenue includes a residence constructed in 1915. The Tustin Historic Resources Survey identifies the building as a significant resource (Status Code 3S—eligible for the NRHP) due to its architecture and association with early Tustin residents. Future development would be subject to compliance with the established Federal and State regulatory framework,which is intended to mitigate potential impacts to historical resources. As a part of RHASP implementation, no existing buildings would be directly or indirectly affected in the context of historic resources. Consequently, implementation of the RHASP would not impact an historic resource. According to the RHASP EIR, an archaeological and historical records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) in June 2017. The records search found one archaeological resource within 0.5 miles of the RHASP area. While the properties within the RHASP area have been extensively altered by prior ground disturbance and development, there is the potential for RHASP implementation to affect previously unidentified archaeological resources. Future development within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with MM 4.3-1, which requires future developments under the Specific Plan to retain an archaeologist to determine if any found archaeological deposits meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a)) and/or unique archaeological resource (Public Resources Code § 21083.2(g)). As described by the RHASP EIR, there is no indication that there are burials present within the RHASP area and it is unlikely that human remains would be discovered during RHASP implementation. In the event that human remains are discovered during grading activities at any point during future development under the RHASP, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 address procedures to follow in the event of a discovery of suspected human remains. RHASP EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1: The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §151 26.4[b][3]) direct public agencies, wherever feasible--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, 57 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature,preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Preservation in place options suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid an archaeological site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the site with a chemically stable soil; and/or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for grading of 2 feet or more in depth below the natural or existing grade,the applicant/developer shall provide written evidence to the City Planning Division that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the applicant/developer to respond on an as-needed basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries and any archaeological requirements (e.g.,conditions of approval) that are applicable to the project. The applicant/developer is encouraged to conduct a field meeting prior to the start of construction activity with all construction supervisors to train staff to identify potential archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological materials area encountered during ground- disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has assessed the discovery and appropriate treatment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is determined. If discovered archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and any local Native American groups expressing interest following notification by the City, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that confirmed resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery, reburial relocation, deposit at a local museum that accepts such resources, or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as a historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that implementation of the RAHSP would not cause adverse impacts to historic resources, and impacts would be less than significant. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource is defined as something that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) listed in,or determined eligible for listing in,the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by the Project's Lead Agency. Implementation of the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as there are no eligible historical resources on the Project site. The California Register of Historical Resources defines a "historical resource" as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or(4) has yielded,or has the potential to yield,information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 58 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on historical aerials, the Project site was used as agricultural land from as early as 1946 until 1963, By 1980, the site was developed with the existing commercial office building and an additional building, which was demolished by 2009. The existing commercial office building at the northwest corner of the site was built in 1973 and has undergone various tenant improvements, additions and exterior modifications. The building does not consist of a historic resource because it has been used for typical commercial office uses, which are not of historical significance. There also are no architecturally important aspects to the building. Additionally, the building is not associated with an individual of local, regional, state, or national historical significance. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to historic resources. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR describes that with implementation of MM 4.3-1, impacts to archaeological resources from buildout of the RHASP would be less than significant.The Project site has been previously disturbed from past uses that involve grading, building construction, and building demolition of the southern parcel, and grading and building construction on the northern parcel. Because the site has previously been disturbed, there is reduced potential for the Project to impact and archeological resources. However, the Project may result in excavation into the underlying older alluvium where undiscovered archaeological resources could exist, including archeological resources that are also tribal cultural resources. RHASP MM 4.3-1 requires the retention of an archaeologist for archaeological monitoring. With implementation of MM 4.3-1, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource and impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. C) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR describes that impacts relating to the discovery of human remains would be less than significant. The Project site has been previously disturbed, as described above, and has not been previously used as a cemetery. It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed Project would result in the disturbance of human remains. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that disturbance of the site shall halt until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative. The Coroner would also be contacted pursuant to Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be of Native American descent,the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC would then be required to contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who would then serve as a consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98) would reduce potential impacts involving disturbance to human remains would be less than significant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate proposed Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding cultural resources. There have not been 1)changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) PPP CUL-1: Should human remains be discovered during Project construction, the Project would be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the body until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe cultural resources impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project;therefore,no new or revised mitigation measures are required for cultural resources. Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1: The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b][3]) direct public agencies, wherever feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature,preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Preservation in place options suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid an archaeological site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the site with a chemically stable soil; and/or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for grading of 2 feet or more in depth below the natural or existing grade,the applicant/developer shall provide written evidence to the City Planning Division that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the applicant/developer to respond on an as-needed basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries and any archaeological requirements (e.g.,conditions of approval) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- that are applicable to the project. The applicant/developer is encouraged to conduct a field meeting prior to the start of construction activity with all construction supervisors to train staff to identify potential archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological materials area encountered during ground- disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has assessed the discovery and appropriate treatment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is determined. If discovered archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and any local Native American groups expressing interest following notification by the City, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15 1 26.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that confirmed resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery, reburial relocation, deposit at a local museum that accepts such resources, or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as a historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. (Applicable to the proposed Project and will be included in its MMRP). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.6 Energy Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No New Change in Information Information Technical Impact Project or Showing Identifying Changes No Circumstances Greater New or Impact Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Result in potentially significant environmental ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ renewable energy or energy efficiency? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP EIR analyzed energy consumption on pages 4.14-19 to 4.14-28. The RHASP Final EIR described that new development within the RHASP would increase demand for electricity and natural gas services provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) and SoCalGas. Implementing development projects would be required to adhere to the current version of the California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Future development within the Specific Plan would also be required to adhere to the provisions of CALGreen,which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The RHASP is not anticipated to result in a substantial demand for energy that would require expanded supplies or the construction of other infrastructure or expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the RHASP would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR found that the RHASP would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Construction During construction of the proposed Project would consume energy in three general forms: 1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project site, construction worker travel to and from the Project site, as well as delivery truck trips; 2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and 3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Construction activities related to redevelopment of the site for new residential and commercial uses would be permitted to require compliance with existing fuel standards, machinery efficiency standards, and CARB requirements that limit idling of trucks. Through compliance with existing standards the Project would not result in demand for fuel greater on a per-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, construction-related fuel consumption by the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use compared with other construction sites in the region, and impacts would be less than significant. Operation Once operational, the Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for fuel tanks. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the building, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances, parking lot and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity, natural gas, and water to the areas where they would be consumed. This use of energy is typical for urban development, and no operational activities or land uses would occur that would result in extraordinary energy consumption. The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by the City that the Project shall comply with the adopted California Energy Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 6). The City's administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy- efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. Thus, operation of the Project would not use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful manner, and no operational energy impacts would occur. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that buildout of the RHASP would not obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are designed to ensure new and existing buildings achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality.These measures (Title 24, Part 6) are listed in the California Code of Regulations. The California Energy Commission is responsible for adopting, implementing and updating building energy efficiency. Local city and county enforcement agencies have the authority to verify compliance with applicable building codes, including energy efficiency. All development is required to comply with the adopted California Energy Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 6), which is ensured through the City's development permitting process. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate proposed Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding energy. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe energy impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for energy. Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No Change in Information Information Technical New Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact Circumstances Greater New or No Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR discussed impacts related to geology and soils on pages 4.4-1 through 4.4-12. The RHASP Final EIR described that the nearest active fault to the RHASP area is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, which is located approximately ten miles to the southwest. The RHASP area is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults cross the area. The RHASP area lies within a region of active faulting and seismicity in Southern California. Potential regional sources for major ground-shaking hazards include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, and Elsinore fault zones. While such shaking would be less severe from an earthquake that originates at a greater distance from the RHASP area, the effects could potentially be damaging to buildings and supporting infrastructure within the RHASP area. It is likely that the RHASP area would be subject to a moderate or larger earthquake occurring close enough to produce strong ground shaking at the RHASP area. Future development within the RHASP area would be required to ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 65 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- conform to the seismic design requirements of the most current CBC (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or grading and building permit issuance for construction) which would reduce anticipated impacts related to the proximity of earthquake faults by requiring structures to be built to withstand seismic ground shaking. Additionally, projects would need to comply with the Tustin City Code,Article 8, Chapter 1, and Chapter 9 (Grading and Excavation) which regulates grading, drainage, and cuts and fills. Grading permits are required for all development sites requiring excavation, fills, and paving. Building permits are issued for a site graded under a valid precise grading permit. According to the RHASP Final EIR,most of the RHASP is mapped as within a liquefaction zone. However,site- specific geotechnical investigations would be required for implementing development projects prior to approval of a grading permit. Remedial grading including the replacement of unsuitable soil materials with suitable engineered fill materials can preclude liquefaction impacts. However, the RHASP is not within a landscape hazard area and the ground surface of the RHASP area is relatively flat. Therefore, the RHASP would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving landslides. The RHASP Final EIR described that, where future development projects would disturb one or more acres of soil, or where a project would disturb less than one acre but is a part of a larger development plan that totals one or more acres, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process requires coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include erosion-control and sediment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs)to be implemented throughout the construction process which would prevent or reduce erosion. Erosion- control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. For future development projects that would disturb less than one acre, the City requires an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan be prepared. Upon completion of projects, sites would be fully developed and landscaped. The potential for soil erosion or loss would be extremely minimal. According to the RHASP Final EIR, lateral spreading typically occurs adjacent to slopes and creek channels. Considering the general topography of the terrain,the potential for lateral spreading to occur in the RHASP area would be low. Future development projects in the RHASP area would be required to evaluate geological conditions in compliance with the City's Municipal Code. Compliance would preclude potentially significant impacts. Ground subsidence is the lowering of the ground surface over a wide area, most often due to withdrawal of water or soil.Subsidence resulting from groundwater withdrawal has not been reported in the region. Groundwater levels in the Municipal Water District of Orange County's service area, which includes the RHASP area, are managed to avoid overdraft of the underlying groundwater basin. Soils that expand and contract in volume ("shrink-swell" pattern) are considered to be expansive and may cause damage to aboveground infrastructure as a result of density changes that shift overlying materials. Soils testing to determine expansive characteristics is required for new development pursuant to the CBC. Where expansive soils are present, remedial grading including the replacement of unsuitable soil materials with suitable engineered fill materials is anticipated to be required. Development within the RHASP area would not require the use of septic tanks or assume the use of alternative wastewater disposal systems. Impacts related to paleontological resources were described on page 4.3-9 of the RHASP Final EIR. As described in the RHASP Final EIR, a paleontological records search was conducted at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles. The RHASP area has surface exposures of younger terrestrial Quaternary Terrace deposits. The records search identified no vertebrate fossil localities that lie directly within the RHASP area but that there are nearby localities from the same sedimentary deposits that probably occur subsurface in the RHASP area. Deeper excavations that extend down into older Quaternary deposits may encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens. Future development under the RHASP area would be required to comply with MM 4.3-2. MM 4.3-2 requires a paleontologist be retained to determine if any found paleontological resources require further treatment. RHASP EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the applicant shall provide a letter to the City of Tustin Community Development Department, or designee, from a paleontologist selected from the roll of qualified paleontologists --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- maintained by the County of Orange, stating that the applicant has retained this individual, and that the paleontologist shall provide on-call services in the event resources are discovered. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. If paleontological resources are discovered during any development project within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area, ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. If the find is determined by paleontologists to require further treatment, the area of discovery will be protected from disturbance while qualified paleontologists and appropriate officials, in consultation with a recognized museum repository (e.g., National History Museum of Los Angeles County), determine an appropriate treatment plan a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that buildout of the RHASP would not result in any significant impacts in relation to a rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Map. The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The Project site does not contain and is not in the vicinity of an earthquake fault.The closest earthquake fault is the Newport- Inglewood Fault, located approximately 10 miles to the southwest. Because the Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone and the site does not include, or adjacent to a fault, impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map would not occur. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The Final EIR concluded that impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements.The Project site is located within a seismically active region of Southern California. As mentioned previously, the closest earthquake fault is the Newport- Inglewood Fault, located approximately 10 miles to the southwest. Thus, moderate to strong ground shaking can be expected at the site. The amount of motion can vary depending upon the distance to the fault, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the local geology. Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an earthquake epicenter, that consists of poorly consolidated material such as alluvium, and in response to an earthquake of great magnitude. Structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), included in the Municipal Code as Section 8102. Compliance with the CBC would ensure earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soils onsite,and the probable strength of the ground motion.Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structures so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. Therefore, with CBC compliance, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking more than other developments in Southern California. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. iii. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The Final EIR concluded that impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant with compliance with the CBC. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine-grained sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below ground surface. Lateral spreading is a form of seismic ground failure due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer.As described in the RHASP Final EIR,the Project site is located within the liquefaction hazard zone (CGS 2021). However,the Project would be required to comply with the CBC, as included in the City's Municipal Code. Additionally, as required by City Code and the CBC, prior to the issuance of grading permits, a geotechnical report must be prepared including geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Project. Compliance with the CBC and the City's Municipal Code would reduce impacts related to liquefaction. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. iv. Landslides? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The Project site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the to the south. The site elevation ranges between approximately 106 and 108 feet above mean sea level (USGS 2021). The site is not near any hillsides or slope areas that could result in a landslide.Therefore,no impacts related to landslides would occur from redevelopment of the Project site. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. Consistent with the assumptions of the Final EIR, the proposed Project would involve excavation, grading, and construction activities that would disturb soil and leave exposed soil on the ground surface. As such, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the City's grading standards and erosion control measures, as verified through the permitting and plan check process. Additionally, the Construction General Permit (CGP; Order No. R8-2002-001 1) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), regulates construction activities to minimize water pollution, including sediment. The proposed Project would be subject to the NPDES permitting regulations, including implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs during grading and construction, which would be required during construction permitting of the Project. Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from project-related grading and construction activities.After completion of construction,the Project site would be developed with 68 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- six mixed use buildings, new paved parking lot, and landscape improvements, and would not contain exposed soil. Thus, the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be low. In addition, the City of Tustin requires new development projects to prepare a WQMP including Low Impact Development BMPs to reduce the potential of erosion and/or sedimentation through site design and structural treatment control. Implementation of the WQMP and BMPs is verified through the City's permitting process. Therefore,the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to soil erosion. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to unstable geologic units and soil would be less than significant with compliance to regulatory requirements. As described above, the Project site is relatively flat, and does not contain nor is adjacent to any significant slope or hillside area.The Project would not create slopes. Thus, on or off-site landslides would not occur from implementation of the Project. As described previously, the Project site is within a liquefaction hazard area. Prior to issuance of grading permits, pursuant to the CBC, included as Section 8102 of the City's Municipal Code, a geotechnical report must be prepared for the Project. The report would provide CBC regulations for the proposed development to reduce the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement to a less than significant level and would be verified by the City through the building plan check and development permitting process, and would reduce potential impacts related to liquefaction, settlement, and ground collapse to a less than significant level. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant with compliance to regulatory requirements. Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or well as the moisture content changes;the shrinking or swelling can shift,crack,or break structures built on such soils.Arid or semiarid areas with seasonal changes of soil moisture experiences,such as southern California, have a higher potential of expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a geotechnical report would be prepared which will evaluate the potential for expansive soils onsite. In addition, as described previously, compliance with the CBC would be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval to ensure that Project structures would withstand the effects of related to ground movement, including expansive soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 69 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts would not occur related to septic tanks. The proposed Project would connect to existing sewer lines within Red Hill Avenue. No septic tanks are proposed. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The proposed Project would demolish the existing building and construct new mixed-use buildings. Earthmoving activities, including grading and trenching activities, would have the potential to disturb previously unknown paleontological resources if earthmoving activities occur at significant depths below previously disturbed soils. However, the proposed Project would implement RHASP EIR MM 4.3-2, which would require retention of a paleontologist and paleontological monitoring. With implementation MM 4.3-2, potential impacts to paleontological resources and unique geologic features would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding geology and soils. There have not been 1) changes to the project that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No new impacts nor substantially more severe geology and soils impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for geology and soils. Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the applicant shall provide a letter to the City of Tustin Community Development Department, or designee, from a paleontologist selected from the roll of qualified paleontologists maintained by the County of Orange, stating that the applicant has retained this individual, and that the paleontologist shall provide on-call services in the event resources are discovered. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. If paleontological resources are discovered during any development project within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area, ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. If the find is determined by paleontologists to require further treatment, the area of discovery will be protected from disturbance while qualified paleontologists and appropriate officials, in consultation with a recognized museum repository (e.g., National History Museum of Los Angeles County), determine an appropriate treatment plan (Applicable to the proposed Project and will be included in its MMRP). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 71 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No Change in Information Information Technical New Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact Circumstances Greater New or No Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to greenhouse gas emission on pages 4.5-1 through 4.5-22. The EIR described that construction of the future development within the RHASP would generate temporary Greenhouse Gas Emissions ("GHG") emissions primarily due to the operation of construction equipment and truck trips. Site preparation and grading typically generate the greatest amount of emissions due to the use of grading equipment and soil hauling. Operational emissions related to the RHASP include area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating; emissions from waste, emissions from water and wastewater use, and mobile source. For mobile sources,the estimate of total daily trips associated with the RHASP was based on vehicle trip data provided in the traffic study.Annual emissions from implementation of the RHASP would total approximately 9.1 MT of CO2e per service population. Under a worst-case scenario, these emissions would substantially exceed the 4.1 MT CO2e per year threshold. MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-3 would also reduce project-related operational GHG emissions. Further,development within the RHASP area would locate a mix of residential,commercial (retail and office), and other land uses proximate to nearby public transportation. Increased use of public transportation, walking, and biking would help reduce mobile GHG emissions from vehicle trips. The RHASP would be consistent with the policies and initiatives of State GHG reduction programs as well as the regional RTP/SCS. In addition, development with the RHASP area would be required to comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which include measures to ensure new development has solar-ready roofs, and energy and water efficient building design, appliances, and fixtures. Furthermore, future development within the RHASP area would be required to comply with the City's AB 341 commitments to increase solid waste diversion to 50 percent within the City. However, GHG emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. As described by the RHASP EIR, development within the RHASP area would be able to achieve emissions reductions with the following considerations: • Future legislative actions and policies provided in CARB's Scoping Plan would be responsible for guiding GHG reductions for new development in accordance with State goals; • Future development within the Specific Plan area would increase local transit access and would help reduce mobile sources of local GHG emissions within the Specific Plan area; and • Buildout of the Specific Plan would be consistent with State GHG Reduction Programs as well as the regional RTP/SCS. With the above conditions,the future development within the RHASP would demonstrate compliance with the State's GHG reduction targets, which would help reduce potential GHG emissions generated by development within the RHASP.Therefore,the RHASP EIR concluded that implementation of the RHASP would --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 72 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- not conflict with State regulations to reduce GHG emissions or with the policies and initiatives of the 2016- 2040 RTP/SCS. RHASP EIR Mitigation Measures See RHASP MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-3, above, in Section 5.3, Air Quality. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that despite implementation of MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2- 3, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. The majority of construction GHG emissions would occur from equipment exhaust,construction-related vehicular activity, and construction worker automobile trips. The majority of operational GHG emissions would occur from vehicle trips to and from the Project site. The proposed Project would also create GHG emissions from energy usage during operations. The emissions from the Project would be less than those anticipated by the Final EIR. As detailed previously, up to 160 dwelling units could potentially be developed on the Project site based on residential allocation within the RHASP. The proposed Project would only develop 137 of the 160 dwelling units analyzed for the Project site. Additionally,the Project would only develop 7,000 SF of the 30,000 SF analyzed within TAZ 1. The smaller residential density and commercial retail square footage would lead to a reduced number of vehicle trips. Additionally, vehicle trips would be reduced due to the mixed-use aspect of the Project, with local-serving retail commercial and residential amenities including a fitness center, pool, and spa.Therefore, the GHG emissions generated by the proposed Project would be less than those identified by the RHASP Final EIR. Furthermore, Project GHG emissions would be reduced through implementation of RHASP EIR MM 4.2-1, with requires the construction of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and MM 4.2-2, which requires implementation of a vanpooling program. Additionally, the Project would include energy efficient appliances, bike parking, pedestrian-oriented retail, and preferential parking spaces for alternatively fueled vehicles pursuant to RHASP EIR MM 4.2-3. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant and the RHASP would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations related to reducing GHG Emissions. The CARB Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32. The CARB Scoping Plan recommendations serve as statewide measures to reduce GHG emissions levels. The proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable measures established in the Scoping Plan. The proposed Project would be implemented pursuant to the 2019 CALGreen Building (Title 24) requirements, and provide new land uses in a sustainable manner. The City's administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of proposed energy conservation measures during the permitting process,which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include increased insulation; use of energy and water efficient appliances; water efficient plumbing and fixtures; Low-E windows, high performance; heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); and more. In complying with the 2019 Title 24 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- standards, the Project would be implementing regulations that reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding greenhouse gas emissions. There have not been 1)changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe greenhouse gas emissions impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures with respect to greenhouse gas emissions impacts are required. Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures RHASP EIR MM 4.2-1 through 4.2-3, as detailed above in Section 5.3, Air Quality. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR MATERIALS Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No Change in Information Mitigation Technical New Project or Showing or Changes Impact Circumstances Greater Alternative or No Resulting in Significant to Reduce Additions Impact New Effects than Significant Significant Previous EIR Effect is Effects Declined a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to hazardous resources on pages 1-5 through 1-6 and on pages 4.6-1 through 4.6-12. According to the RHASP Final EIR, the types of uses and facilities allowed in the RHASP area may generate, store, use, distribute or dispose of hazardous materials such as oils, solvents, paints, diesel fuel, fertilizers and household chemicals. Implementation of the RHASP would not create a significant impact through the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials since all uses and facilities are required to comply with all applicable Federal, State and regional regulations which are intended to avoid impacts to the public or environment. If during the individual development review process, the City determines that a prospective user may generate inordinate quantities or unusual hazardous waste material, the proposed development may be subject to further review prior to approval. Future developments on sites with a current or former hazardous materially regulated facility would need to be evaluated in consultation with Orange County Health Care Authority-Environmental Health (OCHCA-EH) to determine if there is a contamination risk to the proposed land use. Remediation of a contaminated site to applicable standards for the proposed land use may be required as described in MM 4.6-1, as listed below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to the RHASP Final EIR, the nearest elementary schools to the RHASP area are Benjamin Beswick Elementary School, approximately 300 feet west of Red Hill Avenue, and Marjorie Veeh Elementary School, approximately 650 feet east of Red Hill Avenue. The nearest middle school is C.E. Utt Middle School, approximately 1,900 feet east of Red Hill Avenue. Tustin High School is adjacent to the RHASP area. The proposed land uses within the RHASP area does not propose any industrial uses which could potentially generate hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste in significant quantities that would have an impact to surrounding schools. The types of hazardous substances that would be routinely handled (e.g., pool chemicals, household cleaners, etc.) are similar to those found in schools and would have no impact on surrounding schools. The RHASP Final EIR described that the RHASP area is not included on a hazardous site list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC). However, review of regulatory databases through EDR,the California State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker, and the DTSC Envirostor indicate that there are multiple listings currently present within the RHASP area that has or previously had cases associated with hazardous material spills,violations or incidents. As such,the contamination status of each property with a current or former hazardous materially regulated facility would need to be evaluated, if and, when the site changes land use. Implementation of MM 4.6-1 would reduce potential impacts to the public or environment from a hazardous material site to a less than significant level. According to the RHASP Final EIR, implementation of the RHASP would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan,including the City of Tustin Emergency Operations Plan, which was revised in April 2014. The purpose of the Emergency Operations Plan is to provide guidance for the City's response to emergency situations from natural disasters, technological incidents, and National security emergencies. The Emergency Operations Plan describes procedures for the effective and efficient allocation response to a hazardous materials emergency. It establishes an emergency organization, assigns tasks, specifies policy and general procedures, and provides coordination of planning for all phases of emergency planning for a hazardous materials emergency. No revisions to the adopted Emergency Operations Plan, would be required as a result of implementation of the RHASP. Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction of future developments within the RHASP area. The Final EIR described that implementation of the RHASP would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The RHASP area is in a developed urban area and it is not adjacent to any wildland areas. There are no private airstrips located immediately adjacent to or near the RHASP area. While the City's southern boundary is approximately two miles north of Orange County's John Wayne Airport, the RHASP area is approximately four miles northeast of Orange County's John Wayne Airport. Because the RHASP area is not located within two miles of a private or public airport and is not located within the John Wayne Airport,Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), no impacts would occur. RHASP EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a human health risk evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division (OCHCA-EH) for any individual site application proposed on a site with a current or former hazardous materially regulated facility to determine if there is a contamination risk to the proposed land use. Remedial activities, if necessary, may be required, in consultation with OCHCA-EH. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that compliance with all applicable Federal, State and regional regulations, and implementation of RHASP EIR MM 4.6-1, would reduce potential impacts to the public or environment to less than significant level. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Construction The proposed construction activities would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints,solvents,oils,grease,and caulking during construction activities typical of residential construction. In addition, hazardous materials would routinely be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and state regulations that are implemented by the County of Orange and City of Tustin during building permitting for construction activities. Additionally, according to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB), the Project is not located on a former or current hazardous materially regulated facility.As such, RHASP MM 4.6-1 is not applicable to the proposed Project.As a result,hazardous material impacts related to construction materials would be less than significant. Operation Operation of the proposed Project includes activities related to multi-family residential and commercial development, which generally uses common hazardous materials, including: solvents,cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, and aerosol cans. Although the Project would utilize common types of hazardous materials,normal routine use of these products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project.Therefore, operational impacts related to routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the Project would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that compliance with all applicable Federal, State and regional regulations, and implementation of RHASP EIR MM 4.6-1, would reduce potential impacts to the public or environment to less than significant level. Construction Accidental Releases. While the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable regulations during construction activities would not pose health risks or result in significant impacts; improper use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes could result in accidental spills or releases, posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. To avoid an impact related to an accidental release, the use of BMPs during construction are implemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the NPDES General Construction Permit. Implementation of an SWPPP would minimize potential adverse effects to workers, the public, and the environment. Construction contract specifications would include strict on-site handling rules and BMPs that include, but are not limited to: • Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies; • Following manufacturers' recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction; • Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks; • Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and • Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals. Asbestos-Containing Materials. The use of asbestos-containing materials (a known carcinogen) and lead paint (a known toxin) was common in building construction prior to 1978 (the use of asbestos-containing --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 77 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- materials in concrete products was common through the 1950s). Asbestos is a carcinogen and is categorized as a hazardous air pollutant by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal asbestos requirements are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 61, Subpart M, and are enforced in the Project area by the SCAQMD. SCAQMD Rule 1403 establishes survey requirements, notification, and work practice requirements to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating during building renovation and demolition activities. Based on the age of the onsite building, it is possible that asbestos-containing building materials are present in the existing structures on the Project site. As a result, asbestos surveys and abatement would be required prior to demolition of the existing building pursuant to the existing SCAQMD, Cal/OSHA, and Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requirements. SCAQMD Rule 1403 requires notification of the SCAQMD prior to commencing any demolition or renovation activities that involve asbestos containing materials. Rule 1403 also sets forth specific procedures for the removal of asbestos and requires that an onsite representative trained in the requirements of Rule 1403 be present during the stripping, removing, handling, or disturbing of asbestos-containing materials. Mandatory compliance with the provisions of Rule 1403 would ensure that construction-related grading, clearing and demolition activities do not expose construction workers or nearby sensitive receptors to significant health risks associated with asbestos-containing materials. With compliance with AQMD Rule 1403, potential impacts related to asbestos being released into the environment would be less than significant, and consistent with the determinations in the Final EIR. Lead Based Materials. The onsite building was developed in 1973. Due to the age of construction, lead- based materials may also be located within existing structure on the Project site. The lead exposure guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provide regulations related to the handling and disposal of lead-based products. Federal regulations to manage and control exposure to lead-based paint is described in Code of Federal Regulations Title 29, Section 1926.62, and state regulations related to lead are provided in the California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 1532.1, as implemented by Cal-OSHA. These regulations cover the demolition, removal, cleanup, transportation, storage and disposal of lead-containing material. The regulations outline the permissible exposure limit, protective measures, monitoring and compliance to ensure the safety of construction workers exposed to lead-based materials. Cal/OSHA's Lead in Construction Standard requires project applicants to develop and implement a lead compliance plan when lead-based paint would be disturbed during construction or demolition activities. The plan must describe activities that could emit lead, methods for complying with the standard, safe work practices, and a plan to protect workers from exposure to lead during construction activities. In addition, Cal/OSHA requires 24-hour notification if more than 100 square feet of lead-based paint would be disturbed.As part of receiving Project permits,the applicant is required to submit verification to the City that the appropriate activities related to lead have occurred, which would reduce the potential of impacts related to lead-based materials to a less than significant level. Additionally, according to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB), the Project is not located on a former or current hazardous materially regulated facility. As such, RHASP MM 4.6-1 is not applicable to the proposed Project. As This is consistent with the Final EIR determination that compliance with existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Operation Operation of the proposed mixed-use development and associated areas involve use and storage of common hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, cleaning products, fuels, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides. Normal routine use of these typical commercially used products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project. Should future uses of the industrial warehouse utilize or store substantial amounts or acute types of hazardous materials, both federal and state governments require all businesses that handle --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- more than specified amounts of hazardous materials to submit a business plan to regulating agencies. With adherence of existing regulations, impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to hazardous material use near schools would be less than significant. The Project is directly adjacent to sports fields associated with Tustin High School, located at 1 171 EI Camino Real,Tustin, CA 92780. However, as noted in Sections 5.9(a) and 5.9(b), the proposed Project is a residential mixed-use project and is not anticipated to release hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes.Therefore,the proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that implementation of RHASP EIR MM 4.6-1 would reduce potential impacts to the public or environment from a hazardous material site to a less than significant level. According to DTSC and the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, nor are any of the adjacent properties(DTSC,SWRCB 2021).Government Code Section 65962.5 specifies lists of the following types of hazardous materials sites: hazardous waste facilities; hazardous waste discharges for which the State Water Resources Control Board has issued certain types of orders; public drinking water wells containing detectable levels of organic contaminants; underground storage tanks with reported unauthorized releases; and solid waste disposal facilities from which hazardous waste has migrated. Thus, the Project is not located on a hazardous materials site and impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that impacts related to airport hazards would be less than significant. John Wayne International Airport is located approximately 4.45 miles southwest of the Project site.The Project site is not within the John Wayne International Airport land use plan.Therefore,the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people working on the site and impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 79 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that the RHASP would not impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Construction The proposed construction activities,including equipment and supply staging and storage,would occur within the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas.The installation of new driveways and connections to existing and proposed infrastructure systems that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project would not require closure of Red Hill Avenue or San Juan Street. Any temporary lane closures needed for utility connections or driveway construction would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate vehicle circulation, as included within construction permits. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City's permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access or evacuation impacts to a less than significant level. Operation Direct access to the Project site would be provided from Red Hill Avenue by one driveway and San Juan Street by one driveway. The Project driveways and internal circulation would be required through the City's permitting procedures to meet the City's design standards to ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation. The Project is also required to provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers). The Fire Department and/or Public Works Department would review the development plans as part of the permitting procedures to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), included as Municipal Code Section 8104. As detailed in Section 5.17, Transportation,the proposed Project would result in approximately 1,001 fewer PCE daily trips, 22 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 84 fewer PCE PM peak hour trips than buildout of the site pursuant to the RHASP.Thus,the Project would not generate traffic that would impact roadway capacity in such a manner that would interfere with implementation of the City's emergency response or evacuation plan. As such, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to wildland fires. The Project site is within an urbanized area surrounded by residences, commercial uses, Tustin High School sports fields, and roadways. The Project site is not adjacent to any wildland areas. According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is not within an area identified as a Fire Hazard Area that may contain substantial fire risk or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a result, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding hazards and hazardous materials. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe hazards and hazardous materials impacts would result from the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for hazards and hazardous materials. Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a human health risk evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division (OCHCA-EH) for any individual site application proposed on a site with a current or former hazardous materially regulated facility to determine if there is a contamination risk to the proposed land use. Remedial activities, if necessary, may be required, in consultation with OCHCA-EH. (Not applicable to the Project as the site is not a current or former hazardous materially regulated facility). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 81 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No Change in Information Information Technical New Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact Circumstances Greater New or No Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ release of pollutants due to project inundation? h) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to hydrology and water quality on pages 1-6 and 4.7-1 through 4.7-15. According to the RHASP Final EIR, the RHASP area lies within a hydromodification zone. Receiving waters for the RHASP area consist of Peters Canyon Channel, San Diego Creek, and Newport Bay. Hydromodification would likely be a minimal concern since current regulations allow for discharge up to the current existing condition, which is developed in the RHASP. In addition, the receiving waters have several water quality impairments and several Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) as defined by the SWRCB. As part of its stormwater discharge permit with the SWRCB, the City must enforce development regulations consistent with the Stormwater Quality Technical Guidance document to limit discharge of TMDL pollutants. The TMDL pollutants for the combined receiving water include metals, nutrients, other organics, pesticides, pathogens,and siltation.Construction activities would loosen soils or remove stabilizing vegetation and expose areas of loose soil. These areas, if not properly stabilized during construction, could be subject --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- s2 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- to increased stormwater runoff and impact water quality. In compliance with NPDES regulations, the State of California requires that any construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil comply with the Construction General Permit. The permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Prior to issuance of any grading permits for any development project within the Specific Plan area,a WQMP would be submitted for review and approval to the City of Tustin Public Works Department. A preliminary WQMP would be submitted as part of the entitlement process for development projects; the preliminary WQMP would outline the required quantities of stormwater required to be treated and the appropriate treatment methods. A final WQMP would be submitted as part of final construction documents to identify the BMPs for the project. As an urbanized area, opportunities for large-scale water quality improvements (such as stormwater basins) within the RHASP area are limited. BMPs are structural or engineered devices and systems used to treat stormwater runoff before it is discharged into a drainage system (storm drain or channel). New developments would LID principles in their design as part of the WQMP requirements. The RHASP EIR described that the RHASP area is an urbanized environment that is primarily impervious. Because the area is primarily impervious, it does not contribute significantly to groundwater recharge. Implementation of the RHASP would not significantly change the amount of impervious surfaces in the RHASP area. Therefore, implementation of the RHASP would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in the coastal plain/Orange County Groundwater Basin. Based on the 2015 rate (1 22 gallons per capita per day), the estimated 1,520 residents and 722 employees from RHASP buildout would generate an additional water demand of approximately 273,524 gallons per day or 306.4 acre-feet per year (AFY). In comparison, buildout under the existing General Plan land use designations would result in an estimated increase of 1,371 employees, which would generate an additional water demand of approximately 167,262 gallons per day or 187.4 AFY. While there would be an increase in the water demand over the anticipated General Plan buildout, according to the demand and supply of water assumed in the Urban Water Management Plan, buildout of the proposed RHASP would be served from existing entitlements and new or expanded water entitlements would not be needed. The RHASP EIR described that because of the predominately developed nature of the RHASP area, it is anticipated that the storm drain system would largely maintain the same existing drainage patterns and connectivity. Construction within the RHASP area would not substantially increase or change the overall drainage areas from existing to the proposed condition. However, individual drainage areas could be slightly altered. Overall, it is anticipated that the RHASP will result in the conveyance of a similar amount of water to the storm drain system. Consequently, hydromodification measures may not be required but BMPs would be required to treat the drainage associated with the impervious areas. MM 4.7-1 requires an applicant to prepare a hydrology and hydraulics analysis demonstrating that the existing condition flow rates are not exceeded by project flow rates. As addressed in MM 4.7-1, future development would be required to apply for encroachment permits through the City for connection into the City storm drain infrastructure. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulation and implementation of MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-2 would mitigate potential significant impacts. According to the RHASP EIR,the Federal Emergency Management District(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) applicable to the RHASP area (FIRM Numbers 06059CO277J and 06059CO281 J) show that the RHASP is located within Flood Zone X. FEMA defines Zone X as areas of minimal flood hazard and is outside of the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. Therefore, no impact would occur. The RHASP area is located approximately ten miles from the Pacific Ocean and is approximately 100 feet above mean sea level. The California Geological Survey notes that the RHASP area is not within an area at risk of tsunami inundation (CGS). It is also unlikely that the RHASP area could be affected by a seiche, which occurs in large bodies of water such as a lake because there are no large water bodies proximate to the RHASP area. Peters Canyon Reservoir is the nearest body of water and is approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the RHASP area. Lastly, the RHASP area is flat and in a developed area; no inundation by mudflow would be expected. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RHASP EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the project applicant shall prepare and submit to the Department of Public Works a hydrology and hydraulics analysis demonstrating that the existing condition flow rates are not exceeded by the proposed project flow rates. MM 4.7-2: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan that do not have a direct connection to the City's existing storm drain system, shall provide to the Department of Public Works hydraulic analyses of the downstream storm drain system that demonstrate no significant impacts to the City storm drain infrastructure. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that implementation of the RHASP would have the potential to adversely impact water quality in downstream receiving waters through discharge of runoff that contains various pollutants of concern. However, compliance with the WQMP and NPDES permit would provide for the protection of surface water quality by avoiding and/or minimizing pollutant runoff into surface waters. Therefore, RHASP impacts to water quality would be less than significant. Construction Construction of the Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment, and then have the potential to mix with surface water runoff and degrade water quality. Pollutants of concern during Project construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and transport of sediment downstream compared to existing conditions. During a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. In addition, construction- related pollutants, such as chemicals, liquid and petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste, could be spilled, leaked, or transported via stormwater runoff into adjacent drainages and into downstream receiving waters. These types of water quality impacts during construction of the Project would be prevented through implementation of a SWPPP that is required to identify all potential sources of pollution that are reasonably expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site.The SWPPP would include construction BMPs such as: • Maximizing the permeable area, • Incorporating landscaped buffer areas, • Maximizing canopy interception with drought tolerant landscaping • Installation of Low flow infiltration within sand filter zones • Landscape design to capture and infiltrate runoff • Conveying roof run-off into treatment control facilities Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the appropriate BMPs as ensured through the City's construction permitting process,which would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,potential water quality degradation associated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant. Operation The proposed Project would operate multi-family residential and commercial uses,which would introduce the potential for pollutants such as, chemicals from cleaners, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles and trucks. These pollutants could potentially discharge into --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 84 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- surface waters and result in degradation of water quality. However,the proposed Project would be required to incorporate a WQMP with post-construction (or permanent) LID site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs. The LID site design would minimize impervious surfaces and provide infiltration of runoff into landscaped areas. The source control BMPs would minimize the introduction of pollutants that may result in water quality impacts; and treatment control BMPs that would treat stormwater runoff. The proposed Project would install an onsite storm drain system that would convey runoff to an infiltration system. This system would remove coarse sediment, trash, and pollutants (i.e., sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria, and pesticides). With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that are outlined in the Preliminary WQMP prepared by Fuscoe Engineering (Appendix A herein) that would be reviewed and approved by the City during the permitting and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. Redevelopment of the Project site would increase the impervious surfaces on the site from 15% to 92.4% of the site. However, the proposed Project would install an onsite storm drain system that would convey runoff to multiple infiltration systems that would capture, filter, and infiltrate runoff. In addition, the Project includes 11,325 SF of landscaping that would infiltrate stormwater onsite. As a result, the proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge; and the Project would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Thus,the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to runoff increases would be less than significant with implementation of RHASP EIR MM 4.7-1 and 4.7-2. Construction As described previously, existing City regulations require the Project to implement a SWPPP during construction activities, that would implement erosion control BMPs, such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags,stabilized construction entrance/exit,hydroseeding,etc.to reduce the potential for siltation or erosion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operation The proposed Project would introduce additional impervious surfaces to the of the site.The pervious surfaces remaining on the site would be landscaped. There would be no substantial areas of bare or disturbed soil onsite subject to erosion. In addition, the Project is required by the City and RHASP MM 4.7-1 to implement a WQMP that would provide operational BMPs to ensure that operation of the industrial warehouse would not result in erosion or siltation. With implementation of these regulations, impacts related to erosion or siltation onsite or off-site would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to runoff increases would be less than significant with implementation of RHASP EIR MM 4.7-1 and 4.7-2. As discussed in Section 5.10(a) above, during construction, a SWPPP would be implemented to control drainage and maintain drainage patterns across the proposed Project.Also,as discussed in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the proposed Project (see Appendix A), drainage runoff from the Project site would be adequately handled by the proposed Project's drainage system. The Project would include onsite storm drain lines to convey onsite runoff to infiltration chambers to provide the appropriate design capture volume, and the Project would not result in flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to runoff increases would be less than significant with implementation of RHASP EIR MM 4.7-1 and 4.7-2.See response to Section 5.10(c)(ii),above. Redevelopment of the Project site would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to runoff increases would be less than significant with implementation of RHASP EIR MM 4.7-1 and 4.7-2. According to FEMA's FIRM Flood Map 06059CO277J, the Project site is classified as Zone X, which are areas with minimal or 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard. In addition, the Project it must comply with Municipal Code Article 9, Chapter 8 regarding encroachment into flooding areas. Therefore,the proposed Project would not impede, or redirect flood flows and impacts would be less than significant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 86 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to flood hazard, tsunami, and seiche zones would be less than significant. As discussed in Response 5.10(c)(iv),the Project site is not within a flood hazard area. As such, the Project site is at slight risk of inundation during a storm event. However, proper storage requirements for hazardous materials such as fuels and oils would be followed in order to limit the risk of release of pollutants due to site inundation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to inundation in a flood hazard zone.Also,the Project site is located over 10.61 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and is not located within a tsunami zone. Thus, impacts related to tsunamis would not occur. A seiche is the sloshing of a closed body of water from earthquake shaking. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. Peters Canyon Reservoir is the nearest body of water and is approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the Project site. Therefore, impacts related to seiche would not occur. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that implementation of the RHASP would have the potential to adversely impact water quality in downstream receiving waters through discharge of runoff that contains various pollutants of concern. However, compliance with the WQMP and NPDES permit would provide for the protection of surface water quality by avoiding and/or minimizing pollutant runoff into surface waters. Therefore, RHASP impacts to water quality would be less than significant. As described previously, the Project would be required to have an approved SWPPP, which would include construction BMPs to minimize the potential for construction related sources of pollution. For operations, the proposed Project would be required to implement source control BMPs to minimize the introduction of pollutants; and treatment control BMPs to treat runoff. With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that would be required by the City during the permitting and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. Also, the Project site is within the coastal plain/Orange County Groundwater Basin (UWMP 2020). Groundwater production in fiscal year 2019-20 was expected to be approximately 325,000 acre-feet but declined to 286,550 acre-feet primarily due to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances impacted wells being turned off around February 2020 (UWMP 2020). However, according to the 2020 UWMP groundwater levels are expected to return to normal soon. Because pumping in the groundwater basin is managed, which limits the allowable withdrawal of water from the basin by water purveyors, and the Project does not involve groundwater pumping (as water supplies would be provided by the City). As detailed in Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems, in Response 5.19.16, the demand for water supplies than from the RHASP, anticipated in the Final EIR, was to be met by the City's available water supply. Additionally, according to --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the Municipal Water District of Orange County's (MWDOC) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, increased demands from further development in Orange County are expected to be met by existing water supplies. Overall,the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a groundwater management plan, and no impacts would occur. Therefore,the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and no new substantial environmental impacts would occur in comparison to the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding hydrology and water quality. There have not been 1) changes related to the development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;or 3)the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe hydrology and water quality impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for hydrology and water quality. Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the project applicant shall prepare and submit to the Department of Public Works a hydrology and hydraulics analysis demonstrating that the existing condition flow rates are not exceeded by the proposed project flow rates. (Applicable to the proposed Project and implemented through preparation of the Preliminary WQMP). MM 4.7-2: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan that do not have a direct connection to the City's existing storm drain system, shall provide to the Department of Public Works hydraulic analyses of the downstream storm drain system that demonstrate no significant impacts to the City storm drain infrastructure. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 88 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Applicable to the proposed Project and implemented through preparation of the Preliminary WQMP). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 89 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.1 1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No Change in Information Information Technical New Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact Circumstances Greater New or No Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to land use on pages 1-6 through 1-7 and 4.8-1 through 4.8- 27. The RHASP EIR described that the RHASP area is developed and contains commercial, retail shopping centers, professional office,residential,and motel uses,and an institutional use.There are also vacant parcels within the Specific Plan area. Land uses adjacent to but outside of the RHASP area are characterized by a mix of attached single-family and multi-family units, parks, and public schools. The RHASP's goal is to promote revitalization of the area by adding a mix of land uses. The RHASP would not introduce new roadways or infrastructure that would bisect or transect the existing uses.The allowable massing and heights of the future developments would not create significant visual barriers or separations. Therefore, the proposed RHASP would not divide an established area but rather would better connect the community by establishing a pedestrian-friendly urban environment. According to the RHASP, properties in the RHASP area have the following General Plan land use designations: Community Commercial (CC) on approximately 90 percent of the properties; Planned Community Commercial/ Business (PCCB) on approximately 8 percent of the properties; and Professional Office (PO) on approximately 2 percent of the properties. The RHASP required a General Plan Amendment to update the Land Use Map to show the boundaries of the RHASP, and an update the General Plan Land Use Element and other related conforming amendments to General Plan exhibits to ensure that the RHASP and the General Plan, as amended, are internally consistent. The RHASP's new development potential is 325,000 additional square feet non-residential development and 500 additional dwelling units.The RHASP assumes 395 additional dwelling units and 175,000 additional square feet of non-residential uses north of I-5 and 105 additional dwelling units and 150,000 additional square feet of non-residential uses south of I-5. Implementation of the RHASP would not result in significant conflicts related to relevant Tustin General Plan goals and policies. The RHASP requires a zoning amendment to create the "Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13)". The adoption of the zoning amendment would correct any inconsistencies between proposed and existing zoning within the RHASP area. a) Physically divide an established community? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that the RHASP would not physically divide an established community and no impacts would occur. The proposed Project would be developed to be consistent with the General Plan, RHASP, and zoning designations and would not introduce roadways or other infrastructure improvements that would bisect or transect the Project site or surrounding area. The proposed residential and commercial uses would be compatible with the surrounding land uses, as it would introduce new mixed- 90 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- use buildings in an area with similar uses. Furthermore, access to the site would be provided by driveways from the adjacent roadway.Thus,impacts related to physically dividing an established community would not occur from the proposed Project. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The documents regulating land use for the Project site include the RHASP, City's General Plan, and the City's Municipal Code. The proposed Project's relationship to these planning documents is described below. RHASP. The Project site is designated as Mixed Use by the RHASP.The Project would develop 137 dwelling units, which is below the 160 dwelling units assumed for the Project site by the RHASP and RHASP EIR. Additionally, the Project would develop 7,000 SF of commercial retail, with is below the 30,000 SF of commercial space assumed for the site by the RHASP and the RHASP EIR. Additionally,the proposed Project would comply with RHASP goals, as shown in Table LU-1. Table LU-1: Project Consistency with RHASP Policies RHASP Goals Project Consistency Goal 1- Enhance streetscape,landscape, and public Consistent. The proposed Project would enhance the amenities throughout the Specific Plan area. streetscape along Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street by replacing the existing sidewalks and curbs with enhanced pedestrian amenities and plazas. Goal 2 — Improve visual and functional connections Consistent. The Project would provide visual and linkages between Red Hill Avenue,surrounding connections between the residential and commercial residential neighborhoods, adjacent public and uses adjacent to the site through development of six institutional uses, and Interstate 5. mixed-use buildings, with similar heights to surrounding development. The Project would provide neighborhood-serving retail for residential uses surrounding the RHASP area.The Project would construct a bulb-out on the corner of Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street to promote pedestrian connectivity. Goal 3 — Balance flexible and diverse land uses Consistent. The Project proposes development of that foster economic development opportunities and 7,000 SF of commercial retail,which would provide support housing opportunities. Land use in the economic development opportunities to the project area will maximize residential opportunities community through job creation. Additionally, the along with neighborhood-serving retail and Project would maximize residential units on the site commercial uses by constructing 137 multi-family residential units with 6 low-income units. Goal 4 — Streamline processes to support future Not Applicable. This goal is intended for the City of development in the Specific Plan area. Tustin. Goal 5 — Improve pedestrian and bicycle Consistent.The Project would construct a bulb-out on accessibility and vehicular circulation to minimize the corner of Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street potential conflicts between different users and to promote pedestrian connectivity. Additionally, improve mobility throughout the Specific Plan area the Project would include multiple pedestrian plazas and connectivity with the greater community ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 91 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project and bike racks to promote alternative transportation and improve mobility. Goal 6 — Implement parking standards that reflect Consistent. In compliance with RHASP standards,the verifiable demand and consider future land uses in Project would provide 227 parking spaces. The the area. ratio for residential stalls would be 1.45 stalls per unit and parking for retail area would be provided at 4 stalls per 1,000 SF. Additionally, the project would provide 12 parallel parking stalls along Red Hill Avenue. Goal 7 — Coordinate existing and future Consistent. As demonstrated in Section 5.19, Utilities development with infrastructure capacity. and Service Systems, the Project would be served by existing and expanded infrastructure. Goal 8 — Ensure development within the Specific Consistent. As described in Section 5.3, Air Quality, Plan area is sensitive to and compatible with and Section 5.13, Noise, the Project would not have surrounding land uses. significant impacts on adjacent sensitive land uses related to pollutant emissions, noise, and vibration. General Plan. The Project site is designated as Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) by the City's General Plan. As described above, the proposed Project would be consistent with the RHASP, and therefore, would be consistent with the General Plan. No impact related to the General Plan land use designation would occur from implementation of the Project. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding land use and planning.There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe land use and planning impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required regarding land use and planning. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.1 2 MINERAL RESOURCES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No Change in Information Information Technical New Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact Circumstances Greater New or No Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to mineral resources on pages 1-7. According to the RHASP EIR, the California Geological Survey does not identify any known or available mineral resources on or adjacent to the RHASP area.Therefore,the RHASP EIR concluded that no impacts to mineral resources would occur. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that no impacts would occur related to mineral resources. The Project site is partially developed with a commercial office building and associated parking and is not used for mineral extractions. The Project site is identified as within an MRZ-1 zone, which are areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. No known mineral resources are located on the site. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not result in impacts related to mineral resources. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. As described previously, the Project site is identified as within an MRZ-1 zone by the CGS and has a RHASP designation of Mixed Use. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local plan, and no impacts would occur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 94 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding mineral resources. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe mineral resources impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required regarding mineral resources. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.13 NOISE Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project result in: Substantial New New Minor No Change in Information Information Technical New Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact Circumstances Greater New or No Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Generation of a substantial temporary or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR Impacts related to noise were analyzed on pages 1-7 and 4.9-1 through 4.9-19 of the RHASP Final EIR. The RHASP EIR described that operation of equipment during various phases of construction could generate Leqs of approximately 74 to 87 dBA at the closest receptors, which are residences 50 feet from the RHASP area along and adjacent to various roadways, such as Red Hill Avenue, Mitchell Avenue, and San Juan Street. Such noise levels would exceed ambient noise levels in the area. As indicated in Table 4.9-4 of the RHASP EIR, ambient noise levels range from 60.8 to 70.0 dBA and potentially already exceed the City's 55 dBA daytime standards for residential uses. However, equipment noise levels are based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the highest-volume individual pieces of equipment. These estimates do not take into account any intervening structures that would block noise from construction sites; therefore, these estimates represent a conservative assessment of temporary construction noise levels within the RHASP area.Section 4,Chapter 6 of the Tustin City Code exempts noise from construction activities between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays, excluding City observed Federal holidays and requires construction to occur within these hours. Construction of individual projects within the RHASP area would be required to occur within the hours, as specified in the Tustin City Code, per Section 4616(2). Additionally, construction-related noise increases would be temporary in nature, and the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the construction day, as equipment would be turned off when they are not in use. The typical operating cycle for a piece of construction equipment would involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. Implementation of MM 4.9-1 would ensure construction noise associated with future development does not exceed 85 dBA Leq, through the use of a site-specific noise reduction features. MM 4.9-1 provides Best Management Practices such as noise barriers, using sound dampening mats or blankets on engine compartments of heavy mobile equipment, and limiting haul trips. With implementation of MM 4.9-1 as well as compliance with the Tustin City Code, construction noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 96 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to the RHASP EIR, consistent with the General Plan Noise Element, noise impacts at new noise- sensitive receptors within the RHASP area would be significant if new residences would be exposed to exterior noise that exceeds 65 dBA CNEL or interior noise that exceeds 45 dBA CNEL. Noise impacts to new commercial/non-residential land uses in the RHASP area would be significant if the exterior noise exceeds 67 dBA Leq or interior noise exceeds 50 dBA Leq. Consistent with the Tustin City Code, noise impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors would be significant if implementation of the RHASP would result in noise that exceeds 55 dBA Leq from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and 50 dBA Leq from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The RHASP would allow for up to 500 additional residential units (integrated mixed-use) and 325,000 additional SF of new non-residential uses in the RHASP area. The primary noise sources from these land uses include landscaping, maintenance activities, mechanical equipment, and delivery and trash hauling. Noise levels from commercial HVAC systems typically range from 60 to 70 dBA Leq at 15 feet from the source. Based on this noise range, noise-sensitive receptors located as close as 50 feet to HVAC units would not be exposed to equipment noise exceeding 60 dBA Leq, which exceeds the 55 dBA Leq standard as established by the General Plan Noise Element. Existing ambient noise levels along arterial roadways and near sensitive receptors in the Specific Plan area were approximately 61 to 70 dBA Leq. The estimated noise level from HVAC equipment at the nearest existing noise-sensitive receptors would not exceed these measured ambient noise levels. Noise from individual trucks moving or idling in the RHASP area may be as high as 70 dBA at adjacent properties. However,California State law prohibits trucks from idling for longer than five minutes.Tustin City Code Chapter 3,Section 4313 prohibits the collection of solid waste from within 200 feet of any residences in the City between the hours of 6:00 PM and 7:00 AM and on Federal holidays. Therefore, noise from increased waste delivery would not disturb residences during the hours when people are typically sleeping and more sensitive to noise. Delivery and trash truck trips in the RHASP area would be a periodic source of operational noise. However, because trash trucks would be required to comply with the Tustin City Code standards for trash collection vehicles and delivery trucks would be subject to State regulations,there would not be a significant noise impact. The City requires proposed developments to prepare and submit an acoustical report to demonstrate compliance with the General Plan and to identify all reasonable and feasible measures to satisfy the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard and 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard. Typical building construction provides a noise reduction of approximately 12 dBA with "windows open" and a minimum 24 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed" (EPA, 1974). However, because exterior noise levels exceed 70 dBA CNEL in areas of the RHASP where residential units are proposed, an interior noise analysis based on site-specific architectural floor plans and elevations would be required, to satisfy the City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element, Table N-3, 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard for residential units. With implementation of existing regulations, impacts related to development of residential units within the RHASP area would be anticipated to be less than significant. The RHASP EIR described that construction of individual projects within the RHASP area could generate vibration impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. The City has not adopted any thresholds for construction or operational groundborne vibration impacts. The vibration thresholds established by the FTA are 65 VdB for buildings where low ambient vibration is essential for interior operations (such as hospitals and recording studios), 72 VdB for residences and buildings where people normally sleep, including hotels, and 75 VdB for institutional land uses with primary daytime use (such as churches and schools). 100 VdB is the threshold where minor damage to fragile buildings may occur.Vibration would be considered significant if it exceeded the 72 VdB vibration threshold for residential buildings,75 VdB vibration threshold for institutional land uses, or 100 VdB for fragile buildings. These thresholds apply to "frequent events," which the FTA defines as vibration events occurring more than 70 times per day. Because the Tustin City Code limits the hours of construction, residents would not be exposed to substantial vibration levels exceeding 72 VdB during the hours when people normally sleep. It is unknown whether impact pile drivers would be used for any development within the RHASP area. However, vibration levels up to 103 VdB from impact pile drivers would exceed the 100 VdB threshold for fragile buildings, such as the structure at 14462 Red Hill Avenue, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 97 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- designated by Tustin as a historic resource. Vibration levels up to 79 VdB would exceed the threshold of 75 VdB for institutional land uses like schools with primary daytime use.The temporary use of impact pile drivers may disturb classes and other educational activities at nearby schools, such as Benjamin Beswick Elementary School and Marjorie Veeh Elementary School. Therefore, vibration impacts would be potentially significant. MM 4.9-2 would minimize and avoid vibration impacts related to pile-driving. Potential construction vibration impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. According to the RHASP EIR, there are no private airstrips located immediately adjacent to or near the RHASP area. While the City's southern boundary is approximately two miles north of Orange County's John Wayne Airport, the RHASP area is approximately four miles northeast of Orange County's John Wayne Airport. Because the RHASP area is not located within two miles of a private or public airport and is not located within the John Wayne Airport AELUP, no impacts would occur. RHASP EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1:Construction Noise. Prior to the approval of grading plans,the City of Tustin Building Division shall ensure that all plans include Best Management Practices to minimize construction noise. Construction noise Best Management Practices may include the following: • Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards, and all stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive use near the construction activity • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest to the construction activities. • The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment by Tustin City Code Article 4, Chapter 6, Section 4617. The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck noise • Construction activity within 50 feet of occupied noise sensitive uses shall reduce construction noise levels exceeding 85 dBA Leq at nearby sensitive land uses by one or more of the following methods to reduce noise to below 85 dBA Leq: o Install temporary construction noise barriers within the line of site of occupied sensitive uses for the duration of construction activities that could generate noise exceeding 85 dBA Leq. The noise control barrier(s) must provide a solid face from top to bottom and shall ■ Provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA and be constructed with an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts; ■ Be maintained and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weakness in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired; and ■ Be removed and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. o Install sound dampening mats or blankets to the engine compartments of mobile equipment (e.g. graders, dozers, heavy trucks). The dampening materials must be capable of a 5-dBA minimum noise reduction, must be installed prior to the use of heavy mobile construction equipment, and must remain installed for the duration of the equipment use. MM 4.9-2: Construction Vibration. The following measures shall be implemented by applicants for development within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area to reduce construction vibration at nearby receptors: • Avoid impact pile-driving where possible --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 98 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • In areas where project construction is anticipated to include pile drivers or in close proximity to schools or historical structures,conduct site-specific vibration studies to determine the area of impact and to present appropriate vibration reduction technique that may include the following: o Develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring should be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structure specific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions. o Identify construction contingencies for when vibration levels approach the standards o At a minimum, conduct vibration monitoring during pile-driving activities. Monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements. o When vibration levels approach standards, suspend construction and implement contingencies to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures. o Conduct a post-survey on any structures where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage has been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of vibration. a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that construction noise that complies with the required construction hours is exempt from the City's noise standards. Additionally, implementation of MM 4.9-1 and regulatory requirements would ensure that construction noise would be reduced to a less than significant level. City of Tustin General Plan The City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element identifies noise criteria as outlined below in Table N-1. Table N-1: General Plan Noise Element Standards Land Use Noise Standard Interior1,2 Exterior Residential: single-family, multi-family, duplex, 45 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL3 mobile home Residential: transient lodging, hotels, motels, 45 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL3 nursing homes, hospitals Private office, church sanctuaries, libraries, boardrooms, conference rooms, theaters, 45 dBA CNEL (1 2) - auditoriums, concert halls, meeting rooms, etc. Schools 45 dBA CNEL (1 2) 67 dBA Leq (12)4 General offices, reception,clerical, etc. 50 dBA Leq (12) - Bank lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool, 55 dBA Leq (12) etc. - Manufacturing, kitchen, warehousing, etc. 65 dBA Leq (12) - Parks, playgrounds - 65 dBA CNEL4 Golf courses, outdoor spectator sports, 4 amusement parks - 70 dBA CNEL Note:Leq(1 2)=A-weighted equivalent sound level averaged over a 1 2-hour period(usually the hours of operation) 'Noise standard with windows closed.Mechanical ventilation shall be provided per UBC requirements to provide a habitable environment. 'Indoor environment excluding bathrooms,toilets,closets,and corridors. 'Outdoor environment limited to rear yard of single-family homes,multi-family patios,and balconies(with a depth of 6 feet or more)and common recreation areas. 4 Outdoor environment limited to playground areas,picnic areas,and other areas of frequent human use --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Tustin Municipal Code The Tustin City Code establishes the City's standards, guidelines, and procedures concerning the regulation of operational noise. These are described specifically in Article 4, Chapter 6, Noise Control. Section 4, Chapter 6 of the Tustin City Code exempts noise from construction activities between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays, excluding City observed Federal holidays and requires construction to occur within these hours. The Code presents permissible noise intrusion levels by land use, as shown in Table N-2, City of Tustin Exterior Noise Standards. These standards are not to be exceeded for a cumulative period of 30 minutes in any hour, by 5 dBA for a cumulative period of 15 minutes in an hour, by 10 dBA for a cumulative period of 5 minutes in any hour, by 15 dBA for a cumulative period of 1 minute in any hour, or by 20 dBA for any period of time. When the ambient noise already exceeds these standards, the allowable noise shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise accordingly. Table N-2: City of Tustin Exterior Noise Standards Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level Residential 7 am to 10 pm 55 dBA 10 pmto7am 50 dBA Commercial Anytime 60 dBA Industrial Anytime 70 dBA Institutional (e.g., hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, libraries, Anytime 55 dBA churches) Mixed Use Anytime 60 dBA Non-Urban Anytime 70 dBA Section 4615 of the Tustin City Code contains interior noise standards for residential land uses shown in Table N-3, below. Table N-3: City of Tustin Interior Noise Standards Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level Residential 7 am to 10 pm 55 dBA 10 pm to 7 am 45 dBA Mixed Use 7 am to 10 pm 55 dBA 10 pmto7am 45 dBA Existing Sensitive Receptors As described previously, the Project site is partially developed with a commercial office building and is surrounded by residential, institutional, and commercial uses. The closest sensitive receptors are the existing multi-family residences approximately 5 feet to the northwest of the Project site,the multi-family residences approximately 83 feet southwest of the Project site, and the single-family residences approximately 82 feet northeast of the Project site. The Tustin High School baseball fields directly adjacent to the northwest of the Project site are not considered noise sensitive receptors. Construction Noise Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. Construction is expected to occur in the following stages: demolition, grading, building construction, architectural coating, paving. The Project does not include pile driving, which typically results in the highest construction noise volumes. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 76 dBA to in excess of 90 dBA when measured at 50 feet, as shown on Table N-4. However, these noise levels diminish with distance from the construction site at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- of 90 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receiver would be reduced to 84 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receiver and would be further reduced to 78 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receiver. Table N-4: Construction Reference Noise Levels Construction Noise Level at 25 Noise Level at 50 Equipment Feet (dBA, Leq) Feet (dBA, Leq) Chain Saw 82.7 76.7 Compactor (Ground) 82.2 76.2 Concrete Pump Truck 81.4 74.4 Dozer 83.7 77.7 Dump Truck 78.5 72.5 Excavator 82.7 76.7 Front End Loader 81.1 75.1 Generator 83.6 77.6 Grader 87.0 81.0 Jackhammer 87.9 81.9 Paver 80.2 74.2 Pumps 83.9 77.9 Scraper 85.6 79.6 Tractor 86.0 80.0 Source: FHWA, 2006. As described above, Section 4, Chapter 6 of the Tustin City Code exempts noise from construction activities between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays, excluding City observed Federal holidays and requires construction to occur within these hours. The proposed Project's construction activities would occur pursuant to these regulations and would not exceed established standards. The construction noise from the proposed Project would be temporary in nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use. The typical operating cycle for a piece of construction equipment involves one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. The construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators.Additionally,the most noise intensive equipment would only be utilized during the shorter grading portion of the 12-month construction period. Furthermore,implementation of PDF N-1 limits the use of graders and jackhammers in close proximity to adjacent multi-family residences. As described previously, the closest sensitive receptor is 5 feet from the Project site and the ambient noise levels range from 60.8 to 70.0 dBA. In addition, RHASP EIR MM 4.9-1 requires that construction for Projects within 50 feet of sensitive receptors where construction noise levels are above 85 dBA, must implement Best Management Practices to reduce noise to below 85 dBA. The existing 6-foot high concrete wall surrounding the adjacent sensitive receptor would be left in place during construction and would provide 6 dBA of attenuation. Additionally, as demonstrated in PDF N-1, Project contractors shall not use graders and jackhammers during construction within 25 feet of the property line next to the adjacent multi-family residences. However, due to the close proximity of sensitive receptors, noise levels will exceed 85 dBA. As such, the Project would implement RHASP MM 4.9-1, which requires the utilization of temporary construction noise barriers. With implementation of RHASP MM 4.9-1, impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant. Operational Noise Operation Traffic Noise. Development of the Project would result in 137 multi-family residences, which would generate approximately 1,001 fewer daily vehicular trips when compared to the allowed RHASP site densities; of --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- which 22 fewer would occur in the a.m. peak hour and 84 fewer would occur in the p.m. peak hour. Since the Project would result in 23 fewer dwelling units and 23,000 fewer commercial SF than anticipated by the RHASP EIR, the Project would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise. Onsite Noise.Once the proposed Project is operational,noise levels generated at the Project site would occur from stationary equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units that would be installed for the new development, internal street and driveway vehicle movements, trash removal activity, and activity at outdoor gathering areas.Typical noise levels from onsite operations at 50 feet from the noise source include the following: • Air Conditioning Unit: 54.4 dBA L50 • Trash Enclosure Activity: 49.0 dBA L50 • Parking Lot Vehicle Movements: 33.5 dBA L50 • Outdoor Community Recreation Activity: 48.7 dBA L50 Typically, air conditioning units are located away from sensitive receivers and shielded to ensure that noise from operation of the units does not have the potential to result in an impact. Exterior&Interior Noise Levels at Units Pursuant RHASP Final EIR SC 4.9-2, an Acoustical Analysis was prepared for the Project and is included as Appendix B. As discussed above, the City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element requires that the interior noise levels for residences do not exceed 45 CNEL and exterior noise levels at outdoor use areas is 65 CNEL. Based on noise modeling conducted for the Acoustical Analysis, proposed Project courtyard areas would be between 60-64 CNEL. The Acoustical Analysis broke the Project down into three noise exposure zones, as shown in Figure N-1. As shown in Table N-5, with implementation of sound transmission rating (STC) 30-33 windows and glass doors (included in PDF N-2), future interior noise levels would comply with City Noise Element requirements. Table N-5: Interior Noise Levels Future Exterior Noise Future Interior Noise Location Level, CNEL Window/Door Rating Level, CNEL Zone A 69-72 STC 33 <45 Zone B 65-68 STC 30 <45 Zone C 60-64 STC 30 <45 Remaining Units <60 No STC requirement; STC 30 recommended Therefore, impacts related to construction and operational noise would be less than significant with implementation of PDF N-1. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 102 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project Figure N-2: Exterior/Interior Noise Level Zones ------------------ ------ - l� dS Zone B L� - �s — N 1 O 3 n m I c N r I YI � II Zone B.. I I 1 � ' II r r •i��■■■■ I I 1 �`• 1` I I I I ,1 1 ' N O I Zone C - ---- 1 ' CO I 1 _ ' a 1 a 1 y ,e � • 0 0 0 9 G I ■ ■ ZoneB �a J F I Zone p i N p 1 II - II —— Zone B I I ----------- ------------------- 103 -----------------103 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to vibration would be less than significant with incorporation of MM 4.9-2. Construction Ground-borne vibration can be generated from construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. Construction of the proposed Project would involve grading, site preparation, and construction activities but would not involve the use of construction equipment that would result in substantial ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise on properties adjacent to the Project site. No pile driving or blasting are proposed, and the site is relatively level, so substantial grading activities are not required. Additionally, the Project would implement RHASP MM 4.9-2, which would require suspension of construction activities when vibration approaches vibration standards. Thus, construction of the Project would not generate significant effects relating to construction vibration. Operation Operation of the proposed multi-family units and commercial uses would include heavy trucks for residents moving in and out of the residential units and garbage trucks for solid waste disposal. Truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. However, typical vibration levels for the heavy truck activity at normal traffic speeds would be approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV, based on the FTA Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. Truck movements on site would be travelling at very low speed, so it is expected that truck vibration at nearby sensitive receivers would be less than the vibration threshold of 0.08 in/sec PPV for fragile historic buildings and 0.04 in/sec PPV for human annoyance, and impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that impacts related to airport hazards would be less than significant. John Wayne International Airport is located approximately 4.45 miles southwest of the Project site.The Project site is not within the John Wayne International Airport land use plan.Therefore,the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people working on the site and impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding noise. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 104 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) PDF N-1: During Project construction,contractors shall not use graders and jackhammers within 25 feet of the property line with adjacent multi-family residences. PDF N-2:All glass doors and windows in residential units along Red Hill Avenue, and within Zone A,will have STC ratings of at least 33. All other glass doors and windows in residential units will have STC ratings of at least 30. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe noise and vibration related impacts would result from the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for noise or vibration. Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1:Construction Noise. Prior to the approval of grading plans,the City of Tustin Building Division shall ensure that all plans include Best Management Practices to minimize construction noise. Construction noise Best Management Practices may include the following: • Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards, and all stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive use near the construction activity • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest to the construction activities. • The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment by Tustin City Code Article 4, Chapter 6, Section 4617. The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck noise • Construction activity within 50 feet of occupied noise sensitive uses shall reduce construction noise levels exceeding 85 dBA Leq at nearby sensitive land uses by one or more of the following methods to reduce noise to below 85 dBA Leq: o Install temporary construction noise barriers within the line of site of occupied sensitive uses for the duration of construction activities that could generate noise exceeding 85 dBA Leq. The noise control barrier(s) must provide a solid face from top to bottom and shall ■ Provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA and be constructed with an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 105 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ■ Be maintained and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weakness in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired; and ■ Be removed and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. o Install sound dampening mats or blankets to the engine compartments of mobile equipment (e.g. graders, dozers, heavy trucks). The dampening materials must be capable of a 5-d BA minimum noise reduction, must be installed prior to the use of heavy mobile construction equipment, and must remain installed for the duration of the equipment use. (Applicable to the proposed Project and will be included in its MMRP). MM 4.9-2: Construction Vibration. The following measures shall be implemented by applicants for development within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area to reduce construction vibration at nearby receptors: • Avoid impact pile-driving where possible • In areas where project construction is anticipated to include pile drivers or in close proximity to schools or historical structures,conduct site-specific vibration studies to determine the area of impact and to present appropriate vibration reduction technique that may include the following: o Develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring should be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structure specific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions. o Identify construction contingencies for when vibration levels approach the standards o At a minimum, conduct vibration monitoring during pile-driving activities. Monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements. o When vibration levels approach standards, suspend construction and implement contingencies to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures. o Conduct a post-survey on any structures where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage has been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of vibration. (Applicable to the proposed Project and will be included in its MMRP). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 106 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No Change in Information Information Technical New Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact Circumstances Greater New or No Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to population and housing on pages 1-7 through 1-8 and 5.10-1 through 5.10-9. The RHASP Final EIR discussed that assuming 3.04 persons per dwelling unit, the RHASP has the potential to generate 1,520 residents at buildout.The estimated population increase of 1,520 new residents is well within the forecasted population increase by SCAG for the City of Tustin of 5,700 residents between 2012 and 2040 and would represent approximately 26.6 percent of the expected growth. SCAG forecasts 27,800 households in the City by 2040. The forecasted increase of households in the City between 2012 and 2040 is 2,200 households. The increase of 500 units represents approximately 23 percent of the housing growth in the City during this time period. The City's Housing Element identifies vacant and underutilized properties within the RHASP area that are suitable for residential development. Table H-14 of the City of Tustin Housing Element identifies 13841 Red Hill Avenue as a vacant property suitable for residential development. According to the RHASP EIR,the forecasted employment in the City by 2040 is 66,400 jobs. The increase in employment in the City between 2012 and 2040 is forecasted to be 28,800 jobs. Implementation of the RHASP would generate both short-term (construction) and long-term jobs associated with development in the RHASP area including office and retail uses. Based on SCAG's estimate of employment density, which is the number of employees per square feet of building space, the RHASP is anticipated to create 722 new permanent employment opportunities which could include both full-time and part-time employment positions with varying salaries including minimum wage positions.The 722 jobs represent approximately 3 percent of the City's total forecasted increase in employment between 2012 and 2040. The County of Orange's job to housing ratio in 2012 was 1.53, while the City's job to housing ratio in 2013 was 1.47. By 2040, the City is forecasted to become increasingly jobs-rich as a result of economic and demographic forces. Implementation of the RHASP would provide housing and employment and would benefit the overall City jobs to housing ratio. Buildout of the RHASP has a job to housing ratio of 1.44 because an estimated 722 jobs and 500 residential units would be added. This is consistent with existing jobs and housing opportunities in the City. In summary,the RHASP's population,housing, and employment growth are within the overall projections for the City and the County. The implementation of the RHASP would allow for 500 additional dwelling units in a mixed-use environment to the predominately commercial RHASP area. There are currently non-conforming uses along Nisson Road with multi-family residential uses located on parcels zoned for commercial uses, and two single-family homes north of Mitchell Avenue on parcels zoned for professional office uses (2 single-family and 19 multi-family --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ion Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- units). Existing non-conforming residential development can remain unless changes to the structure are proposed.The RHASP and Tustin City Code requires that non-conforming uses and structures not be enlarged, expanded or extended, except as expressly stated in Section 4 of the RHASP, nor will the existence of a non-conforming use or structure be a determining factor for adding other uses or structures prohibited in the RHASP or Tustin City Code. Therefore, implementation of the RHASP would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people. a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that the RHASP's population, housing, and employment growth are within overall SCAG projections for the City of Tustin, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would involve the demolition of the existing commercial building on the Project site and development of 137 multi-family residential units and 7,000 SF of commercial space,open spaces,drainage and utility infrastructure, and new private streets. Based on population estimates utilized by the RHASP, assuming 3.04 persons per dwelling unit, the Project would result in approximately 417 additional residents. Additionally, based on the employee generation rate of 450 SF of commercial space per employee,the Project would result in the creation of approximately 16 new jobs. Overall, SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS population and household growth forecast from 2016 through 2045 envisions a population increase of 10,500 additional persons, yielding a 12.8% growth rate. Tustin is projected to have a population 92,600 persons, 30,600 housing units, and 70,800 jobs by 2045. The proposed Project would generate approximately 417 new residents, which represents approximately 0.45% of the forecasted population in 2045 and approximately 3.97% of the forecasted growth between 2016 and 2045 for the City. Additionally, the Project would generate approximately 16 new jobs, which represents approximately .02% of the forecasted jobs in 2045 and approximately .07% of the forecasted job growth between 2016 and 2045 for the City. Thus, the proposed increase in population, housing units, and jobs as a result of the proposed Project is within SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS growth forecast. Furthermore,the proposed Project is located in an urbanized area of Tustin and is surrounded by residential, institutional, and commercial uses. The proposed Project does not propose to expand surrounding utility infrastructure (e.g., water, electricity, cell tower, gas, sanitary sewer, and stormwater drains) in the Project vicinity. All onsite systems would be provided and maintained by the property owner, as well as connect to existing and planned infrastructure within adjacent roadways. In addition, vehicular access would be provided by new private streets from Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street. Because the Project proposes development in an already built-out neighborhood, it would not indirectly induce population growth through the extension of roads or other infrastructure. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. The existing Project site contains one commercial building. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace a substantial number of existing people and would also provide 137 new residential units on the Project site. With construction of the additional housing units, replacement housing would not need to be constructed elsewhere. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing, and impacts would be less than significant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 108 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding population and housing. There have not been 1)changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe population and housing impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for population and housing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 109 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR a) Would the project result in substantial adverse Substantial New New Minor No physical impacts associated with the provision of new Change in Information Mitigation Technical New Project or Showing or Changes Impact or physically altered governmental facilities, need Circumstances Greater Alternative or No for new or physically altered governmental facilities, Resulting in Significant to Reduce Additions Impact the construction of which could cause significant New Effects than Significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain Significant Previous EIR Effect is acceptable service ratios, response times or other Effects Declined performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to public services on pages 4.1 1-1 to 4.1 1-14. According to the RHASP EIR, the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) is a regional fire service agency that serves 23 cities including the City of Tustin in Orange County and all unincorporated areas. The RHASP EIR identifies three stations (Station 21, 37, and 43) within the City of Tustin that have a response time goal for the first unit to arrive on scene in 5 minutes from receipt of the call. All new development would be required to comply with the existing International Fire Code and California Fire and Building Codes in the California Health and Safety Code. In addition, as a standard condition of approval, future development projects would be required to prepare a Fire Master Plan, required by OCFA, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations would result in less than significant impacts to fire protection service. Based on the City's current ratio of officers to residents (1.21 officers per 1,000), at buildout of the RHASP would result in the need for one additional police officer. The Police Department currently provides police services within the RHASP area.Although the RHASP would incrementally increase the demand for City police protection services, this demand would not be expected to require the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Thus, impacts related to police services were less than significant. In accordance with Government Code Section 65995 and the Tustin City Code, the Tustin Unified School District requires all new development to pay fees to help offset the effects to school facilities from new residential, commercial, and industrial development. Payment of these fees would offset impacts from increased demand for school services associated with development in the RHASP area by providing an adequate financial base to construct and equip new and existing schools. Overall, the School District would be able to provide adequate school facilities for the projected students and the RHASP EIR concluded that payment of impact fees would ensure that impacts are less than significant. The buildout of the Specific Plan is anticipated to generate approximately 1,520 residents and 722 employees, thereby incrementally increasing the demand for library services. However, the RHASP EIR concluded that the Tustin Library would continue to meet the County's standard for library size with buildout of the RHASP. a) Fire Protection and Emergency Services Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact.The RHASP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Fire protection services would be provided by the OCFA from 71 fire stations located throughout Orange County. There are --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iio Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- currently 3 OCFA operated fire stations located within 3.4 miles of the Project site. Station 21, which is located 1.1 miles from the Project site is the first responding unit. The location, equipment, and staffing of the fire stations near the Project site are provided in Table PS-1. OCFA's average response time in the City varies based on the level of emergency; however, the response time goal is for the first unit to arrive on scene in 5 minutes from receipt of the call, 90 percent of the time. Engine 21 from Station 21 would have a drive time of 2 minutes and 12 seconds to the Project site.' Table PS-1: OCFA Fire Stations in Tustin Fire Station Location Staffing Apparatus Station 21 1241 Irvine Boulevard 3 fire captains Medic 21 3 fire apparatus Engine 21 engineers Engine 21 9 firefighters Station 37 15011 Kensington Park 3 fire captains Paramedic Drive 3 fire apparatus Assessment Unit engineers Engine 37 3 firefighters Station 43 11490 Pioneer Way 3 battalion chiefs Medic Engine 43 3 fire captains Battalion 3 3 fire apparatus engineers 6 firefighters Source:RHASP EIR Construction and operation of the proposed Project would increase demands for fire protection and emergency medical services. As described previously, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in 417 new residents and 16 new employees. The residential and commercial uses are expected to create the typical range of service calls to OCFA. Because the Project site is within 3.4 miles of 3 existing fire stations and the Project site is within a developed area that is currently served by these stations, the Project would not result in the requirement to construct a new fire station. The Project would comply with the California Fire Code ad adopted as Article 8, Chapter 1, Section 8100 of the Tustin City Code. In addition,the Project would be required to prepare a Fire Master Plan, as required by OCFA prior to the issuance of a building permit. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. b) Police Protection Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. The Tustin Police Department provides emergency police response, non-emergency response, routine police patrol, traffic violation enforcement,traffic accident investigation, animal control, and parking code enforcement within the City including the Project area.The Project would be served by the Tustin Police Department,which is located 1.1 roadway miles from the Project site at 300 Centennial Way,Tustin, CA 92780. 7 Personal Comment Baryic Hunter,Division Chief OCFA(July 7,2021) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As mentioned in the RHASP EIR, the Tustin Police Department has approximately 100 sworn officers and 55 Civilian Support Personnel. Based on the City's current ratio of officers to residents (1.21 officers per 1,000), the Project would not require any additional officers at the Tustin Police Department. Therefore, with existing personnel at the Tustin Police Department, law enforcement personnel are anticipated to be able to respond in a timely manner, and within set standard response times,to emergency calls in the Project area.Therefore,no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. C) School Services Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP concluded that impacts would be less than significant.The Project site is located within the Tustin Unified School District. The schools that serve the site are listed below: • Benjamin F. Beswick Elementary School (K-5) located at 1362 Mitchell Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, which is located 0.6 roadway miles from the Project site. • C.E. Utt Middle School (6-8) located at 13601 Browning Avenue,Tustin,CA 92780,which is located 0.8 roadway miles from the Project site. • Tustin High School (9-12) located at 1 171 EI Camino Real, Tustin, CA 92780, which is located 0.3 roadway miles from the Project site. The Project proposes the development of 137 residences and would create additional students to be served by the existing schools. Student generation rates for Tustin Unified School District are identified as 0.1610 student per dwelling unit for elementary school, 0.0636 student per dwelling unit for intermediate school, and 0.0661 student per dwelling unit for high school. Using this generation factor, the proposed 137 residences would generate 40 students that would range in age from elementary to high school.Additionally, the applicant shall pay developer fees to the Tustin Unified School District pursuant to Section 65955 of the California Government Code. Thus, the Project would not generate the need for new or physically altered school facilities and the 40 new students would be accommodated by existing facilities. Table PS-2: School Enrollment between 2014-15 and 2020-2021 School 2020-21 2019-20 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 Benjamin F. Beswick 432 511 461 521 598 638 678 Elementary C.E. Utt Middle 798 937 922 955 991 949 945 School Tustin High School 2,294 2,285 2,285 2,373 2,316 2,287 2,304 As such, impacts related to school services would be less than significant. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. d) Parks Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR analyzed parks under Section 5.16, Recreation. The RHASP EIR concluded that future development projects could cumulatively contribute to the parkland deficiency identified in the City's General Plan. In order for parks to be provided to serve future residents within the RHASP area,MM 5.16-1 is required.This mitigation measure applies the parkland dedication and development fee provisions set forth in the Tustin City Code to new residential dwelling units within the Specific Plan area that would not --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 112 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- be subject to Tustin City Code Article 9,Chapter 3, Part 3,Section 9331.d (Parkland Dedication).The Project would comply with MM 5.16-1 as discussed below in Section 5.16. Therefore,the Project would be less than significant with mitigation. As such, impacts related to parks would be less than significant. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. e) Other Public Facilities Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The Orange County Public Library has 33 libraries throughout the County, one of which is in Tustin; the Tustin Branch Library is located at 345 E. Main Street. The General Plan outlines the County's standards for library service as one 10,000- square foot branch library facility per 50,000 residents, or, if appropriate, one 15,000-square-foot regional library per 75,000 residents. As mentioned previously, the Project is anticipated to result in the addition of 417 residents.Tustin Library is a 32,000 square-foot library with a book capacity of 209,000 volumes and would not require the addition of new facilities for the additional 417 residents. As such, impacts related to other public facilities would be less than significant. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding public services. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP) PPP PS-1: Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, prior to the issuance of building permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the applicant shall pay developer fees to the Tustin Unified School District; payment of the adopted fees would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts. PPP PS-2: New development under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan shall be subject to the same General Obligation bond tax rate as already applied to other properties within the Tustin Unified School District for Measure G (approved in 2008) based upon assessed value of the residential and commercial uses. Project Design Features (PDFs) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 113 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe public services impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for public services. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 114 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.16 RECREATION Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No New Change in Information Information Technical Impact Project or Showing Identifying Changes No Circumstances Greater New or Impact Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to recreation on pages 4.12-1 through 4.12-6. As discussed in the RHASP Final EIR,the RHASP area would have an estimated buildout of approximately 500 additional residential units (primarily integrated mixed-use development) and 325,000 additional square feet of non- residential uses. At buildout, the RHASP could generate approximately 1,520 new residents and 722 new employees in addition to approximately 64 existing residents (based on 3.04 persons per unit) and 659 existing employees (based on 450 square feet per employee) within the boundaries of the proposed RHASP area. This population increase would result in an increased use of existing and planned City parks and recreational facilities. In accordance with the Quimby Act, a jurisdiction may establish a parkland dedication standard based on its existing parkland ratio, provided required dedications do not exceed 5 acres per 1,000 persons. The City's parkland dedication requirements of 3 acres per 1,000 residents is the same as the Quimby Act. The City identifies parkland acreage requirements by multiplying the number of dwelling units by the parkland acres per unit based on the established density categories in the Tustin City Code. Because the RHASP proposes multi-family residential development and encourages it to be provided in a mixed-use setting, the RHASP EIR uses the 15.1 to 25 dwelling units per gross acre category in the Tustin City Code which assumes 2.24 persons per unit or 0.0067 acre of parkland per unit. If future residential units were subject to the Quimby Act (because of a subdivision), the total amount of new parkland would be approximately 3.35 acres. The Tustin City Code also notes that dedication of land may be required by the City for a condominium,stock cooperative,or community apartment project which exceeds 50 dwelling units, regardless of the number of parcels. Therefore, the City may require the dedication of land regardless of where the future residential development projects within the RHASP are subdivisions. Because future residential development within the RHASP area may not be subject to the Quimby Act or the subdivision provisions of the Tustin City Code, future development projects could cumulatively contribute to the parkland deficiency identified in the City's General Plan. In order that park and recreational facilities be provided to serve future residents within the RHASP area, MM 4.12-1 is required. RHASP EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-1: For residential projects not subject to City of Tustin Subdivision Code (Article 9, Chapter 3, Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code), prior to the issuance of building permits, applicants shall dedicate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 115 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- parkland or pay a park fee, on a per unit basis, reflecting the value of land required for park purposes. The amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedication shall be computed by multiplying the number of proposed dwelling units by 0.003 acre per person and 2.24 persons per dwelling unit. The parkland in-lieu fee shall be computed by multiplying the amount of land required for dedication by $2,500,000 per acre. a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that impacts related to parkland would be less than significant with incorporation of regulatory requirements and RHASP MM 4.12-1. As discussed in 5.15(d), above, Pine Tree Park, Tustin Heritage Park, Peppertree Park, Frontier Park, and Columbus Tustin Park are all within 1- mile of the Project site. The Project-related increase in population could incrementally increase the use of existing parks within the City.The City's standard for provision of parkland is 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and the Tustin Municipal Code Section 9331 requires the developer of a residential subdivision to mitigate recreational impacts by dedicating park space, paying an in-lieu fee, or doing a combination of the two. Residents are expected to utilize the onsite open space to a greater degree than offsite facilities due to convenience and proximity. In this way,the Project's provision of open space would reduce the use of area parks by residents. Nevertheless, some Project residents would be expected to utilize other public recreational facilities. As discussed previously, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 417 new residents and 16 additional jobs. Based on the City's standard for parkland provision of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents,the Project would utilize approximately 1.25 acres of parkland.As a result, the Project would create a limited incremental increase in the use of area parks. However, a portion of this parkland demand would be met by proposed Project amenities, including a pool, spa, gym, dog walk, and plazas. Overall, the Project would be subject to City Code requirements to provide local park space or pay an in- lieu fee, which would be used for the purpose of acquiring, developing, improving, and expanding open space and parklands. Therefore, due to the limited increase in residents near existing park and recreational facilities, and compliance with Section 9331 of the Municipal Code,the Project's contribution to deterioration of parks and recreational facilities would not be significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that impacts related to parkland would be less than significant with incorporation of regulatory requirements and RHASP MM 4.12-1. The Project would include development of passive and active open space within the Project site. The potential adverse effects associated with implementation of the proposed Project have been considered throughout the analysis of this document. Development of the open space areas would not have any potentially significant effects. The Project would be required to pay parkland fees in compliance with Municipal Code Section 9331 to satisfy its park obligation. Therefore, the Project does not include any recreational facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project would be consistent with those identified in the Final EIR. Conclusion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 116 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding recreation. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe recreation impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for recreation. Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures RHASP EIR MM 4.12-1: For residential projects not subject to City of Tustin Subdivision Code (Article 9, Chapter 3, Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code), prior to the issuance of building permits, applicants shall dedicate parkland or pay a park fee, on a per unit basis, reflecting the value of land required for park purposes. The amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedication shall be computed by multiplying the number of proposed dwelling units by 0.003 acre per person and 2.24 persons per dwelling unit. The parkland in-lieu fee shall be computed by multiplying the amount of land required for dedication by $2,500,000 per acre. (Applicable to the proposed project and will be included in its MMRP). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 117 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.17 TRANSPORTATION Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No Change in Information Information Technical New Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact Circumstances Greater New or No Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to traffic and transportation on pages 4.13-1 through 4.13- 34.Since the RHASP Final EIR was approved before July 1,2020,when vehicle miles traveled (VMT) became the threshold utilized for analysis of CEQA impacts, levels of service (LOS) was utilized by the EIR to analyze transportation impacts. According to the RHASP Final EIR, with the addition of RHASP traffic to Existing Conditions peak hour traffic volumes, all study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS in both peak hours. The addition of RHASP traffic would not cause a significant impact at any traffic study area intersection. However, in long-range future conditions, the Red Hill Avenue at I-5 southbound ramps would operate a deficient level LOS in the evening peak hour. Implementation of MM 4.13-1 would mitigate the Project's impact to a level considered less than significant based on the ICU methodology. However, the City cannot impose mitigation on or mandate the implementation of mitigation in another jurisdiction, in this case, Caltrans. Therefore, the RHASP EIR concluded that impacts related to traffic would be significant and unavoidable. According to the RHASP EIR, Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) Routes 66, 71, and 79 serve the RHASP area,which includes many employment-based uses.As such,the transit schedules and frequencies are geared toward commuter needs and would be convenient for RHASP residents and patrons to/from the area. The RHASP encourages the installation of new bus shelters at transit stops where no benches are currently provided. Modifications to existing and/or installation of new shelters would be coordinated with OCTA. Existing pedestrian facilities within the RHASP area include sidewalks along all roadways and crosswalks across the signalized intersections. There are no unsignalized crosswalks across Red Hill Avenue within the RHASP area. Streetscape improvements are proposed to promote attractive, compatible, and consistent environments with new development. The basic streetscape would consist of parkway plantings adjacent to the street along the entire length of Red Hill Avenue, with new landscaped medians where feasible. As previously addressed, the streetscape would have a minimum four-foot-wide landscaped parkway and a minimum four-foot-wide sidewalk. The City's Master Bikeway Plan shows the entire length of Red Hill Avenue within the City limits as a designated or a potential Class II bikeway. The proposed circulation components of the RHASP include revisions to the Red Hill Avenue roadway cross section to include a Class II striped on-street bike lane along the entire length of the RHASP area to promote more multimodal travel opportunities. Enhanced bikeway signage would be introduced to promote bike usage and provide directions on how to connect to other bikeways or key points in the City. Enhanced or decorative bike racks are another feature that may be introduced within private developments. The intent of the recommended --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- its Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- bikeway system improvements is to provide a safe,non-vehicular way for residents,employees, and students to travel. The addition of residential units in this area that is largely developed with employment and commercial uses could facilitate the use of alternative travel modes. The proximity of residential uses to employment and commercial centers encourages people to walk or bike to work or shop, rather than drive a vehicle. Therefore, implementation of the RHASP would not adversely affect the use of alternative modes of transportation. The RHASP Final EIR discussed that implementation of the RHASP is not anticipated to result in inadequate features or incompatible uses.Through the City's design review process,future development under the RHASP would be evaluated to determine the appropriate permitting requirements and conditions of approval. At a minimum, compliance with relevant Tustin City Code standards would be required. Therefore, implementation of the RHASP would not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. According to the RHASP EIR, the RHASP does not include policies that would change standards related to emergency access. Future development projects in the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the Tustin City Code. New development would also be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinance review requirements for construction and access. Additionally, all access roads for future development projects would be required to meet standards for fire access roads in the 2016 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9), Section 503. Individual development projects under the RHASP would be reviewed by the City to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to the development and to ensure compliance with these requirements. This would ensure that new development in the RHASP area would provide adequate emergency access. Further, the City would review any modifications to existing roadways to ensure that adequate emergency access or emergency response would be maintained. Emergency response and evacuation procedures would be coordinated with the City's Police and Fire Departments. RHASP EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.13-1 Red Hill Avenue at Interstate 5 Southbound Ramps: Re-stripe the eastbound approach (the off- ramp) to convert from a shared left-through lane and one dedicated right-turn lane to one dedicated left- turn lane and a shared left-through-right lane. This improvement would provide additional capacity for the heavy eastbound left-turn volume. With this improvement,the intersection would operate at Level of Service D or better during both peak hours. The California Department of Transportation' (Caltrans) approval and cooperation would be required to implement this improvement. a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that buildout of the RHASP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic; however,impacts related to alternative transportation would be less than significant. The proposed Project involves the construction of 137 dwelling units and 7,000 SF of commercial uses. The primary patrons of the proposed development would be residents and their visitors and commercial customers. As discussed above, due to amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, automobile delay no longer is considered a significant impact. Thus, the following information is provided solely for informational purposes. The Project trip generation was calculated using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 10th Edition, as well as other sources.The RHASP EIR assumed that the Project site would be developed with up to 160 residential dwelling units and 30,000 SF of commercial retail uses. As shown in Table T-1 below, the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately net - 1,001 daily trips, including -22 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and -84 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour when compared to projected density of the site analyzed in the RHASP EIR (Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 119 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table T-1: Comparison of Proposed Project Trips and RHASP Buildout Trips Analyzed in Final EIR Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Approved RHASP Site Density Apartment' 160 du 930 12 58 70 56 24 84 General Retai12 30,000 SF 1,281 18 11 29 53 58 1 1 1 Total Approved 2,221 30 69 99 109 82 195 Proposed Project Apartment' 137 du 911 14 56 70 55 30 85 General Retai12 7,000 SF 299 4 3 7 12 1426 Total Proposed 1,210 18 59 77 67 44 111 Total Net Trip Gena -1,001 -12 -10 -22 -42 -38 -84 Source:Linscott Law&Greenspan Engineers, 2021 (Appendix C) 1ITE Land Use Code: 220 Apartment 21TE Land Use Code: 820 Shopping Center 3Total Net Trip Gen= Proposed Project—Approved RHASP Site Density Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via one driveway from Red Hill Avenue and one driveway from San Juan Street. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project area. The proposed Project would construct internal roadways that would provide resident access to residential units and driveways that would provide customer access to commercial areas. In addition, final design plans would be subject to review and approval by the City's Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. As such, the proposed Project would not introduce any new roadways or land uses that would interfere with adopted plans, programs, ordinances, or policies regarding roadway facilities. Alternative Transportation The RHASP includes various policies to provide a system of bikeways and pedestrian facilities to connect residential areas, businesses,schools, parks, and other key destination points. The Project would restripe Red Hill Avenue to include a Class II bike lane pursuant to RHASP guidelines. The proposed bicycle route would provide bicycle transportation opportunities for residents of the Project site. The Project would not conflict with any bicycle facilities.The Project includes widening Red Hill Avenue and adding a public sidewalk along Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street. The proposed Project would improve the existing pedestrian access to nearby locations. Therefore, the proposed Project would also not conflict with pedestrian facilities. Overall, Project impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR did not evaluate impacts related to conflicts or inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.2, subdivision (b) as the threshold was not included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G at the time the Final EIR was written. CEQA analysis of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) went into effect July 1, 2020, and therefore was not a CEQA consideration in 2018, when the Final EIR was adopted. This addendum does not need to include a VMT analysis because the Final EIR was certified before VMT analyses were required to be prepared (A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 120 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cal.App.4'h 1773, 1801). Also, because at the time the RHASP EIR was certified, VMT impacts were known or should have been known, adoption of the requirement to analyze VMT does not constitute significant new information, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR (Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.41h 1301, 1320). Nonetheless,the following analyzes the Project's VMT impacts. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was signed into law on September 27, 2013, and changed the way that public agencies evaluate transportation impact under CEQA. A key element of this law is the elimination of using auto delay, level of service, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA.The legislative intent of SB 743 was to "more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions." According to the law, "traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" within CEQA transportation analysis. SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze delay or level of service as part of other plans (i.e., a city's General Plan), studies, congestion management and transportation improvements, but these metrics may no longer constitute the basis for transportation impacts under CEQA analysis as of July 1, 2020. For example, in the City, the General Plan identifies level of service as being a required analysis, and even though it will no longer be a requirement of CEQA, unless the General Plan is amended, level of service will continue to be analyzed as part of project review. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research updated the CEQA Guidelines to establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts. Based on input from the public, public agencies, and various organizations, the Office of Planning and Research recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled be the primary metric for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. In December 2018, OPR issued a Technical Advisory on evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA that provides the following screening criteria for land development projects that may result in a less than significant VMT impact: • Local-serving retail less than 50,000 SF, including schools, daycare, student housing, etc. • Small projects generating less than 110 trips per day • Residential and office projects located in areas with low-VMT • Projects near transit stations or a major transit stop that is located along a high quality transit corridor • Residential projects with a high percentage of affordable housing In addition, the Technical Advisory describes that projects with the following may result in a VMT impact: • Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75; • Includes more parking for use by residents,customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the Lead Agency with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization). The City of Tustin has yet to adopt individual VMT Guidelines. Therefore, Project-related VMT impact has been assessed qualitatively based on guidance from the OPR Technical Advisory. As shown above in Table T-1, the Project generates fewer than 110 net daily vehicle trips. Additionally, the Project would include 7,000 SF of commercial retail, which would be local-serving retail for Project residents and surrounding communities. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on Vehicle Miles Traveled. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 121 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via ingress and egress driveways connecting to Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project area. The proposed Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal circulation, is subject to the City's development standards and RHASP design guidelines. Design of the Project would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. Construction The proposed construction activities,including equipment and supply staging and storage,would occur within the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of driveways,connections to existing infrastructure systems, and construction of new infrastructure that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the temporary closure of one side or portions of Red Hill Avenue for a short period of time (i.e., hours or a few days). However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City's permitting process. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City's permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access impacts to a less than significant level. Operation As described previously, the proposed Project area would be accessed from driveways along Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street. The construction permitting process would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the Project area, and would provide routes for emergency responders to access different portions of the Project site. The Fire Department and/or Public Works Department would review the development plans as part of the permitting procedures to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), included as Municipal Code Section 8104. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City's permitting process, potential impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant. Also, as detailed in Table T-1, the proposed Project would result in approximately 1,001 fewer PCE daily trips, 22 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 84 fewer PCE PM peak hour trips than buildout of the site pursuant to the RHASP. Thus, the Project would not generate traffic that would impact roadway capacity in such a manner that would result in inadequate emergency access. Overall, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 122 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding transportation and traffic. There have not been 1)changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe transportation impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for transportation. Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.13-1 Red Hill Avenue at Interstate 5 Southbound Ramps: Re-stripe the eastbound approach (the off- ramp) to convert from a shared left-through lane and one dedicated right-turn lane to one dedicated left- turn lane and a shared left-through-right lane. This improvement would provide additional capacity for the heavy eastbound left-turn volume. With this improvement,the intersection would operate at Level of Service D or better during both peak hours. The California Department of Transportation' (Caltrans) approval and cooperation would be required to implement this improvement. (Not applicable to the proposed Project). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 123 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.1 8 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES I Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project cause a substantial adverse Substantial New New Minor No New change in the significance of a tribal cultural Change in Information Information Technical Impact Project or Showing Identifying Changes No resource, defined in Public Resources Code section Circumstances Greater New or Impact 21 074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions landscape that is geographically defined in terms of New Effects than or the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, Significant Previous EIR Alternative or object with cultural value to a California Native Effects to Reduce Significant American tribe, and that is: Effect is Declined a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR Impacts related to tribal cultural resources were discussed on pages 4.3-10 through 4.3-12 of the RHASP Final EIR. According to the RHASP EIR, the City contacted the following tribal representatives prior to approval of the RHASP in compliance with SB 18 and AB 52: • Campo Band of Mission Indians • Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation • Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation • Gabrieleno/Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council • Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribe • Jamul Indian Village • Juaneno Band of Mission Indians • Juaneno Band of Mission Indians-Acjachemen Nation • La Posta Band of Mission Indians • Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation • San Fernando Band of Mission Indians • San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians • Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation • Viejas Band of the Kumeyaay Indians • Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians • Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians The City received responses from two tribal representatives regarding the RHASP project. The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians identified that the RHASP area "has little cultural significance or ties to Viejas". The City received a request for consultation from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. No tribal 124 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cultural places or tribal cultural resources were identified by the tribe during consultation. However,the tribe noted the importance of Red Hill,a village or gathering place,located in the hillsides northeast of the RHASP area. While the properties within the RHASP area have been extensively altered by prior ground disturbance and development, there is the potential for RHASP implementation to affect previously unidentified tribal cultural resources. However, implementation of MM 4.3-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. RHASP Final EIR Mitigation Measures See MM 4.3-1 in Section 5, Cultural Resources. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on "tribal cultural resources" with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological resources, a project's potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration,or EIR for a project.AB 52 does not apply to a Notice of Exemption or Addendum. The Project site is currently partially developed with a commercial building and site soils have been previously disturbed from past grading and installation of utility infrastructure for the existing building on the northern parcel and former building on the southerly parcel. There are no known tribal cultural resources on the site. Because the site has previously been disturbed, there is reduced potential for the Project to impact tribal cultural resources. However, the Project may result in excavation into the underlying older alluvium where undiscovered tribal cultural resources could exist. RHASP MM 4.3-1 requires the retention of an archaeologist for archaeological monitoring and notification to tribes if tribal cultural resources are unearthed. With implementation of MM 4.3-1, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 that is a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or PRC Section 5020.1(k) and no new substantial environmental impacts would occur in comparison to the Final EIR. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. As discussed above, there are no known tribal cultural resources that would be affected by the Project.The Project site is currently partially developed with a commercial building and site soils have --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 125 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- been previously disturbed from past grading and installation of utility infrastructure for the existing building on the northern parcel and former building on the southerly parcel. There are no known tribal cultural resources on the site. Because the site has previously been disturbed,there is reduced potential for the Project to impact tribal cultural resources. However, the Project may result in excavation into the underlying older alluvium where undiscovered tribal cultural resources could exist. RHASP MM 4.3-1 requires the retention of an archaeologist for archaeological monitoring and notification to tribes if tribal cultural resources are unearthed. With implementation of MM 4.3-1, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Additionally, the California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in the Project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact,by telephone within 24 hours,the Native American Heritage Commission.Therefore,impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant and no new substantial environmental impacts would occur in comparison to the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding tribal cultural resources. There have not been 1)changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe tribal cultural resources impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for tribal cultural resources. Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures See RHASP EIR MM 4.3-1, above. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 126 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR Would the project: Substantial New New Minor No Change in Information Information Technical New Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact Circumstances Greater New or No Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Require or result in the construction of new or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to utilities and service systems on pages 4.14-1 through 4.14- 28.According to the RHASP EIR,SoCalGas and SCE would be able to provide gas and electric infrastructure, respectively, to the RHASP area. Both companies would be able to provide additional connections, if necessary, which would not cause significant environmental effects outside those already analyzed in the RHASP Final EIR. Projects would be required to apply for encroachment permits for connection to the City storm drain infrastructure. For future development projects within the RHASP, direct connection to the City's existing storm drain system is preferable provided that the existing tributary areas and flow rates to the existing drains are not exceeded by new development. Alternatively, applicants may provide hydraulic analyses of the downstream storm drain system that demonstrate no significant impacts to the City storm drain infrastructure. Should storm drains not be available for connection, applicants can propose drainage systems using parkway drains to direct runoff directly to the adjacent street curb and gutter section. In all cases, stormwater quality requirements must be met. New on-site stormwater drainage facilities would be constructed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.Applicants for future development within the RHASP area would be required to demonstrate that existing flow rates would not be exceeded with project development. For all development, post-construction measures under the Orange County DAMP require co-permittees to implement structural and nonstructural BMPs that would mimic predevelopment quantity and quality runoff conditions for new development. The RHASP Final EIR analyzed that based on the 2015 rate (1 22 gallons per capita per day),the estimated 1,520 residents and 722 employees within the RHASP would generate an additional water demand of --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 127 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 273,524 gallons per day or 306 AFY. The City's water demand and supply is estimated to grow from 11,113 AFY to 12,238 AFY by 2040, which is an increase of 1,125 AFY for normal year. For single and multiple dry years, demand and supply would be 12,972 AFY, an increase of 1,859 AFY over existing conditions. New uses within the RHASP would generate a demand of 306 AFY, which would be within the anticipated increase in demand and supply of water assumed in the UWMP for 2040 for normal year and multiple dry years. The RHASP accommodates the projected growth within that portion of the City covered by the EOCWD service area. The RHASP would be served from existing entitlements and new or expanded water entitlements would not be needed due to diversified supply and conservation measures. The City can meet all customer demands within the service area through the purchase of significant reserves held by Metropolitan, local groundwater supplies, and through implementation of conservation measures in multiple dry years from 2020 through 2040.To provide potable water and fire service to the existing and proposed land uses within the RHASP area, additional water infrastructure would be required. It is anticipated that the section of the existing 6-inch and 8-inch water mains in Red Hill Avenue would be replaced with a larger diameter pipe and extend east from I-5 to the terminus at San Juan Street as a condition of development of the adjacent properties. The City also has a long-range plan to upgrade other sections of water mains in the area. Other anticipated improvements include public meters and backflow devices that would be required for domestic water service and/or separate fire lines for individual developments as they occur. The RHASP can provide sufficient water infrastructure improvements to provide water to the projects within the RHASP area, as needed. According to the RHASP Final EIR,the Eastern Orange County Water District (EOCWD) and Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) only allow new development to connect to their sewer systems if there is sufficient capacity or planned expansions of its facilities to accommodate the new developments. The OCSD has identified no impact to its treatment plants and has adequate capacity to accommodate the RHASP. The OCSD notes that all future development within the RHASP area would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis. New development would not be permitted to exceed the capacity of wastewater conveyance systems or treatment facilities. All expansions of OCSD facilities must be sized and service phased to be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecasts for the City.The available capacities of OCSD facilities are limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. Future development projects would be required to comply with the City's Sewer capacity allotment, the Tustin City Code, and OCSD regulations in order to connect to the City's sewer system. This would include the payment of a sewer maintenance fee to construct new sewer infrastructure and/or incremental expansions to the existing sewer system to accommodate individual development to preclude any impact of the development on the sewer system. The RHASP Final EIR discussed that solid waste disposal services must follow Federal,State, and local statutes and regulations related to the collection of solid waste. Development within the RHASP area would be required to comply with all applicable State and local waste diversion requirements, including AB 939 and SB 1016, and Article 4, Chapter 3, Part 1, of the Tustin City Code. The Bowerman Landfill has a daily maximum intake load of 11,500 tons per day with 8,500 tons per day annual average. The remaining disposal capacity was 205 million cubic yards, as of February 29, 2008. Land uses within the RHASP area could generate approximately 7,740 pounds of solid waste per day (3.87 tons/day or 1412.5 tons/year). The solid waste generation of the RHASP is consistent with the daily capacity of the Bowerman Landfill, representing a nominal percentage of the maximum intake load. RHASP EIR Mitigation Measures Refer to RHASP MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-2 in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Ouality. a) Require or result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 128 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities would be less than significant. Domestic water services would be provided to the Project by the City through the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), wastewater treatment services are provided to the area by the OCSD, and stormwater services are provided by Orange County Public Works.As discussed in Section 3.0,Project Description,the Project would install new onsite drinking water pipes that would connect to an existing 8-inch drinking water main in San Juan Street and a new 12-inch drinking water main in Red Hill Avenue, which was analyzed in the RHASP EIR. Additionally, the Project provides new onsite sewer lines that would connect to an existing 18-inch sewer main in Red Hill Avenue. Additionally, the Project would construct multiple LID stormwater features onsite including multiple infiltration chambers that would filter stormwater. Overflow from proposed LID stormwater features would convey into existing storm drain mains in San Juan Street. The Project would also connect to existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities. Therefore, the Project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment,stormwater drainage,electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities that could cause environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP EIR concluded that impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant. The MWDOC is responsible for supplying potable water to the Project site and its region. MWDOC's water supplies consist of groundwater, recycled water, and imported water. MWDOC serves imported water in Orange County to 28 water agencies. These entities, comprised of cities and water districts, are referred to as MWDOC member agencies and provide water to approximately 2.34 million customers. The 2020 MWDOC Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) details that MWDOC has adequate supplies to serve its customers during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year demand through 2045 with projected population increases and accompanying increases in water demand. Furthermore, MWDOC forecasts for water demand are based on population projections of SCAG, which rely on adopted land use designations contained in general plans that cover the geographic area. Implementation of the Project would not change the land use designation or zoning of the Project site. The UWMP detailed a 2020 water demand of 109 gallons per capita per day. As described previously in the Population and Housing section,the Project would result in approximately 417 new residents and 16 new employees.Thus,the Project would generate a water demand of 47,197 gallons per day or 52.9 acre-feet per year, which is within the anticipated increased demand and supply for water, as shown on Table UT-1. Table UT-1: MWDOC Projected Water Supply (AF) Water Source 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 OCWD Basin Groundwater 192,652 231,936 236,430 236,506 236,280 236,274 Non-OCWD Groundwater 21,267 22,734 24,747 24,763 24,740 24,890 Recycled Water 42,330 52,017 53,891 56,926 57,043 57,094 Surface Water 9,897 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,700 Metropolitan Water District 142,879 119,743 120,573 123,502 123,107 122,819 of Southern California Total 409,025 431,130 440,341 446,397 445,870 445,777 129 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Redevelopment of the Project site would also be required to be compliant with CalGreen/Title 24 requirements for low flow plumbing fixtures and irrigation, which would provide for efficient water use. Therefore, MWDOC has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years,and impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments.? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact.The RHASP EIR concluded that impacts related to wastewater would be less than significant. Based on the OCSD wastewater generation rates of 7,516 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac) for residential, the Project would conservatively generate 25,479 gpd of residential wastewater. Additionally, utilizing the OCSD generation rate of 2,262 gpd/ac, the 7,000 SF of commercial space would generate approximately 364 gpd of wastewater. Therefore, the Project would generate a total of 25,843 gpd of wastewater. Wastewater generated by the Project would be treated at OCSD reclamation Plant 1 and Plant 2. The Plants have a total treatment capacity of 632 million gallons per day (mgd). In 2017,the plants treated a combined average of 184 mgd of wastewater.Therefore, Plants 1 and 2 have a typical remaining capacity of 448 mgd of wastewater.This remaining capacity is adequate to serve the Project and the Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project,that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments.As such,impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to the generation of solid waste would be less than significant. As discussed in the RHASP Final EIR, the Project site is served by the Frank R. Bowerman landfill. The Bowerman landfill is permitted to accept 11,500 tons per day of solid waste and is permitted to operate through 2053. In 2019, the Bowerman landfill received a total of 2,483,032 tons of solid waste (CalRecycle, 2021). Therefore, on average the landfill received approximately 6,803 tons per day, giving the landfill an average additional capacity of 4,697 tons per day. Project construction would generate solid waste for landfill disposal in the form of demolition debris from the existing buildings and infrastructure that would be removed from the site. Construction waste in the form of packaging and discarded materials would also be generated by the proposed Project. However,Section 5.408.1 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Thus, the demolition and construction solid waste that would be disposed of at the landfill would be approximately 35 percent of the waste generated. As the Bowerman landfill has an additional capacity of 4,697 tons per day, the facilities would be able to accommodate the addition of solid waste during construction of the proposed Project. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 130 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operation of the Project includes development of 137 multi-family residential units and 7,000 SF of commercial space. Based on the rates utilized by the RHASP (12.23 lbs/unit/day for residential and 5 Ibs/1,000 sf/day for commercial), the Project would generate approximately 1,676 pounds of residential waste per day and 35 pounds of commercial waste per day. Therefore, the Project would produce a total of 1,711 pounds per day or 0.86 tons per day of solid waste. However, pursuant to AB 341, at least 75 percent of the solid waste is required to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately .22 tons per day. As the Bowerman Landfill had additional capacity of 4,697 tons per day,the facilities would be able to accommodate the addition of 0.22 tons per day of solid waste from operation of the proposed Project. As such, impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impacts. The RHASP Final EIR concluded that impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.The proposed Project would result in new development that would generate an increased amount of solid waste. All solid waste-generating activities within the City are subject to the requirements set forth in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. Development of the Project would be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured through the City's permitting process; and impacts would not occur.Therefore,the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts identified in the Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding utilities and service systems. There have not been 1)changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 131 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe utilities and service systems impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required regarding utilities and service systems. Applicable Final EIR Mitigation Measures Refer to RHASP MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-2 in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 132 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.20 Wildfire I Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR If located in or near state responsibility areas or Substantial New New Minor No New lands classified as very high fire hazard severity Change in Information Information Technical Impact/ Project or Showing Identifying Changes No zones, would the project: Circumstances Greater New or Impact Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollution concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Summary of Impacts Identified in the Final EIR The RHASP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to wildfire on pages 1-5 and 4.1 1-1 through 4.1 1-5. The RHASP EIR discussed that implementation of the RHASP would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The RHASP area is in a developed urban area and it is not adjacent to any wildland areas. a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is not within an area identified as a Fire Hazard Area that may contain substantial fire risk or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE 2021). The proposed Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As stated in Section 5.9 of this Addendum, the proposed Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project driveways and internal access would be required through the City's permitting procedures to meet the City's design standards to ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9). Additionally,the proposed Project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closures or long-term blocking of road access) that would substantially impair or otherwise conflict with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts related to emergency response and evacuation plans associated with construction of the proposed Project would be less than significant. The proposed Project would provide direct access to the site by two driveways and does not include any changes to public or private roadways that would physically impair or otherwise conflict with an emergency --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 133 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Further, the proposed Project would not obstruct or alter any transportation routes that could be used as evacuation routes during emergency events. Further, access to and from the Project site for emergency vehicles would be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and the City as part of the Project approval process to ensure the proposed Project is compliant with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollution concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. As stated previously,the Project site is not located within a fire hazard area. Additionally, the Project site and surrounding area are currently developed with commercial, institutional, and residential uses. The areas on and surrounding the site lack extensive combustible materials and vegetation necessary for the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The Project site is relatively flat and there are limited elevation changes in the Project vicinity. The Project proposes development of a commercial and residential uses in an urban area. As such, the Project itself would not exacerbate wildfire risks as compared to existing conditions because it is representative of existing development in the area. Conversely, removal of the aged building and fire suppression system an installation of new construction and fire suppression systems may reduce fire risks. Thus, no impact related to other factors that would expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would occur from the Project. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. As stated previously, the Project site is not located within a fire hazard area. The Project does not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (including roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that would exacerbate fire risk or that would result in impacts to the environment.Although the Project includes new driveways within the Project site,the Project does not include any changes to public or private roadways that would exacerbate fire risk or that would result in impacts to the environment.Although utility improvements,including domestic water, recycled water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain lines proposed as part of the Project would be extended throughout the Project site, these utility improvements would be underground and would not exacerbate fire risk. As described by the Final EIR, adherence to existing regulations would reduce risks from urban and wildland fire threats to the City to a less than significant level.The utility improvements that are part of redevelopment of the Project site would be reviewed and approved by the City part of the Project approval process to ensure compliance. Therefore, the proposed Project would not include infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities), that would exacerbate fire risk or that would result in impacts to the environment. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 134 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No New Impact. As stated previously, the Project site is not located within a fire hazard area. According to FEMA's FIRM Flood Map 06059CO281 J, the Project site is classified as Zone X, which are areas with minimal or 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard. The Project site is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the to the south and southwest. The site is not near any hillsides or slope areas that could result in a landslide. As established in Section 5.10 of this Addendum, during Project construction soil would be compacted and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered due to grading, and there would be an increased potential for flooding compared to existing conditions. However, construction BMPs would be identified and implemented as part of the proposed Project. Implementation of construction BMPs would control and direct surface runoff to prevent flooding, and as such, Project construction would not expose people or structures to significant risks related to downslope and downstream flooding. During operation, the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing on-site drainage patterns. Compliance with the proposed operational BMPs would ensure onsite storm drain facilities would be sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the Project site so that onsite flooding would not occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Further, projects in the City are required to comply with the CBC, which would include the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structures so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. These features would reduce potential impacts related to landslides to a less than significant level. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the Final EIR. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding wildfire. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) None. Project Design Features (PDFs) None. Mitigation/Monitoring Required No new impacts nor substantially more severe wildfire impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required regarding wildfires. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 135 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR SIGNIFICANCE Substantial New New Minor No Change in Information Information Technical New Project or Showing Identifying Changes Impact Circumstances Greater New or No Resulting in Significant Mitigation Additions Impact New Effects than or Significant Previous EIR Alternative Effects to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined a) Does the project have the potential to degrade ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. As discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, the Project site is completely developed and located within an urban area that does not contain any native habitats. Due to the disturbed status of the site, it does not provide habitat that could be utilized by species listed or candidates for listing by USFWS, CDFW, or the CNPS. The existing ornamental landscaping trees on the site have the potential to provide for nesting migratory birds. Many of these trees would be removed during construction. Therefore, the proposed Project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation and trees are removed during the nesting season. Nesting birds are protected under the federal MBTA(United States Code Title 33,Section 703 et seq.; see also Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code, which is implemented through the City's permitting process. Should removal of the existing landscaping occur during the nesting/breeding season,the existing permitting process would ensure that the MBTA is implemented and that impacts related to nesting birds would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to fish and wildlife species or plant community would be less than significant, which is consistent with analysis within the Final EIR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 136 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As discussed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, there are no historic resources located with the Project site. In addition, due to the development of the Project site and previous disturbances associated with the construction and operation of the existing site use, the potential for encountering paleontological and archeological resources is small. However, the Project would implement RHASP MM 4.3-1 and 4.3-2, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore,the proposed Project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact. The proposed Project's potential cumulative impacts were analyzed in the Final EIR as part of build out of the RHASP and would not result in new impacts beyond those analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable impact under any impact area, including aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, or utilities and service systems. With implementation of existing regulations and the relevant Final EIR's mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project No New Impact.As described throughout Section 5, above,the proposed Project has no new or substantially more severe potentially significant impacts and no new mitigation measures would be required. The implementation of the Final EIR mitigation measures, City standards, and City guidelines would ensure that there would be no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There would be no new impacts. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding wildfire. There have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Final EIR was certified as completed. Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts, State CEQA Guidelines 15168 also does not require additional environmental review and the Project is within the scope of the RHASP. Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPPs) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 137 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project As outlined in Sections 5.1 through 5.20, above. Project Design Features (PDFs) As outlined in Sections 5.1 through 5.20, above. Mitigation/Monitoring Required As detailed previously,the Final EIR mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project would be implemented for the Project as intended by the Final EIR. Upon implementation of applicable Final EIR mitigation measures, no new impacts nor substantially more adverse impacts would result from the implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. No refinements related to the proposed Project are necessary to the Final EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 138 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project 6 Document Preparers and Contributors Lead Agenc .. City of Tustin Planning Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 CEQA Document Preparer: EPD Solutions, Inc. Konnie Dobreva, JD Meaghan Truman Brooke Blandino ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 139 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 References California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor. Accessed on 2 July 2021. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed on 1 July 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System Facility/Site Search. Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/ CalRecycle Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility_(ca.gov). Accessed: https://www2.caIrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentraI/DisposaIReporting/Destination/DisposaIByFacility CalRecycle Landfill Tonnage Reports: https://www2.caIrecycle.ca.gov/LandfillTipFees/ California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Cal FIRE. Accessed from: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ California Important Farmland Finder. California Department of Conservation. Accessed from: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed from: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1 aaf7000dfcc199831 CalRecycle. Landfill Tonnage Reports, 2019. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LandfiliTipFees/ Caltrans Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental- analysis/noise-vibration/guidance-manuals EnviroStor. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Accessed from https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. CalRecycle. Accessed from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates Fault Activity Map of California. California Department of Conservation. Accessed from: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/ FEMA Flood Map Center. Accessed: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). Accessed: 118 18131/transit-noise-and- vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-01 23_O.pdf Municipal Water District of Orange County. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.mwdoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/MWDOC-2020-UWMP_2021.06.02.pdf Natural Community Conservation Plan & Habitat Conservation Plan. County of Orange Central & Coastal Subregion. Participants in the NCCP/HCP Process (ES-6). July 17, 1996. NETROnline. Historic Aerials. Accessed July 1, 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 140 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State. Accessed: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Accessed on 2 July 2021. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=red+hill+avenue Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. September 2020. Website: https://www.connectsocaI.org/Documents/Adopted/0903fConnectSoCaI-Plan.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed 1 July 2021. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html U.S. Geological Survey. National Map. Accessed 1 July 2021. https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 141 Addendum to the Red Hill Specific Plan Final EIR City of Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project This page internationally let blank. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 142 E N G I N E E R I N G PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) APN 500-141 -09 & 500-141 -10 PMB 52/36 Parcels 1 & 2 TTM 17822 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue Tustin, California „ .W .,,.. , low ' .rw Prepared For WASL Tustin Investors V, LLC C/O Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 900 Newport Beach, CA 92650 o .. 949. 783. 4123 f ;;i"1. Prepared By Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 ' ' Irvine, California 92606 949.474.1960 www.fuscoe.com Project Manager: Shelby Shirlock, P.E. Date Prepared: March 8, 2021 LO*ZOO'Z LZ L LO*ZOO'Z LZ L C� C� C� Q Q � � � Z J Z Z Cw LU ~ W 'Gn ''Gnn V V W Q QU zCQ N o U 0 Q 04 Z 0 Z 06 z 0 C/7 i C/7 i J c/7 i LLJ LU w Q Q Q � Ina Q z zW w :E J J Cl- LU W ia� ck� z a cc uu DLJL r m W W x W ��NI _w W = � all Mug! • PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILL APARTMENTS 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue City of Tustin, County of Orange APN 500-141-09 & 500-141 -10 PMB 52/36 Parcels 1 & 2 TTM 17822 Prepared for: WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC C/O Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 900 Newport Beach, CA 92650 949.783.4123 Prepared by: FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 949.474.1960 Date Prepared: September 22, 2014 Date Revised: March 11 , 2015; April 29, 2015; November 21 , 2017; February 15, 2018 Date Revised: January 22, 2021 Date Revised: March 8, 2021 PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS PROJECT OWNER'S CERTIFICATION Permit/Application No.: CUP 2014-26 Grading Permit No.: GPA 2014-02 Tract/Parcel Map and PMB 52/36 Parcels 1 & 2 Building Permit No.: Pending Lot(s)No.: TTM 17822 Address of Project Site 13751 Red Hill Avenue & 13841 Red Hill Avenue and APN: APN 500-141-09 & 500-141 -10 This Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) has been prepared for WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC by FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. The PWQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the County of Orange NPDES Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of the plan and with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to assess and propose mitigation for project water quality impacts during the entitlement process. The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of the Final WQMP , including the ongoing operation and maintenance of all best management practices (BMPs), and will ensure that the Final WQMP is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the intent of the non-point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors-in-interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. OWNER: WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC Name: Craig Swanson Title: Principal Company: Irvine Asset Group, LLC Address: 4000 MacArthur Blvd, East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Email: cswanson@IrvineAssetGroup.com Telephone: 949.783.4123 Signature: Date: WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC. I OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILL APaRTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I DISCRETIONARY PERMITS AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS .............................1 SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................4 11.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................4 11.2 Potential Storm Water Pollutants.....................................................................................6 11.3 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern..................................................................................8 11.4 Post Development Drainage Characteristics...................................................................1 0 11.5 Property Ownership/Management................................................................................1 1 SECTION III SITE DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................12 111.1 Physical Setting ...........................................................................................................12 111.2 Site Characteristics......................................................................................................14 111.3 Watershed Description.................................................................................................16 SECTION IV BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)...........................................................13 IV.1 Project Performance Criteria ........................................................................................1 8 IV.2 Site Design and Drainage Plan.....................................................................................19 IV.2.1 Site Design BMPs .................................................................................................19 IV.2.2 Drainage Management Areas ...............................................................................20 IV.3 LID BMP Selection and Project Conformance Analysis ....................................................20 IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) .......................................................................21 IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs...................................................................................................21 IV.3.3 Evapotranspiration & Rainwater Harvesting BMPs....................................................23 IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs ...............................................................................................23 IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs...........................................................................23 IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs ..........................................................................23 IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs.......................................................................................23 IV.3.8 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs .....................................................................24 IV.3.9 Structural Source Control BMPs.............................................................................26 IV.4 Alternative Compliance Plan ........................................................................................28 IV.4.1 Water Quality Credits...........................................................................................28 IV.4.2 Alternative Compliance Plan Information................................................................29 SECTION V INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR BMPs.....................................3® SECTION VI SITE PLAN AND DRAINAGE PLAN .....................................................................36 SECTION VII EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS ..............................................................................41 APPENDICES............................................................................................................................42 WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 APPENDICES Appendix ................................................................................................Supporting Calculations Appendix B.................................................................................Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Appendix ...................................................................................................Educational Materials Appendix D ...................................................................BMP Maintenance Supplement/ O&M Plan AppendixE..................................................................................................Conditions of Approval Appendix F ...................................................................................................Infiltration Test Results Appendix G......................................................................................City Covenant and Agreement Appendix H......................................................................................2-Year Hydrology Calculations EXHIBITS & BMP DETAILS (INCLUDED IN SECTION VI) ■ Vicinity Map ■ WQMP Exhibit ■ StormTrap Typical Detail ■ VortSentry Typical Detail EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS (INCLUDED IN APPENDIX C) ■ The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door ■ Household Tips ■ Proper Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste ■ Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (Central County) ■ Tips for Landscaping and Gardening ■ Tips for Pet Care ■ Tips for Pool Maintenance ■ Tips for Protecting Your Watershed ■ Disposal of Pet Waste ■ Disposal of Green Waste ■ Water Conservation WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC III TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILL APaRTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 SECTION I DISCRETIONARY PERMITS AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS PROJECT INFORMATION Permit/Application No.: CUP 2014-26 Tract/Parcel PMB 52/36 Parcels 1 & 2 Map No.: TTM 17822 Address of Project Site 13751 Red Hill Avenue & 13841 Red Hill Avenue and APN: APN 500-141-09 & 500-141 -10 WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS Discretionary Permit(s): Zone Change 2014-004 Design Review 2014-005 1 . Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). If the WQMP has been determined to be a Priority WQMP, it shall identify Low Impact Development (LID) principles and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to retain storm water and treat predictable pollutant run-off. The Priority WQMP shall identify: the implementation of BMPs, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessees, etc.), and reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. 2. Prior to submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Water Quality the applicant shall submit a deposit of $2,700.00 to the Public Conditions: Works Department for the estimated cost of reviewing the WQMP 3. Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall record a "Declaration of Restrictions" or "Covenant and Agreement Regarding O & M Plan to Fund and Maintain Water Quality BMPs, Consent to Inspect, and Indemnification", whichever is applicable, with the County Clerk-Recorder. These documents shall bind current and future owner(s) of the property regarding implementation and maintenance of the structural and non-structural BMPs as specified in the approved WQMP. WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC 1 DISCRETIONARY PERMITS&WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILL APaRTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 4. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating that coverage has been obtained under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Quality Control Board. WATERSHED-BASED PLAN CONDITIONS Section XII.D5 of the Santa Ana Region MS4 Permit (Order No. R8- 2009-0030, Amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062) requires Watershed Infiltration and Hydromodification Master Plan (WIHMPs) to be developed by the County of Orange for San Diego Creek and other watersheds within the North Orange County permit area. Each WIHMP must include maps to identify areas susceptible to hydromodification, and a hydromodification tool. Runoff from the project site ultimately drains to Peters Canyon Channel, which outlets to San Diego Creek, Reach 1 . San Diego Creek ultimately discharges into the Upper Newport Bay and Lower Newport Bay. A WIHMP has not yet been prepared for the San Diego Creek watershed. According to the 2016 Integrated Report (CWA Section 303(d) List), Peters Canyon Channel, San Diego Creek Reach 1, and the Newport Bay are listed as impaired. In addition several TMDLs have been established for the San Diego Creek Newport Bay Watersheds (see also Section 111.3 of the SWMP). Peters Canyon Channel Applicable conditions DDT from watershed - based Indicator Bacteria plans including Toxaphene WIHMPs and TMDLs: Toxicity ■ Selenium ■ pH San Diego Creek (Reach 1): ■ DDT ■ Indicator Bacteria ■ Nutrients ■ Pesticides ■ Sedimentation/Siltation ■ Selenium ■ Toxaphene Upper Newport Bay ■ Chlordane ■ Copper ■ DDT ■ Indicator Bacteria ■ Metals ■ Nutrients WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC 2 DISCRETIONARY PERMITS&WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 ■ PCBs ■ Pesticides ■ Sediment Toxicity ■ Sedimentaiton/Siltation Lower Newport Bay: ■ Fecal Coliform ■ Nutrients ■ Pesticides ■ Sedimentation/Siltation ■ Selenium ■ Toxaphene WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 3 DISCRETIONARY PERMITS&WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Red Hill Apartments project site encompasses approximately 3.39 acres in the City of Tustin. The project site is bounded by the Alley to the west, Red Hill Avenue to the south and San Juan Street to the east. A Vicinity Map is included in Section VI. Under existing conditions, the project site sits on 2 parcels of land within the City of Tustin. The first parcel is a vacant lot facing Red Hill Avenue, and the second parcel is currently a commercial development with a Coldwell Banker Realty office. Adjacent land uses include Tustin High school to the north, single family residential to the northeast, and commercial retail to the west. The table below summarizes the proposed project. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT 8. All significant redevelopment projects, where significant redevelopment is defined as the addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet of WQMP impervious surface on an already developed site. Redevelopment does not Development include routine maintenance activities that are conducted to maintain Category: original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, original purpose of the facility, or emergency redevelopment activity required to protect public health and safety. Project Area (ft2): 147,630 ft2 (3.39 acres) — Project Site 5,096.5 ft2(0.1 17 acres) — Offsite Dedication # of Dwelling 137 Units: SIC Code: TBD in Final WQMP; to include residential and commercial land use The proposed project will be developed on both vacant and developed parcel lots, where existing buildings will be demolished and removed for the construction of mixed-use residential and commercial units. The project is a Narrative Project 137-unit mixed-use apartment project consisting of 6 buildings, 3 and 4 stories Description: with tuck under garages and surface parking. Amenities proposed include a courtyard recreational area with a pool and spa in the center of the site, several smaller courtyards and open space areas, a clubhouse, leasing center, fitness center and retail space. Project Area: Pervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Area Impervious Area Percentage Percentage Pre-Project 2.84 ac 85% 0.5 ac 15% Conditions: Post-Project 0.26 ac 7.6% 3.13 ac 92.4% Conditions: WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPaRTMEIVTS MARCH 8,2021 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Under current conditions, part of the project site is a vacant lot. Runoff that doesn't naturally infiltrate on the northern portion of the site will generally sheet Drainage flow in a northeastern direction towards a storm drain located on the corner of Patterns/ the property at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street. Runoff Connections: that doesn't naturally infiltrate on the southern portion of the site will generally sheet flow in a southeastern direction towards the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and EI Camino Real. PROJECT FEATURES Residential Unit Type Unit Net # of Total Net YP SF Units SF S1 515 16 8,240 12% Al 707 9 6,363 A2 679 35 23,765 45% A3 703 18 12,654 B1 989 10 9,890 B2 975 18 17,550 B3 941 7 6,587 B4 1,070 2 2,140 36% Building B5 1,140 2 2,280 Summary: B6 1,460 4 5,840 B7 TH 1,238 6 7,428 LW 1 560 2 1,120 LW 2 692 2 1,384 7% LW3 1,330 2 2,660 LW4 1,351 4 5,404 Total 137 113,305 100% Commercial Specific retail use TBD in final WQMP. Retail space will encompass 7,781 SF of retail space in along Red Hill Avenue. The proposed project will include four at-grade outdoor courtyards, one of which includes a pool and spa. Building B will also have a fitness center and Amenities: clubhouse for communal activities. Limited common area landscaping will exist throughout. WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 PROJECT FEATURES Landscaping will be located mostly in the courtyard common areas. At this Landscaped preliminary stage of development, approximately 7.6% of the project site will be Areas: landscaped. Drip irrigation will be used to water the landscaping on the project site. A total of 230 parking spaces will be provided throughout the project site. 50 Parking Facilities: of those spots are tuck in garage spaces designated for residential use at each building. There will be 84 open stalls for residential/retail along with 96 carports. Trash will be managed at three trash enclosures on the property. They are located adjacent to Buildings A, B, and D1 . Other Project The site will not have any outdoor storage areas, vehicle/ community car wash Features: racks or equipment wash areas. The proposed project will not include restaurant uses/food preparation areas at this time (including the clubhouse), but may be subject to change at Final WQMP. Outdoor activities are anticipated with passive recreational uses in the common Outdoor landscaped areas surrounding the buildings, as well as within the courtyard Activities: containing a pool/spa recreation area. All vehicular parking will be tuck under garages at each Building along with surface parking. No outdoor storage of materials is anticipated (materials will be stored indoors). Materials anticipated to be stored on-site include those associated Materials Stored: with residential developments, including cleaning products, pool maintenance equipment, storage, etc. Pool cleaning materials and chemicals will be stored indoors or off-site (via pool cleaning contractor). No hazardous waste will be stored on-site. The project is not anticipated to generate any wastes other than landscaping clippings and trash & debris generated from tenants and residents. Any waste generated from maintenance activities will be disposed of properly off-site. Wash water and other waste from maintenance activities is not to be discharged or disposed of into the storm drain system. Clippings from Wastes landscape maintenance (i.e. prunings) will be collected and disposed of Generated: properly off-site, and will not be washed into the streets, local area drains/conveyances, or catch basin inlets. Pool water will drain to sewer system, and will not discharge to the storm drain system. See Sections IV.3.8 & IV.3.9 for source control BMPs related to these features. In addition, full capture trash devices (connector pipe screens or similar) will be implemented to comply with the CA Trash Provisions. 11.2 POTENTIAL STORM WATER POLLUTANTS The table below, derived from Table 2 of the Countywide Model WQMP Technical Guidance Document (May 2011), summarizes the categories of land use or project features of concern and the general pollutant categories associated with them. WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILL APaRTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 ANTICIPATED & POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS GENERATED BY LAND USE TYPE General Pollutant Categories to Priority Project Categories C y06 o V `Ozoand/or Project Features T a o o 0 0) a_ N mtOo O •�iN, U Detached Residential E E N E E E N E Development Attached Residential E E N E E E(2) N E Development Commercial/Industrial E(1) E(1) E(5) E(3) E(1) E E E Development Automotive Repair Shops N N E N N E E E Restaurants E(1)(2) E(1) E(2) E E(1) E N E Hillside Development E E N E E E N E >5,000 ft2 Parking Lots E E(') E E(4) E(1) E E E Streets, Highways, & E E(') E E(4) E(1) E E E Freeways Retail Gasoline Outlets N N E N N E E E Notes: E = expected to be of concern N = not expected to be of concern (1) Expected pollutant if landscaping exists on-site,otherwise not expected. (2) Expected pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas,otherwise not expected. (3) Expected pollutant if land use involves food or animal waste products,otherwise not expected. (4) Bacterial indicators are routinely detected in pavement runoff. (5) Expected if outdoor storage or metal roofs,otherwise not expected. Source: County of Orange. (201 1,May 19). Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans(WQMPs).Table 2.1. Priority Project Categories and/or Features: Attached Residential Development, Commercial Development, Parking Lots WAS TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPaRTMEIVTS MARCH 8,2021 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN E = Expected to be of Pollutant concern Additional Information and Comments N =Not Expected to be of concern Suspended Solid/ E 303(d) listed impairments, TMDL in effect Sediment (see Section 111.3 for details) Nutrients E 303(d) listed impairments, TMDL in effect (see Section 111.3 for details) Heavy Metals E 303(d) listed impairments, TMDL in effect (see Section 111.3 for details) Pathogens E TMDL in effect (Bacteria/Virus) (see Section 111.3 for details) Pesticides E 303(d) listed impairments, TMDL in effect (see Section 111.3 for details) Oil & Grease E Toxic Organic E 303(d) listed impairments, TMDL in effect Compounds (see Section 111.3 for details) Trash & Debris E 11.3 HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN The purpose of this section is to identify any hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) with respect to downstream flooding, erosion potential of natural channels downstream, impacts of increased flows on natural habitat, etc. As specified in Section 2.3.3 of the 2011 Model WQMP, projects must identify and mitigate any HCOCs. A HCOC is a combination of upland hydrologic conditions and stream biological and physical conditions that presents a condition of concern for physical and/or biological degradation of streams. In the North Orange County permit area, HCOCs are considered to exist if any streams located downstream from the project are determined to be potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts and either of the following conditions exists: ■ Post-development runoff volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm exceeds the pre-development runoff volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm by more than 5 percent or ■ Time of concentration (Tc) of post-development runoff for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm event exceeds the time of concentration of the pre-development condition for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm event by more than 5 percent. WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 If these conditions do not exist or streams are not potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts, an HCOC does not exist and hydromodification does not need to be considered further. In the North Orange County permit area, downstream channels are considered not susceptible to hydromodification, and therefore do not have the potential for a HCOC, if all downstream conveyance channels that will receive runoff from the project are engineered, hardened, and regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity, and no sensitive habitat areas will be affected. Is the proposed project potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts? ® Yes ❑ No (show map) a E_-rlbsA,e C57 d y of An ChePman M, Drange '- /rClPmanAe T.k.('I 3.nnan Awe 'I� wPge W AI n0 i ul AVe 4 Th a3 O 11 tact it ng.. 0 N,Ith Tustin " l3 I 3 11a k tPl� 'h'17th St I"I'N-- -1-A U,:;aA ,ollege I E w n 7 8arntaAna 1 TUStn .+ " � r – 13751 Red Hill A—,T-tm,Calll ia,9!L78C m „�'n 'l 11 Show more rasufts Add to Map Nates P s E — � m � r r.; e I P adl ` e4 UP—Ne-.xpor� pc ? Bay Regional Park 00. 1mi ��� �' "'^ rmnc tovaypFd.u�Nrw�1?s.egreau ufTand xr rucEm�,t�iti41�,�am:;;wt2aao+re,us�s.ue.`r;, WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 2-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM SUMMARY Condition Tc Peak Runoff Volume Pre-development DMA A, B: 14.4 min DMA A, B: 3.4 cfs DMA A, B: 0.14 ac-ft DMA C: 5.0 min DMA C: 0.1 cfs DMA C: 0.01 ac-ft DMA A, B: 7.4 min DMA A, B: 5.3 cfs DMA A, B: 0.40 ac-ft Proposed DMA C: 7.5 min DMA C: 0.4 cfs DMA C: 0.03 ac-ft Difference DMA A, B: -7.0 min DMA A, B: +1.9 cfs DMA A, B: +0.26 ac-ft DMA C: +2.5 min DMA C: +0.3 cfs DMA C: +0.02 ac-ft % Chane DMA A, B: -43.6% DMA A, B: +55.9% DMA A, B: +135.7% Change DMA C: +50% DMA C: +300% DMA C: +200% The proposed project will increase 2-year peak runoff compared to existing conditions. The results indicate the 2-year time of concentration (Tc) will decrease for DMA A and B and increases for DMA C by 50% compared to existing conditions, however, the TGD recognizes that increases in Tc are acceptable, as a longer Tc is generally associated with natural conditions and nearly universally results in lower concerns for hydromodification impacts (TGD, Section 2.2.3.1 , footnote 4). As depicted in the table above, the post-condition runoff volumes increase by 200%, which is greater than 105% percent of the pre-development runoff volumes. Therefore, the project is subject to hydromodification. Infiltration BMPs to reduce proposed runoff volume rates to within 105% of the existing 2-year storm are proposed, and the hydromodification volumes (delta 2-year volume of at least 12,195 cu-ft) will be retained on-site via underground infiltration systems. Since the project site will be required to infiltrate a DCV of 8,022 cu-ft of runoff, this infiltration volume will be credited towards the hydromodification volume. Therefore, the project site will have to retain the remaining 4,173 ft3 for hydromodification control. Since volumes will be infiltrated and retained onsite and any HCOC will be mitigated by Low Impact Development (LID) design elements, hydromodification does not need to be considered further. Onsite infiltration BMPs are discussed further in Section IV.3.2 of this report. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix A and H. Additional infiltration tests will be conducted on-site during final design in the locations of the proposed infiltration BMPs. The newer rates will then be used to accurately size and design the final infiltration BMPs, and the BMP footprints and/or depths will be adjusted accordingly. All changes will be documented in the Final WQMP. 11.4 POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS Under proposed conditions, runoff will be directed to three discharge locations, which results in three larger Drainage Management Areas (DMAs A, B, & C), subdivided into six sub-drainage areas. DMA A will be approximately 2.51 acres and drain in a southwesterly direction. Runoff will be collected via storm drains that serve the southwestern half of the property. DMAs Al, A2, and A3 is conveyed by gutter flows to catch basins that route LID flows and 2-year flows to the west corner of the property to WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 an underground infiltration gallery where the runoff will be retained. High flows will bypass the system and flow south, connecting to an existing catch basin in the alley to the south of the property. Similarly, DMA A4 will drain towards the parking lot between Buildings A& B. Runoff will then enter the catch basin at the south corner of the parking lot. LID flows and 2-year flows will be routed to the proposed underground infiltration gallery below the parking lot. High flows will be diverted via storm drain to the south corner of property, where it will tie into an existing storm drain at Red Hill Avenue. All flows outside the property line within the public right-of-way along Red Hill Avenue will drain towards the street. DMA Bl and Cl is approximately 0.88 acres and drains in a northeasterly direction to an underground infiltration gallery located at the northeast corner of the property. High flows will bypass the facility and either flow through a parkway culvert onto Red Hill Avenue (DMA B 1) or surface flow out of the driveway on San Juan Street (DMA Cl). 11.5 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT Public Streets: City of Tustin Landscaped Areas: WASL Tustin Investors V, LLC / POA Open Space: WASL Tustin Investors V, LLC / POA Buildings: WASL Tustin Investors V, LLC / POA Structural BMPs: WASL Tustin Investors V, LLC / POA The Owner, WASL Tustin Investors V, LLC, shall assume all BMP maintenance and inspection responsibilities for the proposed project until the formation of an POA. Once established, the POA will enforce Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) related to the property. See Section V and Appendix D for inspection and maintenance responsibilities detailed in the O&M plan. See Appendix G for the City Covenant Agreement. WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPaRTMEIVTS MARCH 8,2021 SECTION III SITE DESCRIPTION 111.1 PHYSICAL SETTING Planning Area/ Red Hill Apartments Community Name: Address: 13751 Red Hill Avenue and 13841 Red Hill Avenue Located on a vacant lot south of Tustin High School and commercial Project Area Description: development Coldwell Banker Realty at the southwest corner of Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street. Land Use: Planned Community Commercial/Business Zoning: C1 — Retail Commercial, C2 — Central Commercial Acreage: 3.39 acres Predominant Soil Type: Hydrologic Soil Group B (see figure below) Impervious Conditions: Existing Impervious: 15% (805% Pervious) Proposed Impervious: 92.4/0 (7.6/0 Pervious) WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC 12 SITE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 E 2nd 5[ Tustin us eek o � F E E Main St WRb e t¢ C: T tU y F'izu� F n Gen Hu' 'S. Lle. ko rears �". t u'.. Park V4 r m Cr k 166 • v W'r u v OBJECTND 9394 � I FID_OC_NRCSSoifs 2848 j M'USYM 166 e hydgrpdcd B _ 4 ShapeA-ea 26414349.716796875 Shape Length 31970.481041747695 1,�, r�� 4 'yaawa a Browning �V a �, �� e Zoom to K,, a a s�ms Q�• s. r c Park � ,,j "fiy wee a 1r m qe c Aln'o litl Srll-"Dp.O amen, rn n le pk"e ICJnaNt�Re»1 7 Z '4oa� of b 300Sboft S 82 n� -: .,,. - e E_6,. o.,a .rd lil_ gm,—---;E�z. WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 13 SITE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILL APaRTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 VI I k North Tustin 1/o 4 .2 ,L 4th St, qf F I.,t 91 Usti 35 h —11DCOIDE 75 -'amfaIII 0.75 L M:Fo1A,11 I— ShapeArea, 3934025288,935E47 k> 43g Shape Length 334768.0442426486 t 4 Zoom to 41 REI FI Lt, 'J, J ff'ey Trid V o o'3 P.F— .................... Irvine 111.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS Precipitation Zone: 0.75 inches (see figure above) The project site is relatively flat (maximum 1% grade), and generally Topography: drains towards one of two existing low points at the northeastern or southeastern end of the site, which then drains to the respective catch basin. WAS L TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC 14 SITE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 Under current conditions, part of the project site is a vacant lot. Runoff that doesn't naturally infiltrate on the northern portion of the site will generally sheet flow in a northeastern direction towards a storm drain Existing Drainage located on the corner of the property at the intersection of Red Hill Patterns/ Connections: Avenue and San Juan Street. Runoff that doesn't naturally infiltrate on the southern portion of the site will generally sheet flow in a southeastern direction towards the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and EI Camino Real. Under proposed conditions, runoff will be directed to three discharge locations, which results in three larger Drainage Management Areas (DMAs A, B, & C), subdivided into six sub-drainage areas. DMA A will be approximately 2.51 acres and drain in a southwesterly direction. Runoff will be collected via storm drains that serve the southwestern half of the property. DMAs Al, A2, and A3 is conveyed by gutter flows to catch basins that route LID flows and 2-year flows to the west corner of the property to an underground infiltration gallery where the runoff will be retained. High flows will bypass the system and flow south, connecting to an existing catch basin in the alley to the south of the property. Proposed Drainage Similarly, DMA A4 will drain towards the parking lot between Buildings Patterns/ Connections: A & B. Runoff will then enter the catch basin at the south corner of the parking lot. LID flows and 2-year flows will be routed to the proposed underground infiltration gallery below the parking lot. High flows will be diverted via storm drain to the south corner of property, where it will tie into an existing storm drain at Red Hill Avenue. All flows outside the property line within the public right-of-way along Red Hill Avenue will drain towards the street. DMA Bl and Cl is approximately 0.88 acres and drains in a northeasterly direction to an underground infiltration gallery located at the northeast corner of the property. High flows will bypass the facility and either flow through a parkway culvert onto Red Hill Avenue (DMA Bl) or surface flow out of the driveway on San Juan Street (DMA Cl). A geotechnical study was performed for the site in 2015 by NMG Geotechnical, Inc. Soils within the vicinity of the project site generally consist of artificial fill materials and native alluvium. The native Holocene- and Pleistocene-age alluvial fan deposits typically consist of silty fine to coarse sands, fine to coarse sand, and silty and sandy Soil Type, Geology, and clays. The undocumented fill was composed of fine to coarse Infiltration Properties: sands/silt to sandy clay, which is weathered and degraded. Percolation tests were performed along the western border of the site at depths ranging 10 to 13 feet below ground surface. The measured infiltration rates (excluding safety factors) are as follows: P1 — 7.1 in/hr ; P2 — 2.9 in/hr; P3 — 6.5 in/hr; and P4 — 5.4 in/hr WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 15 SITE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPaRTMEIVTS MARCH 8,2021 Based on these rates, infiltration is considered feasible at the project site. For the purposes of preliminary BMP design, an average infiltration rate of 5.5 inches per hour was utilized. A safety factor of 3 was applied to the average rate, which results in a design infiltration rate of 1 .83 inches per hour. Refer to Appendix F for further details. Additional infiltration tests will be conducted on-site during final design in the locations of the proposed infiltration BMPs. The newer rates will then be used to accurately size and design the final infiltration BMPs, and the BMP footprints and/or depths will be adjusted accordingly. All changes will be documented in the Final WQMP. Groundwater was encountered during the excavation of the deepest borings and was recorded at 47.4 feet below ground surface (bgs). Hydrogeologic Also, the prior preliminary investigation by GeoSoils, Inc. (2005) (Groundwater) encountered groundwater during the excavation of their borings at Conditions: depths ranging from 40.5 to 45 feet bgs. Historically, groundwater has been relatively deep at the site, between 30 and 40 feet bgs (see Appendix F). Due to deep groundwater levels exceeding 30 feet bgs and presence of a silty clay layer on flat surface levels, there should be no susceptibility to landslides within the project's vicinity. Infiltration is Geotechnical Conditions considered feasible for the project. (relevant to infiltration): Additional infiltration tests will be conducted on-site during final design in the locations of the proposed infiltration BMPs. The newer rates will then be used to accurately size and design the final infiltration BMPs, and the BMP footprints and/or depths will be adjusted accordingly. All changes will be documented in the Final WQMP. Off-Site Drainage: The project site does not receive any off-site storm water flows onto the property. Utility and Infrastructure Dry and wet utilities will be incorporated into the proposed project and Information: will tie into existing facilities associated with the existing development. 111.3 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION Peters Canyon Channel, San Diego Creek Reach 1, Upper Newport Receiving Waters: Bay, Lower Newport Bay Peters Canyon Channel: DDT, Indicator Bacteria, Toxaphene, pH San Diego Creek (Reach 1): Fecal Coliform, Nutrients, Pesticides, Sedimentation/Siltation Selenium, Toxaphene 303(d) Listed Upper Newport Bay: Chlordane, Copper, DDT, Indicator Bacteria, Impairments: Metals, Nutrients, PCBs, Pesticides, Sediment Toxicity, Sedimentation/Siltation Lower Newport Bay: Chlordane, Copper, DDT, Indicator Bacteria, Nutrients, PCBs, Pesticides, Sediment Toxicity WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC 16 SITE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 San Diego Creek Upper Newport Bay: Lower/Newport Bay: (Reach 1): 0 Metals 0 Metals ■ Metals 0 Nutrients 0 Nutrients Applicable TMDLs: Nutrients 0 Pathogens 0 Pathogens ■ Pesticides 0 Pesticides 0 Pesticides ■ Siltation ■ Siltation 0 Priority Organics ■ Siltation ■ Suspended Solid/Sediment - 303(d) listed impairment & TMDL for Sediment ■ Nutrients - 303(d) listed impairment & TMDL for Nutrients ■ Heavy Metals - 303(d) listed impairment & TMDL for Metals Pollutants of Concern for . Pathogens the Project: - 303(d) listed impairment & TMDL for Pathogens ■ Pesticides - 303(d) listed impairment & TMDL for Pesticides ■ Toxic Organic Compounds - 303(d) listed impairment & TMDL for Toxic Organic Compounds As discussed previously in Section 11.3, HCOCs exist for the project site. The post-development volumes exceed the pre-development runoff volumes by more than 5 percent. As a result, the proposed project will need to implement hydromodification controls to retain the Hydrologic Conditions of difference of 0.28 acre-feet or 12,195 ft3. Concern (HCOCs): Since proposed LID BMPs are required to infiltrate a DCV of 8,022 ft3 of runoff, as discussed in Section IV, this infiltration volume will, therefore, address a portion of the hydromodification volume. Thus, the project site will have to retain the difference of 4,173 ft3 as strictly for hydromodification control. Retention BMPs proposed for the project are discussed further in Section IV. Environmentally Sensitive There are no Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) or Areas of and Special Biological Special Biological Significance (ASBS) within the project site or within Significant Areas: the project's vicinity. WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 17 SITE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILL APaRTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 SECTION IV BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) IV.1 PROJECT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Is there an approved WIHMP or equivalent for the project area that includes more stringent LID feasibility criteria or if there are opportunities identified for implementing LID on regional or sub-regional basis? ❑ Yes ® No PROJECT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA If a hydrologic condition of concern (HCOC) exists, priority projects shall implement onsite or regional hydromodification controls such that: ■ Post-development runoff volume for the two-year frequency storm does not exceed that of the predevelopment condition by more than five percent, and ■ Time of concentration of post-development runoff for the two-year storm event is not less than that for the predevelopment condition by Hydromodification more than five percent. Control Performance Where the Project WQMP documents that excess runoff volume from Criteria: the two-year runoff event cannot feasibly be retained and where in- (Model WQMP Section stream controls cannot be used to otherwise mitigate HCOCs, the 7.11-2.4.2.2) project shall implement on-site or regional hydromodification controls to: ■ Retain the excess volume from the two-year runoff event to the MEP, and ■ Implement on-site or regional hydromodification controls such that the post-development runoff two-year peak flow rate is no greater than 110 percent of the predevelopment runoff two-year peak flow rate. LID Performance Infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire, or biotreat/biofilter, the 85t' Criteria: percentile, 24-hour storm event (Design Capture Volume). (Model WQMP Section LID BMPs must be designed to retain, on-site, (infiltrate, harvest and 7.11-2.4.3) use, or evapotranspire) storm water runoff up to 80 percent average annual capture efficiency Treatment Control If it is not feasible to meet LID performance criteria through retention BMP Performance and/or biotreatment provided on-site or at a sub-regional/regional Criteria: scale, then treatment control BMPs shall be provided on-site or offsite prior to discharge to waters of the US. Sizing of treatment control BMP(s) (Model Section shall be based on either the unmet volume after claiming applicable 7.11-3.2..2)2) water quality credits, if appropriate. WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC 18 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 PROJECT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Total Site (including offsite dedication) = 3.49 acres (92.6% impervious) Simple Method DCV = 8,022 ft3 LID Design Storm The total site includes 0.1 17 acres of offsite dedication. DMAA4's BMP Capture Volume: will be upsized to account for the untreated dedication runoff. Refer to Section IV.2.2 for specific Drainage Manage Area (DMA) breakdown and Appendix A for detailed calculations (Worksheet B). IV.2 SITE DESIGN AND DRAINAGE PLAN The following section describes the site design BMPs used in this project and the methods used to incorporate them. Careful consideration of site design is a critical first step in storm water pollution prevention from new developments and redevelopments. IV.2.1 Site Design BMPs Minimize Impervious Area As the proposed project is a multi-level wrap building, impervious areas are primarily the building itself. Landscaped areas surround the building and comprise the remaining portion of the site. Furthermore, landscaping is utilized in the courtyards. Maximize Natural Infiltration Capacity Infiltration LID BMPs have been incorporated into the proposed project. Preserve Existing Drainage Patterns and Time of Concentration Runoff from the site will continue to flow similar to existing conditions. Times of concentration for the 2-year peak flow conditions have been slightly increased by approximately 2 minutes for both DMAs. Disconnect Impervious Areas Landscaping will be provided along the perimeter of the proposed building adjacent to sidewalks and within courtyards. Protect Existing Vegetation and Sensitive Areas, and Reyegetate Disturbed Areas There are no existing vegetated or sensitive areas to preserve on the project site. All disturbed areas will either be paved or landscaped. Xeriscape Landscaping Xeriscape landscaping is not proposed for the project. However, native and/or tolerant landscaping will be incorporated into the site design consistent with City guidelines. WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 19 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 IV.2.2 Drainage Management Areas In accordance with the MS4 permit and the Model WQMP, the project site has been divided into Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) to be utilized for defining drainage areas and sizing LID and other treatment control BMPs. DMAs have been delineated based on the proposed site grading patterns, drainage patterns, storm drain and catch basin locations. Discrepancy in the DMA acreage and total acreage is due to rounding; see TGD Worksheet calculations provided in Appendix A. All runoff within the property line are included in DMAs A and B, and will be treated by the proposed BMPs (see Section IV.3.2 for more detail). The design capture volumes (DCV) and treatment flow rates (QDesign) for each DMA are summarized in the table below. These have been derived utilizing the "Simple Method" in accordance with the TGD Section III.1 .1 . Actual BMP sizing requirements, including 80 percent capture design volumes, flow rates, depths, and other design details for the specific BMPs proposed are provided in Sections IV.3.1 and IV.3.7 below. Locations of DMAs and associated LID and treatment BMPs are identified on the exhibits in Section VI. Additional calculations and TGD Worksheets are provided in Appendix A. DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREAS (DMAs) DMA/ Tributary Tributary Design Rainfall Simple Drainage Drainage o Storm Estimated Method QD.5i n(6) Drainage Area Area 7o Imp. De th Tc min Intensity�4� DCV(5) cfs 121 p 13) (min) (in/hr) ft3 ( ) Area ID�>> (ft2) (ac) (in) ( ) Al 44,431 1.02 92.0% 0.75 5 0.26 2,333 0.223 A2 26,572 0.61 86.3% 0.75 5 0.26 1,324 0.126 A3 7,405 0.17 88.1% 0.75 5 0.26 375 0.036 A4 +Offsite 35,153 0.81 97.6% 0.75 5 0.26 1,938 0.185 131 26,572 0.61 94.2% 0.75 5 0.26 1,422 0.136 C1 11,761 0.27 93.6% 0.75 5 0.26 626 0.060 Notes: 1. Refer to exhibits in Section VI for locations of each DMA. 2. Discrepancy in the DMA acreage and total acreage is due to rounding;see TGD Worksheet calculations provided in Appendix A 3. Per Figure XVI-1 of the Technical Guidance Document. See also Appendix A. 4. Per Figure 111.4 of the Technical Guidance Document. See also Appendix A. 5. Per Section III.1.1 of the Technical Guidance Document. 6. Per Section 111.3.3 and Worksheet D of the Technical Guidance Document. IV.3 LID BMP SELECTION AND PROJECT CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs are required in addition to site design measures and source controls to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges. LID BMPs are engineered facilities that are designed to retain or biotreat runoff on the project site. The 41h Term MS4 Storm Water Permit (Order No. R8-2009-0030, Amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062) requires the evaluation and use of LID features using the following hierarchy of treatment: infiltration, evapotranspiration, harvest/reuse, and WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 20 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 biotreatment. The following sections summarize the LID BMPs proposed for the project in accordance with the permit hierarchy and performance criteria outlined in Section IV.1 . IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) Hydrologic source controls (HSCs) can be considered to be a hybrid between site design practices and LID BMPs. HSCs are distinguished from site design BMPs in that they do not reduce the tributary area or reduce the imperviousness of a drainage area; rather they reduce the runoff volume that would result from a drainage area with a given imperviousness compared to what would result if HSCs were not used. HSCs were not incorporated into the project's design at this stage in the project's development. Any HSC's will be accounted for during final design and the cumulative volume of the HSC's will be subtracted from the required treatment volume in the Final WQMP. IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs Infiltration BMPs are LID BMPs that capture, store and infiltrate storm water runoff. These BMPs are engineered to store a specified volume of water and have no design surface discharge (underdrain or outlet structure) until this volume is exceeded. Examples of infiltration BMPs include infiltration trenches, bioretention without underdrains, drywells, permeable pavement, and underground infiltration galleries. INFILTRATION ID Name Included? Bioretention Without Underdrains ❑ Rain Gardens ❑ INF-3 Porous Landscaping ❑ INF-4 Infiltration Planters ❑ Retention Swales ❑ INF-2 Infiltration Trenches ❑ INF-1 Infiltration Basins ❑ INF-5 Drywells ❑ INF-7 Subsurface Infiltration Galleries -- French Drains ❑ Permeable Asphalt ❑ INF-6 Permeable Concrete ❑ Permeable Concrete Pavers ❑ WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 21 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 INFILTRATION ID Name Included? Other: ❑ As described in Section 111.2, infiltration is considered feasible for the project. Subsurface infiltration galleries (i.e. StormTrap or equivalent) will be used in conjunction with a hydrodynamic separator pre- treatment (such as Contech VortSentry, or equivalent), to provide runoff treatment for sediment and particulates prior to infiltration. The infiltration gallerywill consist of a hollow chamber and open bottom that is used to store runoff and allow water to infiltrate into the subsoils. Higher flows that cannot be treated will bypass the infiltrating system and discharge off-site via surface runoff, parkway culvert, or storm drain. BMP inflow pipes will be installed above the infiltration gallery chamber to allow water to fill the chamber and infiltrate into the soils. Once the chamber has reached its capacity, the runoff will bypass the system. Further details on the proposed infiltration gallery designs will be provided in the Final WQMP. The project site will have three infiltration galleries (INF-7) installed. The first will treat DMAs Al, A2 and A3 and will be located below the parking lot drive aisle in DMA A2. The infiltration gallery will have minimum dimensions of 1,362 ft2 and 5 ft deep (pending final design) to contain this drainage area's DCV, as well as its additional hydromodification volume. The second will treat DMA A4 and will be located below the parking lot between Buildings A and B, near the driveway entrance at Red Hill Avenue. The infiltration gallery will be upsized to account for the offsite dedication area that is unable to be captured and treated. It will have dimensions of 550 ft2 and 5 ft deep (pending final design) to contain this drainage area's DCV and additional hydromodification volume. The third infiltration gallery will treat DMAs 131 and C1, located in the drive aisle to San Juan Street at the north end of the property. It will be 640 ft2 and 5 ft deep. The infiltration BMPs will have a total of 12,760 ft3 of static storage volume,which exceeds the DCV of 8,022 ft3 for the project. Additional infiltration tests will be conducted on-site during final design in the locations of the proposed infiltration BMPs. The newer rates will then be used to accurately size and design the final infiltration BMPs, and the BMP footprints and/or depths will be adjusted accordingly. All changes will be documented in the Final WQMP. A table summary is provided below. INFILTRATION BMP DESIGN SUMMARY BMP Drainage Design Draw- Additional Minimum DMA Infiltration DCV(4) Hydromod Footprint GIS IDM Area Effective Rate down (ft3) Volume Needed/Provided Coordinate (ac)�2� Depth(3) (in/hr) (hr) (ft3) (ft2) A1,A2, 33.735568, A3 1.80 5.0 1.83 32.8 4,032 2,501 1,307/ 1,362 117.814539 A4 0.81 5.0 1.83 32.8 1,938 639 515 /550 33.735530, +Offsite -117.813859 131, C 1 0.88 5.0 1.83 32.8 2,048 1,037 6171640 33.736453, -117.813283 WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 22 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 INFILTRATION BMP DESIGN SUMMARY Notes: 1. Refer to WQMP Exhibit in Section VI for locations of DMAs and BMPs. 2. Discrepancy in the DMA acreage and total acreage is due to rounding;see TGD Worksheet calculations provided in Appendix A 3. Assumed 100%porosity. 4. Per Worksheet B,"Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method." Copies of completed worksheets with detailed calculations are included in Appendix A. As noted above, the project's LID BMPs will infiltrate approximately 12,760 ft3 of runoff within 32.79 hours, which exceeds the overall DCV of 8,022 ft3. This is because the additional volume infiltrated is needed for hydromodification control. As noted in the table above, both volumes will infiltrate within 48 hours. Full Trash Capture (FCS) In order to comply with the CA State Trash Provisions, Connector Pipe Screens (CPS or similar) will be utilized at four inlets on the project site and one inlet within the Alley to capture trash for the 1-year 1- hour storm event. The two inlets within DMA B and C do not tie into public infrastructure and serve as bubblers for high flows to discharge along San Juan Street and Red Hill Avenue via surface flow. IV.3.3 Evapotranspiration & Rainwater Harvesting BMPs Since infiltration will be utilized for retaining the design capture volume on-site, evapotranspiration and harvest and reuse/rainwater reuse BMPs were not incorporated into the project's design. IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs Since infiltration will be utilized for retaining the design capture volume on-site, additional biotreatment BMPs were not incorporated into the project's design. IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs No additional hydromodification controls were implemented for the project site. Instead, the project's LID BMPs (subsurface infiltration galleries INF-7) were oversized to accommodate the retention volume needed to address the project's HCOCs. As a result, the proposed project's LID BMPs have been sized to retain approximately 0.28 acre-feet or 12,195 ft3 of runoff. See Section IV.3.2 for additional details. Further details on the proposed infiltration BMPs will be provided in the Final WQMP. IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs Not applicable. LID BMPs (subsurface infiltration gallery) will be utilized for water quality treatment on- site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs Treatment control BMPs can only be considered if the project conformance analysis indicates that it is not feasible to retain the full design capture volume with LID BMPs. WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 23 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPaRTMEIVTS MARCH 8,2021 TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? TRT-1 Sand Filters ❑ TRT-2 Cartridge Media Filter ❑ PRE-1 Hydrodynamic Separation Device PRE-2 Catch Basin Insert ❑ Other: ❑ Hydrodynamic separators, such as a Contech Vortsentry HS or equivalent, are a compact, below grade storm water treatment system that employs helical flow technology to enhance gravitational separation of floating and settling pollutants from storm water flows. The hydrodynamic separator will be placed upstream of the infiltration galleries to provide pre-treatment for runoff before infiltrating into the soil. Three separators (HS36 model) will be used on site, one for each infiltration gallery. HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR PRE-TREATMENT BMP SUMMARY Drainage Total QDesign BMP Treatment Area ID Tributary (cfs) BMP Model Number Capacity Area (ac) Al , A2, A3 1 .80 0.385 VortSentry HS36 0.55 cfs A4 + Offsite 0.81 0.185 VortSentry HS36 0.55 cfs B1 , C1 0.88 0.196 VortSentry HS36 0.55 cfs IV.3.8 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs The table below indicates all BMPs to be incorporated in the project. For those designated as not applicable (N/A), a brief explanation why is provided. NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? Not If Not Applicable, Provide Applicable? Brief Reason N1 Education for Property Owners, ® ❑ Tenants and Occupants N2 Activity Restrictions ® ❑ WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC 24 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? Not If Not Applicable, Provide Applicable? Brief Reason N3 Common Area Landscape ® ❑ Management N4 BMP Maintenance ® ❑ N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance ❑ ® No hazardous materials (How development will comply) N6 Local Water Quality Permit ❑ ® Not an industrial facility Compliance N7 Spill Contingency Plan ❑ ® No hazardous materials N8 Underground Storage Tank ❑ ® No underground storage Compliance tanks are proposed N9 Hazardous Materials ❑ ® Hazardous materials will not Disclosure Compliance be stored on-site N10 Uniform Fire Code ❑ ® No hazardous materials Implementation N1 1 Common Area Litter Control ® ❑ N12 Employee Training ® ❑ N13 Housekeeping of Loading ❑ ® No loading docks are Docks proposed N14 Common Area Catch Basin ® ❑ Inspection Nl 5 Street Sweeping Private Streets ® ❑ and Parking Lots N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets ❑ ® No retail gasoline outlets are proposed N7, Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Educational materials will be provided to tenants, including brochures and restrictions to reduce pollutants from reaching the storm drain system. Examples include tips for pet care, household tips, and proper household hazardous waste disposal. Tenants will be provided with these materials by the property management prior to occupancy, and periodically thereafter. Refer to Section VII for a list of materials available and attached to this Preliminary WQMP. Additional materials are available through the County of Orange Stormwater Program website (http://ocwatersheds.com/PublicEd/) and the California Stormwater Quality Association's (CASQA) BMP Handbooks (http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/). WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 25 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 N2,Activity Restrictions The Owner shall develop ongoing activity restrictions that include those that have the potential to create adverse impacts on water quality. Activities include, but are not limited to: handling and disposal of contaminants, fertilizer and pesticide application restrictions, litter control and pick-up, and vehicle or equipment repair and maintenance in non-designated areas, as well as any other activities that may potentially contribute to water pollution. N3, Common Area Landscape Management Management programs will be designed and implemented by the Owner to maintain all the common areas within the project site. These programs will cover how to reduce the potential pollutant sources of fertilizer and pesticide uses, utilization of water-efficient landscaping practices and proper disposal of landscape wastes by the owner/developer and/or contractors. N4, BMP Maintenance The Owner will be responsible for the implementation and maintenance of each applicable non- structural BMP, as well as scheduling inspections and maintenance of all applicable structural BMP facilities through its staff, landscape contractor, and/or any other necessary maintenance contractors. Details on BMP maintenance are provided in Section V of this Preliminary WQMP, and the O&M Plan is included in Appendix D. N 11, Common Area Litter Control The Owner will be responsible for performing trash pickup and sweeping of littered common areas on a weekly basis or whenever necessary. Responsibilities will also include noting improper disposal materials by the public and reporting such violations for investigation. N12, Employee Training All employees of the Owner and any contractors will require training to ensure that employees are aware of maintenance activities that may result in pollutants reaching the storm drain. Training will include, but not be limited to, spill cleanup procedures, proper waste disposal, housekeeping practices, etc. N 14, Common Area Catch Basin Inspection All on-site catch basin inlets and drainage facilities shall be inspected and maintained by the Owner at least once a year, prior to the rainy season, no later than October 1 st of each year. N 15, Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots The Owner shall be responsible for sweeping all on-site drive aisles, entrances, and uncovered parking spaces within the project on a monthly basis. The parking structure basement level will also be swept on a monthly basis to prevent nuisance flows, if any, from ponding or flooding the structure. IV.3.9 Structural Source Control BMPs The table below indicates all BMPs to be incorporated in the project. For those designated as not applicable (N/A), a brief explanation why is provided. WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 26 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? Not If Not Applicable, Provide Applicable? Brief Reason Sl Provide storm drain system ® ❑ SD-13 stenciling and signage S2 Design and construct outdoor No outdoor storage areas SD-34 material storage areas to ❑ ® are proposed. reduce pollution introduction S3 Design and construct trash and SD-32 waste storage areas to reduce ® ❑ pollution introduction Use efficient irrigation systems S4 & landscape design, water ® ❑ SD-12 conservation, smart controllers, and source control S5 Protect slopes and channels ❑ ® There are no slopes or and provide energy dissipation channels on the project site. S6 Properly Design: Dock areas El ® No loading docks are SD-31 proposed. S7 Properly Design: Maintenance ❑ ® No maintenance bays are SD-31 bays proposed. S8 Properly Design: Vehicle wash El ® No vehicle wash areas are SD-33 areas proposed. S9 Properly Design: Outdoor ❑ ® No outdoor processing areas SD-36 processing areas are proposed. S10 Properly Design: Equipment ❑ ® No equipment wash areas wash areas are proposed. Sl 1 Properly Design: Fueling areas El ® No fueling areas are SD-30 proposed. S12 Properly Design: Hillside ❑ ® Project is not located in a SD-10 landscaping hillside area. Properly Design: Wash water S13 control for food preparation El ® No food preparation areas are proposed. areas S14 Properly Design: Community ❑ ® No community car wash car wash racks racks are proposed. S1/SD-13, Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage The phrase "NO DUMPING! DRAINS TO OCEAN", or an equally effective phrase approved by the City, will be stenciled on all major storm drain inlets within the project site to alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. Stencils shall be in place prior to release of WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 27 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 certificate of occupancy. Stencils shall be inspected for legibility on an annual basis and re-stenciled as necessary. S3/SD-32, Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction All trash and waste shall be stored in containers that have lids or tarps to minimize direct precipitation into the containers. Trash will be managed at three trash enclosures on the property. They are located adjacent to Buildings A, B, and Dl . The trash storage areas will be designed to City standards, and will be walled, roofed, have gates and proper drainage per City standards. S4/SD-12, Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control The Owner will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all common landscape areas utilizing similar planting materials with similar water requirements to reduce excess irrigation runoff. The Owner will be responsible for implementing all efficient irrigation systems for common area landscaping including, but not limited to, provisions for water sensors and programmable irrigation cycles. This includes smart timers, rain sensors, and moisture shut-off valves. The irrigation systems shall be in conformance with water efficiency guidelines. Systems shall be tested twice per year, and water used during testing/flushing shall not be discharged to the storm drain system. IVA ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PLAN IV.4.1 Water Quality Credits Local jurisdictions may develop a water quality credit program that applies to certain types of development projects after they first evaluate the feasibility of meeting LID requirements on-site. If it is not feasible to meet the requirements for on-site LID, project proponents for specific project types can apply credits that would reduce project obligations for selecting and sizing other treatment BMPs or participating in other alternative programs. WATER QUALITY CREDITS Credit Applicable? Redevelopment projects that reduce the overall impervious footprint of the project site. ❑ Brownfield redevelopment, meaning redevelopment, expansion, or reuse of real property which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of hazardous ❑ substances, pollutants or contaminants, and which have the potential to contribute to adverse ground or surface water quality if not redeveloped. Higher density development projects which include two distinct categories (credits can only be taken for one category): those with more than seven units per acre of development (lower credit allowance); vertical density developments, for example, ❑ those with a Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of 2 or those having more than 18 units per acre (greater credit allowance) WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 28 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 WATER QUALITY CREDITS Credit Applicable? Mixed use development, such as a combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses which incorporate design principles that can demonstrate environmental benefits that would not be realized through single use ❑ projects (e.g. reduced vehicle trip traffic with the potential to reduce sources of water or air pollution). Transit-oriented developments, such as a mixed use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transportation; similar to above criterion, but where the development center is within one half mile of a mass transit center (e.g. bus, ❑ rail, light rail or commuter train station). Such projects would not be able to take credit for both categories, but may have greater credit assigned Redevelopment projects in an established historic district, historic preservation area, or similar significant city area including core City Center areas (to be defined through ❑ mapping). Developments with dedication of undeveloped portions to parks, preservation areas ❑ and other pervious uses. Developments in a city center area. ❑ Developments in historic districts or historic preservation areas. ❑ Live-work developments, a variety of developments designed to support residential and vocational needs together—similar to criteria to mixed use development; would not be ❑ able to take credit for both categories. In-fill projects, the conversion of empty lots and other underused spaces into more ❑ beneficially used spaces, such as residential or commercial areas. Not applicable. Water quality credits will not be applied for the project. LID BMPs will be utilized for water quality treatment on-site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. IV.4.2 Alternative Compliance Plan Information Not applicable. LID BMPs (infiltration) will be utilized for water quality treatment on-site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 29 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 SECTION V INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR BMPs It has been determined that WASL Tustin Investors V, LLC shall assume all BMP inspection and maintenance responsibilities for the Red Hill Apartments project. Contact Name: Craig Swanson Title: Principal Company: WASL Tustin Investors V, LLC Address: 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 900 Newport Beach, CA 92650 Phone: 949.783.4123 Fax: Email: cswanson@IrvineAssetGroup.com Should the maintenance responsibility be transferred at any time during the operational life of Red Hill Apartments, such as when an HOA or POA is formed for a project, a formal notice of transfer shall be submitted to the City of Tustin at the time responsibility of the property subject to this Preliminary WQMP is transferred. The transfer of responsibility shall be incorporated into this Preliminary WQMP as an amendment. The Owner shall verify BMP implementation and ongoing maintenance through inspection, self- certification, survey, or other equally effective measure. The certification shall verify that, at a minimum, the inspection and maintenance of all structural BMPs including inspection and performance of any required maintenance in the late summer/ early fall, prior to the start of the rainy season. A form that may be used to record implementation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs is included in Appendix D. The City of Tustin may conduct verifications to assure that implementation and appropriate maintenance of structural and non-structural BMPs prescribed within this Preliminary WQMP is taking place at the project site. The Owner shall retain operations, inspections and maintenance records of these BMPs and they will be made available to the City or County upon request. All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years after the recorded inspection date for the lifetime of the project. Long-term funding for BMP maintenance shall be provided by WASL Tustin Investors V, LLC. Once established, the POA will be responsible to inform residents of established CC&Rs in compliance with the O&M of the project's WQMP as well as maintain and upkeep structural BMPs outlined in the WQMP. The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan can be found in Appendix D. WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 30 BMP INSPECTION&MAINTENANCE � � /CL O O @ oe / } X LL a G oe \ w / & = 2 a a / 3 ) P ± e m § y = 7 5 § \ \ '\ ® — c E 2 \ % '\ u u E % \ 0 / § a) 2 [ j CL @ 5 % u 3 / \ mG u a / u LU e % o e J o E 7 7 : \ \ LU ° ° \ E a e � ._ o .E a E t ƒ E k \ + \ \ / \ ° ƒ t \ \_ % k % Lo a § § \ § [ .( u _ y 0 � 0 \ e u ° \ U) � ® \ 3 J ƒ ƒ \ \ Z 0 u E u § � 0 7 e o s-o w m y \ 5 / '\ u \ \ 0 \ , = \ / _ k § 0 \ u + U J $ ƒ ƒ ° e u gU) P ° V) \ * § / 3 \ \ [ \ i � ./ G \ } ƒ \ ° % Ue $ o o s 2 e m e e Cl) ƒ .( Q) o u s w P (D \ S \ u -6 E E z CL CL u ( § \ < \ > \ > I CL \ ° z ° ° \ CO \ q \ 3 % 2 § P w \ d \ \ k � \ } \ y IT \ U- J LU 3 j \ CL \ � � O O O @ oe \ 2 & 5 0 'e e E u � _ _ e u » � o § \ � \ / E} / / \ s ± o = 7 0 \ } § \ [ E ƒ / E e = ƒ / 0 » u ® + w � x � \ 2 t o e g \ C'4 (D D � 2 / / / $ / w \ 7 \ \ ® » \ e § E / 7 \ \ o / _ g e = ( e 6 / 5 \CL u ( \ \ \ \ J \ \ LU \ ( \ \ [ / u a) oe LU k � '\ \ ® \ \ E + \ / \ \ � / [ ± ƒ ® / » .( 2 ( e « 8 = % —u0 2 �/ � > LU \ \ / ƒ u .ƒ k ° ) } Z g \ ° » E t ) g E ) ? E / \7 _ / ƒ \ \ ƒ ® E o \ u / + © / 2 uoa \ Z \ \ / / \ \ O \ \ 5 ƒ \ 2 ® & 2 O S \ U = = E o s .g o o u a U \ � ? CL - 0 2 % / 2 7 \ \ W m L S u .[ %u I .2 s� o w s s w e > \ z m CL CL G 2 \ co : z \ O » \ / U O e ) u LU % L u t � \ Ln ƒ oe \ \ g [ m ) .E Q ƒ / o 2 w V) O \ \ o = o & z ^ U D ® q u \ \ } & q o \ � & } aJ / LUF w \ } \ C4 t § / & O 7 z � ^ z \ CL & � � 0-CL O O O $ � § / / » \ ƒ \ L O x � \ 2 - m = \ e e ^ G <e S C6 U § \ 5 * \ ƒ \ < < 2 " v E e z > / e •a q = e e *_ m g a s @ ] \ E \ D U / \ E 3 \ � + oG \ / \� = § \� \ 0 S . o . eo33s = e � e G CL / ( / � \ { 2 \ �_ ° } u \ G m E \ u e ƒ u e g % § t \ � 'c \ & - wE ± e 7 \d ) U) \ \ 2 \ \ » ± ( / \ \ * U) f- t & ® 5 0 ° � [ e t > _ 4 § U / \ � > » a) } P \ e \ '\ 3 e \ 0 � 2 E \ K\ 5 / \ / @ % u § Z § -E t q 0 0 ? \ \ Q qC3 ,/ ± co 2 e t m \ E ? § - ° % & .- & e '- e = .- � 7 � � � = e / / S \ \ \ / 2 u � .E / § \ § .U) S \ Z \ / t 7 § ° • \ § \ ( § % § e s ® u • 5 _ a O 2 P o \ 2 > @ e § o Q = 'S u » .2 0 / e / v m ' = e u e O § = m U B 7 m e E , � G ƒ § 2 e 0 § 0- CLe 7 k ƒ Q) Cl) � » P -0 7 ± o § m & & % � .E » s s .( + P ± \ & E Z / CL z � / co o z u u � cn \& u - \ 7 / \ \ w \ / { { u / U / \ z 2 \ 7 7 w \ 2 & & � � 0-CL O O O O O $ � E » * s / \ C3 C3 0 'k o = ? \ / k k » k O x � u ' \ 3 2 j ) C3 s� % 0 2 3 6 ƒ E ) _ \ 3 \ # ® o = 2 / = § e E 6 0 / e @ » 0- _ •- ® E / s CO -0 a [ e ° - e z Z 0 > \ § ƒ \ 0 0 e e@ & �_ 0 2 4 E s \ § » e s = s 2 § / 7 2 2 0 \ / @ e = m e 0 e ° u e � ._ u / u 0 s _ = 0 \ e o P w ƒ § $ \ s § \ ? / e \ 3 2 e ƒ w \ 5 \ LU co e = _ / — 7 '& u k \ $ O § ) ® ° / 2 f « \ \ q = \ � 7 * \ ® o %? ( § % Z u § _ ® _0 > s - = E o •- u § & L D ® ) e e = e u e •- — s e / •— e E s § § » ƒ + + ° § e > .g % > s m = o f e 0 e « - \ o y e 2 ® o % I \± G \ / Q \ @ o ._ � .__ = E = 2 .[ 2 u ° u — _ a m = s P — e '- & § = m = % -0 m e ¥ ƒ k C3 ° _ § z \ § 5 § . \ \ % ƒ ƒ \ / ƒ e / e E / % u o O 7 2 UQ)) .2 2 � § % f = O S LO & 3 s § = e _ ._ e .- 2 .( ° t .& [ .[ _ ® O 2 'u E * e 7r & e t t = u 6 = m m CO U s o o e Q e P e e e 2 § 2 § ® o P s s 2 w E s % u » o U e O % m E + e w + u s E w w e z CL Z CL — _ CL % 2 < ) Do & \ 2 = / CL 2 / u S \ \ \ \ \ a o ? LU ® ( e ° \ / \_ § \ E \ \ \ ) 5 '> \ \ LU Q L/) ƒ U- \ \ \ z < « w z \ \ _ J Ln 2 3 q CN \ \ 7 7 7 7 ® c Ln cn \ � � 2 § .U) ƒ2 ƒ � ƒ 3 o S -0 \ �ƒ E § % .E / \ % E •E .E E 2 U- CN ) u � 5 ® \ / c \ \ 0 \ E ° / y ) -0 u § 0 \ / G u w § u c § ƒ 2 ® \ 0o k \ s > / t `> � ° 0 0 0 < \ ƒ \ ./ \ 5 / g ƒ 7 E u tn� ) \ k \CL ) " 0 C3 2 \_ ( / � \ � 0 0 � & / § Z t e G = / G o E s 0 e g = '- @ ° � E ® C3 E � e e s u 3 \ t * / ) % \ / '\° ® � § 2 � 2 5 \ƒ 0 \ / \ / / / .\ \ '\ \ ( � % \ § / E t o P * e = m e s \ a O » S t § / cn co CL w \ LO / E \G e e _0 _ u e CL m \ [ \ / 2 \ e \ \ ® & C3 Q) / m E ƒ S + 2 f o = o ) _ \ § \ 0 C: j %CL \ / \ o E � _/ c 5) E t E 0Z;i % \ _0 0 § ƒ cn o o e m= u o s e = e 0 ƒ + § b § \ s ) @ � & } § § \ƒ o < « e u z z \ a ) G g e } © & e 0 2 \ ® S *� \ G 2 & ® k2 - / PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 SECTION VI SITE PLAN AND DRAINAGE PLAN The exhibits provided in this section are to illustrate the post construction BMPs prescribed within this Preliminary WQMP. Drainage flow information of the proposed project, such as general surface flow lines, concrete or other surface drainage conveyances, and storm drain facilities are also depicted. All structural source control and treatment control BMPs are shown as well. EXHIBITS ■ Vicinity Map ■ WQMP Exhibit ■ StormTrap Typical Detail ■ VortSentry Typical Detail WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 36 SITE PLAN&DRAINAGE PLAN o , w a /, �.y,r#' �1y, wry rb�t,, J''. ../ � r� •. A�,ry a/ l m r• f a r y ` OX oop CO tl LO �I ' 4W, '117 f 404* 27 "N,. r � •� � f"•\ ti'�n. �Y ___111 5'` .r., nF � + �4�j�y* ��,� 4... r. w os:w o=n=ia (wasroar a -co)oma eo-m-aoz-su+3wunm".._.zzoo­z,\in rvano3s\awom narwwn38a\awom\­3H\Sn waaans-\zoo\z,z L\sm d\A Ln o N n o �m w w N Q2 �U x O �d (L as sa as sa - > 44 Q LU _F � S iV�'flf`NQS- - U C 3 0 - --- w - _ O 1 N W 2% oz 1 € VA az z 1 z z"= 1 3oz �o��F I I I O su - e_ d {I ° ux `� � w i { g °3u I _ x W _ w LL LU l G � I 1 ° z 1 � I J z W , z a z z o z V o -a 40 ON ME ME m sm z 1 W d ° 'o v z O 1 z a v v 3 0 ll o ° H 1 rc z o< — z y � u u o 12 I � °z zz < G 1 IIm z z m OR - - z - - low z ° � z a 1 ° ° m w w r I o zm "' - II Z � �O a a u LU Lio o z o o N _ 1 W ? 0 0 0 00 LU ~ I I T I I I r 8 . w� _ p om' — LL oa z.. a zO Z om a OW F n Q < a Z Q W O d O oC If O 0O o Q Q � �Z- E ; w 0 6E Q D a 0 W WUj o� Z 2 � ¢ W W J W~ m w (� z F- o w ~ z� v yir z F H Z Z W LU LU W O J W W [C D Q z UTI(n > M, W � U ¢ C/) 2z I >o U z O O w - a z m O 4 a m w F O iyNz zmw z Zy Oa pa o OOw QQO O aZ w2 mj M U LL a O O w F pZ0 O pp <z p x�� JN p o O ~ w - N w ww Z z Zap OSZ OU pOO M<M< a w �p� Omm a 00 o W I c 0 ZOZ Z z M2 C50 3 > _wF o Z_O z_ o < F p 0 UaW - ao - Q 0. <, W Fp ,III' N W ¢ v � 2 ZOIr O U a o z LL I I I I I I I I I I I Q.p w z W a a _ IIIIIIIIIII Q _ U p IIIIIIIIIII LL w J z zza _Z. Q 2 z� ~w IIIIIIIIII zw Jo o m z IIIIIIIIII a w J p z O p IIIIIIIIII U) " Hn XF�¢waz0LL z 0 CL .00 w Zao-JoUaa IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII zpp Mza ozwz awca w 0O oFzoo a o ow�w Z z� pw IIIIIIII a v IIIIIIII ? Uz J moO x U Z naF mF Z O w W II�I�I�I Ith 1111111 = g � = Q U I IIIII I O m m w IIII II O z F �w Z Fo 1111111 a F g N om ti o " z 1J tq o 'o o f IIII wLL E o F I I I I mz y z 4 a � w 0 I IIII I - = w C o z g z I III I zm 0 NIIIII I�I�I IIIII I I I o Rp oU �LL �a U a a _ w ❑ E a Z m �❑ U W x _ � o m E LL W 3 Z m 3 > w U O Z E _ o.E C d ~ LL Z Z ti@ O U) y ¢ r O O Z J r o ww cc w a Z ay E y H o ? a O z o a w ro z sw z w j�0 Q' in z m E Q - a w w a g F ° z a z �0 0 0 �'o� H W a a Q a°NU ? ° o z a i w w w o a zo 0 a ��a W Q w LL a o r w o w X03 in r tt r a ti w ti w ti w i w ❑ r 7 (7 w x z o wrn z aw ° Jaz H cl Q O a Q rn 3 a tt i O a Z >w 17 ww `� r �w ww J Z Z �� N Z E �� w �? "`�' E5 <w oxo rn? J m in r UI w0 J n� 'cm H LU owoa Rzo a��W co zrnF W raiz Q ��° o OOO Q wo�3 ora v o�wa cl °a W o �w �aa CO wo z z Z o~ goo E �z Saw`° a<° wZm dE �zw� zg> cwzziwc�nwwcriwd��4z'>zw J y = Hp moa wmw m0 zzo°w�ww>wz Wa o wr �Go z OOO zo¢c�rw5wx� a�ui ow w�row� z ww O zz wHZ _ W ? nm gLL°�3zLL'sr�ow»o waw o a a zwo O oK w� e ow O z vi ~ °' LL JLLw�w rm� �wz�¢awF v o m H owr iz ° - HLL ° W WwFz`n °ww az�cr.�inQaw N NO Q Z [Y-O r°w 2fo I rar N w �w Z ou U' Z Z O E Q W s¢.n7��Z¢ZS w?�mp�ttcj �0 oU n w ao LL w w o-, c v� VQ a�°z owowLLI zz o U c7 Z it W~ >�° Waan�za�� G a �p .❑-� 'j g Q W Z a z p_i t¢j r U0=000j Z WCLaw 3ci w� o wg wpnazazwa� zamoa000� ,�� _ W 3 v �ao Q oxo�xzwwoa omJcrizr.�z /o111��Z 3z a a~ QO �U�awrwnacjz� .=�uwi���� r/W o m �v a�zLLWrrxx grnrnrrrrrw <> z a `° m c n ' `° LL wz�ly 7w7w07 >r�z¢zzzw arO-o000 Fzz00000> '7 NQ N x x x x 2 2 zoo U>UH w 0 .U'U �a¢U>UUU� xn 17 N n 7 in ?� ry Mv�n rn¢ i L-L>U r t > m U Orn tttt aw 1 Ow 12 0 Q� Q OCO O Uatt U a Ow 2 U U \\ L w z V O Jw a a wr ow o0 ¢z w p H D a °w w x S o °o wz a¢ ° wX r m Z 8 Z Q O Wd lE�b blOZl9lI5 OMO'110-5'H5�\OM4\SONIMVd00dtlONtl1506\SH Ad1N351dOA 9Z\SdOWW00\d31tlMWdO1S\�I PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPARTMENTS MARCH 8,2021 SECTION VII EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS The educational materials included in this Preliminary WQMP are provided to inform people involved in future uses, activities, or ownership of the site about the potential pitfalls associated with careless storm water management. "The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door' provides users with information about storm water that is/will be generated on site, what happens when water enters a storm drain, and its ultimate fate, discharging into the ocean. Also included are activities guidelines to educate anyone who is or will be associated with activities that have a potential to impact storm water runoff quality, and provide a menu of BMPs to effectively reduce the generation of storm water runoff pollutants from a variety of activities. The educational materials that may be used for the proposed project are included in Appendix C of this Preliminary WQMP and are listed below. EDUCATION MATERIALS Residential Materials Check If Business Materials Check If (http://www.ocwatershecis.com) Attached (http://www.ocwatershecis.com) Attached The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door ® Tips for the Automotive Industry ❑ Tips for Car Wash Fund-raisers ❑ Tips for Using Concrete and Mortar ❑ Tips for the Home Mechanic ❑ Tips for the Food Service Industry ❑ Homeowners Guide for Sustainable Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Water Use ElProper ❑ Household Tips ® Other Materials Check If Proper Disposal of Household ® (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Attached Hazardous Waste (http://www.cabmphandbooks.com) Recycle at Your Local Used Oil ® DF-1 Drainage System Operation & ❑ Collection Center North County Maintenance Recycle at Your Local Used Oil ❑ R-1 Automobile Repair& Maintenance ❑ Collection Center Central County Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center South County) E] R 2 Automobile Washing ❑ Tips for Maintaining Septic Tank Systems ❑ R-3 Automobile Parking ❑ Responsible Pest Control ❑ R-4 Home & Garden Care Activities ❑ Sewer Spill ❑ R-5 Disposal of Pet Waste Tips for the Home Improvement Projects ❑ R-6 Disposal of Green Waste Tips for Horse Care ❑ R-7 Household Hazardous Waste ❑ Tips for Landscaping and Gardening ® R-8 Water Conservation Tips for Pet Care ® SD-1 O Site Design & Landscape Planning ❑ Tips for Pool Maintenance ® SD-1 1 Roof Runoff Controls ❑ Tips for Residential Pool, Landscape and ElSD 12 Efficient Irrigation Hardscape Drains ❑ Tips for Projects Using Paint ❑ SD-13 Storm Drain Signage ❑ Tips for Protecting Your Watershed ® SD 31 Maintenance Bays & Docs El Other: Children's Brochure ElSD 32 Trash Storage Areas WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V,LLC 41 EDUCATIONAL MaTERALS PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PWQMP) RED HILLAPaRTMEIVTS MARCH 8,2021 APPENDICES Appendix ................................................................................................Supporting Calculations Appendix B.................................................................................Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Appendix ...................................................................................................Educational Materials Appendix D ...................................................................BMP Maintenance Supplement / O&M Plan AppendixE..................................................................................................Conditions of Approval Appendix F ...................................................................................................Infiltration Test Results Appendix G......................................................................................City Covenant and Agreement Appendix H......................................................................................2-Year Hydrology Calculations WASL TUSTIN INVESTORS V, LLC 42 APPENDICES APPENDIX A SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS N O Q\Qoo N N a) U) _ c3 U U U U o 7 O N & C C C L(7 o U L U) LO LO c N CO O N O N O � O OO O 000 O LO V O O O C O O L6 07 M L6 o (O LO LO O O O Cl) O O Cl) m p O N LI) N LO O �00 O V O O O O L6 07 NCl) L6 00N r m Ocq L(') L(') c 00 OR� O O M r- O Ln N O 00 (O 00 CO LO O 00 O r- + C) O O o-) O C) L6 07 NL6 00Cl) co IL 0 a N cqO 2 4 o Q L(') L(') O O (7 O O aI- p I- � LO O 00 N O Ln a O O O 00 O M L(') ('7 Cl) L(') w o (O LO LO . co O O ('7 � O O aO O r- N LO O 00 O V O O O (D O L6 (7 M L6 N U o (O w LO LO N c O nj O O M O OLO O Q r- p r- O O 00 co LO O 00 O Ti h O O O M L6 (7M L6 a W d } o Lr) O) N O r- 00 O V O O co O UI N LO O 00 O p Q o m �i o o L6 (15m LO (fl x O = (:Y) C:) Cl) ~ a W u II u u u u u u u u u u u u OCf) o Q a O > E c o` Y a > U a L 7 LC) Q Q CS U) -• � O .= o CL J (3) E E cf O U 11 u U I a 1V O L O m O E 2 c k /k c "� O Q U) O a 0) a) U w r O U o O a N d L N J 0 IIJ d =O Y E O 00 O �U w Q U -O ) mcn v E ami o 0 c c m c v 0o m e Q o U a) ai U) = o Leo c I- c o c yo a O � a=i ° v) E 6'^ o O a U a) c x it v I dO E E Q U > -� U) m = m °) E v a a 0) E o E a a a _ o o O a) o in m a� � x U Uc a) (6 E .a� co m Q N c a a) : w a) a) CO E m > -5 o -0 Y 0 E c a NI O in o o a o 0 0 o x c a x E _ _ s _ o = N a) a) t a) 7 p 01 d a) -o O j O II a) O N k a) o N m c a`) o c, E v v M m O a � c0) � � W � � � c c Q c `- m a c a3 o L waw U N w r(4tC') U x M w w CO U Y �.� w U o Y U Q Q o � 4 4 4 4 a 'o 0 O (6 w N co w V ,(O (O � N Cl) r V LO D � 11 N O i M U a) N L o m o U m U U o N O N O O O o N (� 0 N O 0 O N N co� LO 000 co CO co O O O O O U) N co Lo 00 LO N O 0 o ami o a O O O o co m U r O N \ N O N LO 000 (h a m O o O v m 0 0 0 rn 0 0 h CO a) co 'o �= = 5 w O O 1- o N Lf) LO '~ O (o - O O O 00 00 co LO O N O o O N 00 00 �- LO (a + O O O Co. m O O O O a) O U cr I* U a a j � t MY W O O O o M O co o O co Q L(7 NCD O O N co COO O O OO O O M O O O O o � O LO UI m a rm Lo N Lo O 0 O N (� m 1 M Q 7� = O O o 00 o O = U � a LL ri O O O o O co j 3 r O (O (o N O V N h 0 a NCD CD O N O 00 N v O O O O 421 II II II II II II II II II II O U c � Q) II II Q H U) m �l 0 3 d G S N O N �5 a v �Q a) U m N V 0 LD o a) a) I- U) m 0 O m .� y E U) o co c o E O m a ;F E _ m 0 I- .. O o Y 0- O Q m W 4 g °? C) 5 0 U 0 �° 3 o vi m o cmi 0 a3 0 0 � 0 0 0 O U a _ ; oo E o o u� c az o m Q 0 y U) � O v Q E .� 5 LO c = m _ ka) 0 v N h N_ LL m _0 OE O O + O - - UH U oY = .� � � t az E � � a co - o T o o k E N = o_ o Jaz > o Jaz 0LO oU La a? 00 �C C -F m O � LL a"' L N a) = (6 t\ II72 mS V T N U1 c 0 .0 °> °> c c � °> > U }? f� Y .. O C fn -O � C Q C = fn U N a) O2 C O C (6 II (6 a Y .ci W D .E U a) W Z W -0 D .E ~ } p N LU L° W U U U C'1 O U 0 - - � o DI (j N co V Ln O y N CO V y a) LCL LL a CD o N (r) uo cn (o M _ N O o 0 E E E E � 0 y ca 0 o 0 co cv R II II II V + o x co W o bA 1 L O � C y _ M zm cn � W w � ❑ U v Z � � � Q W 0 w � H 0 0 W � - v Q Z a .%R oR a a o a o o Q Q n a a o a 0 0 0 w 0 0) co r` co Lo IT co N r Aauai:)1:43 ain4de:D jenuuV af5eaand � u z x APPENDIX B NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Red Hill Apartments APN 500-141-09 & 500-141-10 Submission of this Notice Of Transfer of Responsibility constitutes notice to the City of Tustin that responsibility for the Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP") for the subject property identified below, and implementation of that plan, is being transferred from the Previous Owner (and his/her agent) of the site (or a portion thereof) to the New Owner, as further described below. I. Previous Owner/ Previous Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual Name: Contact Person: Street Address: Title: City: State: ZIP: Phone: II. Information about Site Transferred Name of Project (if applicable): Title of WQMP Applicable to site: Street Address of Site (if applicable): Planning Area (PA) and/ Lot Numbers (if Site is a portion of a tract): or Tract Numbers for Site: Date WQMP Prepared (and revised if applicable): III. New Owner/ New Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual Name: Contact Person: Street Address: Title: City: State: ZIP: Phone: IV. Ownership Transfer Information General Description of Site Transferred to New General Description of Portion of Project/ Parcel Owner: Subject to WQMP Retained by Owner (if any): Lot/Tract Numbers of Site Transferred to New Owner: Remaining Lot/Tract Numbers Subject to WQMP Still Held by Owner (if any): Date of Ownership Transfer: Note: When the Previous Owner is transferring a Site that is a portion of a larger project/ parcel addressed by the WQMP, as opposed to the entire project/parcel addressed by the WQMP, the General Description of the Site transferred and the remainder of the project/ parcel no transferred shall be set forth as maps attached to this notice. These maps shall show those portions of a project/ parcel addressed by the WQMP that are transferred to the New Owner (the Transferred Site), those portions retained by the Previous Owner, and those portions previously transferred by Previous Owner. Those portions retained by Previous Owner shall be labeled as "Previously Transferred". V. Purpose of Notice of Transfer The purposes of this Notice of Transfer of Responsibility are: 1) to track transfer of responsibility for implementation and amendment of the WQMP when property to which the WQMP is transferred from the Previous Owner to the New Owner, and 2) to facilitate notification to a transferee of property subject to a WQMP that such New Order is now the Responsible Party of record for the WQMP for those portions of the site that it owns. VI. Certifications A. Previous Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am no longer the owner of the Transferred Site as described in Section 11 above. I have provided the New Owner with a copy of the WQMP applicable to the Transferred Site that the New Owner is acquiring from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of Previous Owner Representative: Title: Signature of Previous Owner Representative: Date: B. New Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am the owner of the Transferred Site, as described in Section 11 above, that I have been provided a copy of the WQMP, and that I have informed myself and understand the New Owner's responsibilities related to the WQMP, its implementation, and Best Management Practices associated with it. I understand that by signing this notice, the New Owner is accepting all ongoing responsibilities for implementation and amendment of the WQMP for the Transferred Site, which the New Owner has acquired from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of New Owner Representative: Title: Signature: Date: APPENDIX C EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS ° 3 Ct ° bUC ',t biC bi biC 4> U z U bC a ` v biO a o ` 3 0 biCU " 'u 't� 4..4o C u � y p v •= O uInt GJ GJ hO u ^Ca.y. cd ct V] u p".IE 'C V] -0 m m 'o t a. biC v U U _ O O so O bA vi cd ^C bt biC' O C U z U ct E U O O " ;o 'C O biC U c 1616 a ob/J U 3 y a u a a -o ° o ct a o o cd U "�- bA G) P1 O O p cd o a 14 a .� cam. o � o ct 3u ct C5 0 E J `" a,^" °o � a' � � � o .�. �" o °' > •�. a ori � i � � a .� � 16, ° � t ' 3 - t F � F o • . ...' , 0 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cz . . . . . . . oA . . . . . . cz tZIC 0 ba , Z btc co°o 3 o o .11bl w .0 . w °a 0 ' o 3 cn � 3 a •� .� 0. � � � � a a 3 � .� o � � o � .° o ° a � � '� � � � x o opo •� U Scp ' 3 �, •� � o .� a � � � � � 3 � � 0.0 0.0 .� � a v � 0 3 � ' � 3 °' ° o °' � � di `' r; 0. • � ° � a 3 a >. 0 0. � ° � .� 3 0 � o � ° 3 � � w b .� .0 3 � va cv -- 0.o 0 c" 'oA00 o � C -05 aU x w o o w .0 ° c7 oAco x z 3 ° 5 w 0. 0cz 0 U U o q 3 3 0 0 0 0. a ° 0 ° .n ° C,5 m tx tx 3 o a o CZ o ° 0C15cz o oa oa U U Ca w w c7 x a s a s a s a s z Ot O w A C2C2 va ux H 5 3 0 0 O 3 w° o °, o .0 0 o E = V U O y U bncz -V o zblo o 0 ° Pw � O � � � U O C d •5 ,�' C O d v, � �? � � � o o b° o NO � NO °� � U 0 0 � � cz n O O by 'S d bA d v y � 'O y bA.+ .+ r. U a O d J ° c ° O S m 5 bp W s. o? o 0 00 •_ '" o 0 0 a w° cz cz acz � v 0 0 0 3 U • • • • • • W o x .. U u O vi The Ocean Door 1 �ry _ I Follow these simple steps to help reduce water pollution: Household Activities Pool Maintenance Trash ■Do not rinse spills with water.Use dry cleanup ■Pool and spa water must be dechlorinated and free ■Place trash and litter that cannot be recycled in methods such as applying cat litter or another of excess acid,alkali or color to be allowed in the securely covered trash cans. absorbent material,sweep and dispose of in street,gutter or storm drain. ■Whenever possible,buy recycled products. the trash.Take items such as used or excess ■When it is not raining,drain dechlorinated pool and ■Remember:Reduce,Reuse,Recycle. batteries,oven cleaners,automotive fluids, spa water directly into the painting products and cathode ray tubes,like sanitary sewer. Pet Care TVs and computer monitors,to a Household ■Some cities may have ordinances that do not allow EAlways pick up after your pet.Flush waste down Hazardous Waste Collection Center(HHWCC). pool water to be disposed of in the storm drain. the toilet or dispose of it in the trash.Pet waste, ■For a HMI TCC near you call(714)834-6752 or Check with your city. if left outdoors,can wash into the street,gutter visit i�ww.oclandfills.com. or storm drain. ■Do not hose down your driveway,sidewalk or landscape and Gardening 0 If possible,bathe your pets indoors.If you must patio to the street,gutter or storm drain.Sweep ■Do not over-water.Water your lawn and garden by bathe your pet outside,wash it on your lawn or up debris and dispose of it in the trash. hand to control the amount of water you use or set another absorbent/permeable surface to keep irrigation systems to reflect seasonal water needs. the washwater from entering the street,gutter or Automotive If water flows off your yard onto your driveway or storm drain. ■Take your vehicle to a commercial car sidewalk,your system is over-watering.Periodically ■Follow directions for use of pet care products wash whenever possible.If you wash your inspect and fix leaks and misdirected sprinklers. and dispose of any unused products at a vehicle at home,choose soaps,cleaners,or 0 Do not rake or blow leaves,clippings or pruning HHWCC. detergents labeled non-toxic,phosphate-free waste into the street,gutter or storm drain.Instead, or biodegradable.Vegetable and citrus-based dispose of waste by composting,hauling it to a products are typically safest for the environment. permitted landfill,or as green waste through your Common Pollutants ■Do not allow washwater from vehicle washing city's recycling program Home Maintenance to drain into the street,gutter or storm drain. ■Follow directions on pesticides and fertilizer, a Detergents,cleaners and solvents Excess - Excess washwater should be disposed of in the (measure,do not estimate amounts)and do not use a Oil and latex paint sanitary sewer(through a sink or toilet)or onto if rain is predicted within 48 hours. *Swimming pool chemicals an absorbent surface like your lawn. ■Take unwanted pesticides to a HHWCC to be a Outdoor trash and litter 0 Monitor your vehicles for leaks and place a pan recycled.For locations and hours of HHWCC,call under leaks.Keep your vehicles well maintained (714)834-6752 or visit wwwoclandfills.com. Lawn and Garden to stop and prevent leaks. a Pet and animal waste ■Never pour oil or antifreeze in the street,gutter 6 Pesticides or storm drain.Recycle these substances at a a Clippings,leaves and soil service station,a waste oil collection center or 6 Fertilizer used oil recycling center.For the nearest Used Oil Collection Center call 1-800{;LEANUP or visit www 1800cleanup.org. � � O . O ' W � 0 � 3 � . Q cz PLO go O � +' 4-4 4-4 CIA it it It it 4-4 o +4 o o O v It v O O '� �' O • as 'as O =0 -41 1-4 -41 +-' .-� iii ct � S .. cCi N "O J..4 +' y G� O s� c�i O It O p �" ' N +' v O s., v -43N .. N +• '+.� "O v pp D o S O v +-0 r. 10, u. o ° � o o a� O a) p �, +, O o c, x a� x c a� +a 1-, U cn cn -41 CIA -41 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ w 7 � cn cn o�io o +; � ;, ao +' o y ccs ccs cncn cnU O 00 s0 cv O +' tn t=4 O � O O �5 n J4 � •0 ,0 � a, cn a� o cn ° o Qj , 4-1 Z5 cn o o cn cz cn �, cn ' cz 't O ." ^O =3 O •ia cn � b10 �" U cn c�i v O O cn Q, cna� O .0 ;� O A OO+• y a� i, Q cn '� N N N O O c� +4j o y ++ •� , V "C V z+ O*Oy' A Q Ow cz cz U v� H v� Q u. 78 a � O i C F T i .4-, O Col.) O O Amt • I� c`t �-'� C O co.) O W ct � � O 1 rN • O 4� 4� O �i _ 4- •, v �, ¢ N O ti •r7 U N O v U � O 3 N •'" v cz O N 0 O 311C cz cz N � c� c� sv O cr N. O 3 N O c� 3 Cr cz U U U .5: c) �i ct ° w r' O a `44 p 4, I-t - �z u Uv �j * .- 5 o a� " bDJO O rn a� O a o g.4ct o ctct a3 � U U s c3 O � O ct ct ctcn QJ U 30 by y �. v O �. O H � .5 y ct ct o o �j a a ct c� a� cd U c� O U. ct �ct u ct breu O O u u PE co • p .� � 0O U O U O o U .� O a3 x -� O O N 4 cn ¢ U U U cu, U O cd 4J O S„ 4J O cd cr3 cri S� O O O Q Ln ct . U � VO U � I bbD O ct cd O bA a3 C OO v c : U : O u 11 O U r ° • Q .� wv� xx .a � zi Z Px ,.g O O A r..r o nx, y r HIM I a 0. W � O � IL L.:.d - V H "'0 • G� +' }' � 0 .. d- O ti � 0 COCI Cd a Ll— y �, N y Ln Cw Li G� cd cdZ cd Cd cd v a Cdcd cdcd � •; cd •"" v cd 4-1 pU U O = cd U O s b -Cct '' ct cd wo 45 C "" cd cd U U O O •��• 4C� 4� a� r ° x ca Q U � x -� �, � +� U o o � Qcn o O a M 4� C)M o � o � o � o � � oo m 4:; 00 � a� � -° OoL ° -o .►, U �, 00 U O .� N U O U U U U Q U m U U U Q y y Q U y U y y U - J _ U u'N m m m m 3 a' �uE, a'N e ^ E Y Y > Y Z c m u N 3 m ^ ° a m Z u' m > m n m m C>- \U.- oQNti �U amoti v^_��ti ammti o�oti m �ti nmvti Lung zEati `NU o�oti v^ :i Ea g °�� txe NNo� a N,n o� m m c m xe NNo @ o o Nmo y`m o #��o Cxt� o aammo _� o m� o 'e� o ��o o m m o m m o m m 3 U m m 3 m m m m m m x°�'m m m @ U m m o m m m N o> m o m m a> m o °�'m >N m y w N m c� NN m N m u m a m m @N m 3 m m m Gm m c°�O y w yoa3 d ° �3 ° �3 F��3 o°oa30�3 '��3 °a3 gg�3 °uwa3 `d a3 H a3 N��3 _u°a31�3 xna3 C o m CU �s a'o CU ¢' CU U CU x CU �o CU CU 4 CU 2 CU a CU a' CU w c`"v CU w CU W CU CU 2 V CU to o cam° o N m N U U U ?a = en x r E T _ a a rn rn n - n - a `�° J N m J ¢ e o o N � `" aj v m 5 m c m dm,_b `m,..$ nx3,..$ `n= Mp$ ai o � � o oa.,o '°¢'._o r�._o _ o ao`..$ aIoao w.3-4 o-o Im o :�^o ai^o � g s ti c:= ti m ti a N ti V.E Q ti g N ti 3 o ti z E a ti p o ti N m b ti u m^ti $m ti m ti o m v ti o Q v ti to v, a�sc o -oo o # o o a o �� o m w80 ° `No ,� _ o @moi ;� o s o o o p> E m = - o m m = N o m C 5° cm is u is i E is m mic q -m# C oic :m`�ic Odic >°dic m V ois nis O c nis .m a °mic ^c� ommm c3om o m �2� Q�.c1°�mm rm°mm N almm cpm cpm mw cpm wc�m �_ m ommm acmmm cmmm `Ymm m3 � O �, 3 ^� Ommm� E� °� °3 °� �� zmmg 1° �2 c"dO2 m2 g�^2 c`v°3 m`�3 nNv3 mN�3 oc 3 �v°ia3 �-a Ra m� N- a �a ma coa _ O o� b$ - u� Nm3 3 g` 3 3 3 =-U Y��U a=CU w � J" n�v �m CU 4a CU v=CU W ACU u=CU W'dCU N=sU W ac�CU =CU CU CU ti N N N N U U U ai U O1 °1 ¢ m w m ¢ ai - ai o m Q ¢ o >oo o Cj U°` o U ° ai ai U > ao o U (wD U' ` a m ci> a ;� o ^8 c"u S area d� b dm `m N ra' 3 �� o °� o = 8 0 n moU ooU mmciU �a 01oU nm�nU @�oU c�U c oU c �"U _AmoU n �oU n coU m mob . m�n6 n `2�U mnU o .116 as o m o U' arY,mno #� o Two m o w mvo w opo xe-2 5=m o w-29 t�Yc? wY L? �# ENo ?-2 con o m6 NJmO =N >o � mm clw'1 cmoic mw4ic azoic is � m�ic om�nic � c dic °mwL mNm o��m i.Z v`Oim oFmm o nm mm c=°m o nm o mm m c m cU^m @Fnm mFmm N o3mm mm p� a`o a� �m a� a��g r'.� o�� m�� �� ��� _�� m c�2 c v 92.2 I o o S2,2 �z S2,2 3 R 3 xaxoo3 _ 3 _ 3 m 3 3 3 Y CU R�CU N N CU Un m CU ��CU O�CU W m S5 u�CU u-CU CU Y r1 CU Y m CU 2 m CU r CU J a��iaU f°N iaU vv rZ' to o oNm O O m O N m W N Q L Q C U ¢ U U m Q ¢ ¢ Q m 0 0 wN ¢ U U v a ii ii U x ii o ii n r To To Nu a n v N v 5 o v a 3 o c n ° a' a ° wN FO1.,o ai o an^� nn o gU`-.g � 01--0 ��^� n o n=.,� m„O ya o d$ nQvti anti mN z¢oti 'Q>�ti E��U #UciU # _�ti anti m Nti n mti n mti n oU o0`cloti umoti oENU o��ti a v o c$o o o aro 0 0 o m o o _ o m `o 0 0 o # E,�o a m o #U o cg cga s o N o O a o c o a o c m@mac = oc @oc =oc � ` c c�oic crook c ox xmx caoic a c aic 6. m °�j c°m c°m m N m - N m m N m °�j N m = o n m o U`n m o W n m m z m o z m m 3 m U m m c Y m m ck.NJO'� O m2 c �2 O12 Z m� m m� & N2 - m2 NZm� N m� Nzm2 m2 °12 in m2 wm2 ° 3 rn o 3 g 3 m N 3 al o v a "mai v 3 k. v 3 3 0 a 3 v U o N a 3 Nov 3 - v 3 LL o v 3 LL N U¢' GU mc°CU w CU M; �vCU 2 -U 2v°1iGU 2 CU ¢ac CU a'�CU wvCU u=CU =CU MCU YNCU to Nm U gU U O O N E N m U Q a U U E E S U U U U m U mm E mEf E5 m U - 'd m O s Q U aim Q ° w m Q Tw xeQ o ¢` m v $ c ai mai m Eo "�lw m � m� a 301 n' m � �m �m am � �a m o Ea o �¢> g tE o h � g z¢` o ��Q o d= o 8 da o d� o o w coati �QciU a-oti °m'Q�nU ,"U �o�v oro�v cC)Sti u-w Na ti 2mE�nti omay z.m Ooti iosciti omoti n >>NU #t d #t m 6 N n J m c 6 a N a p3 Y m Sml w N d m Q w m w csi Tj s` a �# iN�ic r oic > nmic 9mric o oic u =ic o¢ is u 0mic N # =E��ic c Ed = x moic = mNm c mmm c 2 N m o n m o 2 N m o w m o m N m ro 3 N m Y 3 N m c m m r`n m r n m m w^m o N m @ m m m „m m m� m o� m m� m r u a m� m= �� Amw-2 wzm2 dd °� mg n mai nma3 no�3 nN�3 una3 Yoa3 -oa3 Y CU a�CU ac�GU amCU ii: ac�CU aNGU w--u w�CU >�nCU QaumiCU mumCU oNCU muc°CU umCU YviCU Z N N m m Q m N U U N Q ¢ m U m E $ m m E $ O ¢ o •t v v v � E v E � v � "m m a � m � m +„ U E E E E E m w.E E Q U E E a U U m n m m m w E m o-6 m E e m ¢ ¢ G G#¢ m G w¢ U Q .L m N m G ^m nm 'crm @ m c ai o N a r`n o m E o m ai m ca o ¢ mm �m o ma' 8 .z a' o o ra' S ' o dQ O 3^ da' o °= a S o a' 8 �a^8 ra ^8 rso6 nESU n-mU Eooti �oU zsmU vi cciU c oU c �oU w�"U a°UciU o��U mSOU �oU nU�U oQ '6 a o °- o t v u°v1 o 0 5 ci M o N rn o 5 "� m m at= o at $°o a $ 0 5 m 5=c^"o ° ` m- .8 ,y N o ° ._ ¢� `= u - 2 cb ° a`? E�N m m u1 m ?"1 m` a rn^ a m ¢' °c ax c x c x � k x x k c x x x x x N x k o x O x x o¢ m o 3 n m a w N m w m o 3 N m m 3 m o m m m 3 m z n m 3 c°m w m 3 n m c z m c 3 m c o m mng Nz�g "d u'g wg c mg Jzu'g u'g mzNg n ng z cog ng ng "'g g,mm2 c w 3 ° 3 v a 3 a o 3 moa 3 0 o a 3 a 3 m n a v o v a a a m y a v Nm _Nm3 3 x Qac U �a U a� U m"° u� U w� U wmCU W U u U xnCU _ U N U N U 4� U 4 4N U yik. ,7 cx� 1. ° go LL Y^ct'.'� COD 66 2, 50 W 14 • • � i • • • S U U U U is N U '� 0 "'" fir" 0 O O ¢ ¢ � U O O O 'er - • • N U O tia cz cz U O .• U •� Ir � � y s�. bl) N sem. U O bC cr O O U O .. S." b.0 va blj j j' cn sem~. OU 3 z" .�", N bC � O N U 4� OU V 7 rc -� En rd I �� O Z U � � p cz � � U c� U � U cz va 14n cz bl) En bC O U sem. N O n N s. U O � U v sem. O sem. �O sU. Q � O O U �� U + P4 bC bA c tC cr O O y j .- U S. En 00 `W 4. —� v U U - �O zO N 3 bA N cr .� Uci bf) U .S"�' ` U c� v 0 " y � z" Sri `}� 4 ' ^I O �" U Z. , > N U clJ U ZZ N 4—d cn j s. •.. s. ct - p p U U O N O � � v pa � O cz �� Z z a 0 C3 ■ ■ ■ ■ C3 ■ C7 , cu a� o • s� 42 rl � O sem•, � v .� � � � � �' •� � •co •y�,, Ste" o v �" 3 3 oo ¢,4 -n, 0 a? � � Uo � � � � .� � �c • bn 003 ~ z O b O b � O 'v bf) U A .. U Oj _y O U bAcr CZ va � � � '� � .� � � c� H .� � � '� � � x � � sem. O U ■ ■ O O O 'v bA U U O O Ir VcrNrd 0 y N U p cr cn dcn C) 00 3 vpO O O Cl. � 4' O � O cn c� . cn U O bA s. y bA s. z � y +� y � s. O cn cn c� sem. I$ O s. O U p � s." c� Cl. O y t sem. 3 W cn ■ ■ O ct Poo Poo Jam• , • $' pt O pm cl bn ^ � .� � •� � ° 3 �' °�� � � a 3 '� � 3 ^ off � � � .° � N � , � � icy � •� � � � N d"t � ,~-1 �-- r•1 � � icy br U � � o J p � •~3 �" NC � U U �4 � b" 3 .;'. 'c a� ct 3 ° ct bC �", -Ct ° •� tri o � a� � � a� p � � 4� bl� b0 Q3 IF ■ 'moi �I �° 4� O V °U Ir y +, Q) O _ ct Ct cct ct ° br u u cn � 4-1 br O ;� v �° O 00 A ° U bE u 3 �; cct �" O V ry ct ;-4 W..! Y W w m. W ^ l �4 • V./ 2 Y W C/1 $-q � y��^^ O Nr. Q N WJ 4� O -4-t LU LU w o �' V x p a 0 0 w �' O �—+ U o = v • a LL O o .--4 • , • bn E. an a, •� 'man ° `n 3 3 o f O . C� w U s�. C 0 c y 1 14 4 ° U, �% ,� ►7 vQ,"V] O s0. CJ H C-i C4 W C-i iI o 41/ Q ILI I, 'S Gv 4. 'Ll O O 4o4J 4J � �. �+ � '-d � "� U Q" �•+ � '� � bhp � � �; � � O � � �"' s.. }' �" � .� � O� �� O ° O � � �" bJJ O O ,� � � O � �" �" �•+� ''d U �+ \ � .� � Q"'� � � O p •5" p p S�+ S". ,S.i" ,Sr" � U � U S..i � 4J 4J � S-iS"., 4Joc va ... cf "q bpct o � O � z m � ... � v � �� a - = o �� � + C.7 3 � a� a� • a� a� bJJ 4J b JJ R-5 DISPOSAL OF PET WASTES Pet wastes left in the environment may introduce solids, The activities outlined in this fact bacteria,and nutrients to the storm drain. The type and sheet target the following quantity of waste will dictate the proper disposal pollutants: method. Small quantities of waste are best disposed Sediment x with regular trash or flushed down a toilet. Large Nutrients x Bacteria x quantities of wastes from herbivore animals may be Foaming Agents composted for subsequent use or disposal to landfill. Metals Hydrocarbons Pick up after your pet! It's as easy as 1-2-3. 1) Bring a Hazardous Materials bag. 2) Clean it up. 3) Dispose of it properly (toilet or Pesticides and trash). The pollution prevention activities outlined in Herbicides this fact sheets are used to prevent the discharge of Other pollutants to the storm drain system. Think before you dispose of any pet wastes. Remember-The ocean starts at your front door. Required Activities • All pet wastes must be picked up and properly disposed of. Pet waste should be disposed of in the regular trash,flushed down a toilet, or composted as type and quantities dictate. • Properly dispose of unused flea control products (shampoo, sprays, or collars). • Manure produced by livestock in uncovered areas should be removed at least daily for composting, or storage in water-tight container prior to disposal. Never hose down to stream or storm drain. Composting or storage areas should be configured and maintained so as not to allow contact with runoff. Compost may be donated to greenhouses,nurseries,and botanical parks. Topsoil companies and composting centers may also accept composted manure. • Line waste pits or trenches with an impermeable layer, such as thick plastic sheeting. • When possible,allow wash water to infiltrate into the ground, or collect in an area that is routed to the sanitary sewer. • Confine livestock in fenced in areas except during exercise and grazing times. Restrict animal access to creeks and streams,preferably by fencing. For additional information contact: County of Orange, OC Watershed Main: (714)955-0600/24hr Water Pollution Discharge Hotline 1-877-89-SPILL or visit our website at:www.ocwatersheds.com • Install gutters that will divert roof runoff away from livestock areas. Recommended Activities • In order to properly dispose of pet waste,carry bags,pooper-scooper, or equivalent to safely pick up pet wastes while walking with pets. • Bathe pets indoors and use less toxic shampoos. When possible,have pets professionally groomed. • Properly inoculate your pet in order to maintain their health and reduce the possibility of pathogens in pet wastes. • Maintain healthy and vigorous pastures with at least three inches of leafy material. • Consider indoor feeding of livestock during heavy rainfall,to minimize manure exposed to potential runoff. • Locate barns,corrals,and other high use areas on portions of property that either drain away from or are located distant form nearby creeks or storm drains. For additional information contact: County of Orange, O�,, Watershed Main: (714)955-0600/24hr Water Pollution Discharge Hotline 1-877-89-SPILL or visit our website at:www.ocwatersheds.com R-6 DISPOSAL OF GREEN WASTES J7� The activities outlined in this fact sheet target the following Green wastes entering the storm drain may clog the pollutants: system creating flooding problems. Green wastes washed Sediment x into receiving waters create an oxygen demand as they are Nutrients x decomposed,reducing the available oxygen for aquatic Bacteria x Foaming Agents life. Pesticide and nutrient residues may be carried to the Metals receiving water with the green wastes. The pollution Hydrocarbons prevention activities outlined in this fact sheets are used to Hazardous Materials x prevent the discharge of pollutants to the storm drain Pesticides and x system. Herbicides Other Think before disposing of any green wastes-Remember-The ocean starts at your front door. Required Activities • Green wastes can not be disposed of in the street, gutter,public right-of-way, storm drain, or receiving water. Dispose of green wastes as a part of the household trash. If the quantities are too large,arrange a pick up with the local waste hauler. • After conducting yard or garden activities sweep the area and properly dispose of the clippings and waste. Do not sweep or blow out into the street or gutter. Recommended Activities • Utilize a commercial landscape company to conduct the landscape activities and waste disposal. • Utilize native plants and drought tolerant species to reduce the water use and green waste produced. • Use a lawn mower that has a mulcher so that the grass clippings remain on the lawn and do not have to be collected and disposed of. • Compost materials in a designated area within the yard. • Recycle lawn clippings and greenery waste through local programs if available. For additional information contact: County of Orange, OC Watershed Main: (714)955-0600/24hr Water Pollution Discharge Hotline 1-877-89-SPILL or visit our website at:www.ocwatersheds.com R-8 WATER CONSERVATION i Excessive irrigation and/or the overuse of water is often The activities outlined in this fact the most significant factor in transporting pollutants to sheet target the following the storm drain system.Pollutants from a wide variety ofpollutants: sources including automobile repair and maintenance, Sediment x automobile washing,automobile parking,home and Nutrients x garden care activities and pet care may dissolve in the Bacteria x water and be transported to the storm drain. In addition, Foaming Agents x Metals x particles and materials coated with fertilizers and Hydrocarbons x pesticides may be suspended in the flow and be Hazardous Materials x transported to the storm drain. Pesticides and x Herbicides Hosing off outside areas to wash them down not only Other x consumes large quantities of water,but also transports any pollutants, sediments,and waste to the storm drain system. The pollution prevention activities outlined in this fact sheets are used to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system. Think before using water. Remember-The ocean starts at your front door. Required Activities • Irrigation systems must be properly adjusted to reflect seasonal water needs. • Do not hose off outside surfaces to clean, sweep with a broom instead. Recommended Activities • Fix any leaking faucets and eliminate unnecessary water sources. • Use xeroscaping and drought tolerant landscaping to reduce the watering needs. • Do not over watering lawns or gardens. Over watering wastes water and promotes diseases. • Use a bucket to re-soak sponges/rags while washing automobiles and other items outdoors. Use hose only for rinsing. • Wash automobiles at a commercial car wash employing water recycling. For additional information contact: County of Orange, O�,, Watershed Main: (714)955-0600/24hr Water Pollution Discharge Hotline 1-877-89-SPILL or visit our website at:www.ocwatersheds.com APPENDIX D BMP MAINTENANCE SUPPLEMENT / O&M PLAN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (®&M) PLAN Water Quality Management Plan For Red Hill Apartments 13751 Red Hill Avenue & 13841 Red Hill Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 APN 500-141 -09 & 500-141 -10 This page intentionally left blank @ s § E 0 0 � 2 � LU / / off ƒ § .§ J -r- » » ƒ O O � O / u 2 ƒ e u k E x_ / w _ ƒ o e o 7 ° 2 \ g § ° 5 g = 2 . e = e _ > 72 2 j \ / u ƒ \ \ ( \ y & 72 0 > { E / \ ± o & / _/ 5 u g . w s _ = e u _ � ® \ \ u ° + % / > / § J e t e % o ƒ \ ƒ % & e t u o = E Q = o = u m o = u e O > \o / o \ + E CL 72 % a u .ƒ o > \ 2 \ G u / oe E ' \ D / \ / o o = ) 5 / 3 LU g / 5 � E 7 \ / ( ƒ } \ > / u U- / / ° E + » \ / m \ O \ J 2 \ 0 / / ZE u = / y & 6 = ° \ / \ \ \o C % + \ \ § zu 0 2 0 ° / o ± 7 ƒ LU s ow + s + ws \ s2 » k zg D u ƒ U LU C ° " 0 E2 0 co CL ƒE O u m ƒ oe z c Z j O ƒo § u § ƒ_ � u � f j� § § / � ce 2 Z % O u u '> \ � 3 O o � \ Z Z w 2 — « 07 @ } � CL -0 z V) \ { 2 ƒ ƒ » O 4 Z @ s § E 0 0 0 � 2 � LU = 5 5 D off ƒ 0 - � — » » » ƒ O O O � O 0 ` � _ e § q \ e \ 5 \ \ \ o g / \ 6 \ � 0 % % � � � etO2 .-L % x g e ® _ / u / S / ƒ \ m C:F _ m E » / 7 '� \ _ 2 e w o G e � ') g .[ f / e C: -0 0 t \ 0 0 2 E u E s y o .E • &ƒ \ ƒƒ O � / u � \ e e 2 \ otz \ \ e uo { \ e @ t 2 E u e f } / \ Fa Q t = 6 » ± e ƒ \ ƒ \ » o ƒ �_ \ « e u % \ 0 ? u \ u G E « o ® 2 0 \ \ \ ƒ o t o U e = E _ / 0 2 .3 s» ^ / S O a v ° 2 + H / ± 0 = u = 2 » CL % / 7 7 \ f \ 0 (1) j \ U / / LU — e e ._ 7 2 u 0 2 0 = e e E ' e = o \ e / _ ° � ° / / 7 ° 0 5 $ U e ' - \ . � ® o / » \ f » C) O 3 / = E 2 Z u 2y _ ± \ = s . _ » S % .� 6 e , _ o « \ / C: Ln/ m \ E -� y .e g .. _ % E .. 7 { .. Z E = E m : _ \ .\ e / % 2 E o / C: e u % e « u � 2 ± 2 2 / i E / e @ _ ._ g E i .g 2 / _ = s u m o = o o = t e E \ ƒ \ \ = o fe m ) ± ± 7 ƒ » @ S $ d s q s s ± / \ \ k Z E ) O .g E w t 0CL CL 2 Z ( _ CL �.g@ 2 ƒ \ u m CL ® z 2 R 0- \ E § 0 E Q E [ \ CL U u ::EQ Co \ 2 Z Z 2 — « g \ @ o } � CL - Z / 2 ƒ / 4 @ s ) § k O O O O LU off ƒ LL. LL. LL. LL. E E S e e e e 2 O O O O CLO § 0 s a § 6 G o 6 ) O e ° � g � I- x e e [ • * x ƒ $ y \ § $ ? ƒ ® = 2 ) $ © / [ \ § \ \ ƒ e Q u > % \ \ 7 ® 7 C3 ® &ƒ 2 % J 3 ° � _ e \ � ® ® u (E mFa Ln .( & % _ % &3 .[ k 2 t 2 % e \ e \ u = e — § _ \ ƒ ._ > e = — = u = ® E » 3 § = o / / T .[ ° C E _ & = e '= = o e e _ / _ o _* ± e e E Q) _& t •- m = e 2cn C3 C3 � E ' ° � ° § ® u § ° + u E ƒ LU o / \ 0 ) \ J / [ a f [ c 2 » \ % .( % E 3 [ U _ \ \ w E ¥ e — § ¥ G .z » % E 5 § ¥ s— - — § t % \ § ) \ .. E 2 [ .. ƒ .. s 5 o e § ( .. @ = o .- u § - e u E m u m = $ u 3 E » k t - / % w O e u / e _ _ _ — _ [ 7 0 ° 7 J = ) � Cl- 2 — e ® t t / s \ ƒ $ » ± e ? @ 2 o @ 2 \ ) \ / cy ± / — w E s ce c c H U m H O % E H m w e H k Z E ) E O � D \ LU U \ § ƒ / � E L & $ 20-0 E 2 / ƒ v / % _ E _ � m � j § ) 0- \ § V) ° o E ( ( E § \ LU 72 k C ? w U m 2 b CL. _ ƒ �_ �_ �_ 7 O % f Z Z Z d- V) V) 23 . / \ CL CL m y 4 � @ s § E 0 0 � 2 � LU § / D off ƒ 0 - � - » » ƒ O O � O 0 2 @ cy)--a x ƒ E e ± 2 FIR _ ° 7 ^ ° ® @ a e o U \ \ ) 2 ( ( k § � ` f » / ) a [ 2 \ / \ \ -i _ e » (D » 8 \ C) / � .) ° 2 ) FO ( / / � ( • } \ ( (n / ® / 7 z Q o ƒ t e ± --a = o o - E o \ ? [ Q w / E ° o D ° \ 2 U ° ® ° + \ § V) / ( �_ '� ./ U 2 oe E ' 2 LU g / ® » o \ p = e » o e o c • g k ® _ = e .= o M x U \ � \ e \ s » S O 0 U 0 0 ( \ :� .ƒ \ CN % S « u _ - « @ u u = ® = o m •- ƒ u LU 2 \ 7 \ $ \ \ / \ ƒ @ / / \ \ \ / \ \ \ U /0 \ 5 ± u H s o .e o »e s = H k z .0 ° ' k O g � @ E � gn 77 U LUE 2 7 k G CL Z 2 = § E �2 � S kwo ƒ % f > C _ 2 � ƒ c u § 2 @ .g u z m - 2 � % % u o7 q § Q Q u ' £ w j E 2 2 ( ma ¢ k k 2 k § \ q k V u 2 - « g \ @ o } < CL - Z � G ca ƒ ƒ / 2 ƒ / 4 @ s ) § O O LU off ƒ 0 .0 V) — � & & Q) L. O O O \ o \ e \ / \ § -0 Q) § C3 ± u m = _ _ G ._ * o = E .g x co - o e \ u \ } I- \ ° E / &ƒ Q) § G > ( = Ln D e e u / \ ( ® 7 ° / 3 \ k ° » * U * : o a % 0 @ @ w ° o f — s e u e m e g s F \ / \ u e � E \ / 0 / 3 § [ \ % % q Fa » 2 / y 2 = m u / E o y E ƒ g E - 6 � g § / E 'e G e ƒ \ o ƒ \ ƒ \ \ § \ \ S 0 \ 2 E (D \® � � \ E ) � @ o .- + \ V) u E u % ° Q 3 % m e E 5 % ce E E = e a) 2 a J = _ — = o@ 7 s � @ o ± 7 / ƒ_ 9 = x ± E o ƒ / 2 P x k 2 U u G \ / § 0 § u a « E ƒ .g § ® _ _ ° ° y .E / § .\ / / e u / t % [ [ " \ ƒ \ \ \ ƒ ƒ � ± 2 E k \ 0 •� j ° \ § ± ƒ \ ( \ ¥ o $ •§ f G .( ) a) s 2 s w P 2 ./ -� 2 o ELL. � k Sz, Z LLL O Z U E ) CL J � .g m CL 0 L. 0 /$ § CL \ m � � w � \ E V) 0- 0- f @ / w � 3 u O 3 _ Z _& '> _& jLUO V) o O ) CL / V) E / \ @ V % 2 t % E � % f � � w �> � � � z Z @ D t w 0 / w u / \ 0 � a- <E0 \ } w 2e � t � \ ce \ / E� 2 / O ° c § � \ � a CL 0zw @ s § E 0 � 2 � LU § / off ƒ § .§ J / — » ƒ O � O 5 k / &ƒ » S ( C3 [ c u e » t = § a- u / < / y = 2 &� ( _ ® J § G / D \ ? / O \ ƒ \ \ ) Z R = / / o \ k2 / \ + / % w \ 7 2 § ® [ oe t = » e ° ° E t o LU ° ° 2 \ \u o f U E � z $ ƒ ƒ + U c ° j ƒ / � 0 [ . § ± w = ° _ o o z = e o § u § ± � k Z O w � � ./ � 5 @ CL \ 0 m 2 cL = _ 0 « ƒ \CL \ e §3 '/ j q) 2 Q \ C14 1 § LU » § Q � ± ) Z V) < C — co e e 2 — � •§ 2 � � g 0 � ^ / M \ \ / � 2 & % o TUU OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN Page 9 of 1 1 Required Permits Permits are not required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the BMPs. Forms to Record BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection The form that will be used to record implementation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs is attached. Recordkeeping All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years and must be made available for review upon request. Waste Management Any waste generated from maintenance activities will be disposed of properly. Wash water and other waste from maintenance activities is not to be discharged or disposed of into the storm drain system. Clippings from landscape maintenance (i.e. prunings) will be collected and disposed of properly off- site, and will not be washed into the streets, local area drains/conveyances, or catch basin inlets. Individual trash bin service will be provided on the site. Trash bins shall be placed only in the locations identified on the approved "Trash Pick-up Plan" after 7:00 a.m. on the regularly scheduled trash collection day and shall be removed by 7:00 p.m. on the same day. Funding The owner is aware of the maintenance responsibilities of the proposed BMPs. A funding mechanism is in place to maintain the BMPs at the frequency stated in the WQMP. Once established, the POA will enforce Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) related to the property. They be responsible to inform residents of established CC&Rs in compliance with the O&M of the project's WQMP as well as inspect and maintain the structural BMPs outlined in the WQMP. RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today's Date: Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed): Signature: BMP Name Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and As Shown in O&M Plan Inspection Activity Performed RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today's Date: Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed): Signature: BMP Name Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and As Shown in O&M Plan Inspection Activity Performed StormTrap- STORMTRAP MAINTENANCE MANUAL 1. Introduction Regular inspections are recommended to ensure that the system is functioning as designed. Please call your Authorized StormTrap Representative if you have questions in regards to the inspection and maintenance of the StormTrap system. Prior to entry into any underground storm sewer or underground detention systems, appropriate OSHA and local safety regulations and guidelines should be followed. 2. Inspection Schedules for Municipalities StormTrap Stormwater Management Systems are recommended for inspection whenever the upstream and downstream catch basins and stormwater pipes of the stormwater collection system are inspected or maintained. This will economize the cost of the inspection if it is done at the same time the Municipal crews are visiting the area. 3. Inspection Schedules for Private Development StormTrap Stormwater Mangement Systems, for a private development, are recommended for inspection after each major storm water event. At a minimum, until a cleaning schedule can be established, an annual inspection is recommended. If inspected on an annual basis, the inspection should be conducted before the stormwater season begins to be sure that everything is functioning properly for the upcoming storm season. 4. Inspection Process Inspections should be done such that at least 2-3 days has lapsed since the most recent rain event to allow for draining. Visually inspect the system at all manhole locations. Utilizing a sediment pole, measure and document the amount of silt at each manhole location (Figure 1). Inspect each pipe opening to ensure that the silt level or any foreign objects are not blocking the pipes. Be sure to inspect the outlet pipe(s) because this is typically the smallest PHONE e'.15 941 4-749 NEB v, sJ.StGI I T17!:W'C"ki n-i ?87 IN 11dhnill F'c,tkv av Fnx .;.i7�i18 53�- =r,nii info i stormtr.ain Rorneovill:= IIIinoin E1'�446 StormTrap- pipe in the system. It is common that most of the larger materials will be collected upstream of the system in catch basins, and it is therefore important at time of inspections to check these structures for large trash or blockages. Remove any blockages if you can during the inspection process only if you can do so safely from the top of the system without entering into the system. Do not go into the system under any circumstances without proper ventilation equipment and training. Pass any information requiring action onto the appropriate maintenance personnel if you cannot remove the blockages from above during the inspection process. Be sure to describe the location of each manhole and the type of material that needs to be removed. The sediment level of the system should also be measured and recorded during the inspection process. Recording the sediment level at each manhole is very important in order get a history of sediment that can be graphed over time (i.e. years) in order to estimate when the system will need to be maintained next. It is also important to keep these records to verify that the inspection process was actually performed if anyone asks for your records in the future. The sediment level in the underground detention system can be determined from the outside of the system by opening up all the manholes and using a sediment pole to measure the amount of sediment at each location. Force the stick to the bottom of the system and then remove it and measure the amount of sediment at that location. Again, do not go into the system under any circumstances without proper ventilation equipment and training. 5. When to Clean the System Any blockages should be safely removed as soon as practical so that the Stormwater detention system will fill and drain properly before the next stormwater event. The Dry Detention System should be completely cleaned whenever the sediment occupies more than 10% to 15% of the originally designed system's volume. The Wet Detention System should be cleaned when the sediment occupies more than 30% or 1/3rd of the originally designed system's volume. NOTE: Check with your municipality in regards to PHONE e'.15 941 4-749 NEB v, sJ.StGI I T17! n-i ?87 IN 11dhnill F'c,tkv av Fnx .;.i7�i18 53�- =r,nii info i stormtr.ain Rorneovill:= IIIinojn E1'�446 StormTrap- cleaning criteria, as the allowable sediment before cleaning may be more or less then described above. 6. How to Clean the StormTrap The system should be completely cleaned back to 100% of the originally designed storage volume whenever the above sediment levels have been reached. Be sure to wait at least 3 days after a stormwater event to be sure that the system is completely drained (if it is a Dry Detention System), and all of the sediments have settled to the bottom of the system (if it is a Wet Detention System). Do not enter the System unless you are properly trained, equipped, and qualified to enter a confined space as identified by local occupational safety and health regulations. There are many maintenance companies that are in business to help you clean your underground stormwater detention systems and water quality units. Please call your StormTrap representative for referrals in your area. A. Dry Detention System Cleaning Maintenance is typically performed using a vacuum truck. Sediment should be flushed towards a vacuum hose for thorough removal. For a Dry Detention System, remove the manhole cover at the top of the system and lower a vacuum hose into one of the rows of the StormTrap system. Open up the manhole at the opposite end of the StormTrap and use sewer jetting equipment to force water in the same row from one end of the StormTrap row to the opposite side. The rows of the StormTrap are completely open in one contiguous channel from one end to the other for easy cleaning. Place the vacuum hose and the sewer jetting equipment in the next row and repeat the process until all of the rows have been cleaned. When finished, replace all covers that were removed and dispose of the collected material properly. PHONE e'.15 941 4-749 NEB v, sJ.StGI I T17!:W'C"ki n-i ?87 IN 11dhnill F'c,tkv av Fnx .;.i7�i18 53�- =r,nii info i stormtr.ain Rorneovill:= IIIinoin E1'�446 StormTrap- B. Wet Detention System Cleaning If the system was designed to maintain a permanent pool of water, floatables and any oil should be removed in a separate procedure prior to the removal of all sediment. The floatable trash is removed first by using a bucket strainer to capture and remove any floating debris. The floatable oils are then removed off the top of the water by using the vacuum truck to suck off any floatable fluids and liquids. The next step is to use the vacuum truck to gently remove the clarified water above the sediment layer. The final step is to clean the sediment for each row as described above in the paragraph "A. Dry Detention System Cleaning". For smaller systems, the vacuum truck can remove all of the sediment in the basin without using the sewer jetting equipment because of the smaller space. 7. Inspection Reports Proof of these inspections is the responsibility of the property owner. All inspection reports and data should be kept on site or at a location where they will be accessible for years in the future. Some municipalities require these inspection and cleaning reports to be forwarded to the proper governmental permitting agency on an annual basis. Refer to your local and national regulations for any additional maintenance requirements and schedules not contained herein. Inspections should be a part of your standard operating procedure. rnone e'.15 941 4-749 wes v, sJ.StGI I T17! n-i I?87 IN 11dhnill F'c,tkv av Fnx .;.i7�i18 537 =MA11 info i stormtr.ain Rorneo� 1l Illii7ai5,E1�44i:� 0 ��� ���m�rmmmmmap uEASomwc FINISHED rRAIII PERMANENT POOL SURFACE FLOATABLES Figure 1. During inspection, measure the distance from finished grade to the top of the sediment inside the system. Sam0e insi)ection and maintenance loci Date Depth of Accumulated Maintenance Maintenance Sediment Trash Performed Personnel 2/512012 3" None Sediment B. Johnson RemovaINac kM PHONE oau4/4s4e °." w° an'c7w` C% NTECH° ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS VortSentry° HS Guide Operation, Design, Performance and Maintenance Od F � alft F, M t� pr l p ad'Y w i { a w "41 k VortSentry° HS Design Basics The VortSentry HS is a compact, below grade stormwater There are two primary methods of sizing a VortSentry HS system. treatment system that employs helical flow technology to The Water Quality Flow Rate Method determines which model enhance gravitational separation of floating and settling size provides the desired removal efficiency at a given flow for pollutants from stormwater flows.With the ability to accept a a defined particle size.The summation process of the Rational wide range of pipe sizes,the VortSentry HS can treat and convey Rainfall Method is used when a specific removal efficiency of the flows from small to large sites.A unique internal bypass design net annual sediment load is required. means higher flows can be diverted without the use of external bypass structures.The VortSentry HS is also available in a grate Typically,VortSentry HS systems are designed to achieve an 80% inlet configuration, which is ideal for retrofit installations. annual solids load reduction based on lab generated performance curves for a particle gradation with an average particle size(d50) Operation Overview of 240-microns(,um). Low, frequently occurring storm flows are directed into the Water Quality Flow Rate Method treatment chamber through the primary inlet.The tangentially In many cases, regulations require that a specific flow rate, often oriented downward pipe induces a swirling motion in the referred to as the water quality design flow(WQQ), be treated. treatment chamber that increases capture and containment This WQQ represents the peak flow rate from either an event abilities. Moderate storm flows are directed into the treatment with a specific recurrence interval (i.e. the six-month storm) or a chamber through the secondary inlet,which allows for capture water quality depth (i.e. 1/2-inch of rainfall). of floating trash and debris.The secondary inlet also provides for treatment of higher flows without significantly increasing the The VortSentry HS is designed to treat all flows up to the WQQ. velocity or turbulence in the treatment chamber.This allows for Due to its internal bypass weir configuration, flow rates in the a more quiescent separation environment. Settleable solids and treatment chamber only increase minimally once the WQQ is floating pollutants are captured and contained in the treatment surpassed.At influent rates higher than the WQQ, the flow chamber. partition will allow most flow exceeding the treatment flow rate to bypass the treatment chamber.This allows removal efficiency Flow exits the treatment chamber through the outlet flow to remain relatively constant in the treatment chamber and control, which manages the amount of flow that is treated and reduces the risk of washout during bypass flows regardless of helps maintain the helical flow patterns developed within the influent flow rates. treatment chamber. Treatment flow rates are defined as the rate at which the Flows exceeding the system's rated treatment flow are diverted VortSentry HS will remove a specific gradation of sediment at away from the treatment chamber by the flow partition. Internal a specific removal efficiency.Therefore they are variable based diversion of high flows eliminates the need for external bypass on the gradation and removal efficiency specified by the design structures. During bypass, the head equalizing baffle applies head engineer and the unit size is scaled according to the project goal. on the outlet flow control to limit the flow through the treatment chamber.This helps prevent re-suspension of previously captured Rational Rainfall Method" pollutants. Differences in local climate, topography and scale make every site hydraulically unique.The Rational Rainfall Method is a sizing program Contech uses to estimate a net annual sediment load GRATE reduction for a particular VortSentry HS model based on site size, site runoff coefficient, regional rainfall intensity distribution, FRAME and anticipated pollutant characteristics. For more information -- GRATE INLET on the Rational Rainfall Method, see Vortechs Technical Bulletin a` 4:Modeling Long Term Load Reduction: The Rational Rainfall HEAD FLOW PARTITION Method,available at www.ContechES.com/stormwater EQUALIZING BAFFLE - Treatment Flow Rate OUTLET PIPE INLET PIPE The outlet flow control is sized to allow the WQQ to pass entirely SECONDARY through the treatment chamber at a water surface elevation INLET equal to the crest of the flow partition.The head equalizing baffle applies head on the outlet flow control to limit the flow through the treatment chamber when bypass occurs,thus PRIMARY INLET helping to prevent re-suspension or re-entrainment of previously captured particles. OUTLET FLOW CONTROL q Hydraulic Capacity TREATMENT SEDIMENT STORAGE The VortSentry HS is available in three standard configurations: --' I�., CHAMBER I- SUMP inline(with inlet and outlet pipes at 1801 to each other), grated inlet, and a combination of grate and pipe inlets.All three ,e configurations are available in 36-inch (900-mm) through 96-inch (2400-mm) diameter manholes. 2 The configuration of the system is determined by the suffix of the / Equation 1 t Diameter Prototype z'va_ Flo.Rate Proto model name: type ❑iamater Madel Flow Rate Model • A model name without a suffix denotes a standard pipe inlet (Example HS48). Equation 1 and actual laboratory test results were used to • A "G" at the end of the model designation denotes a grate determine the flow rate which would be required for the various inlet(Example HS48G). VortSentry HS models to remove 80%of solids. • A "GP" at the end of the model designation denotes a View report at www.ContechES.com/stormwater combination of grate and pipe inlets(Example HS48GP). Maintenance Performance The VortSentry HS system should be inspected at regular Full-Scale Laboratory Test Results intervals and maintained when necessary to ensure optimum Laboratory testing of the VortSentry HS was conducted performance.The rate at which the system collects pollutants using F-55 Silica, a commercially available sand product with will depend more heavily on site activities than the size of the an average particle size of 240-pm (Table 1).This material unit, i.e., unstable soils or heavy winter sanding will cause the was metered into a model HS48 VortSentry HS at an average treatment chamber to fill more quickly, but regular sweeping will concentration of between 250-mg/L and 300-mg/L at flow rates slow accumulation. ranging from 0.50-cfs to 1.5-cfs(14-L/s to 56-L/s). Inspection StandardUS Inspection is the key to effective maintenance and is easily MicronSieve Size ' ' performed. Pollutant deposition and transport may vary from 30 600 99.7% year to year and regular inspections will help ensure that the 40 425 95.7% system is cleaned out at the appropriate time.At a minimum, 50 300 74.7% inspections should be performed twice per year(i.e. spring 70 212 33.7% and fall) however more frequent inspections may be necessary in equipment washdown areas and in climates where winter 100 150 6.7% sanding operations may lead to rapid accumulations of a large 0.7% volume of sediment. It is useful and often required as part of a Table 1 : US Silica F-55 Particle Size Distribution permit to keep a record of each inspection.A simple inspection and maintenance log form for doing so is available for download Removal efficiencies at each flow rate were calculated based on at www.ContechES.com/stormwater net sediment loads passing the influent and effluent sampling points. Results are illustrated in Figure 1. The VortSentry HS should be cleaned when the sediment has accumulated to a depth of two feet in the treatment chamber. Assuming that sediment in the inlet chamber is ideally mixed, This determination can be made by taking two measurements removal rates through the system will decay according to the with a stadia rod or similar measuring device; one measurement percentage of flow bypassed.This effect has been observed in from the manhole opening to the top of the sediment pile and the laboratory where the test system is designed to produce a the other from the manhole opening to the water surface. If the 100 41 difference between these measurements is less than the distance 90 given in Table 2,the VortSentry HS should be maintained to ensure effective treatment. so 70 • Cleaning E Cleaning of the VortSentry HS should be done during dry weather 60 conditions when no flow is entering the system. Cleanout of the ,o VortSentry HS with a vacuum truck is generally the most effective o and convenient method of excavating pollutants from the 0.0 0.5114) 1.0{28) 1.5(42) 2.06) system. Simply remove the manhole cover and insert the vacuum Q yrs(Us) hose into the sump.All pollutants can be removed from this one Figure 1: VortSentry HS Removal Efficiencies for 240-µm Particle access point from the surface with no requirements for Confined Gradation Space Entry thoroughly mixed inlet stream.All VortSentry HS models have In installations where the risk of petroleum spills is small, liquid the same aspect ratio regardless of system diameter(i.e. an contaminants may not accumulate as quickly as sediment. increase in diameter results in a corresponding increase in depth). However,an oil or gasoline spill should be cleaned out Operating rates are expressed volumetrically. immediately. Motor oil and other hydrocarbons that accumulate on a more routine basis should be removed when an appreciable Removal efficiency at each operating rate is calculated according layer has been captured.To remove these pollutants, it may be to the average of volumetric and Froude scaling methods and is preferable to use adsorbent pads, which solidify the oils.These described by Equation 1. are usually much easier to remove from the unit individually,and less expensive to dispose than the oil/water emulsion that may be 3 created by vacuuming the oily layer. Floating trash can be netted out if you wish to separate it from the other pollutants. Manhole covers should be securely seated following cleaning activities to prevent leakage of runoff into the system from above and also to ensure proper safety precautions. If anyone physically enters the unit, Confined Space Entry procedures need to be followed. Disposal of all material removed from the VortSentry HS should be done is accordance with local regulations. In many locations, disposal of evacuated sediments may be handled in the same manner as disposal of sediments removed from catch basins or deep sump manholes. Check your local regulations for specific requirements on disposal. Distance VortSentry AS Diameter Between Water Sediment Oil Spill Model Surface and .. Storage Storage of Storage Sump Note: To avoid underestimating the volume of sediment in the chamber, in. m ft. m yd m3 gal. liter the measuring device must be carefully HS36 36 0.9 3.6 1.1 0.5 0.4 83 314 lowered to the top of the sediment pile. HS48 48 1.2 4.7 1.4 0.9 0.7 158 598 Finer, silty particles at the top of the pile HS60 60 1.5 6.0 1.8 1.5 1.1 258 978 may be more difficult to feel with the measuring stick.These finer particles HS72 72 1.8 7.1 2.2 2.1 1.6 372 1409 typically offer less resistance to the end HS84 84 2.1 8.4 2.6 2.9 2.2 649 2458 of the rod than larger particles toward HS96 96 2.4 9.5 2.9 3.7 2.8 845 3199 the bottom of the pile. Table 2:VortSentry HS Maintenance Indicators and Sediment Storage Capacities. Logon to www.ContechES.com/stormwater to download the VortSentry HS Inspection and Maintenance Log. For assistance with maintaining your VortSentry HS, ._ contact us regarding the Contech Maintenance compliance certification program. ,8 C=:: NTECHg ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS ©2014 CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS,LLC. NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN EXPRESSED WARRANTY 800-338-1122 OR AN IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR www.Contech ES.com PURPOSE. SEE THE CONTECH STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SALE (VIEWABLE AT All Rights Reserved.Printed In the USA. WWW.COHTECHES.COM/COS)FOR MORE INFORMATION. Contech Engineered Solutions LLC provides site solutions for the civil engineering Industry.Contech's portfolio Includes bridges,drainage,sanitary sewer,stormwater and earth stabilization products.For Information on other Contech division offerings,visit ContechES.com or call 800.338.1122 The product(s)described may be protected by one or more of the following US patents: 5,322,629;5,624,576; 5,707,527;5,759,415;5,788,848;5,985,157;6,027,639;6,350,374;6,406,218;6,641,720;6,511,595; 6,649,048;6,991,114;6,998,038;7,186,058;7,296,692;7,297,266; related foreign patents or other patents pending. The Stormwater Management Storm filter,MFS and CDS are trademarks,registered trademarks,or licensed trademarks of Contech Engineered Solutions LLC. LEED is a registered trademark of the U.S.Green Building Council. Support • Drawings and specifications are available at contechstormwater.com. • Site-specific design support is available from our engineers. vshs manual 06/14 PDF IN-HOUSE APPENDIX E CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (PENDING) APPENDIX F INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet Infeasibility Criteria Yes No Would Infiltration BMPs pose significant risk for 1 groundwater related concerns? Refer to Appendix VII X (Worksheet 1) for guidance on groundwater-related infiltration feasibility criteria. Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Would Infiltration BMPs pose significant risk of increasing risk of geotechnical hazards that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? (Yes if the answer to any of the following questions is yes, as established by a geotechnical expert): The BMP can only be located less than 50 feet away 2 from slopes steeper than 15 percent X The BMP can only be located less than eight feet from building foundations or an alternative setback. A study prepared by a geotechnical professional or an available watershed study substantiates that stormwater infiltration would potentially result in significantly increased risks of geotechnical hazards that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Would infiltration of the DCV from drainage area violate 3 downstream water rights? X Provide basis: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Worksheets from Orange Counhl Technical Guidance Document(5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www,oewaterslieds.com/WQMP.aspx Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet(continued) Partial Infeasibility Criteria Yes No Is proposed infiltration facility located on HSG D soils or 4 the site geotechnical investigation identifies presence of soil X characteristics which support categorization as D soils? Provide basis: TGD indicates property is located on HSG B soils. Is measured infiltration rate below proposed facility 5 less than 0.3 inches per hour? This calculation shall be X based on the methods described in Appendix VII. Provide basis: Measured infiltration rates ranged from 2.9 in/hr to 7.1 in/hr across the project site. Would reduction of over predeveloped conditions cause impairments to downstream beneficial uses, such as 6 change of seasonality of ephemeral washes or X increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? Provide citation to applicable study and summarize findings relative to the amount of infiltration that is permissible: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Would an increase in infiltration over predeveloped conditions cause impairments to downstream 7 beneficial uses, such as change of seasonality of X ephemeral washes or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? Provide citation to applicable study and summarize findings relative to the amount of infiltration that is permissible: Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Worksheets from Orange Counhl Technical Guidance Document(5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www,ocwatersheds,com/WQMP.aspx Table 2.7: Infiltration BMP Feasibility Worksheet (continued) Infiltration Screening Results (check box corresponding to result): Is there substantial evidence that infiltration from the project would result in a significant increase in I&I to the sanitary sewer that cannot be sufficiently mitigated? (See Appendix XVI I) Provide narrative discussion and supporting evidence: 8 Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. If any answer from row 1-3 is yes: infiltration of any volume is not feasible within the DMA or equivalent. Provide basis: 9 Summarize findings of infeasibility screening ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If any answer from row 4-7 is yes, infiltration is permissible but is not presumed to be feasible for the entire DCV. Criteria for designing biotreatment BMPs to achieve the maximum feasible infiltration and ET shall apply. 10 Provide basis: Summarize findings of infeasibility screening If all answers to rows 1 through 11 are no, infiltration of the full DCV is potentially feasible, BMPs must be designed to infiltrate the full DCV to the maximum extent practicable. 11 X Worksheets from Orange Counhl Technical Guidance Document(5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www,oewatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate Worksheet Product Assigned Factor (p) Factor Category Factor Description Weight(w) Value (v) p =w x v Soil assessment methods 0.25 2 0.5 Predominant soil texture 0.25 1 0.5 A Suitability Site soil variability 0.25 2 0.5 Assessment Depth to groundwater/impervious 0.25 1 0.25 layer Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = 113 1.5 Tributary area size 0.25 1 0.25 Level of pretreatment/expected 0.25 2 0.75 sediment loads B Design Redundancy 0.25 3 0.75 Compaction during construction 0.25 2 0.5 Design Safety Factor, SB = EP 2.0 Combined Safety Factor, STOT= SAX SB 3 Measured Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, KM 5.5 (corrected for test-specific bias) Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, KDESIGN= STOT /KM 1.83 Supporting Data Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms: Average of the four infiltration tests = 5.5 in/hr See attached geotechnical study with percolation test results for further details. Note: The minimum combined adjustment factor shall not be less than 2.0 and the maximum combined adjustment factor shall not exceed 9.0. For all high concerns, assign a factor value of 3, for medium concerns, assign a factor value of 2, and for low concerns assign a factor value of 1. Worksheets from Orange Counhl Technical Guidance Document(5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www,ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors Consideration High Concern Medium Concern Low Concern Direct measurement of>_ 50 percent of Direct measurement infiltration area with Assessment Use of soil survey of>_ 20 percent of localized infiltration methods maps or simple infiltration area with measurement (see explanation texture analysis to localized infiltration methods below) estimate short-term measurement or infiltration rates methods (e.g., Use of extensive test infiltrometer) pit infiltration measurement methods Texture Class Silty and clayey soils Loamy soils Granular to slightly nifi with si cant fines loamy soils Highly variable soils indicated from site Multiple soil Soil borings/test pits Site soil variability assessment or indicate moderately borings/test pits limited soil borings homogeneous soils indicate relatively collected during site homogeneous soils assessment Depth to <5 ft below facility 5-10 ft below facility >10 below facility groundwater/ bottom bottom bottom impervious layer Localized infiltration testing refers to methods such as the double ring infiltrometer test (ASTM D3385-88) which measure infiltration rates over an area less than 10 sq-ft, may include lateral flow, and do not attempt to account for heterogeneity of soil. The amount of area each test represents should be estimated depending on the observed heterogeneity of the soil. Extensive infiltration testing refers to methods that include excavating a significant portion of the proposed infiltration area, filling the excavation with water, and monitoring drawdown. The excavation should be to the depth of the proposed infiltration surface and ideally be at least 50 to 100 square feet. In all cases, testing should be conducted in the area of the proposed BMP where, based on review of available geotechnical data, soils appear least likely to support infiltration. Worksheets from Orange Counhl Technical Guidance Document(5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www,oewatersheds.conn/WQMP.aspx Table VIIA: Design Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors Consideration High Concern Medium Concern Low Concern Greater than 10 Greater than 2 acres Tributary area size acres but less than 10 2 acres or less acres Pretreatment from Good pretreatment gross solids removal with BMPs that Excellent devices only, such as mitigate coarse pretreatment with Hydrodynamic sediments such as BMPs that mitigate separators, racks vegetated swales fine sediments such Level of and screens AND AND influent as bioretention or pretreatment/ tributary area sediment loads from media filtration OR expected influent includes landscaped the tributary area are sedimentation or sediment loads areas, steep slopes, expected to be facility only treats high traffic areas, or relatively low (e.g., runoff from relatively any other areas low traffic, mild clean surfaces, such expected to produce slopes, disconnected high sediment, trash, impervious areas, as rooftops. or debris loads. etc.). Medium redundancy, High redundancy, other BMPs available multiple components in treatment train to capable of operating Redundancy of No redundancy in maintain at least independently and in treatment BMP treatment train 50% of function of parallel, maintaining facility in event of at least 90% of failure. facility functionality in event of failure. Construction of Heavy equipment facility on a actively prohibited Compaction during compacted site or Medium probability of from infiltration areas construction elevated probability unintended/ indirect during construction of unintended/ compaction. and low probability of indirect compaction. unintended/ indirect compaction. Worksheets from Orange Counhl Technical Guidance Document(5-19-2011) See TGD for instructions and/or examples related to these worksheets www,oewatersheds.conn/WQMP.aspx V0 OO 3ONVNO6uu 16u3")'M Ps-91M V FJ 7bCo7R M�loOJ� «�rvo 3C)Vd 2 AAM03 RONWHO HAMON A-LNno3 MNYHO - X a o o N a` o N o 1 y m l °(w9 U ,} o o r w �.. o la 2E 0 sT){ m° 0 wvs° iLLJ 0 y�UI� 0 0 — •,w`tiM•,.�i� ..�rA }y �...i.,. - 8- o LU J z 4 ta cc y y ]'e x •. .o fy yn�i t n. x , .l �w + q x 9. ,'_,z'�,C�r-rte Eis m �n e �a`6ia1�+P'�na�o141tla0 PL I�%a�n61j 39Lc c y3.3y^IIIIQ oa3uollo�llllul\sNotlay+p,,SIS 9396,, OVAHW Vo 00 3�JNVNO o o �a)_ 6uueeul6u3 rdleM peauenptl A.LNnoo RUNTHO HIHON A-LNno3 MNYHO > AIR, a o v „ v v� U N m m m o a o o a a o =o _ — o o Eo r N 'ti wr`�Y ax =v =N ar _m wo =c � LD U m m>=m _ .. .. a .. N o$ o 0 m N a U N m v 7 = 3 (6 o q N O p O m Q N = a > r.. .. .. m No oo0.o m C c7 u N m g E � Si O d m m o p X Y O m) a " Q O s V v m Z 0 F v as „ (7 E vv�m ;Z J i i a Iml ISI I�'I z°rn 80 8 60 P rl � Is ' s FJi El >o e m r ® o _ • � wre m u � Sn' 4 _ j , pl.c,y�,i.L tloVJlaa�ISsoay�o,l�alo��alon�Puno��Jo4VoN 46 IP--1 1161 1 y�,i�Z RIIIIQ oajuollo�llllol\sPotlay�sPVI 1 91961,:1 NMG Geotechnical, Inc. February 11, 2015 Project No. 14083-01 To: WASL Tustin Investors V, LLC c/o Irvine Asset Group 4000 MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. Craig Swanson Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed Red Hill Avenue Apartment Site Development, City of Tustin, California In accordance with your authorization, NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (NMG) has prepared a preliminary geotechnical report for the proposed apartment development in the City of Tustin, California. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the geotechnical site conditions in light of the proposed development in order to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the project design, grading and construction. The project site is approximately 3.3 acres and is located at the southwest corner of the Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street intersection in the city of Tustin, California. We have reviewed the conceptual plan prepared by Architects Orange and received by NMG on August 22, 2014 and an existing topographic map, which was used to present the collected geotechnical data at the site for our Boring and Percolation Test Location Map (Plate 1). The site is generally underlain by Quaternary-aged alluvial fan deposits which consist predominantly of interlayered sands, silty sands, and clay. Artificial fill materials were encountered in some of the borings to depths of up to 5 feet below existing grade, consisting of silty sands. The soils underlying the site are generally considered good for foundation support and based on preliminary infiltration testing the native soils below the fill meet the minimum criteria set by County of Orange for infiltration. Remedial grading following demolition of the existing building at the northern end of the site and within the currently vacant lot is expected to consist of approximately the upper five feet of existing soil. However, deeper removals may be needed in the location of the existing or abandoned utilities. The potential for seismic shaking during an earthquake is considered to be the primary geotechnical design constraint at the site. Based on our review and evaluation, the liquefaction potential at the site is considered low to very low since groundwater was encountered relatively 17991 Fitch 9 Irvine,California 92614 9 PHONE(949)442-2442 9 FAX(949)476-8322 9 www.nmggeotechnical.com 14083-01 February 11,2015 deep, from 40 to 47 feet below ground surface, and the soil densities are relatively high. The seismically induced dry-sand settlement is estimated to be approximately one inch. Based on our findings, we conclude that the residential apartment development is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided it is designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report and the City of Tustin. Grading Design Manual. Environmental evaluation of onsite earth soil is not a part of this report and is the purview of others. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services. Respectfully submitted, NMG GEOTECHNICAL,INC. Anthony Zepeda, GIT Senior Staff Geologist Terri Wri ht CEG 1342 Shahrooz"Bob" Karimi RCE 54250 g Associate Geologist Principal Engineer AZ/TW/SBK/grd Distribution: (1)Addressee (3) Mr. Fred Irianto,Fuscoe(includes copies for agency submittal) NAL a pR0ooz/oN�t TERRI T.WRIGHT Ni No. 0054250 � No.1342 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST C f V 1\.- �oP OF CAO_ o;C 0F� ,soxRi ii N`` AA MG 14083-01 February 11,2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Work..............................................................................................1 1.2 Site Location and Description...........................................................................................2 1.3 Proposed Development.....................................................................................................2 1.4 Field Investigation.............................................................................................................2 1.5 Percolation Testing............................................................................................................3 1.6 Laboratory Testing............................................................................................................3 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ........................................................................................4 2.1 Geologic Setting................................................................................................................4 2.2 Earth Units.........................................................................................................................4 2.3 Geotechnical Conditions...................................................................................................4 2.4 Groundwater......................................................................................................................5 2.5 Regional Faulting and Seismicity .....................................................................................5 2.6 Liquefaction Potential .......................................................................................................5 2.7 Settlement and Foundation Considerations.......................................................................6 2.8 Percolation and Infiltration Rate Calculations ..................................................................6 3.0 CONCLUSION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS..................................8 3.1 General Conclusion and Recommendation.......................................................................8 3.2 Grading Recommendations...............................................................................................8 3.3 Building Foundations and Slabs........................................................................................9 3.4 Garage Concrete Slab-on-Grade .....................................................................................10 3.5 Foundation Setbacks .......................................................................................................10 3.6 Static and Seismic Settlement.........................................................................................10 3.7 Lateral Earth Pressures for Permanent Retaining Structures..........................................11 3.8 Interior Slab Moisture Mitigation ...................................................................................11 3.9 Seismic Design Guidelines..............................................................................................12 3.10 Expansion Potential.........................................................................................................13 3.11 Cement Type for Construction........................................................................................13 3.12 Exterior Concrete ............................................................................................................13 3.13 Preliminary Pavement Design.........................................................................................15 3.14 Infiltration Systems..........................................................................................................16 3.15 Swimming Pool and Spa..................................................................................................16 3.16 Utility Installation and Trench Backfill ..........................................................................16 3.17 Surface Drainage and Irrigation......................................................................................17 3.18 Future Laboratory Testing...............................................................................................18 3.19 Geotechnical Review of Future Plans.............................................................................18 3.20 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Grading and Construction.....................18 150211 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Appendices Appendix A - References Appendix B - Boring Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results Appendix D - Seismic Parameters Appendix E -Percolation Test Data Appendix F - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications List of Attachments Figure 1 - Site Location and Seismic Hazards Map—Rear of Text Figure 2 - Retaining Wall Drainage Detail—Rear of Text Figure 3 -Pool and Spa Detail—Rear of Text Figure 4 -Pool Deck Detail—Rear of Text Plate 1 - Boring and Percolation Test Location Map—In Pocket 150211 iv NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Work In accordance with your request, NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (NMG) has prepared this preliminary geotechnical report for the proposed Red Hill Avenue Apartments in the City of Tustin, California. The purpose of this report is to present the geotechnical site conditions in light of the proposed development in order to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the project design, grading and construction. We have reviewed the conceptual plan prepared by Architects Orange, received by NMG on August 22, 2014. We used a 40-scale existing topography map,prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., to present the collected geotechnical data at the site for our Boring and Percolation Test Location Map (Plate 1). Our scope of work was as follows: • Acquisition, review and analysis of available geotechnical reports and maps for the subject site and surrounding area. A list of references is included in Appendix A. The Boring and Percolation Test Location Map (Plate 1) shows the location of borings that were excavated at the site for this investigation, as well as those from previous geotechnical studies. • Site reconnaissance to identify the existing site conditions and marking of boring locations prior to excavation. Notification and coordination with Underground Service Alert to identify and locate the known underground utilities. • Drilling, sampling and logging of six hollow-stem-auger borings (H-1 and P-1 through P-5) to depths of 10 to 51.5 feet. Four borings (P-1 through P-4) were used for percolation testing. The approximate locations of our borings are provided on the Boring and Percolation Test Location Map (Plate 1). Boring logs are included in Appendix B. • Percolation testing in conformance with the County of Orange Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Technical Guidance Document(2011). • Laboratory testing of selected samples to classify the onsite soils and evaluate in-situ moisture and density, consolidation, shear strength, Atterberg limits, grain-size distribution, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion index, and soluble sulfate content. Laboratory test results are included in Appendix C. • Evaluation of faulting and seismicity in accordance with the 2013 California Building Code (CBC). • Geotechnical evaluation and analysis of the compiled data with respect to the anticipated improvements. • Review of the conceptual site plan. • Preparation of this report with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the subject apartment site. 150211 1 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 1.2 Site Location and Description The approximately 3.3-acre project site is located at the southwest corner of the Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street intersection in the city of Tustin, California (Figure 1). The site is roughly rectangular in shape with elevations varying from 105 to 109 feet above mean sea level (msl). The site is currently occupied by one office building on the northeast corner with an at-grade parking lot surrounding the building; the remainder of the site is currently a vacant dirt lot with construction/demolition debris. Portions of an asphalt road remain along the northern portion of the vacant lot. Based on review of historic aerial photographs and topographic maps, the subject site has had multiple uses over the last 50+ years. The earliest aerial photograph from 1946 show the site was an active orchard. By the late 1960's, the southwest corner of the subject site was occupied by a church and dirt lot spanning to San Juan Street to the northeast. In the mid to late 1970's, the church was expanded in size, and an asphalt parking lot was constructed; also built was the office building in the northeast corner. Between 2007 and 2009, the church and parking lot were demolished and it has essentially remained unchanged since that time. 1.3 Proposed Development The proposed apartment development consists of a five-story parking structure located at the center of the site with four-story apartment buildings around the perimeter of the parking structure. A retail area is proposed adjacent to Red Hill Avenue at the eastern portion of the site. A recreational area and clubhouse with a pool is proposed within the southwest area of the site. Several passageways are shown within the site and in between the apartment buildings. The access to the site will be via Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street. We anticipate that the proposed structures will be at or above grade. 1.4 Field Investigation Our field investigation consisted of excavation of six 8- to 10-inch-diameter hollow-stem auger borings to depths of 10 to 51.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The borings were geotechnically logged, and samples were taken at selected intervals. Borings P-1 through P-5 were drilled to depths of 10 to 13 feet and were used for preliminary percolation testing. Relatively undisturbed soil ring samples were obtained from the exploratory borings with a 2.5-inch-inside-diameter, split-barrel sampler. The samplers were driven into the soil with a 140- pound automatic safety hammer, free-falling 30 inches. The drive samples were also used to obtain a measure of resistance of the soil to penetration (recorded as blows-per-foot on our geotechnical boring logs). Representative bulk samples of onsite soil were collected from the drill cuttings and used for additional soil identification purposes. Groundwater was encountered in the deepest boring at approximately 47.5 feet bgs. Borings were backfilled with soil cuttings, and asphalt pavements were patched with cold-patch asphalt. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Plate 1. The boring logs are provided in Appendix B. 150211 2 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 1.5 Percolation Testing Percolation testing at the site was performed on September 16, 2014, per the County of Orange WQMP Technical Guidance Document (2011). The Percolation Test Method for Sandy Soils was utilized as described by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and outlined in the County of Orange WQMP Technical Guidance Document. Percolation testing was performed in four borings drilled to depths of 10 to 13 feet (P-1 through P-4). A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe was installed in the borings since the borings were susceptible to caving, the annulus between the pipe and the boring wall was backfilled with 3/4 inch gravel. Testing was performed over a one and a half to two hour period and the final measurement was used to calculate the infiltration rate. The first 15 to 30 minutes were used to confirm that the Sandy Soil criteria,per the technical guidelines, apply for the site. Percolation testing location P- 5 was not completed due to lack of infiltration during preliminary testing. The percolation test data sheets are provided in Appendix E and the results are shown in Section 2.8 of this report. 1.6 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests performed on selected bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples include: • Moisture content and dry density; • Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content; • Consolidation; • Shear strength; • Atterberg limits; • Grain-size distribution; • Expansion index; and • Soluble sulfate content. Laboratory tests were conducted in general conformance with applicable ASTM standards. Laboratory test results from this study and the prior study for the adjacent site are presented in Appendix C. In-situ moisture and dry density results are included on the geotechnical boring logs (Appendix B). 150211 3 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS 2.1 Geologic Setting The subject site is located on the Tustin Plain within the Peninsular Range Provence of Southern California. The site is mapped by the State as underlain by deep alluvial fan deposits (USGS, 2004). The alluvial fan deposits are derived from the adjacent Santa Ana Mountains, located to the northeast and east of the subject site. 2.2 Earth Units The site is underlain by deep alluvial fan deposits. Undocumented artificial fill overlies the native deposits locally and was found to be up to 5 feet thick. The native Holocene- and Pleistocene-age alluvial fan deposits typically consist of silty fine to coarse sands, fine to coarse sand, and silty and sandy clays. Silty fine to coarse sands (SM) had in-situ moisture and dry densities ranging from 6.2 percent to 14.5 percent and 104 to 121 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), respectively. Fine to coarse clean sands (SP) had in-situ moisture varying from 1.7 to 2 percent, densities could not be obtained due to the highly friable nature of the clean sands. Blow counts and in-situ dry densities indicate that the subsurface soils were generally medium dense to dense. Thin interlayered clay and silt zones were encountered locally in boring H-1 and were typically wet to saturated and medium stiff to hard. Undocumented artificial fill, as noted in the borings, is present locally across the subject site. The undocumented fill was composed of fine to coarse sands/silt to sandy clay, which is weathered and degraded. The fill is considered unsuitable to remain in-place. Remnants of asphalt parking lots and access roads are present across the site. 2.3 Geotechnical Conditions The following includes a summary of the subsurface geotechnical conditions based on our recent limited site investigation and prior study by GeoSoils, Inc. (2005) at the site. Soil Properties: A Grain-size distribution test was conducted on a selected bulk sample considered representative of the existing undocumented fill and/or surficial alluvial deposits. The fines content (passing No. 200 sieve) was found to be 64 percent with Liquid Limit (LL) of 34 and Plasticity Index (PI) of 16. Shear Strength: Direct shear testing was conducted on a remolded sample of the onsite fill materials to estimate the shear strength of the fill materials anticipated at the site. The result of this testing indicates that the materials exhibit peak and ultimate angle of internal friction of 30 degrees with approximately 100 pounds per square foot(psf) of cohesion. Compressibility: Consolidation testing was performed on four relatively undisturbed ring samples collected at various depths. The soil samples representative of the onsite materials have 150211 4 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 relatively low compressibility. Also, the soils have hydro-collapse potential of less than one percent upon addition of water at loads of 3.2 ksf. Expansion Potential: A soil sample collected from the upper 5 feet was found to have medium expansion potential with an expansion index of 55. Corrosivity: A soil sample collected from the upper 5 feet had "negligible" soluble sulfate content per Table 4.2.1 of ACI-318-08. Laboratory tests performed by others indicate that the onsite soils are considered to be corrosive to ferrous metals and copper. Please note that, additional soil sampling and testing of finish grade soil should be performed following completion of grading to verify the anticipated conditions and finalize the design recommendations. 2.4 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered during the excavation of the deepest borings and was recorded at 47.4 feet below ground surface (bgs). Also, the prior preliminary investigation by GeoSoils, Inc. (2005) encountered groundwater during the excavation of their borings at depths ranging from 40.5 to 45 feet bgs. Historically, groundwater has been relatively deep at the site, between 30 and 40 feet bgs (CDMG, 2001b). 2.5 Regional Faulting and Seismicity The site is not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act (Hart and Bryant, 2007). No faults were mapped at the site by the state or others and no evidence of active faulting was observed during this investigation and the prior investigation by GeoSoils (2005). Therefore, the potential for primary ground rupture is considered slight to nil at the site. Using the USGS deaggregation computer program (2013a) and the site coordinates of 33.7355 degrees north latitude and 117.8140 degrees west longitude, the closest major active faults to the site are the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault located 3.5 mi (5.7 km) southeast of the site and the Elsinore Fault located 11 mi (17.7 km)northeast of the site The primary seismic hazard at the subject site is ground shaking due to a future earthquake on one of the major regional active faults listed above. The potential for secondary seismic hazard of liquefaction is considered very low to nil (see Section 2.6). The potential for seismic settlement of the dry sandy alluvium is moderate (see Section 2.7). Tsunami and seiche are not considered hazards at this site due to the elevation and location of the site. 2.6 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which earthquake-induced cyclic stresses generate excess pore water pressure in low density (loose), saturated, sandy soils and soft silts below the water table. This causes a loss of shear strength and, in many cases, ground settlement. The site is located in 150211 5 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 an area of potential liquefaction (Figure 1), as defined by the State's Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (CDMG, 2001a). Based on our investigation, and due to the considerable depth to groundwater and the density of the soils at depths below 30 feet, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered very low to nil. 2.7 Settlement and Foundation Considerations The anticipated settlements depend upon the loads from the building, the type of building foundation and the geotechnical properties of the supporting subgrade. We performed static settlement analysis using Unisettle 4.0 software by Unisoft Ltd., based on the boring data and laboratory test results. Considering the subsurface soil conditions, boring logs, and laboratory test results (Appendixes B and C), using a column load of up to 900 kips and foundation bearing capacity of 3500 psf, a total static settlement on the order of 1.2-inches was calculated. The differential settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 1/2 -inch over a 30-foot span. In addition, the estimated settlement of the underlying granular soils during a seismic event is anticipated to be less than one inch. Based on the static and seismic settlement analysis and subsurface soil conditions, conventional shallow foundations should be suitable for the proposed buildings and parking structures. However, this needs to be confirmed by the geotechnical consultants once the foundation plans are prepared and based on the design foundation loads and foundation layout. 2.8 Percolation and Infiltration Rate Calculations Percolation tests were performed on four of the five borings, since they met the sandy soils criteria. The soils in P-5 were finer-grained and percolation rates were slower. Measured percolation and infiltration rates were calculated based on the results of the final measurement. The measured infiltration rate was calculated using the Porchet Method (Inverse Borehole Method) as outlined by the County of Orange WQMP Technical Guidance Document. This calculation corrects for vertical flow and removes the effects of lateral flow. The measured percolation rate varied from 59.4 to 100.8 inches per hour and the measured infiltration rates were in the range of 2.9 to 7.1 inches per hour(see table below). PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS Boring No. Measured Percolation Measured Infiltration Rate (in./hr.) Rate (in./hr.) P-1 100.8 7.1 P-2 59.4 2.9 P-3 93.6 6.5 P-4 79.2 5.4 1X0111 6 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 The average infiltration rate for the four test locations was found to be 5.5 inches per hour. Per the County guidelines, a factor of safety of 2.0 or more should be added to the infiltration rate for design purposes. We recommend using a factor of safety of 3.0 and a design infiltration rate of 1.8-inches per hour be used for the site. 1X0111 7 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 3.0 CONCLUSION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 General Conclusion and Recommendation Based on the results of our subsurface exploration, the construction of the proposed apartment buildings, as described herein, is considered geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during design, grading and construction. The recommendations in this report are considered minimum and may be superseded by more restrictive requirements of others. In addition to the following recommendations, General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are provided in Appendix F. If import rill is required, the soil engineering properties of the import soil should be evaluated to determine if any of the recommendations herein require modification. 3.2 Grading Recommendations Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of deleterious materials (including asphalt pavement, concrete, existing utility pipelines, foundations of the existing structures, etc.) and disposed of offsite. Existing buildings, improvements and utilities adjacent to the site that are to be protected in place should be located and visually marked prior to demolition and grading operations. Excavations adjacent to improvements to be protected in-place or any utility easement should be performed with care, so as not to undermine existing foundations or destabilize the adjacent ground. We recommend the remedial removals within the site to consist of removal and recompaction of the upper 4 to 5 feet of soils to remove the uncertified fill and weathered alluvium. The removal limits should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the limits of proposed improvements, where possible. The removal bottoms should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. The deeper excavations for remedial removals (deeper than 4 feet) will need to be laid back at a minimum of 1.5H:IV inclination. The shallower excavations, 4 feet or less, may consist of near vertical excavation. The excavations should be performed in accordance with Cal OSHA requirements. The contractor's qualified person should verify compliance with Cal OSHA requirements. Onsite soil materials are considered suitable as fill materials below the building slabs and footings. The excavation bottoms should be scarified a minimum of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned as needed, and compacted in place prior to placement of fill materials. Fill materials should be placed in maximum 8-inch-thick lifts, moisture-conditioned, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. Stockpiling of soils (more than 5 feet in height) at or near existing structures and over utility lines that are to remain in place should not be allowed without review by the geotechnical consultant and the structure/utility line owner(s). If deeper removals are required, shoring or 150211 8 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 other special measures for safety (i.e., setback or laybacks) and to mitigate the potential for lateral/vertical soil movements may be required. 3.3 Building Foundations and Slabs The proposed building and parking structure foundations will be underlain by relatively uniform artificial fill and/or competent sandy alluvial deposits. The onsite soils are anticipated to be suitable for shallow foundations and slabs-on-grade. The recommended allowable bearing capacity for footings may be calculated based on the following equation: gall=900 D +500 B (but not to exceed 3,500 psf) where: D =embedment depth of footing, in feet B =width of footing, in feet The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loading. The coefficient of resistance of 0.35 against unwanted sliding is considered appropriate. A subgrade modulus (k) of 100 pci and soil elastic modulus (Es) of 2,000 psi may be used for design of foundations and slabs. We recommend that strip and isolated footings have a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches. The footings of freestanding and isolated structures, such as walls and pilasters, should have a minimum embedment depth of 24 inches into approved soils. The following table provides our general guidelines and preliminary recommendations for design of post tensioned foundations and slabs on expansive soil in accordance with the 2013 CBC and Post-Tension Institute (PTI) 3rd Edition provisions. GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN OF POST-TENSIONED SLABS* Parameter Recommendation Center Lift * Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em 9.00 feet * Center Lift, ym 0.55 inches Edge Lift * Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em 4.60 feet * Edge Lift, ym 0.71 inch Subgrade Modulus, k 100 pci Modulus of Elasticity of Soils, Es 2,000 psi Presaturation, as needed, to obtain the minimum 1.2 x optimum down to moisture down to the minimum depth 12 inches *Based on method in CBC 2013 and PTI 3Yd Edition 150211 9 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 For uniform thickness, post-tensioned slabs, we recommend that the slabs have a thickened edge such that the slab is embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The thickened edge should be tapered and have a minimum width of 12 inches. If non-uniform (ribbed) post-tensioned slabs are used, we recommend minimum embedment of 18 inches below adjacent grades for the perimeter footings. If non-post-tension slabs-on-grade and foundations are considered at the site in accordance with Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) method (per the 2013 California Building Code), an effective Plasticity Index of 16 is considered appropriate for the upper 15 feet of soil materials. For non-post-tension slabs, we recommend a minimum embedment of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for the perimeter footings. 3.4 Garage Concrete Slab-on-Grade The design of the garage concrete slab-on-grade is the purview of the structural engineer. At minimum, the concrete slab should be a minimum of 6 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 bars at 18 inches on-center both ways. 3.5 Foundation Setbacks Footings of structures (including retaining walls and free standing walls) located above a slope having a total height of 10 feet or less should have a minimum setback of 5 feet, as measured from the outside edge of the footing bottom along a horizontal line to the face of the slope. For footings above slopes having a total height greater than 10 feet, the setback should be, at minimum, equal to half the total height of the slope but need not exceed 10 feet. Also, the utility lines adjacent to the building foundation should not be excavated within the 1H:1V influence zone of the foundations. 3.6 Static and Seismic Settlement The amount of settlement expected will depend upon the type of foundation(s) selected. Our preliminary settlement analyses for this study indicate the total consolidation (static) settlement may be on the order of 1 inch for column loads of up to 900 kips and allowable bearing capacity of 3,500 psf. The total and differential settlement is anticipated to be approximately 1.2 inches and �/z inch over a 30-foot span, respectively. Also, we anticipate that the total seismic settlement to be on the order of less than one inch. 150211 10 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 3.7 Lateral Earth Pressures for Permanent Retaining Structures Based on our subsurface exploration, the recommended lateral earth pressures for approved native soils in drained conditions are as follows: Conditions Level(pcfl 2:1 Sloping Down Active 40 65 At-Rest 60 85 Passive 350 180 To design an unrestrained retaining wall, such as a cantilever wall, the active earth pressure may be used. For a restrained retaining wall, such as a vault or at restrained wall corners, the at-rest pressure should be used. Passive pressure is used to compute lateral soils resistance developed against lateral structural movement. Future landscaping/planting and improvements adjacent to the retaining walls should also be taken into account in the design of the retaining walls. Excessive soil disturbance, trenches (excavation and backfill), future landscaping adjacent to footings and over-saturation can adversely impact retaining structures and result in reduced lateral resistance. For walls with narrow trench footings (10-inches or less) that are located in areas likely to be landscaped, we recommend neglecting the passive resistance in the upper 2 feet. For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. This value may be increased to 0.55 for the keyway below the wall base. The passive resistance is taken into account only if it is ensured that the soil against embedded structure will remain intact with time. The retaining walls may also need to be designed for additional lateral loads if other structures or walls are planned within a IH:IV projection. The seismic lateral earth pressure for level backfill for walls retaining greater than 6 feet of soils at the may be estimated to be an additional 15 pcf for active and at-rest conditions. The earthquake soil pressure has a triangular distribution and is added to the static pressures. For the active and at-rest conditions, the additional earthquake loading is zero at the top and maximum at the base. Per the requirements of the 2013 CBC (Section 1803.5.12), seismic earth pressures do not apply to walls retaining less than 6 feet of soils. Drainage behind retaining walls should also be provided. Typical recommendations for wall drainage are provided on the attached detail (Figure 2). The waterproofing and drainage systems for the retaining walls that are located between the site and adjacent properties may require additional measures to minimize the potential for nuisance seepage. Specific drainage connections, outlets and avoiding open joints should be considered for the retaining wall design. Proper surface drainage should also be provided. 3.8 Interior Slab Moisture Mitigation In addition to geotechnical and structural considerations, the project owner should also consider moisture mitigation when designing and constructing slabs-on-grade. The intended use of the interior space, type of flooring, and the type of goods in contact with the floor may dictate the 150211 1 1 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 need for, and design of, measures to mitigate potential effects of moisture emission from and/or moisture vapor transmission through the slab. Typically, for human occupied structures, a vapor retarder or barrier has been recommended under the slab to help mitigate moisture transmission through slabs. The most recent guidelines by the American Concrete Institute (ACI 302.1R-96)recommend that the vapor retarder be placed directly under the slab (no sand layer). However, the location of the vapor retarder may also be subject to the builder's past successful practice. Placement of 1 or 2 inches of sand over the moisture retarder has been common practice in southern California. Specifying the strength of the retarder to resist puncture and its permeance rating is important. These qualities are not necessarily a function of the retarder thickness. A minimum of 10-mil is typical but some materials, such as 10-mil polyethylene ("Visqueen"), may not meet the desired standards for toughness and permeance. The vapor retarder, when used, should be installed in accordance with standards such as ASTM E1643-98 and/or those specified by the manufacturer. Concrete mix design and curing are also significant factors in mitigating slab moisture problems. Concrete with lower water/cement ratios results in denser, less permeable slabs. They also "dry" faster with regard to when flooring can be installed (reduced moisture emissions quantities and rates). Rewetting of the slab following curing should be avoided since this can result in additional drying time required prior to flooring installation. Proper concrete slab testing prior to flooring installation is also important. Also, the concrete mix design and the type and location of the vapor retarder should be determined in coordination with all parties involved in the finished product, including the project owner, architect, structural engineer, geotechnical consultant, concrete subcontractors, and flooring subcontractors. 3.9 Seismic Design Guidelines The seismic design criteria based on the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) is presented in the following table: 150211 12 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 Selected Seismic Design Parameters Seismic Design Reference .from 2013 CBC/ASCE 7-10 Values Latitude 33.7355 North Longitude 117.8140 West Nearest Seismic Source San Joaquin Hills USGS 2013a Blind Thrust Fault Distance to Nearest Seismic Source 3.5 Miles (5.7 km) USGS 2013a Site Class per Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10 D USGS, 2013b Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (Ss) 1.487 g USGS, 2013b Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Periods (S1) 0.546 g USGS, 2013b Site Coefficient Fa, Table 11.4-1 of ASCE 7-10 1.0 USGS, 2013b Site Coefficient F,, Table 11.4-2 of ASCE 7-10 1.5 USGS, 2013b Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods (SDs) from Equation 11.4-3 of ASCE 7-10 0.991 g USGS, 2013b Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period (SDI) from Equation 11.4-4 of ASCE 7-10 0.546 g USGS, 2013b Peak Ground Acceleration (MCER) Corrected for Site Class Effects from Equation 11.8-1 of ASCE 0.540 g USGS, 2013b 7-10 Seismic Design Category, Section 11.6 of ASCE D USGS, 2013b 7-10 3.10 Expansion Potential Based on laboratory testing, the expansion potential of onsite soils is anticipated to be medium. Additional laboratory testing may need to be performed following completion of grading operations to confirm the expansion potential of the near-surface soils. 3.11 Cement Type for Construction We anticipate that the onsite soil will have "negligible" sulfate exposure level (based on the classification for concrete exposed to sulfate in Table 4.2.1 in ACI-318-08). Cement type and mix design for structural concrete with respect to sulfates should conform to the ACI recommendations (Table 4.3.1 in ACI-318-08). 3.12 Exterior Concrete Exterior concrete elements such as curb and gutter, sidewalks and other hardscape are susceptible to lifting and cracking when constructed over expansive soils. Please also note that reducing cracking of concrete is often a function of proper concrete mix design, placement, and 150211 13 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 curing/finishing practices. Adherence to guidelines of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) is recommended. Also, the amount of post-construction watering or lack thereof can have a very significant impact on the adjacent concrete flatwork. For reducing the potential effects of expansive soils, we recommend a combination of pre- wetting of subgrade soils and moisture barriers/drains. The application of these measures can significantly reduce the impacts from post-construction expansion of soil. The degrees and combinations of these measures will depend upon the following: • Expansion potential of the subgrade soils; • Potential for moisture migration to the subgrade; • Feasibility of the measures (especially presaturation); and • Economics of these measures versus the benefits. These factors should be weighed by the project owner determining the measures to be applied, subject to the requirements of the local building/grading department. The following table provides our recommendations. For this project, the soil near finish grade is expected to have no more than "medium" expansion potential. Typical Recommendations for Residential Concrete Flatwork/Hardscape Expansion Potential (Index) Recommendations Very Low Low Medium High Very High (<20) (20-50) (51-90) (91-130) (>130) Slab Thickness(Min.):Nominal 4" 4" 4" 4" 4"Full thickness except where noted. Subbase;thickness of sand or N/A N/A Optional 211-411 211-411 gravel layer below concrete Presaturation;degree of Pre-wet 1.1 x opt. 1.2 x opt. 1.3 x opt. 1.4 x opt. optimum moisture content(opt.) Only To 6" to 18" to 18" to 24" and depth of saturation Joints,maximum spacing of control joints. Joint should be 10' 10' 8' 6' 6' 1/4 of total thickness Reinforcement:rebar or Optional No. 3 rebar,24" No. 3 rebar, equivalent welded wire mesh N/A N/A (WWF 6 x 6— o.c.both ways or 24"o.c.both placed near mid-height of slab W1.4 x W1.4) equivalent wire ways mesh Restraint: Slip dowels across Across cold cold joints;between sidewalk and N/A N/A Optional Across cold joints joints(and curb into curb) These recommendations should be verified and modified as necessary in the event that conditions at the completion of grading differ from our assumptions described herein. 150211 14 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 3.13 Preliminary Pavement Design The following preliminary pavement structural sections have been designed in accordance with the Orange County Highway Design Manual. We are providing the following alternative pavement sections based on traffic indices (TI) of 4.0, 5.5 and 7.5 (corresponding to parking areas, traveled ways/drives, and the main entries,respectively) and a design R-value of 20: T.I. =4.0 T.I.=5.5 T.I.= 7.5 0.45'AC/1.0'AB 0.25 AC/0.50AB 0.35'AC/0.55'AB 0.40'AC/1.1'AB 0.25'AC/0.80'AB 0.35'AC/1.2'AB AC—Asphalt Concrete;AB—Crushed Aggregate Base or Crushed Miscellaneous Base If a two-stage paving is planned, we recommend that the initial AC lift be a minimum of 0.25 foot thick and the final cap be a minimum of 0.10 foot thick. Street pavement should be placed in accordance with the requirements of Section 301 and 302 of the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction (The Green Book). Prior to construction of pavement sections, the subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned to slightly over optimum moisture content, and recompacted in place to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557. AB materials should be crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB) in accordance with Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (The Green Book). The materials should be free of any deleterious materials. AB materials should be placed in 6- to fl- inch loose lifts, moisture-conditioned as necessary and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557. AC should also be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Additionally we recommend a PCC slab for areas subject to trash-truck activity. Minimum slab thickness should be 7 inches with reinforcement (No. 3 rebar, 18-inch on center both ways). Subgrade in areas of PCC pavement should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557. If interlocking stone pavers are proposed,the following is recommended: • Stone pavers in pedestrian areas should be installed over at least 4 inches of AB over geofabric. This should also accommodate the rare maintenance cart or light truck that might drive up on these areas. • If stone pavers are planned in vehicular areas, we recommend that the pavers be placed over the same AB section as the AC sections with a geotextile-reinforcement fabric, such as Mirafi 600 X or equivalent,placed below the AB section. The final recommended pavement sections for the site should be provided following completion of the grading operations. 150211 15 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 3.14 Infiltration Systems Based on our scope of work as described herein, we conclude that onsite storm-water infiltration at the subject site is geotechnically feasible. Based on preliminary percolation testing performed at the subject site, an average measured infiltration rate of 5.5 inches per hour or design infiltration rate of 1.8 inch per hour should be assumed for the site. This infiltration rate applies only to the sandy alluvial soils encountered at depths below approximately 9 to 11 feet bgs along the southwestern edge of the subject site. The overlying soils above this depth are generally silty sands/sandy silts which generally have very low infiltration rates. Percolation testing at location P-5 was found to not be feasible within the upper 10 feet, additional deeper percolation testing (greater than 10 feet bgs) may be necessary if infiltration systems are proposed within this area. The infiltration systems should be designed and constructed per the recommendations of the County of Orange WQMP guidelines. We recommend that the infiltration systems have a minimum setback from the building foundations of 5 feet and the bottom of the BMP should extend to a depth of 5 to 10 feet (into native soils). The geotechnical consultant should review the proposed infiltration system plan once it is available and provide more specific recommendations, if necessary. 3.15 Swimming Pool and Spa Typical recommendations for construction of pools, spas and pool decks are provided on Figures 3 and 4 at the rear of text. For design, the subgrade soils for the pool and spa decks should be considered as having "Medium" expansion potential. Pool walls may be designed for an undrained, at-rest lateral earth pressure of 100 psf/ft. All concrete has a tendency to crack and cracks in concrete can be caused by many different factors. When constructing concrete decks, it is important that the ground on which these improvements are to rest be properly prepared, including moisture-conditioning. Slab thickness, location of joints, reinforcement, and concrete mixture must also be appropriate for the intended use. Proper placement, finishing, and curing of concrete are also very important factors in minimizing cracking. Adjacent landscaping should provide appropriate surface and subdrainage to minimize over wetting the soils. 3.16 Utility Installation and Trench Backfill Excavations should be performed in accordance with the requirements set forth by Cal/OSHA Excavation Safety Regulations (Construction Safety Orders, Section 1504, 1539 through 1547, Title 8, California Code of Regulations). In general, onsite soils may be classified as Type "C" Soil. Cal/OSHA regulations indicate that, for workmen in confined conditions, the steepest allowable slopes in Type C soil are 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) for excavations less than 20 feet deep. Where there is no room for these layback slopes, we anticipate that shoring will be necessary. 150211 16 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 Excavations should be reviewed periodically by the contractor's qualified person to confirm compliance with Cal OSHA requirements. Native soils should be suitable for use as trench backfill. Native backfill materials should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Select granular backfill may be used in lieu of native soils, but should also be compacted. Trenches, including interior utility, should be either backfilled with native soil and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction, or backfilled with clean sand (SE 30 or better), which can be densified with water jetting and flooding(if allowed by the governing agency). Trenches excavated next to structures and foundations should also be properly backfilled and compacted to provide full lateral support and reduce settlement potential. 3.17 Surface Drainage and Irrigation Maintaining adequate surface drainage, proper disposal of run-off water, and control of irrigation will help reduce the potential for future moisture-related problems and differential movements from soil heave/settlement. Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during grading, landscaping, and building construction. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from structures and slopes and toward the street or suitable drainage devices. Ponding of water adjacent to the structures should not be allowed. Buildings should have roof gutter systems and the run-off should be directed to parking lot/street gutters by area drain pipes or by sheet flow over paved areas. Paved areas should be provided with adequate drainage devices, gradients, and curbing to prevent run-off flowing from paved areas onto adjacent unpaved areas. Foundation performance is also dependent upon maintaining adequate surface drainage away from structures. The minimum gradient within 5 feet of the building will depend upon surface landscaping. In general, we suggest that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 2 percent away from structures. Consideration should be given to concrete flatwork construction adjacent to the building. Construction of planter areas immediately adjacent to structures should be avoided if possible. If planter boxes are constructed adjacent to or near buildings, the planters should be provided with controls to prevent excessive penetration of the irrigation water into the foundation and flatwork subgrades. Provisions should be made to drain excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Raised planter boxes may be drained with weepholes. Deep planters (such as palm tree planters) should be drained with below- ground, water-tight drainage lines connected to a suitable outlet. Moisture barriers should also be considered. It is also important to maintain a consistent level of soil moisture, not allowing the subgrade soils to become overly dry or overly wet. Properly designed landscaping and irrigation systems can help in that regard. 150211 17 NMG 14083-01 February 11,2015 3.18 Future Laboratory Testing Additional laboratory testing, including expansion potential and soluble sulfate content, may need to be performed at the completion of grading in order to confirm the geotechnical soil characteristics of onsite materials. 3.19 Geotechnical Review of Future Plans Once a grading plan becomes available, it should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant. Additional geotechnical analysis will be necessary for building foundation design in relation to potential settlements. The geotechnical consultant will need to work closely with the structural engineer and project team during design. Once the building/grading plan is available, the final geotechnical recommendations for remedial grading and structural design will be provided. A geotechnical grading plan review report should be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to issuance of a grading and construction permit. 3.20 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Grading and Construction Geotechnical observation and testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant during the following phases of grading and construction: • During site preparation and clearing; • During earthwork operations, including remedial removals and fill placement; • During backfill of excavations after removal of existing utility pipelines; • Upon completion of any excavation for buildings, retaining walls, or pool prior to pouring concrete; • During slab and pavement subgrade preparation (including presoaking), prior to pouring of concrete; • During and after installation of subdrains for retaining walls and building subgrade; • During placement of backfill for utility trenches and retaining walls; and • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered. 150211 18 NMG i •* � III••• {� n1. IP9 t n r b Sc 13 IMP t 6TH _ ST_ry l 4 AS' I 23' es l2: SUBJECT SITE Al C:) Liquefaction CD Earthquake-Induced Landslides Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction,or local geological, Areas where previous occurance of landslide movement,or local geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for topographic,geological,geotechnical and subsurface water conditions permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that Public Resources Code Section 2693(c)would be required. mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c)would be required. SITE LOCATION AND SEISMIC HAZARDS MAP N BASE- DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY SEISMIC HAZARDS MAP, TUSTIN QUADRANGLE Dated- January 17, 2001 PROPOSED RED HILLAVENUE APARTMENTS Project Number: 14083-01 � i / , G CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Project Name: WASL/TUSTIN NM Geotechnical, Inc. Date: 2/11/15 Figure No. 1 Provide proper surface drainage \ OPTION 1 (drain separate from subdrain) AGGREGATE SYSTEM DRAIN 1'to 2'Cover Native backfill ::.•':;.:Clean sand vertical drain having sand equivalent of 30 or greater or other free-draining granular Retaining wall H-1 , material i i:';;;:';• Alternative:Class 2 permeable Waterproofing(optional) ,;:.;;,•:•! filter material(Per Caltrans ,::..;•:.•.:� specifications)may be used for '• "`'Y Minimum 1 ft.3/ft.of 1/4 to 1 1/2"size gravel vertical drain and around '�• :' perforated pipe(without filter fabric)crushed rock encased in approved Hole(optional) �;:•::.;.j Filter Fabric 3+ --- '•�''.: 4-inch diameter perforated pipe with proper outlet.(See Notes below for alternate discharge system) Provide proper surface drainage (drain separate from subdrain) � .�� OPTION 2: 1'Cover / /�� COMPOSITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM Native backfill Wrap filter fabric Retaining wall flap behind core Mirafi G100N, Contech C-Drain 15K,or equivalent drainage composite. Weep Hole(optional)-,., Cut back of core to match size of weep hole. Do not cut fabric. 3+, 4-inch diameter perforated pipe with proper outlet. Peel back the bottom fabric flap,place pipe next to core, wrap fabric around pipe and tuck behind core. (See Notes for alternate weep hole discharge system) NOTES: 1.PIPE TYPE SHOULD BE PVC OR ABS,SCHEDULE 40 OR SDR35 SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM TEST STANDARD D1527, D1785, D2751 ,OR D3034. 2.FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE APPROVED PERMEABLE NON-WOVEN POLYESTER, NYLON,OR POLYPROPYLENE MATERIAL. 3.DRAIN PIPE SHOULD HAVE A GRADIENT OF 1 PERCENT MINIMUM. 4.WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE MAY BE REQUIRED FOR A SPECIFIC RETAINING WALL(SUCH AS A STUCCO OR BASEMENT WALL). 5.WEEP HOLES MAY BE PROVIDED FOR LOW RETAINING WALLS(LESS THAN 3 FEET IN HEIGHT)IN LIEU OF A VERTICAL DRAIN AND PIPE AND WHERE POTENTIAL WATER FROM BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL WILL NOT CREATE A NUISANCE WATER CONDITION.IF EXPOSURE IS NOT PERMITTED,A PROPER SUBDRAIN OUTLET SYSTEM SHOULD BE PROVIDED. 6.IF EXPOSURE IS PERMITTED,WEEP HOLES SHOULD BE 2-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER AND PROVIDED AT 25-FOOT MAXIMUM SPACING ALONG WALL.WEEP HOLES SHOULD BE LOCATED 3+INCHES ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. 7.SCREENING SUCH AS WITH A FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR WEEP HOLES/OPEN JOINTS TO PREVENT EARTH MATERIALS FROM ENTERING THE HOLES/JOINTS. 8.OPEN VERTICAL MASONRY JOINTS(I.E.,OMIT MORTAR FROM JOINTS OF FIRST COURSE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE)AT 32-INCH MAXIMUM INTERVALS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WEEP HOLES. 9 THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT MAY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RETAINING WALLS DESIGNED FOR SELECT SAND BACKFILL. RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL NMG G(zotechnlcal, Inc. FIGURE 2 3105 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE.ai TABLE 1 ASSUMED EQUIVALENT CREEP ZONE (for pool design only) EXPANSION D L POTENTIAL (feet) (feet) Very Low 1 7 Low 2 15 Medium 3 20 Hi h 4 25 Very High 5 30 D � POOL OR �^I1 Additional loading due to slope SPA /7 or structure should be taken into consideration for design of this H I01 portion of the pool shell or the pool should be setback beyond the G�e2Q; surcharge zone. petent soil/bedrock or compacted ed filisturbed l with relative compaction>90% (ASTMD1557) I Pool wall within the equivalent creep zone(see Table 1)should assume a total loss of soil support or the pool should setback beyond the creep zone.The CBC stipulates the required slope setback and the portion of the pool wall within a horizontal distance of 7 feet from the top of the slope should also assume a total loss of soil support. NOTE: * THIS DETAIL IS TYPICAL AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. « IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2013 CBC SECTION 1808.7.3 1)The pool walls should be designed to account for soil expansion forces.Where constructed in soils possessing"medium"expansion potential, the pool walls should be designed for an equivalent lateral fluid pressure of 100 lbs./cu. ft. For soils possessing "high"or "very high"expansion potential,the pool walls should be designed for and equivalent lateral fluid pressure of 125 lbs./cu.ft.The actual expansiveness of soils exposed in pool excavations should be evaluated upon completion of the excavation as pool subgrade soils are exposed. 2) Pools and spas should conform to setback criteria pertaining to slopes as established in the California Building Code. The CBC indicates that the pool should be setback from descending slopes a minimum distance of one-sixth of the descending slope height(20 feet maximum).In addition,that portion of the pool wall within a horizontal distance of 7 feet from the top of the slope shall be capable of supporting the water in the pool without soil support. In addition,we recommend that the portion of the pool wall within the equivalent soil creep zone (Table 1) should also assume a total loss of soil support. Where pools are planned near toes-of-slopes and/or structures, appropriate surcharge loads should be incorporated into design and construction. 3) Pool/spa excavations exposing bedrock should be evaluated by a qualified geotechnical consultant to determine the need for special design to account for bedding plane surcharges. If encountered, the pool walls should be designed to support any daylight bedding.The bedding plane surcharge value will vary depending upon bedding angle,rock type,and strength. 4)In order to provide uniform conditions,the pool excavation may need to be overexcavated a depth of 3 feet below bottom of pool and replaced to pool subgrade with compacted fill.As an alternative,the reinforcing steel in the area of a transition area may be increased to accountforthe differences in engineering properties and the potential differential behavior. 5)Consideration should be given to incorporating provisions for mitigating subsurface water.Whereas pool excavations may be free of water at the time of construction, future irrigation could result in the development of perched water zones which could affect subsurface improvements. Heavy-duty pipes and couplings should be used for the pool plumbing system to minimize leaking which may produce additional pressures on the pool shell. In addition,installation of a pressure valve in the pool bottom may be considered to mitigate potential build-up of pressure. 6) In general, all below grade improvements must be constructed by qualified professionals utilizing appropriate designs which account for the on-site (lot) geotechnical and geologic conditions. Observation/testing should be performed by a geotechnical consultant during pool/spa excavation to verifyexposed soil conditions are consistentwith the assumed design conditions. SWIMMING P®®LAND SPA DESIGN NMG CRITERIA DETAIL Geotechnical, Inc. 6/14 POOL.ai FIGURE 3 NOTE. RECOMMENDATIONS DEPICTED ON THIS DETAIL ARE TYPICAL AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT OR ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Pool deck:minimum 4"thick and provided with construction or weakened plane joints at frequent intervals(Note 3). Deck drain or other suitable drainage system . .o 0' p i Extend drain to suitable outlet P®®L "D" Q Cut-offff trench or barrier having minimum depth (D)as specified 2% :'j:M In Table 1. 0 0•min. 6"MIN. , 4"diameter perforated PVC drain line Layer of crushed rocks gravel, with suitable outlet.Minimum 1 Vif2. or clean sand having minimum Undisturbed competent soul of Y4 to 1 ''/2'size gravel or crushed thickness(T)as specified in or 90%compacted soul subgrade rock encased in approved filter fabric Table 1. per geotechnical consultant and (Note 2). presaturated as specified in Table 1 Table 1 (Note 1). Expansion Min. Depth of Min. Thickness of Min. Depth of Min. Presaturation Potential Cut-off"D" Sand Back-fill "T" Presaturation Moisture Content Low 12" 4" 6" 120% of Optimum Medium 18" 6" 12" 130% of Optimum High 1 24" 1 12" 1 18" 140% of Optimum Very High 30" 1 18" 1 24" 140% of Optimum Notes: 1)To reduce the potential for excessive cracking due to expansive soil forces, pool deck concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and provided with construction or weakened plane joints at frequent intervals (e.g., every 6 feet or less). Slabs should be underlain by a layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand having a minimum thickness as indicated in Table 1.This layer is not required for very low expansion potential subgrades. For very low expansion potential subgrade,water spraying the subgrade prior to pouring concrete is considered adequate otherwise, the subgrade should be presaturated to the minimum depth and minimum moisture content(as a percentage of optimum moisture content) indicated in Table 1. Presoaking should be observed, tested, and accepted by a geotechnical consultant prior to placement of concrete. 2)The Subgrade below pool decks should have a drain line consisting of 4-inch diameter perforated pipe (PVC Schedule 40, SDR 35,Armco A2000 PVC, or approved equivalent), surrounded by approved gravel which is wrapped with filter fabric(Mirafi 140N,or approved equivalent) provided below the sand layer. One line of subdrain around the swimming pool area is generally sufficient.The drain pipe should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum. 3)All concrete has a tendency to crack and cracks in concrete can be caused by many different factors. When constructing concrete decks, it is important that the ground on which these improvements are to rest be properly prepared, including moisture conditioning. Slab thickness, location of joints, reinforcement, and concrete mixture must also be appropriate for the intended use. Proper placement, finishing, and curing of concrete are also very important factors in minimizing cracking. Reinforcement of slabs may also be considered to further reduce unsightly cracking especially for high or very high expansion potential areas.Adjacent landscaping should provide appropriate surface and subdrainage to minimize overwetting the soils. P®®LAND SPA DECK SUSGRADE DETAIL NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 6,14 POOL DECK.ai FIGURE 4 APPENDIX A 14083-01 February 11,2015 APPENDIX A REFERENCES California Division of Mines and Geology, 1981, Geologic Map of Orange County California, Showing Mines and Mineral Deposits, Bulletin 204, Plate 1, by Morton, P.K. and Miller, R.V. California Division of Mines and Geology, 2001a, Seismic Hazard Zones, Tustin Quadrangle, Revised Official Map dated January 17, 2001. California Division of Mines and Geology, 2001b, Seismic Hazard Zone Evaluation Report for the Tustin 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 024. GeoSoils, Inc., 2005, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Senior Apartment Complex, 13841 Red Hill Avenue, Tentative Tract 11282, Block 141 and Parcel No. 10, Cities of Tustin, County of Orange, California, W.O. 4735-Al-OC, dated March 29, 2005. Hart, E. W. and Bryant, W.A., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault zones Maps, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Revised 1997, Interim Revision 2007 Jennings, Charles W., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6 Miller, R.V., and Tan S. S., 1976, Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the South Half Tustin Quadrangle, Orange County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 126 Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR), LLC, 2009, Historic Aerials by NETR Online; web site address: hLtp://historicaerials.com/ Orange County Public Works, 2011, OC Watersheds Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), Exhibit 7.111, dated May 19, 2011; hl�2://www.ocwatersheds.com/WQMP.aspx U.S. Geological Survey, 2004, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Southern California, dated 2004, CGS Open File Report 99-172. U. S. Geological Survey, 2013a, 2008 Interactive Deaggregations Program; web site address: hLtps://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/. U.S. Geological Survey, 2013b, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, web site address: hLtp://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmilps/us/ilpplication.php 150211 A-I APPENDIX B D rtz{sJ 9116114 Logged AZ eriued By a Drilhnq 2R Drilling Drill Bit 10" Gorrmppany Sizerfype Doll Rig CME 75 Hollow Stem Hammer 14plbs @ 3p"Drop Type Data Sheet 1 of 2 a Sampling Modified California,Bulk � hlethe[41SJ Approximate Gioundv+ater Depth: Groundwater Encountered at 47.4' ata!Depth 51.5 Drilreo(ft) -- aComments App roxierrate g=round 107.0 Surface F.levalion{ft) h. a SAMPLES a' a I, OTHER J a TESTS " a a C U) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a and LLj C) CL a o `� N o a c�'uci REMARKS r z m o 0 D ❑a 2 Surface: 4'"AC over 6"AB. r CL Artificial Fill(Aft &1@1'-5' GS,AL"MD,DS;El, Cc A g_1 ML Alluvium(Qal) 14.5 104.2 0 D-1 11 @ 2.5':Dark yellowish brown fine sandy SILK, moist,medium stiff, trace caliche stringers. 0 SM @ 5''Upper: bark yellowish brown silty fine SAND,damp,loose to 8.5 104.2 D-2 13 — medium dense.trace cal the stnrLgers. --- 5C CL Lauver: Dark yellowish brown clayey fine SANDIsandy CLAY,damp, 101) _ medium dense/stiff,trace+caliche stringers --- -- ' D,3 11 SKI @ 7,5':Dark yellowish hm*n is reddish brown silly fine to medium 8.1 115.5 ON SAND..moist,loose to medium dense,root hairs, pinhole pores, trace fine gravel. o - Y ' - @ 19-.Yellowish brown silty fine to medium SAND,damp,medium 6.3 121.1 D 4 22 - - dense,slightly friable,trace fine gravel and mica. 1 @ 15':Yellowish brown silty fine SAND,damp to moist,loose to 10.9 103.9 CN ' 0-5 12 medium dense,slightly friable, trace mica. p 2 ' D-6 14 20': Upper: Light yellowish brown clayey and silty fine to medium 13.4 103.7 AND,moist,medium dense,slightly friable,trace coarse sand fine gravel and mica. Lower.Yellowish brown silty fine SAND,moist, medium dense,slightly friable,trace mica. 25- CL @ Z5:Qrown to reddish brown silty CLAY,wet,medium stiff,— 17.8 111.8 ' D-7 13 caliche stringers, -80 3 LOG OF BORING WASL ITustin Tustin, CA N`.rYlG PROJECT NO. 14083-01 WASUTustin Tustin,CA H-1 Sheet 2 of 2 �U SAMPLES OTHER 0 O N J .� a TESTS > W' a W MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N a N and w a a E o a REMARKS z m ❑❑ z 3 '70 ML CL @ 30': Upper: Light yellowish brawn to gray brown clayey SILT/silty 22.4 104.9 D-8 1s _ GLA_Y,_saturat_ed,stiff, pinhole pores- ____________ SM Lower: Dark yellowish brown silty fine to medium SAND, saturated, medium dense,trace mica.. n a r 3 'GL @ 35Reddish brown to gray silty fine sandy CLAY,saturated, _ 28-9 W_4 ' D-9 11 medium stiff. z CL a 70 4� 4 @ 4D' Reddish brown to gray silty fine sandy CLAY,wet,very stiff 15-2 117.E ' D-10 67 to hard,trace mica. a H rn 6 J 41 @ 45': Reddish brawn to gray silty fine sandy CLAY,wet, very stiff 17.4 114.1 ' D-11 52 to hard, trace mica. 0 5 @ 50': Red to gray mottled silty,fine sandy CLAY,wet.stiff,trace 23.6 102.2 b-12 17 mica. Notes: Total Depth: 51,5 Feet. Groundwater Encountered 47.4 Feet. Barkfilled with Cuttings,Tamped, and Patched with Concrete. 55-- -50 b 6j LOG OF BORING WASUTustin Tustin,CA PROJECT NO. 14083-01 NMG T¢n:hic:I if H.L(M'Sll:r1: Pri IT):1d0., p1.011.1 Pnnrcd !U•"'i4 pa��ps r 9/16114 Logged TBF Drita company 2R Drilling QZlle/Type 6"' P-1 o Drill Rig GME T5 Hollow Stem hummer 140ths ar7 30"Drop Type Data p Sheet 1 of 1 a Sampling Method(s) Modified California,Bulk m Total Depth co Approximate Groundwater Depth: Groundwater Not Encountered Drilled(4t) 13.0 z Comments Approximate Ground 146.0 Surface:Elevation(ft) z 2 SAMPLES U- OTHER o `" a m.. TESTS a, MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -am and raa D—�j O � o a �° coo o �'V REMARKS l. SM Surface:Dirt lot with very sparse vegetation.Scattered asphalt, debris,and trash. a Artificial Fill(Af) c`a B-1 B-1 @ G'-5' D-1 12 @ 2,5' Upper: Brown silty fine to coarse SAND,damp,loose to 8.7 106.7 medium dense, micaceous,very porous,friable,trace gravel. X. SM Alluvium(Qal) Lower:Brown silty fine to coarse SAND,damp,loose to medium a dense,micaceous,porous,trace gravel. 9 g 1083 @ 5'' Brown silty fine SAND,damp,medium dense, porous, s 100 D-� 15 caliche, micaceous. LU r- en _ 4 = 10- 1 V: 11': Upper. Light brown slightly silty fine to medium SAND, 6.2 108.7 ' p-3 12 damp, loose to medium dense,micaceous,highly friable. Lower: Light brown slightly fine SAND,damp,loose,micaceous,more dense than above 1 Notes- -90 Total Depth:13 Feet.. No Groundwater Encountered- Presoak and Percolation Testing on 9116114. Backfilled with Cuttings. 2 2 0 3 LOG OF BORING WASLITustin Tustin, 1 NMG PROJECT NO. 14t}83-1}1 1`I Date{si 9/16114 Logged AZJTBF Drilled ESy Drilling 2R©tilting Drill BA $„ P- r� Company S'izelTvpe Drill RigGME 75 Hallow Stern FI"inr'2er 140lbs a[7 30"Drop ta Sheet 1 of 1 Sampling Modified California Method(s) Total Depth Approximale Groundwaler Depth: Groundwater Not Encounteredgrilled(f{} 12.0 Comments ApproximateGround 107.0 - Surface Elevation(ft) SAMPLES o a U OTHER mO U Q1 TESTS W .°'n 0 a W MATERIAL DESCRIPTION y m �and M Cl a o a m tin a M REMARKS o F•-• Z m o t7 `�t7 ❑C] SM Surface: Dirt lot with very sparse ueedetation. Scattered asphalt, 7t debris, and trash, Artificial Fill(Af) rad 2.5': Light brown to brown silty fine SAND,damp,loose,friable, 11.0 99.1 v ' D-1 11 pores up to 3 mm in diamcter. a SM Alluvium(Qal) 7.6 109.7 GS,CN ' D-2 15 @ S': Brown silty fine SAND.damp,loose,porous,trace root hairs, e micaceous. a. 106 W O _ 1 OIt r1 - --- -- — -- ——— — — -- SP O 10': Upper,Yellowish brown to brown fine to medium SAND, 1.7 z ❑-3 16 damp,medium dense, highly friable trace mica!------- 5M Lower:yellowish brown to brown silty fine to medium SAND,damp,. medium dense,highly friable,trace mica. Notes: 1 Total Depth 12 Feet. No Groundwater Encountered. Presoak and Percolation Testing on 9116114. Backfiliied with Cuttings. U 2 2 80 3 LOG OF BODING WASUTusti n Tustin,CA ��� PROJECT NO. 14083-01 Date(s) 9195/14 logged _. Drilled By AZ Drilling 2R Drilling Drill Bit 3., P-3o Company SizelType R TypeDDOI]Ig CME 75 Hollow Stem Hammer 140ibs @ 30"'Drop Sheet 1 of 1 Sampling Modified California Method(s) 06 Approximate Groundwater Depth: Total Depth PP P Groundwater Not Encountered Drilled(ft] 11.5 z Comments ApprnxoniMe Ground 107.0 Surface Elevation(ft) z m SAMPLES L ou OTHER o m ' TESTS CL C rn MATERIAL DESCRIPTION3 w and 0 w 0 >1 D a '° a o ami REMARKS o SM Surface: Dirt lot with very sparse vegetation. Scattered asphalt, debris.and trash. Artificial Fill(AQ/Alluvium(Qal)? a. M a V @ 6:No sample recovery. D-1 12 0 1aa w 0 1 SM Alluvium(Qal) 2,0 a D-2 25 _ @ 10: Upper:Light reddish brown to strong brown silty fine to coarse SAND,damp,medium dense,slightly friable,coarse gravel 1 inuppermastrin_rs______.—..—.—_-- ._r_J Lower: Light pale yellow slightly silty fine to coarse SANG,damp, medium dense,hiqh1v friable,trace mica. Notes: Total Depth 11.5 Feet, 15- No Groundwater Encountered. Prescak and Percolation Testing on 5116114. Backfilled with Cuttings. a 20- 25-- -80 80 3 LUG OF BORING WASLITustin Tustin, 1 NMG PROJECT NO. 14Q$3-171 Urate{yj 9116114 togged AZ Drilled By DrillingDrill Bit r pp77 -4 Compny 2R Drilling S,ze Type 8 T TypoRig Ha 75 Hollow Stem I Jammer TYFrr' 140lbs 30"Drop� Data � Jf7Bet '( DF "I a Sampling Modified California.Bulk tvEethod[s) ;731 Approximate Groundwater Depth: Groundwater Not Encountered Total Depth 11 0 Drilled 00 Comrnnnt� Approx'm rte U'ound 107.0 Surface Elewition(ft) z SAMPLES (7' a OTHER CL a a, TESTS " w N L MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2 m N and CL Eo 6 ua 00 m REMARKS W H z F0 o C7 Z) 2U no SM Surface: Din lot with very sparse vegetation. Scattered asphalt. debris,and trash. Artificial FIII(AfyAlluvium(4al)? m V 4 B-1@2'-7• ij d d {L g 100 ur F LO O 1 t]1 13 SM Alluvium(Oal) 8.4 196.1 @ 9.5': Dark yellowish brown silty fine to medium SAND,damp, medium dense,trace mica and coarse sand. Notes: Total Depth 11.0 Feet. No Groundwater Encountered. 1 Presoak and Percolation Testing on 9116114. Backfilled with Cuttings. Q 20- 25- -80 80 30 LOG OF BORING WASUTustin Tustin, CA l`��� PROJECT NO. 94083-01 l`F Date(s) 9116/14 I Logged AZDrilled By Drilling Drill BitP-5 Cornr)any 2R Grilling Si--e/Type 81, G Drill eRig CME 75 Holfow Stem Dai lrneT 140lbs @ 30"'Drop Sheet 1 of 1 a Sampling Modified California o Met n C)c(s� roWl Del:rih C6 Approximate Groundwaler Depth. Groundwater Not Encountered 10.0 j Diilled Lff} Approximate Ground Comments Su dace Elevation(f!} 108'0 M_. ._ -- m a F SAMPLES CM OTHER o k U m� a TESTS > a cn MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ' m N and Q! Q �' a s m U) o y REMARKS I- z m 2 L) n❑ a SM Surface:Dirt lot with very sparse vegetation. Scattered asphalt, debris,and trash. Artificial Flli(Af)/Alluvium(pal)? c 4 - `a 4 0. .O ur - 100 SM Alluvium(Qal) 7.6 113.3 GS,Chi 0 ' D-1 15 @ g': Dark yellowish brown silty fine to medium SAND,damp,. Q medium dense,trace pinhole pares. _ 10— N o t es Notes Total depth 10.0 Feet, No Groundwater Encountered. Presoak and Percolation Testing on 9/16114. Backfilled with Cuttings. 15- -90 20- 25- -80 2•80 3 LOG Of BORING WASL/Tustin Tustin, CA PROJECT NO- 14083-01 NMG LOG OF BORING B-I Sheet of 1 Date Drilled: 3118/05 Logged by: DXS Equipment: CME-55 Driving Weight and Drop: 140 lbs and 30" Surface Elevation(ft): Depth to Water(ft): SPT li Modified v Water Level SAMPLES ADT rA U Grab Shelby Static Water a Z � Z ICH Sample Tube Table cn Q rj W O SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONSro n � C 0� co m p ❑ Asphalt Over 6Base SILTY SAND, loose,brown,dry to slightly moist,fine grained 15 13 111 5 J SANDY CLAY,very stiff,dry, brownish gray,some Silt,trace 40 9 112 caliche I0 Same as above 18 SAND wlsotne gravel,medium dense,brown,dry 15 SAND,gray beach sand,medium dense,slightly moist 24 2 I04 20 MI/E SILTY CLAY,medium stiff, brown, moist, some sand 8 25 ��� f f Same as above 16 19 108 30 SILTY SAND, loose, brown,moist, fine to medium grained 5 35 f`f/ SANDY CLAY,very stiff, reddish brown/orange brown, moist. 44 14 121 SAND, medium dense,brown,saturated,some clay at tip 45 Same as above,loose,saturated9 P 50 Same,medium dense 14 s Z Total depth af'Boring=5 f'6" Groundwater encountered C 40'6" 55 Backfilled with cuttings GEOSOILS,INC. ASL Tustin Plate � [ 1446 East Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana,California Phone:3 Phone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 LOG OF BORING B-2 Sheet 1of 1 Date Drilled: 3/18105 Logged by: DXS Equipment: CME-55 Driving Weight and Drop: 140 lbs and 30" Surface Elevation(ft): Depth to Water(ft): �PT Modified Water Level iSAMPLES �. a California ADT ❑ U Grab Shelby Static Wafer Q Sample Tube Table V�] W 0 d SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS @ a 0 r�� � rUn U) m . " a 2.5" Asphalt over 6" Kase. Sandy CLAY wlgraveI,brown,medium stiff,moist,low plasticity 8 17 76 5 Same as above 8 SAND,brown, medium dense,moist, fine grained 10 1.9 12 125 15 - --. ___ - ---- Silty SAND,brown, Inose,moist,fine grained 6 20 SAND,brown,medium dense,moist,fine grained 22 6 102 Silty CLAY,brown,sett,moist, low to medium plasticity 3 'i'r Same as above 19 15 l 1 1 35 Sarre but orange brown 3 40 Silty CLAY,reddish brown, very stiff,moist,medium plasticity 35 16 114 Same as above 3 r 50 1,1 _ 3 z Total Depth=51.5 feet g Groundwater encountered @ 45 feet ca 55 Backfilled wlcuttings GEOSOILS,INC. ASL Tustin Yl�lc Z1446 East Chestnut Avenue FGSSanta Ana,California 4735-A I-OC _ __..._ Phone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 LUG OF BORING B-3 Sheets of 1 Date DriIIed: 3118/05 Logged by: DXS Equipment: CME-55 Driving Weight and Drop: 140 itis and 30" Surface Elevation(ft): _ Depth to Water(ft): SFT Modified _V Water Level SAMPLES CaliforniaADT O F. .-, o {J Grab Shelby = Static Water ,, ;7. Sample Tube Table +- ul) LIP] _ a � rn r17 p 0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS C5to a] C Cn 2.5"Asphalt over 6" Base Silty CLAY wlgravel,dark brown,soft,moist,low to medium 3 23 90 plasticity S - ...--1- ----- ....... Silty SAND,brown,loose,fine grained,moist 12 - 10 - - ---- Clayey SAND,brown,lapse,slightly moist, fine grained 9 ]S Sarre as above 14 [i 94 20 . Sandy SILT,sots to mediurn stiff; brown, moist 4 e 25 Silty CLAY,medium stiff;reddish brown,moist,medium' 14 20 105 s plasticity Total Depth=266" g No Groundwater encountered within boring depth e Backfilled w/cuttings RGEOSOILS,INC. ASL Tustin Plate z 1446 East Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana,California 4735-A1-OIC 5 — + Phone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 LUG OF BORING s-4 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Drilled: 3/18/05 Logged by: DXS Equipment: CME-55 Driving Weight and Drop: 140 lbs and 30" Surface Eievation(ft): Depth to Water(ft): OPT 8 Modified � Wat0r Level el SAMPI_f:5 California ADT ["] u� J Grab . Shelby Static Water r � F� CL Sample Tube Table CIO —-__ — 7 [!S 1] QSUMMARY OF gUBSURFACF,CONDITIONS m Q 2.5" Asphalt over 6" Base Silty CLAY, soft,brawn,moist, fine grained, low to medium plasticity.. .. _ _ Sandy SILT,brown, soft,moist, fine grained ... ... . 5 22 96 5 .. .... . ........... ... - �' 'f Silty CLAY,soft,brown,moist,medium plasticity 2 Same as above,sandy 20 13 17-0 15 Sllty SAND, brown, loose, moist, fine to medium grained ! 6 ,A 20 same as above 15 23 96 SIlty CLAY, brown,soft to medium stiff,moist, low to ntediuni a plasticity e 25 / r 5 a c� a Total Depth =26'6" g No groundwater encountered within the boring depth A Backfilled w/cuttings �a GEOSOILS,INC. ASL Tustin Plate z GSI 1446 East Chestnut Avenue x Santa Ana,California 4735-Al-OC g — Phone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 LOG OF BORING B-5 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Drilled: 3/18/05 Logged by. DXS Equipment: CME-55 Driving Weight and Drop: 140 lbs and 30" Surface Elevation(ft): Depth to Water(ft): ,�SPT Modified Water Level s �. � � Califamia ADT snirsri,ed U Grab Shelby = Static Water Sample Tube Table v1 V) _ 7 Q c 0 E 2K p C U u� a SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 0 _ 2.5" Asphalt over 6"Base ' SAND w/gravel,medium dense,brown,moist f Sandy CLAY,medium stiff,dark brown, moist,law plasticity 9 l8 100 5 Same as above 15 19 93 10 // .. _ . SAND,brown,medium dense,moist,fine to medium grained 19 15 SiltySAND,brown,-medium dense,moist,fine to medium 36 7 99 grained.. ZO SAND, loose,brown, slightly moist,fine grained,some silt 7 25 ._. ------ . ........... . Silty CLAY,very stilt;brown,moist, low to medium plasticity 29 17 113 2 - -- - ----- --- ------------ -- _........--• - Sandy SILT,medium stiff,reddish brown,moist,rust,some 30 caliche 5 s Total Depth of Boring=31'6" No groundwater encountered within the boring depth �a Backfi I led w/cuttings GEOSOILS, INC. ASL Tustin Plate Z X51 1446 East Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana,California 4735-A1-OC Phone: 714-647-0277 Fax: 714-647-0745 APPENDIX C LI-LINE A-LINE 70 / / 60 10,/ 010 50 / w ✓ 0 40 CH or DH ✓ U 3D / h- 91�orOL rL 20 ✓ Q / ✓ MH orOH / 10 T 4 .... :CL �:[ I. ::::::::::;. ML or L D 0 16 20 40 60 80 100 120 LIQUID LIMIT(%) Passing Symbol Boring Depth Sample No,200 LL Pt 1.1SCS Description Number (feet) Number Sieve 0 H-1 1.0 B-1 614 34 16 CL Brown sandy silly CLAY PLASTICITY CHART WASLITustin Tustin, CA PROJECT NO. 14083-01 NMG [ cotechnical, Inc. Template:NMATT: Prj ID:14083-01,GPJ; Printed!214115 GRAVEL SAND BOULDERS COBBLES SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine U.S.STANDARD U-S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 36 12 6 3 1-112 314 318 4 8 16 30 50 100 200 100 X30 i 80 70 (D 60 rn to Q H 50 Z w U W 40 30 20 10 0 1,000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Boring Sample Depth Field Activity Passing Passing Symbol Number Number feet hRaisture LL P{ Ce Ce No.200 ° USCS (feet) I° PI!-2µ Sieve 2N{ °r D H-1 B-1 1.0 34 16 64 17 CL PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION WASLJTustin Tustin, CA PROJECT NO. 14083-01 NMG Gcfltechnical, Inc. Templale:NM5N. Pit l.❑ 1408',1-01 GPJ: Printed.204!* 5.000 4.000 N 3,000 H Z LL} fX H fl7 Q' w 2,000 1,000 41 0 0 1.000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 NORMAL STRESS(psf) Boring No. H-1 Sample No. B-1 Depth: 1.0 ft Sample Description: Brawn sandy silty CLAY Liquid Limit: 34 Plasticity Index: 16 Percent PassingNo.200 Sieve: 54 Moisture Degree of 24.9 Dry Density(pcf): 103.9 99 Content (%): Saturation{°I°}: Sample Type: Remotded Rate of Shear(in./min.)- 0.005 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS Parameter Peak • Ultimate O Cohesion(psf) 100 100 Friction Angie(degrees) 30 30.0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS WASUTustin Tustin,CA PROJECT NO. 14083-01 NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 7empla;e:NMGS; Prj ID 1.7083-01 GPJ, Prrnled:2±-0il', 140 Maximum Dry Density(pct 121.5 Optimum Moisture Content(%) 11.5 130 NA Zero Air Voids Curves Gs = 2.80 Gs = 2.70 120 Gs = 2.60 D _ U CL 1- (n 110 2 LU O lY 100 90 —IL - 80 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 MOISTURE CONTENT (%) Boring No. H-1 Sample No. B-1 Depth: 1.0 ft Sample Description: Brown sandy silty CLAY m Liquid Limit: 34 Plasticity Index: 16 Percent Passing 64 No,200 Sieve: Comments; 1557A COMPACTION TEST RESULTS WASUTustin Tustin,CA PROJECT NO. 14083-01 NMG Geotechnical Inc. Temptale:NMGOFAP; Prl 10:14083-01.GPJ; Printed:24115 LEGEND O =initial moisture • =after saturation %Collapse[ } 2 or%Swell[+} -0.16 4 6 8 F_ Q h 10 — U) 12 - 14 - 16 - 18 2141618 20 0.1 1 10 100 STRESS(ksf I Boring No. H-1 Sample No. D-5 Depth: 15.0 ft Sample Description: (Qal) Brown sandy SILT Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: Percent Passing No.240 Sieve: Test Moisture Dry Degree of Void Stage Content(%) Density(pcf) Saturation(%) Ratio Initial 16,o 103.1 70.2 0.604 Final 21.0 104.8 96.3 0.578 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS WASL/Tusti n Tustin, CA PROJECT NO. 14083-01 NMG Gcotechnical Inc. Template WCONS: p.j 10 14083-01.GPJ: Printed 213.+15 LEGEND 0 O =initial moisture • =after saturation %Collapse{-) 2 or%Swell (+) -0.38 4 6 8 r' v Z 10 to 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100 STRESS(kst Boring No. M-1 Sample No. D-3 Depth: 7.5 ft Sample Description: (Oal) Reddish brown sandy SILT Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: Percent Passing No.200 Sieve: Test Moisture Dry Degree of Void Stage Content(%) Density(pcq Saturation{°I°f Ratio Initial 8.4 114.5 50.1 0.444 Final 14.4 118.9 97.7 D.391 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS WASL1Tustin Tustin, CA PROJECT NO. 14083-01 NMG Geotechnical Inc. Temptale WCONS. Prj IC'.14M-0').GP.I. Printed 213115 LEGEND 0 a =initial moisture ■ =after saturation %Collapse{-} 2 or%Swell(+) -0.29 4 6 8 z 10 rn 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 100 STRESS(ksf Baring No. P-2 Sample No. D-2 Depth: 5.0 ft Sample Description: (Qal) Brown sandy SILT Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: Percent Passing No.200 Sieve: Test Moisture Dry Degree of Void Stage Content(%) Density(pct) Saturation(°/°) Ratio Initial 8.2 113.3 44.8 0.498 Final 16.6 116.6 99.1 0.456 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS WASUTustin Tustin,CA PROJECT NO. 14483-01 NM(j Geotechnical, [tic. Templale:NMCaNS: Prj ID:14083.01 GPJ; Printed;213115 LEGEND 0 O =initial moisture 9 =after saturation °/°Collapse{-} 2 or°I°Swell[+} -0.38 6 0 8 v_ Z 10 fI) 12 14 16 18 20 0.1 1 10 180 STRESS(kst) Baring No. P-5 Sample No. D-1 Depth: 8.0E ft Sample Description: (Qal)Reddish brown sandy SILT Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: Percent Passing No.200 Sieve: Test Moisture Dry Degree of Void Stage Content(%) Density{pct? Saturation(%) Ratio Initial 7.7 111.7 42.5 0-480 Final 14.4 116,0 89.7 0.426 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS WASL1Tustin Tustin,CA PROJECT NO. 14083-01 NMG Geotechnical. Inc. Template.NNACONS: Prj In:14083-01.GPJ: Pr�nled.2015 135 - I.. Jab No. ---4735-A1-0C 130 Project ASL TUSTIN- _. 125 Source of Material B-1 5.0 _ d Description of Material Sky Sana w/Gravel 120Dark Brawn ^ 4 Test Method ASTM D1557 Method A TEST RESULTS --\J Maximum Dry density 126.0 PCF 110 i' Optimum Water Content 12.0 ATTERBERG LIMITS _. z 105 --� -� � l l f UJ LL PL PI % % % 100 — .�-`, CURVES OF 100% SATURATION FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY EQUAL TO: !` 2.80 95 2.70 ........... -- 2.60 _ 85 80 _5 75 - -i co 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 WATER CONTENT,% v c�osalLs, INC. MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP ___ o C 1446 East Chestnut Avenue Project: ASL TUSTIN PLATE .7 Santa Ana,California o Telephone: 714-647-0277 Location: Fax: 714-647-0745 Number: 4735-A1-OC N 60 CL CH 50 — P 0 n L S 40 --- T Q -T I C T 30 Y I N 20 --- 0 E x � 10 CL-NtL ML MH 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Specimen identification LL PL Pl Fines Classification • 8-1 20.0 28 15 13 r (7 ao — — 5 a. N M r ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS GEOSOILS, INC. — �l1446 East Chestnut Avenue Project: ASL Tustin PLATE 1 Santa Ana,California Telephone: 714-647-0277 Location: Fax 714-647-0745 Number: 4735-A1-OC w 3,000 T 2,500 2,000 w n Z L z 1,500 q¢¢C S N 1,000- 500 ,000 500 a 0 5010 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL PRESSURE,psf _Specimen Identification Classification Ya mc% c �$ B-1 5.0 REMOLDED 104 19 523 13 n - 0 n b m v1 7 DIRECT SHEAR TEST GEOSOIL.S, INC. X � 1446 East Chestnut Avenue Project: ASL TUSTIN PLATE r Santa Ana, California W Telephone: 714-647-0277 Location: Fax: 714-647-0745 Number: 4735-A1-OC 0.0 0.5 1,0 — - a 2.0 r 25 3.0 3.5 4.0 1 1 100 1,000 10,000 STRESS,psf Specimen Identification Classification Yd MC% r B-3 15.0 100 23 W O C7 m s m a' c� z GEOSOILS, INC. CONSOLIDATION TEST 1440 East Chestnut Avenue Project: ASL TUSTIN PLATE 0 Santa Ana, California S1 Telephone: 714-647-0277 Location: 00 Fax: 714$47-0745 Number. 4735-A1-OC 0.0 0.5 1.0 — 2.0 2.5 3.0 _. 3.5 z 4.0 4.5 -- 5.0 .5 5.0 — 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 100 1,000 10,000 STRESS, psf Specimen Identification Classification 7d MC% ■ B-4 10.0 120 12 n h C7 C7 m dJ 4 - C7 K1 1 z GEOSOILS, INC. CONSOLIDATION TEST 1446 East Chestnut Avenue Project: ASL TUSTIN PLATE a IT Santa Ana, California Telephone: 714-647-0277 Location: Fax: 71447-0745 Number: 4735-A1-UC Cal Land Engineering, Inc_ dba Quartech Consultant Geotechnical, Environmental,and Civil Engineering SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA Ghent Name: GeoSoils, Inc. QCI Project No.: 05-029-003i Project Name_ASL Tustin ©ate: March 24, 2005 Project No.: W.O. 4735-A-OC Summarized by: ABK Sample ID Sample Chloride Sulfate Resistivity (Baring No.) Depth pH CT-422 CT-417 CT-5.32 [Feet} CT-532 (ppm) (%By Weight) (ohm-cm) B-2 o-5 1 8.36 85 4.4230 1,900 576 East Lambert Road,Brea,California 92821;Tel: 626-512-0945, 714-671-1050;Fax: 714-67171090 APPENDIX D 1012/2014 Design Maps Detailed Report � GS Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.73554N, 117.814°W) Site Class D - "Stiff Soil", Risk Category 1/II/I1I Section 11.4.1 — Mapped Acceleration Parameters Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain Ss} and 1.3 (to obtain S,). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B. Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3, From Figure 22-1 W Ss = 1.487 g From Fmgure 22-2 Ell S, = 0.545 g Section 11.4.2 — Site Class The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class D, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Chapter 20, Table 20.3-1 Site Classification Site Class V5 N or R. s„ A. Hard Rock X5,000 ft/s N/A N/A B. Rock 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A C. Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s X50 X2,000 psf D. Stiff Soil 500 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf E. Soft clay soil <600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: • Plasticity index PI > 20, • Moisture content w ? 4011/a, and • Undrained shear strength s„ < 500 psf F. Soils requiring site response See Section 20.3.1 analysis in accordance with Section 21.1 For 5I: 1ft/s = 0.3048 m/s 1Ib/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/m2 h ttp:f/ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.goy/designmaps/ustreport.php?ternplate=minimal&latitude=33.7355&longitude=117.814&siteciess=3&riskcategary=0... 116 101212014 [Design Maps detailed Report Section 11.4.3 - Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient Fz Site Class Mapped MCE a Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period SS � 0.25 SS = 0.50 Ss = 0.75 SS = 1.00 SS �! 1.25 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1,2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of SS For Site Class = D and Ss = 1.487 9, Fb = 1.000 Table 11.4--2: Site Coefficient Fv Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period S1s0.10 S, = 0.20 S, = 0.30 S, = 0.40 S1 ? 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 D 2.4 2.0 1,8 1.6 1.5 E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S, For Site Class = D and Sx = 0.546 g, F„ = 1.500 http:1/ehp2-earihguake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/repart.php?tem plate=minimal&latitude=33.7355&longitude=-117,814&siteclass=3&riskcategory=fl... 2/6 10!212014 Design Maps Detailed Report Equation (11.4--1): SMS = F,Ss = 1.000 x 1.487 = 1.487 g Equation (11.4-2): SM, = F,S, = 1.500 x 0.546 = 0.820 g Section 11.4.4 — Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation (11.4-3): Sas = 2/3 SMS = 2/3 x 1.487 = 0.991 g Equation (11.4-4): SD, = 343 SML = z/3 x 0.820 = 0.546 g Section 11.4.5 -- Design Response Spectrum From Fioure 22-12[3] TL = 8 seconds Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum T<TD:S� SC9(0.4 +0.6TfTI) 5.. =O.GJ1 To5T5 Ts: SS.=SJ s n T,<T5TL:S,=Sol iT o T T TL'Sq=SDITE I Tx u a s. a.546 --s---- - c o Ce a d CL y T,= r.i.11( T = C}.551 Period.T(sec) http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.7355&longitude=-117.814&siteclass=3&dskcategary=0... 316 10/2/2014 Design Maps Detailed Report Section 11.4.5 -- Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by 1.5. N e o ' �a as W u v C 0 a ' ro u CL N Period,T(sec) http:)/ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude-33.7355&longitude=-17 7.$14&siteclass=3&riskcategory=0.. 4/5 10/2/2014 Design Maps Detailed Report Section 11.8.3 - Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Fialure 22-7[4] PGA = 0.540 Equation (11.8 -i}: PGAM = FPGaPGA = 1.000 x 0.540 = 0.54 g Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient F„,,A Site Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA Class PGA 5 PGA = PGA = PGA = PGA 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 I3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate Values of PGA For Site Class = D and PGA = 0.540 g, Fp,, = 1.000 Section 21.2.1.1 -- Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From Figure 22-17151 CRs = 1.027 From Figure 22.18 16l CR, = 1.057 http:l/ehp2-earthWake.wr,usgs.govldesignmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.7355&kung itude=-117.814&siteelass=3&hskcategM=a... 516 70/2/2014 Design Maps Detailed Report Section 11.6 -- Seismic Design Category Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter RISK CATEGORY VALUE OF SDs I or II III IV SDs C 0.167g A A A 0.1679 C 'SDs C 0.339 B B C 0.339 5 SDs C 0.50g C C D 0.50g 5 SDs D D D For Risk Category = I and Sos = 0.991 g, Seismic Design Category = D Table 11,6-2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-5 period response Acceleration Parameter RISK CATEGORY VALUE OF SD, I or II III IV Sol c 0.067g A A A 0.067g 5 SD, C 0.1338 B B C 0.1338 c So, C 0.20g C C D 0.20g 5 Sal D D D For Risk Category = I and SD, = 0.546 g, Seismic Design Category = D Note: When S, is greater than or equal to 0.758, the Seismic Design Category is E for buildings in Risk Categories 1, II, and III, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective of the above. Seismic Design Category = "the more severe design category in accordance with Table 11.6-1 or 1.1.6-21' = D Note: See Section 11,6 for alternative approaches to calculating seismic Design Category, References 1. Figure 22-1: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 1.pdf 2. Figure 22-2: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 2.pdf 3. Figure 22-12: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 12.pdf 4. Figure 22-7: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downioads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 7.pdf 5. Figure 22-17: http://earthquake,usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downtoads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 17.pdf 6. Figure 22-18: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downfoads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 18,pdf http:i/ehp2-earthq uake.wr.usgs.gov/designmapslus/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.7355&longitude=-117.814&siteclass=3&riskcategory=0... 616 APPENDIX E Percolation Data Sheet Project Name: WASE/TUSTIN Project Number: 14083-01 Test Hole Number. P-1 Date Excavated: 9/16/14 Depth (in): 150 Radius (in.): 4 Date Presoak: 9/16/14 Tested By. TBF Date Tested: 9/16/14 SaMY Soil Criteria Time Interval Initial Water Final Water A in Water Trial Number Time (mins.) Level (in.) Level(in.) Level (in.) 3:40 1 9 111.6 129.6 18 3:51 2 3:51 14 1.11.6 128.1 16.5 4:05 Percolation Data Time interval Total Elapsed Depth of Hole Initial Depth to Final Depth to 0 in Water Percolation Time Time Time mins in. Water in.) Water(in.) Level (in.) Rate in./hr.) 1:37 10 10 150 128.1 141.6 1.3.5 81 1:47 1:53 10 20 150 1.16.4 138 21.6 129.6 2:03 2:10 10 30 150 112.2 133.2 21 126 2:20 2.25 10 40 150 112.2 131.4 19.2 115.2 2:35 2:38 10 50 150 114.3 132 17.7 106.2 2:48 2:49 1.0 60 150 115.2 132 16.8 100.8 2:59 Initial Height of Water(Ho) = 34.8 Final Height of Water (Hf) = 18 It- AH(60r)/At(r+2Havg) Change in Height Over Time (AH) = 16.8 It= 7.1 in,/hr. Average Head Over Time (Havg) = 26.4 Percolation Data Sheet Project Name: WAST_/TUSTiN Project Number: 14483-01 Test Hole Number: P-2 Date Excavated:9/16/1.4 Depth (in): 145.2 Radius (in.): 4 Date Presoak: 9/16/14 Tested By: TBF Date Tested: 9/16/14 Sandy Soil Criteria Time Interval Initial Water Final Water 6 in Water Trial Number Time (mins.) Level(in.) Level(in.) Level(in.) 1 1:55 12 99.6 113.4 13.8 2:07 2 2:07 18 113.4 130.2 16.8 2:25 Percolation Data Time Time Interval Total Elapsed Depth of Hole Initial Depth to Final depth to A in Water Percolation (mins.) Time (mins) (in.) Water(in.) Water(in.) Level (in.) Rate(in./hr.) 2.27 10 10 1.45.2 100.8 114.6 13.8 82.8 2:37 Z:39 10 20 145.2 114.6 127.2 12.6 75.6 2:49 2:59 10 30 145.2 100.8 112..8 12 72 3:09 3.09 10 40 145.2 100.8 112.2 11.4 68.4 3:19 3.21 10 50 145.2 100.8 112.8 12 72 3:31 3:33 10 60 145.2 101.7 111.6 9.9 59.4 3:43 Initial Height of Water(Ho) = 43.5 Final Height of Water (Hf) = 33.6 1,= 6H(60r)/At(r+2Havg) Change in Height Over Time (QH) = 9.9 lt- 2.9 in./hr. Average Head Over Time (Havg) = 38.55 Percolation Data Sheet Project Name: WA5L/TUSTIN Project Number: 14083-01 Test Hole Number: P-3 Date Excavated: 9/16/14 Depth (in): 135 Radius (in.); 4 bate Presoak: 9/16/14 Tested By: TBF date Tested: 9/16/14 San_dy_Soil Criteria Trial Number Time Time Interval Initial Water Final Water A in Water (mins.) Level (in.) Level(in.) Level (in.) 2:44 1 7 99 106.8 7.8 2:51 2 2:51 9 106.8 120 13.2 3:00 Percolation Data Time Interval Total Elapsed Depth of Hole Initial Depth to Final Depth to A in Water Percolation Time (mins.) Time(mins) (in.) Water(in.) Water(in.) Level(in.) Rate(in./hr.) 3:02 10 10 135 99.0 119.4 20.4 122..2 3:12 3:12 10 20 135 102.6 121.2 18.6 111.6 3:22 3:24 10 30 135 99.6 118.2 18.6 111.6 3:34 3:38 10 40 135 99.6 118.2 18.6 111.6 3;48 3:49 10 50 135 101.1 118.8 17.7 106.2 3.59 4:01 10 60 135 100.2 115.8 15.6 93.6 4:11 Initial Height of Water(Ho) = 34,8 Final Height of Water (Hf) = 19.2 1,= AH(60r)/At(r+2Havg) Change in Height Over Time (AH) = 15.6 1,= 6.5 in./hr. Average Head Over Time (Havg) = 27 Percolation Data Sheet Project Name; WASL/TUSTIN Project Number: 14083-01 Test Mole Number: P-4 Date Excavated:9/16/14 Depth (in): 132 Radius (in.): 4 Date presoak: 9/16/14 Tested By: TBF Date Tested: 9/15/14 Sandy Soil Criteria Trial Number Time Time Interval Initial Water Final Water A in Water (mins.) Level (in.) Level (in.) Level(in.) 1 3:40 11 93.6 105 11.4 3:51 2 3.51 14 105 116.4 11.4 4:05 Percolation Data Time Time Interval Total Elapsed Depth of Hole Initial Depth to Final Depth to A in Water Percolation (mins.) Time(mins) (in,) Water(in,) Water(in,) Level (in.) Rate(in./hr.) 4:06 10 10 132 100.8 115.8 15 90 4:16 4:17 10 20 132 96 114 18 108 4:27 4:40 10 30 132 100.5 118.8 18.3 109.8 4:50 4:51 10 40 132 100.8 114.9 14.1 84.6 5:01 5:02 10 50 132 97.8 114 16.2 97.2 5:12 5:14 10 60 132 97.8 111 13.2 79.2 5:24 Initial Height of Water(Ho) = 34.2 Final Height of Water (Hf) = 21 1,= AH(60r)/At(r+2Havg) Change in Height Over Time (AH) = 13.2 1,= 5.4 in./hr. Average Head Over Time (Havg) = 27.6 APPENDIX F APPENDIX F GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1.0 General 1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 Geotechnical Consultant: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. O:ANMGDOCAReports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doe F—I 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed O:ANMGDOCAReports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doe F-2 immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. 2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. O:ANMGDOCAReports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doe F-3 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. 3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Lam: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). 4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. O:ANMGDOCAReports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doe F-4 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557-91. 4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. O:ANMGDOCAReports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doe F-5 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 Bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SF>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface, except in traveled ways (see Section 7.6 below). 7.3 Jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. 7.6 Trench backfill in the upper foot measured from finish grade within existing or future traveled way, shoulder, and other paved areas (or areas to receive pavement) should be placed to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction. O:ANMGDOCAReports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doe F-6 �SAN�JUAN�S - --- ----------------- ---- --------------- e--- -"ix - I I ° - I it I a �A . � II i 1 S i e I 0 i o, td I � J � G�'ti61 1 m �. I ., �; +I 0�1 �„ h i ° o x 1 o I 0 I I � � I I h I ,�� II J II - + + A+ 1 Q' I , �s o °Ele + ly I I + I Q 11 + . o I III � G�5�0`' ,�• I � I I I I ' 06 ob. o ,I ________________________�+___ — LEGEND o ALL LOCATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE m GRAPHIC SCALE OH-1 HOLLOW-STEM AUGER BORING BY NMG,SHOWING TOTAL DEPTH T.D.51.5' AND DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER _@ 47.4' (IN FEET) O O 1 inch= 40 ft. O OP-5 HOLLOW-STEM AUGER BORING AND PERCOLATION TEST LOCATION T.D.10' BY NMG,SHOWING TOTAL DEPTH PLATE 1 0 BORING LOCATION MAP a ®GB-5 HOLLOW-STEM AUGER BORING BY GEOSOILS,INC.(2005),SHOWING PROPOSED RED HILL AVENUE APARTMENTS N T.D.31.5' TOTAL DEPTH AND DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER CITY OF TUSTIN,CALIFORNIA R Project No.: 14083-01 By:SBK/TN ��� o, Project Name:WASL/Tustin ' Date:2/11/15 SCALE:1"=40' 0 APPENDIX G CITY COVENANT AND AGREEMENT APPENDIX H 2 -YEAR HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS - W V ssa Lij LLLLJ �F�_ �a o \\\ o6 S ------------- I I d 4 sa AIMS Nvnf NVS LL ❑ °r ♦ i �^ . II w I i I I , I - I � w II I I I F I I --- - — ------ .. wd I Z � a � I 4 m --I 1 i x w94 1" z �� w. l � U w H m •� , , I _ F- T II a ms I L -------- ----- ,,3-nv I t 1 t mend X3 ly W I _ o � I I U W W Lu LU 3 0 L O O Lj- - 0 0 G -- g =3 133b1S Ntlflf NtlS m �, PZ .d as n 0 41 4 1 II I � I x o I � 1 I& I� a m I W o u _ Q z �-I a 74 C4 C4 C13 E Ei I U w L ^ o i IJ I oa - o ` z =JILIz r � � N m 0 lurvi L — X _ I IL � ?" C � Cl o � LL i w II 1 2 forO '1 i U oo I o ii � I **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * REDHILL APARTMENTS * EXISTING HYDROLOGY * 2 YEAR STORM ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1212EX.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:06 01/11/2021 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 2.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) I ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 360.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 108.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 106.00 Tc = K* [ (LENGTH** 3.00)/ (ELEVATION CHANGE) ] **0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 14.372 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.235 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ) : DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) PUBLIC PARK B 1.50 0.30 0.850 36 14.37 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.850 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.32 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.32 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 21.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 231.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 107.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 106.10 Tc = K* [ (LENGTH** 3.00)/ (ELEVATION CHANGE) ] **0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.161 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.842 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ) : DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL B 0.45 0.30 0.100 36 7.16 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.73 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.45 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.73 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 31.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 271.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 108.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 106.00 Tc = K* [ (LENGTH** 3.00)/ (ELEVATION CHANGE) ] **0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 11.592 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.397 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ) : DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) PUBLIC PARK B 1.37 0.30 0.850 36 11.59 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.850 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.41 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.37 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.41 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 41.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 55.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 108.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 107.00 Tc = K* [ (LENGTH** 3.00)/ (ELEVATION CHANGE) ] **0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.264 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ) : DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL B 0.07 0.30 0.100 36 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.07 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.14 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.1 TC(MIN.) = 5.00 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.07 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.14 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * REDHILL APARTMENTS * PROPOSED CONDITIONS * 2 YEAR STORM ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1212PR.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:37 01/11/2021 ------------------------------------ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 2.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) I ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) --- ----- --------- ----------------- ------ ----- ------ ----- ------- --- ----- --------- ----------------- ------ ----- ------ ----- ------- 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 241.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 108.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 106.30 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.976 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.870 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ) : DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL B 1.02 0.30 0.100 36 6.98 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.69 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.02 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.69 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 25.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 104.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 103.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 155.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.4 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.34 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.69 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.77 Tc(MIN.) = 7.75 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 25.00 = 396.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 25.00 TO NODE 25.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.75 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.76 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.02 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.02 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.69 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 21.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< =====-----------------=======----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 108.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 106.40 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.240 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.993 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ) : DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL B 0.61 0.30 0.100 36 6.24 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.08 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.61 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.08 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 21.00 TO NODE 25.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 104.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 103.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 33.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.7 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.27 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.08 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 6.34 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 25.00 = 213.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 25.00 TO NODE 25.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.34 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.97 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.61 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.61 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.08 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.69 7.75 1.760 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.0 10.00 2 1.08 6.34 1.974 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 0.6 20.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.63 6.34 1.974 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.4 20.00 2 2.65 7.75 1.760 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.6 10.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.65 Tc(MIN.) = 7.75 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.63 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 25.00 = 396.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 25.00 TO NODE 35.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 103.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 102.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 206.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.7 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.67 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.65 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.94 Tc(MIN.) = 8.69 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 35.00 = 602.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 35.00 TO NODE 35.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.69 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.65 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.63 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.63 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.65 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 31.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< =======--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 245.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 107.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 106.10 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 8.424 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.678 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ) : DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL B 0.17 0.30 0.100 36 8.42 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.25 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.25 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 31.00 TO NODE 35.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ------------ - - -------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 106.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 105.80 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 13.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0231 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 3.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.020 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.25 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.96 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.04 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.11 Tc(MIN.) = 8.53 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 35.00 = 258.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 35.00 TO NODE 35.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< ------------ ------------------ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.53 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.67 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.25 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.63 7.28 1.824 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.4 20.00 1 2.65 8.69 1.649 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.6 10.00 2 0.25 8.53 1.665 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 0.2 30.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.87 7.28 1.824 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.6 20.00 2 2.90 8.53 1.665 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.8 30.00 3 2.90 8.69 1.649 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.8 10.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.90 Tc(MIN.) = 8.53 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.78 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.8 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 35.00 = 602.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 35.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< - - -------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 102.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 102.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 20.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.1 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.72 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.90 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.09 Tc(MIN.) = 8.62 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 622.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.62 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.66 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.78 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.80 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.90 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 41.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 134.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 107.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 106.30 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.005 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.038 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ) : DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL B 0.71 0.30 0.100 36 6.01 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.28 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.71 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.28 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 41.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 103.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 102.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 185.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.5 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.62 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.28 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.85 Tc(MIN.) = 6.86 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 319.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.86 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.89 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.71 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.71 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.28 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 2.87 7.37 1.811 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.6 20.00 1 2.90 8.62 1.655 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.8 30.00 1 2.90 8.77 1.639 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 1.8 10.00 2 1.28 6.86 1.888 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 0.7 40.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 4.07 6.86 1.888 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 2.2 40.00 2 4.10 7.37 1.811 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 2.3 20.00 3 4.02 8.62 1.655 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 2.5 30.00 4 4.01 8.77 1.639 0.30( 0.03) 0.10 2.5 10.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.10 Tc(MIN.) = 7.37 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.30 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.5 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 622.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 280.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 108.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 106.90 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.860 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.746 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ) : DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL B 0.61 0.30 0.100 36 7.86 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.94 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.61 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.94 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 175.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 107.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 106.90 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 7.466 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.798 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ) : DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL B 0.27 0.30 0.100 36 7.47 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.43 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.43 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.3 TC(MIN.) = 7.47 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.30 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.43 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS w a �w rn o 00 [if HCl O N U in V') co Z S QLLJ W Q W m 7 N Y 0S — O N U N< Z m U O ¢ � CD w w a U) o O rn r z w 0 ri o ri N } NLLJ W Z S U � Z_ _ J F Lq w (n r) O r7 Z X Z W Q 2 U Z O cc O Z U � C6 O Nftf z Z w W O U O O z ^ N a w w U' U p J Z U N C) U) w oLn a < U } z N OO z o x � � o ,y, F- < U w 0 W LL w V, x V, _ z ow r o r 0 w w u o cD � I v 00� o co O Q Z N S O � W Q z J w cC140 NO CN CN F- O U O O O z > z w 2 L O w o z O o v S O O � = S o � � O N CD = N U) O O O X O W LLJ J D m W U) N r m m N w U) CL C) W0 N7 O U S J g w z N r m ~ Q F: n O r7 z O w m w � J Q m a o " o Q � **************************************************************************** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (C) Copyright 1989-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 **************************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem Descriptions: RED HILL APARTMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 YEAR Y-BAR AREA AB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC I: TOTAL 24-HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 2.05 (inches) SOIL-COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in./hr.) YIELD 1 3.32 85.00 58. (AMC II) 0.300 0.133 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 3.32 AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in./hr.) = 0.255 AREA-AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.867 SMALL AREA UNIT HYDROGRAPH MODEL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- (C) Copyright 1989-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem Descriptions: RED HILL APARTMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 YEAR VOLUME - AREA AB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 1.07 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 3.32 SOIL-LOSS RATE, Fm, (INCH/HR) = 0.255 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.867 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.37 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 2 5-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.19 30-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.40 1-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.53 3-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.89 6-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.22 24-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.05 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.14 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL-LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.42 TIME VOLUME Q 0. 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.19 0.0001 0.02 Q 0.43 0.0005 0.02 Q 0.67 0.0008 0.02 Q 0.91 0.0011 0.02 Q 1.15 0.0014 0.02 Q 1.39 0.0017 0.02 Q 1.63 0.0020 0.02 Q 1.87 0.0023 0.02 Q 2.11 0.0026 0.02 Q 2.35 0.0030 0.02 Q 2.59 0.0033 0.02 Q 2.83 0.0036 0.02 Q 3.07 0.0040 0.02 Q 3.31 0.0043 0.02 Q 3.55 0.0046 0.02 Q 3.79 0.0050 0.02 Q 4.03 0.0053 0.02 Q 4.26 0.0057 0.02 Q 4.50 0.0061 0.02 Q 4.74 0.0064 0.02 Q 4.98 0.0068 0.02 Q 5.22 0.0072 0.02 Q 5.46 0.0076 0.02 Q 5.70 0.0079 0.02 Q 5.94 0.0083 0.02 Q 6.18 0.0087 0.02 Q 6.42 0.0091 0.02 Q 6.66 0.0096 0.02 Q 6.90 0.0100 0.02 Q 7.14 0.0104 0.02 Q 7.38 0.0108 0.02 Q 7.62 0.0113 0.02 Q 7.86 0.0117 0.02 Q 8.10 0.0122 0.02 Q 8.34 0.0126 0.02 Q 8.58 0.0131 0.02 Q 8.82 0.0136 0.02 Q 9.05 0.0141 0.03 Q 9.29 0.0146 0.03 Q 9.53 0.0151 0.03 Q 9.77 0.0156 0.03 Q 10.01 0.0161 0.03 Q 10.25 0.0167 0.03 Q 10.49 0.0172 0.03 Q 10.73 0.0178 0.03 Q 10.97 0.0184 0.03 Q 11.21 0.0190 0.03 Q 11.45 0.0197 0.03 Q 11.69 0.0203 0.03 Q 11.93 0.0210 0.03 Q 12.17 0.0217 0.04 Q 12.41 0.0225 0.05 Q 12.65 0.0234 0.05 Q 12.89 0.0243 0.05 Q 13.13 0.0253 0.05 Q 13.37 0.0263 0.05 Q 13.60 0.0274 0.05 Q 13.84 0.0285 0.06 Q 14.08 0.0297 0.06 Q 14.32 0.0310 0.07 Q 14.56 0.0324 0.07 Q 14.80 0.0339 0.08 Q 15.04 0.0356 0.09 Q 15.28 0.0375 0.10 Q 15.52 0.0396 0.11 Q 15.76 0.0421 0.14 Q 16.00 0.0489 0.55 Q 16.24 0.0887 3.46 Q 16.48 0.1241 0.11 Q 16.72 0.1261 0.09 Q 16.96 0.1278 0.08 Q 17.20 0.1292 0.07 Q 17.44 0.1304 0.06 Q 17.68 0.1315 0.05 Q 17.92 0.1325 0.05 Q 18.16 0.1334 0.04 Q 18.39 0.1341 0.03 Q 18.63 0.1348 0.03 Q 18.87 0.1354 0.03 Q 19.11 0.1360 0.03 Q 19.35 0.1365 0.03 Q 19.59 0.1370 0.03 Q 19.83 0.1375 0.02 Q 20.07 0.1380 0.02 Q 20.31 0.1385 0.02 Q 20.55 0.1389 0.02 Q 20.79 0.1394 0.02 Q 21.03 0.1398 0.02 Q 21.27 0.1402 0.02 Q 21.51 0.1406 0.02 Q 21.75 0.1410 0.02 Q 21.99 0.1413 0.02 Q 22.23 0.1417 0.02 Q 22.47 0.1420 0.02 Q 22.71 0.1424 0.02 Q 22.95 0.1427 0.02 Q 23.18 0.1431 0.02 Q 23.42 0.1434 0.02 Q 23.66 0.1437 0.02 Q 23.90 0.1440 0.02 Q 24.14 0.1443 0.02 Q 24.38 0.1445 0.00 Q ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) 0°/U 1451.4 100/0 28.7 20% 14.4 30% 14.4 40% 14.4 50% 14.4 60% 14.4 70% 14.4 80% 14.4 90% 14.4 **************************************************************************** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (C) Copyright 1989-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 **************************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem Descriptions: RED HILL APARTMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 YEAR Y-BAR AREA-C ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC I: TOTAL 24-HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 2.05 (inches) SOIL-COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in./hr.) YIELD 1 0.07 10.00 98. (AMC II) 0.300 0.875 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 0.07 AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in./hr.) = 0.030 AREA-AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.125 SMALL AREA UNIT HYDROGRAPH MODEL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- (C) Copyright 1989-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem Descriptions: RED HILL APARTMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-YEAR 24 HOUR VOLUME - AREA C ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.90 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 0.07 SOIL-LOSS RATE, Fm, (INCH/HR) = 0.030 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.125 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.00 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 2 5-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.19 30-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.40 1-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.53 3-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.89 6-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.22 24-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.05 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.01 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL-LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.00 TIME VOLUME Q 0. 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.08 0.0000 0.00 Q 0.17 0.0000 0.00 Q 0.25 0.0000 0.00 Q 0.33 0.0000 0.00 Q 0.42 0.0001 0.00 Q 0.50 0.0001 0.00 Q 0.58 0.0001 0.00 Q 0.67 0.0001 0.00 Q 0.75 0.0001 0.00 Q 0.83 0.0001 0.00 Q 0.92 0.0001 0.00 Q 1.00 0.0001 0.00 Q 1.08 0.0002 0.00 Q 1.17 0.0002 0.00 Q 1.25 0.0002 0.00 Q 1.33 0.0002 0.00 Q 1.42 0.0002 0.00 Q 1.50 0.0002 0.00 Q 1.58 0.0002 0.00 Q 1.67 0.0002 0.00 Q 1.75 0.0003 0.00 Q 1.83 0.0003 0.00 Q 1.92 0.0003 0.00 Q 2.00 0.0003 0.00 Q 2.08 0.0003 0.00 Q 2.17 0.0003 0.00 Q 2.25 0.0003 0.00 Q 2.33 0.0003 0.00 Q 2.42 0.0004 0.00 Q 2.50 0.0004 0.00 Q 2.58 0.0004 0.00 Q 2.67 0.0004 0.00 Q 2.75 0.0004 0.00 Q 2.83 0.0004 0.00 Q 2.92 0.0004 0.00 Q 3.00 0.0005 0.00 Q 3.08 0.0005 0.00 Q 3.17 0.0005 0.00 Q 3.25 0.0005 0.00 Q 3.33 0.0005 0.00 Q 3.42 0.0005 0.00 Q 3.50 0.0005 0.00 Q 3.58 0.0006 0.00 Q 3.67 0.0006 0.00 Q 3.75 0.0006 0.00 Q 3.83 0.0006 0.00 Q 3.92 0.0006 0.00 Q 4.00 0.0006 0.00 Q 4.08 0.0006 0.00 Q 4.17 0.0007 0.00 Q 4.25 0.0007 0.00 Q 4.33 0.0007 0.00 Q 4.42 0.0007 0.00 Q 4.50 0.0007 0.00 Q 4.58 0.0007 0.00 Q 4.67 0.0007 0.00 Q 4.75 0.0008 0.00 Q 4.83 0.0008 0.00 Q 4.92 0.0008 0.00 Q 5.00 0.0008 0.00 Q 5.08 0.0008 0.00 Q 5.17 0.0008 0.00 Q 5.25 0.0009 0.00 Q 5.33 0.0009 0.00 Q 5.42 0.0009 0.00 Q 5.50 0.0009 0.00 Q 5.58 0.0009 0.00 Q 5.67 0.0009 0.00 Q 5.75 0.0009 0.00 Q 5.83 0.0010 0.00 Q 5.92 0.0010 0.00 Q 6.00 0.0010 0.00 Q 6.08 0.0010 0.00 Q 6.17 0.0010 0.00 Q 6.25 0.0010 0.00 Q 6.33 0.0011 0.00 Q 6.42 0.0011 0.00 Q 6.50 0.0011 0.00 Q 6.58 0.0011 0.00 Q 6.67 0.0011 0.00 Q 6.75 0.0011 0.00 Q 6.83 0.0012 0.00 Q 6.92 0.0012 0.00 Q 7.00 0.0012 0.00 Q 7.08 0.0012 0.00 Q 7.17 0.0012 0.00 Q 7.25 0.0012 0.00 Q 7.33 0.0013 0.00 Q 7.42 0.0013 0.00 Q 7.50 0.0013 0.00 Q 7.58 0.0013 0.00 Q 7.67 0.0013 0.00 Q 7.75 0.0014 0.00 Q 7.83 0.0014 0.00 Q 7.92 0.0014 0.00 Q 8.00 0.0014 0.00 Q 8.08 0.0014 0.00 Q 8.17 0.0014 0.00 Q 8.25 0.0015 0.00 Q 8.33 0.0015 0.00 Q 8.42 0.0015 0.00 Q 8.50 0.0015 0.00 Q 8.58 0.0015 0.00 Q 8.67 0.0016 0.00 Q 8.75 0.0016 0.00 Q 8.83 0.0016 0.00 Q 8.92 0.0016 0.00 Q 9.00 0.0016 0.00 Q 9.08 0.0017 0.00 Q 9.17 0.0017 0.00 Q 9.25 0.0017 0.00 Q 9.33 0.0017 0.00 Q 9.42 0.0017 0.00 Q 9.50 0.0018 0.00 Q 9.58 0.0018 0.00 Q 9.67 0.0018 0.00 Q 9.75 0.0018 0.00 Q 9.83 0.0019 0.00 Q 9.92 0.0019 0.00 Q 10.00 0.0019 0.00 Q 10.08 0.0019 0.00 Q 10.17 0.0019 0.00 Q 10.25 0.0020 0.00 Q 10.33 0.0020 0.00 Q 10.42 0.0020 0.00 Q 10.50 0.0020 0.00 Q 10.58 0.0021 0.00 Q 10.67 0.0021 0.00 Q 10.75 0.0021 0.00 Q 10.83 0.0021 0.00 Q 10.92 0.0022 0.00 Q 11.00 0.0022 0.00 Q 11.08 0.0022 0.00 Q 11.17 0.0022 0.00 Q 11.25 0.0023 0.00 Q 11.33 0.0023 0.00 Q 11.42 0.0023 0.00 Q 11.50 0.0023 0.00 Q 11.58 0.0024 0.00 Q 11.67 0.0024 0.00 Q 11.75 0.0024 0.00 Q 11.83 0.0024 0.00 Q 11.92 0.0025 0.00 Q 12.00 0.0025 0.00 Q 12.08 0.0025 0.01 Q 12.17 0.0026 0.01 Q 12.25 0.0026 0.01 Q 12.33 0.0026 0.01 Q 12.42 0.0027 0.01 Q 12.50 0.0027 0.01 Q 12.58 0.0028 0.01 Q 12.67 0.0028 0.01 Q 12.75 0.0028 0.01 Q 12.83 0.0029 0.01 Q 12.92 0.0029 0.01 Q 13.00 0.0029 0.01 Q 13.08 0.0030 0.01 Q 13.17 0.0030 0.01 Q 13.25 0.0031 0.01 Q 13.33 0.0031 0.01 Q 13.42 0.0032 0.01 Q 13.50 0.0032 0.01 Q 13.58 0.0032 0.01 Q 13.67 0.0033 0.01 Q 13.75 0.0033 0.01 Q 13.83 0.0034 0.01 Q 13.92 0.0034 0.01 Q 14.00 0.0035 0.01 Q 14.08 0.0035 0.01 Q 14.17 0.0036 0.01 Q 14.25 0.0036 0.01 Q 14.33 0.0037 0.01 Q 14.42 0.0038 0.01 Q 14.50 0.0038 0.01 Q 14.58 0.0039 0.01 Q 14.67 0.0039 0.01 Q 14.75 0.0040 0.01 Q 14.83 0.0041 0.01 Q 14.92 0.0041 0.01 Q 15.00 0.0042 0.01 Q 15.08 0.0043 0.01 Q 15.17 0.0044 0.01 Q 15.25 0.0045 0.01 Q 15.33 0.0045 0.01 Q 15.42 0.0046 0.01 Q 15.50 0.0047 0.01 Q 15.58 0.0048 0.01 Q 15.67 0.0049 0.02 Q 15.75 0.0050 0.02 Q 15.83 0.0052 0.02 Q 15.92 0.0054 0.03 Q 16.00 0.0057 0.05 Q 16.08 0.0063 0.14 Q 16.17 0.0069 0.03 Q 16.25 0.0070 0.02 Q 16.33 0.0071 0.01 Q 16.42 0.0072 0.01 Q 16.50 0.0073 0.01 Q 16.58 0.0074 0.01 Q 16.67 0.0075 0.01 Q 16.75 0.0076 0.01 Q 16.83 0.0076 0.01 Q 16.92 0.0077 0.01 Q 17.00 0.0077 0.01 Q 17.08 0.0078 0.01 Q 17.17 0.0078 0.01 Q 17.25 0.0079 0.01 Q 17.33 0.0079 0.01 Q 17.42 0.0080 0.01 Q 17.50 0.0080 0.01 Q 17.58 0.0081 0.01 Q 17.67 0.0081 0.01 Q 17.75 0.0081 0.01 Q 17.83 0.0082 0.01 Q 17.92 0.0082 0.01 Q 18.00 0.0082 0.01 Q 18.08 0.0083 0.00 Q 18.17 0.0083 0.00 Q 18.25 0.0083 0.00 Q 18.33 0.0084 0.00 Q 18.42 0.0084 0.00 Q 18.50 0.0084 0.00 Q 18.58 0.0084 0.00 Q 18.67 0.0085 0.00 Q 18.75 0.0085 0.00 Q 18.83 0.0085 0.00 Q 18.92 0.0085 0.00 Q 19.00 0.0086 0.00 Q 19.08 0.0086 0.00 Q 19.17 0.0086 0.00 Q 19.25 0.0086 0.00 Q 19.33 0.0086 0.00 Q 19.42 0.0087 0.00 Q 19.50 0.0087 0.00 Q 19.58 0.0087 0.00 Q 19.67 0.0087 0.00 Q 19.75 0.0087 0.00 Q 19.83 0.0088 0.00 Q 19.92 0.0088 0.00 Q 20.00 0.0088 0.00 Q 20.08 0.0088 0.00 Q 20.17 0.0088 0.00 Q 20.25 0.0089 0.00 Q 20.33 0.0089 0.00 Q 20.42 0.0089 0.00 Q 20.50 0.0089 0.00 Q 20.58 0.0089 0.00 Q 20.67 0.0090 0.00 Q 20.75 0.0090 0.00 Q 20.83 0.0090 0.00 Q 20.92 0.0090 0.00 Q 21.00 0.0090 0.00 Q 21.08 0.0090 0.00 Q 21.17 0.0091 0.00 Q 21.25 0.0091 0.00 Q 21.33 0.0091 0.00 Q 21.42 0.0091 0.00 Q 21.50 0.0091 0.00 Q 21.58 0.0091 0.00 Q 21.67 0.0091 0.00 Q 21.75 0.0092 0.00 Q 21.83 0.0092 0.00 Q 21.92 0.0092 0.00 Q 22.00 0.0092 0.00 Q 22.08 0.0092 0.00 Q 22.17 0.0092 0.00 Q 22.25 0.0092 0.00 Q 22.33 0.0093 0.00 Q 22.42 0.0093 0.00 Q 22.50 0.0093 0.00 Q 22.58 0.0093 0.00 Q 22.67 0.0093 0.00 Q 22.75 0.0093 0.00 Q 22.83 0.0093 0.00 Q 22.92 0.0094 0.00 Q 23.00 0.0094 0.00 Q 23.08 0.0094 0.00 Q 23.17 0.0094 0.00 Q 23.25 0.0094 0.00 Q 23.33 0.0094 0.00 Q 23.42 0.0094 0.00 Q 23.50 0.0094 0.00 Q 23.58 0.0095 0.00 Q 23.67 0.0095 0.00 Q 23.75 0.0095 0.00 Q 23.83 0.0095 0.00 Q 23.92 0.0095 0.00 Q 24.00 0.0095 0.00 Q 24.08 0.0095 0.00 Q ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) 0°/U 1440.0 100/0 45.0 20% 15.0 30% 10.0 40% 5.0 50% 5.0 60% 5.0 70% 5.0 80% 5.0 90% 5.0 **************************************************************************** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (C) Copyright 1989-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 **************************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem Descriptions: RED HILL APARTMENTS PROPOSED CONDTIONS 2 YEAR Y-BAR - AREA AB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC I: TOTAL 24-HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 2.05 (inches) SOIL-COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in./hr.) YIELD 1 3.12 10.00 56. (AMC II) 0.300 0.801 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 3.12 AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in./hr.) = 0.030 AREA-AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.199 SMALL AREA UNIT HYDROGRAPH MODEL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- (C) Copyright 1989-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem Descriptions: RED HILL APARTMENTS PROPOSED CONDITIONS 2 YEAR VOLUME - AREA AB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.90 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 3.12 SOIL-LOSS RATE, Fm, (INCH/HR) = 0.030 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.199 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.37 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 2 5-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.19 30-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.40 1-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.53 3-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.89 6-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.22 24-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.05 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.40 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL-LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.13 TIME VOLUME Q 0. 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.03 0.0000 0.00 Q 0.15 0.0004 0.07 Q 0.28 0.0011 0.07 Q 0.40 0.0018 0.07 Q 0.52 0.0026 0.07 Q 0.65 0.0033 0.07 Q 0.77 0.0041 0.07 Q 0.89 0.0048 0.07 Q 1.01 0.0056 0.07 Q 1.14 0.0064 0.08 Q 1.26 0.0071 0.08 Q 1.38 0.0079 0.08 Q 1.51 0.0087 0.08 Q 1.63 0.0094 0.08 Q 1.75 0.0102 0.08 Q 1.87 0.0110 0.08 Q 2.00 0.0118 0.08 Q 2.12 0.0126 0.08 Q 2.24 0.0134 0.08 Q 2.37 0.0142 0.08 Q 2.49 0.0150 0.08 Q 2.61 0.0158 0.08 Q 2.73 0.0166 0.08 Q 2.86 0.0175 0.08 Q 2.98 0.0183 0.08 Q 3.10 0.0191 0.08 Q 3.23 0.0200 0.08 Q 3.35 0.0208 0.08 Q 3.47 0.0216 0.08 Q 3.59 0.0225 0.08 Q 3.72 0.0234 0.08 Q 3.84 0.0242 0.09 Q 3.96 0.0251 0.09 Q 4.09 0.0260 0.09 Q 4.21 0.0268 0.09 Q 4.33 0.0277 0.09 Q 4.45 0.0286 0.09 Q 4.58 0.0295 0.09 Q 4.70 0.0304 0.09 Q 4.82 0.0313 0.09 Q 4.95 0.0322 0.09 Q 5.07 0.0332 0.09 Q 5.19 0.0341 0.09 Q 5.31 0.0350 0.09 Q 5.44 0.0360 0.09 Q 5.56 0.0369 0.09 Q 5.68 0.0379 0.09 Q 5.80 0.0388 0.10 Q 5.93 0.0398 0.10 Q 6.05 0.0408 0.10 Q 6.17 0.0418 0.10 Q 6.30 0.0427 0.10 Q 6.42 0.0437 0.10 Q 6.54 0.0447 0.10 Q 6.66 0.0458 0.10 Q 6.79 0.0468 0.10 Q 6.91 0.0478 0.10 Q 7.03 0.0489 0.10 Q 7.16 0.0499 0.10 Q 7.28 0.0510 0.10 Q 7.40 0.0520 0.11 Q 7.52 0.0531 0.11 Q 7.65 0.0542 0.11 Q 7.77 0.0553 0.11 Q 7.89 0.0564 0.11 Q 8.02 0.0575 0.11 Q 8.14 0.0586 0.11 Q 8.26 0.0598 0.11 Q 8.38 0.0609 0.11 Q 8.51 0.0621 0.12 Q 8.63 0.0633 0.12 Q 8.75 0.0645 0.12 Q 8.88 0.0657 0.12 Q 9.00 0.0669 0.12 Q 9.12 0.0681 0.12 Q 9.24 0.0693 0.12 Q 9.37 0.0706 0.12 Q 9.49 0.0718 0.13 Q 9.61 0.0731 0.13 Q 9.74 0.0744 0.13 Q 9.86 0.0757 0.13 Q 9.98 0.0771 0.13 Q 10.10 0.0784 0.13 Q 10.23 0.0798 0.14 Q 10.35 0.0812 0.14 Q 10.47 0.0826 0.14 Q 10.60 0.0840 0.14 Q 10.72 0.0854 0.14 Q 10.84 0.0869 0.14 Q 10.96 0.0883 0.15 Q 11.09 0.0898 0.15 Q 11.21 0.0914 0.15 Q 11.33 0.0929 0.15 Q 11.46 0.0945 0.16 Q 11.58 0.0961 0.16 Q 11.70 0.0977 0.16 Q 11.82 0.0994 0.16 Q 11.95 0.1011 0.17 Q 12.07 0.1028 0.17 Q 12.19 0.1047 0.21 Q 12.32 0.1069 0.21 Q 12.44 0.1091 0.22 Q 12.56 0.1113 0.22 Q 12.68 0.1136 0.23 Q 12.81 0.1160 0.23 Q 12.93 0.1183 0.24 Q 13.05 0.1208 0.24 Q 13.17 0.1233 0.25 Q 13.30 0.1258 0.25 Q 13.42 0.1284 0.26 Q 13.54 0.1311 0.27 Q 13.67 0.1338 0.27 Q 13.79 0.1366 0.28 Q 13.91 0.1395 0.29 Q 14.03 0.1425 0.30 Q 14.16 0.1457 0.32 Q 14.28 0.1490 0.33 Q 14.40 0.1524 0.35 Q 14.53 0.1560 0.36 Q 14.65 0.1598 0.39 Q 14.77 0.1638 0.40 Q 14.89 0.1680 0.43 Q 15.02 0.1725 0.45 Q 15.14 0.1774 0.50 Q 15.26 0.1827 0.53 Q 15.39 0.1884 0.59 Q 15.51 0.1942 0.55 Q 15.63 0.2004 0.68 Q 15.75 0.2078 0.78 Q 15.88 0.2177 1.17 Q 16.00 0.2319 1.62 Q 16.12 0.2657 5.04 Q 16.25 0.2961 0.94 Q 16.37 0.3039 0.61 Q 16.49 0.3099 0.57 Q 16.61 0.3152 0.48 Q 16.74 0.3197 0.42 Q 16.86 0.3237 0.37 Q 16.98 0.3273 0.34 Q 17.11 0.3306 0.31 Q 17.23 0.3336 0.29 Q 17.35 0.3364 0.27 Q 17.47 0.3391 0.26 Q 17.60 0.3417 0.24 Q 17.72 0.3441 0.23 Q 17.84 0.3464 0.23 Q 17.97 0.3487 0.22 Q 18.09 0.3508 0.20 Q 18.21 0.3527 0.17 Q 18.33 0.3543 0.16 Q 18.46 0.3559 0.16 Q 18.58 0.3575 0.15 Q 18.70 0.3590 0.15 Q 18.83 0.3605 0.14 Q 18.95 0.3619 0.14 Q 19.07 0.3633 0.13 Q 19.19 0.3646 0.13 Q 19.32 0.3659 0.13 Q 19.44 0.3672 0.12 Q 19.56 0.3684 0.12 Q 19.68 0.3697 0.12 Q 19.81 0.3709 0.12 Q 19.93 0.3720 0.11 Q 20.05 0.3732 0.11 Q 20.18 0.3743 0.11 Q 20.30 0.3754 0.11 Q 20.42 0.3765 0.11 Q 20.54 0.3776 0.10 Q 20.67 0.3786 0.10 Q 20.79 0.3797 0.10 Q 20.91 0.3807 0.10 Q 21.04 0.3817 0.10 Q 21.16 0.3827 0.10 Q 21.28 0.3836 0.09 Q 21.40 0.3846 0.09 Q 21.53 0.3855 0.09 Q 21.65 0.3865 0.09 Q 21.77 0.3874 0.09 Q 21.90 0.3883 0.09 Q 22.02 0.3892 0.09 Q 22.14 0.3900 0.09 Q 22.26 0.3909 0.08 Q 22.39 0.3918 0.08 Q 22.51 0.3926 0.08 Q 22.63 0.3934 0.08 Q 22.76 0.3943 0.08 Q 22.88 0.3951 0.08 Q 23.00 0.3959 0.08 Q 23.12 0.3967 0.08 Q 23.25 0.3975 0.08 Q 23.37 0.3983 0.08 Q 23.49 0.3990 0.08 Q 23.62 0.3998 0.08 Q 23.74 0.4006 0.07 Q 23.86 0.4013 0.07 Q 23.98 0.4021 0.07 Q 24.11 0.4028 0.07 Q 24.23 0.4032 0.00 Q ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) 0°/U 1444.5 10% 81.1 20% 22.1 30% 14.7 40% 7.4 50% 7.4 60% 7.4 70% 7.4 80% 7.4 90% 7.4 **************************************************************************** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (C) Copyright 1989-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 **************************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem Descriptions: RED HILL APARTMENTS PROPOSED CONDITIONS 2 YEAR Y-BAR - AREA C ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC I: TOTAL 24-HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 2.05 (inches) SOIL-COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in./hr.) YIELD 1 0.27 10.00 98. (AMC II) 0.300 0.875 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 0.27 AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in./hr.) = 0.030 AREA-AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.125 SMALL AREA UNIT HYDROGRAPH MODEL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- (C) Copyright 1989-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem Descriptions: RED HILL APARTMENTS PROPOSED CONDITIONS 2-YEAR VOLUME - AREA C ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.70 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 SOIL-LOSS RATE, Fm, (INCH/HR) = 0.030 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.125 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.00 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 2 5-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.19 30-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.40 1-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.53 3-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.89 6-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.22 24-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.05 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.03 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL-LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.02 TIME VOLUME Q 0. 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.08 0.0000 0.01 Q 0.17 0.0001 0.01 Q 0.25 0.0001 0.01 Q 0.33 0.0001 0.01 Q 0.42 0.0002 0.01 Q 0.50 0.0002 0.01 Q 0.58 0.0002 0.01 Q 0.67 0.0003 0.01 Q 0.75 0.0003 0.01 Q 0.83 0.0004 0.01 Q 0.92 0.0004 0.01 Q 1.00 0.0004 0.01 Q 1.08 0.0005 0.01 Q 1.17 0.0005 0.01 Q 1.25 0.0005 0.01 Q 1.33 0.0006 0.01 Q 1.42 0.0006 0.01 Q 1.50 0.0007 0.01 Q 1.58 0.0007 0.01 Q 1.67 0.0007 0.01 Q 1.75 0.0008 0.01 Q 1.83 0.0008 0.01 Q 1.92 0.0009 0.01 Q 2.00 0.0009 0.01 Q 2.08 0.0009 0.01 Q 2.17 0.0010 0.01 Q 2.25 0.0010 0.01 Q 2.33 0.0010 0.01 Q 2.42 0.0011 0.01 Q 2.50 0.0011 0.01 Q 2.58 0.0012 0.01 Q 2.67 0.0012 0.01 Q 2.75 0.0013 0.01 Q 2.83 0.0013 0.01 Q 2.92 0.0013 0.01 Q 3.00 0.0014 0.01 Q 3.08 0.0014 0.01 Q 3.17 0.0015 0.01 Q 3.25 0.0015 0.01 Q 3.33 0.0015 0.01 Q 3.42 0.0016 0.01 Q 3.50 0.0016 0.01 Q 3.58 0.0017 0.01 Q 3.67 0.0017 0.01 Q 3.75 0.0018 0.01 Q 3.83 0.0018 0.01 Q 3.92 0.0018 0.01 Q 4.00 0.0019 0.01 Q 4.08 0.0019 0.01 Q 4.17 0.0020 0.01 Q 4.25 0.0020 0.01 Q 4.33 0.0021 0.01 Q 4.42 0.0021 0.01 Q 4.50 0.0021 0.01 Q 4.58 0.0022 0.01 Q 4.67 0.0022 0.01 Q 4.75 0.0023 0.01 Q 4.83 0.0023 0.01 Q 4.92 0.0024 0.01 Q 5.00 0.0024 0.01 Q 5.08 0.0025 0.01 Q 5.17 0.0025 0.01 Q 5.25 0.0026 0.01 Q 5.33 0.0026 0.01 Q 5.42 0.0027 0.01 Q 5.50 0.0027 0.01 Q 5.58 0.0027 0.01 Q 5.67 0.0028 0.01 Q 5.75 0.0028 0.01 Q 5.83 0.0029 0.01 Q 5.92 0.0029 0.01 Q 6.00 0.0030 0.01 Q 6.08 0.0030 0.01 Q 6.17 0.0031 0.01 Q 6.25 0.0031 0.01 Q 6.33 0.0032 0.01 Q 6.42 0.0032 0.01 Q 6.50 0.0033 0.01 Q 6.58 0.0033 0.01 Q 6.67 0.0034 0.01 Q 6.75 0.0034 0.01 Q 6.83 0.0035 0.01 Q 6.92 0.0035 0.01 Q 7.00 0.0036 0.01 Q 7.08 0.0036 0.01 Q 7.17 0.0037 0.01 Q 7.25 0.0037 0.01 Q 7.33 0.0038 0.01 Q 7.42 0.0039 0.01 Q 7.50 0.0039 0.01 Q 7.58 0.0040 0.01 Q 7.67 0.0040 0.01 Q 7.75 0.0041 0.01 Q 7.83 0.0041 0.01 Q 7.92 0.0042 0.01 Q 8.00 0.0042 0.01 Q 8.08 0.0043 0.01 Q 8.17 0.0043 0.01 Q 8.25 0.0044 0.01 Q 8.33 0.0045 0.01 Q 8.42 0.0045 0.01 Q 8.50 0.0046 0.01 Q 8.58 0.0046 0.01 Q 8.67 0.0047 0.01 Q 8.75 0.0048 0.01 Q 8.83 0.0048 0.01 Q 8.92 0.0049 0.01 Q 9.00 0.0049 0.01 Q 9.08 0.0050 0.01 Q 9.17 0.0051 0.01 Q 9.25 0.0051 0.01 Q 9.33 0.0052 0.01 Q 9.42 0.0052 0.01 Q 9.50 0.0053 0.01 Q 9.58 0.0054 0.01 Q 9.67 0.0054 0.01 Q 9.75 0.0055 0.01 Q 9.83 0.0056 0.01 Q 9.92 0.0056 0.01 Q 10.00 0.0057 0.01 Q 10.08 0.0058 0.01 Q 10.17 0.0058 0.01 Q 10.25 0.0059 0.01 Q 10.33 0.0060 0.01 Q 10.42 0.0060 0.01 Q 10.50 0.0061 0.01 Q 10.58 0.0062 0.01 Q 10.67 0.0063 0.01 Q 10.75 0.0063 0.01 Q 10.83 0.0064 0.01 Q 10.92 0.0065 0.01 Q 11.00 0.0065 0.01 Q 11.08 0.0066 0.01 Q 11.17 0.0067 0.01 Q 11.25 0.0068 0.01 Q 11.33 0.0068 0.01 Q 11.42 0.0069 0.01 Q 11.50 0.0070 0.01 Q 11.58 0.0071 0.01 Q 11.67 0.0072 0.01 Q 11.75 0.0073 0.01 Q 11.83 0.0073 0.01 Q 11.92 0.0074 0.01 Q 12.00 0.0075 0.01 Q 12.08 0.0076 0.02 Q 12.17 0.0077 0.02 Q 12.25 0.0078 0.02 Q 12.33 0.0079 0.02 Q 12.42 0.0080 0.02 Q 12.50 0.0081 0.02 Q 12.58 0.0083 0.02 Q 12.67 0.0084 0.02 Q 12.75 0.0085 0.02 Q 12.83 0.0086 0.02 Q 12.92 0.0087 0.02 Q 13.00 0.0088 0.02 Q 13.08 0.0090 0.02 Q 13.17 0.0091 0.02 Q 13.25 0.0092 0.02 Q 13.33 0.0093 0.02 Q 13.42 0.0095 0.02 Q 13.50 0.0096 0.02 Q 13.58 0.0097 0.02 Q 13.67 0.0099 0.02 Q 13.75 0.0100 0.02 Q 13.83 0.0102 0.02 Q 13.92 0.0103 0.02 Q 14.00 0.0105 0.02 Q 14.08 0.0106 0.02 Q 14.17 0.0108 0.02 Q 14.25 0.0109 0.02 Q 14.33 0.0111 0.02 Q 14.42 0.0113 0.03 Q 14.50 0.0115 0.03 Q 14.58 0.0117 0.03 Q 14.67 0.0118 0.03 Q 14.75 0.0120 0.03 Q 14.83 0.0122 0.03 Q 14.92 0.0124 0.03 Q 15.00 0.0127 0.03 Q 15.08 0.0129 0.03 Q 15.17 0.0131 0.03 Q 15.25 0.0134 0.04 Q 15.33 0.0136 0.04 Q 15.42 0.0139 0.04 Q 15.50 0.0142 0.04 Q 15.58 0.0144 0.04 Q 15.67 0.0148 0.05 Q 15.75 0.0151 0.06 Q 15.83 0.0156 0.07 Q 15.92 0.0162 0.10 Q 16.00 0.0170 0.14 Q 16.08 0.0189 0.43 Q 16.17 0.0207 0.08 Q 16.25 0.0211 0.05 Q 16.33 0.0214 0.04 Q 16.42 0.0217 0.04 Q 16.50 0.0220 0.04 Q 16.58 0.0222 0.03 Q 16.67 0.0224 0.03 Q 16.75 0.0227 0.03 Q 16.83 0.0228 0.03 Q 16.92 0.0230 0.03 Q 17.00 0.0232 0.02 Q 17.08 0.0233 0.02 Q 17.17 0.0235 0.02 Q 17.25 0.0236 0.02 Q 17.33 0.0238 0.02 Q 17.42 0.0239 0.02 Q 17.50 0.0240 0.02 Q 17.58 0.0242 0.02 Q 17.67 0.0243 0.02 Q 17.75 0.0244 0.02 Q 17.83 0.0245 0.02 Q 17.92 0.0246 0.02 Q 18.00 0.0247 0.02 Q 18.08 0.0248 0.01 Q 18.17 0.0249 0.01 Q 18.25 0.0250 0.01 Q 18.33 0.0251 0.01 Q 18.42 0.0252 0.01 Q 18.50 0.0252 0.01 Q 18.58 0.0253 0.01 Q 18.67 0.0254 0.01 Q 18.75 0.0255 0.01 Q 18.83 0.0255 0.01 Q 18.92 0.0256 0.01 Q 19.00 0.0257 0.01 Q 19.08 0.0257 0.01 Q 19.17 0.0258 0.01 Q 19.25 0.0259 0.01 Q 19.33 0.0259 0.01 Q 19.42 0.0260 0.01 Q 19.50 0.0261 0.01 Q 19.58 0.0261 0.01 Q 19.67 0.0262 0.01 Q 19.75 0.0262 0.01 Q 19.83 0.0263 0.01 Q 19.92 0.0264 0.01 Q 20.00 0.0264 0.01 Q 20.08 0.0265 0.01 Q 20.17 0.0265 0.01 Q 20.25 0.0266 0.01 Q 20.33 0.0266 0.01 Q 20.42 0.0267 0.01 Q 20.50 0.0267 0.01 Q 20.58 0.0268 0.01 Q 20.67 0.0269 0.01 Q 20.75 0.0269 0.01 Q 20.83 0.0270 0.01 Q 20.92 0.0270 0.01 Q 21.00 0.0271 0.01 Q 21.08 0.0271 0.01 Q 21.17 0.0272 0.01 Q 21.25 0.0272 0.01 Q 21.33 0.0272 0.01 Q 21.42 0.0273 0.01 Q 21.50 0.0273 0.01 Q 21.58 0.0274 0.01 Q 21.67 0.0274 0.01 Q 21.75 0.0275 0.01 Q 21.83 0.0275 0.01 Q 21.92 0.0276 0.01 Q 22.00 0.0276 0.01 Q 22.08 0.0277 0.01 Q 22.17 0.0277 0.01 Q 22.25 0.0277 0.01 Q 22.33 0.0278 0.01 Q 22.42 0.0278 0.01 Q 22.50 0.0279 0.01 Q 22.58 0.0279 0.01 Q 22.67 0.0280 0.01 Q 22.75 0.0280 0.01 Q 22.83 0.0280 0.01 Q 22.92 0.0281 0.01 Q 23.00 0.0281 0.01 Q 23.08 0.0282 0.01 Q 23.17 0.0282 0.01 Q 23.25 0.0282 0.01 Q 23.33 0.0283 0.01 Q 23.42 0.0283 0.01 Q 23.50 0.0283 0.01 Q 23.58 0.0284 0.01 Q 23.67 0.0284 0.01 Q 23.75 0.0285 0.01 Q 23.83 0.0285 0.01 Q 23.92 0.0285 0.01 Q 24.00 0.0286 0.01 Q 24.08 0.0286 0.00 Q ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) 0°/U 1440.0 100/0 45.0 20% 15.0 30% 10.0 40% 5.0 50% 5.0 60% 5.0 70% 5.0 80% 5.0 90% 5.0 Veneklasen Associates Consultants in Acoustics I AV I IT I Environmental Noise December 21, 2020 Irvine Asset Group,LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 600 Newport Beach,California 92660 Attention: Mr.Craig Swanson Subject: Red Hill Apartments Tustin,California Exterior Envelope Acoustical Design Veneklasen Project No.5794-001-002 Dear Mr.Swanson: Veneklasen Associates(Veneklasen)has completed our acoustical review of the Red Hill Apartments mixed-use development located in Tustin,California. This report represents the results of our findings. The report addresses exterior sound levels and the mitigation required at exterior areas and of the exterior facade to reduce exterior and interior sound levels meet the City of Tustin and California Building Code requirements.This includes provisions within CALGreen,as applicable. 1.0 INTRODUCTION This study was conducted to determine the impact of the exterior noise sources on the Red Hill Apartments mixed-use development. Veneklasen's scope of work included calculating the exterior noise levels impacting the site,determining the method, if any, required to lower the exterior sound levels to meet the applicable code requirement and review the planned exterior facade construction (including doors,windows,walls and roofs)to determine compliance of the interior sound levels with State of California and the City of Tustin noise requirements. The results of Veneklasen's analysis are presented in this report. The project reviewed consists of a 137-unit mixed used apartment project consisting of five(5)three- and four-story buildings with tuck under and surface parking. The site is bounded by Red Hill Avenue to the southeast,San Juan Street to the northeast,Tustin High School to the northwest and existing commercial spaces to the southwest. 2.0 NOISE CRITERIA CNEL is the 24-hour equivalent sound pressure level in which the nighttime noise levels,occurring between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am,are weighted by adding 10 dB of sound level to the measured hourly average,and 5 dB for the hours between 7pm and 9pm. Since this is a 24-hour metric,single event noise levels(truck pass-bye, bus,trains,etc.)are smoothed over the time frame meaning that the single event noise levels are not as prominent in the analysis. Leq (equivalent continuous sound level) is defined as the steady sound pressure level which,over a given period of time, has the same total energy as the actual fluctuating noise. 2.1 Interior Noise Levels The City of Tustin Noise Element requires that the interior noise levels not exceed 45 CNEL. This is consistent with the California State Building Code requirements. 1711 Sixteenth Street • Santa Monica California 90404 • tel:310.450.1733 • fax:310.396.3424 • www.veneklasen.com T Red Hill Apartments,Camarillo,CA Veneklasen Associates Exterior Noise and Exterior Fagade Acoustical Analysis Veneklasen Project 5794-001 December 21,2020;Page 2 of 9 If the windows must be closed to meet an interior level of 45 CNEL,then a mechanical ventilating system or other means of natural ventilation may be required. 2.2 Exterior Noise Levels The City of Tustin Noise Element states that the exterior noise goals at outdoor use areas is 65 CNEL. This applies to multifamily patios and balconies(with a depth of 6 feet or greater)and common recreation areas. 2.3 California Green Building Code(CALGreen) Section 5.507.4.2 of the 2016 California Green Building Code stipulates that for buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB or more when measured as a 1-hour Leq,the building fagade,including walls, windows,and roofs shall provide enough sound insulation so that the interior sound level from exterior sources does not exceed 50 dBA during any hour of operation. 3.0 EXTERIOR NOISE ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Measurements Vehicular movement is the dominant exterior sound source affecting the site. Veneklasen performed measurements on the project site on Tuesday, November 18, 2014. Table 1 and Figure 1 shows the location and summary of the noise measurements. Note that there is a baseball field near and this was not evaluated meaning that noise and impact from this setting was not included within our analysis. Table 1—Measured Sound Levels Location Exterior Sound Level, Leq Position 1 59 Position 2 66 Position 3 58 Figure 1 —Aerial View of Project Site Showing Measurement Locations y Pos 3 Pos 2 ,d Pos 1 N _ www.veneklasen.com T Red Hill Apartments,Camarillo,CA Veneklasen Associates Exterior Noise and Exterior Fagade Acoustical Analysis Veneklasen Project 5794-001 December 21,2020;Page 3 of 9 3.2 Computer Modeling Veneklasen has utilized the Traffic Noise Model computer software program (TNM 2.5) developed by the FHWA in order to predict vehicular noise levels at various locations. The primary purpose of the computer model was to determine how the noise environment will change due to traffic and site changes. Current traffic conditions were obtained from the Orange County Transportation Authority Annual Traffic Volume Maps. According to this source, Red Hill Avenue has a traffic count of 26,266 ADT in 2018 and 1-5 Freeway has 340,370 ADT in 2019. Future traffic conditions were not available for the above roads. The increment of traffic of the 1-5 freeway from 2009 to 2019 was 30,000 and the calculated yearly percentage was 1 percent. Veneklasen used this value to extrapolate the traffic count in 2030. Using a similar method, Veneklasen calculated the yearly percentage of the Red Hill Avenue and the increment was 2.5 percent yearly.The predicted ADT count in year 2030 for 1-5 freeway was 375,980 and for Red Hill Avenue was 33,622. 3.3 Overall Exterior Exposure Based on the measurements,computer model,and the project site plan provided by the Client, Veneklasen calculated the existing and future(2030) noise levels at various locations within the project site. Veneklasen has separated the site into locations based on the sound exposure and required mitigation. The predicted sound levels at each zone are listed in Table 2. Exterior noise levels to the units on the west and southwest sides of the project are partially shielded from freeway noise from the barrier that exists at the freeway edge. Table 2—Future Sound Levels Location Exterior CNEL Zone A 69-72 Zone B 65-68 Zone C 60-64 Remaining Units <60 www.veneklasen.com T Red Hill Apartments,Camarillo,CA Veneklasen Associates Exterior Noise and Exterior Fagade Acoustical Analysis Veneklasen Project 5794-001 December 21,2020;Page 4 of 9 Figure 2- Noise Exposure Zones,Level 2-4 A@ VS - - - r ----- ne B+ V � N O I � U D I 0 II � II + II Zone B ¢ a I I ' I I I I II I r � N O Zone C € I- I D � m T It IT I � Y Y 1 v r ■ ■ 1 Zone C Zone + J - -� J_ � R r a I r Q , U Zone A O �r � ` N r ti W � I � _ ______ Zone -- ------ --------- —�' II www.veneklasen.com T Red Hill Apartments,Camarillo,CA Veneklasen Associates Exterior Noise and Exterior Fagade Acoustical Analysis Veneklasen Project 5794-001 December 21,2020;Page 5 of 9 4.0 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS As stated in Section 2.2,the exterior noise standard at outdoor use areas is 65 CNEL. This applies to multifamily patios and balconies(with a depth of 6 feet or more)and common recreation areas. 4.1 Balconies Future exterior noise levels at the patios and balconies of the units in Zones A and B will exceed the suggested standard. Per the provide drawings dated October 20,2020,some of the residential balconies in Zone A and B are shown to be greater than 6 feet in depth. Therefore, noise mitigation will be required at those balconies with a depth of 6 feet or greater. Veneklasen suggests one of the mitigation options below at balconies for compliance with the City of Tustin Noise Element: 1. Reduce the depth of all exterior patios/balconies at all units in Zones A and B such that the total depth is less than 6 feet.The City of Tustin's Noise Element only applies to those with a depth of 6 feet or greater. 2. Provide a 4-foot high sound barrier for balconies in Zone A and Zone B. To be acoustically effective,the barrier should be of a substantial material (e.g.glass)and extended down to within 1 inch of the balcony floor.There should be no openings between barrier panels,and seams should be sealed with silicone or similar. 4.2 Exterior Common Areas Veneklasen has shown the exterior common areas in Figure 3 by highlighting them in green.The common areas shown in the new drawing set dated October 26, 2020 are within the 65 CNEL. Therefore, no additional mitigation is required. Table 3 shows the predicted noise level at the common areas per VA's calculations. Table 3—Future Sound Levels,Exterior Common Area Predicted Criterion Location CNEL CNEL Courtyard A 63-64 <65 Courtyard B 60-62 <65 www.veneklasen.com T Red Hill Apartments,Camarillo,CA Veneklasen Associates Exterior Noise and Exterior Fagade Acoustical Analysis Veneklasen Project 5794-001 December 21,2020;Page 6 of 9 Figure 3—Level 1 Exterior Common Areas I �I � C®URTA uus 6 !'M= Al BLDG A BLDG B =� HILL A 5.0 INTERIOR NOISE CALCULATION The exterior wall for the units will consist of a single stud wall with 3-coat stucco over sheathing on the exterior,a single layer of gypsum on the interior and batt insulation in the cavity. Veneklasen's calculations include the exterior wall but indicate that the interior noise levels are determined by the acoustical performance of the glazing system. Veneklasen utilized the window and door assemblies(glass,frame and seals)as shown in Appendix I. The actual construction indicated may differ for the project and should be reviewed when submitted. Appendix I shall be used as the acoustical specification for the windows and doors and must be satisfied to meet the noise levels within this report. 5.1 Glazing Required to Satisfy Interior Noise Criteria Veneklasen calculated the interior level within the residential units given the noise environment and the exterior fagade construction described above. Table 4 contains Veneklasen's required glazing ratings to meet the interior noise criteria of 45 CNEL. Table 4—Glazing Required to Satisfy Interior Noise Standards Future Exterior Window/Door Future Interior Noise Location Noise Level,CNEL Rating Level,CNEL Zone A 69-72 STC 33 <45 Zone B 65-68 STC 30 <45 Zone C 60-64 STC 30 <45 Remaining Units <60 No STC requirement; STC 30 recommended The remaining units not included in Zones A through C will be shielded from traffic,and the noise level will be less than 60 CNEL. Since the exterior noise level is less than 60 CNEL,there is no STC requirement for these locations. However,Veneklasen recommends STC 30 be specified to maintain a consistent level of acoustical performance consistent with use meeting the requirements set forth in www.veneklasen.com T Red Hill Apartments,Camarillo,CA Veneklasen Associates Exterior Noise and Exterior Fagade Acoustical Analysis Veneklasen Project 5794-001 December 21,2020;Page 7 of 9 Appendix I. 5.2 Interior Average Noise Level—CALGreen Compliance—Non-Residential Space The project includes non-residential spaces(commercial, leasing office,amenity areas)that are required to comply with the current CALGreen Building Code. As stated in Section 2.3,the interior sound level from exterior sources shall not exceed 50 dBA during any hour of operation. The spaces will be exposed to an exterior noise level of approximately 63-67 dBA Leq during operational hours. In order to meet the CALGreen interior noise criteria, 13-17 dBA of reduction is required. Typically,with windows closed,a reduction of 20-25 dBA is common across a fagade of this type. These areas should be required to have an STC rating no less than 28.Appendix I shall be used as the acoustical specification for the windows and doors and must be satisfied to meet the noise levels within this report. 5.3 Mechanical Ventilation Requirement Because the windows and doors must be kept closed to meet the noise requirements at some locations, mechanical ventilation may be required. The residential units in Zones A through C would need to be included if this provision is required by code. The mechanical ventilation shall not compromise the acoustical performance of the exterior fagade construction. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Residential • Exterior wall assembly is acceptable as described in Section 5.0. • Windows and glass doors with minimum STC ratings as shown in Table 4,depicted in Figure 2 with Transmission Loss and STC ratings specified in Appendix I are required.Appendix I shall be used as the acoustical specification for the windows and doors and must be satisfied to meet the noise levels within this report. • Residential balconies in Zone A and Zone B that are 6 feet in depth or greater require mitigation. Mitigation options are as follows: o Option 1. Reduce the depth of all exterior patios/balconies at all units in Zones A and B such that the total depth is less than 6 feet. o Option 2. Provide a 4-foot high sound barrier for balconies in Zone A and Zone B. • Residential mechanical ventilation,or other means of natural ventilation, may be required for all units in Zones A,Zone B and Zone C. Non-Residential • At retail,amenity,and other non-residential spaces,windows and glass doors with a minimum rating of STC 28 with Transmission Loss and STC ratings specified in Appendix I are required to satisfy the CALGreen interior noise criterion.Appendix I shall be used as the acoustical specification for the windows and doors and must be satisfied to meet the noise levels within this report. Various noise mitigation methods may be utilized to satisfy the noise criteria described in this report. Alteration of mitigation methods that deviate from requirements should be reviewed by the acoustical consultant. www.veneklasen.com T Red Hill Apartments,Camarillo,CA Veneklasen Associates Exterior Noise and Exterior Fagade Acoustical Analysis Veneklasen Project 5794-001 December 21,2020;Page 8 of 9 We trust this information is satisfactory. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report,please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Veneklasen Associates,Inc. V--� John LoVerde,FASA Principal www.veneklasen.com T Red Hill Apartments,Camarillo,CA Veneklasen Associates Exterior Noise and Exterior Fagade Acoustical Analysis Veneklasen Project 5794-001 December 21,2020;Page 9 of 9 APPENDIX I—GLAZING REQUIREMENTS In order to meet the predicted interior noise levels described in Section 2.0,the glazing shall meet the following requirements: Table 5—Acoustical Glazing Requirements: Minimum Octave Band Transmission Loss and STC Rating Minimum Transmission Loss Min. Nominal Thickness Octave Band Center Frequency(Hz) STC 125 1 250 500 1000 2000 4000 Rating 1"dual 21 18 24 32 36 31 28 1"dual 21 18 27 34 37 32 30 1"dual 22 21 30 36 37 36 33 The transmission loss values in the table above can likely be met with the following glazing assemblies: STC 28: 1/8" monolithic—3/4"airspace—1/8" monolithic STC 30: 1/8" monolithic—3/4"airspace—1/8" monolithic STC 33: 3/16" monolithic—11/16"airspace—1/8" monolithic An assembly's frame and seals may limit the performance of the overall system.Therefore,the window and door systems selected for the project shall not be selected on the basis of the STC rating of the glass alone, but on the entire assembly including frame and seals.Additionally,the assemblies given above are provided as a basis of design, but regardless of construction,the octave band Transmission Loss(TL)and STC value of the system selected must meet the minimum values in Table 5 above. Independent laboratory acoustical test reports should be submitted for review by the design team to ensure compliance with glazing acoustical performance requirements. Laboratories shall be accredited by the Department of Commerce National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). Labs shall be pre-approved by Veneklasen Associates.Tests shall be required to be performed in North America. Lab tests and lab reports shall be in compliance with ASTM standard E90 and be no more than 10 years old from the date of submission for this project. If test reports are not available for a proposed assembly,the assembly, including frame,seals and hardware,shall be tested at an independent, pre-approved, NVLAP accredited laboratory to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this report.Veneklasen shall be invited to witness acoustical testing completed and reserves the right to exclude test reports from laboratories that are not pre-approved by Veneklasen. www.veneklasen.com LINSCOTT GREENSPAN July 1, 2021 Engineers&Planners Ira tic Craig Swanson Transportation Parking Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, East Tower, Suite 600 Linscott,Law� Newport Beach, California 92660 Greenspan,Engineers Z Executive Cirele LLG Reference: 2.14.3528.1 Suite 250 Irvine,CA 92614 949.825.6175 r Subject: Trip Generation Assessment for Tustin Red Hill 90,825,6173 F Mixed-Use Project www.ilgengineers.com Tustin, California Pasadena Irvine Dear Mr. Swanson, San Diego Woodland Hills Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Trip Generation Assessment for the proposed Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project (hereinafter referred to as "Project"). The Project site is located south of San Juan Street and west of Red Hill Avenue at 13751 and 13841 Red Hill Avenue in the City of Tustin, California. The Project site is included within the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1 of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, which was previously analyzed as part of the Traffic Impact Study for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., dated January 2018 The Project, as now envisioned, is proposing to construct a 137-unit residential apartment development with 7,000 square-feet (SF) of general retail floor area, inclusive of"take-out" food uses. As such, this letter summarizes the trip generation forecast potential of the proposed Project in comparison to what is currently entitled for Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1 of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, for which the Project site is located. PROJECT LOCATION Phillip M.Linseatt,PEo924-mmi The Project site, which is located in TAZ 1 of the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Jack M.Greenspan,PE{Ret Plan, adjacent to the existing residential and commercial uses and Tustin High School, William A.Law,PEmeri is comprised of two parcels of land with a total acreage of 3.38 acres that is located Paul W.Wilkinson,PE south of San Juan Street and west of Red Hill Avenue at 13751 and 13841 Red Hill Jahn P Keating,PE Avenue in the City of Tustin, California. Figure 1 located at the rear of this letter David S.Shender,PE John A.Boatman,PE report, presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the project Clare M.Look-Jaeger,PE and the surrounding street system. Richard E.Barretto,PE Keil B-Mtabarry.PE An L62WB Comm Founded 1906 Craig Swanson LINSCOTT July 1, 2021 Page 2 GREENWAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Project As noted earlier, the proposed Project falls within the northern portion of TAZ 1, south of San Juan Street and west of Red Hill Avenue. The proposed Project includes the construction of a 137-unit residential apartment development consisting of 16 studio units, 62 one-bedroom units, 49 two-bedroom units and 10 Live/Work units. Further, of the Project's proposed total unit count of 137, six (6) units are designated as affordable units, consistent with the City's "Workforce Housing Ordinance". The six (6) very-low income units would consist of one (1) studio unit, three (3) one- bedroom units and two (2) two-bedroom units. The Project has a base allocation of 114 units and 20% or 23 density bonus units as provided by the new Workforce Housing Ordinance. On-site facilities/amenities of the proposed Project include a leasing office, a club On-site facilities/amenities and/or open space of the proposed Project include open air courtyards, a pool and spa, community club room, fitness center, mailroom/lounge, co-working area, bike storage room, dog walk/garden courtyard area and tenant storage areas for residents. The commercial component of the Project currently consists of 7,000 SF of general retail/commercial space and a 999 SF leasing office. Given the amenities/open space areas are all designed as amenities for residents of the proposed Project, this study only assesses the potential traffic impacts associated with 7,000 SF general retail/commercial space, inclusive of "take-out" food uses that would be open to the general public. Table 1 summarizes the proposed Project development totals for the site. Figure 2 presents the site plan for the proposed Project prepared by Architects Orange. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan vs. Proposed Project TAZ 1 within the Specific Plan identifies a proposed mix of up to 160 residential units and up to 30,000 SF of retail/commercial floor area. Direct comparison between the entitled development potential for TAZ 1 to the proposed Project would result in the Project being 23 DU below the residential allotment for TAZ 1 and the commercial component is expected to be 23,000 SF below allotment for TAZ 1, and the conclusion that the Project is well within the development envelope allocated for the TAZ 1. N:A3500A2143528-Tustin Red Hill Mixed Use,Tustin\2-September 2020 UpdateAReport\3528 Tustin Red Hill Mixed Use Trip Generation Letter 07-01-2021 doe Craig Swanson LINSCOTT July 1, 2021 Page 3 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST Table 2 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the entitled development and proposed Project and also presents the forecast peak hour and daily traffic volumes. The trip generation potential of the entitled development and proposed Project were estimated using ITE Land Use 220: Apartment and ITE Land Use 820: Shopping Center rates contained in the 91h Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), [Washington, D.C., 2012]. The use of these trip generation rates is consistent with those included in the Traffic Impact Study for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. Review of the middle portion of Table 2 indicates that the entitled development is forecast to generate 2,211 daily trips, with 99 trips (30 inbound, 69 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 195 trips (109 inbound, 82 outbound)produced in the PM peak hour on a"typical"weekday. Review of the lower portion of Table 2 indicates that the proposed Project is forecast to generate 1,210 daily trips, with 77 trips (18 inbound, 59 outbound)produced in the AM peak hour and 111 trips (67 inbound, 44 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a"typical"weekday. A comparison of the trips generated by the proposed Project to that of the Entitled Land Use shows that the proposed Project would generate less traffic than the entitled mix of uses, with 1,001 fewer daily trips, 22 fewer AM peak hour trips and 84 fewer PM peak hour trips. CONCLUSION Given the results of the trip generation forecast comparison, we conclude that the proposed Project trips are expected to be less than the previously Entitled Land Uses' trip generation for TAZ 1 as evaluated in the Traffic Impact Study for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project will not create any new traffic impacts beyond those already previously identified in the prior traffic study. N:A3500A2143528-Tustin Red Hill Mixed Use,Tustin\2-September 2020 UpdateAReport\3528 Tustin Red Hill Mixed Use Trip Generation Letter 07-01-2021 doe Craig Swanson LINSCOTT July 1, 2021 Page 4 We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this investigation for the proposed Tustin Red Hill Mixed-Use Project. Should you have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call Shane Green or me at(949) 825-6175. Sincerely, Linscott,Law& Greenspan,Engineers Richard E. Barretto,P.E. Principal Cc. Shane S. Green,P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer Attachments N:A3500A2143528-Tustin Red Hill Mixed Use,Tustin\2-September 2020 UpdateAReport\3528 Tustin Red Hill Mixed Use Trip Generation Letter 07-01-2021 doe JDI!nBD LZOZ—ll-90 9Z:01:SO dOl BMP'l-1 SZ9£\BMP\83oPdn OZOZ jegweldes — Z\ugsnl 'asn pex!w II!4 paj ugsnl — SZ4£blZ\004£\:u C7 Q, aft uo:IN �x ysL as] 15� 'ti 4 N W Y& s� c i o x •� J pLLJ D O f � as oi p 6. t-- f, 1 41 IfLU a, a r H J Q LL U Li CO VI } i-- z v� Z: W LL eQ Q 7 <73 N �ti F O Z ELz 43 _ eel 0 1. �■I!°6■ LZDZ—ll—SD 4Z 0£4l dOl B-P'Z-1 8ZS£\6•r\al°vd°OZOZ javwold■c—Z\p1l■°l'B6°P"!w IN POJ wlcrn—ers£eLZ\009£\:a z � 1 a Li -- Li '-1S N`dflf N'dS r-_� ,_-, -- - LLJ - a o - WI 9 I I � —L LV a o w R. - 7 •="I I L �- a w t ��w a _ O a ■ I Z p 0 p ® rI I ■I _ I I f I I I I Oji PPf N O C) - l ���� PI 02 Lia- 0 :mZdd p lii J - I I I 111 m --J a i T ■ ■ a I I I ' I .... f, itr I f ! P 8 LU w t� 40 KK NAO- ai ----- —I � 6 J a g■ g : _ d I I a ■ � — , II 0 IWO o'! ' I ' � I I I I I I i J � I Q li F- p - gs II a jlf I - - s Oil C) N 0 —: I I --------------------------- ----- �'�---- — fi I � I I I I I LINSCOTT GREMPAN TABLE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY' TUSTIN RED HILL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT,TUSTIN Project Development Land Use/Project Description Totals Mixed-Use Development Apartment Allocation(Size) ❑ Studio Units(515 SF) 16 Units ❑ One(1)Bedroom Units(679 SF-707 SF) 62 Units ❑ Two(2)Bedroom Units(941 SF-1460 SF) 49 Units ❑ Live/work Units(560 SF- 1351 SF) 10 Units Total Residential Units: I37 Units Apartment-Related Building Amenities(see Architectural Plan Sheet G1.1 for details on"open space matrix"and other non-structured/retail plaza open space) ❑ Bike Shop 100 SF ❑ Entry Promenade 2,439 SF ❑ Co-Working Space 761 SF ❑ Fitness 1,048 SF ❑ Club 1,556 SF ❑ Mail Lounge 364 ❑ Courtyards 7,026 SF ❑ Roof Deck Building B 1,444 SF ❑ Bistro/Gaming Garden/Dog Run 5,530 SF Total Apartment Amenities/Common Area: 20,268 SF Retail/Commercial Uses ❑ General Retail Shops 7,000 SF ❑ Leasing Office 999 SF Total Retail/Commercial. 7,999 SF 1 Source:Architects Orange,Red Hill Mixed Use—Sheet A1.2 Site Plan;note parking supply reflects loss of 2 spaces to provide for "turnaround"spaces in front of gates,resulting in a total on-site supply of 227 spaces. N:A3500A2143528-Tustin Red Hill Mixed Use,Tustin\2-September 2020 UpdateAReport\3528 Tustin Red Hill Mixed Use Trip Generation Letter 07-01-2021.doc LINSCOTT GREMPAN TABLE 2 , PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST2 TUSTIN RED HILL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT,TUSTIN ITE Land Use Code/ Daih- AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Project Description 2-Way Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation Factors: • 220:Apartment JEW) 6.65 20% 80% 0.51 65% 35% 0.62 • 820: Shopping Center(TE/TSF) 42.70 62% 38% 0.96 48% 52% 3.71 Generation Forecast—Entitled Development: • Apartment(160 DU) 930 12 58 70 56 24 84 • General Retail(30,000 SF) 1,281 18 11 29 53 58 111 Entitled Development Total Trip Generation Forecast 21211 30 69 99 109 82 195 Generation Forecast—Proposed Proiect: • Apartment(137 DU) 911 14 56 70 55 30 85 • General Retail(7,000 SF)3 299 4 3 7 12 14 26 Proposed Project Total Trip Generation Forecast 1,210 18 59 77 67 44 111 Net Project Trip Generation Forecast -1,001 -12 -10 -22 -42 -38 -84 (Proposed Project-Entitled Development) Notes: • TE/DU=Trip end per dwelling unit • TE/TSF=Trip end per 1,000 square-feet of development 2 Source:Trip Generation,9'Edition,Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE),Washington,D.C.(2012). 3 Please note,since approximately 4,834 SF of leasing area,club house and fitness is designated as apartment amenities(for resident use only),this floor area was excluded from the retail/commercial component of the proposed Project. N:A3500A2143528-Tustin Red Hill Mixed Use,Tustin\2-September 2020 UpdateAReport\3528 Tustin Red Hill Mixed Use Trip Generation Letter 07-01-2021.doc Red Hill Mixed Use Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Introduction Development within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) area is subject to mitigation measures identified in the RHASP Final EIR,the development regulations in the RHASP, and the City's Municipal Code. Applicable Mitigation Measures from the RHASP Final EIR are included herein and will be incorporated into the Red Hill Mixed Use Project (Project) located at 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue (APNs 500-141-09 and 500-141-10), on the west corner of San Juan Street and Red Hill Avenue. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented for the Project. The City of Tustin is the Lead Agency for the project and is responsible for implementation of the MMRP. This report describes the MMRP for the Project and identifies the parties that will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the individual mitigation measures in the MMRP. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The MMRP for the Project will be active through all phases of the Project, including design, construction, and operation. The attached table identifies the mitigation program required to be implemented by the City for the Red Hill Mixed Use Project.The table identifies the Plan, Program, Policies(PPPs); Project Design Features (PDFs); and mitigation measures required by the City to mitigate or avoid significant adverse impacts associated with the implementation of the Project, the timing of implementation, and the responsible party or parties for monitoring compliance. The MMRP also includes a column that will be used by the compliance monitor (individual responsible for monitoring compliance) to document when implementation of the measure is completed. As individual Plan, Program, Policies; Project Design Features (PDFs); and mitigation measures are completed, the compliance monitor will sign and date the MMRP, indicating that the required actions have been completed. City of Tustin 1 July 2021 Red Hill Mixed Use Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page intentionally left blank. City of Tustin 2 July 2021 k Cl) \ 2k \ U ® as 7 � J � M ./ © 0 D D .2 E g : @ : @ : @ \ 0 F— F— F— § ; I > % % % I 2 � f f \ / \ / � 0 f / . g _ 0 D CL. G § / z G § j ) o f CL E ® G ® § 2 ® G ® § 2 ® © • G ± I \ r - .- 7 \ r ƒ = 7 \ 0E5 = � � u E : a u E : V) a) 2 j j � t 0 L o a / 16 a) o G / 2 2 z 0 z 0 zLu E G o � Z 4A « � $ Lu 0 / t= -i z 0 LU z w 0 Lu - \0 *Z— / ew>\ \ / ƒ E ) O LTL y ° ' ® @ 2 = ® E o ° 5 | > u $ ƒ | " G 2 k = o ƒ u 2 - % k E .. e Cal- a 0- � _ \ � e u 0- E LU « � t = � / § % u E $ G Dm2g m § \ k E kj \ � ' 8 � � / / � \ § ( / % j « ® § E a = e _ ® ± E . =j E o f o f u E _ | : _ » s z o G \ { ® 2 7 2 /£ } j e g 7 $ @ ; a -0 a) = U / g - 0 - $ 2 ® ® ± \ ƒ U. / \ j / � � % k � \ 7 / G ƒ ® J u ! § } ƒ 7 j ƒ / \ Q / % o ® ƒ / \ G 5 o » e ® - \kcl } / .0 % � .2 \ } � } § � \§ \ % § ; j ± = } � cJ ] c � j ® o o & o z j e q < . -Z3 / \ j \ \ E § ®/ \ � o t \ \ 2 \ 2 Q) � u � G - o & � cc CY o = % � s O u ® * G $ \ _ _ u § O - < CY % ) ® £ § E \ \ ) u \ j \ § | % ƒ - 2 u ± � - ' z § % a t Im f o2 ® ® c e f u o / G 6 « ƒ ? e § � 2 O e / o O a O i® . , k i 7 \ f 2 ± U - § e a0V aG \ E » a E a a / % a / % / u / 2 $ 7 k� ® \ 0 \ u � ® a � 7 � J � t:3) © - 2 2 E g z .2 •g g . - o a a — — / § ; I > o % % I O O O 2 0 E f o E a / 0 E a u .2 = .2 = g § / S t = E § a _ } § ) = E { 2C— � � _ � � _ � } uo § } § p V) C:: V) : V) j ~ CL. CL.~CL. ' j ~ o G 2 U o G o G 2 zEG zEG zEG 0 z j ° t $ f f % e / b % _ $ G f % § $ f = \ / 7 ° � J § \ I E + $ @ § ) j ® « \ / 0 § 0 0- ƒ} ® E 0 2 / ! I f u > * \ | ® s _ ƒ a o \ E e ) \ § \ fq ¥ ® Soo a)0 ` fG $ f8 \ 7 3 « 2 0 ± j \ ƒ 2 » = u ® ƒ E \ E t o > ± f } = t § \ * % { 0 E 4E \ / : $ \ o % I ƒ B / E ® \ u o o u o f = E 5 S r = G § f \ o _ E 0 2 e E G § a > f 5 u 7 g & /u \ 5 § � S 2 £ ® + � ) \ § § U. --F 2 / s = ee ƒ % a \ $ § % § � § 2 _ # a — \ \ to, % E \ a ® z I o o o 0 2 7 u »? E \ ' 7 : G { ® _® G s z = \ G ° ¥ { 7 $ m } _ 0 j \ 7 t _ Q g u _ � U o 0 E , » ® _ + \ o 2 \ \ § E ®§ g o ( \ § � )° $ 7 O y \ }\ cx a) ± J \ \ »f \ u ;z zk\ £o j / E § \ CL n o _ * ' i % / e I E ( t - a b / \ G t \ \ u u = $ § o e z ± -0 7 ± ; \ 0 = — _ o = G * > o ® o -0 = 2 » a . § G 0 u / a # e $ » = f > u G » § — / 7 § 2 E Q § y u = _ # _ } \ _ » o % e E = r o — § G u o o f u $ E f f § 7 2 3 2@ % a o o & j / » q § E : E u § G E § 0 3 3 G 3 3 3 Q ƒ _ _ ± e = 0 2 . 2 — t $ e [ G @ \ 0 e $ 5 5 q G o o f _ ' O j ± ) 0 0 D E u = ± _ = o ¥ j ® & u E a J w g t u u 3 0 b » g § ƒ w t S Ik � o = � § § � 88Uk § = § 5 § = E k � A \ 2k \ u � ® a � 7 � J f M .2 F- S 3 § ; S > % % s & & I O O 2 Im [ [ ƒ \ � 0 \ � 0 : ƒ \ -0 § : ƒ \ E \ \ \ 6 \ � \ zV z V) k z e % f & t ® f LL ® \ § ) \ \ \ §Eu- LO u { s E f E § _ @ ± e k # \ / .2 7 \ { \ k { \ \ $ \ \ & \ j ) n § f 7 u 5 o f \ / u a E 2 » _ » s e a = % u t t 5 2 $ f = e e § - =4 a fuo a 7\ u % � e t d \ u 0 & u / 7 } a = V) _ / � r �y 2% o / a a \ 2 d . f e z A � 2 ƒ ƒ e u g 8 A g G u _ _ o Z ® k » E Q k U § 2 ' \ ƒ t u u ® ° 7 � ° = f » � ` ® � - � E � E I t S \ & r ' | 2 § f I = ) \ s o j o G G / u E % § » ] e § • d % § E 8 d u 7 2 e E / / % % $ 2 2 y : » ® \ 2 a E » # $ & 7 u ° O Q o o $ g \ ° e ƒ f fGf • o w 0u8 \ } = z = t = u o = _ u | % o u o /g _ § D - ® § u - &_ § u G e e G ® ' G ® t / % G = § j e = o G ) / \ a $ » = = e o E E § w % e \ e 9 2 0 9 g G E E � _ � \ ° ° ° + 2 u g § u = g g = o E § b & » a § ~ 2 � � � 0 S ƒ ± \ \ \ E - � } . G / u _ 12 § _ 0 ca ua � f § / ) a J - - - - - - - - a � $ o -a 2 o u Ik a Uf auGaQ0 = 7 k� 10 \ 0 \ U ® a � 7 � J _ \ ° 0 M a \ � \ > ./ ©a D 3 0 \ § u § / / \ 2 � E § j5 ƒ � & & I O O 2 \ \ \ 0 \ a \ Im . 0 o = G ƒ / § § f j \ f e -0 _ _ : ƒ u 0) § j % / \ } \ V) E & ƒ 0 z ° ° ® k \ ƒ § C\ * % $ 7 j % a) 0 9 2 f § 4 ° 5 ± ® % $ 0) $ = G 0 f ° f e e m ° - __ � o z o f 0 2 z e z e R -0 j =V) u = _ ® o 0 5 _ » ® � zz ° ° 0 0a) a) U -0 0) E $ o ° 0 ^ ® > ± s § E 0- e e F > o a E 0) G / u g _ » f = S e > a 2 0 = u e u ® _. E g f a o 0 . o e s ® o s u » o � . 0 - ° o G » Q) � o ± _ E ±- e \ & G = 7 u $ k E G -0 o $ % [ / ) 5 u / \ t ± 0 G ; G j f = S < u « 2@ o f 5 , 0-j - u u a - ƒ = b _ E u E z a FA o a o / I • - � . < o =� -- 0 »- � oo = = E 7 ± Q 2 ^ § -0 a) ^ 4E -0 0- ) � u -0 0 0 U � > u 0- 0 u o < o E * G » = u f 0 u ƒ ° o u w \ -0 t o 2 E & ! o z u = uz . � ■ f 0 % = G G 2 5 a / 3 2 y 2 g 'E u a ' » 0 \ 5 a err 2 5 } 7 j E E f ° / I } \ 7 i \ b \ / S » G e u E 2 G e ® G j 5 \ $ uu7g / » u7 =fe = � - Q = b { eo ® ° r ® ® ) % f2eee � f & Q) C: = � &± _ � � � � \ s e3 } Eoo u o o o -0 o o ® o f o o@ _ ® 5 = / u } ƒ ) - oz = } = � \ j ƒ % § � / � \ § § j7e < 2 � E o �± ) f § � » uz § = ® ou G = Da u =O = > 0 u z § § o » o = o E a) o = u \ \ \ * % § ° 5 G _% \\ ƒ ] \ \ 2 i / u 0--a k * $ § LO 0 3 j / 0 ^ ® % 0 u o k f u = 2 a f 5 - - E < : ? luzm = 5 ° fe of ® � 3 \ 5 ƒ e j = / B / f ) ® \ § § ® O 7 ' $ e 3 ± 2 0 G u % ® } = f g • s o » a E ® G t ® - _ ° u u - a u _- u § o = u u $ 0 < g ® � ® ® - u / j ) \ \ ƒ z / oe o@ \ § » }-0 / § 0) \LO 0 % $ 0 \ § ] 7 = o © » e z� G ' > - ƒ ? mG@E ) ^ z % s ƒ 2 / ƒ o u $ ± \ 2 » ) \ j $ G e S o 2 / ) u § u 5 \ f Q -0 a 3 ® y ' \ / G 2 § ® E u o -0 a o u ® u 5 / \ £ § 7 o ± u20 ±Q5 ) k fuzu7 - - 55 beE222 < o _ ) -1 e u o o - e u u u a ( % k\ k » 12 $ u . -0 f ƒ $ 2 $ / 2 \ _ � z = $ bj E = gam = & ogee = u I eea e ey - 7 $ \ ) ° ' ° ` 0 � � 5 » ® 0 § > 0J \J =A - e - o a E » } 3 § a ® ® < ! � / / / ( G § 3 G & \ t & e % § ! $ \ ƒ :/ a J u 0 } Ln L \ a 0 G O e i o § 0 ' ° & 2 2 z G - . Q = U = e 5 _ $ $ u o s u g } ® _ ® e j ® ' « % ± u \ \ E _ U o u = _ = 0 0 5 o a § o 0 > § / ± b z U = _ 0 V) 7 k� ® \ 2k \ u � ® a � 7 � J � M k k FD k 2 � � § § ; S > % % LU \ / 2 . r j \k E 7 } | 0 \` ® E / \ ƒ t e \ \ 0 \ z V) k z 5 f 5 G 5 § B » ° & % \ } ƒ LU G o u G + � ƒ \j� g�0 2 � ° G8 ) } \G$ ƒ §} / e f / g w° \ § e\® \ moD/ \ ) 0& I G ƒ § { \e0eo% � ƒ « u p »a = Q I > _ z »z ± su - � � � ( ® \ \ � �� � � � \ § \ � ƒ \ \ § 0 0 � \ ■ } { 7 ( f ! 2 R o \ f § f g = y + 3 k G § a { Q / =� R } 2 � ) 2 07 � G0 .- t I G < O a Q o § 2 g » ¥ 5 2 5 - \ t u ƒ 2 = g ƒ = o f 5 - ® 0 ° ' ° ¥ S e e = u E e j f e e % 2 ± ƒ J £ g s o o = ƒ ' e E = a § § _ § \ ¥ � \ » ± 8 5 =s § s w o u 2 § s o ® w = ± \ G a ® E o f ° / g G u G ® _ § D- 0 @ \ u ) § - Q f d _ E + ) ) 2 } f = z u =w f ƒ a % \ k uo = � ago ± \ ® E2 � ® 5 = & b � J B \ 2 = % � » § j $ ! ® ® _ I \ G § > ® ƒ ] @ 2 B ) ® E z ) \ ' 7 § » 2 / f § § ° § u £ z a 7 = § $ o _ _ ° � ® ` / \\ t / / § \ \ z \ E \ g © \ % p ZQo Igo = _ % � » $ E - ¥ z 2 & $ f = E - ) § ° § f \ \ u 2 / o g , ƒ ± \ ® f 3 § - £ 8 \ § q S S § / u / Z. .2 % o / u G { 5 o » ® / _ » § % / > E E = u u > « � z t a g 2 5 a / t y \ % a \ % - ' E o Q \ " � ` � ƒ � 7 -c - 8 ® % / , - &± I ee2t §< $ e - o § \ t \ E § ± § ee a 70oB � - $ Oa u 8 u 0 o 0 0 ° ® u t u a = e t e t 0 � u & ) f a $ » ® ° f - a s b m f G o > ± u o = - a o $ ± > = 5 - 2 2 8 Q f ± 2 q \ I k § ƒ t § k ƒ 2 \ } LU 2 $ } A A & ƒ \ I 2 I % j 7 �$ _ \ 2k \ u � ® a � 7 � J � k j F j 2 � � § § ; S > % % % % I 2 0 } 0 _ - | - | .4-- = - ° \ ® / j \ / / \ \ / / \ / .0 \ } \ / I Q } ± Q « ± u m ± 2 r ± u m / 2 } \ k } \ k 0 \} \ \ } \ k \ } V) � V) V) \ } \ -0 \ » \ -0 } \ -0 % j Esu go \ � & § f t \ § a 0/ \/ § § ® � = f ± § u f e § 7 7 / ) o u\ ƒ _ ¥ a » % § z j 2 @ § - » \ } f ± j ® ® � | f ® j } ° ® u E ƒ \ } } ƒ E ƒ f \ t 4 / 3 0 o q 2 u � C ) / G a k ® G = 7 G \ \ E / D u a # ) ƒ \ 0)\ § e $ ® ® Q ® 0 o � � / \ \ V) \ / / § 12 G \ \ \ ! 7 § \ } ® ° ° \ § Q u ) ) \ \ p % ƒ \ j } \ a s -_ § ° > t 0 - a ® E < 2 w f e z U. a _\ ° 5 e O o §$ ) / J _ 0 ) | p ¥ e $ e / _ ( � ƒ 7 § o G = k ® § o @ G x » 2 E e e g 3 / 2 ± ` ® ® ® u \ ® ® \ - = G S \ ƒ f ! ° \ u \ \ \ f = k 2 a e § § @ % + G ± \ f § f ƒ / $ § \ / _ » f ° ) f \ e \ ( B ) \ \ ® » \ % > e \ £ § 2 \ $ 2 > § ƒ 2 \ | 7 I z § 5 § / { % » § 2 } § * t » § / o \ e \ _ £ \ e ¥ j 7 f / 5 § C/) = - Q ƒ § ® ® u 7 2 ) 5 s ® , § \ 7 u e A b o 2 ® o ) ' | • t .- 5 » § a e 2 \ f Q o N ƒ @ B § E § e t \ � / 0= f ? 5 § t 7 ƒ . \ _ > } f -Z- | b \ } { \ £ \ } / ° I \ § § 2 - j / \ \ / $ § ) ƒ / » z D- $ \ E 7 § _� * G B z t t ® $ a j » t y z ° o C ° 2 - 7 Q . o = G x o f ® ± ) ,>, = e _ ) • w s z e 2 » o § / E 2 U = E o f e o I e o o $ G § § ' E 2 O 7 � � + ƒ � z \ : / 0 - - � Q � � § e 2 0 \ 0 2 / $ / § o o ) 0 a $ \ 0 2 G ® E _ / u w z a 7 2 2 < = 2 :E o « ] 7 �$ > \ 0 \ u � ® a � 7 � J f M a \ � 2 akk / kU � � E � § J . > LU 2 E I � 0 z ® u _ u < u u u ? = o $ u § » u » u o 2 t o z o ± z z G z o a u f � — ƒ — z ® — o Eli \ f ® \ « \ \ \ \ k 7 \ % a \ a \ E E 0 \ i | 0- 0 § § ez � E2 ) � � 00 ® { \ ] ) ! ® � G \ ) § \ 0 ± ) » ± \ / § § § 2 § e E / & ' a t § \ 5 E / + § 2 o G / t \ q \ \ i G ) G { \ § / « { 3 2 g w u -0 G \ t ) j $ f ) § E e z z w \ u ƒ } ) u � \ ^ u ® 5 0 * » u $ j I = e E $ « E e E u ® _ $ g e f \ » f u a ) y § ) G § � \ » e © j - K / U $ / } j U 0 0 0 0 D + ƒ » \ ± § e 5 \ 0- o d ) 0- - x 0 > » ® / u o f G / 2 = f ƒ G ' E ` q / ° 'o u o = _ . o u E o & o / E t I 7 ® u % — o / ® f / o E t $ § } \ § + % $ § \ \ § u 2 0 § 5 B o _ — G > E 9 ± 7 ® G \ § y = u / § $ e u ¥ F -0 m \ 5 0 u 2 — e < o / s w , e o , § 0 o \ § J a % t Q 7 0 \ ® \ ® E 2 § t ® z . e $ » $ — ° ; 0 ] 5 0 e A / G 0 \ � 5 < a o u 8 7 > 0 0 E ¥ E co — ? k 0 ' s G o = D G \ u o 7 § t — § u o -0 ; u = 3 f § E u E o = o z § G : f \ / { / } e ° j j ° o e = o & s t j \ § w 0 A 9 r B E 5 = _ 0 t { > % /% » - o % _ CO ® 0 ® G G ' § o / a ° ° 2 ) o G u $ § 7 0 u & \ ® f = _ _ o t uo § E / 2 ¥ _ _ _ =w = f � E ± 5 = G . ® ° u + 3 0 = 9 u I o 0 0 t o o = t / \ ) / ƒ 7 » b \ \ ƒ % % § t ' f ° k ƒ e G ° ° \ ® ƒ o o o u ) ± \ CL n j f \ / % ® j — @ 0 ƒ a % u § _ _ _ - \ 41u ® 02 0S5 E } \ £ 8 { ) u \ u & f = 5 a > 0 0 0 � 0 § § o � \ o ( ƒ 0 f e o u e Q ® Q / 7 CL 2 . . § / CE 7 k� 2 \ 0 \ u � ® a � 7 � J _ \ ° 2 § 3 / 3 § ; S > % % I O O 2 CL. ® 0 | y = 0 % 2 • j zm . / E ® G ® } � k \ j \ CO e 0 z M ` / j j E E ƒ 7 t U. $ » � $ f § ) o c g = § — o § -0 z E t 3 $ 2 \ $ f f u 0 o k § 7 i \ \ § 7 § } ) G e 2 » o g E f u 2 z Y G ) G / o f 5 \ y f } / a _ a \ 0 -0 ) 2 ) | = E z U. @ u G 2 § G = 5 g — \ _ ± ! j ¥ 7 0 d u e ` E ' ® ) =2 0 0 q R t « / § $ u = o @ u = % f 7 = a 5 ± § / g / \ / o ƒ j % £ ® ¥ o § o } E —0 / / E z A . R $ S » � . @ e e § — e @ | f ) » u 2 G a § » • $ \ § ± CE e { 2 0 / j : -0 g _ _ g = y _ - x ® - 0- G / 0 -0 / j 'o % 2 ) y p g $ 2 o _ { § § § E / G | 0 § ) @ > » ' G ' Q = \ o » ® G § e § _} ) \ = / w 0 } 7 0- y u = = 7 - ® \ a ' -0 G o = _ § 9 E e u u a = z 9 9 3 = t z u =w Q o f I > { u % o g \ 0- 0 0 2 E 0 = 0 0 ' ± G E 2 & .2 a e \ -u + / 2 J . . £ \ s o \ E E t ^ E u \ o © A \ k k } \ \ \ / \ \ ƒ \ \ / \ k - % CL 0D LU 2 § G ® ) $ $ w 2 0 0 0 0 o u r f \ ƒ \ �% 6 ƒ j \ / \ u 0 C14 / \ \ % 7 \ & I 2 2 & § u A k z t O , o E E 2 vo)- 2 a _ _ k � \ 2k \ u � ® a � 7 � J � M — 2 a 2 k : § : § \ kuP D ® D ® 2 § / 3 / 3 § ; I > % % I O O 2 GG / / _ / / j z m j z m E ® G / } ® G / } \ \ ® » _ \ ` ® _ � ƒ t = � a # ) 2 0 \ 2 z V z V) k z Mu 0 } 0 0 / 0 a 5 ® U 2 I ® ® ) O ° y G C ® G _ — � ¥ \ $ § n o \ § \ § § & § = a R § n _ u G \ a u z \ \ j 3 \ f \ ' / J G j o $ o ® / § F- 46 / G k $ \ § k § 46 0 ) { ® § \ 0 \ E 0 LL 0 } \ \ � \ \/ \ 17 � � �R @ � u — ; 0 0 0 0 — o a) -0 o o • u =} & q = uo a 0) .0 ) « _ » a ƒ® % 2 \ S $ � ƒ® \ \ ƒ / |\C 0 E 0 \ oo j a 0 E o 5 j D \k 0 0 0 § 0 % 02 ® \ \ k © » t f ( % § t - 5 o 5 G £ 8 t » k ) * j $ f k \ k \ \ ƒ e E $ z _ « ° z — U 8 z = _ e % a t � ao 2 0 I e \ } — - f e & \ ® 7 O J ± LU \n 7 a J u = a e e t § 7 % % % _ E R \ I k f 2 x 5 5 3 % w / F 5 e ƒ S d = ƒ RESOLUTION NO, 18-73 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2017041031), MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP), FINDINGS AND FACTS, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN THE APPROVAL OF THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13). The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the City Council initiated preparation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan in July 2015 with the intent of encouraging economic development and business attraction and development within the existing Red Hill Avenue commercial area. B. That to facilitate the intended vision and implementation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017- 00001 and Zone Change (ZC) 2017-00001 are necessary. C. That collectively, GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 constitute a "project" that is subject to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et. seq.). D. That the City determined that a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 is required for the proposed project, circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on April 7, 2017 and held an EIR scoping meeting on April 20, 2017, to determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR). Comments received during the 30-day public review period, from April 7, 2017, to May 8, 2017,. are included in the DPEIR as Appendix A of Volume II of the DPEIR. E. That the DPEIR for GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 analyzed impacts to fourteen (14) environmental topical areas listed below: 1. Aesthetics 2. Air Quality 3. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources 4. Geology & Soils 5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 7. Hydrology and Water Quality Resolution No. 18-73 Page 1 of 5 8. Land Use and Planning 9. Noise 10.Population and Housing 11.Public Services 12.Recreation 13.Transportation and Traffic 14.Utilities F. That the City issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) for a Draft Program EIR (DPEIR) on February 1, 2018 with a 45-day public comment period (February 1, 2018 to March 19, 2018), and received comments from the public and other agencies during and after the comment period. The NOA for the DPEIR was sent to all affected agencies and interested parties and published in the Tustin News on February 1, 2018 and made available for public review at City Hall, the Tustin Library and on the City's website. G. That between July 2015 and February 2018, a total of three (3) public workshops were held for the project. The purpose of the workshops was to receive comments on the Draft Specific Plan. The final workshop was also a joint study session between the Planning Commission and City Council where the final draft Specific Plan was presented and additional comments were voiced and/or submitted in writing. The proposed Specific Plan would ensure implementation of architecturally-coordinated development in the area, allow for mixed use projects, and foster & encourage the development of new businesses and rehabilitation of the existing older shopping centers. H. On July 31, 2018, the responses to comments were distributed to those persons or agencies that commented on the DPEIR. The FPEIR provides the required written responses to each comment received on the DPEIR pursuant to CEQA. 1. That the Final Program EIR addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, which is further described and incorporated herein by reference in this Resolution. J. In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, FPEIR consists of the following which are incorporated herein by reference: • The Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) -- Exhibit A; ■ Response to Comments & Native American Tribal Consultation on the DPEIR — Exhibit B • Comments Received on the DPEIR Resolution No. 18-73 Page 2 of 5 • A list of persons, organization, and public agencies commenting on the DPEIR; 0 Statement of Overriding Considerations— Exhibit C • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) — Exhibit D • The Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations — Exhibit E K. That the public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety requires that three (3) acres of usable park land per one thousand (1,000) potential population be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. At buildout, the Specific Plan could generate additional residents and employees within the Specific Plan area. This population increase would result in an increased use of existing and planned City parks and recreational facilities. Because future residential development within the Specific Plan area may not be subject to the Quimby Act or the subdivision provisions of the Tustin City Code, future development projects could cumulatively contribute to the parkland deficiency identified in the City's General Plan. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 is required to ensure park and recreational facilities are provided to serve future residents within the Specific Plan area. L. That the amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market -- value of the amount of land at time of project approval which would otherwise be required for dedication. M. That pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15043 the City Council has the authority to approve this Project even though it may cause significant effects on the environment so long as the City Council makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the Project's potential significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091)- N. 509'1).N. That while GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 would result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts that were identified in the FPEIR and cannot be mitigated, these impacts are overridden for the reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit E. O. That on August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project and continued the matter until September 25, 2018. On September 25, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, took additional testimony and adopted Resolution No. 4357, recommending that the City Council adopt and certify the FPEIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13). Resolution No. 18-73 Page 3of8 P. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held by the City Council on October 16, 2018, and the Final Program EIR was considered. II. CERTIFICATION OF EIR. The City Council hereby certifies that the Finaf Program EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse (SCH# 2017041031)) has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Exhibit A); that the EIR adequately addresses the Project's potential environmental impacts; that the EIR was presented to the City Council; that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR including Responses to Comments (Exhibit B) prior to approving the Project; that the City Council has considered the Findings and Facts in Support of the Findings (Exhibit E) and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the EIR (Exhibit C); and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Ill. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings of Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Final EIR attached hereto as Exhibit E pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. IV, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. The City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Final EIR attached hereto as Exhibit C explaining why the Project's benefits override and outweigh its unavoidable impacts pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15092 and 15093. V. MITIGATION MONITORING AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, The City Council hereby identities the significant effects, adopts the mitigation measures, adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to be implemented for each mitigation measure as set forth in detail in Exhibit D pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. VI. CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council's decision are based are located at City Hall. The custodian for these documents is the City Clerk. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e). PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 16th day of October, 2018. ._. Resolution No. 18-73 Page 4 of 5 ELWYN KNJRRAY, Mayor ATT ST: ERICA N. YASr DA, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } CITY OF TUSTIN } I, Erica N. Yasuda, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 18-73 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 1611 day of October, 2018, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: _ Murray, Gomez, Bernstein, Puckett, Clark (5) COUNCILMEMBER NOES: (0) COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: T) COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: AT I ERICA N. YASUD' , City Clerk Exhibits: A. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) for the RHASP 1. Volume I RIHASP Program EIR 2. Volume II - Appendices B. Response to Comments and Native American Tribal Consultation 1. Comments received on the DPEIR 2. A list of persons, organization, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR C. Statement of Overriding Considerations D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) E. Findings and Facts in Support of Findings of Statement of Overriding Considerations for Final Program Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. 18-73 Page 5 of 5 Resolution No . 18-73 Exhibits Available Upon Request or at : https://www.tustinca .org/400/Specific-Plans